National Public Radio published an article about the public's lack of trust in the media. They point to examples perceived political bias at CNN and Fox News, and the biases of the reporters in question, but they pointedly ignore corporate influence on news coverage.
But focusing on the popular political differences between Democratic and Republican news outlets is convenient for an organization like NPR, which is beholden to the corporate sponsors who pay for large 23% of its budget. One need only hear "brought to you by Archer Daniels Midland, Supermarket to the World" to understand who has influence over NPR's editorial policies. It really doesn't behoove NPR to point out that the public shouldn't trust NBC's analysis of war planning, since NBC's parent company General Electric does on the order of two billion dollars per year in DOD contracts.
The differences between Democratic and Republican policies are conveniently distracting, pitting the snake handlers vs the sodomites, the sheet-wearers vs the welfare queens, etc. Consolidation of media ownership continues apace, with major corporations effecting central control of all types of media. The recent media extinction events have helped speed this process, and media co-ops have yet to attract a major audience.
The media can't police itself, it sold us out a long time ago. But its attempts to shift the blame for its lack of public trust to its reporters and editors is increasingly obvious and ineffective.
Showing posts with label media. Show all posts
Showing posts with label media. Show all posts
23 Apr 2010
Attention whores in the reputation economy
Yesterday on my way home I saw an ambulance driver texting as she drove. (At least she didn't have her siren and lights on.) But that wasn't the ironic part - no, that was the act of will that kept me from whipping out my phone and tweeting about it. Or better yet, whipping out my phone, taking a picture of her while I attempted to drive, and then tweeting the link. On the whole I'm glad I made it home alive.
The walk to the subway station this morning was surreal. It was snowing pink cherry blossoms which covered the streets and the grass, making me think of nuclear fallout and what a challenge it would be to clean that up if it wasn't just, you know, flower petals.
So then at the subway station there were new additions to the usual gauntlet of free newspaper pushers: a couple of well-scrubbed men pushing The Watchtower. So many voices clamoring to be heard.
The problem isn't an attention deficit, it's a surplus of bullshit. We create a cloud, a lake, an ocean, a galaxy of data, simultaneously afraid of where all this data is going and afraid that if we don't reveal more our voice won't be heard. We've reached the point of saturation with trivia and are waiting for the tool that will come along and stitch it together, but we're afraid of what that'll show. Mostly we're afraid that it'll expose our banality, our utter simplicity and lack of special worthiness of this embarrassment of riches that has been visited upon us.
I have the whole of human knowledge at my fingertips and I want to know more about the Octomom.
The walk to the subway station this morning was surreal. It was snowing pink cherry blossoms which covered the streets and the grass, making me think of nuclear fallout and what a challenge it would be to clean that up if it wasn't just, you know, flower petals.
So then at the subway station there were new additions to the usual gauntlet of free newspaper pushers: a couple of well-scrubbed men pushing The Watchtower. So many voices clamoring to be heard.
The problem isn't an attention deficit, it's a surplus of bullshit. We create a cloud, a lake, an ocean, a galaxy of data, simultaneously afraid of where all this data is going and afraid that if we don't reveal more our voice won't be heard. We've reached the point of saturation with trivia and are waiting for the tool that will come along and stitch it together, but we're afraid of what that'll show. Mostly we're afraid that it'll expose our banality, our utter simplicity and lack of special worthiness of this embarrassment of riches that has been visited upon us.
I have the whole of human knowledge at my fingertips and I want to know more about the Octomom.
18 Aug 2008
Senator Herb Kohl on HR 6304 (The "I Spy" act)
Back when the Democrats were preparing to sell our rights, our privacy, and the very rule of law to the telecom lobby while capitulating in the most pathetic way possible to the Bush administration, I wrote a letter to Wisconsin Democratic senator Herb Kohl. I urged him most specifically not to vote for H.R. 6304, a bill that made a mockery of the rule of law by giving felonious telecom companies a free pass for having helped the federal government to spy on US citizens in a way directly prohibited by federal statute.
Of course, he took his marching orders from the Democratic "leadership" (who take their marching orders from AT&T) and voted for the bill. In his letter he never addresses telecom immunity, which was the key issue I wrote to him about. Instead, he lies about the bill and its provisions, parroting the line set down by his masters. And of course, he never mentions that he personally voted to sustain telecom immunity.
Finally, I find it particularly offensive that he says he's taking time to "address my concerns" when he's not addressing them, he's ignoring and dismissing them. No, Senator Kohl, "everyone" doesn't agree.
Mr. Chuck Leduc
[address redacted]
Dear Mr. Leduc:
Thank you for taking the time to contact me. I value the input I get from people back home in Wisconsin, and I would like to take this opportunity to address your concerns.
In December 2005, the revelation that the President authorized the National Security Agency (NSA) to monitor telephone calls and e-mails of United States citizens without obtaining a warrant or court order raises important legal and policy questions. I strongly believe that the President, Congress, and the courts all share a common goal: to protect the American people. If terrorists are operating in this country, or people in this country are communicating with terrorists, everyone can agree that we must give our government the tools it needs to protect the American people, including the power to listen to their phone calls. Security, the Rule of law, and the protection of civil liberties, however, are not mutually exclusive concepts; we can have all three.
In August 2007, Congress passed, and the President signed, the Protect America Act (PAA). I opposed this bill because it authorized broad electronic surveillance of Americans' communications, and provided for little oversight by Congress and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC). The PAA was ultimately enacted as a temporary fix. The ability to conduct surveillance pursuant to the PAA was set to expire in early August.
