After a 4-year hiatus, 3 years of law school, 2 post-graduate degrees and a lot of time spent discussing games and technology over those years, I've decided to start blogging again about a topic that I really care about: technology, gaming, and the ways that laws affect their development and use.
Why this topic? I'm a lawyer-in-training, but I'm a geek at heart. Although I've spent the last 3 years in law school surrounded by case law and statutes, the engineer in me still enjoys reading about new developments in science, and loves jury-rigging engineering solutions to household problems (ask me about them sometime). The gamer in me still spends weekends strategizing and dungeon-crawling in the latest game of the month. This is who I am.
At the same time, there is a gap in the conversation between lawyers and non-lawyers when it comes to technology and gaming. In law school, while I saw plenty of discussions about things like corporate law or criminal law, only some were discussing the intellectual property system and how it affects technology and games development. Similarly, gamers and technologists may understand that, for instance, copyright law protects their work, but often have difficulty articulating what protection they get. This gap in the conversation is unfortunate, and I intend to close it.
Ultimately, I hope on this blog to equip the reader with a basis for discussing law and technology in a way that engineers, gamers, and lawyers can all understand.
Let the blogging commence!
Thursday, September 1, 2011
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Willful Ignorance
I was incredulous when reading this forum on examples of willful ignorance (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=442216&page=1).
One example of ignorance that I have never understood is when people equate the existence of dinosaurs to the existence of unicorns. This belief is usually accompanied by the assertion that dinosaur bones were put on this earth to test our faith. The part that I don't understand is why the acceptance of scientific observations necessitates a disbelief in religious faith. People need to realize that invalidating the theories borne from scientific observations also invalidates the technologies that these theories enable.
What are some examples of willful ignorance that you have witnessed?
One example of ignorance that I have never understood is when people equate the existence of dinosaurs to the existence of unicorns. This belief is usually accompanied by the assertion that dinosaur bones were put on this earth to test our faith. The part that I don't understand is why the acceptance of scientific observations necessitates a disbelief in religious faith. People need to realize that invalidating the theories borne from scientific observations also invalidates the technologies that these theories enable.
What are some examples of willful ignorance that you have witnessed?
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Stop and Identify Statutes
With the recent spat of people exercising the full extent of their liberties and testing the authority of law enforcement (examples here and here), I thought it would be a good idea to investigate exactly how much information a person is required to give an officer when suspected of a crime. The path led to the interesting article on Stop and Identify statutes at Wikipedia.
Apparently in Illinois, when a person is suspected of a crime and stopped, an officer may "demand the name and address of the person and an explanation of his actions." The implication, of course, is that a person must truthfully give the officer their name and address. The statute says nothing about providing additional information or showing identification of any kind. Also significant is the fact that any questioning must take place close to the stopping place and within a reasonable time period.
Unfortunately, the Illinois statute doesn't specifically exclude the imperative of providing other information, like the one in Ohio does. However, I suspect you will have grounds to legally challenge any situation where an officer wants more information than is required from you.
Now, I'm not advocating everyone to go out there and challenge police officers every opportunity they can get. It's just important to recognize that although law enforcement officers have the authority to police the streets, they are given that authority by us, the people. They only have as much authority as given to them by the people, and those powers are detailed in statutes of state and federal law. The more we allow these powers to be exceeded, the more we allow our rights to be taken away from us. Know your rights.
Apparently in Illinois, when a person is suspected of a crime and stopped, an officer may "demand the name and address of the person and an explanation of his actions." The implication, of course, is that a person must truthfully give the officer their name and address. The statute says nothing about providing additional information or showing identification of any kind. Also significant is the fact that any questioning must take place close to the stopping place and within a reasonable time period.
Unfortunately, the Illinois statute doesn't specifically exclude the imperative of providing other information, like the one in Ohio does. However, I suspect you will have grounds to legally challenge any situation where an officer wants more information than is required from you.
Now, I'm not advocating everyone to go out there and challenge police officers every opportunity they can get. It's just important to recognize that although law enforcement officers have the authority to police the streets, they are given that authority by us, the people. They only have as much authority as given to them by the people, and those powers are detailed in statutes of state and federal law. The more we allow these powers to be exceeded, the more we allow our rights to be taken away from us. Know your rights.
Monday, September 17, 2007
Racism on TV
Many of my friends know that I refuse to eat at Jimmy John's, and perhaps now I can enlighten others as to why. To begin with, here is an interesting website that came up on Digg the other day: http://flumesday.com/102906racist.html . Which is your favorite one?
Some of these commercials exploit viewers' xenophobic tendencies and amplify them to emotional effect. Others use a character's ethnic differences as a means to simulate comedy, as if being different is funny in itself. All of the commercials are racist.
