Month: November 2003

ten years in the making

Derek Curry: A tale of two Cairos

InfoWorld’s Jon Udell pulls together Microsoft’s decade-long search for an object-based, database-like filesystem, web standards, and social networking.

this vision of metadata-enriched storage and query-driven retrieval was, and is, compelling. Making it real wasn’t then, and isn’t now, simply a matter of engineering the right data structures and APIs.

I seem to remember some elements of this in the Be file system . . . . it will be interesting to see a. if this stuff works and b. if anyone else comes up with an alternative.

zealotry

So sue me: Jon Lech Johansen’s blog

I’ve been getting some emails from angry Mac zealots. Many of them start out similar to this:

Sorry to say this but, unlike with DeCSS where you were allowing Linux users to view DVDs, this time you’ve gone too far.

None of them explain how this is different and why GNU/Linux users should not be allowed to play legally bought music. Instead they go on to rave about how great iTMS is and that the imposed DRM is a good compromise. If they hadn’t been completely clueless about copyright law, they’d know that Fair Use is the compromise.

I have little patience with this kind of hardcore zealotry: one of the problems of getting older is the inability to see black and white or, to put it another way, to see only one side of an issue.

I didn’t realize the iTunes Music Store prevented anyone from “play[ing] legally bought music.” I haven’t bought any of the music on my iPod from the Music Store and have never had any problem playing it. Some came from CDs, some from LPs I converted, some from free downloads at Amazon.com: all work fine. I’m sure I’m missing something, but I’m not all the interested in looking into just what tortuous usage I would need to pursue that would find me in violation of the hated DRM.

As noted here, “there are loopholes you could drive a truck through and I’m pretty Apple knows all about them. So the much-hated DRM is actually pretty weak in this case. And I’m worried that if enough zealots take the hardline view that *all DRM* is evil, regardless of any real nuisance value, that Apple or other providers might be pressured to pull the plug on the service by the RIAA cartel”.

Fair Use may be the compromise: I understand that. And I am reminded of that when I convert old LPs to CD and then to mp3 or AAC files and I am not subject to any DRM at all. Of course, if the RIAA cartel were really interested in making me happy or taking care of the artists they have contracted with, I wouldn’t need to go to that effort.

What if iTMS is shuttered as a result of something like this? What happens next? My guess is that some zealots will find a way to get what they want, under the guise of being moral or ethical crusaders, while the Rest of Us are left with the options of breaking the law or breaking our bank accounts to feed the RIAA cartel.

I think it might be a good rule of thumb to take legal interpretations from hackers with a grain of salt as you would review code written by a lawyer: you may not like the look of it, but you might just have to take it as it is.

I take some comfort in being opposed to both side of this debate, the anti DRM zealots and the RIAA cartel, but they don’t listen to each other or me. Who knows how this will be resolved, if at all?

turkeyless day dinner

This is our 11th meatless Thanksgiving and is perhaps the easiest meal to do without meat. If your Thanksgiving is of the more traditional omnivorous kind, take a look at the spread and then imagine it without the bird or ham when you try to imagine how vegetarians get through the holiday.

Here’s the menu for tomorrow:
Cranberry and orange sauce
Oven-roasted parsnips
Carrots and oranges
Roasted potatoes
Shepherds pie
Pumpkin pie
{Pecan|Apple} pie
Brocolli/Cauliflower thing of some sort (someone’s bringing it)
Roasted onions
Stuffing
Fresh bread
Various libations

Plus anything I think of getting today to add to the spread . . . .

going tribal

Ben Hammersley’s Dangerous Precedent: Join my cult

I’m playing with Tribe.net, one of the many social networking sites out there. It wants, as these things do, to get me to send all of my friends an invitation to join. Fair enough, except that I don’t really care about my friends. If I’ve got their email address to hand, I already know them. I want new people. So I’m inviting you, my unknown reader.

I took him up on that: you can join mine by clicking here.

does marriage equal commitment?

