We have two really important pieces of good news for the US patent system today. The first is that the US PTO is finally going to adopt the same principle as the rest of the world and allow (no encourage!) public comment on patent applications. The second is that they chose Joel Spolsky one of the most clueful people in the business to build the site.
The US Patent system has been badly broken since the Reagan administration decided to turn it into a profit center. It is broken for genuine inventors, it is broken for legitimate plaintiffs in patent disputes and it is completely broken for defendants.
The only group that is actually served by the current system is patent trolls. I work as an expert witness in patent disputes a typical case involves a patent application that was originally filled before 1990 that essentially claims 'do something people have done for decades on the Web'. Such a patent would of course be highly novel given that the Web did not exist in any form until 1989 and was only announced to the public in 1992. Until the patent system was reformed during the Clinton administration, an application could be amended to add in extra claims after filing. So in the typical case the claims at issue have been added into a prior application on an unrelated invention after the 'inventor' read about the Web in a newspaper.
In theory the defense should be able to win a case like this pretty easily. In practice it costs at least $2 million to bring a defense to the point where these issues are considered. Damages in these disputes may be a hundred million dollars or more.
The backdating loophole has been closed but the fundamental problem remains, the US still issues far too many patents that are too broad or obviously not novel. Patent examiners do their best but the system simply does not give them enough time to do a proper job. I paid less than $1000 each in patent office fees to file two patents in 2010. At $100 an hour (cheap for a lawyer) the USPTO examiner has less than ten hours to read, understand and write a report on the application and to handle all the subsequent correspondence. I typically spend 20-30 hours on a similar exercise.
The system is set up to fail, the question is how it will fail. Examiners can process applications quickly by accepting almost anything that is not a perpetual motion machine or they can take longer than the time allowed and let a backlog build up. During the dotcom bubble the USPTO took the first approach. More recently it has switched to the second. Both of my applications have been waiting on a first office action for over two years. That is two years in which I have been unable to market the idea or collect any royalties. One of my issued patents took five years.
One of the main reasons for that backlog is that companies are still applying for patents on every idea no matter how ridiculous or stupid it might appear. There is a beggar-thy-neighbor aspect to this. If my company does not apply for a patent a competitor will.
Not only is the US patent system set up for failure, it operates in a unique way. In every other country the patent process involves a period of public review. This takes the responsibility for vetting applications away from a lawyer who is often not an expert in the field in question to the public reviewers. When I worked for a chemical manufacturer in the UK, there was a patent bulletin circulated each week alerting the research staff to the patent applications made by competitors.
The USPTO has been fighting a losing battle against prior publication for the past twenty years. First they resisted publishing applications before patents were issued, then they agreed to publish applications but stated that they would ignore any communication from the public that purported to show prior art. The new site will put the USPTO ahead of other patent offices in this respect. There remain a few oddities that make the US Patent system broken in unique ways but these are minor in comparison.
This change may reduce my income as an expert witness but opens up a new opportunity providing clients with documented prior art to challenge spurious applications. It is unlikely to be as profitable but I would rather help create new mess than clean up an unnecessary one.
Read the rest of this post...
Elections | Economic Crisis | Jobs | TSA | Limbaugh | Fun Stuff
Follow @americablog
Showing posts with label technology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label technology. Show all posts
Skeuomorphism: Apple's weak spot?
At home I use Mac laptops, Windows desktops and a combination of Linux and Windows in the workshops. So I am pretty used to the strengths and weaknesses of each.
When I first started using Windows 8 I was blown away by the cleanness of the graphical design. It is elegant and clutter free. Such a shame therefore that they have possibly ruined it by making it practically unusable. I don't care how pretty a system is, if I can't work out how to use it then it has failed.
Microsoft's mistake is making a radical change in the way the system works without giving the user any clue as to how to adapt to their new environment. Back when I was at the MIT AI lab folk used to joke that the LISP machine was an intelligence test for the user. Microsoft seem to have fallen foul of that mode of thinking for a mass market product.
So what mistake is Apple making right now? Austin Carr thinks it might be skeuomorphism and after reading his fascinating article, I think he might be right.
Skeuomorphism is a fancy name for the Apple fetish of making the UI look like real objects. The bookcase in the library has a wood grain texture, the notebook is leather-bound and so on. Reportedly, Steve Jobs loved that approach. I have always thought it looks tacky. However good a bitmap of a wood veneer is, it is a fake finish. It looks just as cheap and nasty viewed on my MacBook Pro Retina as it did on the Air that preceded it.
Real wood is a three dimensional texture, it has grain and depth and it changes with the light. Viewed on a glossy MacBooks display, Apple's faux wood textures only remind me of Formica, a cheap plastic laminate that is used to hide chipboard.
I don't want my expensive laptop covered in tacky faux finishes. According to the article, many Apple insiders agree. But as you might expect, only the non-Apple designers can say so in public:
As for Linux, it really hasn't changed in the 20 years since I was on the AI lab UNIX-haters list, excerpts from which made their way into Simpson Garfinkel's excellent book, The Unix Hater's Handbook which is available online for free. Read the rest of this post...
When I first started using Windows 8 I was blown away by the cleanness of the graphical design. It is elegant and clutter free. Such a shame therefore that they have possibly ruined it by making it practically unusable. I don't care how pretty a system is, if I can't work out how to use it then it has failed.
Microsoft's mistake is making a radical change in the way the system works without giving the user any clue as to how to adapt to their new environment. Back when I was at the MIT AI lab folk used to joke that the LISP machine was an intelligence test for the user. Microsoft seem to have fallen foul of that mode of thinking for a mass market product.
So what mistake is Apple making right now? Austin Carr thinks it might be skeuomorphism and after reading his fascinating article, I think he might be right.
