Refuted: February 2004 had 28 days

My first post 8 years ago I already took care of. I find most of my posts, at least from that time period, too content-free to dedicate a single refutation post to each. The remainder of February 2004 follows.

dsc00040

Googlebot Prime encourages poor conversation hygiene, makes a fallacious argument that a global price collapse cannot coexist with local price bubbles, and is pathetically credulous about claims Google might be working on “AI”.

Bitzi Bitcollider 0.6.0 with kzhash, video metadata, tiger tree fix, minimal OS X support is refuted by that being the last bitcollider release.

CC Etech BoF points contains the same errors mentioned in my first post and in “Get creative, remix culture” below.

Not Hosting The Grey Album expresses a wish that pure P2P filesharing might be worthwhile relative to the web. Laughable.

Voluntary Collective Licensing complains about the irritating statement “artists and copyright holders deserve to be fairly compensated”, contributing to the problem of lumping “artists” and “© holders” together. And of course artists deserve to be fairly compensated. They get ripped off too often, eg when playing shows. Better commitment services might help. Do artists get a more square deal in societies characterized as “high trust”, eg Scandanavian? Finally, hatred for collective licensing indicates anti-instrumental signaling. If © holders need to be paid off (voluntarily or otherwise), we should be eager to make a deal. As libertarians are responsible for the continuing drug war (through opposition to even regulation and taxation), libertarians are responsible for lack of © reform and deals required to get there.

REGISTER NOW. IT’S FREE AND IT’S REQUIRED. is short but is severely wrong twice. First, that any blog-related annotations could matter. Second, that people, including me, would not “register” at a website in order to read.

Get creative, remix culture re-posts an announcement regarding the Flash source for two short videos, the first under NonCommons terms, the second instantly-dated and touting several unfortunates and confuses “licensed works” with a “movement”. All symptomatic of a small organization trying out lots of ideas or one having no idea what it is doing. As this is a refutation post, clearly we should accept the latter analysis.

Mediachest Theory claims that social networks will or ought provide reputation, collaborative filtering and the like “advanced” services based on one’s social graph. This was a naive request, and one that I’ve made repeatedly over the years, mostly forgetting that I’d already made it. The money is in providing advanced services to the security state and advertisers, not users.

Real world 5emantic 3eb recommended retaining “ugly and potentially redundant RDF-in-HTML-comments”, a gratuitous error.

Posted February 28, each of the 3 Creative Commons Moving Image Contest Winners were only available under NonCommons terms. (Nearly 7 years later the first place winner moved into the commons.)

February 2004 did have 29 days, though this blog provided no evidence of such.

6 Responses

  1. Gordon Mohr says:

    ‘[L]ast bitcollider release’ … so far.

  2. “Last” implies “so far” with decreasing probability of a new release during any time period the greater the distance from the “last” release. I’d be extremely surprised if a reasonable sample of software projects didn’t show this. I wonder what the current record holder (so far) for duration between two releases is, and what that record is? I’ll guess 30 years.

    But yes, that “refutation” is the lamest of a lame lot. I’ll get around to casting aspersions on hashes and the like eventually.

  3. phil barker says:

    I was going to ask when you would start refuting your refutations, but I see you’ve already started :D

  4. [...] More bad ideas from February 2004. [...]

  5. jon phillips says:

    Omg, I need to do a post like this or probably better is to kill more bad projects. I have successfully killed many, a skill I learner well from you Mike. Its healthy!

  6. [...] on a previous refutation post from Phil Barker: I was going to ask when you would start refuting your refutations, but I see you’ve already [...]

Leave a Reply