Gays Respond:

The recent decision by the NY Massachusetts Supreme Court that ruled against any bans on marriage between adults, regardless of gender, may finally make it possible for anyone who wants to get married to do so. Judging by the coverage, I wonder who cares?

The response is hardly monolithic. In interviews with about 20 couples and people who study gay culture, those most interested in marriage had children or pressing concerns about health or mortality. Younger couples, from an era when gays were less closeted, were inclined to consider marriage an entitlement that would erase their perceived second-class status. And couples who came of age in the 1960’s and 1970’s were more likely to see marriage as a heterosexual institution, symbolizing a system that they could not, or would not, want to be part of.

I see this as relating to how one defines marriage. If you strip away all the baggage and look at it as a promise, a commitment, to that other person and extending out to their family (the vows in our wedding were sealed with ‘I will’ not ‘I do’ as a sign that it wasn’t about today, but for all days), perhaps it’s easier to digest. But when I read comments about how people are rejecting marriage as a patriarchal institution or otherwise finding reasons to reject it, I have to wonder at the strength of their commitment. At its core, that’s what marriage is: commitment.

Some couples in the article are described as “not being ready” for it but there’s a tone of superiority, that only they who have been excluded understand the commitment: “it’s not just a slip of paper.” I suppose this refers to the generally brittle state of marriage as an institution in this culture, but at the same time, generalizations are a poor excuse. As for readiness, who can say if they’re really ready? The commitment is not to being ready, but to being willing to make the effort.

The other argument is also used by straight couples who pair off without a ceremony, protesting all the while that they are committed but don’t need the “approval” of the state. The state isn’t approving anything, but acknowledging what some people claim as fact but won’t commit to (that word again). I don’t buy the idea that one can just back into marriage as it were a land claim or squatters rights. Going through the motions for some period of time isn’t the same as openly committing yourself to someone else and a relationship. To hold the relationship — and your commitment to the alleged partner — at arm’s length is bad faith.

And it seems to me that a display of commitment would go long way to defeating the generalizations about promiscuity and anonymous sex as a big part of what the gay community is about. I know there are committed gay relationships: I’ll have an example to dinner tomorrow as my nephew and his partner join us. But articles like the one quoted don’t help.

vaporware, defined

Paul Thurrott’s SuperSite for Windows: Windows “Longhorn” FAQ

But Mac OS X already has a lot of these features. What’s the big deal?

A: Apple has implemented some basic desktop composition features in Mac OS X “Panther.” But the basic problem with Mac OS X isn’t going away: It’s a classic desktop operating system that doesn’t offer anything in the way of usability advancements over previous desktop operating systems. Today, Windows XP and its task-based interface are far superior to anything in Mac OS X. In the future, Longhorn will further distance Windows from OS X. From a graphical standpoint, there won’t be any comparison. As Microsoft revealed at the PDC 2003 conference, Longhorn is far more impressive technically than Panther.

OK, so who wants to break it to this guy that Longhorn isn’t due out until “late 2005”, to quote his own site’s timeline.

That’s two years from now.

I draw two conclusions from this:

  1. Apple has two years (two release cycles, at their current pace) to pick and choose what features they think are worth implementing from the Longhorn catalog
  2. IT buyers may decide to stick with current releases of Windows products and wait to see if any of this comes to pass

Anyone remember Adam Osborne, who managed to kill demand for his Osborne II by touting the features of impending Osborne III? The time involved here is not the same: people may not be willing to wait that long.

another kind of networking: weblogs in higher ed

Lawrence Lessig

Law students begin life as idealists, and there’s an obvious and powerful idealism in the Winer’s arguments. I’ll point to my favorite parts when the talk is posted. Meanwhile, I was happy to tell him that the Center will be copying his experiment at Harvard next fall, and offering a blog for every entering student in the law school. Turow’s One L, or even Alex Wellen’s Barman will be nothing in comparison.

I wonder if this will serve as a clue-by-four at my former workplace . . . .

