What is it? Lou Cipher and the cronies on capitol hill that he buys with lobbying money have decided that DMCA is quite complimentary to just simply getting rid of pesky analog signals. Analog, as you know, is a bit more difficult to encrypt, and well, we already *have* legislation protecting digital.
The fact of the matter is that I have very little time to go cracking signals. I really have done about zippo cracking. And I write software. Here's what I know:
I got my start in this industry without the financial werewithal to purchase the tools that were necessary to create with. I purchased what I could as a good citizen of the karma, borrowed the rest, and in turn contributed back to the industry. It ended up working well for everyone involved.
But these kinds of proposals will make it next to impossible for people who are truly creative to get their hands on the tools that they could use to rise up and provide. What's next? When hacking is outlawed, only outlaws will be hackers. The rest? Sit at your desk and obey young man! It's going to be like joining the "defense" establishment because your other options were strategically removed some time ago.
Look at the people behind this bill (and others like it). Are they the small developers that provide the creativity to the industry? (Are there any developers at all behind this bill?) Or is it just a bunch of Orwellian shenanegans?
Let's not force the remaining talent we have to a better life offshore. I already know a few people that have found a better life in New Zealand.
]]>But what you might not be reporting as much on is the reason that those trains aren't so popular. Because the federal highway system is bankrolled by general treasury rather than user fees. In other words, the gas tax is an order of magnitude too low.
What I would like to know is why someone that doesn't drive at all (like the blogger above, as a New Yorker) is paying for the federal highway system. What does he get out of it? I would argue nothing that couldn't be paid for elsewhere. The (powerful) trucking lobby will tell him that everyone benefits from highways, that if gas taxes are too high, the trucks will not feed the country, and commerce will stop.
Of course that is not true, the market will adjust. Goods that require extensive energy to deliver or are not produced locally will either not be available, will be produced closer to where they are consumed, or will not be available at all in certain areas. Is this a bad thing? I would argue not. Demand for these goods will not disappear, and the production of them will be geographically dispersed. I could go on, but you get the picture.
It could also be argued that the costs of goods will rise. Indeed they will, but if this a zero-sum game, they will not rise any more than your taxes will fall from not paying for highways that you do not use. If you are a smart consumer that purchases locally made goods, you will probably be able to beat the averages even. This is the _ultimate_ form of letting the markets work to balance the means of production and consumption.
The only people that user-taxes injure are those that are (literally) getting a free ride by driving hundreds of miles to work on a daily basis. Artificially low gas prices that do not pay for the total costs of the miles that are driven encourage these people to move to these remote suburbs and waste precious resources on their daily drive to work.
In the end, we can talk all day about conservation, carpooling, and public transportation, but these changes will never happen unless the markets are left to do what they do best.
]]>-Richard Feynman
]]>