Skeuomorphism is a fancy name for the Apple fetish of making the UI look like real objects. The bookcase in the library has a wood grain texture, the notebook is leather-bound and so on. Reportedly, Steve Jobs loved that approach. I have always thought it looks tacky. However good a bitmap of a wood veneer is, it is a fake finish. It looks just as cheap and nasty viewed on my MacBook Pro Retina as it did on the Air that preceded it.
Real wood is a three dimensional texture, it has grain and depth and it changes with the light. Viewed on a glossy MacBooks display, Apple's faux wood textures only remind me of Formica, a cheap plastic laminate that is used to hide chipboard.
I don't want my expensive laptop covered in tacky faux finishes. According to the article, many Apple insiders agree. But as you might expect, only the non-Apple designers can say so in public:
In addition to being unhelpfully ostentatious, the visual metaphors are also outmoded in the eyes of many. Designer Gadi Amit, whose firm, NewDealDesign, designed the Lytro camera and Fitbit, points to the common use of the digital Rolodex to denote where contacts are stored. "I’m old enough, sure, but some of the guys in my office have never seen a Rolodex in real life," Amit says. "So these metaphors that were, in the early days of the computing revolution, relevant to assisting people in bridging the gap between the physical and digital worlds, are no longer necessary. Our culture has changed. We don’t need translation of the digital medium in mechanical real-life terms. It’s an old-fashioned paradigm."This problem was brought home to me trying to explain the computer to my children. They have never seen a floppy disk in their life, so how are they meant to understand that the floppy disk icon means 'save'?
As for Linux, it really hasn't changed in the 20 years since I was on the AI lab UNIX-haters list, excerpts from which made their way into Simpson Garfinkel's excellent book, The Unix Hater's Handbook which is available online for free. Read the rest of this post...
Windows 8 is a disaster
You are going to hate Windows 8.
I have used Windows as my main O/S since the first release of Windows NT. I upgraded to Windows XP and Vista the first week they were released. The griping over Vista always seemed like a lot of noise created by lazy system managers who didn't want to have the hassle of having to upgrade people's machines.
Windows 8 is something else entirely. It is a complete usability disaster. I have been using computers for over 30 years and I can't work out how to start the file manager or any other program that I want to actually use on my computer.
The Metro UI looks wonderful. But that is absolutely no use to me when I can't work out the basic principles of how to use the machine without either looking at a manual or calling customer support. I can't see the typical user that the product is aimed at being any more willing to re-learn how to use a computer.
It took me quite a while to work out how to get out of the 'Start page' and get to the desktop so I could actually start running a program that I wanted to use rather than the freebie photo and video tools that come bundled. Shutting the system down was even worse, I had to call a Microsoft product VP I know to find out how (the bottom left and right corners of the screen have magic powers).
Most frustrating of all is how little effort it would take for Microsoft to make the system right. Why does Microsoft imagine that I have any interest in using their new Metro 'start page' when it doesn't offer any of the programs I have an interest in using and there is no obvious way to change it to offer the programs I do want to use?
Plenty of people are telling Microsoft about this disaster in the making right now but all the signs are that Redmond isn't listening. Read the rest of this post...
I have used Windows as my main O/S since the first release of Windows NT. I upgraded to Windows XP and Vista the first week they were released. The griping over Vista always seemed like a lot of noise created by lazy system managers who didn't want to have the hassle of having to upgrade people's machines.
Windows 8 is something else entirely. It is a complete usability disaster. I have been using computers for over 30 years and I can't work out how to start the file manager or any other program that I want to actually use on my computer.
The Metro UI looks wonderful. But that is absolutely no use to me when I can't work out the basic principles of how to use the machine without either looking at a manual or calling customer support. I can't see the typical user that the product is aimed at being any more willing to re-learn how to use a computer.
It took me quite a while to work out how to get out of the 'Start page' and get to the desktop so I could actually start running a program that I wanted to use rather than the freebie photo and video tools that come bundled. Shutting the system down was even worse, I had to call a Microsoft product VP I know to find out how (the bottom left and right corners of the screen have magic powers).
Most frustrating of all is how little effort it would take for Microsoft to make the system right. Why does Microsoft imagine that I have any interest in using their new Metro 'start page' when it doesn't offer any of the programs I have an interest in using and there is no obvious way to change it to offer the programs I do want to use?
Plenty of people are telling Microsoft about this disaster in the making right now but all the signs are that Redmond isn't listening. Read the rest of this post...
Facebook continues decline as entire sector falls
The superstars of Facebook are still extremely wealthy people, but the shine that existed before their IPO now is no longer there. The sector has been hammered on Wall Street with other big names such as Groupon and Zynga and even LinkedIn also falling recently. Personally I've always been suspicious of the sector, viewing it as overhyped and seriously overvalued.
After reading reports about Facebook generating less than $6 per user, per year, the company would have to either continue to rapidly add new users (something that is not happening) or start getting "creative" with data and deals. "Getting creative" is nothing new for the tech industry and with the young management team there, that option sounded more and more likely.
I used Facebook for a brief period of time but closed my account years ago and never looked back. I tired of their squirly behavior including who owns photos and information. Having worked in the tech industry for over twenty years, I have a bad feeling about the actions that may come in response to desperate attempts to pump up the numbers. Pressure to deliver quarterly numbers make otherwise rational people do irrational things.
It's doubtful this type of online interaction will go away but it's simply not the earth shattering movement that people believed. Most of these currently public companies will not go away but their values will have to come back down to earth. They're all interesting, but not life changing.
As their values decline, expect a lot more consolidation across the board in this sector and fewer millionaires and billionaires being created after 24 months. Coming back to reality is not such a bad thing for anyone. Read the rest of this post...
