This poor guy got hit with a $180,000,000.00 fine for trying to build a device that would intercept and decrypt digital satellite television broadcasts. He didn't succeed, but the industry predicted they would have lost loads of money had he done so, and the courts then punished him according to that formula. I'll repeat that: no theft occured, a working device was never built, yet this guy has to pay for the potential losses according to a formula set by industry itself.
The whole idea of losses to electronic theft is questionable. If someone steals a book or a car from a dealer, that is an unquestionable loss. But theft of electronic media isn't lossy theft, its just unauthorized duplication or access. So now losses are defined as income they didn't receieve for the disbursement of their product. In the case of the car or book theft, the product is now missing and thus the seller loses the chance to sell it. But with eletronic theft, the original is still there. If someone pirates a satellite feed, it doesn't impinge on the service to everyone else. It costs the company the same amount of money to broadcast the signal regardless of how many subscribers or pirates are tuning in.
The article linked above mentions that the industry currently loses $4,000,000,000 a year to the 3,000,000 or so people who use illegal devices to unscramble subscription satellite signals. This calculation is questionable from the start if you try to break it down: for 3 million people to provide 4 billlion in income, each person would have to subscribe to $1000 in services a year. I don't know anyone who pays that much. Even if I were to get the complete satellite package offered by SkyPerfect! here in Japan, its only about $65/ month, or just under $800/ year.
The broadcasters must be calculating these "losses" by summing up the subscription cost of each channel independently instead of calculating prices as if sold in a discounted package set. That's just weak.
But even before we get to this point, we need to consider if these are actually losses. It's only a loss if the people stealing the broadcast would pay for it under normal circumstances but are stealing it. If the people stealing the feed wouldn't subscribe to the service if there was no theft-enabling devices available, the streams they steal shouldn't be considered losses. I'm not suggesting that the industry just accept this or that people who can't afford satellite should be condoned for stealing it, but at the same time, you can't honestly say that the industry would be $4,000,000,000 richer if the hotboxes hadn't been built.
This is kind of what is so stupid about the RIAA's current MO of charging downloaders $350,000 per downloaded song, seeking to punish thieves and copyright violations. Only thing is that most of the stuff downloaded by people wouldn't have been bought anyway, so how can it be losses?
Here is a great article exploring how movie studios have come to recognize the power and utility of fan websites. In the early days of the internet, fan sites were typically smacked down with cease and desist letters (which seems to me to be the mark of doing something right) but now many fan sites are getting tacit and explicit support from directors and movie producers.
This is significant. Denizens of the the internet have long known that the free flow of information is a good thing, even when it may at first glance appear to be detrimental to a product or issue that relies on profit taking. The RIAA's brain-dead approach to dealing with online music sharing indicates what happens when a body gets trapped in the latter manner of thinking. And since CD sales are down, they have a data set they can flout to support their argument.
What is missing from this equation is a recognition that during Napster's heyday, before they got sued, music sales were going up and up annually. Napster was big, and so was sales. Then the music industry started bullying people around and sales tanked. No, I'm not saying that is the sole reason, but I'm fairly confident it was a significant factor. Add in such facts as a downturn in the US economy, the growing popularity of DVDs, the resistance of music producers to reduce prices, the smaller number of titles released by music studios, and an uninspiring line-up of new artists built on the same mold used in the last decade, and the contribution of freely available music files begins to look less malignant. Undoubtedly there are theives who steal music just for the sake of it, but most online music trading isn't done in the spirit of theft or something for nothing. It seems to me that it was more indicative of a public that loves music. Too bad the RIAA didn't see it that way.
Etree is a good example of what happens when musicians embrace free music. Thousands of bands allow fans to tape their live performances and trade them freely (they stipulate no commercial use). This enamors fans to the bands and helps to generate interest. I have abotu 500 live concerts, maybe 50 different artists. Of that list, I had only heard of and listened to maybe 7 or 8 of the artists; etree exposed to me to so much more great stuff. Now I listen to these bands, buy their gear and albums, go to their shows. Free exposure works.
Another good example of how freely available information doesn't have to hurt the economics of distribution. The Matrix: Reloaded was available for download via BitTorrent prior to its release, and lots and lots of people downloaded it. But it still did very very well at the box office, didn't it?
As unintuitive as it seems, the more open we can keep the internet and society, the more robust and healthy it will be.
