He was not reassured.

Since that action was possible under existing criminal laws, why is legislation that layers obscuring civil penalties against entities not engaged in criminal activities needed to protect intellectual property?

One might be forgiven for wondering if the push for such legislation stems from something other than the desire to prevent theft of intellectual property. Maybe these Harvard Business Review bloggers have it right: it’s a legislative attempt by big companies with vested interests to protect their downside.

On the surface, SOPA and PIPA aim to make it difficult to steal intellectual property by making it difficult to use legal tools like the internet to “fence” their loot. I’ve got no problem with that idea.

I’ve not read SOPA, but I did read PIPA yesterday and cannot find where it makes it more difficult for the criminals. It makes it more difficult only on those producing the tools by shifting the burden of law enforcement to businesses.

It makes just about as much sense to charge International Paper with the responsibility of making sure that none of the paper it produces is ever used in a ransom note. Or regulating the sale of paper to only registered users.

UPDATE: Another reason why SOPA and PIPA are not needed is that the purveyors of intellectual property most often stolen — music and movies — are not hurting economically from piracy as much as you’d think from the publicity.

…bleeding revenue to piracy is going to be a problem to the extent that your product is a hit… (rtwt)

In short, piracy is certainly one problem in a world filled with problems. But politicians and journalists seem to have been persuaded to take it largely on faith that it’s a uniquely dire and pressing problem that demands dramatic remedies with little time for deliberation.  On the data available so far, though, reports of the death of the industry seem much exaggerated.

Don’t think the accident doesn’t alarm me. I was recently involved in an interstate incident that narrowly escaped crunched metal at the least. Though I don’t know them, there are at least 3 other drivers who experienced the terror along with me. I’d love to think my skill as a driver along with theirs was responsible for no collisions or death… but I’m pretty sure that we were all just lucky.

Whoever you are that thought your mattress would not blow out of your pickup bed and that your body would protect it from being run over by myself and other innocent drivers… I hope you have learned… something. Surely you’ve learned that mattresses should be tied down!

You do know, don’t you, that we were NOT avoiding hitting your mattress. I’d have much rather collided with the mattress than be hit by the 18-wheeler barreling down the other lane. It was YOU that I swerved in front of that 18-wheeler to avoid.

Oh yes… I put my life and the life of my daughter in peril to avoid running over your selfish ass. The drivers of the two vehicles in front of me did the same. The driver of the 18-wheeler was fortunately skillful enough to avoid hitting any of us. Did you notice the massive plumes of smoke from his braking?

All of us were lucky. No one was injured or killed.

Since I periodically lose interest in posting and too often let this space sit idly unblogged, I think that would be a wonderful thing to happen here, so here are my links to Little Green Footballs (Charles Johnson) and Andrew Sullivan. Sullivan, it appears, has also lost interest in blogging on his blog, so maybe he’ll take it up here.

*not a misspelling

Sheesh.

I thought the following was seriously stupid, considering the age of the earth:

One scientist, however, says that relative to the time period from the mid-1970s to the mid-1990s, Earth has been more active over the past 15 years or so. 

Even if that “one scientist” is a YEC, that’s some extrapolation extraordinaire.

Even though I’m not a geologist, my BS detector pegged on that one. At least one geologist, Erik Klemetti, apparently agrees – calling this type of headline “irresponsible, reprehensible “journalism” that the worst hacks should be ashamed to print.”

And I certainly agree with Mr. Klemetti’s final point:

The point here is that the Earth is an active place – and we have very short experience with seeing events on a global scale. Reckless speculation the likes of which MSNBC (and LiveScience) partook in should be a warning of how the media still has a long way to come when it comes to reporting the facts rather than the hysteria of the natural world.

And now… it’s early this morning, my back hurts, my hands hurt, and I’ve noticed that the walls and cabinets also look a bit dingy and greasy.

Why, oh why didn’t I just turn out the lights and go to bed early?

“It never ceases to amaze, that in times of amazing human suffering, somebody says something that could be so utterly stupid,” Gibbs said. “But it, like clockwork, happens with some regularity.”

Robertson said:

Something happened a long time ago in Haiti, and people might not want to talk about it. . . . They were under the heel of the French … and they got together and swore a pact to the devil. They said, ‘We will serve you if you’ll get us free from the French.’

…citing that as the reason for “God’s punishment” of Haiti by way of the devastating earthquake.

I’m with Eric of Classical Values:

IMHO, it’s a hell of a way to sell religion, but there must be people who want God to be like that (a sort of great terrorist in the sky, if you will) or else they wouldn’t be buying.

Frankly, I question the sanity — and the Christianity — of Pat Robertson, and his supporters.

He was nice and gave me the minimal amount of information available to him and said he’d transfer me to someone who could help me. He warned me that I’d probably get voice mail and to be sure an leave a message.

That in itself was disheartening, as it meant I’d be a slave to my phone waiting for a return call. But it was the way the promise to return my call was phrased that set me off.

The man stated he would return my call at his earliest convenience. That’s rather stating the obvious since I was the one leaving him a message, but it is an incredibly arrogant way to do it.

We all know that when we leave a message for someone to call us, they will call whenever they feel like it, and it’s rather nice to actually say ”please call me back when it is convenient for you.” 

But it’s not really not nice to tell someone upfront that you’ll call them back whenever it’s convenient for you. Really, can’t you just say “as soon as possible” even if you know it will be whenever you feel like it?

And he didn’t call back today. So, I’ll be taking phone to the bathroom with me tomorrow too, because I don’t want to inconvenience him by not being able to answer when it’s inconvenient for me.