I received a warning when I logged into my YouTube account recently. I had openly and with attribution used a couple of popular tunes in some of my videos. Those have been flagged as violations of copyrights, my account to be reviewed, and the videos may be pulled, or my account suspended. Meanwhile, those videos sport pop-up ads to buy the tunes.
The two offending videos use tunes that had their heydays in the 1930's and 1970's. Even the children of the original creator and performer of the older tune are all dead. Is it right that some corporation is making a fuss over my sharing this with a few friends? There have been less than 75 views in the year since it's been posted.
I see no reason to fight this. I'd be quite content to have ads pop up for the tunes I use. I even wish there were a mechanism in place to request ads to pay for use of related content. It's not so much that I like ads, but that I respect content creators. But I don't respect any right in perpetuity for corporations to hold creative rights once a creator and his direct heirs are out of the picture. Like McCartney having to pay the estate of Michael Jackson to use his own songs.
Payday loans are high-interest short-term unsecured small loans that borrowers promise to repay out of their next paycheck, typically two weeks later. Interest rates are typically 300% to 500% per annum, many multiples higher than the exorbitant rates charged by banks on their credit cards. A typical payday borrower takes out payday loans to pay utility bills, to buy a child’s birthday present or to pay for a car repair. Even though payday loans are dangerous financial products, they are nonetheless tempting to people who are financially stressed. The growth of payday lenders in the last decade has been mind-boggling. In many states there are more payday lenders than there are McDonald’s restaurants. In Missouri Payday lenders are even allowed to set up shops in nursing homes.
Missouri’s payday lenders are ferociously fighting a proposed new law that would put some sanity into a system that is often financially ruinous for the poor and working poor. Payday lenders claim that the caps of the proposed new law would put them out of business. Their argument is laughable and their legislative strategy is reprehensible.
Exhibit A is the strategy I witnessed Thursday night, February 18, 2010. On that night, Missouri State Senator Joe Keaveny and State Representative Mary Still jointly held a public hearing at the Carpenter Branch Library in the City of St. Louis City to discuss two identical bills (SB 811 and HB 1508) that would temper the excesses of the payday loan industry in Missouri. Instead of respecting free and open debate and discussion regarding these bills, payday lenders worked hard to shut down meaningful debate by intentionally packing the legislative hearing room with their employees, thereby guaranteeing that A) the presenters and media saw an audience that seemed to favor payday lenders and B) many concerned citizens were excluded from the meeting. As discussed further down in this post, payday lenders are also responsible for flooding the State Capitol with lobbyists and corrupting amounts of money.
When I arrived at 7:00 pm, the scheduled starting time, I was refused entry to the meeting room. Instead, I was directed to join about 15 other concerned citizens who had been barred from the meeting room. There simply wasn’t room for us. But then who were those 100 people who had been allowed to attend the meeting? I eventually learned that almost all of them were employees of payday lenders; their employers had arranged for them to pack the room by arriving en masse at 6 pm.
Many of the people excluded from the meeting were eventually allowed to trickle into the meeting, but only as other people trickled out. I was finally allowed into the meeting at 8 pm, which allowed me to catch the final 30 minutes. In the photo below, almost all of the people plopped into the chairs were payday lender employees (the people standing in the back were concerned citizens). This shameful tactic of filling up the meeting room with biased employees has certainly been used before.
In this terrifically engaging and accessible video interview, Daniel Dennett (talking with Richard Dawkins) explains his view that Darwin's idea was the greatest idea ever. Dennett, who authored Darwin's Dangerous Idea explains that natural selection unified the world of mechanism/material/physical and the world of meaning/purpose/goals which, until Darwin, seemed to be unbridgeable.
Many people feel that Darwin's idea destroyed their sense of meaning, but Dennett argues that this "immaterial immortal soul" is a "crutch," and that Darwin replaced that idea with that of a "material mortal soul." Dennett describes our material souls as made of neurons. "They are blind little bio-robots . . . They don't know; they don't care; they are just doing their jobs." If you put enough of these simple little bio-robots together, you end up with a soul. Out of these little bio-robots, you can assemble the control system of a complex organism. Simple little parts can self-organize into sentient being that can "look into the future . . . because we can imagine the world in a better way, and we can hold each other responsible for that."
There's no need to assume that a God implants any sort of soul. Rather, according to Dennett, a functional soul can "emerge" from soul-less little individual parts. The simple little parts don't need to exhibit the functions and abilities of the assembled groups of parts, but this illusory jump is a huge stumbling block for many theists. They wonder how you can "make a living thing out of dead stuff," but that is exactly what happens, "and that's the wonder of it." Science has also shown that you can also "make a conscious thing out of unconscious stuff."