After reading reports about Facebook generating less than $6 per user, per year, the company would have to either continue to rapidly add new users (something that is not happening) or start getting "creative" with data and deals. "Getting creative" is nothing new for the tech industry and with the young management team there, that option sounded more and more likely.
I used Facebook for a brief period of time but closed my account years ago and never looked back. I tired of their squirly behavior including who owns photos and information. Having worked in the tech industry for over twenty years, I have a bad feeling about the actions that may come in response to desperate attempts to pump up the numbers. Pressure to deliver quarterly numbers make otherwise rational people do irrational things.
It's doubtful this type of online interaction will go away but it's simply not the earth shattering movement that people believed. Most of these currently public companies will not go away but their values will have to come back down to earth. They're all interesting, but not life changing.
As their values decline, expect a lot more consolidation across the board in this sector and fewer millionaires and billionaires being created after 24 months. Coming back to reality is not such a bad thing for anyone. Read the rest of this post...
The Climate series: a reference post (UPDATED)
This post lists all the pieces that make up our Climate series. I'll update this post with new links until the series is complete. The order is not quite chronological; the pieces are grouped mainly by sub-topic.
For those of you who have been following along, thanks for reading.
Introduction
The following lists major writing referenced in this series (do click; all are data-rich).
The Copenhagen Diagnosis document (below) was prepared ahead of the 2009 Copenhagen climate conference, which affirmed the 2°C (3½°F) "ceiling" then adjourned with no action.
GP
To follow or send links: @Gaius_Publius
Read the rest of this post...
For those of you who have been following along, thanks for reading.
Posts in the Climate Catastrophe series
Introduction
- Hugging the monster: Climate scientists and the C-word
- What is "climate catastrophe"?
- Your Climate Crisis elevator speech — Addresses one prong of the five-pronged approach (below), "unconfuse the people."
- McKibben's Three Numbers—Measuring the march toward climate catastrophe
- Illustrating global warming—What does "a 2°C increase" refer to?
- Hansen on 3°C: Quarter to half of species on earth may die from global warming
- We're on track for up to 7°C (12½°F) temperature rise by 2100
- IEA Director: Temps to increase 11°F by 2100; "That’s basically Miami Beach in Boston"
- How did James Hansen's 1981 global warming predictions work out?
- Koch-funded climate denier reverses: "Humans almost entirely the cause" of global warming
- Climate report: "Almost no chance" of less than 3½°F (2°C) rise; 50-50 chance of 5½°F (3°C); headed for 9°F
- Thoughts on climate crisis speed — My personal climate model [NEW]
- The epic heat wave: "Of course it's about climate change"
- Radical decline in Arctic ice "at least 70 percent" man-made
- New satellite data: Arctic ocean losing 50% more summer ice than predicted
- "We're in a planetary emergency" thanks to Arctic ice melt and Greenland permafrost [NEW]
- McKibben 2—Climate strategies that don't work
- Who is the enemy leading us to climate catastrophe? (plus reflections on the nature of corporations)
- McKibben 3—Is Carbon Tax the answer to climate catastrophe?
- Why all of the current "solutions" deepen the crisis
- U.S. says drop the "2°C guarantee" from the global warming deal, calls for "flexibility"
- Solving the climate crisis — Picking goals, targets and tactics — Introduces the five-pronged approach to a solution
- Solving the climate crisis — Goals, targets and tactics (a summary) — Introduces the five-pronged approach to a solution in summary form
- Solving the climate crisis — How to paint the possible futures — Addresses one prong of the five-pronged approach, "unconfuse the people."
- A modest proposal for dealing with climate denial "scientists" — Part of a longer post on dealing with political operatives as operatives
- "Niallism" — This is what defrocking an academic looks like (climate scientists, take note) — A "defrocking the false academic" example
Writing and interviews referenced
The following lists major writing referenced in this series (do click; all are data-rich).
The Copenhagen Diagnosis document (below) was prepared ahead of the 2009 Copenhagen climate conference, which affirmed the 2°C (3½°F) "ceiling" then adjourned with no action.
- James Hansen, Makiko Sato, Reto Ruedy, 2012: "Perceptions of Climate Change: The New Climate Dice" (pdf)
- Bill McKibben, Rolling Stone, 2012: "Global Warming's Terrifying New Math"
- Twenty-six authors, 2009: The Copenhagen Diagnosis: Updating the World on the Latest Climate Science
(high-res pdf) (low-res pdf) (website)
- Dr. Michael Mann with Thom Hartmann (plus my comments)
- Michael Mann with Tom Levenson on Virtually Speaking Science (audio)
- "Who are the climate criminals?" — Mike Papantonio with yours truly on Ring of Fire Radio
- Naomi Klein with Amy Goodman on Democracy Now discussing the political implications of addressing the global warming crisis (and discussed at length in this post)
GP
To follow or send links: @Gaius_Publius
Read the rest of this post...
How David Pogue got his iPhone back
A very cool story about technology and a neat little setting on the iphone that lets you trace it if it's lost or stolen.
Read the rest of this post...
New freaky laser will scan EVERYONE in airports from 164 feet away
I'm going to bring these to your attention without much comment for now, but will have more to say later. Needless to say, reading this should tell you we've entered a new phase.
First, from Gizmodo (via the excellent Steve Hynd, and The Agonist):
You could (read: "will") be scanned for drug molecules on your person at the airport from 150 feet away. That's a game-changer in the invasive Spook Wars, I would think.
Do not underestimate how important critical mass for the Counter-Culture that created modern American life. (And never forget, by the way, that every Hippie-hating Republican openly has sex with his girlfriend without public shame. Only the radicals and Beats did that in the 50s. You would think these Young Libertarians would at least say Thanks to the enemies they so eagerly emulate.)