And that's a good thing.
Here is a neat little bit about the conspiracy to get us to eat soy and soy products as healthy foods when in fact soya is nutritionally unsounds, perhaps poisonous, and gives you bitch tits (well, only if you are a man. Not sure what it does to women).
The truth behind soya aside, I find it fascinating that each side can convince itself of its own propositions. When are we going to realize that we don't believe in stuff according to external inputs as much as we believe what we want to believe, even insofar as we have to manufacture an entire conspiracy system (or public health benefit) to make it work. Gotta love that human brain.
Gender.
A seemingly innocent notion ascribed to the sexes. It's often confused as a biological plumbing issue with male gendered penises and female gendered vaginas. We have societal ideas about what kinds of behaviors are appropriate for those with the corresponding pipes and outlets and think of those who don't fit these rules as "gender benders."
There is so much incredible research going on right now that explores all different aspects of the human condition from the notion of self-awareness to free will to sexual identity and the basis for behavior. Those paying attention know that questions of nature vs nurture are outdated, as the two forces with the potential to shape us are not exclusive nor competitve.
But the really stunning stuff deals with molecular biology, especially neurology. We are learning more and more about how the body works on a molecular level, which means we can identify cellular processes that manifest in all sorts of ways, from heart disease to the relationships between twins. What's particularly amazing is that once you delve this deep, things begin to look simply mechanical. The homunculus disappears.
We are getting a deeper understanding of how the brain works. We've got good models for understanding the physical and psychological evolution of humanity. It's exciting stuff.
But back to gender. People tend to think of gender as a kind of identity built on the foundation of the physical structure of our reproductive organs. It's really not that simple. Much of the behavior that we associate with males and females varies between sexes with regard to variables with different distributions between the sexes. For example, female infants are more likely to gaze at human faces longer than male infants, but if you look within each sex, we find that female infants with higher levels of intrauterine testosterone gaze at human faces for a shorter time than females who weren't exposed to as much testosterone as a fetus. So it isn't just a reproductive organ thing happening here. Neat, eh?
What's even more cool, in my opinion, is that although we can trace a lot of behavior and development to particular hormones and whatnot, we also find that particular behavioral traits arise in opposite patterns when opposite patterns of say, child care, occur in a species. The example here is male seahorses. Male seahorses gestate fertilized eggs and give birth, and researchers have found that, especially with regard to reproductive patterns, male seahorses behave like females in most other species and vice versa. What this means is that it isn't a male/female issue as much as it is a reproductive role related issue.
There isn't any rule book that says males must act a particular way or that lays down a particular code for female behavior. Rather, over generations of evolution, species have settled into ways of interacting that provide them with the best opportunities for perpetuation of their genetic lot. There may be infinite strategies within this field of opportunities, but there are only a finite number of successful ones. And those develop without regard to penises and vaginas.
It's so wonderful when I get to write something positive here. A couple of congressmen have agree to sponsor the Public Domain Enhancement Act, also dubbed the the Eric Eldred Act after the guy who got the whole issue of the problem of copyright into the courts and thus public consciousness. Essentially what this bill does is rectify the current problem with our atrocious copyright laws. As it stands, copyright lasts for 70 past the death of the author and for 90 years in the case of corporate copyright holders. The reason this lengthy copyright was established was to preserve the monopoly on information that copyright offers and allows copyright holders to financially capitalize on their works.
The problem is that only a tiny percent of copyrighted works are financially viable. This means that literally hundred's of thousands of copyrighted materials are locked away from the public. This is undesirable because it squanders the fruits of our collective intellectual labors. It's especially bothersome with regard to early film and audio recordings that languish on decaying media and will be unrecoverable by the time the copyright on them expires (assuming no more extensions).
This argument for relinquishing ideas and information to the public domain isn't about piracy or trying to profit from other people's work. It strikes to the fundamental core of what it means to be a cultural species: our success, in biological and technological terms, can be solely attributed to our capacity for building on the ideas, work, and overall progress of our predecessors, like a ratchet. When ideas are locked away, there are no shoulders of giants to stand upon.
The Public Domain Enhancement Act fixes this problem by setting copyright to 50 years for all works. After that, those that want to maintain their copyright have to pay a very small tax, like $1 a year. This allows even the littlest person to keep their own copyright if they wish. If this copyright extension fee isn't paid for three years in a row, the copyrighted work then passes into the public domain for perpetuity.
