Post Peeves

Copyright turns us into technology idiots

Saturday, October 28th, 2006

Or do copyright enforcement technologies attract people who would be kooks anyway?

Obvious case in point: DRM.

Now this from Paul Hoffert, apparently associated with “Noank Media”, commenting on Rob Kaye’s blog:

The Noank counting system is unique. We count usage by ALL players. Players can be time-based, such as iTunes, Windows Media, open source, our own Noank player, or your own favorite. They can be Microsoft Word, Acrobat Reader, Photoshop, or any other application program. The Noank client reports consumption of all content within our catalog on Windows, Mac, Unix, or recent cell phone devices.

Rob’s response is too polite:

This is nothing but empty hand-waving, I’m sorry. If you were to hire me to implement this system, I would have to politely tell you that this is impossible. I could not code such a thing and I have over a decade of client application programming experience. Please do elaborate on how you’re going to do this. If you’ve solved this I assume that you’ve already filed for some patents, right? What are your patent application numbers? I’d like to look up these exciting details — this is got to be amazing stuff you’re working on!

To which Hoffert responds:

Our tracking system is operational now and we are scaling it for large numbers of users.

Uh huh.

Voluntary collective licensing may have a role to play but I’m afraid I’m going to have to completely write off “Noank Media” before they even have a website.

Copyright mania hass the side effect of reducing perpetual motion research, who knew?

Addendum 20061031: Lucas Gonze writes that collective licensing will never happen. I think I buy his argument:

Users and businesses are moving away from filesharing networks and to the web, where DMCA safe harbor allows many disputes to be resolved peacefully. User-created content has become a substantial part of the media ecosystem over the last few years, and it doesn’t need collective licensing to exist.

Update 20071126: Noank does have a website now and a how it works page that leaves out lots of details but is not implausible. When more details are available I hope to post a retraction. Hoffert’s language was just too easy to make fun of, and that urge turned me into a technology idiot!

Microformats are worse

Sunday, October 22nd, 2006

I almost entirely agree with Mark Birbeck’s comparison of RDFa and microformats. The only thing to be said in defense of is that a few of the problems Birbeck calls out are also features, from the microformats perspective.

But .

I will reveal what this means later.

Another quip: My problem with microformats is the s.

Evan Prodromou provided a still-good RDFa vs Microformats roundup (better title: “RDFa and Microformats, please work together”) in May. I somehow missed it until now.

Ah, metadata.

Update 20061204: I didn’t miss Prodromou’s roundup in May, I blogged about it. And forgot.

BA is halfway between GED and PhD

Sunday, October 22nd, 2006

At best, as (arbitrarily) measured by years of adult education or years (10) to becoming an expert in something.

Inspired by the oft-heard ‘JD/MBA is the new BA’, Arnold Kling’s slightly more verbose statement

The point is that what used to be a college-degree premium is turning into a graduate-degree premium.

and ‘s The Empty Set (mp3):

this chip hop shit is a celebration of hustling for whatever degree, whether it’s a PhD or a GED or even if you’re just trying to make ends meet

Not a particulary great track, but ugh, I am too amused by and looking forward to seeing MCPP at BoCon next weekend in Boise, where I’ll be speaking.

Throwaway thoughts above, I am against . Many current forms anyway.

Defeatist dreaming

Sunday, October 22nd, 2006

Jimmy Wales of Wikipedia says to dream a little:

Imagine there existed a budget of $100 million to purchase copyrights to be made available under a free license. What would you like to see purchased and released under a free license?

I was recently asked this question by someone who is potentially in a position to make this happen, and he wanted to know what we need, what we dream of, that we can’t accomplish on our own, or that we would expect to take a long time to accomplish on our own.

One shouldn’t look a gift horse in the mouth and this could do a great deal of good, particularly if the conditions “can’t accomplish on our own…” are stringently adhered to.

However, this is a blog and I’m going to complain.

Don’t fork over money to the copyright industry! This is defeatist and exhibits static world thinking.

$100 million could fund a huge amount of new free content, free software, free infrastructure and supporting institutions, begetting more of the same.

But if I were a donor with $100 million to give I’d try really hard to quantify my goals and predict the most impactful spending toward those goals. I’ll just repeat a paragraph from last December 30, Outsourcing charity … to Wikipedia:

Wikipedia chief considers taking ads (via Boing Boing) says that at current traffic levels, Wikipedia could generate hundreds of millions of dollars a year by running ads. There are strong objections to running ads from the community, but that is a staggering number for a tiny nonprofit, an annual amount that would be surpassed only by the wealthiest foundations. It could fund a staggering Wikimedia Foundation bureaucracy, or it could fund additional free knowledge projects. Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales has asked what will be free. Would an annual hundred million dollar budget increase the odds of those predictions? One way to find out before actually trying.

Via Boing Boing via /.

Iraq war costing 120% too much

Sunday, October 15th, 2006

It is not completely unreasonable to guesstimate the average value of a U.S. jurisdiction citizen’s life at around $9 million, given that it has been guestimated at between $4 and $5 million in 1980 and apparently increases about 15% given a 10% increase in income. See Is Your Life Worth $10 Million? for an explanation and Economic History Services for income data.

Then it is also not completely unreasonable to guesstimate the average value of an Iraq jurisdiction citizen’s life at around $250,000, given per capita income of $3,600 at PPP.

Now assuming the Lancet study is roughly correct (I know, controversial, but if it overestimates then the Iraq war is an even worse “deal”) in estimating 600,000 Iraqi excess deaths and that the U.S. government has spent $335 billion so far on the Iraq war (only direct costs; including more controversial costs would again make the “deal” worse), it is straightforward to see that the U.S. has spent over $550,000 for each Iraqi life.

