from localhost (jalapeno [127.0.0.1])
	by jmason.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E350116F1C
	for <jm@localhost>; Tue,  1 Oct 2002 10:35:56 +0100 (IST)
from jalapeno [127.0.0.1]
	by localhost with IMAP (fetchmail-5.9.0)
	for jm@localhost (single-drop); Tue, 01 Oct 2002 10:35:56 +0100 (IST)
from dogma.slashnull.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by
    dogma.slashnull.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g91805K15319 for
    <jm@jmason.org>; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 09:00:05 +0100
From rssfeeds@jmason.org  Tue Oct  1 10:36:28 2002

URL: http://diveintomark.org/archives/2002/10/01.html#i_mean_why_not
Date: 2002-10-01T00:06:36-05:00
_Kevin Fanning_: Hallmark vs. Successories[1]. &#8220;At Successories you were
mostly left alone. There'd be brainstorm meetings to come up with new topics to
tackle ("Howsabout 'Diligence'?" "No I think we did that one already, didn't
we?") but mostly you could just hang around, bang away at whatever ideas you
had, show your manager what you were working on, and he/she'd give you
feedback, encouragement, tell you to keep at it, point to the poster of
Stick-to-it-iveness on their wall (Yes, we had our own brand of Successories
posters hanging everywhere. I mean why not.) and give you the thumbs up.&#8221;
[1] http://www.whygodwhy.com/archive/000071.html

from localhost (jalapeno [127.0.0.1])
	by jmason.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97B5116F20
	for <jm@localhost>; Tue,  1 Oct 2002 10:35:58 +0100 (IST)
from jalapeno [127.0.0.1]
	by localhost with IMAP (fetchmail-5.9.0)
	for jm@localhost (single-drop); Tue, 01 Oct 2002 10:35:58 +0100 (IST)
from dogma.slashnull.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by
    dogma.slashnull.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g9180XK15349 for
    <jm@jmason.org>; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 09:00:34 +0100
From rssfeeds@jmason.org  Tue Oct  1 10:36:29 2002

URL: http://boingboing.net/#85506950
Date: Not supplied
Dan Gillmor interviewed Jack Valenti[1] last week in his column and did the
impartial thing, representing Valenti's beliefs as fairly as possible. This
week, Dan takes Valenti's arguments apart, looking at what Hollywood's agenda
really entails:
So the movie and music companies are going back to Congress for another
helping. They are asking for laws that would force technology innovators to
restrict the capabilities of devices -- cripple PCs and other machines that
communicate so they can't make copies the copyright holders don't
explicitly allow. Amazingly, the entertainment industry also wants
permission to hack into networks and machines they believe are being used
to violate copyrights.
Here is what it all means. To protect a business model and thwart even the
possibility of infringement, the cartel wants technology companies to ask
permission before they can innovate. The media giants want to keep
information flow centralized, to control the new medium as if it's nothing
but a jazzed-up television. Instead of accepting, as they do today, that a
certain amount of penny-ante infringement will occur and then going after
the major-league pirates, they call every act of infringement -- and some
things that aren't infringement at all -- an act of piracy or stealing.
Saying it doesn't make it so.
Link[2] Discuss[3]
[1] http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/business/columnists/dan_gillmor/4132447.htm
[2] http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/4175607.htm
[3] http://www.quicktopic.com/boing/H/WDUVXyKf9qUj