Examancer

An ongoing story I have been watching took what I feel is a dark turn when Iowa Governor Chet Culver (Democrat) weighed in with his views on the situation. The story I am referring to is the removal of an Atheist ad from DesMoines Area Regional Transit (DART) buses. DART received several complaints and determined the ad was “too offensive.” The ad in question? Here it is:

Apparently the mere acknowledgment that Atheists exist is too offensive for some people. There will always be dissenters though, that doesn’t surprised me. What did surprise me were the comments made by Governor Chet Culver:

“I was disturbed personally…by the advertisement, I can understand why other Iowans were also disturbed by the message that it sent.”

Here we have the chief executive in the state of Iowa stating that simply pointing out Atheists exist is personally disturbing. I am used to politicians pandering, but it appears Chet is taking this to the point of promoting and identifying with the complete intolerance of Atheism. We cannot stand by and allow our public servants to spew forth bigotry which labels the views of a growing minority as “disturbing.” This kind of statement is not far from hate speech and will embolden those who do hate Atheists.

Friendly Atheist has made a call to Christians to support the advertisement, and many have responded. It is clear this is not a battle between religious views but instead a battle for tolerance, religious or otherwise. Many Iowa Christians understand this, but clearly their governor does not.

I encourage all reasonable citizens of Iowa and elsewhere to write to both DART and, more importantly, Governor Chet Culver. We need to make it clear to DART that these ads are not offensive. We need to make it clear to Governor Chet Culver that acknowledging the existence of people with certain religious views (or lack thereof) is not disturbing and statements from public officials suggesting otherwise will not be tolerated.

DART can be emailed at dart@ridedart.com or called at 515-283-8111. Governor Chet Culver can be reach through a contact form or by phone at 515-281-5211. I encourage you to speak your mind, but please do so in a polite, rational, respectful, and non-threatening way.

Today DART announced they have received more calls in support of the ad than against it and are now asking the Iowa Atheists and Freethinkers (IAF) to submit a new ad for consideration. They still seem to be suggesting the original ad was offensive, but want to work with the IAF. I have no idea how the IAF could craft an ad which reaches out to Atheists and is less offensive than the current ad, but maybe I am missing something. I still feel DART could use some convincing that the original ad was fine and that their requirement for a new one is unfounded.

Update: DART did the right thing and chose to allow the ad. The original one with no modifications. Support for the ad was overwhelming and our freedom of speech helped us protect our freedom of expression. We may have a long road ahead of us, but I stand today proud of my country and the ability our citizens have to challenge authority when that authority infringes one of our basic rights. This doesn’t absolve the governor of his responsibility for making such short-sighted public statements which dismiss the views Atheists, but this does show that DART is a reasonable organization who know now, more than ever, how important our liberties are. Thank you DART.

A week before launching the Palm Pre, on May 28th, 2009, Palm announced their upcoming Pre would have a feature called “Media Sync”. This feature would allow the Palm Pre to sync directly with Apple’s iTunes music software without any additional tools or software. Shortly after the release of the Palm Pre it was discovered that this capability was enabled partly by the Pre masquerading as an iPod when using Media Sync mode.

For over a month all was well and Palm Pre owners who used iTunes could sync their music with the Palm Pre seamlessly. Then, on July 15th, 2009, Apple did what many had feared. Version 8.2.1 of iTunes included an update that appeared to specifically block the Palm Pre from syncing with iTunes. Although many people were outraged and saddened by this, the response I saw was surprisingly small. It appears as though most Palm Pre owners who weren’t already using iTunes used other media managers to sync with their Pre. I myself use Winamp, RhythmBox, and manual syncing.

Today Palm released version 1.1.0 of their WebOS software to Palm Pre owners. Along with many new features this update included a return volley in the battle over iTunes compatibility by restoring the Palm Pre’s ability to sync with Apple’s iTunes. To accomplish this it appears Palm took more steps to disguise the Palm Pre as an iPod. This time not only does the device identify itself as an iPod, it also identifies itself as being manufactured by Apple.

