The Library of Congress now has a YouTube channel. Among the gems you can find there, the first moving image ever made. It’s a man named Fred Ott, sneezing:
Miscellaneous 
Almost a year ago, I wrote about the newly-launched Seasteading Institute, which promises to break the cozy cartel of world governments by developing the technology required to found affordable autonomous communities on the open oceans. It’s an audacious plan, and I expressed some skepticism about whether it can be made to work. But the Institute, led by Patri Friedman, has made an impressive amount of progress in the last year. They’ve done preliminary engineering work on a small seastead design. They hosted a conference that was by all accounts well-attended. And they’ve generated an impressive amount of press coverage.
So I’m excited to see that Friedman will be giving a talk at Cato about his project on April 7. If I lived in DC, I’d definitely be there. I’m still not convinced Seasteading is the wave of the future, but I’m glad there are people giving it their best shot.
Theories constitute the technology of academia. They give us eggheads the tools we need to get our work done, just as computers serve programmers and DNA sequencing serves bioengineers. I trust that TLF’s readers won’t think me too far off-topic, then, if I cite a new approach to consent theory, something that should interest anyone who cares about the fundamental reasons for valuing of liberty. Here’s a snapshot of the theory:
To get the full story, please see that figure’s source: Graduated Consent Theory, Explained and Applied, Chapman University School of Law, Legal Studies Research Paper Series, Paper No. 09-13 (March 2009) [PDF]. The paper reviews the importance of consent in legal, moral, and economic reasoning, and develops a model of the relationship between consent and justification. It concludes by applying that model to a number of practical problems. Most notably, in contrast to both originalism and “living constitutionism,” the paper promotes interpreting the Constitution according to the plain, present, public meaning of its text and resolving ambiguities in favor of individual liberty.
A classic piece here by Farhad Manjoo of Slate about how “the Internet of 1996 is almost unrecognizable compared with what we have today.” It’s a fun look back at just how far the Internet has come over the past 13 years. I love this passage:
We all know that the Internet has changed radically since the ’90s, but there’s something dizzying about going back to look at how people spent their time 13 years ago. Sifting through old Web pages today is a bit like playing video games from the 1970s; the fun is in considering how awesome people thought they were, despite all that was missing. In 1996, just 20 million American adults had access to the Internet, about as many as subscribe to satellite radio today. The dot-com boom had already begun on Wall Street– Netscape went public in 1995 — but what’s striking about the old Web is how unsure everyone seemed to be about what the new medium was for. Small innovations drove us wild: Look at those animated dancing cats! Hey, you can get the weather right from your computer! In an article ranking the best sites of ’96, Time gushed that Amazon.com let you search for books “by author, subject or title” and “read reviews written by other Amazon readers and even write your own.” Whoopee. The very fact that Time had to publish a list of top sites suggests lots of people were mystified by the Web. What was this place? What should you do here? Time recommended that in addition to buying books from Amazon, “cybernauts” should read Salon, search for recipes on Epicurious, visit the Library of Congress, and play the Kevin Bacon game.
God, do you remember those days? I sure do. I penned a piece last month about the amazing technological progress we have witnessed over the past decade.
Meanwhile, we have a whole town full of clowns here in DC looking to regulate the Internet and digital technology for one reason or another. All these would-be regulators need to step back and appreciate just how well markets have been working and why regulation would be a disaster for technological progress. Viva la (Technology) Revolution!
Convert it into a digital air hockey table! Just awesome. Unfortunately, my old plasma is only 42″, not a big 100-inch mother like this.
Here’s a great new video on economic growth from my friend and colleague Dan Mitchell of the Cato Institute and the Center for Freedom and Prosperity.
One of the innovations in this video that I love is the real-time score that it provides on how intelligent and persuasive Dan is being. The needle visible over his right shoulder indicates zero in the due north position (12:00). Improvements in Dan’s work are reflected by the movement of the needle clockwise around to the 9:00 position, which equals 100% informative and persuasive. So take a look at the video and watch how Dan does as he makes his case!
