Down to Earth with John Sterne

Downloading content via torrent networks is still theft no matter how you look at it. For me the question isn't one of morality but one of content ownership.

The only justifiable agruement against the illegallity of download theft is the ideal the information should be free for all to consume once it is released into the public. Like I said, however, this is an "ideal" it is not how the people of the world have organized our world up until this point. This, however, would be a future change and is not currently enshrined in the law. Thus the law must take over as for us to decide whether this is legal or illegal.

My approach to this question is simple. Firstly, is intellectual content a form of property? Under our current laws, who owns the property in question? Under property law can we prove that there has been damages? Lastly, if we can prove damages, can we prove who caused the damages? If all, and only if all of the above are true. Then we can say, without a doubt that the action is illegal and we can create a process by which the property owner can recoup the damages.

The question of fairness, economics and social rights or even morlaity do not play a role at all. Unless we decide as a community, I would suggest at the federal level, that all information of all kinds should be freely accessible to anyone and everyone. If that is the case then and only then will torrent downloaders be within the legal boundaries of the law. Until then torrent, downloading is illegal regardless of how all individuals interpret or justify or try to rationalize their actions.

So, that said, if you can live with yourself knowing that you are a thief then go ahead and continue downloading torrents. If for some reason you are a person who doesn't view this action as theft, in it's simplest terms, realize that any rationalization or moralization or justification that you have for this practice, it is still "against the law" and YOU ARE A CRIMINAL. If you don't like that label you should stop doing it!

But then again, there are so are many things in life that are illegal but we do them anyway like, j-walking, speeding, riding a bike without a helmet, parking on a city street after 7pm, leaving your sprinkler on on the wrong day.

I can live with myself, but I guess, I should go turn my sprinkler off. I forgot it was Monday not Wednesday.

These are all somewhat rediculous laws but they are still laws. Don't try to rationalize just accept the reality of what you are doing.

It's time we all take ownership of our actions!

Just want to annouce a change I've made to the site.

 I have changed the comments to immediate approval. It would appear that I wasn't getting notifications of comments left by others and because they needed my approval to be published they were never seeing the light of day.

Please note that I have gone back and enabled the previous comments and from now on you will be able to leave comments and have them post immediately.

A reminder to please keep your comments intelligent and mindfull of other readers. Irrelavent or abusive comments will probably be deleted, otherwise I will be happy to keep anyone's opinion regardless of whether you agree or disagree with my own views. Please, feel free to voice your opinions and shoots holes in mine at will. in fact, I challenge you to do so just be prepared at long winded comebacks. :)

 Discussion, ultimately, is what I am aiming for not selfrighteousness.

So blog on baby!

Ok, here is a long awaited serious post on what I think is a valid modern ethical, moral and practical question that should be addressed in order to sustain our species and, I believe, our world as a whole.

THE EVOLUTION OF HUMANKIND

Should we euthanize fetuses and even new born infants that would have a life of hardship and/or pain to endure? Furthermore, should we euthanize persons of undesirable traits in order to maintain on going genetic viability within our species? Where can we draw the line? Even the question of whether my appoach below and my assumptions of genetic degradation within the human genome are valid, is indeed itself a valid question.

For the context of this agrement and eventual debate I would like to leave aside the morality of abortion and just work fom the position that abortion is legal and is done on a regular basis. Whether, I, or you, agree with that or not.

Secondly, I'd like to leave out the moral and ethical questions and debates. Those judgements, you can make for yourself, and I will respect your views regardless of your view point on the morality of such practices.

I would like to discuss the balance between the morality of the issue, with the possible benefits of such action. Along with how societal values, morals and ethics change over time.

First, I would site as reference the eugenics programs of the Nazi Germans leading up to and during WWII. They used, what many would consider to be morally reprehensible methods to eradicate people who for one reason or another were undesirable in their society. These programs, included euthanizing people with serious disabilities, terminal illnesses, communicable diseases, genetic defects and persons considered to be an enemy within or "a danger to the country and/or it's citizens" Jews, for instance.

Feel as you may, about the hollocaust, nowhere in my comments will you find references to race, religion, color or any of the many other ways you may create sub-groups of humankind. My only focus is that of the longterm goal of any species. Which is, procreation and the sustainability of viable offspring indefinitely.

TO DIVIDE AND CONQUER?

The second question to be answered is would living in intentionally sexually segragated groups be benefical, from an evolutionary stand point? When I say sexually segregated, in this case, I mean breeding groups based on genetic traits. Would humankind not benefit more from gene diversity than from a globally homogenized genome?

Being some one who has a general familiarity with the evolution of man and a person who studies scientific reasearch. I have come to the conclusion that:
1) Genetic diversity and not homoginity is what leads to the survival of some species and not to others.
2) That the effects of genetic divergence and genetic drift take place far faster and more prolifically in smaller, more isolated populations, thus any evolved genetic trait can be passed more easily within a small population rather than lost into a sea of genetic similarities.
3) Some genes are recessive and others have partial dominance often requiring two copies or multiple genes in order to express their traits within and organism, thus, smaller more isolated gene pools would allow the human genome to adapt and evolve thus making human survival more likely in to the indefinite future.   

Did the Nazi's get, at least, some of it right?

Whether, I personally agree with such a practice of not. I do believe, that our use of modern medical science to prolong the lives of people who have, what would otherwise be, naturally death incurring diseases, illnesses and/or genetic disorders, does not do humankind any evolutionary favours.

By allowing persons with genetically inheiritable defects to procreate we negate the benefits of any evolutionary advantages that nature may have provided the rest of us, or not, by allowing unsustainable genes in our gene pool and by allowing the resultant offspring to consume resorces best left for the "fittest" in terms of survival.