A shallow examination of the methods used by Apple to block the Palm Pre from syncing and the methods used by Palm to re-enable it seem to indicate there are still a few more ways Apple could easily block the Palm Pre. However, it also appears that Palm’s ability to disguise the Pre as an iPod is virtually limitless. If Apple chooses to fight this battle further they may find themselves stuck with the decision of forcing firmware updates on iPod users in order to prevent the Palm Pre from syncing with iTunes, a move that will surely upset many long-term iPod users who have never even heard of the Pre. Even in that scenario it’s possible Palm could yet again re-enable iTunes syncing, meaning Apple could alienate its own faithful customers and still fail to block the Pre from iTunes.

This fight by Apple is not surprising when put in the perspective of Apple’s history with third party hardware and software. Apple has actively fought its own customers on the ability to use third party media managers for iPods/iPhones by constantly breaking compatibility through firmware updates and even threatening those who share information on how to load/unload media from their devices. In the past Apple may have had a valid argument for preventing third party media managers from managing content on iPods due to the DRM present on many tracks purchased through iTunes. Apple no longer sells music with DRM and has not done so for a while, so the argument that they must fight third party software to prevent piracy is outlandish. This stance of Apple makes it extremely difficult for legitimate iPod and iPhone users from using anything else but iTunes to load content onto their devices. For some using iTunes isn’t even an option as iTunes is not available (and does not have any plans to be made available) on Linux, meaning those of us who use Linux cannot use an iPod or iPhone at all.

Palm Pre’s Media Sync capability is different story though. In this case Apple isn’t forcing their hardware users to use their software, they are forcing software users to use their hardware. At first this seemed to me to be slightly less anti-consumer than the previous scenario until I thought about who actually uses iTunes to sync with their Palm Pre. Most people who use iTunes own an iPod or iPhone. iTunes is a decent media player but there is very little incentive for those who don’t own an iPod to use it. Both iPod owners and non-owners are encouraged by Apple to use iTunes for all their music needs and it is the only way to purchase music from Apple’s music store. Many users have invested large sums of money to build a collection of music through the iTunes Music Store, and those users believe they “own” that music. Put yourself in their shoes. Imagine you have purcahse ~$500 worth of DRM-free music over the past couple years and you have stored that music on your trusty iPod. Now, imagine you are shopping for a new phone and for whatever reason you decide to purchase a Palm Pre (maybe AT&T isn’t an option, or maybe Sprint is your current carrier, or maybe even though you are an iPod user you just don’t like or want the iPhone). In the process of purchasing your Pre you discover it actually makes a great media player that allows you to lower the number of devices in your pocket. Sure, you still use your iPod for certain things like jogging, but on a daily basis you don’t want both devices in your pocket so you want to use the Pre for music as well. Now, how do you go about getting your music onto your device? Well, without an iTunes syncing capability there are ways to get your MP3s out of iTunes and onto your device, but doing this manually or migrating to another media manager may be difficult and cumbersome. Plus, you still have to use iTunes for your iPod. Wouldn’t it be great if the Pre “just worked” with iTunes? Yeah, Palm thought so too so they made it happen. Apple’s response to this is to punish their own customers by putting up road blocks to this kind of interoperability.

Apple can try to spin this however it wants, but its hard to deny that they are punishing their own customers. If they continue this fight it may also be tough for organizations like the Department of Justice to ignore these actions in the context of the current digital music market, where roughly 70% of all music sold online occurs through iTunes. Even in the greater music market Apple is now the number one seller of music in the USA. Apple’s position in the market gives them a lot of power, and they appear to be using that power to dictate significantly the terms with which customers shall have access to content. This matches accepted definitions of “monopoly” almost verbatim. Apple can avoid that label by not strong-arming their customers, but if this battle continues that is exactly what they will be doing.