I think this is perfect. Those big dogs who want to keep their copyright can, but the majority of work, for much of which the actual copyright holder is unknown, can pass into the public domain to serve as a springboard for further innovation or just plain exposure.
Of course there are other copyright alternatives for those who are aware of the benefits of free flowing information, as intuitive as it seems sometimes. The content of this site, for example, is copyrighted under the terms of a Creative Commons license and is intended to provide my thoughts, ideas, and knowledge for you to build on. All I ask is that you give me credit for the things I say (as I try to give credit to those who say the things I talk about) and that you don't use my stuff to profit from (as if you could). By making it legal for others to use my copyrighted material, I not only enhance my exposure to others but provide a point of progress for others to build on. We can only improve as a result.
I just hope this bill passes. I can't see any reason why it wouldn't, but who knows what kind of FUD Congress will buy into.
I suspect I'm probably not alone in harboring a less-than-flattering image of librarians. Not that I think they are evil or mean, but its just that librarians are typically old women who like to bust kids' chops for talking or having candy in the library. I've never really considered them as defenders of our nation, but I'm beginning to realize that is exactly what many of them are.
Libraries are neat. One of my proudest possessions (beyond my nearly complete collection of Bionicle) is my personal library. I have a lot of good books and music that offer serious enrichment to a person, and real libraries are uh, way better, for lack of an appropriate descriptor.
The sad thing is that the wonder that is a library is under attack by, yup, you guessed it, the United States government and a bunch of well-intentioned imbeciles who are leading us down the highway of ruin. A long time ago, someone (I don't know who, actually, but I know it was a politician in DC) tried to force libraries to install internet filtering software on all of their public computers in order to protect and "think of the children!" or risk losing funding. Librarians stood up to that and refused, winning appeals and generally making good sense in their argument that filters restrict free speech and not only block out naughty sites like Stile Project and the White House sex pages, but also useful health sites dealing with sex, venereal disease, pregnancy, and pathological anal stimulation.
Sadly, the Supreme Court struck down their challenge to the law, ruling that it is constitutional to tie funding to public libraries to their willingness to install filtering software. They seem to think that the inclusion of an opt-out provision in the law whereby a library patron can ask a librarian to unblock a censored website makes it all okay. If I was trying to figure out what the green ooze I found in my underwear was, I sure wouldn't want to draw attention to the fact that I was researching it. It just shows that the SC justices still believe that we are total idiots. If they can corrupt and pre-empt the election of a US president without the nation getting upset, there is no reason to expect them to uphold a lot of the other notions that my country used to stand for either, I suppose.
But there are librarians out there not willing to give up the fight for the purpose of libraries. This Lancaster, Ohio library has decided that it will forgo $9,000 in funding and continue to provide unfettered access to the internet. Although that is but a small portion of their $3,000,000 budget, it still isn't chump change. Power to them, and all other libraries!
I always end up writing so much more than I intend to. I also wanted to mention that the PATRIOT Act gives the FBI the power to check your activity at a library but the librarians cannot legally tell you that you have been investigated. Slashdot links #1 and #2, as well as some general info on the FBI and privacy from EPIC.org.
However, some librarians have put up signs indicating that the FBI may be checking your records in their library but they can't tell you about it. A real nice form of resistance. I couldn't find the link though. Will maybe try later.
Anyway, the whole point of this is that librarians = good. I go slep now.
i was wondering about something the other day....
It seems like many of the anti-abortion people in the US are also politically conservative. This may be a misperception, of course, and I'm known for making those all over the place on this blog. But if it is true, there seems to be a major inconsistency, and I wonder if they are aware of it.
They claim to be opposed to abortion out of their belief in the sanctity of life and their concern for the welfare of the child. I can accept this, and see quite a bit of validity in their position. I actually agree with most of their beliefs about life and personhood, just diverge with what they are saying when it comes to the part where they insist that everyone else should be forced into living their life under their rules and perceptions. But that isn't the point I'm trying to make here, and I don't want to get distracted.
The conflict comes in when the conservative agenda of cutting government support for the poor. No, not all mothers who seek abortions are poor and not all poor mothers seek abortions. But some women do seek abortions precisely because they do not feel that they are capable, either emotionally or financially, to care for the child in the manner in which they think is needed. Having a baby would disrupt their livelihood and contribute to a pathetic life for both of them.
