Recapping the (various) threads was Re: [FoRK] Re: Kindle first impressions

[Jeff Bone]

On May 5, 2008, at 7:18 PM, Tom Higgins wrote:
> Ok time for a wrap up of this thread

Let me see if I can make my various points more succinctly and de- 
confruze.  BTW, it was (I think) 3.5 threads, not 3 as I previously  
asserted...

Kindle:  if you're the kind of person that worries a lot about the  
politics of technology, Kindle might not --- is probably not --- for  
you.  If on the other hand you're an Amazon junkie who values time and  
convenience over abstractions and (a certain amount of) money, then it  
might be right for you, give it a shot, my experience at least has  
been pleasant and valuable so far.

Law:  law's a funny thing.  It's (hopefully) obviously an abstraction,  
and perhaps only less obviously a consensual hallucination.  The  
degree to which anybody pays attention to any law preventing them from  
doing something is proportional to the likelihood of their getting  
busted for breaking said law times the "cost" in penalties extracted  
from them for breaking the law, over the benefit to them of breaking  
said law.  When law deviates from --- i.e. becomes more onerous than  
--- what people think is acceptable, you get widespread law-breaking  
and social friction.  So far, I hope obviously, this is all merely  
observation.  I hypothesize that such friction due to divergence  
between law and norms can't last indefinitely;  either the upholders  
of said law apply social (and legal, i.e. by escalating penalties)  
normative pressure to cause their own moral view to become the norm,  
or they dash themselves against the cliffs of unpopularity, as is  
happening with the RIAA today.

Law and technology choices:  I rarely let the former dictate the  
latter.  It would seem that most people agree;  they either live with  
restrictions because the restrictions aren't important to them  
(iTunes / iPod) or they break them wholesale and en masse (the Napster  
Revolution) --- as dictated by their preferences.  (Or, as is the  
usual case, some degree of conformance vs. law-breaking...) These  
people aren't lawyering the DMCA, they're just winging it.

Hedge funds managers:  those guys didn't pay long-term rates (or less)  
on most of their income, and all it takes to understand that is a  
modest understanding of tax law, a modest understanding of the  
economic activity that generated the revenues in question, and a  
little common sense.  If you dispute this, I feel pretty safe in  
saying you're missing one of the above three --- but no bad in that,  
this is clearly an epidemic meme that most of the population isn't  
vaccinated against.  (I suspect that what most are lacking in this  
regard is any understanding of the economic activity, and only  
slightly less so the tax law.)

Offshore tax havens:  myth.  If there's some legal loophole that I'm  
unaware of, put up or shut up, I'm all ears. ;-)  I'm not taking tax  
advice from a freakin' left-wing journalist from the NYT, and I  
guarantee you mine cost more than today's issue of Pinchy Salzburger's  
"news" paper.

$0.02,

jb