In conclusion, I strongly disagree with critics who claim Palm is wrong for trying to be interoperable with iTunes. The Palm Pre’s ability to sync with iTunes is just one of the many ways Palm allows users to load media onto the Pre. Palm is not attempting to “rely” on iTunes or any single sync method, and is instead taking the approach of giving users as many options as possible. I think this is the right approach and in most cases this allows users, who have already amassed huge media collections, to sync that media with the Pre using their current setup, whatever that may be. I believe Apple is wrong here for trying to punish their own customers who have added a non-Apple device to their collection of devices. Apple’s actions are anti-competitive and, possibly more importantly, anti-customer. They aren’t hurting Palm much by playing cat and mouse, they are hurting their own paying customers.

I have been reading about this story, looking through article after article for an update where McDonald’s comes forward and agrees to pay Nigel Haskett’s medical bills. Unfortunately, they haven’t yet and it appears they might let this issue go all the way to court.

For those who aren’t familiar with the story, let me fill you in. In August 2008 Nigel Haskett, then a 21-year-old McDonald’s employee in Little Rock, Arkansas, witnessed Perry Kennon beating a woman in the McDonald’s where he is employed. Video shows Haskett acted quickly by forcing the assailant outside of the restaurant and then blocking the door. His actions immediately ended the beating Perry Kennon was giving to the woman in the restaurant. Afterwards, Kennon went to his car, grabbed a gun, and proceeded to shoot Nigel Haskett multiple times. Nigel then stumbled into the restaurant and eventually collapsed. Nigel survived the incident and, after three surgeries, appears to be doing well. However, he is now saddled with approximately $300,000 in medical bills and his claim for Worker’s Comp has been denied by McDonald’s and their insurer.

I am not alone in my outrage at McDonald’s for denying this claim. What is disheartening, however, is the fact that as of this writing McDonald’s is continuing to deny the claim, and several bloggers and commenters around the web seem to be siding with McDonald’s on this issue. McDonald’s insurer states “we have denied this claim in its entirety as it is our opinion that Mr. Haskett’s injuries did not arise out of or within the course and scope of his employment”. The reasoning behind this stance is that apparently, during a 30 minute orientation, Mr. Haskett and other employees were informed that during a robbery or anything like a robbery they should not get involved and should simply call 911.

Whether or not Nigel was strictly following company policy doesn’t really determine the validity of the compensation claim, unless the violation was grossly negligent and contributed directly to the injury. In this case Nigel’s action of intervening may have violated company policy (this is debatable however, as the situation was not a robbery and was arguably nothing like a robbery), but those actions may not have contributed to the actual injury. When Nigel encountered Perry Kennon beating a McDonald’s customer Perry was not armed. He was, however, actively assaulting a customer. Calling the police is the right thing to do, but the police are not magical and would not have arrived in time to end the beating being delivered to the female customer. It is entirely possible another employee was already contacting the police. Nigel’s actions immediately saved the customer from continued assault. What happened afterwards should really be viewed as a separate instance altogether. It is entirely possible that Perry Kennon may have gone to his car for the gun anyways to shoot the female customer or simply because a McDonald’s employee asked him to leave. Kennon is clearly an unstable individual who is obviously prone to shoot people over small altercations. The reasoning that Nigel Haskett’s actions potentially put additional people in danger are no more compelling than the argument that Perry Kennon may have intended to shoot the female he was assaulting, there by putting everyone in the store in eminent danger of being shot. By removing Perry Kennon from the store Nigel Haskett may have foiled further actions by Perry Kennon that could have resulted in more people than just Nigel Haskett being shot and may have resulted in the death of a McDonald’s patron. I realize this is a tenuous argument, but I make the argument for the purposes of showing just how equally speculative, tenuous, and ridiculous the claims are that Nigel Haskett’s actions somehow put more people at risk. Had Perry Kennon been armed from the start then it would not have been smart for Nigel to intervene. However, Perry Kennon was not armed. In this case, even if it is determine Nigel violated company policy, and it is determined he was aware of this policy (he currently denies being informed of this policy) it may not matter. When Nigel intervened he saw an unarmed person assaulting a customer. He did not try to fight with the perpetrator or resolve the dispute… he quickly and simply removed Perry from the restaurant and blocked his return. There was nothing negligent about these actions. The fact that Perry Kennon was unstable and had a gun hidden in this car is something Nigel could only know in hindsight. And, with a person as unstable as Perry Kennon there is no reason to believe he wouldn’t have shot Nigel or another employee over something else, like soggy french fries.

