For my Canadian readers: you need to consider this and write to your MP this week.
[Update 2013-10-12: It seems that an anonymous resident of Chicago has added a link to this blog post to my (short) Wikipedia entry, thereby suggesting that my opposition to the redefinition of marriage is one of the most important things that people need to know about my life, work and opinions. I'm not sure why they think that, but I wonder whether their intent was that people would read that sentence and pigeonhole me without further consideration. If you came here from Wikipedia, I hope you will not make that mistake.
In addition, the following quotation from a letter sent out in July 2013 by the Prime Minister's Office might be of interest:
The position in discrimination law is very clear. The belief that marriage is between a man and a woman is protected under Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Equality Act 2010. Discriminating against someone simply because they hold that belief or express it in a reasonable way would be unlawful discrimination.
I'm sure that anyone who is an opponent of discrimination would not want to do such a thing.
The original blog post follows.]
For my UK readers: if you agree with the following statement:
I support the legal definition of marriage which is the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. I oppose any attempt to redefine it.
then please sign the petition of the Coalition For Marriage.
Civil partnerships and marriages in the UK give exactly the same legal rights and operate under the same constrictions. This is not a question of “equality”. But because of the way marriage is defined in UK law, it is also not possible to redefine it in this way without changing what it means for heterosexual couples too. The soundbite “if you don’t like it, don’t get one” is an invalid argument.
The government does not have the power or authority to redefine words.
It has been suggested that if SOPA or PIPA pass, then sites with user-generated content would need to review it all manually for copyright violations.
What would it look like for YouTube, if a reviewer had to watch every minute of video?
- About 48 hours of video a minute is uploaded to YouTube (that figure is from May 2011, so it’s probably more now, but let’s go with that as a conservative estimate)
- 48 hours a minute is 483,840 hours a week
- If the reviewers worked 40-hour weeks, you would need 12,096 of them (plus a thousand or so more for holiday cover) – call it 13,000
- If you paid them all at the US Federal minimum wage of about $15,000, it would cost $195 million per year.
But, of course, you couldn’t start the reviewers straight out of high school. First, they’d need to watch the 100 years of video which has been submitted to YouTube by content owners, so they knew a copyright violation when they saw one. (They wouldn’t be able to detect copyright violations of the content of independent filmmakers or individuals, but hey, this system isn’t about them, is it?)
The problem is that after watching 100 years of video, those who aren’t dead would have pretty poor eyesight. It would also introduce an unacceptable delay in getting the system up and running. So the job needs to be parallelized. Specialization is the key. One set of reviewers could watch all the musicals, and another could focus on vampire movies. (They might need paying extra.) If we got each trainee reviewer to spend 3 years exclusively watching Hollywood movies, TV network serials and listening to major-label music (drawing parallels with the average college degree is left as an exercise for the reader) then we could get the system up and running faster. However, we’d need 33 times more reviewers – 429,000 in all, making the cost $6.4 billion.
For comparison, 429,000 people is about 1 in 30 of the entire jobless population of the USA, and $6.4 billion is approximately 60% of Google’s annual profits. These resources would be spent entirely on content checking for YouTube, without considering Google’s other sites which take user-generated content, or Facebook, or any other social site.
There is just too much user-generated content to check it all manually, and automatic methods will never be 100% effective. So how do SOPA proponents expect that sites like YouTube can possibly remain open and legal? It’s impossible.
Here’s a quick test to help e.g. those who sympathise with the “we are the 99%” slogan to work out what personal motivation is behind their support of proposals for change in people’s relative incomes.
(Once you’ve read the short article) It’s worth observing that, after the button is pushed, if you have a relative measure of poverty (as we do here in the UK), measured poverty goes up.
A further observation: this test makes no claim that the hypothetical scenario is actually happening or will happen. Notice that there’s a genie involved.
I can’t remember who said it (Simon Phipps?), but a while back this idea stuck with me.
If a company tries to open source a project, but gets nervous about it and tries to retain too much control, they can end up at a sort of open sourcing local minimum, where they are getting the disadvantages of open source with none of the advantages. In other words, they incur all the expense and hassle of setting up an open source project, without getting the increased community involvement and eyeballs which are the reward, because potential contributors can see that it’s not a project they can have a real ownership stake in.
Sometimes, half-done can be worse than not done at all.
“I’m afraid to tell you there’s no money left” was what was written on a note left by the previous Chief Secretary to the Treasury for his successor when the UK government changed after the last election in May 2010.
Since then the new government has been attempting to rein in spending, although he hasn’t been doing a great job of it – over this parliament the national debt will still rise by over £500bn, or £19,000 for every household in the country. Interest on this debt – money the Government has to collect in taxes but can’t spend on services – will more than double to almost £67bn, surpassing spending on the defence, transport, home office and justice departments combined.
Even so, some people think the relatively mild spending cuts, which restore government spending to where it was as recently as 2007, are an unbearable travesty which will take us back to the dark ages.
That’s why I’m attending the Rally Against Debt in London this Saturday, and I urge my UK readers to do the same. Here’s my placard slogan: “The Borrower Is Slave To The Lender” — Proverbs 22:7.
