• Home
• Reviews
• News
• Downloads
• CNET TV

About me

My posting summary

1 to 3 of 3

My comments

• Say what...?
  I am really trying to be constructive here - the 'presentation' went so fast as to be almost totally unintelligable. It would have been nice to have a way to slow down the 'film'. A few spoken words at appropriate points might have helped also. Please, presenters/creators, not everyone watching has the ability of a teenage game player to follow the action - much less, to comprehend it.
  --------------- [an aside] ----------------
  when I reviewed my comment I found an error in spelling. Clicking the 'Edit' button returned me to the creation window - but without the original content! Don't know if that's a machine error or a program design error. In reply to: "Video: Web 2.0 in five minutes"

  February 10, 2007

  0 replies

• Spying as a violation of Property rights
  Perhaps "Outrage" is better defined to be "Paranoia" (sp?).
  
  If there is a discussion/criticism of a subject, it's necessary for all who want to have a dialogue to agree on a definition of that subject. In the case of "Property" (in terms of the "Bill of Rights usage) the definition I accept and use is: "Property" is an individual's life, and all non-procreative derivatives of that life. (originally defined by Andrew J. Galambos). Using that definition as a base, I can extend it to mean that my thoughts, ideas, creations, and actions (including what I say or write) are MY Property. The concern for "outrage" in terms of "spying" on what I've done with my Property should really be whether or not my property can be used to harm me. I think that's why people appear to be "outraged" - the fear of what gov'mint will do with what they know about me through their spying. Personally, (in a perfect society), I should not get upset about anyone knowing what what I think or say. Assuming I can be assured that knowledge won't be used to harm me. That's the rub - will what I say/do be used against me?! I naively believe that my communications are not threatening to anyone. So I don't get to the "Outrage" state. That's me and almost every other American. However, I don't think any sane (rational) person would not want to know what hurt is being plotted on them. Since the purpose of "Government" is to protect "Private Property", I WANT them to know about threats to me and mine. I accept spying in that light, so I'm not "outraged" by my (protective) Government's spying on my behalf - I'm not ashamed of what I say or do, are you?

  May 8, 2006

  0 replies

• Spying as a violation of Property rights
  Perhaps "Outrage" is better defined to be "Paranoia" (sp?).
  
  If there is a discussion/criticism of a subject, it's necessary for all who want to have a dialogue to agree on a definition of that subject. In the case of "Property" (in terms of the "Bill of Rights usage) the definition I accept and use is: "Property" is an individual's life, and all non-procreative derivatives of that life. (originally defined by Andrew J. Galambos). Using that definition as a base, I can extend it to mean that my thoughts, ideas, creations, and actions (including what I say or write) are MY Property. The concern for "outrage" in terms of "spying" on what I've done with my Property should really be whether or not my property can be used to harm me. I think that's why people appear to be "outraged" - the fear of what gov'mint will do with what they know about me through their spying. Personally, (in a perfect society), I should not get upset about anyone knowing what what I think or say. Assuming I can be assured that knowledge won't be used to harm me. That's the rub - will what I say/do be used against me?! I naively believe that my communications are not threatening to anyone. So I don't get to the "Outrage" state. That's me and almost every other American. However, I don't think any sane (rational) person would not want to know what hurt is being plotted on them. Since the purpose of "Government" is to protect "Private Property", I WANT them to know about threats to me and mine. I accept spying in that light, so I'm not "outraged" by my (protective) Government's spying on my behalf - I'm not ashamed of what I say or do, are you?

  May 8, 2006

  0 replies