By every measure and definition I have seen (unless you ask Dwight Schrute) Nigel Haskett is a hero. He acted quickly and lawfully to aid a fellow human being who was clearly in deress. I only hope I have the courage to do the same if I am ever in a similar situation. McDonald’s owes this man far more than the $300,000.00 in medical expenses he is asking for. They owe him an apology and a debt of gratitude.

I am disappointed this story has not received the national exposure it deserves. If you are reading this, please blog about it and forward this to as many people as possible. I am thoroughly disappointed that it may require public outcry for McDonald’s to do the right thing, but it appears we are at that point and I will do whatever I can to see that Nigel is given the recognition and compensation he deserves. If anyone has any more information on this story that I may have missed, please share it with me. There is currently a fund set up to help Nigel Haskett through Twin City Bank. Donation instructions are right on their front page under “featured products” in the bottom right.

I was glancing through the November 2008 TOP500 list of the world’s most powerful super computing sites, and noticed a few interesting details.

First I noticed that the US increased its dominance at the top of the list. The nine fastest super computing sites are all in the United States. You must go all the way to the tenth fastest to find a computing site outside of the United States. In the previous list (June 2008) the US still dominated, but Germany, France, and India all had computing sites in the top ten. With just six of ten fastest computing sites located in the US only six months ago, the nine out of ten score this time around is a significant improvement. The TOP500 list has been published twice a year since 1993 and looking through all the previous lists this is the most dominant the US has ever been in the top ten, and possibly overall.

The second interesting thing I noticed was that the tenth place site is located in China. This is only China’s second time being listed in the top ten (the last time was in June 2004), and they have yet to reach any higher on the list than tenth place.

However, what really caught my eye was the choice of operating systems in the top ten systems. All nine of the systems located in the US are using some flavor of Linux as their operating system. Linux is built by a community of volunteer programmers around the world and is often considered antithetical to commercial software. By association, some people believe Linux and the Open Source software movement are in direct opposition to capitalism. I found it both ironic and gratifying to see that the most commercial and capitalistic nation on earth is dominating the rankings of the world’s fastest computing sites using a product assumed to be at odds with both commercialism and capitalism. In an even more ironic twist of fate, The People’s Repulbic of China, whose communist leaders often insist on home grown solutions for many industries, are using a foreign commercial software stack to run their fastest computing site: Microsoft Windows HPC 2008.

Beyond being interesting, does this list offer any real economic, scientific, or political insight? Probably not. However, if it did, it appears the list would be saying that the United States is not loosing its relevance as the center of the information technology revolution as quickly as many have suggested. It might also be telling us that the United States is embracing “socialist”, “grassroots”, or “community” tools (when it comes to software) to a greater degree than many realize, and that China may be embracing capitalism and commercialism more quickly than we are often led to believe.

I have found that many Nebraskans are not aware that Nebraska is not a normal “winner takes all” state when it comes to electoral votes in a presidential election. Nebraska is one of two states (the other is Maine) where electoral votes are “tiered“. Of Nebraska’s five electoral votes, only two go to the state-wide popular vote winner. The remaining three electoral votes are awarded individually to the candidate who wins the popular vote in each of Nebraska’s three congressional districts. District 1 (Eastern Nebraska, including Lincoln, Fremont, Norfolk, South Sioux City, but not including Omaha/Douglas County) is considered to be a fairly safe bet for Republican John McCain, and District 3 (Western Nebraska) is an even safer bet. District 2 (Omaha/Douglas County, and parts of Sarpy County), however, is not safe for McCain.

