More on the google settlement

Ok, it has been brought to my attention that I was mis-reading the settlement agreement...

Google requires authors to "opt-out" of having their copyright violated instead of having them "opt-in" to participate in the service.

And THAT is not cool...

thoughts on the Google Settlement

Ok, so Google was sued and reached a settlement with the Writers' Guild. What were they sued for? Making excerpts of books available for search, allowing those interested in buying them or checking them out from a library able to see excerpts prior to making a decision.

I am not sure what the issue is. From what I can find, Google isn't posting the entire book online unless it is out of copyright. In my mind, making excerpts available in a card-catalog style view in order to know what you are buying/checking out is no different than book excerpts on Amazon or ebay. Or the dust jacket or back of the book. Or the excerpts provided online by my local library. They are not, so far as I can tell with my limited knowledge of law, violating copyright, unless for some unfathomable reason the author is not getting royalties on physical or digital books purchased through their sources. If that is the case, then that is a problem, but for some reason I don't think a corporation is going to so blatantly violate copyright by selling illegal books. I have been wrong before, however. Lets be realistic here. Our world is getting more and more digitized as the years go by. Network access is becoming more ubiquitous and more information is becoming available in a non-tangible form. Authors fighting to keep their works out of the hands of the evil interweb are like the MPAA fighting to keep music on physical media. It is a losing battle, and instead of spending so much energy trying to keep it from happening, they should be partnering with these online entities to ensure that their rights are maintained in the transition! It is hard enough keeping reading alive, lets do what we can to make it more accessible rather than less. Lets find a way to keep our rights through the transition rather than finding ways to keep books away from those that are trying to find them, buy them, and read them...

Gay marriage in Iowa

It's about time. Now the rest of the country needs to follow. Yes, I know, people are all up in arms about making sure that everyone is getting equal treatment under the law. Not sure why, though. Oh, that's right - they are concerned that their marraiges are threatened because other people are allowed to marry the people they love. No, wait - it's that allowing consenting adults to legalize their relationship will ultimately lead to the courts recognizing marriages animals and minors. Never mind that the comparison is absolutely rediculous as niether animals or children are considered consenting adults.

Maybe it's because they don't like what these couples do in the privacy of their own homes. Well, you are entitled to not like it, you just aren't entitled to go into their home and stop them from doing it. Consenting adults and all that inconvenient stuff. I don't like that my upstairs neighbors get drunk and fight, doesn't mean that I get to tell them they aren't allowed to get married.

Oh, I got it, it's because they aren't living by the Bible! Oh no! Oh my! We cannot let them heathens have the same legal protections we have! Ok, let's do that. Let's tell the Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Hari Krishnas, Athiests, Agnostics, Mormons, Wiccans, Catholics, etc, that they don't have the right to get married because their beliefs violate some sacred tennant the someone else holds dear. As a matter of fact, let's amend the constitution to prevent all those marriages from happening.

Yes, the whole situation is pathetic. I had a lady buying a newspaper at my work yesterday state she was ashamed to live in Iowa because gay marriages are legal. Why? Why would you give people that much control over you. Especially people you apparently don't like very much? 

You don't have to like what they do. You don't have to accept them as friends. You can spend your evenings foaming at the mouth that some guy or gal you don't know is doing things you are obsessed with to some other guy or gal you don't know. Things they would be doing anyway. Things that aren't illegal between consenting adults. The only difference is they now have the right to pursue happiness in their own way, and if that pursuit leads them to marriage that's ok. Because they are people. They are neighbors and friends and sons and daughters and brothers and sisters and they deserve the same chance at happiness as everyone else has.

Cell phones

Ok, I am currently working at a local gas station. Every day, people come in to the store, talking on their cell phones, not having the common courtesy to drop their conversation in the middle so they can exchange pleasantries with me. How rude of them!!

The sad thing is (in my mind), is how many people actually think that way. I do actually work at a local gas station and everyday my co-workers complain about rude people talking on their cell phones and how they are just as rude back. The concept confuses me, so I ask them why it is rude, to which question I get a blank stare and a statement - "They were talking on their cell phone!"

