Ironman: whose ideas are they anyways?

"Do you think that if you have an idea, it belongs to you? Your father gave us the atomic bomb; where would we be if he was as selfish as you?"says Obidiah Stein to Tony Stark in a pivotal scene in Ironman.

It struck me as a very good question; and a relevant one. How it's answered, determines if the society is open or closed. In fact, there's a controversy in the real world precisely on this subject. A lot of technological companies through their EULAs with respect to their products and services bluntly arrogate their customers' ideas and content as their property by the sole fact of using those services and products.

Totalitarianism need not be either political or religious, it can also be commercial. Personally, I regard the whole premise so ludicrous that it needs to be challenged not only societically and legally but also through mockery in the vein of :the-emperor-has-no-clothes laughter. Moreover, the fact that many companies resort to such subterfuge indicates a corporate and sectorial culture is progressively inimical to free circulation of ideas and discourse

More interested in protecting what they have rather than engaging in conditions to foster new ideas. Just look at the RIAA and MPAA 's obsessive pursuit of file down loaders rather than nurture new musical and movie talent or ideas. The result have been progressively formulaic becoming increasingly mediocre

They grab ideas that belong to those that use their products and services so as to find the next great product/service/idea. So do ideas belong to those that think of them? Of course, but it's not exclusive; after all even copyright has an expiry date. More importantly, ideas can be changed due to a person rethinking them or because they've been critically assessed by others requiring further refinement.

Ideas are the ferment; leaving people alone to purse, abandon, modify, think about ideas are the brew. There's no one way to flavour beer even if the fermentation is identical.

Sobre Birmà i Xina: Dues maneres a confrontar un desastre

Fa setmanes que escoltem les noticies sobres els desastres que Birmà i Xina han soferts. A Birmà, la junta ha gairebé ignorat el desastre; no ni havia prorrogat el referèndum sobre la nova constitució que atrinxeria els militars per a sempre.

A més, els generals per la seva paranoia i xenofòbia accepten l'ajuda material però no pas els experts. La raó es bastant obvia, si els birmanesos entressin en contacte amb estrangers i es posarien a parlar, la gent es revoltarien de nou per que es donarien compte que els estrangers no son tan mals com el regim ha pretès durant dècades sinó son bona gent que realment volen donar un cop de mà. No descuidem que fa alguns mesos que la junta suprimí amb prou feines la revolta dels monjos budistes.

Per contrast, al moment que el Partit comunista ha conegut l'extensa de la catàstrofe, el primer ministre ja volava al poble veí per dirigir els esforços de rescatament. També el regim ha mobilitzat uns 50 000 soldats i accepta l'ajuda internacional; en fet, el regim ha fet una crida que la població per donar pales, botes i altre equipament que escassegen al epicentre.

Molts periodistes comenten que es insòlit com el règim mostra tanta transparència i francesa; però suposo que ell nodreix un esperit de solidaritat a través aquesta crisi. La resposta vigorosa es deu òbviament per la crisi de la tempestat de neu durant l'Any nou xinès que el règim reaccionà lentament a la magnitud de la situació.

La gran raó per la diferència entre ambdós països se centra a la legitimitat. El partit comunista ho té; la junta ho manca