It was critically important for Congress to authorize necessary surveillance authorities, this time with appropriate civil liberties protections. To that end, on June 19, 2008, Representative Silvestre Reyes introduced the FISA Amendments Act of2008 (H.R. 6304). This measure authorizes the Intelligence Community to conduct electronic surveillance of individuals located outside of the United States, but also provides Congress and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court greater authorities to conduct oversight of this surveillance and protect the privacy of innocent Americans. In addition, the bill authorizes a thorough investigation of the President's Terrorist Surveillance Program and clarifies that no surveillance can be conducted outside of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. I voted for H.R. 6304 because I believe it strikes an appropriate balance between national security and protecting civil liberties. It was signed into law on July 10, 2008.
[page 2]
Thank you again for contacting me on this important issue.
Sincerely,
(signed)
Herb Kohl
United States Senator
HK:mxh
... and finally, my response to his letter:
Of course, he took his marching orders from the Democratic "leadership" (who take their marching orders from AT&T) and voted for the bill. In his letter he never addresses telecom immunity, which was the key issue I wrote to him about. Instead, he lies about the bill and its provisions, parroting the line set down by his masters. And of course, he never mentions that he personally voted to sustain telecom immunity.
Finally, I find it particularly offensive that he says he's taking time to "address my concerns" when he's not addressing them, he's ignoring and dismissing them. No, Senator Kohl, "everyone" doesn't agree.
| HERB KOHL | COMMITTEES: | |
| WISCONSIN | ||
| APPROPRIATIONS | ||
| WASHINGTON OFFICE: | ||
| 330 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING | JUDICIARY | |
| WASHINGTON, DC 20510 | ||
| (202) 224-5653 | SPECIAL COMMITTEE | |
| http://kohl.senate.gov | United States Senate | ON AGING |
| WASHINGTON, DC 20510-4903 | ||
| July 24, 2008 |
Mr. Chuck Leduc
[address redacted]
Dear Mr. Leduc:
Thank you for taking the time to contact me. I value the input I get from people back home in Wisconsin, and I would like to take this opportunity to address your concerns.
In December 2005, the revelation that the President authorized the National Security Agency (NSA) to monitor telephone calls and e-mails of United States citizens without obtaining a warrant or court order raises important legal and policy questions. I strongly believe that the President, Congress, and the courts all share a common goal: to protect the American people. If terrorists are operating in this country, or people in this country are communicating with terrorists, everyone can agree that we must give our government the tools it needs to protect the American people, including the power to listen to their phone calls. Security, the Rule of law, and the protection of civil liberties, however, are not mutually exclusive concepts; we can have all three.
In August 2007, Congress passed, and the President signed, the Protect America Act (PAA). I opposed this bill because it authorized broad electronic surveillance of Americans' communications, and provided for little oversight by Congress and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC). The PAA was ultimately enacted as a temporary fix. The ability to conduct surveillance pursuant to the PAA was set to expire in early August.
It was critically important for Congress to authorize necessary surveillance authorities, this time with appropriate civil liberties protections. To that end, on June 19, 2008, Representative Silvestre Reyes introduced the FISA Amendments Act of2008 (H.R. 6304). This measure authorizes the Intelligence Community to conduct electronic surveillance of individuals located outside of the United States, but also provides Congress and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court greater authorities to conduct oversight of this surveillance and protect the privacy of innocent Americans. In addition, the bill authorizes a thorough investigation of the President's Terrorist Surveillance Program and clarifies that no surveillance can be conducted outside of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. I voted for H.R. 6304 because I believe it strikes an appropriate balance between national security and protecting civil liberties. It was signed into law on July 10, 2008.
[page 2]
Thank you again for contacting me on this important issue.
Sincerely,
(signed)
Herb Kohl
United States Senator
HK:mxh
... and finally, my response to his letter:
Dear Senator Kohl,
I am rather disappointed in your response to my letter about telecom immunity and spying. In my letter I specifically urged you to uphold the rule of law by holding telcos accountable for their lawbreaking. I obviously think your vote went contrary to the best interests of the people of the state you represent, but that is not why I am writing back.
The reason I am writing back is because you did not address telecom immunity, my primary concern, in your letter. That is political cowardice: if you are going to put the interests of corporations above those of your constituents, you might as well own up to it. You could even have made up some implausible justification (you seem to be pretty good at that), but to pretend it didn't happen is just plain insulting. Just how stupid do you think we are?
Sincerely,
Charles LeDuc
I am rather disappointed in your response to my letter about telecom immunity and spying. In my letter I specifically urged you to uphold the rule of law by holding telcos accountable for their lawbreaking. I obviously think your vote went contrary to the best interests of the people of the state you represent, but that is not why I am writing back.
The reason I am writing back is because you did not address telecom immunity, my primary concern, in your letter. That is political cowardice: if you are going to put the interests of corporations above those of your constituents, you might as well own up to it. You could even have made up some implausible justification (you seem to be pretty good at that), but to pretend it didn't happen is just plain insulting. Just how stupid do you think we are?
Sincerely,
Charles LeDuc
29 Jul 2008
Bechdel's law: women as props in film
Charlie Stross wrote today about what he calls "Bechdel's Law" on movies:
Alison Bechdel's blog features the 1985 cartoon where The Rule entered the mass consciousness, and explains the origin. I've been a big fan of Dykes To Watch Out For since I was just a wee budding queer, reading Southern Voice (the "Lesbian Home Journal" on actual newsprint) and scratching my head over Mo (who irritated me greatly). Bechdel has always stayed on my mind over the years, her characters sticking to me even more than Ethan Green (which became a movie?!?) and Hothead Paisan. Bechdel's Fun Home was also a fantastic read.
But back to the subject at hand. Stross continues:
I immediately thought about Iron Man, which we saw last night and greatly enjoyed – and of course it fails the test. So does basically every single film made in Hollywood: the only exceptions that come to mind are Sex and the City (which I haven't seen yet, but I presume they talk about anal beads or something other than Mr. Big at least sometimes), The Hours, Mamma Mia!, and maybe Notes on a Scandal... and I'm done – as far as I know, that's it.