Now the drug-moralizers have the ultimate weapon — long-range molecular scanners and a no-permission-needed fear atmosphere. It only starts at the airport. With this weapon on the streets of America, another generation will be at personal risk of jail on a tired cop's whim.
By my calculation (carry the two) 2013 is just around the corner.
Game-changer, say I — both ways.
GP
To follow or send links: @Gaius_Publius
Read the rest of this post...
First, from Gizmodo (via the excellent Steve Hynd, and The Agonist):
Within the next year or two, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security will instantly know everything about your body, clothes, and luggage with a new laser-based molecular scanner fired from 164 feet (50 meters) away. From traces of drugs or gun powder on your clothes to what you had for breakfast to the adrenaline level in your body—agents will be able to get any information they want without even touching you.Read it all — I dare you.
And without you knowing it. ...
Their plan is to install this molecular-level scanning in airports and border crossings all across the United States. The official, stated goal of this arrangement is to be able to quickly identify explosives, dangerous chemicals, or bioweapons at a distance.
....it can be used systematically on everyone passing through airport security, not just suspect or randomly sampled people....
Back in 2008, a team at George Washington University developed a similar laser spectrometer using a different process. It could sense drug metabolites in urine in less than a second, trace amounts of explosive residue on a dollar bill, and even certain chemical changes happening in a plant leaf....
In other words, these portable, incredibly precise molecular-level scanning devices will be cascading lasers across your body as you walk from the bathroom to the soda machine at the airport and instantly reporting and storing a detailed breakdown of your person, in search of certain "molecular tags".
You could (read: "will") be scanned for drug molecules on your person at the airport from 150 feet away. That's a game-changer in the invasive Spook Wars, I would think.
The small, inconspicuous machine is attached to a computer running a program that will show the information in real time, from trace amounts of cocaine on your dollar bills to gunpowder residue on your shoes. Forget trying to sneak a bottle of water past security—they will be able to tell what you had for breakfast in an instant while you're walking down the hallway.And guess what? It's likely not even safe (again, the excellent Steve Hynd via Twitter):
How Terahertz Waves Tear Apart DNAIt took the Vietnam War to mobilize the 60s generation, to personalize the risk beyond the theoretical, and create a revolution with critical mass.
A new model of the way the THz waves interact with DNA explains how the damage is done and why evidence has been so hard to gather
Great things are expected of terahertz waves, the radiation that fills the slot in the electromagnetic spectrum between microwaves and the infrared. Terahertz waves pass through non-conducting materials such as clothes, paper, wood and brick and so cameras sensitive to them can peer inside envelopes, into living rooms and "frisk" people at distance. ...
The evidence that terahertz radiation damages biological systems is mixed. ... Now these guys think they know why.
Alexandrov and co have created a model to investigate how THz fields interact with double-stranded DNA and what they've found is remarkable. They say that although the forces generated are tiny, resonant effects allow THz waves to unzip double-stranded DNA, creating bubbles in the double strand that could significantly interfere with processes such as gene expression and DNA replication. That's a jaw dropping conclusion.
Do not underestimate how important critical mass for the Counter-Culture that created modern American life. (And never forget, by the way, that every Hippie-hating Republican openly has sex with his girlfriend without public shame. Only the radicals and Beats did that in the 50s. You would think these Young Libertarians would at least say Thanks to the enemies they so eagerly emulate.)
Now the drug-moralizers have the ultimate weapon — long-range molecular scanners and a no-permission-needed fear atmosphere. It only starts at the airport. With this weapon on the streets of America, another generation will be at personal risk of jail on a tired cop's whim.
By my calculation (carry the two) 2013 is just around the corner.
Game-changer, say I — both ways.
GP
To follow or send links: @Gaius_Publius
Read the rest of this post...
The Minitel - truly the first "public" Internet - is gone
The French have pulled the plug on the Minitel, their early experiment (launched in 1982) in creating a public Internet for shopping and other services.
France pulls the plug on the Minitel this weekend, a home-grown precursor of the Internet which brought on-line banking, travel reservations and even sex chats to millions a decade before the World Wide Web.I remember ads in the Paris Metro would have four digit numbers placed in the corner, that was their Minitel address. Just 4 digits. Made it relatively easy to remember. Rather cool for 1982. Read the rest of this post...
In a country where resistance to all things “Anglo-Saxon” runs deep, the Minitel evokes both pride at French technological prowess and regret that the country failed to capitalize on the commercial online network, launched in 1982.
By its peak in the late 1990s, some 25 million people in France were using Minitel’s 26,000 services, ranging from checking the weather to buying clothes and booking train tickets.
Another liberal tech company doing work for conservatives
Updated below
NationBuilder is an online campaigning tool kit, providing clients with the ability to do online advocacy, email supporters, raise money and integrate social media.
NationBuilder was founded by a group of progressive and Democratic technologists with campaign and grassroots non-profit organizing experience in the Netroots. It's not particularly different from other online tool kits like Blue State Digital, Salsa or Action Kit, with the notable exception that it is dramatically cheaper, with pricing starting at $19 per month for smaller campaigns and non-profits.
Online tools can be quite expensive, beyond the reach of many state level campaigns, or even congressional candidates. NationBuilder has, in my estimation, been successful at making online organizing tools more accessible to people with less money to spend.
All of this is preface to another disappointing development: NationBuilder has announced a deal to be the "exclusive software provider for the Republican State Leadership Committee."
Excuse me?
The RSLC helps elect Republican state legislators, the very people who are going around the country passing things like bans on marriage equality, racist laws targeting immigrants for deportation, and rolling back reproductive rights and environmental protections. These reactionaries think passing legislation banning Sharia law is a good use of time. And NationBuilder is going to provide the technology to help more of these people get into office.
