The Daily Broadside


Posted on 05/06/2021 5.00 AM

JCM 5/2/2021 7:25:48 PM

Posted by: JCM

vxbush 5/6/2021 5:27:58 AM

Good morning. In keeping with the theme this week with the breakfasts, I was trying to find some good news related to camping. But the top hits from the last week were nothing but stories about Austin's ban on "public camping". I'm still amazed at that turn of a phrase. 

So--where to find good news? In chocolate, of course. It turns out there is a "news in the candy world" web site and they have a whole thread just on chocolate news.  It's kind of a mixed bag--there's more discussion there about being carbon neutral and 100% renewable energies than about actual chocolate. 

Although there's this Netflix-type video site mentioned on the candy world page that might be about chocolate, but I haven't had a chance to actually look at any of the videos yet. Some of it seems to be about how our tastes are changing. 

I would dispute that. I would say we are being guilted into asking for something different, when what we really want are the best recipes, if a page my daughter shared on Facebook is any guide.  

buzzsawmonkey 5/6/2021 6:29:56 AM

The Biden Administration's attack on patent rights, and the less-well-publicized attack on copyrights, are part of a larger overall attack on the concept of private ownership itself.

Understand that you do not own music that you stream; you do not own the written works you may read on a Nook or Kindle. You merely license them from the service provider---and the service providers do not like the fact that the creators own their works, and that the providers must license them from the creators.

The push towards public transportation and against private car ownership, and the initiatives towards "equity in housing"---to be handled by the government determining where and how people "should" live, in the name of "equality" of course---are also ultimately aimed, farther down the road, and the destruction of private ownership, but it starts with the idea that those who actually create something do not have the right to own and control that which they have created.

Occasional Reader 5/6/2021 7:01:40 AM

In #2 buzzsawmonkey said: The Biden Administration's attack on patent rights,


Kosh's Shadow 5/6/2021 7:01:46 AM

Reply to buzzsawmonkey in 2:

Full-blown Communism - no private ownership (except for the elites)

As for patents, the reason we have 4 COVID vaccines within a year is due to patents. All those companies developed vaccines hoping to make money.

No patents, and the next pandemic will not have a vaccine for years - and it probably won't be very effective, because it will be based on the technology the government picks to fund, and how much funding there is. And we know how great the government is at picking the correct technology. See Solyndria

buzzsawmonkey 5/6/2021 7:17:23 AM

The thing about attacks on IP ownership is that they do not affect most people directly, so they're easy to put over. 

The current initiatives to make "gig workers" into "employees"---for their protection and benefit, of course---which started in California, but which is being endorsed by Biden's Secretary of Labor, has been introduced as a bill in the House of Representatives, and is the subject of a state initiative in New York, is an attack on copyright ownership because a freelance artist who becomes an "employee" loses his/her copyright ownership under the "work for hire" doctrine.  It's a very clever stealth attack.

lucius septimius 5/6/2021 7:20:59 AM

Reply to buzzsawmonkey in 2:

The WSJ reported on this today.  All the drug companies' stock is tanking big time and as they opined, there is no incentive for innovation now.

The larger point, though, they made with respect to the rest of Biden's plans.  

Sanders wanted "Medicare for all."  Biden is offering Medicaid for everything.  The difference, of course, is that Medicaid is deliberately bare-bones, the absolute minimum of coverage.  That is what Biden is proposing for everything while at the same time insisting that everyone get the various perks.  His goal is for 90% of the population to be given substandard food, clothing, shelter, medical care, transportation, etc.  All of it "provided" by the government and "paid for" with loans on the fiction that somehow, magically, his restructuring of the economy will result in a "take off."  

It won't, but by the time the bill comes due he'll be long dead, or at least completely senile.

buzzsawmonkey 5/6/2021 7:37:01 AM

Reply to lucius septimius in 6:

I learned back in the '80s, when dealing with Democrat lawmakers, that they never saw a piece of property owned by someone that they were not more than willing to give to somebody else.

JCM 5/6/2021 7:43:06 AM

Reply to buzzsawmonkey in 2:

Similar vein.

Have you followed the Right To Own lawsuits? Started with John Deere. Deere when the software on their equipment become increasingly complex "licensed" the software on the equipment the farmers bought. This effectively meant that the farmers could no longer service their own machines. With farm equipment it can be extremely costly to haul the machine to the closest authorized Deere facility. Apple the auto manufacturers and other companies have weighed in.

The farmers point of view, we bought it, we own it, we should be able to fix it. To fix modern equipment you need the software to diagnose and repair.

I fully agree that intellectual property rights are import. Authors, artists, musicians own their work. Software developers own their work in the same way.

However if I download a song or own a book, as long as I don't copy it for re-sale, want I do with "my" copy is my business, can fold, spindle, and mutilate to my heart's content.

IMAO and Back to machines, Deere may own the software, but as long as I don't copy for resale, the code on my machine is mine to do with as I wish, I should be able to access it to repair my hard property.

What is your take on Right to Own.

buzzsawmonkey 5/6/2021 8:03:01 AM

In #8 JCM said: What is your take on Right to Own.

The First Sale Doctrine has long been a cornerstone of copyright law; if you buy a copy of a book or a record, you can do what you want with it---read it/play it, give it away, sell it, etc.  Cut the book into strips and make a collage, if you want to; it's yours.