If abortion opponents are so concerned about the health and welfare of mom's and babies, why aren't they greater defenders of welfare benefits for them? Where are the child-care programs that enable single parents (or dual-income, for that matter) to work enough to provide for family, secure in the knowledge that their kids are taken care of in healthy environments?
I'm a lefty dipshit sometimes, I know this, but I also know that we have a crisis going on (more than one, actually) with childcare right now. Humans need to be taken care as children, and not just in the 3-hots-and-a-cot sense. They need active engagement in a stimulating social evironment full of affections. Our brains respond to mirror the environment, and if kids grow up in lonely crappy environments, they will grow up to be crappy adults.
I've gotten off-track, again. The point I was wondering about though was how can conservative anti-abortion people reconcile the proposed outlawing of abortions while opposing social support to mother's and families? It seems that if they truly cared about the health and wellbeing of the people involved in a potential abortion, they'd want to do what they can to help them succeed in a difficult, and often unplanned, situation.
But I guess claiming to be opposed to abortion on moral grounds vis a vis the sanctity of life is easier than admitting that they don't really care about human welfare and wellbeing and that you just want people to live by your moral code. And that is a fine way to be I guess, except when you live in what is supposedly the freest country on earth.
I was listening to James Burke today on my way home and he pointed out that the modern embracing of change and instability is exactly that, a modern invention. Historically, indeed up until little more than 100 years ago (perhaps your grandfather's grandfather's era, if you are my age), a person died in pretty much the same world they were born in. Even such famous keyframes in human history, like the Protestant schism or the Copernican revolution, actually took quite a few years to sink in. Even the impace of Columbus's introduction of the New World to Europe really didn't get felt by most people for quite a while (unless you were one of the Native Americans who suddenly died from an exotic disease, I suppose).
But with the Industrial Revolution, things really began to take off, going faster every day. We've become so accustomed to changed, we've built our economy on planned obsolescence of the most powerful machines we've ever built and advertisers entice us with ads such as "Beautiful because its new." If it isn't cutting edge, we dont' want it. "It's so 80s" became "It's so last century" became "It's so last year." Retro used to mean a generation or earlier, but now you can go retro by wearing your high school fashions at your college graduation.
I wonder if we've become blinded by the new and shiny waiting on the horizon though. We've come to accept, check that, expect things to not last that we no longer manufacture anything of quality. We've turned into a disposable society in so many ways, with so many associated drawbacks that I don't really intend to go into here. Obviously though, without a quality and efficient system of recycling, we just eat up our resources faster and faster this way as well, ever accelerating down the roadway to an ecological collapse.
But redemption is ours for the taking, and it doesn't really involve any sacrifices at all. Instead of embracing the newest thing, we need to instead choose to value quality. How about innovation in efficiency and longevity? Innovation in making things last longer, stronger, cheaper, with fewer materials. We've moved halfway in the right direction, by turning our technological finesse to making things cheaper and easier, but we end up making things so cheap that we don't bother keeping them longer than a hangover. And sure, you can get 5 year lightbulbs and other assorted stuff, but why can't we come up with a car that won't break down, clothes that don't wear out? Or maybe we are trying to do this, and I'm just impatient.
Maybe what I'm trying to say is that I wonder if we shouldn't be emphasizing refinement of what we have instead of gladly playing along in a system of single-run product lines.
As if I wasn't busy enough the presentations this month and teaching, my in-laws bought me a new computer which I had to spend some time on to set up. Things are mostly running good now though. OS X is pretty easy to set up. Can't get fink running though and haven't set up my FTP yet either. Not that this really interests anyone who might be reading.
Checking out one of my favorite smart sites, I discovered that The Edge has a books section chock full of neat stuff. It's all cutting edge ideas and issues, and if anyone is interested in reading something substantial, check it out. When I say substantial though, I'm referring to topic matter and not writing style. Most if not all of those writers are enjoyable to read and have a very easy-going style that makes learning about technology and our future (with the exception of perhaps George Dyson's history of Project Orion, a nuclear bomb power space ship that almost made it).
Stimulating, relevant stuff indeed.
PSH over at suckful.net has given this site a tasty recommendation. If you like what I write at all, go check him out. He is at exactly 3.782 times smarter than me and at least 1923.82310^3219328832923 funnier than I could even dream about.