Over great periods of time, natural processes can constitute the design function that allows these incredible results we see in the world. It is not necessary that complex things need to be created by even more complex things. Darwin's ideas destroyed this misconception and "this is a really stunning fact. Purpose can emerge from the bottom up." The brain itself is a fast-paced evolutionary device; the learning process is a matter of generation and testing and pruning, over and over.
Dawkins asks Dennett to explain further how "cranes" (simple natural processes) can really account for the wonderful complexity of life in the absence of "sky-hooks" (supernatural beings). You could argue that our planet has grown a nervous system and it's us. The above summarizes only the first ten minutes of the fifty-minute interview.
Numerous other topics are discussed in the video, including the following:
- Modern wars and strife constitute growing pains resulting from our being flooded with great amounts of information about each other. (15:00)
- Cultural evolution clearly exists. Languages and musical ideas evolve, for example, without anyone initially consciously "laying down the law."
- Dennett's recent brush with death (his aorta suddenly burst), resulting in many intriguing observations (21:00), including a deepened understanding of the phrase "thank goodness." You can put goodness back into the world, "and you don't need a middleman" (God). You can directly thank the doctors, nurses and medical journalists, the peer reviewers and the entire scientific enterprise that allows elaborate cures such as artificial aortas. According to Dennett, don't bother thanking God, "go plant a tree, go try to teach somebody something . . . let's make the world better for our children and our grandchildren."
- Dennett elaborates on being part of this elaborate social and scientific fabric, this complex exploratory process. He finds this view much more inspiring that the idea that he is "a doll made by God . . . to pray to him." (24:00)
- The scientific process is double-edged, exacerbated by the Internet. We can't tightly control this information, and their effects might be detrimental. We need to think "epidemiologically" about this possibility, and to better prepare people to deal with the ideas gone awry to protect them. (26:00) Knowledge can be a "painful process," yet we need to honor other people to make their own considered decisions.
- Darwin offers some consolation regarding our impending deaths: that they had the opportunity to walk on this planet "for awhile." (29:00) Dawkins adds that it is a huge privilege to have been born, in that "you are lucky to have had anything at all . . . stop moaning." Dennett adds that we are not aghast at the thought that there were many years that passed before we were born when we were also not alive . . . it shouldn't bother us that we will someday again no longer be alive. Our grief at someone's death is a measure of how wonderful someone was.
- The urge to thank someone for the many good things in one's life is a great temptation for believing in God. (33:00). Dawkins argues that contemplating that amazing process that gave rise to you "is better than thanking because it is a thoughtful thing to do . . . You're not just thanking your Sky-Daddy." He argues that the urge to thank should be "sublimated" into the drive to understand how it all happened. Atheists, too, can feel the sense of "awe." Dennett exclaims, "Hallelujah! It's just spectacular. It's so wonderful! The universe is fantastic!" Dawkins adds, "Hallelujah for the universe and for the fact that we . . . are working on understanding it."
This June 2009 video is uncut; it is the full Dennett interview by Richard Dawkins. Parts of this interview were used in a British television documentary entitled "The Genius of Charles Darwin."
We have previously posted regarding the latest reprint of Darwin's "The Origin of Species", by Ray Comfort. If you don't know about it, it has a 50 page forward full of untruths, confusion, and misdirection in an attempt to discredit the original text that follows. Yes, he's trying to use Darwin to discredit 200 years of thoroughly tested evolutionary biology.
Unfortunately, Amazon.com reviews and ratings confuse it with another (reputable) reprint by the same name, as discussed in detail here:
Youtube was supposed to be one of Web 2.0's shining examples of user-generated original content. In a world (in 2005) when everything worthwhile was already online and fully consumed, Youtube was supposed to provide us with a new outlet to both create and consume. I know it is hard to recall Youtube's original intent as a creative landscape, but keep in mind that the site's slogan was and is "Broadcast Yourself".
Most of us don't broadcast ourselves, or watch broadcasts of other selves. The last time I fired up Youtube, I was looking for a free way to stream James and the Giant Peach. Any cute skits or beautiful shorts I discovered thereafter were barely bonuses; they were just tasty little incidentals to be quickly forgotten. Most people go to Youtube to view unoriginal creations- movie, TV and music clips or mashups thereof.
Youtube's most viewed videos of all time are music videos like "7 Things" by Miley Cyrus and Rihanna's "Don't Stop the Music". My little sister uses Youtube as a combination DVR-Itunes-Pandora player. Nothing original seeps in unless I send it to her myself- and then it's usually just a video of a cute animal, not a creative work.
Ah, but Youtube does have some high-caliber producers of original goodies! People who put on elaborate comedy skits with costumes, professional lighting and substantial editing. People who pull in millions of views. People with whom Youtube has formed profitable, advertising-driven partnerships. These people are broadcasting themselves. But they aren't like "us". They are all from Hollywood.
Hello, I invite you to subscribe to Dangerous Intersection by entering your email below. You will have the option to receive emails notifying you of new posts once per week or more often.