- Does it have at least two women in it,
- Who [at some point] talk to each other,
- About something besides a man.
Alison Bechdel's blog features the 1985 cartoon where The Rule entered the mass consciousness, and explains the origin. I've been a big fan of Dykes To Watch Out For since I was just a wee budding queer, reading Southern Voice (the "Lesbian Home Journal" on actual newsprint) and scratching my head over Mo (who irritated me greatly). Bechdel has always stayed on my mind over the years, her characters sticking to me even more than Ethan Green (which became a movie?!?) and Hothead Paisan. Bechdel's Fun Home was also a fantastic read.
But back to the subject at hand. Stross continues:
From now on I intend to start applying this test to my fiction before I embarrass myself in public. And (I realize this is offering up a huge hostage to future fortune) if anyone ever offers me a movie or TV deal, I am going to hold out for a clause in the contract requiring a scene lasting at least 30 seconds per hour of running time that passes Bechdel's test. Because? What hurts my fellow humans hurts me, and I can in conscience no more lend my implicit support to an anti-feminist backlash than I can lend my silence to a racist or homophobic campaign.What a guy. Not only do I greatly enjoy his books, I think he's a swell person, and I think his response to Bechdel's Law is a very good idea. Maybe this could spread to other authors? Hel-lo, writing workshops everywhere?
25 Jul 2008
Hedy Fry on C-61, the Canadian DMCA
Members of the Canadian government are on the take from US media interests who are trying to criminalize, well, everybody. My MP, Hedy Fry, is a wonderful woman and I like her very much on most issues, but given that the film industry is a big deal here in Vancouver I expected the worst on copyright. Since she wouldn't comment when I asked her about her own party's copyright bill (C-60), I was surprised when she offered an opinion about Bill C-61. Although the Conservatives are only going a little farther than her own party in selling out Canadian citizens, she says that "This Bill does not serve either consumer or creator well," and that she would not support it without amendment. Some notable highlights:
Dear Mr. LeDuc:
Thank you for your correspondence concerning Bill C-61, An Act to amend the Copyright Act.
As you are aware the previous Liberal government had tabled a Bill on this issue but it did not come to debate because of the election. The current Conservative Bill has been eagerly awaited since they announced their intentions, in December 2007.
Canada has signed two World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) treaties, but has not yet ratified them. The last time the Canadian Copyright Act was amended was in 1997 but these amendments did not address the WIPO treaty agreements. In the interim, communications technology has expanded rapidly. Everyone is in agreement that the Copyright Act has to be amended to reflect the impact of digital technology.
Bill C-61 should strike a balance between the right of creators to be reimbursed for their creative, intellectual property and the desire for consumers to have access to these creative works.
Indeed digital technology serves both the creator and the consumer well. It increases the reach and distribution of creative works as never imagined, before; which is precisefy what creators need and it gives consumers easy access to creative works that can entertain, enrich, and educate.
This Bill does not serve either consumer or creator well. It prescribes narrow, punitive solutions to a complex problem. In fact the Bill could well have the effect of curbing the use of digital technology, to the extent that it becomes useless. This would be a pity! As well, implementation of the measures in the Bill would be nearly impossible, unless one abandons all privacy rights or imposes locks on the digital technology that severely limits its application. How to monetize digital technology to reward the creator and allow free and open use by the consumer is challenging
- 2 -
As Liberals we believe that there should have been extensive consultations with legal experts, creators, distributors and conventional and digital media industries to find the right balance of solutions. It is typical of the Harper government that they do not consult but impose.
Liberals intend to begin these consultations over the course of the summer so that when the Bill comes to the House we can propose appropriate amendments. Moreover we believe that the Bill should be further subject to public scrutiny if it ever gets to committee stage. It could be that after we consult with the expert groups they believe that Bill C-61 is unsalvageable, in which case one would have to vote against the Bill and rewrite a new one.
These are exciting and challenging times in media communications technology that can broaden the consumption of arts and cultural products, in a manner unheard of since the invention of the printing press. The challenges seemed impossible then but solutions were found that led to a Renaissance of art and culture. We are at a similar point in history, now. We must not use a sledge hammer.
Once again, thank you for writing. Please feel free to contact my office if I may be of further assistance.
Sincerely,
(signed)
Hon. Hedy Fry, M.P.
Vancouver Centre
And finally, a scan of the letter:
"Everyone is in agreement that the Copyright Act has to be amended to reflect the impact of digital technology."Really? Everyone?!?
"How to monetize digital technology to reward the creator and allow free and open use by the consumer is challenging"...and it would be a challenge to finish that sentence, since it makes no sense whatsoever. Maybe "utilize" was the verb you were looking for?
"[...] since the invention of the printing press. The challenges seemed impossible then [...]"The text follows. Errors are hers (this letter is a mess). Proofreading, anyone?Which challenges were those? The challenges of the established order keeping people under control and in continued ignorance? I do see a strong parallel, but it's not an auspicious parallel.
| CONSTITUENCY OFFICE 106-1030 Denman St. Vancouver, B.C. V6G 2M6 Tel.: (604) 666-0135 Fax.: (604) 666_0114 |  HOUSE OF COMMONS CHAMBRE DES COMMUNES OTTAWA, CANADA K1A 0A6 | OTTAWA OFFICE Room 583 Confederation Bldg. House of Commons Ottawa, Canada K1A 0A6 Tel.: (613) 992-3213 Fax.: (613) 995-0056 | ||
| Hon. Hedy Fry, P.C., M.P. Vancouver Centre | ||||
Chuck LeDuc Vancouver, BC |
|
Dear Mr. LeDuc:
Thank you for your correspondence concerning Bill C-61, An Act to amend the Copyright Act.
As you are aware the previous Liberal government had tabled a Bill on this issue but it did not come to debate because of the election. The current Conservative Bill has been eagerly awaited since they announced their intentions, in December 2007.