Have no fear, despite being started by progressives and made popular in large part from progressive and Democratic business, NationBuilder is only a technology platform.
Much of the controversy around Change.org revolved around their construction of an open campaign platform, staffing themselves with many notable progressive campaigners, accepting the mantle (both earned and perceived) as being a progressive piece of infrastructure, and then deployed a defense of "But we're an open platform!" when criticized for working with union busters.
In fairness, NationBuilder has been more open about a willingness to work with the Tea Party from its earliest days. But its founders' backgrounds in Democratic electoral politics and the activist-progressive film and organizing group, Brave New Films, have lead to many grassroots progressive organizations to embrace the tools. Again, NationBuilder has said they're non-partisan, but there's a bit of a difference between being an open platform and inking a contract to provide tools to just about any Republican state legislative candidate in the country.
It isn't openness when what you mean is you'll work for anyone who gives you a big check. That's what Lanny Davis does with his lobbying services and I don't think it'd be accurate to call him an open platform.
Technology can be used to do anything. At its most basic level, programming may be fundamentally non-ideological. But once code enters the world, it is used for specific ends. The people who sell technology can decide whether they want their code to be used for good or ill. They have a choice. And NationBuilder is choosing to work for people who want to put women in jail for getting abortions and deport any brown person with a Hispanic-sounding name. That anyone can pay to use NationBuilder's tools is no defense. It's an excuse and a sad one at that.
I think it's time for progressive activists and organizations to start putting out clear expectations about the behavior of companies who want our business. Clearly there is a problem with ostensibly left-leaning technology firms and their willingness to do work with conservative activists.
My recommendation is to deny business to technologists who are working with conservatives to turn America back to the late 1800s. If you are a client of NationBuilder, fire them. If you are considering hiring them, don't. Make your decision public and make sure that even if NationBuilder isn't going to change, other technologists will know that progressives won't work with the people whose code is being used to attack the human and civil rights of women, gays, immigrants, people of color, and workers.
Update 6/29:
I've received feedback on this post, both in the comments and offline, and I think it was inaccurate for me to describe NationBuilder as a "liberal tech company." They are non-partisan and honest about that fact. I noted this in the post, but the headline and lede do not make that clear.
That said, the criticism of any company for objectionable business practices is fair, especially one which derives a significant portion of its revenues from progressive organizations and campaigns. NationBuilder should be treated exactly the same way as any other business which works to help get reactionary Republicans elected. Recent examples would be Waffle House, Koch Industries, and Coors Brewing Company, though online progressive groups regularly run campaigns pressuring businesses which support conservative work, as we saw with tremendous campaigns against ALEC's corporate donors.
In short: There's no reason to give technology companies that progressives use any different treatment from any other companies who are doing objectionable things. Read the rest of this post...
NationBuilder is an online campaigning tool kit, providing clients with the ability to do online advocacy, email supporters, raise money and integrate social media.
NationBuilder was founded by a group of progressive and Democratic technologists with campaign and grassroots non-profit organizing experience in the Netroots. It's not particularly different from other online tool kits like Blue State Digital, Salsa or Action Kit, with the notable exception that it is dramatically cheaper, with pricing starting at $19 per month for smaller campaigns and non-profits.
Online tools can be quite expensive, beyond the reach of many state level campaigns, or even congressional candidates. NationBuilder has, in my estimation, been successful at making online organizing tools more accessible to people with less money to spend.
All of this is preface to another disappointing development: NationBuilder has announced a deal to be the "exclusive software provider for the Republican State Leadership Committee."
Excuse me?
The RSLC helps elect Republican state legislators, the very people who are going around the country passing things like bans on marriage equality, racist laws targeting immigrants for deportation, and rolling back reproductive rights and environmental protections. These reactionaries think passing legislation banning Sharia law is a good use of time. And NationBuilder is going to provide the technology to help more of these people get into office.
Have no fear, despite being started by progressives and made popular in large part from progressive and Democratic business, NationBuilder is only a technology platform.
[Co-founder Joe] Green said he has no misgivings about providing technical assistance to candidates with whom he likely disagrees vehemently.I'm sure Green and his business partners won't mind, then, if Democratic campaigns and progressive organizations fire NationBuilder today.
“Our ultimate goal is simply to level the playing field and let the people decide based on the strength of the arguments, not based on who has the biggest TV ad budgets,” Green said. “We’re proving that political software can and will be nonpartisan.”
Much of the controversy around Change.org revolved around their construction of an open campaign platform, staffing themselves with many notable progressive campaigners, accepting the mantle (both earned and perceived) as being a progressive piece of infrastructure, and then deployed a defense of "But we're an open platform!" when criticized for working with union busters.
In fairness, NationBuilder has been more open about a willingness to work with the Tea Party from its earliest days. But its founders' backgrounds in Democratic electoral politics and the activist-progressive film and organizing group, Brave New Films, have lead to many grassroots progressive organizations to embrace the tools. Again, NationBuilder has said they're non-partisan, but there's a bit of a difference between being an open platform and inking a contract to provide tools to just about any Republican state legislative candidate in the country.
It isn't openness when what you mean is you'll work for anyone who gives you a big check. That's what Lanny Davis does with his lobbying services and I don't think it'd be accurate to call him an open platform.
Technology can be used to do anything. At its most basic level, programming may be fundamentally non-ideological. But once code enters the world, it is used for specific ends. The people who sell technology can decide whether they want their code to be used for good or ill. They have a choice. And NationBuilder is choosing to work for people who want to put women in jail for getting abortions and deport any brown person with a Hispanic-sounding name. That anyone can pay to use NationBuilder's tools is no defense. It's an excuse and a sad one at that.
I think it's time for progressive activists and organizations to start putting out clear expectations about the behavior of companies who want our business. Clearly there is a problem with ostensibly left-leaning technology firms and their willingness to do work with conservative activists.
