Wednesday, June 22, 2005
Google's Print for Library program
It is a thought worth thinking but not actually taking seriously about the internet and computers taking over. Is it possible that we can live in a world where there are no books pencils and pens and everything is placed on a computer? If the answer to that question is yes, it is strange for how that will come about. Like anything about the so called virtual world trying to take over we are face with the difficult task of it coming to grips with the usual politics that it has to endure and the trade offs and the way we define the next economic structure.
Here is something interesting to look at. In the June 6, 2005 issue of Business Week in an article written by Burt Helm and Hardy Grove on page 42 titled "Intellectual Property: Google This:'Copyright Laws'" the authors discusses about Google new plans and adventure to scan entire books that might come into conflict with certain copywright laws. According to the authors, already five universities and other libraries including Harvard, Stanfor, Oxford, Michigan and the New York Public Library has already sent in books to be scanned. The endeavor is known as the 'Print for Libraries' program.
Here is something interesting to look at. In the June 6, 2005 issue of Business Week in an article written by Burt Helm and Hardy Grove on page 42 titled "Intellectual Property: Google This:'Copyright Laws'" the authors discusses about Google new plans and adventure to scan entire books that might come into conflict with certain copywright laws. According to the authors, already five universities and other libraries including Harvard, Stanfor, Oxford, Michigan and the New York Public Library has already sent in books to be scanned. The endeavor is known as the 'Print for Libraries' program.
Wednesday, June 08, 2005
The recent Supreme Court ruling on marijuana
According to the recent decision in the case Gonzales v. Raich state laws does not protect those from being prosecuted from federal law when it comes to growing and using medicianl marijuana even from extreme sick cases such as cancer, HIV/AIDS, glaucoma or otherwise life threatening disease. Under the Supreme Court guidelines the use and involvement of marijuana comes under 'interstate commerce' and hence under the realm and authority of the federal government. Why if there is ever such as ruling has to be in the dissenting arguements in which case no one would argue or even expect to have any meaning any more in American politics-states rights. It was the same reasoning that Southern segregationist used to challenge the overturning of Jim Crow laws. Whatever the case maybe states as I understand it was never meant to have any decisive claim on the politics of American constitution. The debate over who gets what as far as claims of a federal or national authority over local and state jurisdiction ended when the civil war 'ended' and the passage of the 13th, 14th and 15th amendment. Liberals in the early part of the 20th Century saw very little in ascertaining state's right but saw state institutions as a forums and mean or what some one would say experiments in garnering national reforms but in any event times have change and that type of thinking as we see with some of the Orwellian reform these days such as the abolition of affirmative action in California or the new wave of social engineering by turning society virtually into a prison makes little sense for the court these days to take seriously these off the wall reform in medicinal marijuana on state level. If anything such legislation recognized by a dozen or so states are nothing but power politicking of the habits and mores of the 1960s ,a fetish if you may so call it. I don't see nothing wrong with legalizing marijuana which at any rate is just two different things--one's view on drug legalization and the rule of law in pertinence to the recent court decision. In fact it would be a very well policy for drugs and narcotics to be legalized. There are many arguements in the way for this one of them is to cut down terrorism as I agree with any one who would argue this point, the second to reduce the incarceration rate and make laws a little bit fairer and thirdly to make a society like the US more laid back and a great country to be in.
Wednesday, June 01, 2005
Here is an interesting link that you can take a look at
