Beaneball - Computer

More on the Creative Commons

jasonw@beaneball.org (jason) — Thu, 28 Jul 2005 02:49:35 -0500

Andrew Orlowski (on Polish brothers!), who was quoted by John Dvorak in the piece I criticized last week, commented on that post today. The first part of his comment talks about the meaning of the word "criticism":

" ... if you ask critics of the system to explain it, then of course they're going to give negative answers! That's like asking me to explain why George Bush's foreign policy is solid and then using my answer as evidence that it sucks." That's strange. The dictionary defines criticism as 1. The act of criticizing, especially adversely. 2. A critical comment or judgment. 3. a. The practice of analyzing, classifying, interpreting, or evaluating literary or other artistic works. b. A critical article or essay; a critique. c. The investigation of the origin and history of literary documents; textual criticism. So your simile is only true if you ignore meanings 2 and 3. The role of criticism is essentially positive - mine certainly is.

I'd like to quote the OED on "criticism" to supplement the definitions above: "1. The action of criticizing, or passing judgement upon the qualities or merits of anything; esp. the passing of unfavourable judgement; fault-finding, censure." This is basically the same as the first definition of Orlowski's, but more fleshed-out. The other definition that is applicable is: "3. (with pl.) An act of criticizing; a critical remark, comment; a critical essay, critique." That's a lot of use of "criticize," which is sort of circular. Let's look up "criticize":

1. intr. To play the critic; to pass judgement upon something with respect to its merits or faults. (Often connoting unfavourable judgement.) 2. trans. To discuss critically; to offer judgement upon with respect to merits or faults; to animadvert upon. b. To censure, find fault with.

To me, the key is in three places: the "especially" in Orlowski's first definition, the "esp." in the first definition of "criticism" and the parenthetical statement in the first definition of "criticize." In other words, yes, the definition of "criticize" allows for positive commentary, as noted by much of the text of all the definitions, but the connotation, which is at least as important as the denotation, is a negative one. Amusingly enough, Orlowski himself uses "critical" in this sentence in a piece he wrote for The Register, connoting exactly what I'm saying the word connotes: "The first point is made repeatedly by Dvorak's critics, but having digested 300 comments on Slashdot, almost of all of which are critical, I haven't seen a genuine attempt to answer his broader question." I feel ridiculous for having spent so much time on this, but in the end, given Orlowski's statements on his views on CC in his comment on this blog and in his article (that he linked to in his comment) here, Dvorak would have been better to use, perhaps, "commentator." Or, better, provide a link to something Orlowski has written that indicates his views on CC. Orlowski's view, as I'm understanding from his piece at The Register is, amusingly enough, best encapsulated by his quote in Dvorak's piece: the "It does nothing" line. I disagree with his premise, however, which is stated succinctly when he writes, "[W]hat we have is a compensation crisis, not a copyright crisis." (Emphasis in the original) Perhaps we do have a compensation crisis, but that isn't the point of the Creative Commons. The point is, directly from their website, "to build a layer of reasonable, flexible copyright in the face of increasingly restrictive default rules." Lessig and company do see a copyright crisis when they see huge conglomerates of companies owning huge numbers of copyrights in many creative arenas and an American government only too willing to bow to the wishes of those corporations. Orlowski writes

The social contract that's endured for over a hundred years is really simple. The rights holders can't control the flow of culture - but they can make money off it, and this is willingly given with various provisos. As long as they don't get too greedy, and charge too much; as long as they continue to invest in the storage and transmission technologies that make it more accessible; and most importantly if they ensure that the money goes round fairly: then everyone's pretty much happy.

The CC people see, and Orlowski apparently disagrees, that the rights holders are moving toward a system where they do control the flow of culture. They believe that corporations are too greedy, and that the money isn't really getting around. A related point that Orlowski makes that I disagree with is that computers and networks are simply a "boundary case" in copyright law. His basic contention is that copyright law isn't broken just because the computer lobby says it is; it only seems that way to that lobby. Where we don't see eye-to-eye is apparently in the place of that computer lobby in society. I think digital networks and related technology is and will become so pervasive that this lobby only appears to be a fringe group because they're at the forefront of a wave, not because they're a bunch of weirdos who can't deal with the rest of us. Their life is rapidly becoming everybody's life. In the end, instead of all this exposition, I suppose I could have just left Orlowski's words in his comment on this blog alone: "[Creative Commons] is demonstrably absorbing a lot of people's time and energy. This may be better spent on more achievable and practical goals." Again, where the disagreement resides is in Lessig's belief (which I've been pulled around to) that the copyright situation is a problem and is only getting worse (thus that CC isn't a waste of time, since it tries to attack an extant problem), compared with Orlowski's belief that it's just a small segment of (nerdy) society that's worried about these things, to no good end.

Neat newspaper site

jasonw@beaneball.org (jason) — Thu, 30 Jun 2005 14:37:17 -0500

Courtesy of Chris Lehmann's blog, here's a really neat site that shows the current front page of newspapers all over the world. Awesome!