My recommendation is to deny business to technologists who are working with conservatives to turn America back to the late 1800s. If you are a client of NationBuilder, fire them. If you are considering hiring them, don't. Make your decision public and make sure that even if NationBuilder isn't going to change, other technologists will know that progressives won't work with the people whose code is being used to attack the human and civil rights of women, gays, immigrants, people of color, and workers.
Update 6/29:
I've received feedback on this post, both in the comments and offline, and I think it was inaccurate for me to describe NationBuilder as a "liberal tech company." They are non-partisan and honest about that fact. I noted this in the post, but the headline and lede do not make that clear.
That said, the criticism of any company for objectionable business practices is fair, especially one which derives a significant portion of its revenues from progressive organizations and campaigns. NationBuilder should be treated exactly the same way as any other business which works to help get reactionary Republicans elected. Recent examples would be Waffle House, Koch Industries, and Coors Brewing Company, though online progressive groups regularly run campaigns pressuring businesses which support conservative work, as we saw with tremendous campaigns against ALEC's corporate donors.
In short: There's no reason to give technology companies that progressives use any different treatment from any other companies who are doing objectionable things. Read the rest of this post...
The consequences of cyber-warfare in Iran: US and StuxNet, Part 2
In yesterday's post I described the key facts that we now know about the Stuxnet cyber attack. We now know that Stuxnet was developed by the US and Israeli governments to attack the Iranian uranium enrichment plant at Natanz. What we do not yet know is what the consequences were and will be.
Available evidence strongly suggests that the Stuxnet attack delayed the Iranian nuclear program by many weeks if not months. The Iranian government has confirmed that the plant was affected by a cyber attack and the IAEA has reported a sudden increase in the rate at which replacement of certain centrifuge parts. But it is also clear that the attack did not permanently incapacitate the plant.
Even if the reports of damage are true, these do not mean that there actually is an Iran nuclear bomb making program as alleged or that it was damaged. The Natanz plant is a civilian plant monitored by the IAEA whose purported purpose is to enrich uranium for use in Iran's nuclear power program. According to the reports produced by the monitors, the enriched uranium produced at Natanz to date is only suitable for power generation and not for bomb making.
If Iran is in fact diverting material from Natanz to a weapons program they must have at least one other enrichment facility that is not publicly known, or be planning to withdraw from the nuclear non-proliferation treaties and use their civilian facilities to produce weapons grade uranium.
If the purpose of the attack was to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear bomb it has to be considered a predictable failure. It is hard to see how causing premature failure of a few centrifuges would stop anyone. Short of an actual invasion there is nothing the US can to to prevent Iran getting the bomb if they make it a national priority. Iran has far more wealth, expertise and technology available to it in 2012 than the US had when it built the first bomb in 1945.
The best that can be said for Stuxnet is that it has caused much less damage than a 'kinetic' attack. 'kinetic' being the euphemism that the military people engaged in this field have decided on for the old fashioned approach of bombs and bullets. They also refer to the field as 'cyber-engagement' rather than cyber-warfare and there is a good reason for that which I will get to in the next part. The response from Iran has been minimal and as far as we know, Stuxnet has not killed anyone.
Admitting responsibility for Stuxnet certainly does Obama no harm as far as domestic politics are concerned. The Stuxnet news gives the lie to Romney's debate claim: "Look, one thing you can know and that is if we reelect Barack Obama, Iran will have a nuclear weapon. And if we elect Mitt Romney, if you elect me as the next president, they will not have a nuclear weapon."
The difference between the Republican party approach to national security and the Obama administration policy is clear: Bush started two wars and failed to win either. Obama has ended the Iraq war and eliminated Bin Laden and Iran still does not have a nuclear weapon.
Equally clear is that what Obama is really offering is a competently executed version of the policy Bush attempted incompetently. Being better than the alternative does not mean a policy is good. While some of the comments on my first post claimed Stuxnet was 'terrorism' what the attack really amounts to is some petty vandalism and comes with some very significant costs.
Some of those costs are short term: Iran now has a pretty good excuse to leave the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and the US admission that it was behind Stuxnet is going to give Russia and China a lot of leverage in their attempt to change Internet standards to make it easier for governments to control. I will deal with both of those issues in future posts. First however I want to focus on the longer term problem: Stuxnet has opened up a Pandora's box.
I will deal with that issue in part 3. Read the rest of this post...
Available evidence strongly suggests that the Stuxnet attack delayed the Iranian nuclear program by many weeks if not months. The Iranian government has confirmed that the plant was affected by a cyber attack and the IAEA has reported a sudden increase in the rate at which replacement of certain centrifuge parts. But it is also clear that the attack did not permanently incapacitate the plant.
Even if the reports of damage are true, these do not mean that there actually is an Iran nuclear bomb making program as alleged or that it was damaged. The Natanz plant is a civilian plant monitored by the IAEA whose purported purpose is to enrich uranium for use in Iran's nuclear power program. According to the reports produced by the monitors, the enriched uranium produced at Natanz to date is only suitable for power generation and not for bomb making.
If Iran is in fact diverting material from Natanz to a weapons program they must have at least one other enrichment facility that is not publicly known, or be planning to withdraw from the nuclear non-proliferation treaties and use their civilian facilities to produce weapons grade uranium.
If the purpose of the attack was to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear bomb it has to be considered a predictable failure. It is hard to see how causing premature failure of a few centrifuges would stop anyone. Short of an actual invasion there is nothing the US can to to prevent Iran getting the bomb if they make it a national priority. Iran has far more wealth, expertise and technology available to it in 2012 than the US had when it built the first bomb in 1945.