Canada has signed two World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) treaties, but has not yet ratified them. The last time the Canadian Copyright Act was amended was in 1997 but these amendments did not address the WIPO treaty agreements. In the interim, communications technology has expanded rapidly. Everyone is in agreement that the Copyright Act has to be amended to reflect the impact of digital technology.
Bill C-61 should strike a balance between the right of creators to be reimbursed for their creative, intellectual property and the desire for consumers to have access to these creative works.
Indeed digital technology serves both the creator and the consumer well. It increases the reach and distribution of creative works as never imagined, before; which is precisefy what creators need and it gives consumers easy access to creative works that can entertain, enrich, and educate.
This Bill does not serve either consumer or creator well. It prescribes narrow, punitive solutions to a complex problem. In fact the Bill could well have the effect of curbing the use of digital technology, to the extent that it becomes useless. This would be a pity! As well, implementation of the measures in the Bill would be nearly impossible, unless one abandons all privacy rights or imposes locks on the digital technology that severely limits its application. How to monetize digital technology to reward the creator and allow free and open use by the consumer is challenging
As Liberals we believe that there should have been extensive consultations with legal experts, creators, distributors and conventional and digital media industries to find the right balance of solutions. It is typical of the Harper government that they do not consult but impose.
Liberals intend to begin these consultations over the course of the summer so that when the Bill comes to the House we can propose appropriate amendments. Moreover we believe that the Bill should be further subject to public scrutiny if it ever gets to committee stage. It could be that after we consult with the expert groups they believe that Bill C-61 is unsalvageable, in which case one would have to vote against the Bill and rewrite a new one.
These are exciting and challenging times in media communications technology that can broaden the consumption of arts and cultural products, in a manner unheard of since the invention of the printing press. The challenges seemed impossible then but solutions were found that led to a Renaissance of art and culture. We are at a similar point in history, now. We must not use a sledge hammer.
Once again, thank you for writing. Please feel free to contact my office if I may be of further assistance.
Sincerely,
(signed)
Hon. Hedy Fry, M.P.
Vancouver Centre
And finally, a scan of the letter:
1 Jul 2008
BoingBoing's credibility crisis
Bloggers have been crowing about their increasing relevance and importance, and it's hard to argue. I certainly get more news through RSS feeds than ever, although I also read newspapers (online). But blogs are a relatively new phenomenon, and there isn't exactly a strong code of journalism. They're making it up as they go along, and sometimes that's painfully obvious.BoingBoing.net is caught up in a dramafest, having purged its archives of all articles containing references to a fellow blogger who apparently "displeased" an editor. No explanation or criteria is forthcoming, although all arrows point in one direction: Xeni Jardin (a very serious journalist).
Now I ask you, if A.M. Rosenthal had ordered the destruction of all articles in the NYT archives containing references to Truman Capote because, well, Abe was jealous of Truman's shinier head, would that fly?
Blogs will soon overtake what they call the "mainstream media" and if so, people will hold them to something resembling journalistic standards. They can't use the "Daily Show" argument to try to wriggle out of accountability: when they raise serious issues, they're serious about them. BoingBoing wields tremendous referential power, and they've been caught exercising it poorly. Credibility is a hard thing to build, and such an easy thing to throw away.
30 Jun 2008
Amazon not sure if DRM exists
Audible.com, a subsidiary of Amazon, is "agnostic" on the topic of DRM (Digital Rights Management). I wrote them to ask them to follow through on their pledge to remove DRM if people complain, and this is the response I got:
So, being agnostic, they presumably do not deny the existence of DRM, but they have no evidence it exists? Maybe they are just so tied up in the "customer experience" that they haven't thought about it. Well, if there's anything worse than annoying, dangerous and abusive DRM for the customer experience, I can't imagine what it might be.
Hello from Amazon.com.
Audible is DRM agnostic -- our primary goal is to offer a great customer experience. Audiobooks purchased on Audible.com can be played on over 600 AudibleReady devices, including Kindles, iPods and most other MP3 players, Tom Toms and other GPS devices, Sonos and other in-home systems, and all PCs and Macs. Unlike DRM-free MP3 music files designed for songs, audiobook files must deliver a unique multi-hour listening experience. Customers have recognized and appreciated Audible's unique listening experience since the company's inception in 1997. Audible is committed to maintaining and improving the features that drive this experience. [Paraphrase: Shut up.]
Audible recently announced that it is working to provide the option of DRM-free spoken word audio titles on Audible.com for content owners who prefer this method and are committed to working with Audible to maintain a great customer experience.[Paraphrase: We're thinking about it.]
Thanks for your interest in Amazon.com and Audible.
Sincerely,
Customer Service
Amazon.com
http://www.amazon.com/
31 May 2008
"Specially Selected Potatoes"
Marketers are quite aware that people are reading the ingredients on packaged poison food, and they've long since come up with more palatable euphemisms for things like monosodium glutamate.
But now canny marketers are not just exercising ploys to hide bad ingredients, they're also tarting up perfectly normal foods with nonsensical superlatives. For example, from a bag of Lay's Classic Potato Chips: "Specially selected potatoes". Specially selected for what qualities? Cheapest possible production costs? Minimal nutritional value? Highest possible pesticide concentrations? Most egregious carbon footprint? I'm guessing that maybe they mean they're selecting them for something positive, but the sheer meaninglessness of the phrase compromises the intent of ingredient disclosure: to factually inform the purchaser what is in the bag.
To expect the media to cover this trend would be naïve: they depend on the largess of corporate advertisers. To expect food merchants to properly educate the public is clearly not in their self interest. To expect politicians to do anything would be equally naïve: they won't even allow the prohibition of known poisons from food without extreme pressure, and they have campaign fundraising to worry about. The judiciary and the civil service may try to do the right thing, but they are routinely stymied. If we can't trust the labels, maybe we shouldn't buy their crappy packaged food at all.
