all your newspapers are belong to us

 

Google rulez okay?

The Wall Street Journal interviews one FOI advocate who opposes Google‘s quest to put all newspapers going back to 1888 online. He’s doing that himself, as part of a project sponsored by Yahoo and Microsoft. Coincidence?

Google Inc. made news last week when it said it was launching a service that would allow users to search newspaper archives going back as far as the 18th century. Announcements like that are usually applauded as an advance for the spread of knowledge. But Brewster Kahle, a long-time Internet activist and founder of Internet Archive, had some reservations. We asked him why.

* * *

What’s not to like about Google making so much information freely available?

The opportunity for universal access to all public knowledge is one of the great opportunities of our times. And to the extent that companies are helping us get there, that’s terrific. Google is making great strides in this direction; the basic goal is terrific and their service is actually quite good.

The issue we have with what’s being built is that we are creating what is in effect a private library system. What we want, however, is a public library system, one where we can have many different points of view on the published literature of humankind. What we are actually building might end up being controlled by a single corporation. If this were some other industry — plastic or software — I wouldn’t be as worried about it. But we are taking about the cultural heritage, the intellectual heritage, of humans. And that’s too important to be left to one company.

In this we are in complete agreement. When companies have vested interests in controlling key components of the culture, that’s when a government solution is appropriate. Because a government, however venal and Machiavellian it may be, has a vested interest in the culture itself, and is responsive to the culture as a whole, whereas corporations are sensitive to (and vulnerable to) only the market, one tiny segment of the culture.

If only one such archive is to be built, why let it be in private hands? he asks. My response to that is another question: why not do this as a public project as well. Go ahead, duplicate the effort. Because as we learn on the Internet to our peril, things fall apart. And if the servers themselves don’t belong to you, there is nothing whatsoever you can do about it.

Wasteful? Not really; all those grad students are gonna hafta find co-ops or internships somewhere on the federal dime anyway. Any system administrator will tell you that redundancy can be a source of strength, and any savvy investor will tell you that competition improves quality.

Besides, what are you gonna do when China buys Google?

Choogle

dress Steve Jobs

Because he hasn’t made a “what to wear” decision since about 1985. Steve needs your help; will you turn him away in his hour of need?

Steve Jobs’s Wild Closet o’ Funk

Steve, what to wear, what to wear...

experiencing technical difficulties

Serious technical difficulties. Bear with me; I am currently defragging my computer, a process which will, the computer informs me, take approximately 100 hours. Meanwhile nothing works properly.

WordPress Avatar Awards

I nominate myself in the category of “Most Fascist Avatar.”

raincoaster’s avatar is, in a sense, not unique, yet in another sense it is utterly unique Why? Because the Department of Homeland Security, Total Information Awareness Unit which originated the avatar almost immediately foreswore it once the blowback hit. It may be the most Masonic, New World Orderish, Aleistar Crowleyian logo the world has ever seen, and raincoaster doubts very much if the US government would dispute her use of this image, for fear of having to admit they designed it.

thememoryhole.org/policestate/iao-logo.htm

TIA Large

Scientia est Potentia means “Knowledge is Power“

would you watch Steve Irwin die?


Steve and Conan, together again for the first time!

It seems what I reported here as rumour is indeed true: Steve Irwin said, “If I’m going to die, at least I want it filmed.”

Does that mean he’d want it shown around the world, rather than just to the people who were his friends and family? Does it mean that he’d be okay with it being interrupted every thirty seconds for commercials and stamped with a watermark, as it undoubtably would be?

Would you watch?

from the BBC:

Crocodile hunter Steve Irwin’s final moments were captured on camera. But should that film ever be broadcast to the watching public?

Yes, says Anna Smajdor

No, says Daniel Sokol

Steve Irwin made a career partly based on taking risks with wildlife. His death this week at the barb of a stingray on Australia’s Barrier Reef was filmed, and in a Sydney Morning Herald poll 40% of the 24,000 or so respondents thought it should be shown.

It’s typical of the elite-driven media in the UK that they thought only medical ethicists should be interviewed about this, rather than any other kind of philosophers. This is far too narrow-minded for me; they should, if they really wanted two different viewpoints, have gotten two different kinds of philosophers.

In any case, the answer for me is that I began searching for the video immediately upon hearing news of Steve‘s death. Why? Because I do think he’d be okay with it being broadcast; he was always very clear about the risks of what he was doing and I think that he’d want to show that sometimes you pay the ultimate price. He showed videos of animals dying and dead, and are any of us in any doubt whatsoever that he revered them? He’d have asked for no different treatment himself. If I find the video, I will watch it and post it, with a very clear warning, and you can make your own choices.

I also want to find out what watching the video can tell me. I’ve seen people die in hospitals, and it’s not horrible; worse is watching their faces the moment they realize that their death is inevitable, and close. I’ve read the manual of Afghani Jihad, and the Japanese kamikaze manual, and I’ve learned about myself, the world, and right and wrong by reading those “forbidden tomes.” This is, in its own way, as disturbing, but that in itself is no reason to turn away from it.

That said…do I believe that Steve‘s wishes have to be obeyed? I’ve spent the last few years trying to ensure that my father’s last wishes were obeyed, with mixed success, but I realize very clearly that while the wishes of the dead are to be respected, they do not have to be obeyed. If you wouldn’t obey them when they were alive, it makes no sense to do so when they’re dead, and it is in fact a betrayal of your real relationship.

His family should make the call. They knew him better than anyone, and they’ll have to deal with the fallout. Whatever they say, whether the video makes it to the Net or not, I’ll respect their wishes.

You?