I made reference to this in a report to the Executive Council I was asked to write, mentioning self-publishing as a way of documenting the oral tradition and skeletal institutional memory there. One of the recipients forwarded on to a member of the Board of Regents, since he is an alumnus. But as fate would have it, he’ll be leaving that post to run Delta Air Lines.

slow tech? how about conscious tech

The Seattle Times: Business & Technology: Slow down technology’s relentless pace

“Slow” phenomena are popping up all over. A “slow food” movement started in Italy to counter McDonald’s and other chains. Japan has a “slow life” initiative to slacken the pace of living.

Why not a “slow tech” movement? At first it may seem contradictory. Technology’s primary contribution has been efficiency, helping us get more done in less time. The Internet boom is all about shrinking time and distance. The innovation and new ideas associated with technology seem to thrive on speed — faster chips, faster networks, faster communications.

So what would be the point of slowing it all down? For one thing, taking pause would help us put technology’s role in our lives in better perspective.

Somewhat ironic, coming from a fan — and biographer — of Bill Gates . . . . . a guy who wants a computer in every house (perhaps amended now to every room in the house) has lot to answer for.

This is a pretty shallow look at this idea. Instead of “slow tech” how about “conscious tech” as a description. I don’t know anyone who wants a slower computer or a slower network connection: what we want is to do what we’ve done in less time and/or with less hassle and we don’t want the technology to get in our way. Great art conceals art (attributed to Stanislavsky, as best I can find), and I would restate it for the sake of this argument as “great technology conceals technology.”

In my household as in many others, the internet connection replaces, either partially or totally, some things like TV and newspapers, the telephone, the yellow pages, etc. I can look up business locations, track down news or sports information, comparison shop for good and services, all with a single service. is it perfect? No, not yet. Do I want to go back to the pre-Internet days? No. It is an improvement, on balance: the distractions and annoyances are outweighed by the benefits.

But that doesn’t mean I do email or web-browsing on my phone or constrain my excursions to within 100 yards of an internet kiosk. When I see ads for PocketPC and similar electronic leashes where the copy commands you to spend your bus or rail commute time checking your email or updating your calendar, I shake my head.

We don’t need to be told to work more or spend more time connected to our workplaces. As was said of water and fire, technology is a good servant but a poor master.

One of the parting gifts I got the other week when I left my job was 365 Health and Happiness Boosters: it’s geared more to the distaff side, but it’s underlying philosophy is that there’s nothing wrong with taking time out for yourself. Simple things like letting the phone ring three times before you answer it will make you wonder, what’s the hurry?

If you take that to heart, you’ll find yourself stopping to think whether or not you need to check your email right now (can it wait? let it) or your voice mail messages (will you be able to act on the requests? if not, will it just make you anxious?).

Aaron Swartz’s recent discussion of procrastination has me wondering about the relationship of that to the prevalence of technology: it’s easier to procrastinate when you have a variety of distractions a mouseclick away, after all. How much of the random work-avoiding browsing and email sending and receiving is conscious or purposeful?

what if TCO is a wash?

Yahoo! News – Mac vs. PC: The Truth About TCO

“Clearly, the price tags for PCs are lower — at least at the low end,” says Macworld (news – web sites) editor-in-chief Jason Snell.

“However, we recently tested the speed of high-end Macs and PCs, and they’re comparable — for comparable prices — in many areas. So, it’s probably most realistic to say that while the cheapest PCs cost less than the cheapest Macs, the cheapest Macs are probably comparable with PCs that cost a similar amount,” he told NewsFactor.

“In other words, as usual, you get what you pay for.”

[ . . . . ]

The question about Mac vs. PC TCO may be answerable, said Jupiter analyst Michael Gartenberg. “But the question is, is it relevant?”

Differences in cost of ownership are justified — or not — by how suitable a given platform is to a task, Gartenberg maintains. “Based on suitability for task, the numbers for both platforms are going to be roughly the same over a five-year period,” he told NewsFactor.

So if it doesn’t make a difference to the bottomline and the two platforms are functionally equivalent, where’s the argument *against* a heterogenous environment? I’ve always been told competition is good for business . . . . do the business who say “you can use any OS you like, as long as its Windows” not get that?