The best that can be said for Stuxnet is that it has caused much less damage than a 'kinetic' attack. 'kinetic' being the euphemism that the military people engaged in this field have decided on for the old fashioned approach of bombs and bullets. They also refer to the field as 'cyber-engagement' rather than cyber-warfare and there is a good reason for that which I will get to in the next part. The response from Iran has been minimal and as far as we know, Stuxnet has not killed anyone.
Admitting responsibility for Stuxnet certainly does Obama no harm as far as domestic politics are concerned. The Stuxnet news gives the lie to Romney's debate claim: "Look, one thing you can know and that is if we reelect Barack Obama, Iran will have a nuclear weapon. And if we elect Mitt Romney, if you elect me as the next president, they will not have a nuclear weapon."
The difference between the Republican party approach to national security and the Obama administration policy is clear: Bush started two wars and failed to win either. Obama has ended the Iraq war and eliminated Bin Laden and Iran still does not have a nuclear weapon.
Equally clear is that what Obama is really offering is a competently executed version of the policy Bush attempted incompetently. Being better than the alternative does not mean a policy is good. While some of the comments on my first post claimed Stuxnet was 'terrorism' what the attack really amounts to is some petty vandalism and comes with some very significant costs.
Some of those costs are short term: Iran now has a pretty good excuse to leave the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and the US admission that it was behind Stuxnet is going to give Russia and China a lot of leverage in their attempt to change Internet standards to make it easier for governments to control. I will deal with both of those issues in future posts. First however I want to focus on the longer term problem: Stuxnet has opened up a Pandora's box.
I will deal with that issue in part 3. Read the rest of this post...
Does Facebook wreck marriages?
Facebook? I've never met anyone on Facebook. Is this a "straight" thing?
From SmartMoney:
From SmartMoney:
More than a third of divorce filings last year contained the word Facebook, according to a survey by Divorce Online, a UK-based legal services firm. And over 80% of U.S. divorce attorneys say they’ve seen a rise in the number of cases using social networking, according to the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers. “I see Facebook issues breaking up marriages all the time,” says Gary Traystman, a divorce attorney in New London, Conn. Of the 15 cases he handles per year where computer history, texts and emails are admitted as evidence, 60% exclusively involve Facebook. The site did not immediately respond to requests for comment.Read the rest of this post...
You are being royally ripped off by your cell phone carrier
What's wrong with this picture?
Unless you're paying $26 a month for unlimited phone calls, unlimited text, free international calls, and 3 gigs of data, per month, you are being royally ripped off. Because that's what they pay in France for far more service on their iPhones, and other phones, than we pay in the states for three times as much.
I pay $89 a month or so for my Verizon iPhone mobile plan in the states. That covers 450 minutes of call time a month, 2 gigs of data, and a set number of text messages (and I can't even confirm how many) - and being an American carrier, I am charged minutes for calls I receive. And don't even think of calling anyone abroad, I don't even want to know how much it costs. Also do NOT use your phone abroad, or it will cost you $1.29 a minute (or you can pay extra for a "special" deal that will "only" cost you $0.99 cents a minute). And if you use your cell phone's data/Internet plan abroad, well, you'd better take out a second mortgage on your house to pay for it.
Then there's my new French mobile plan from a company called FREE. (I travel enough for work that it's been worth it to have a plan over here.) My FREE plan, that I use on the same Verizon iPhone, costs me 19.99 euros a month, or US$26 at the current exchange rate (if you have their home Internet service, it's only 15.99 a month).
Keep in mind, this is for my FRENCH cell phone plan that's based in France, I can't use it in the states. I'm just trying to show you what home-country cell phone plans cost in other developed countries that some of our countrymen like to consider inferior. If it's $26 in France, why is it $85 in the states for less?
And what do I get for only $26 a month?
- Unlimited minutes for calls in France, to both cells and landlines.
- Unlimited minutes for calls to the US and Canada, both cells and landlines.
- Unlimited minutes for calls to landlines in most of Europe.
- No charges for calls received.
- Unlimited text messages and SMS in France.
- 3 gigs of data a month, then they throttle you down.
- You automatically connect to the company's wifi all over France and its territories.
- And I'm pretty sure you can set up your phone as a personal hotspot for free too (it just comes out of your 3 gigs a month).
- There's no minimum contract - you're charged each month until you cancel. So if you want to get the plan for a week-long trip, go ahead (though you have to register it with a French address, and do it online as they have no physical offices).
Call it the Freedom Phone.
Oh, and it was painfully easy to sign up. I just went to their Web site, entered my credit card, put in a local French home address, and when I arrived here I had a letter waiting for me (took about ten days to get), took the SIM card they sent me (the card is compatible with large size or micro SIM, you just punch out the size you need), put it into my phone, then went to their Web site and clicked the 'activate' button - and voila, it worked. It was that simple.
Why can a French company charge 1/3 the price of a US company to offer iPhone users a better cell phone plan?
And why haven't we had congressional hearings about why American consumers are being reamed by our phone companies?
[UPDATE: Someone raised the point that I "only" paid $300 for my iPhone, rather than $600 or $700, because AT&T and Verizon are subsidizing the cost of the phone, and somehow that skews the comparison of French and US cell plans. Not really. First off, check out the phones the French cell plan works with - far more than just the iPhone. And check out the prices of the other non-iPhone phones in France, some are as low as 39 euros, or $50 bucks or so. Try getting a phone plan like this for your 39 dollar phone in the states, with no contract. Good luck.]
Folks, Americans need to wise up. We are being royally ripped off, compared to the rest of the world. When I tell people here that I pay Comcast $180 a month for home Internet and cable TV (and I don't even get the premium movie channels), they laugh, since folks here pay $30 a month for high speed 100 megabyte fiber optic Internet, cable TV, and phone service (that includes unlimited calls around the world) combined.
