Later

As another opportunity has become available for me to post my intermittent musings on truth, I must bid Blogger good bye. You can find my new place here.

As a parting gift to freedom, knowledge and the power of open information, I would like to leave you with the following. Enjoy!





And last but not least, for the BitTorrent minded among you: The information they don't want out.


Knowledge is Free.

We are anonymous.

We are legion.

We do not forgive.

We do not forget.

Expect us.

More Evidence Against Lawyers

In previous rants, I've argued (rather successfully, I believe) that lawyers should be prevented from running for and holding any legislative office. (Summary argument: its an inherent conflict of interest.) When engaging in this debate on multiple occasions with friends, colleagues and sometimes learned officers of the court, the discussion usually at some point moves towards what the law schools are teaching and how that gets transmogrified into the unabashed greed and in some cases going beyond amoral to outright immoral behavior. My point at such a juncture is that lawyers are not being taught enough (if any) about actual justice and the history, theory and reason a society needs a judicial system - the 'spirit of the law', if you will. What they are taught instead, is how to manipulate the words of the law to their own and their clients' advantage. When they believe they are being taught to be 'objective', they are instead being taught that the ends justify the means. This is a problem when they've all decided that the end in question is their personal enrichment.

Today I read this article. Here we have a supreme court decision designed to specifically prevent the misuse of a piece of legislation in such a manner that it caused harm. And the response of the patent trolls? Find a way to manipulate the law so they can continue to abuse it.

Here's how the plan works. First, the patent hoarding firm, Rembrant, sues two competitors in the contact lens space: Bausch & Lomb and Ciba. Then, it works out a settlement deal with one of those two firms -- in this case, B&L. However, part of that settlement (beyond some sort of licensing agreement) is to hand over the patent's injunction rights to B&L, while keeping the actual patent and everything else associated with it in the hands of Rembrant. Then, what you have is a patent infringement lawsuit against Ciba, just like before. Except, since B&L is a practicing competitor rather than just a patent hoarder, the company can ask for an injunction. In effect, as Ciba notes in its own filing on the matter, Rembrant sued the two competitors and then offered one a big carrot not just to settle, but to flip sides in the court case itself in order to use the very patent it had been sued over against a competitor.

There's no argument here that what they're doing is right, or justified, it's blatantly abusive and I would even go so far as to say that it's extortion. My main question is why these assholes aren't prosecuted for such? The answer is that in order for that to happen, you'd have to have one lawyer (a prosecutor) taking another layer to a court presided over by yet another lawyer (the judge) and arguing against tactics that all three were trained to use, and do use, on a daily basis.

For years lawyers, legislators and our legal system, have been checks on the abuses of industry, including another supposedly self-policing body, the AMA. Here in recent history, the abuses of this insiders club known as The Bar perpetrated on the American public have gone too far. Who's to stand up for the average citizen? The right answer should be 'our duly elected representatives', but when they're part of the club what chance do we have?

Effective

When I am operating effectively as a human being, I am in my mind, in the moment.

My mind is the entire universe, and the moment is all that there is.

News! VC's Just as Looney as the Rest of Us

This is actually a useful article. However, it’s usefulness is to point out that venture capitalists (collectively) are just as deluded and irrational as the general population.

Approximately 80% believe that their performance will actually improve over both the short and long term, while at the same time 61% believe that the U.S. economy is going to decline in 2008?? Forget irrational exuberance, that's evidence of outright delusion. Of course, bear in mind that this is a poll that aggregates results. Results that might be drawn from a sample that could be statistically insignificant and/or poorly queried.

No one should give the opinions of these people any more weight than the general 'man on the street' just because they happen to have money. Many of them got that money from completely unrelated activities, being in the right place at the right time (luck), or taking large fees to invest other people's money - at a performance rate that is worse than the S&P 500. I suppose from that perspective, it's actually quite likely their performance will improve. It can hardly get worse.

Don’t even get me started on the 16% that believe Obama will be sworn in as President of the United States. Don’t get me wrong, I have nothing against the man. I’m just saying there are some very, very, very long odds against him becoming President.

Atheist or Agnostic?

Over the course of many years, beginning in Sunday school at age 6 asking questions that earned punishment rather than answers, I have explored a significant number of religions and philosophies. Throughout this time, my own development continued, adding experience, research and no small amount of contemplation to my seeking. I have come to some specific conclusions, but often find myself choosing what to label them depending on present company.

For example, around my religious friends and family, I have acquiesced to be labeled as agnostic: I believe in God, but do not share your (or any) particular religious dogma. This is not an accurate definition of Agnostic, but those of a religious bent usually accept it without further question. It is effective to keep most of my friends and relatives from worrying that I am doomed to spend eternity suffering.

For effective discussion among other people willing to accept an individual's freedom of choice and beliefs, I will refer to myself as an atheist. Although, I suspect that this definition is not entirely accurate either. You see, I do believe that there is something greater than ourselves as we define the self as an individual, independent actor. However, that something might as well be called the Universe. This thing that is greater than ourselves most certainly (in my thinking) is not some anthropomorphized being with a great grey beard and flowing robes. It is also not some thinking, feeling, alien entity to be given even the slightest traits of thought and action we are so familiar with as humans.

What's more, is that I believe that the individual self is revealed to be completely a part of the Universe and as such, we, with our consciousness and ability to create and manipulate the environment around us, are god.

I'd use the term 'unitarian', but that's already been bastardized for some other political structure masquerading as truth. ;)

The impetus for this post is a little book I picked up in an airport recently when flying back from funeral ceremonies for my grandfather. "The Atheist's Bible: An Illustrious Collection of Irreverent Thoughts" is a fun little compilation of succinct questions sure to drive the faithful among your circle to fits.

"Blind faith is an ironic gift to return to the Creator of human intelligence"
- Anonymous

Litany Against Frustration

I must not let the stupid annoy me.
Stupidity is the mind-killer.
Stupidity is the obliviousness that brings total frustration.
I will face the stupid.
I will permit them to bumble, make bad decisions, and continue to ignore reality.
And when reality has squashed them flat, I will turn the inner eye to see a clear path.
Where the annoyance has gone there will be nothing.
Only I will remain.

Apologies to Frank Herbert

The Social Network + Reviews Thing

Just reading about Whrrl on TechCrunch:

Whrrl, a new site by Pelago, is one of those that eludes definition. Hence, Pelago’s need to describe it unhelpfully as “a seamlessly integrated Web and mobile experience that is social, useful, and fun”

Pasted from http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/11/02/whrrl-map-and-mobile-centric-social-reviews/

It's occurred to me that there must be dozens of these review and rating sites out there - if not hundreds. However, the crossover with social networking isn't complete. Just because someone has a profile on a restaurant review site certainly does not mean that I can believe for one moment they have any idea of what proper dinner service entails. What would be useful, is a way to locate others in your social strata (which is what the social networks are supposed to be about) and share ratings among them. The problem with doing this online, is that 'on the Internet, no one knows you're a dog'. Just because I can find a few dozen people who share tastes in music, film, literature, politics and philosophy - does not mean that this group of people will be able to identify the difference between steak tar tare and a rare burger at Applebee's.

This would be a very interesting problem to solve for some enterprising young company.