I was particularly shocked to see the National Vanguard commerical. At first it seemed like a small piece of white supremacist attitudes that existed in the past. A quick visit to Wikipedia soon revealed that the organization was founded only two years ago. We may be living in the 21st century, but one cannot deny that racism still exists in our society.
Which brings me to the topic of Jimmy John's. This commercial aired on TV a few months ago, and may still be airing for all I know. My jaw literally dropped when I saw it for the first time. The implication that Hispanic families have a large number of children, that Hispanic parents cannot control their kids, and the commercial's use of the Spanish language and accent are all reprehensible. Before anyone disputes this argument, consider this: would the commercial have run if the actors were from any other ethnic group?
Let's cut to another commercial. Here, we have an image of Japanese culture as anime-centric, overly disciplined, and deferential. On top of that, the use of the gong and the accented 'r' are pretty heavily reminiscent of the Charlie Chan yellowface stereotype of those of Asian descent. And while I'm on the topic, can anyone link me to the racist radio commercial that Jimmy John's ran a few years ago? I can't find details about the situation online, but I do remember that it angered the Asian-American community enough that it called a boycott of the franchise.
When such instances of misrepresentation as seen in these commercials are encountered without being addressed, we lose an opportunity to learn and let society dictate what we should be thinking and feeling. For my part, I will continue to avoid Jimmy John's as much as I can, and I encourage everybody that recognizes these problems to do the same.
Some of these commercials exploit viewers' xenophobic tendencies and amplify them to emotional effect. Others use a character's ethnic differences as a means to simulate comedy, as if being different is funny in itself. All of the commercials are racist.
I was particularly shocked to see the National Vanguard commerical. At first it seemed like a small piece of white supremacist attitudes that existed in the past. A quick visit to Wikipedia soon revealed that the organization was founded only two years ago. We may be living in the 21st century, but one cannot deny that racism still exists in our society.
Which brings me to the topic of Jimmy John's. This commercial aired on TV a few months ago, and may still be airing for all I know. My jaw literally dropped when I saw it for the first time. The implication that Hispanic families have a large number of children, that Hispanic parents cannot control their kids, and the commercial's use of the Spanish language and accent are all reprehensible. Before anyone disputes this argument, consider this: would the commercial have run if the actors were from any other ethnic group?
Let's cut to another commercial. Here, we have an image of Japanese culture as anime-centric, overly disciplined, and deferential. On top of that, the use of the gong and the accented 'r' are pretty heavily reminiscent of the Charlie Chan yellowface stereotype of those of Asian descent. And while I'm on the topic, can anyone link me to the racist radio commercial that Jimmy John's ran a few years ago? I can't find details about the situation online, but I do remember that it angered the Asian-American community enough that it called a boycott of the franchise.
When such instances of misrepresentation as seen in these commercials are encountered without being addressed, we lose an opportunity to learn and let society dictate what we should be thinking and feeling. For my part, I will continue to avoid Jimmy John's as much as I can, and I encourage everybody that recognizes these problems to do the same.
Sunday, September 16, 2007
A New Year?
Summer has come and gone, a new semester has started, and people seem to have found their individual equilibria between jobs and schoolwork and extracurriculars. I'm sure many of my peers can attest to how hectic the first few weeks of a semester can be while everybody gets used to their schedules. Now that things are settling down and summer vacation is over, I might try to regularly post here again. I make no promises.
Friday, May 4, 2007
Controlling Global Warming
Taking a break from the academic melee that was the last two months, I found an interesting article about controlling the advance of global warming. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which in the past has been known to understate the impact of global warming, has released the fourth of a series of reports on the issue. In this one, they discuss the use of an economic model that factors in the societal cost of CO2 emissions when setting the prices of using fossil fuels. I took this to mean taxing those who use the most energy.
There's an elegance to the idea that such a simple model could fix a good portion of the global warming problem. However, the article mentions that a lack of trust and collaboration will prevent this from going forward; politics is what will bog things down. Although this may cause dismay in some people, it is important to realize that we all still have the power to control the things around us. Use your bike whenever possible. Change to fluorescent bulbs. Purchase goods made locally. If we are willing to work together and make our own sacrifices to fight global warming, perhaps those in power will get the message and be more willing to work towards the greater good.
There's an elegance to the idea that such a simple model could fix a good portion of the global warming problem. However, the article mentions that a lack of trust and collaboration will prevent this from going forward; politics is what will bog things down. Although this may cause dismay in some people, it is important to realize that we all still have the power to control the things around us. Use your bike whenever possible. Change to fluorescent bulbs. Purchase goods made locally. If we are willing to work together and make our own sacrifices to fight global warming, perhaps those in power will get the message and be more willing to work towards the greater good.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)