I've Been Rubber Stamped!

Huh. Google denied my AdSense account because there were "copyrighted materials" on this blog. In their email denying the application, they state,

Hello,As mentioned in our welcome email, we conduct a second review of yourAdSense application once AdSense code is placed on your site(s). As aresult of this review, we have disapproved your account for the followingviolation(s):
Issues:
- Copyrighted Material

Huh. A little further down, they provide a link that explains that the Terms specifically prohibit the use of copyrighted material: 

Google ads may not be displayed on websites with content protected by copyright law unless they have the necessary legal rights to display or direct traffic to that content.

Huh. Last time I checked, if one provides appropriate credit for the source material, and the material is used for educational purposes, then that material falls under the "Fair Use Doctrine." Since I am not selling the content I reference, and since I credit the source material, this ought to be a no-brainer. Fair use affords me the legal right to display that content.

This is what the U.S. Copyright Office says:

Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair. 

1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes 
2. The nature of the copyrighted work 
3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole 
4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work (Taken from http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html)

But, now my mind is tickled by Google's attempts to scan every book in existence, and how they, themselves, have tried very, very hard to violate copyrights, and hilariously, continue to do so. A quick look here will thumbnail how Google's scanning project has run afoul of copyright holders: http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/technolog/whats-next-google-books-124170

This really shouldn't surprise me, since use of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act is frequently used on another Google project, YouTube, to censor speech. In fact, certain YouTubers like VenomFangX have made it their life's mission to censor speech they don't like.

Now, Google's AdSense policy has no beef with links to bittorrents, per se:

Examples*

Acceptable	Not acceptable
Sites offering bittorrent clients (software for downloading torrents) Torrent search sites	Sites that host or directly link to copyrighted content Warez sites ROM sites Sites dedicated to audio or video file downloads Sites that explicitly state the material is pirated

Really? I can post links to search sites (and by extension, links to specific content that exists on that site for the sole purpose of denying copyright holders rights to their content!), but I can't fairly use work that I have properly credited? If that weren't enough, they rub the salt in a little deeper, because Google populates all of their sites with ads, regardless of whether or not contributors to their sites own the content.

In fact, when one realizes that what was so revolutionary about Berners-Lee's invention of the hyperlink, and that the hyperlink itself is fundamental to the power of the internet, for Google to whinge about fairly used and credited source material is beyond hypocrisy. It is dullard stoopit.

Thankfully, the copyright laws allow me to make derivative images of copyrighted materials, and thus, get to own the copyright of the derivative image:

Feel free to use it at will. After all, I own the copyright.

Ethics and Morals and Values! Oh My!

Taken from: http://cdn0.hark.com/images/000/007/895/7895/original.0

Dorothy (and her little dog too!), after heading down the Yellow Brick Road, befriend the Scarecrow, and shortly the three friends enter a foreboding forest. They meet the Tin Man, who warns them about the lions, tigers and bears that await them. Scared, yet undeterred, the three continue on, eventually confronting the Lion...

There is deep metaphor in the Wizard of Oz fable, what with following a narrow path through a troubled forest, fending off challenges, and trying to decide upon right action.

Morality, ethics, and values are similarly disconcerting. We all know that they are things to be reckoned with, but few can really delineate between them. Like Dorothy and her friends, we feel them to be vague concerns that can trip us up, yet we aren’t quite sure what to do when we come face-to-face with them.

Philosophers have worried themselves sick over morals, ethics, and values: I’ll not be able to definitively settle the matter. What I can do is touch upon what they are, how they differ, and why - even if they might be disconcerting in the abstract - like the Lion, they are best as your friend.

There are many flavors of “morals,” even more combinations of “ethics,” and probably as many “values” as the tongue can taste. Are they all equivalent? What shall we make of them? Who gets to decide if a thing is “moral” or not? I have spent quite a bit of time with some of the best society has to offer: Selfless individuals who care more for others than themselves; who protect the weak, comfort the suffering, and defend the frail. I have also spent much time with with the worst: Predators who want only for themselves; who care not one whit for other’s feelings or needs, who take advantage of the weak, inflict suffering, and harm the frail.

What separates The Good from The Evil? How can we honestly decide between the two? Is it always bad to cause harm? Is it always good to seek pleasure? Aren’t there any objective criteria by which we can choose a Path of Righteousness? Must we rely on others to tell us? How do we know we aren’t being tricked or used?

This will be the first in a series of explorations on the lions, tigers, and bears we must address on our trip down the golden highway. To begin, let us start at the beginning...

Words have meaning, and different words not only mean different things to different people, but - perhaps even more importantly - mean different things in different contexts. Let’s try to discover some basic definitions so that we can think clearly about what it is we are talking about.

I tend to take a humanistic - and epistemological - view of morals, ethics, and values. Many platitudes abound: “Morality is what you do when no one else is looking” is a perfect example. This assumes folks know what right action is, and are only going to do it when there is a Watcher, whether the Watcher be a deity, karma, or their own internal Jiminy Cricket. I find such sayings to be decidedly trite and deliberately vague. Does that mean the serial killer who tortures in remote areas is moral? How about the person who, in front of others, escorts an elderly woman across a road? Or the accountant who hides their thefts has behaved ethically? Or the soldier who, in front of his unit, covers a grenade with his own body? Or the minister who by day exhorts against homosexuality, but by night smokes crack with gay prostitutes? Who has true values? Which one acted ethically? Isn’t there a better way than to cross our fingers and hope that people will take right action?

I propose the following definitions: “Moral” behavior consists of actions taken that tend to improve individual and social flourishing. “Ethical” behavior consists of actions that tend to comply with standards of conduct. “Values” are things we hold dear.