ReclaimPrivacy.org “provides an independent and open tool for scanning your Facebook privacy settings”…
Of course, it’s easier to snipe from the sidelines than to do something myself…
From the latest EDRI-gram:
Google admitted that the previous information on the data they have gathered
with their Street View service was wrong and this included “samples of
payload data from open (i.e. non-password-protected) WiFi networks.”
Google claims that this was done by mistake and the data was never used in
any Google products. They have also indicated that only fragments of payload
data were gathered because: the cars are on the move, someone would need to
be using the network as a car passed by and the in-car WiFi equipment
automatically changes channels roughly five times a second.
The decision was challenged also by an open letter of the Privacy
International (PI). … PI has also announced that it will seek a prosecution for
unlawful interception under the UK’s Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act,
noting that “in those circumstances there would be no question of destroying
As PI has recently replied to the public blog post: “This latest incident
was not caused by a mistake; it was caused by a failure of process that cuts
across the entire company. In the absence of a systemic change in product
development and deployment procedures the latest incident will be just one
in a continuing litany of transgressions on personal privacy.”
Really? Really really? Fragments of data no more than 1/5 of a second long, collected by accident (or, at least, without purpose) and never used in a product? A “systemic failure”? A prosecution for unlawful interception?
As Eric Schmidt rightly said, “who was harmed?” The cause of promoting the privacy of web users is not advanced by this sort of over-reaction. Resources, and the attention of the public, are limited. Fight the battles which matter.
(Those of my readers with no interest in the UK General Election may want to move on.)
Poor Nick Clegg. He’s got two options, both of which suck.
Option 1: an arrangement of some sort with the Conservatives. They aren’t offering the voting reform he wants and has said is a prerequisite; if he picks this, his entire party will claim that he’s sold out. Given that it’s such a core LD policy, it would be a disaster for him. Is there any chance the Conservatives can offer him enough for him to save face, but not enough for there to be a chance of PR actually happening?
Option 2: a coalition with Labour. This gets him the voting reform, but they don’t have enough seats to make the magic 326 (or 324, if you note that Sinn Fein MPs don’t turn up). Together, that have 315. If you add in the 3 SDLP MPs, who take the Labour whip, you get 318. You need to add in the SNP, or perhaps Plaid Cymru and the Greens, or even all of them, to get a workable majority.
This might well mean Gordon Brown as PM – could Clegg really prop him up after campaigning on a vote for change? Or, if Brown resigned and another Labour person was appointed, the government would then be led by a politician who had not campaigned as PM for the election we’ve just had!
And after that, a fragile alliance will be forced to make severe spending cuts that none of the parties have warned are coming. They probably won’t; and the bond markets from whom we have borrowed a lot of money will get worried, and we will spiral into a fiscal black hole. When things have gone badly enough (perhaps with the IMF called in) that there’s another election, the Conservatives will sweep to power and no-one will trust either Labour or the Lib Dems for years. The Conservatives may well win even if voting reform has been rushed through in the brief period that the coalition held together (although they’d find it much harder in the future).
Neither option looks appealing for Clegg.
All this goes to show that the Conservatives would be mad to concede voting reform to the Lib Dems, but they have to make a very convincing job of looking like they want a deal.
In order to offer someone a financial reward without him working for it, the government must first ensure that somebody else works for a financial reward without getting it. There is no other way.
Better to have tried and failed than not to have tried at all, right?
Generations of fathers would say to their kids “of course”. But it seems not in every case.
A while back, Mozilla and Debian had several goes at coming to an agreement for the use of the Firefox name and logo. In then end, we collectively failed, which is something I consider a great shame. Sadly, this failure seems to have left a significant number of free software people with a residual unhappiness and antipathy towards Mozilla. Which is, in some ways, an even bigger failure.
On the other hand, no-one seems to have even suggested that there’s a possibility that the new kid on the block will allow their name to be used when Debian packages their software. So Debian are happily and peacefully packaging it under the alternative name. I haven’t noticed anyone being upset about this.
Why is that?
 And I’m not interested in reopening the debate about who was right. That’s not the point of this post.
A snippet from the UK government’s consultation paper on the future of the Ordnance Survey, page 13, relating to emailed submissions for the consultation:
An automatic confidentiality disclaimer generated by your IT system will not, of itself, be regarded as binding on the Department.
But if it’s possible to say that, it means that these ridiculous disclaimers have no legal force, and that fact has been accepted by the government. So can everyone please, please stop using them?
Pregnancy advisory services – including abortion information – could be advertised on TV and radio under proposals due to be released.
Restrictions on condom adverts could also be relaxed, as part of plans aimed at reducing high UK rates of teenage pregnancy and sexual infections.
Abortion (or any form of pregnancy advice or procedure, for that matter) doesn’t reduce teenage pregnancy or sexual infection. That would be like providing more ambulances in order to reduce road accidents.
Would it be cynical to suggest that it’s not teenage pregnancy they want to reduce, but teenage birth? After all, whenever a young child becomes a father or mother, it hits the headlines and politicians decry it as terrible. But when there are around 10 abortions a day in that age bracket, the same people don’t seem to say very much.