But now canny marketers are not just exercising ploys to hide bad ingredients, they're also tarting up perfectly normal foods with nonsensical superlatives. For example, from a bag of Lay's Classic Potato Chips: "Specially selected potatoes". Specially selected for what qualities? Cheapest possible production costs? Minimal nutritional value? Highest possible pesticide concentrations? Most egregious carbon footprint? I'm guessing that maybe they mean they're selecting them for something positive, but the sheer meaninglessness of the phrase compromises the intent of ingredient disclosure: to factually inform the purchaser what is in the bag.
To expect the media to cover this trend would be naïve: they depend on the largess of corporate advertisers. To expect food merchants to properly educate the public is clearly not in their self interest. To expect politicians to do anything would be equally naïve: they won't even allow the prohibition of known poisons from food without extreme pressure, and they have campaign fundraising to worry about. The judiciary and the civil service may try to do the right thing, but they are routinely stymied. If we can't trust the labels, maybe we shouldn't buy their crappy packaged food at all.
23 May 2008
Tools and emergent complexity: exonerating Twitter and Rails
Twitter has had substantial downtime over the last several days, and this has prompted no end of commentary and analysis. 
Ruby on Rails was initially blamed for the problems a year ago, then exonerated, then blamed again (and exonerated again). But blaming the hammer for improperly driving a screw is not very illuminating; blaming a screwdriver for how it drives a nail even less so, and although using a hammer and screwdriver combination to drive a large number of finishing nails probably isn't the best solution, until a better machine is invented you wouldn't necessarily know that.
The reason Twitter is having difficulties is that it truly is a novel application. The rules are deceptively simple on the surface, but the emergent complexity is
profound, especially as you start to build a massive database of users (which Twitter certainly is now doing). The sort of many-to-many relationships embodied in the way people follow one another, coupled with the different options on what sorts of tweets you want to see, and the different ways of interfacing – the website, instant messaging, text messaging, a raft of third party applications (Twhirl, gTwitter, FriendFeed, et cetera, etc, &c, ...), the ability to track specific terms...
All of this adds up into an extremely complex system that gets exponentially harder to manage as the user base grows. The telephone systems' switching rules are simple by comparison: they are simple, one-to-one connections that connect, persist a short time, and go away, leaving nothing but possibly a billing record (and definitely an entry in an NSA database). A tweet goes onto a user's own list, their friends lists, possibly the lists of friends-of-friends, the list of anyone who is tracking that term, sends it out via SMS, instant messenger and the API, AND
persists the message forever; if the user then decides to delete it or make it private then it is removed from all of those lists. Simple, huh? Oh yeah, and it has to do all of that in realtime.
Twitter is built on Ruby on Rails, which came from a simple project management application. Obviously a simple project management application isn't designed to robustly handle the type of complex operations outlined above. It turns out nothing is, which is why Twitter has no easy solutions at hand. Their difficulties in scaling would have likely happened with any existing platform, as not even airline reservation and telephone switching systems handle such a flood of interrelated and interdependent traffic coming from so many different sources – traffic that doubles in two months.
Evan Williams and company invented something new, and they shouldn't be blamed for not initially understanding the true potential and nature of the beast. Although it isn't profitable, it continues to attract investors;
anything with this kind of growth and engagement is interesting to businesspeople. NTT invested for a reason, and it's not just because it is popular (and profitable) in Japan. This is an example of how next-generation communication is working: modern switching rules, attention-based networking – a step beyond instant messaging, a step beyond SMS and a step sideways from the phone system. The right tools for the job probably don't exist yet; maybe Erlang is a step in the right direction.
Lastly, I don't blame the Twitter staff for doing experiments on the site during the day. They live in the United States and there's no reason they should have to stay up all night. Besides, we should face the sobering conclusion that Japan's market and the rest of Asia might be more important to Twitter than the depressed, aging, and troubled North American market. From that standpoint, the US is a cheap, talented labour pool crafting clever mercantile goods to send to Asia in exchange for hard currency. Oh, how the worm turns.
Ruby on Rails was initially blamed for the problems a year ago, then exonerated, then blamed again (and exonerated again). But blaming the hammer for improperly driving a screw is not very illuminating; blaming a screwdriver for how it drives a nail even less so, and although using a hammer and screwdriver combination to drive a large number of finishing nails probably isn't the best solution, until a better machine is invented you wouldn't necessarily know that.The reason Twitter is having difficulties is that it truly is a novel application. The rules are deceptively simple on the surface, but the emergent complexity is
profound, especially as you start to build a massive database of users (which Twitter certainly is now doing). The sort of many-to-many relationships embodied in the way people follow one another, coupled with the different options on what sorts of tweets you want to see, and the different ways of interfacing – the website, instant messaging, text messaging, a raft of third party applications (Twhirl, gTwitter, FriendFeed, et cetera, etc, &c, ...), the ability to track specific terms... All of this adds up into an extremely complex system that gets exponentially harder to manage as the user base grows. The telephone systems' switching rules are simple by comparison: they are simple, one-to-one connections that connect, persist a short time, and go away, leaving nothing but possibly a billing record (and definitely an entry in an NSA database). A tweet goes onto a user's own list, their friends lists, possibly the lists of friends-of-friends, the list of anyone who is tracking that term, sends it out via SMS, instant messenger and the API, AND
persists the message forever; if the user then decides to delete it or make it private then it is removed from all of those lists. Simple, huh? Oh yeah, and it has to do all of that in realtime.Twitter is built on Ruby on Rails, which came from a simple project management application. Obviously a simple project management application isn't designed to robustly handle the type of complex operations outlined above. It turns out nothing is, which is why Twitter has no easy solutions at hand. Their difficulties in scaling would have likely happened with any existing platform, as not even airline reservation and telephone switching systems handle such a flood of interrelated and interdependent traffic coming from so many different sources – traffic that doubles in two months.