If you don't like what I write, you should still check him out. The menthol flavor might be gone, but you can still rinse the stink of my drool out with his drivel. Even if he did think Buffalo 66 sucked, he is right on more than beat off.
As I sit here at school indulging in a well-deserved rest period following a relatively successful presentation at school (I raided the lab fridge for beers, and pulled a buzz from my first beer. My tolerance is gone!), I contemplate animal cognition. Yeah, I'm tired and strung-out from lack of sleep, and there is a whole beer of alcohol coursing through my brain, so this post is likely to be idiotic and pointless. Finally, an improvement, eh?!?
My neighbors have a couple dogs that bark all the fucking time. After the first month or so, we quit noticing it, except when we leave town for a couple days. I've noticed that one dog in particular doesn't just randomly bark though. He (she?) has particular patterns that repeat, over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and then change only to repeat the new pattern over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over.
I don't know what he is saying, but it seems clear that there is something specific that is being communicated. Why else would the same "word" be sounded out?
Another thing about dogs: It's obvious that they recognize and remember people they haven't seen in a long time. I wonder if they are capable of thinking about people in their absence? My mom's dog (and oldest cat) most definitely remember me, even though I only see them once or twice a year. I wonder if they ever think of me when I'm not there, or if they can recognize me in pictures, perhaps wonder where I am if they catch a glimpse of a picture of me on the wall?
Damn, its a good thing I wrote this before my second beer...
Phil Zimmerman, author of PGP encryption software, recently stated in a couple interviews (#1, #2) that Moore's Law (the observation that computing power doubles every 18 months while halving in costs) runs a serious risk to people's privacy, especially the way we are carrying on today. It's an interesting hypothesis, one that can be applied to other regions of current human development.
"The human population does not double every 18 months, but its ability to use computers to keep track of us does," Zimmerman said, referring to what he sees as the threat to privacy from the increased use of high-tech surveillance cameras. "You can't encrypt your face."
We are all aware (or should be) that the world is increasingly digitized. Everything we do exists in a computer. All the information that defines us as a citizen is in a computer. Economic information, health information, demographics, personal communication. The last is often ignored or unrealized, but we communicate online via open letters. Email is naked, akin to sending a letter without an envelope where the Post Office makes a copy of it at every transit point, from pick-up to delivery. PGP is an application that allows you to put an envelope on your communications so that people aren't able to read it, either now or later.
For the most part, due to the immense amount of data being carried over our networks and the weak ability to sift through this data, most of us are protected via obscurity. The biggest danger today is only if someone slices through our anonymity and begins to target you. If that happens, its very easy for them to read everything you send (and in many cases to access your computer directly. Secure those WEP networks!). And consider the zealousness of the current law adminstration in the US, it doesn't take much to garner unwanted attention. (Bruce Schneier at Counterpane has an excellent analysis on how a national criminal registry database will undoubtedly snare many more innocent people than criminals.)
But even for those of us basking in security through obscurity, Moore's Law is working against us. The geometric acceleration of computing power (both in terms of hardware and software) dictate that it is only a matter of time until everything that is digitized is easily accessible. So even though we can escape undue (or minimally unwanted) attention and harassment now, it won't be the case in the near future. And it isn't just email. RFID tags in your clothing, face scanners, fingerprint readers on elevator buttons... it's coming.
What can we do about it? We need to first recognize the potential dangers. We need to adopt an attitude that places first and foremost a consideration of even though we CAN do it, does that mean we SHOULD do it? And once we do something, we need to consider fully what the implications of the advanced technology are, and be wary to ensure that important legal, social, and political obstacles are created to prevent abuse.
As fun and easy as it is to get all hostile towards governments and craft intricate conspiracy theories, I think that modern governments are, in general, well-intentioned. The problems stem from the inevitable development of a sense of superiority of ideology, as if being the power-holders automatically imbues one with wisdom and an inability to be wrong. The government is also self-interested, something that will never be abolished and thus we just have to learn to live with it. So when we take a powerful, self-interested body that believes it knows what is best for the people (and itself), we run serious risks of well-intentioned efforts having disasterous consequences. For this reason, we need to take care to establish strong, robust privacy laws.