These definitions, on the surface, have absolutely nothing to do with each other. Politicians, on the other hand, love to confuse them, because each word has a strong emotional component. By thinking clearly about what each is, we can avoid the traps that emotional confusion sets for us.

Consider this: John Smith is accused of raping and murdering his four year old son. An attorney defends him, and after looking into it, argues that serious errors were made. Smith subsequently is not held accountable for the crime against his child.

Was any of this moral? Ethical? And what can be said of the values involved? Did Smith value his own gratification over his child’s life? Did the Attorney value his client’s rights more than the rights of the Child? What are we to make of this scenario?

The careful reader will raise objections: “Was Smith actually guilty? How can we tell? What was the fact pattern that makes us believe he raped and murdered his child? Did someone else do it, and he’s being scapegoated? Did the Attorney uncover real errors, or were they merely loopholes that he exploited? I deliberately phrased the scenario to a) strike an emotional chord and b) be as vague as possible. My scenario - and your reaction to it - are as much affected by ambiguity as your feelings about police officers, defense attorneys, and the rules of the game.

Therefore, based on the definitions I offered, moral behavior might not be ethical, ethical behavior might not be moral, and values might insert themselves into the emotions we experience when deciding if a behavior consists of right action.

If I act in a way that increases suffering, does that mean that I’ve behaved in an immoral way? What if the suffering I cause tends to limit worse suffering? If the standards of conduct that my actions are compared to decreases suffering, did I behave ethically? What if my actions violate the standards, but lead to worse outcomes? What if my values are conflicted between wanting to behave ethically and morally?

Can anyone ever find a hard and fast rule that will help us determine right action?

The short answer is no. The long answer is yes. This kind of uncertainty is discomfiting to many. Lots of folks just want to know what is right as compared to wrong. As much as we want things to be different though, the world doesn’t work that way.

Now that we’ve discussed the differences between morals, ethics, and values, we’ll discuss in the next post how to use our moral intuition to guide our rational thought process to find the best possible outcomes in ways that satisfy our values. To do that, we need to explore what constitutes a value, where it comes from, and what to do when our values are not internally consistent. Let’s walk into that foreboding forest together in my next post.

Milking the Cash Cow or "The Marvels of The Future"

I've signed up for AdSense to see if a) it is too obtrusive or b) actually makes any money. I figure that by putting it in now, when the blog is still fresh and baby-faced, no one will really care. But I care if you care, so let me know if you think it a wise idea or an ill-considered one. And, if you do not think it the height of folly, then please follow the links. Your link clicks may make the coins clink! (Try saying THAT one ten times fast!)

Also, I'm working on some new posts. Up and coming posts will touch on the difference between ethical and moral behavior (and when it makes sense to sacrifice one for the other), the role of gossip in reinforcing social ties (and how to avoid its toxic side effects), and the power of narrative (it's sometimes even more important to us than food!)

Same Bat-Time, same Bat-Channel...

Taken from: http://mobilecasino.ie/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/cash-cow.jpg

Relationship Hostages

When we aren't skilled in managing conflict, we sometimes get confused between what we want, and what we think is best.

While the parties are trying to work out an agreement, one side (or both!) may think that a credible threat of ruining the relationship will improve the chances for an agreement. Fear of loss is a powerful motivator, and rejection causes us both psychic and physical pain.

Recent research published in PNAS in 2011 shows how brains process rejection, specifically in the somatosensory processing areas like the insula (Kross, Berman, Mischel, Smith, and Wager 2011). Subjects who had recently suffered an unwanted break up were asked to look at a picture of their ex and consider how they felt about it, while being scanned by a functional MRI. The data was then compared to previous fMRI brain scans of subjects who suffered actual physical pain. The overlap is astounding: 88%!

Social rejection causes an experience of actual, literal physical pain in the brains of the jilted.

When one party in conflict threatens to destroy the relationship if an agreement is not reached, they are threatening to physically hurt the other. It’s not any different than threatening to punch someone if they don’t comply with the demands. This hardly counts as ethical, let alone compassionate, behavior. Now, sometimes in conflict, force needs to be used. But not in most conflict, and, as a general rule of thumb, you should titrate your use of force to the least possible amount to achieve the necessary goals. As an example, police officers may have to use overwhelming force to resolve a hostage crisis, yet they should never pepper spray someone just to issue a parking citation.

Everyone reacts with disgust to, and no one trusts, a bully. Yet we admire tough negotiators who are willing to take a risk in order to achieve an agreement. The line can be finely drawn between the two. It all depends on what the risk is. As negotiators, we should consider the context and the goals. When assessing the need for force, are the goals inherently selfish (I want the most benefit regardless of the other’s interests and needs) or are the goals to bring someone to their senses (I want them to sit down and work with me to achieve an objectively fair solution to the problem)?

In interpersonal conflict, taking the relationship hostage is a tried and true method of forcing the other side to do your bidding. Romantic partners will frequently stop communicating when they feel hurt, ranging in tactics from not talking, to being physically cold, to threatening a break up.

Furthermore, if one side folds, the chances that there will be a defection from the agreement increases. It’s hard enough to stay loyal to a fair agreement, it’s even harder when the acquiescing partner feels the agreement isn’t in their interests, and/or feels taken advantage of.

If you don’t love me, I’ll kick you in the groin. Think about it. Does a knee to the nads ever improve a relationship?

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200412/08/eng20041208_166588.html

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Kross, Ethan, Marc Berman, Walter Mischel, Edward Smith, and Tor Wager. "Social rejection shares somatosensory representations with physical pain." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 108.15 (2011): 6270-6275. Web. 17 Sep. 2012. <http://www.pnas.org/content/108/15/6270.full>.