Welcome!

jasonw@beaneball.org (jason) — Tue, 08 Feb 2005 18:09:52 -0600

I notice a ton of you pouring in from the A's site on scout.com, and I'm glad to have you. Things are a little dead around here, for a couple of reasons: one, it's the offseason, and the A's appear about ready to head to spring training with the roster they have (though you know I'll have something to say about Eric Byrnes getting a couple million bucks in just a bit); and two, because my internet access at my apartment has been out since last Friday. I'm doing this from school, to say I'm still alive and I encourage a lot of you to come back regularly. In fact, subscribe if you have an RSS reader (see the sidebar for subscription links) and leave plenty of comments!

CD Ripping!

jasonw@beaneball.org (jason) — Mon, 17 Jan 2005 11:17:55 -0600

Windows users aren't going to care too much about this post. Since I got my Xclef, I've needed to rip my CDs to Oggs so that I might actually have something to put on the player. Unfortunately, the ripping was not cooperating until, I believe, last night. What was happening is Oggs were being created that seemed to be an appropriate file size but had no apparent data in them: they sounded like a bunch of hisses and clicks. I quickly realized that the problem was not in the Ogg creation, but in the ripping of the audio CD to Wav format, because the Wav files were even emptier: they produced no sound whatsoever. A look at a Wav file in most was enlightening: it contained 0 upon 0 upon 0. Sixty megabytes of zeros! No wonder there was no meaningful sound created. (This did make me wonder, though, about the sound integrity of compressing audio files: how did a bunch of zeros get turned into hisses and clicks?) I tried restarting the computer (to get the process table into something of a virgin state), but that didn't really work. I tried a different ripper (cdd2wav instead of cdparanoia). I looked at different versions of the rippers (though I never actually tested a new version). Finally, on cdparanoia's website, I found a hint. Maybe I should try enabling ide-scsi emulation. Last night, I recompiled my kernel (again - it's like my ninth recompile of the last two days, for a variety of reasons) with ide-scsi and without ATAPI CDROM support, added the appropriate boot parameter (EDIT: That appropriate boot parameter is append="hdd=ide-scsi" in the menu.lst file for grub, at least in my case; for you, it might be hda, hdb, or hdc.), and restarted. Lo and behold, my computer is currently ripping its third consecutive CD successfully. Full Xclef, here I come! Details:

Compiled ide-scsi as a module in a 2.6.7 kernel (Device Drivers -> ATA/ATAPI/MFM/RLL support -> SCSI emulation support)
Compiled sr-mod as a module (Device Drivers -> SCSI device support -> SCSI CDROM support)
Compiled sg as a module (Device Drivers -> SCSI device support -> SCSI generic support)
Deselected ATAPI CDROM support (Device Drivers -> ATA/ATAPI/MFM/RLL support -> Include IDE/ATAPI CDROM support)
Pointed the /dev/cdrom symlink to /dev/scd0
In Grip (my ripper of choice), put Generic SCSI device as /dev/sg0 (Config tab -> Rip tab -> Ripper tab -> Generic SCSI device) (EDIT: Putting /dev/cdrom here, after creating the link, also seems to work. For some strange reason, I don't recall having /dev/scd0 there working, and I'm loathe to play too much - it's so delicate!)

DMC Xclef 500

jasonw@beaneball.org (jason) — Sat, 15 Jan 2005 11:12:52 -0600

I got my DMC Xclef 500 yesterday and, after a little bit of Googling, figured out how to set it up. Since no one appears to have anything on the net relating specifically to setting this up (I inferred from other documents), I thought I'd just mention the few easy steps I took on my Debian Linux box. The options I needed in my kernel were to enable SCSI devices in general and SCSI hard drives in particular, USB mass-storage devices, and the DOS FAT filesystem. Once I had those ready to go, I simply mount -t vfat /dev/sda1 /media/xclef, though obviously your mount point will differ. I'm sure I could futz for a while and figure out how to mount it so that I don't have to be root to copy files onto the player, but I don't really care that much. One note about potential buyers: it's really huge. If you're expected an iPod or something, don't get this player. I love it already, without even having heard it yet, but it's large and not particularly light, mostly, I'd guess, because of the brilliant idea to make the thing with a standard laptop hard drive, thus making the swapping out of drives an easy, do-it-yourself proposition in case you want more space or a drive fries or something.

Most Emailed entry of the day

jasonw@beaneball.org (jason) — Tue, 05 Aug 2003 11:40:28 -0500

Here's my entry, in haiku, at mostemailed.com. In this case, though, the original is the best, mostly for the final line, "The giraffes were highly amused."

mostemailed.com

jasonw@beaneball.org (jason) — Thu, 31 Jul 2003 11:41:22 -0500

This is hilarious. I'm adding it on the right so I'll remember to visit every day.

New Python out

jasonw@beaneball.org (jason) — Tue, 29 Jul 2003 11:42:54 -0500

My favorite programming language, Python, has just had its version 2.3 released. Features include a neat new enumerate() built-in as well as the set datatype. Maybe someday (especially now that I'm done with homework for awhile), I'll get back to working on pymh and post updates here.