That doesn't mean you can copy it, distribute it, etc.---that is a function of copyright, not ownership of a tangible copy.  But what you do with your own is up to you. 

Problem is, if you get a "copy" of a novel or a song via streaming, you have NOT bought a "copy"---you've merely licensed usage.  When you've bought a piece of machinery with some software in it, strictly speaking you should be able to mess around with it, because you've bought that tangible item in which the protected material is embodied, as long as you don't market or distribute your alterations to whatever you own.  The problem there is, if you need to tinker with the software in your machinery, how are you going to get in to do that without the assistance of the original seller?

vxbush 5/6/2021 8:10:03 AM

In #9 buzzsawmonkey said: The problem there is, if you need to tinker with the software in your machinery, how are you going to get in to do that without the assistance of the original seller?

That's a big problem as most software is distributed in a compiled form, completely inaccessible to correction or change. 

vxbush 5/6/2021 8:10:28 AM

In #10 vxbush said: That's a big problem as most software is distributed in a compiled form, completely inaccessible to correction or change. 

Well, if you know how to use a Hex editor, you might be able to change it, maybe. But most folks won't be able to do that. 

Kosh's Shadow 5/6/2021 8:22:24 AM

Reply to JCM in 8:

Right to Repair - with cars having diagnostics, access to that is essential to repair the car. This isn't even licensing software, but access to the interface.

In Massachusetts, a few years ago, a law was passed (via being put on the ballot) that requires automobile manufacturers to give independent repair shops the ability to access the car's diagnostics. 

Last year, they needed another one because the first one did not cover data transmitted wirelessly. The car companies paid big bucks to fight it, claiming that would let criminals track you, open your garage door, etc. The car companies lost. Most people recognized that as scare tactics.

After all, if all that data is available, why would we trust the mechanics the dealers hire? They could do the same things. And why would car companies need all that? They should not transmit location unless in an emergency.

As for software security, keeping the interfaces secret really doesn't improve security. Any security professional will say that security by obscurity doesn't work. Opening them lets independent reviewers find security holes and force them to get fixed.

Besides, the law only forced the car companies to give access to diagnostic information for repair, not other data. 

Kosh's Shadow 5/6/2021 8:25:18 AM

Reply to vxbush in 11:

For years, people have been selling hacked car computer chips that give more performance, at the expense of fuel economy and emissions. That voids your warranty, of course, and I have no problem with that. Warranties do not need to cover user modifications. But there are disassemblers (convert machine code to instructions) and people who know how to use them.

buzzsawmonkey 5/6/2021 8:26:40 AM
It just occurred to me---"C. Wright Thruya" would be a fun posting nic.
buzzsawmonkey 5/6/2021 8:31:12 AM
Ask your spin doctor if Weownital™ is right for you...
vxbush 5/6/2021 8:33:58 AM

One post re: COVID: 

I missed this, but the CDC has changed the guidance about when to stop running cycles on the PCR test. Before the vaccines hit, the cycle count had to go up to 40 before determining a positive test. 

Now that the vaccine is out, the cycle count has gone down to 28 *if* the person has been vaccinated

vxbush 5/6/2021 8:37:53 AM

Reply to vxbush in 16:

Note that the article at the Blaze also noted a comparison of re-infection between those who have had COVID and those who have had the vaccine: 

A recent study of 6.3 million Israelis showed that the estimated protection for those already infected was 94.8% from reinfection and 96.4% from severe illness, as compared to effectiveness of 92.8% and 94.4%, respectively, from the vaccines.

That doesn't look statistically relevant on the face of it, but I'd have to get the study and do the calculations myself and I don't have time right now. 

JCM 5/6/2021 8:47:08 AM

Reply to buzzsawmonkey in 9:

Streaming I understand your point and don't disagree.

Using a simple example I am on a MacBook, I can if I want completely remove the MacOS and install Windows or a number of flavors of Unix, I also have the skills and tools to physically repair and replace hardware components.

If I do that I void the warranty and can't take it back to Apple for warranty repairs. I understand and except that.

The farmer "buys" the equipment, with a copy of the software on board. He's not allowed to use the software, to diagnose and fix the machine. He must use an authorized service agent, and not all of them make on site service calls. 

IMAO he should be able to use the software, to fix the machine. Not be denied that on something he purchased. 

Kosh's Shadow 5/6/2021 9:16:00 AM

In #16 vxbush said: I missed this, but the CDC has changed the guidance about when to stop running cycles on the PCR test. Before the vaccines hit, the cycle count had to go up to 40 before determining a positive test.  Now that the vaccine is out, the cycle count has gone down to 28 *if* the person has been vaccinated. 

The higher the number, the more likely for a false positive. 40 is considered absurdly high. 

28 is a much more reasonable number for everyone. They are trying to make it look like more unvaccinated people have COVID.

JCM 5/6/2021 9:19:43 AM
Oligarchy, and Remedies

By Angelo Codevilla

Those who live under oligarchies are not citizens—because oligarchy validates itself, decides for itself, within itself. It is committed above all to negating a people’s capacity to rule itself.


Occasional Reader 5/6/2021 10:24:15 AM

So I did one of these this morning in anticipation of seeing my parents and sister in a little while:

Negative result, as expected. Still, nice to have some reassurance, including for my rather Covid-nervous sister.

You must be logged in to comment.