We should be embarrassed, and then outraged, by how badly we are being cheated by American phone companies and Internet providers. 70% of Americans don't own a passport, and with our lousy number of vacation days compared to Europeans, it's no wonder - it's a long flight to Europe, and who has a week of vacation time to spare, especially once you have a family? But while our isolationism is understandable, we pay a serious economic price for it.
Americans have no idea how badly our own corporations are ripping us off.
(PS In good news, I was able to unlock my Verizon iphone, for international SIM cards, by simply calling Verizon. Again, it only works for international SIMs, not for US competitors of Verizon, but at least that's something.) Read the rest of this post...
 |
| This is my iPhone with my French plan that costs only $26 a month. How much is yours? |
I pay $89 a month or so for my Verizon iPhone mobile plan in the states. That covers 450 minutes of call time a month, 2 gigs of data, and a set number of text messages (and I can't even confirm how many) - and being an American carrier, I am charged minutes for calls I receive. And don't even think of calling anyone abroad, I don't even want to know how much it costs. Also do NOT use your phone abroad, or it will cost you $1.29 a minute (or you can pay extra for a "special" deal that will "only" cost you $0.99 cents a minute). And if you use your cell phone's data/Internet plan abroad, well, you'd better take out a second mortgage on your house to pay for it.
Then there's my new French mobile plan from a company called FREE. (I travel enough for work that it's been worth it to have a plan over here.) My FREE plan, that I use on the same Verizon iPhone, costs me 19.99 euros a month, or US$26 at the current exchange rate (if you have their home Internet service, it's only 15.99 a month).
Keep in mind, this is for my FRENCH cell phone plan that's based in France, I can't use it in the states. I'm just trying to show you what home-country cell phone plans cost in other developed countries that some of our countrymen like to consider inferior. If it's $26 in France, why is it $85 in the states for less?
And what do I get for only $26 a month?
- Unlimited minutes for calls in France, to both cells and landlines.
- Unlimited minutes for calls to the US and Canada, both cells and landlines.
- Unlimited minutes for calls to landlines in most of Europe.
- No charges for calls received.
- Unlimited text messages and SMS in France.
- 3 gigs of data a month, then they throttle you down.
- You automatically connect to the company's wifi all over France and its territories.
- And I'm pretty sure you can set up your phone as a personal hotspot for free too (it just comes out of your 3 gigs a month).
- There's no minimum contract - you're charged each month until you cancel. So if you want to get the plan for a week-long trip, go ahead (though you have to register it with a French address, and do it online as they have no physical offices).
Call it the Freedom Phone.
Oh, and it was painfully easy to sign up. I just went to their Web site, entered my credit card, put in a local French home address, and when I arrived here I had a letter waiting for me (took about ten days to get), took the SIM card they sent me (the card is compatible with large size or micro SIM, you just punch out the size you need), put it into my phone, then went to their Web site and clicked the 'activate' button - and voila, it worked. It was that simple.
Why can a French company charge 1/3 the price of a US company to offer iPhone users a better cell phone plan?
And why haven't we had congressional hearings about why American consumers are being reamed by our phone companies?
[UPDATE: Someone raised the point that I "only" paid $300 for my iPhone, rather than $600 or $700, because AT&T and Verizon are subsidizing the cost of the phone, and somehow that skews the comparison of French and US cell plans. Not really. First off, check out the phones the French cell plan works with - far more than just the iPhone. And check out the prices of the other non-iPhone phones in France, some are as low as 39 euros, or $50 bucks or so. Try getting a phone plan like this for your 39 dollar phone in the states, with no contract. Good luck.]
Folks, Americans need to wise up. We are being royally ripped off, compared to the rest of the world. When I tell people here that I pay Comcast $180 a month for home Internet and cable TV (and I don't even get the premium movie channels), they laugh, since folks here pay $30 a month for high speed 100 megabyte fiber optic Internet, cable TV, and phone service (that includes unlimited calls around the world) combined.
We should be embarrassed, and then outraged, by how badly we are being cheated by American phone companies and Internet providers. 70% of Americans don't own a passport, and with our lousy number of vacation days compared to Europeans, it's no wonder - it's a long flight to Europe, and who has a week of vacation time to spare, especially once you have a family? But while our isolationism is understandable, we pay a serious economic price for it.
Americans have no idea how badly our own corporations are ripping us off.
(PS In good news, I was able to unlock my Verizon iphone, for international SIM cards, by simply calling Verizon. Again, it only works for international SIMs, not for US competitors of Verizon, but at least that's something.) Read the rest of this post...
The iPhone app the phone carriers hate
It's an interesting app, called CarrierCompare, and it's free. It looks at how good, and fast, your iphone phone service is at the location you're currently at, and then compares it to the results others have reported in the area. At my parents' place in the Chicago burbs, it's claiming that AT&T is better. That's not true, at least not in my experience. I had to drop AT&T and switch to Verizon because I couldn't get more than one bar on my AT&T iPhone at mom's place, or in the neighboring towns (having said that, my parents who have AT&T, but not with an iPhone, have great coverage at home). Now at least with Verizon I have service, though my service in DC with Verizon is now worse than my service was with AT&T. Sigh. We're so not #1 sometimes.
I'm curious what you guys have found, in terms of which service you prefer on your iPhones (or other phones), but also whether non-Americans have the same spotty service in their countries. I know Chris has had problems with his iPhone service in Paris, but now with his previous phones. More from CNN. Read the rest of this post...
I'm curious what you guys have found, in terms of which service you prefer on your iPhones (or other phones), but also whether non-Americans have the same spotty service in their countries. I know Chris has had problems with his iPhone service in Paris, but now with his previous phones. More from CNN. Read the rest of this post...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