Oh, yeah, I remind myself as I slap my forehead for missing the obviousnes of it. I still couldn't figure out what the big deal is. That is, until I saw the other side of it - Two people standing at the counter talking and not paying attention to the clerk. I looked at the clerk and instead of a look of consternation, they were smiling and following the conversation. I then thought back to similar conversations I have had with servers in restaraunts, and the answer became clear.

The complaining clerk/server/patron is doing so because they can't hear the other side of the conversation. Yup, that's right - the person on the cell phone is being rude by not allowing the bystanders the chance to eavesdrop. Seriously. And I got a follow-up confirmation of this when later that day a customer was talking on speaker phone - the clerk had the same smile they did when following the conversation of the two people present. Wow - eavesdropping on conversations that take place around us is so accepted and commonplace that when we are denied the opportunity we vociferously complain about the violator and demand that the means of this obstruction to our voyerism be banned in restaraunts and such.

Ridiculous.

Are we inherently unhappy in relationships?

Well, the title is kind of mis-leading, I just couldn't think of a one-liner for the thoughts in this post. This is more a trail of thoughts in regaurd to "leagues" when it comes to relationships - ie, "That person is out of my league."
What exactly does that mean? Is that person inherently better than you? Smarter? More attractive? More successfull? More to the point, why does it matter? If you are interested in someone, why not just take the chance that they may be interested in you? Is it that we automatically classify potential mates based on a pre-concieved set of criteria, automatically discounting anyone that doesn't match a certain set of superficial qualities?
How do we know that the woman you just snubbed because she wasn't attractive enough to deserve your attention isn't the person that you could love so deeply you couldn't imagine life without her? How about that man that has a job that is beneith your level, how do you know he isn't the kindest, gentlest, most perfect match for you?
When we do find someone that is in our league, are we just settling for something less than we want? Is that beautiful, rich couple really happy that they found each other, or are they together because they look good together and "fit" financially? Are they really happy. How about the overweight average income couple. Do they both feel like they settled for their partner because they couldn't find someone better? Or are they more happy becuase they look past physical appearance and income status to the person underneath and found there someone they could truely love?
I ask this becuase when I look around, I very seldom see attractive/unattractive, rich/poor, or similar couples. People, for the most part, find relationships in their "league" and stay there. But, are they truely happy with who they have found or is there some seed of unhappiness deep down inside that says "I couldn't do any better, so I'll live with it."
Ah well, I don't suppose that one will ever be answered, at least not honestly...

Blog revision

It has been almost a year since I posted last, and a lot has happened that may or may not find its way into this blog.
What I am going to be doing with this blog is hitting a reset on what I present here. Back in mid 2007 when I first decded to start blogging, I wanted to do something where I would express thoughts, frustrations, random thoughts about the country I live in (USA). I kinda de-railed it with the first post, and 99% of the information had nothing to do with the original idea of it.
So, that's why I changed the blog title from "More Mr. Niceguy" where it focused on my life and history to "Immaterial Thoughts" where it will be less about me and more about the world I live in.
Thank you for your time and patience.
Rich

Marriage follow-up

I got a good response to my last post.

"A secular government probably wouldn't...but ours is not a secular government. Consider how much flak Obama has endured because of the comments of his pastor. Or the fact that Mitt Romney never had a chance just because he's Mormon. Or the fact that John Kerry was vilified in the press because he's Roman Catholic. Or the fact that practically all of the 40 something percent of the voting public that stands against legalized abortion does so on religious grounds.I don't think this world has yet seen a truly secularized government. And, frankly, I'm not sure there are a lot of folks who want to."

The examples cited above are the way the public reacts to those things. The government itself was designed specifically to be separate from any church.

All the government should be concerned about is maintaining infrastructure. Unfortunately, it concerns itself with a lot more than that, thanks to voters deciding that their beliefs are what is right for everyone else.

I know it's a pipe dream, but people should allow others to live their lives as they like and only worry about what they do if it endangers others.

Marriage

Ok, so here I am, thinking through what arguements I want to use, doing research on points of view for both sides of the gay marriage arguement. Yadda yadda yadda. Then I realized, there is no point to arguing any of the points, really. A lot of people have done that already - there isn't a lot that I can say in response to those that are going to sway opinions one way or another.

So, I decided that I would skip the arguements altogether and just ask a question:

Why does a secular government see the need to make laws regarding who any consenting adult can marry, as long as taxes are paid by those persons?