Evan Williams and company invented something new, and they shouldn't be blamed for not initially understanding the true potential and nature of the beast. Although it isn't profitable, it continues to attract investors;
anything with this kind of growth and engagement is interesting to businesspeople. NTT invested for a reason, and it's not just because it is popular (and profitable) in Japan. This is an example of how next-generation communication is working: modern switching rules, attention-based networking – a step beyond instant messaging, a step beyond SMS and a step sideways from the phone system. The right tools for the job probably don't exist yet; maybe Erlang is a step in the right direction.Lastly, I don't blame the Twitter staff for doing experiments on the site during the day. They live in the United States and there's no reason they should have to stay up all night. Besides, we should face the sobering conclusion that Japan's market and the rest of Asia might be more important to Twitter than the depressed, aging, and troubled North American market. From that standpoint, the US is a cheap, talented labour pool crafting clever mercantile goods to send to Asia in exchange for hard currency. Oh, how the worm turns.
14 Apr 2008
Squeezebox mash note
A couple of months ago I ordered a new home music player, the Squeezebox Duet. I was a little reluctant because it wasn't cheap (nearly $500 by the time you include shipping, import duties, etc) and it requires server software, but I liked the look of it and I liked the fact that the server software was open source. I didn't really look too deeply: I just thought "shiny!" and dug out my credit card. Besides, my bro-in-law loves his old Squeezebox, so I figured it'd be good.
But zOMG, I was totally unprepared for what I got: more than meets the eye. This thing is incredible –
a real example of what a great product a company can build when it totally understands how to use open source software to build a platform and build a committed community of users and developers. Everything about it is cool. Yes, I knew I was essentially buying an iPod-style remote control for my stereo which would hook to my network and suck all of my music off my computer (actually, my NAS). But it really is a platform.
First, the hardware is very slick. It is well designed, feels nice, looks very chic, and has tons of room to grow. They built in so many extras that the platform can grow for a long time just catching up with the hardware: 3-axis accelerometer, USB adapter and SD flash slot on the remote, WiFi all over the place... simply spectacular. You could build a bunch of cool things on this platform.
Second, the software is quite capable. It was easy to install (on Ubuntu, I just had to add their repository and the package). Unfortunately, the latest version of the server software, SqueezeCenter, has not yet been adapted to run on the NSLU2 I purchased for the express purpose, but it is doing okay on my four-year-old laptop. Besides, I might be able to put it directly on my NAS200 soon.
Third, they're working quite actively on the software, and they walk the talk
when it comes to full disclosure: the whole stack is open. They not only release all of their code, they give you a real toolchain and support in making changes. Unlike other devices which manufacturers churn out and abandon, they've recently released an update to the remote control firmware that addresses issues with seeking through music lists, making it much more friendly and responsive. The remote control software also builds and runs on desktop Linux, OSX, and even ghetto Windows (a true tour de force) which makes it easy to build and debug your add-in modules (in Lua: how very nerd chic) or your own custom firmware. It also just gives you a nice remote control to run on your laptop. The open source firmware makes it possible for a community of hackers to come up with endless cool applications for all of that tasty overengineering that went into the remote.
But here's the clincher: I had an issue with my album images not showing up. I've been compulsively tagging my music collection and applying album images to make the lists look pretty, but the images weren't showing up properly – even worse, it was sending corrupt images to the browser, throwing the format and making it all look weird. So I started looking at it, and reported the problem on their bugtrack system. One of their engineers fixed it fourteen hours later; I grabbed the in-development build the next day and my issue was fixed. Twenty-four hour turnaround.
That is not only great service, it helps them build and take advantage of a community of expert users. Unlike some companies which persecute people who fix their problems, at least one part of Logitech has it figured out.
But zOMG, I was totally unprepared for what I got: more than meets the eye. This thing is incredible –
a real example of what a great product a company can build when it totally understands how to use open source software to build a platform and build a committed community of users and developers. Everything about it is cool. Yes, I knew I was essentially buying an iPod-style remote control for my stereo which would hook to my network and suck all of my music off my computer (actually, my NAS). But it really is a platform.First, the hardware is very slick. It is well designed, feels nice, looks very chic, and has tons of room to grow. They built in so many extras that the platform can grow for a long time just catching up with the hardware: 3-axis accelerometer, USB adapter and SD flash slot on the remote, WiFi all over the place... simply spectacular. You could build a bunch of cool things on this platform.
Second, the software is quite capable. It was easy to install (on Ubuntu, I just had to add their repository and the package). Unfortunately, the latest version of the server software, SqueezeCenter, has not yet been adapted to run on the NSLU2 I purchased for the express purpose, but it is doing okay on my four-year-old laptop. Besides, I might be able to put it directly on my NAS200 soon.
Third, they're working quite actively on the software, and they walk the talk
when it comes to full disclosure: the whole stack is open. They not only release all of their code, they give you a real toolchain and support in making changes. Unlike other devices which manufacturers churn out and abandon, they've recently released an update to the remote control firmware that addresses issues with seeking through music lists, making it much more friendly and responsive. The remote control software also builds and runs on desktop Linux, OSX, and even ghetto Windows (a true tour de force) which makes it easy to build and debug your add-in modules (in Lua: how very nerd chic) or your own custom firmware. It also just gives you a nice remote control to run on your laptop. The open source firmware makes it possible for a community of hackers to come up with endless cool applications for all of that tasty overengineering that went into the remote.But here's the clincher: I had an issue with my album images not showing up. I've been compulsively tagging my music collection and applying album images to make the lists look pretty, but the images weren't showing up properly – even worse, it was sending corrupt images to the browser, throwing the format and making it all look weird. So I started looking at it, and reported the problem on their bugtrack system. One of their engineers fixed it fourteen hours later; I grabbed the in-development build the next day and my issue was fixed. Twenty-four hour turnaround.