What a ripoff! And we were expecting a great deal.

(Intended as irony. Too bad if post seems autistic, outrageous, or sick.)

Meta those who can’t

Thursday, October 12th, 2006

I’ve been meaning to write a version of the aphorism “those who can, do; those who can’t, teach” to say something derogatory about metadata. Something like “those who can, code; those who can’t, twitter about standards.” But it doesn’t flow and like the “teach” version, is highly contestable. Plus, I’m projecting.

However, I realized that the general pattern of this aphorism is that those who can’t, do something “meta” relative to those who can, e.g., an extension of “teach” is “… those who can’t teach, administrate.”

Presumably those who can’t administrate, run for school board. And those who can’t write a pointed aphorism, write about aphorisms.

All of the “can’t” statements are metadata about a subject that does something more meta than the things he can’t do.

So I got my metadata out of it after all.

Columbus the slaver

Monday, October 9th, 2006

In elementary school I won a essay contest sponsored by the Roman Cultural Society of Springfield, Illinois for making the audacious claim (so I was told) that Columbus did not discover America. I have ignored since then, except as a disease vector. I doubt I would have managed to win that contest had I known of another aspect of Columbus, which I only learned about today:

By the time Christopher Columbus appeared in Lisbon in 1477 an Old World slave trade was thriving in the eastern Atlantic between West Africa, the Atlantic islands, and Europe. In his famous letter on his first voyage he informed Ferdinand and Isabella he could, with their help, give them “slaves, as many as they shall order.” On his second voyage Columbus loaded five hundred Indian slaves aboard returning caravels. On the last leg of his voyage to Cadiz, “about two hundred of these Indians died,” a passenger recorded, appending, “We cast them into the sea.” In this manner the discoverer of the New World launched the transatlantic slave trade, at first in Indians and from west to east.

–James Rawley, with Stephen Behrendt, The Transatlantic Slave Trade

This via Byran Caplan’s timely post Columbus: The Far Left is Dead Right, which includes an always timely plea to dishonor ‘great men.’

It is long past time to terminate officious recognition of Columbus Day and remove representations of slave owners from currency and other objects of jurisdiction worship. I consider this a mild compromise position on the road to smashing hero worship, which I admit has near zero constituency.

Brutal deference

Saturday, October 7th, 2006

This evening I stumbled upon the California gubernatiorial debate on the radio during the opening statements. At one point the moderator claimed he would be “brutal” but was completely ineffective. Every question evoked a vacuous response from each candidate, nearly all of which completely ignored the question asked. in particular needs to be banned from saying “hard working” and “middle class”, which seems to cover annual household icomes from $18,000 to $500,000 — feel the vacuity! Both need to be banned from saying “education” (and what the heck does “fully funding” education mean? relative to what?).

But a response from was the most offensive. Asked what he would do to balance the state budget in the face of an economic downturn, he said “Talking about hypotheticals is not my style.”

Try using that in a job interview.

Please stop this insane deference to royalty. Start by addressing by name, not job title or former job title. Yes, president, vice president, senator, governor and the like are job titles, not peerages.

Abortion theology

Saturday, October 7th, 2006

Although raised Catholic I did not realize there was a difference between and . According to the BBC the Roman Catholic Pope may shortly “abolish” the latter:

The Pope, himself, has been quoted in the past as saying that he would let the idea of limbo “drop, since it has always been only a theological hypothesis”.

That would be rich if it weren’t redolent. Get back to me when the theologians have a test for this .

Limbo may deter sheep in regions with high infant deathrates from joining the Roman Catholic flock, so doctrine may be changed such that unbaptised infants and the unborn go straight to heaven instead of languishing in limbo, to improve the competitive position of this particular earthly church. I’d rather they switch back to RCC’s old mythology — the unbaptised go straight to hell. Otherwise, new signs will be needed, and that would be a waste.


Ratzinger head from here.

Via Mahalanobis, where I also found a nice cartoon two years ago.

Structured hallway conversations

Tuesday, October 3rd, 2006

Brady Forrest writing about unconferences:

Unfortunately, a common piece of feedback I hear is that they got more out of hallway conversations than the sessions. I’ve also found this to be true.

That’s exactly what people say about, um, conferences.

Conference sessions, whether of the lecture and presentation type associated with normal conferences or the more interactive type associated with unconferences, only work for me when the presenter or organizer is extremely knowledgeable and articulate about the topic at hand. Otherwise you get a sleep inducing spiel or bullshit session.

So perhaps some conference should drop sessions almost completely, as they are implied to be low value, and concentrate on making hallway conversation, claimed to be valuable, even moreso.

Update 20061004: Above is the most thoughtless post on this blog so far. I should have only made an ironic comment on Forrest’s post. But I’ll write now what I should have written yesterday, given that I bothered to post here on a topic I don’t know any more about than any other bozo who has groused about conferences:

  • Everyone says they get a lot out of hallway conversations, but they don’t. Hallway conversations largely are merely enjoyable and easy (well, not necessarily for me, but I’m pretty introverted) lightweight social chit-chat. Saying hallway talk is the best part of conferences is also self-flattery.
  • The post title implies that the way to increase the value of hallway conversations is to add structure, a claim that may be without merit.
  • Many unconference practices do make sessions a lot like hallway conversations.
  • The real problem is that speakers don’t have the right incentives. If a presentation blows, people blow it off. Maybe you get one or two negative comments weeks or months later, if the conference solicited feedback and makes it available to speakers. There should be immediate and public reputational and perhaps financial (if it is a rich conference) repercussions. Any dodo can think of implementations and problems, so I won’t go on.