Daniel Drezner writes about Eugene Volokh's post about how intellectual property is not so different from tangible property.#

The relevant Eugene quote,

The theory of intellectual property is... that giving people the right to exclude others from new works or inventions will give people an incentive to invest effort in creating and inventing. We would have less legal freedom of action -- you'll be more limited in what you can do in your own office or garage -- but we'd have more wealth, because there'll be a lot more works and inventions, albeit ones that it may cost you money to use.

Daniel's thoughts,

What Eugene failed to mention is what makes the conferral of intellectual property rights so difficult: the credible commitment problem.

Before a concept comes into existence, the incentive created by intellectual property rights is very strong. After a concept is invented, critics are correct in saying that society would be better off if those rights were revoked. Hence the need for a credible commitment, in the form of legal protections, to assure innovators that their intellectual efforts will yield tangible rewards.

Another Good Blog with no RSS feed. :( Via John Palfrey.#

Lance Arthur writes some of the best stuff I read,#

Anyway, what I'm thinking is that there should be a quick and easy way for two guys (or, I suppose, two gals) to signal mutual interest, or at least mutual "hey, if anyone starts to hassle you, I am totally on your side and together we'll be gay superheroes." Some hand signal or something. But as I thought about that, the less sense it made.

Because one intention here is that if you made the signal at the wrong person, it would need to be easily ignored or misinterpreted as, like, something anyone might do, right? Because otherwise it becomes like any other obvious and potentially dangerous gesture like, oh, rubbing your crotch with your right hand and pinching your nipple with your left and sticking out your tongue and making moaning sounds as you simultaneously wiggle your eyebrows and wink. So it has to be subtle, yet obvious.

Dan Cederholm is very funny.#

A few days ago I brought a banana with me to work and subsequently forgot that it was in my bag. Later, when I rediscovered it on the way home, I had a funny thought. What if I pretended to talk into the banana like I was on a cell phone while walking through the train station. A real conversation — and something possibly a bit louder than normal, [...] The key is to make it a legimate conversation without cracking a smile. I didn't actually try it, of course. I guess you'd have to be there.

Don Park responds to the very interesting NYT Article about the effects of Buddhist meditation.#

Don Park on the biological residue of meditation,

I believe that every action one takes, everything one sees, hear, smell and touch, every word one utters, and every thought one has changes us in body and mind. Hit someone in the face once, you change. Read Koran or Bible, you change. Look at a flower, you change. Everything changes us, but meditation can affect one as strongly as trauma or life long abuse can. Powerful stuff.

I think the research is a Good Thing because people will finally learn the real benefits as well as dangers of meditation.

Moxie doesn't understand all the trends of these kids,#

You know you are getting old when it's difficult to distinguish the latest and greatest men's cologne from simple but obvious body odor.

After conversing with a seemingly well groomed gentleman last weekend, I asked Smart Sara — was that cologne or deodorant-failure?

She wasn't sure either.

Tony Pierce got to interview George Bush!#

hi mr. president.

hi tony, thanks for granting me this interview.

but of course. what made you decide on doing this now, and with me?

well, my approval rating has dropped 40 points since two years ago and only the elderly watch larry king, so i figured i better start working on getting re-elected with the young people as soon as asap.

Tom Coates wonders who's fault the Flash/Plugin patent problem is.#

So what about all of those companies that have built sites using Flash in good faith? Who do they get to take to court? Could they sue Microsoft? I'm imagining they won't have that opportunity. It seems to me that means thousands of companies spending millions of dollars in rebuilding and future-proofing and an internet that's less accessible and useful than it was before. I just wish I had a better sense of whose fault it was? Is it Microsoft for breaking the rules, Eolas for pushing their patent or the patent system itself?

Tom Coates isn't about the traffic,#

Of course if all I cared about was traffic, then I wouldn't have bothered. I would have let my rhetoric fly free and wild. Facts? What facts! Logic? Who cares! I'd have stripped myself of the constraints of society (Arguing fairly - pah! Accepting when you're wrong - how retro! Looking to learn through debate rather than win through debate - ludicrous!) like I was shedding clothing, and I'd have run naked screaming through the fields of cheap attack, jingoism and name-calling! Who cares what I'm saying as long as it has the effect I desire? Who cares what tactics I use to get my point across? A win by a technicality - or a win by cheating - is still a win godammit...

If all I cared about was traffic, I'd write like James Lileks. I'd talk to people's guts, I'd talk to their pain. I'd do whatever I could to avoid their ears and their minds. Because otherwise how would I be able to argue that being the victim of a terrorist atrocity automatically made every decision of a country - past, present and future - purer than the driven snow...? How else would I be able to argue that the only response that would be unreasonable would be atomic war...? How else would I be able to argue that anyone who even questioned this position hated humanity and was insulting the families of victims?