That is not only great service, it helps them build and take advantage of a community of expert users. Unlike some companies which persecute people who fix their problems, at least one part of Logitech has it figured out.
3 Mar 2008
Asimov really is dead
I've been a subscriber to Asimov's Science Fiction magazine since I was a teenager. I have always loved scifi, from the juvenile wonders of Heinlein to the half-bug orgies of China Miéville. Short stories are the core of scifi, where the new ideas get kicked around, and sometimes they're good reading. Usually I could get at least one good story out of each issue.
Lately my enjoyment of this magazine has ebbed. The quality of the stories seems to be going downhill, and the circulation seems to be pacing that trend.
Having subscribed for many years, there are many older stories I've read that I'd like to revisit, but I don't keep stacks of rotting acid pulp around the house anymore. You'd think that these stories would be available on the website, but you'd be wrong – the magazine remains steadfastly rooted in the past century: although they do sell a crappy DRM version through another publisher, the back catalog isn't available to current subscribers.
I really want to encourage people to write this stuff, but this medium's flaws are no longer tolerable. It's not that I'm cheap: I don't even mind the (stupid) surcharge for living outside the USA, and I'll pay for quality. But better stuff is now being published online, both in text and audio, which I really enjoy and which doesn't have embarrassing cover art. It is sad that a vehicle for a genre about the future stays so firmly wedded to the past, but there's a lot of that going around.
Lately my enjoyment of this magazine has ebbed. The quality of the stories seems to be going downhill, and the circulation seems to be pacing that trend.
Having subscribed for many years, there are many older stories I've read that I'd like to revisit, but I don't keep stacks of rotting acid pulp around the house anymore. You'd think that these stories would be available on the website, but you'd be wrong – the magazine remains steadfastly rooted in the past century: although they do sell a crappy DRM version through another publisher, the back catalog isn't available to current subscribers.I really want to encourage people to write this stuff, but this medium's flaws are no longer tolerable. It's not that I'm cheap: I don't even mind the (stupid) surcharge for living outside the USA, and I'll pay for quality. But better stuff is now being published online, both in text and audio, which I really enjoy and which doesn't have embarrassing cover art. It is sad that a vehicle for a genre about the future stays so firmly wedded to the past, but there's a lot of that going around.
25 Feb 2008
Faux News parodies itself
A comedian decided to speak his mind at the end of a Fox & Friends segment, saying "What is Fox News, it's just a parade of propaganda, isn't it? It's just a festival of ignorance." He rambled on a bit, and the flustered host responded "you get all the news you can at Fox News," and then cut to a teaser for the next story: a promo for Captain Kirk's Guide to Women, with four buxom models.So there you have it: that's all the news you can get.
20 Feb 2008
Podcasts I like (again)
I've written this before, but there have been some additions.
- StarShipSofa: scifi short stories by a (sometimes long-winded) man with a lovely Scottish brogue
- Escape Pod: scifi short fiction
- Pseudopod: horror short fiction
- For Whatever Reason: keeping up with Tim & Nanette
- Paris Djs: mix music of various genres
- Bootie USA (not quite a podcast, but what the heck): mashups
- Cory Doctorow: short stories and talks (sadly very quiet of late)
- Radio-Canada: La Première à la carte: Quotidien et commentaires de la première chaîne du Radio-Canada
- Radio-Canada: Le bulletin national: Le quotidien à dix minutes, chaque heure
- RFI: Le journal en français facile: Le quotidien à dix minutes, chaque jour
5 Feb 2008
They fight the artists
The RIAA constantly gives the line that they're fighting for the artists, the little guys, the creators. But really, they are fighting for themselves: the Big Four recording companies. Though they sometimes find a favoured artist to shill for them, they are transparently anti-artist: they want to lower the royalty paid to songwriters from 13% of wholesale (about nine cents) to 8% (about 5.5 cents).
Why? Because that way the "recording companies" can keep more of the money. This, at the same time that they slash their promotional budgets and the Internet eliminates their former costs of actual disc production. Basically, they now operate as a protection racket: they don't actually do anything anymore but stand between artists and distributors like iTunes and Napster, take their cut & screw over artists financially, and prevent "illegitimate" music from getting on the radio. Pimps give better economy in their service to prostitutes.
The recording industry is at arms because file sharing threatens their business model, not artists or the quality of the art. Just ask 50 Cent: "What is important for the music industry to understand is that file-sharing doesn't hurt artists." It sure does hurt the recording industry that feeds on artists, though.
Why should we care? Because the recording companies (and movie companies) are willing to destroy freedom of expression for all of us (and hurt our democracies, too) just to prop up their dying monopolies. They can only do it if we allow them. If you're Canadian, it is not too late: help stop the Canadian DMCA.
Why? Because that way the "recording companies" can keep more of the money. This, at the same time that they slash their promotional budgets and the Internet eliminates their former costs of actual disc production. Basically, they now operate as a protection racket: they don't actually do anything anymore but stand between artists and distributors like iTunes and Napster, take their cut & screw over artists financially, and prevent "illegitimate" music from getting on the radio. Pimps give better economy in their service to prostitutes.The recording industry is at arms because file sharing threatens their business model, not artists or the quality of the art. Just ask 50 Cent: "What is important for the music industry to understand is that file-sharing doesn't hurt artists." It sure does hurt the recording industry that feeds on artists, though.
Why should we care? Because the recording companies (and movie companies) are willing to destroy freedom of expression for all of us (and hurt our democracies, too) just to prop up their dying monopolies. They can only do it if we allow them. If you're Canadian, it is not too late: help stop the Canadian DMCA.