I would, with this view in mind, take more than the position of devil's advocate and suggest that if we do not take measures, on a global scale, nature and evolution will do it for us. Probably, through mass starvations, possibly through the mechanisms of war, brought about by the remnants of our tribalistic instincts. I say, it is time we cull our unviably ill and time we segregate our selves through means of "personal selection" in order to genetically improve our selves and ready our species, or resultant sub-species, for better survival in an eventual inevitable time of "hardship" as unspecific as that is.

The one immutable fact that evolution precisely predicts is that having an immense and immensely intermingled population such as our globalised world is today, is a sure path to homogenous genetics and little genetic variation. Add to that our modern practice of allowing the spawning of genetically harmful traits amoungst the population and all of our evolutionarily aquired intellect will be for not as we will have doomed our own species.

As our population globally, reaches 10 billion people, possibly, within the next two generations. I believe, these realities and over-demand of global resources even without some sort of precipatating catastrophic event will lead more people to start thinking about ways that "we" can better survive. Let me stress, by "we" I mean, specifically, my progeny, and so will everyone else, because ultimately that is our(humanity's) true driving force. I would call it "The Universal Law of Sex and Procreation" and it will eventually come crashing down on us whether we want it to or not!

Whether you agree with my posted comments, or not, please leave your comments, questions or snide remarks below.

Again, my intention with this post is to get people thinking about the future not to portray any sort of racial or sexual bias or any kind of bias against the currently handicapped.

Personally, I believe that humans, as individuals are more than an able body, they are a culmination of all their genetic traits and their personal achievements. This type of eugenic cultivation would inevitably have a cost and a benefit to society.

One such cost would be, that someone such as Stephen Hawking, who has motor neuron disease (possibly ALS), may never have had the opportunity to contribute to our society the way that he has if such a program were in place. However, the benefits would be many as well. Some of which are not immdiately tangible but are still just as real and perhaps, from a longterm perspective, more important.

I'm John Sterne and this has been my thought for the day!

Due to overwhelming requests for posted pictures of my wiener I have accommodated all of your fondest wishes and desires to behold it's glory!

Behold John's Mighty Wiener

Yep, there it is, right there nestled between those cosy warm buns!

 Sometimes I like to bathe it in Mustard and Ketchup... When I'm really feeling kinky I break out the relish and throw it in a nice soft taco...MMMMmmm nothin' is better that pickling your Wiener in a taco!  

Congratulations all... you have now all seen a side of me I thought I would never show!

Ahhhhh.... it sure is liberation showing the world my wiener!

TTFN Johnny =P

Unusal Tech Blog

I know this isn't usually a Tech blog but I found a solution to a problem that many people are having when install either MS SQL Server 2008 Express with management tools or a combination of Visual Studio 2008 and MS SQL Server 2008

For most of you this blog is irrelavent but for those struggling with this problem I spent many hours discovering a simple, no code writing work around to get MS SQL Server 2008 Installed and working on your Windows 7 Machine.

Firstly, I have Windows 7 RC 7600 but I know these same problems occur in both Vista and XP as well.

A little back ground. MS Sql Server 2008 requires several prerequisites.

1 -  .NET 3.5 with SP1 -Framework
2 -  Powershell 1.0
3 -  Windows Installer 4.5

For those of you who do not know Windows 7 comes complete currently with:

1 - .NET 3.5.1 Which includes SP1 but doesnt list it in the registry as a service pack
2 -  Powershell 2.0
3 - Windows installer 5

All of which should satisfy the requirements but your registry will not communicate that you have SP1 installed with MS SQL Server 2008

There is a fix for this by modifying your registry you can find in forums online. However, your installation will still not work as there are other issues involved.

Namely:
1. MS SQL Requires SP1
2. If you have previously installed Visual Studio 2008 it requires SP1
3. You need to get MS SQL Working before you can load the SP1 for it.

Problem: It stops loading due to issues.

Solution:

Download a different version of the installer. I used MS SQL Server 2008 Express with management tools. Loaded it right over the other version.

then a window pops up telling you about known issues with this version. And it says to download SP1 before running the software.

I tried this but it didn't work earlier on my non express version. 

What I did at this point was I went ahead an ran the software, allowed it to install fully, then closed it. Downloaded and install the Service Pack for the third time that day. This time after running it prior to installing the SP1

Then I had to install the Visual studio SP1 update... And this is important... it must be done in this order and not another ... I know this, because I tried serveral variations on this and none worked.
Then finally the MS SQL Server 2008 Installation would run fully and install properly.

Just like in programming itself, the syntax and order you load things in matters.

Remember, this is only a work around. I did not write any code, did not alter my Registry and didn't have to get software from someone else to fix my issues.

The reason I say that is because from going on to many formus I have discovered many people, mostly developers, are having this issue with no compatibilty with MS SQL 2008. Most seem to revert to the 2005 version. Some have written reboot suppression code for their systems. Others install the service pack and the original ppackage in reverse order. Other suggested that you MUST start with a clean installation of your operating system. Especially for Windows 7. Some altered the registry and other gave up all together and decided to scrap their Microsoft software and Load MySQL or MS Access Extension.

Seeing as there are a myriad of solutions to this problem my is just one more... but with mine... I didn't have to screw with anything else in my system and I can comfirm now that MS SQL Server 2008 Now works fully.

I actually believe that m y original problem stemmed from the distribution copy od MS SQL Server that comes with Visual Studio 2008 Professional. How the package loads together and the interaction of the windows 7 registry entry for .NET v3.5.1

This is an issue that Microsoft should fix, and quickly, if it wants many Web and software developers to use it's software.