But even more than laws, we need to cultivate a national sense of the importance of privacy and transparency in government. We need to keep the government beholden to the people (of, by, and for, remember?). When people lose faith in that, they wilt, and concede powers that they need not. They begin to believe the government when it says that it knows what they want, even though what the government is advocating doesn't really seem to be what they want. It is easy for a powerful body politic to convince people that privacy is a weakness and transparency is insecure, but that is an illusion. Just as our current security through obscurity is a weakness, so is the opacity of the government.
Are Psychedelic Drugs Good for You?
None other than John Horgan, author of Rational Mysticism and The End of Science?, has a nice little article discussing the positive benefits of responsible psychedlic drug use and arguing for a reclassification. It's also nice to see him point out that it isn't all fun and games and that some people don't mix well with entheogens, but overall they bring more of a benefit than harm to people. Worth reading, but don't get your hopes up, at least not with God Ashcroft in charge of the justice department. He's the one who cracked down on Psilocybe Fanaticus, a company selling legal products.
There is also a new book about Ayahuasca out that looks interesting. I'd like to try that sometime.
Can someone explain to me how relaxing (already generous) limits on how much a company can control access to TV, radio, and print media will result in any situation remotely like the one portrayed by FCC Chairman Michael Powell:
"Our actions will advance our goals of diversity and localism," Powell said..
Shit. I guess I must be a stupid as I look. I find it insulting to every American that he has the gall to say that when there is no indication whatsoever that the legislation passed will have that effect and rather substantial and credible indications that the opposite will happen.
I think perhaps one reason many people fail to comprehend the importance of this change is because so many people live in big cities which naturally can support multiple TV, Radio, and newspaper outlets. But what about the one-newspaper small towns with AM access? You might think that they don't really matter, but they do.
Consider for example that Democratic voters dominate the rural areas of the US (this is not a partisan argument, btw). Now consider what happens when a major media company buys up local media outlets and can shape content according to its editorial preferences. I'll point out here that conservative talk shows out number liberal talk shows 100-0. Well organized, planned, and executed programming can shape public opinion in these rural areas, and with control locked up by major companies, it will be very difficult if not impossible for other (smaller?) voices to break back into the market.
I'm not suggesting a right-wing conspiracy here (although I admit its tempting, and would be rather fun). But I am arguing that these changes are much much more relevant than I think most people understand. Those who control the access to media control our thoughts (please try to understand that in a non-alarmist way) and these FCC changes really offer an opportunity for major media organizations to consolidate the hearts and minds of the American public, especially in smaller (democratic) regions.
Just to stress, this isn't a partisan argument but a plea to preserve the diversity of thought that is essential to the vibrant and robust functioning of this nation.
These idiotic protests at the G8 summit in France need to fucking grow up.
They seem to think that being violent equates with protest, but it doesn't. The best I can come up with is that they see throughout history outbreaks of rioting and violence in response to oppression and other undesirable situations. But they fail to comprehend that those historical instances of rioting, from the French Revolution (perhaps earlier as well) up to the L.A. riots following the Rodney King verdict were not organized planned expressions of protests but explosions of human pressure flowing from a systemic violation of their lives.
The violents morons who trash McDonald's (and in the link above, a bus stop) aren't responding to violations of lifestyle by the objects of their destruction. These vandals are just ideological punks who most likely view major summits and conferences as opportunities to do battle with the economic, social, and political currents running through the world. They see trashing a big name outlet as some kind of warfare, as though it makes a statement or difference.
It pisses me off, because the complaints against, say, globalization or neo/pseudo-ImperioColonialism between the developed and developing world are very legitimate and worthy, and in need of being addressed by the powers that be. But these concerns don't play to the strengths of the status quo, and as thus will never be picked up unless there is popular support. This support will never materialize as long as Mom and Pop Smithers equate anti-globalism sentiment with violence and destruction.
If the people smashing windows at these events really wanted to express themselves in a subversive manner, go make up a Fight Club homework assignment and seek to educate (and thus liberate!) the masses to the problems. Throwing a chair through a Starbucks window isn't a statement, its childish. If someone would spend 15 reasoned minutes talking about why they think Starbucks as an entity is bad (and if they can't express that sentiment in 15 minutes, I'd have to say they don't really know what they are fighting for). Write some letters to the editor of a local newspaper. Attend (or organize) community meetings on the subject. Hell, start a fucking blog and talk about the problems and solutions (the latter is really the important thing).
Just stop fucking up the opportunity to argue against these issues, like you are doing when you get spastic like this.