3 Feb 2008
Journalism in exile
Jon Talton is a decidedly unhappy journalist. He heaps scorn in the way I only could if I had been practicing it for 27 years (and if I had more talent for it). He writes lovely articles about growth boosterism, poor land-use decisions, and do-nothing politicians. I find it unsurprising that he has a hard time writing for today's neurotic Happy McNews media outlets – it's not the sort of stuff around which real estate agents and car dealers want to hawk their wares. So here's a professional journalist who has to write outside of the mainstream media in order to say what he really thinks... the era of the powerful, relevant newspaper with real opinions is completely, resolutely past.
31 Jan 2008
In bed
Ratings for Fox News have followed the GOP into the toilet, and it is with a double-dose of schadenfreude that I present a little gem that illustrates just how blatantly, ridiculously biased Faux News really is, and just how ineffective they have become. Unfortunately, Fox is just the worst of a bad lot... NBC, owned by GE, is hardly more likely to be a reliably independent voice, and the other conglomerate-owned media are so entwined with conflicting business interests that they couldn't possibly be expected to attempt objectivity – even putting aside the basic conflict of interest coming from paid advertisements. If it is on television and has any consequence, it is certainly biased: journalistic ethics have become a hollow joke. And that goes for you too, PBS.
30 Jan 2008
U2 joins the middle-aged establishment
U2 sold out a long, long time ago. That's healthy, everybody sells out sometime (except maybe Gus Hall) – but there's selling out, and then there is wallowing in middle-aged greed and unabashed contempt for the people who ultimately give them their money, as does U2's manager in an official statement on behalf of the group. I've long since stopped paying to go to their shows, and the discs I bought in the last century sit at the back of the cabinet, tired and irrelevant; but ever humble, Bono believes that U2's music will "last 100 years":
"You know I'm still hungry," said the 45-year-old winner of 14 Grammy awards. "I still want a lot out of music."a lot... of money. That explains the weird simultaneous push for copyright extension and debt relief: Bono wants the third world wealthy enough to keep him fat on royalties until the next ice age.
11 Dec 2007
NYTimes ♥ GM
The New York Times ran an article today about GM's enormous fuel-cell behemoth, a hydrogen-powered SUV.
Granted, hydrogen could be produced through solar or wind power. Someday, maybe, when and if government decides to subsidize that instead of petroleum extraction. It just isn't currently. But to read the Times, you'd think these things were powered by environmentally beneficial fairy sparkles.
Like other fuel-cell cars, the Equinox generates electricity from a reaction between hydrogen and oxygen, with no smog-forming emissions or greenhouse gases.Of course, they don't mention where the hydrogen comes from: fossil fuels, notably natural gas, which is burned:
CH4 + O2 -> CO2 + 2H2That means that carbon dioxide, CO2, a greenhouse gas, is emitted to produce the fuel. (The other common source is coal, which is much worse.) The car doesn't emit it – that's taken care of already. And, as a matter of fact, the somewhat inefficient intermediate step of going to hydrogen means that this car burns 30% more fuel than a vehicle that runs directly on natural gas. But you won't see that anywhere in the article, since the Times is too busy making mouth love to a major advertiser.
Granted, hydrogen could be produced through solar or wind power. Someday, maybe, when and if government decides to subsidize that instead of petroleum extraction. It just isn't currently. But to read the Times, you'd think these things were powered by environmentally beneficial fairy sparkles.
30 Oct 2007
Reclaiming wasted time
By removing Lifehacker from my newsfeed list, I've saved myself fifteen minutes per week of paging past dozens of pointless articles. I had subscribed to this a couple of years ago when I was desperate to improve my time organization & priortization skills, and the site had some practical tips.
However, the site has devolved into a sisyphean wheel of press releases, hints from Heloise, and ridiculously stupid ideas. Most practical tips are used up, and although they are reprinting old articles now, the site has become a time waster. And you know what to do with time wasters...
However, the site has devolved into a sisyphean wheel of press releases, hints from Heloise, and ridiculously stupid ideas. Most practical tips are used up, and although they are reprinting old articles now, the site has become a time waster. And you know what to do with time wasters...
20 Sept 2007
Rupert Murdoch is an old man
The purchase of MySpace by News Corp for $580M was a watershed moment: old media realized the game was changing. But they still do not realize how fundamentally, and they do not understand technology.
Rupert Murdoch is an old man. In his mind he sells newspapers; whether Faux News or the Wall Street Journal or Prison Break, it's the same centrally produced flat surface that shows stock quotes, Ed Anger look- and sound-alikes, and pictures of warm jigglies that he has provided to loyal punters for years. So now the idiots produce it for themselves? Great, Rupe and his noxious progeny can just sit back and rake it in.
Wrong. First off, the trendsetting liberal élite fears and loathes Murdoch and his company. Second, others understand deeply that it is not about The Simpsons or American Idol, it is about a platform. Facebook understands this, which is why they're seeding $10M in development on their platform. No equity stake required.
So why should hardworking ramen-suckers build an environment to build an empire for News Corp? I haven't seen a reason yet. Facebook may not be Mother Teresa either, but they're at least giving ten million more reasons to build on their platform.
Rupert Murdoch is an old man. In his mind he sells newspapers; whether Faux News or the Wall Street Journal or Prison Break, it's the same centrally produced flat surface that shows stock quotes, Ed Anger look- and sound-alikes, and pictures of warm jigglies that he has provided to loyal punters for years. So now the idiots produce it for themselves? Great, Rupe and his noxious progeny can just sit back and rake it in.
Wrong. First off, the trendsetting liberal élite fears and loathes Murdoch and his company. Second, others understand deeply that it is not about The Simpsons or American Idol, it is about a platform. Facebook understands this, which is why they're seeding $10M in development on their platform. No equity stake required.
So why should hardworking ramen-suckers build an environment to build an empire for News Corp? I haven't seen a reason yet. Facebook may not be Mother Teresa either, but they're at least giving ten million more reasons to build on their platform.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)