It’s my pleasure to welcome Wayne Crews to the TLF as a regular contributor. Wayne is the vice president for policy and director of technology studies at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. For about four years, Wayne and I worked together at the Cato Institute, where we spent most of our time debating the greatness of various guitarists in southern rock bands, the best Harley Davidson motorcycle designs of all time, and our favorite types of BBQ sauce. Oh, and we co-authored three books, dozens of papers, and countless op-eds together on various aspects of tech policy. But we didn’t let that distract us from those other, more important activities.
Wayne’s full bio can be found here. We very happy to have him join our merry band of cyber-libertarian rebels here on the Tech Liberation Front. Welcome Wayne!
Micropayments are an idea that simply won’t die. Every few years, there’s a resurgence of interest in the idea. Critics predict they won’t work. The critics are then proved right, as companies founded to promote micropayments inevitably go belly-up.
The latest iteration comes courtsey of Time magazine, which recently saw fit to run a cover story about how micropayments will save newspapers. And Shirky once again steps up to the plate to explain why micropayments won’t work any better in 2009 than they did in 1996, 2000, or 2003. (I wrote up Shirky’s arguments here and here) But for my money, the best response to the Isaccson piece is at the Abstract Factory blog:
Why did Time’s editors choose to run this article, rather than, for example, an article by Shirky or Odlyzko or any number of people who would write something more clueful? I hypothesize two reasons. First, Time’s editors themselves do not have a clue, and also do not have any problem publishing articles on a subject they have no clue about. Second, look at the author blurb at the bottom of the article (emphasis mine):
Isaacson, a former managing editor of TIME, is president and CEO of the Aspen Institute and author, most recently, of Einstein: His Life and Universe..
When you’re a member of the club, your buddies will publish any old crap you write; better you than some stupid professor nobody knows. We’ve seen this before.
I mentioned irony earlier. Isaacson has filigreed the irony with extraordinary precision. His article is inferior to material produced for free online by people who draw their paychecks from other sources (Shirky and Odlyzko are both professors who also work(ed) in the private technology sector). Furthermore, it is inferior as a direct consequence of structural weaknesses of traditional magazines. Despite its inferior quality, it presumes its own superior status by ignoring or dismissing contributions to the discussion which occurred outside of traditional “journalistic” media. Finally, taking that superiority as a given, it argues, poorly, that people ought to pay money for products like itself, because (quoting Bill Gates) nobody can “afford to do professional work for nothing.”
In short, Isaacson’s article not only fails to make its case, it actively undermines its own case while doing so.
Quite so. There’s more good stuff where that came from.
Sorry, this has nothing to do with tech policy, but I just had to comment on Eugene Robinson’s latest column in the Washington Post singing the praises of an unbounded stimulus plan. For those of you not familiar with Robinson’s work, you’re really missing a treat. Eugene Robinson and his colleague Harold Meyerson compete on a weekly basis in the Post for the title of “World’s Most Rhetorically Outrageous (and Economically Illiterate) Newspaper Columnist.” It’s a heated race. These guys really know no shame. [Note my earlier essay about Meyerson’s effort to equate media reinvention efforts with terrorism!]
Anyway, in his latest column, Robinson firmly establishes himself as the new leader in this ongoing race with the following gem:
The House of Representatives loaded up the bill like a Christmas tree as powerful Democrats found room for their pet projects. This was a good thing, not an outrage. Hundreds of millions of dollars for contraceptives? To the extent that those condoms or birth-control pills are made in the United States and sold in U.S. drugstores, that spending would be stimulative in more ways than one.
Oh, wow. Just wow. Taxpayer funding for birth control as a stimulus to drugstores and domestic pill makers. By that same reasoning, “stimulating” the sale of sex toys would benefit adult bookstores and the domestic dildo industry.
Hey, why not. The more spending the better, right? Who cares if we’re bankrupting our children.
The Technology Liberation Front is the tech policy blog dedicated to keeping politicians' hands off the 'net and everything else related to technology.