Sarah Palin’s recent visit to Omaha has many saying that the McCain campaign is scared of loosing the single electoral vote of Nebraska’s 2nd congressional district. One of the people indicating this was Gentry Collins, McCain’s Regional Campaign Manager. Obama is also aware of how close the race has gotten in this district. He recently moved 15 additional staff here and opened a second campaign office in Omaha.

Recent electoral college projections show that Obama and McCain could end up in a tie, with each candidate receiving 269 electoral votes, both shy of the 270 votes needed to win. If we can energize Obama supporters in Omaha and cause our single electoral vote to be pledged to Obama our tiny congressional district could very well determine the outcome of this election.

I hear time and time again from discouraged potential voters in the Omaha area who think that even if they do vote for Obama it won’t matter because Nebraska is so overwhelmingly Republican. Now you know that is not true. Voters living in Douglas County and most residents of Sarpy County will find they have a very loud voice on election day… a voice so loud it could dictate the future of our country for the next four years, and possibly beyond.

Please vote. It’s possible your vote matters more this year than it has in your entire life.

To be honest, this isn’t something I planned to write about. I have been watching the economy and the bailout discussions very closely and although I had plenty of opinions on those events I didn’t feel the need to share my opinions. I had hoped my next blog entry would be about one of the many projects I am working on. However, the political wrangling going on in Washington over the bailout plan is too much to ignore.

Read more »

The Omaha World Herald is reporting that a majority of City Council members are supporting a plan to require muzzles for Pit Bulls in the city, and require their owners to obtain a minimum $100,000 of liability insurance.

This is a predictable reaction to recent attacks by Pit Bulls in the city, and it’s a reaction I feel is knee-jerk. These new requirements fail to address the problem in a responsible and fair manner. In this proposed plan all Pit Bulls and Pit Bull owners will be punished, with no significant change in the treatment of the dogs and owners involved in attacks. Citizens are clamoring for some kind of response from legislators, and what our esteemed mayor and council members respond with is a finger pointed at the average Pit Bull owner. The average Pit Bull owner doesn’t own a dog that has ever attacked some one. The average Pit Bull owner restrains and trains their dog sufficiently to prevent an attack from ever occurring. However, the average Pit Bull owner will be handed the punishment for the actions of a minority of owners who do not properly restrain, train, and care for their Pit Bull.

Less short sighted solutions could include something like stiffer penalties for the owners of Pit Bulls involved in attacks.

When Google released the beta for their new browser, Chrome, they stated their main goal was to create a lightweight, fast, and robust platform for web applications. After spending some time with Google Chrome I can say for certain they have succeeded in that goal. This is still a beta project, and it has its short comings, but it shows real promise and it is hands down the fastest browser I have ever used.

Here is a quick overview of my thoughts on Google Chrome:

Pros

• Super fast rendering
• Super fast javascript and great inspection tools
• Super fast user interface
• Very compatible and standards compliant (thanks webkit!)
• Simple, clean, attractive, and intuitive UI
• Fantastic stability and resource management

Read on for more detailed thoughts about the Google Chrome beta browser.

Read more »

Just before heading off to bed last night I came across an interesting leak of information via LifeHacker,  Gizmodo, and Ars. However, the breadth of coverage wasn’t necessary to catch my attention. I knew this was big news the moment I read the headline… Google is releasing a browser, and its called Chrome. The beta is set to be released later today. Read on.

Update: Google Chrome beta has now been released. I’ll write up my first impressions soon.

Read more »

Over at Public Knowledge there is an in-depth examination of the recent Cablevision ruling and what it means. The appeal won by Cablevision basically confirms the legality of their “network” DVR product. There will be further appears by the plaintiffs (broadcasters), but if the ruling stands then we may soon see a flood of “network” DVRs from cable and IPTV (think TV from your telephone company) providers. Cablevision’s arguments in the case are solid, so I feel there is every reason to believe the ruling will stand and no further injunctions will be granted against similar “network” DVR products. Unless the judge in the case is simply incompetent “network” DVRs should be coming soon.

So, what is a “network” DVR? A “network” DVR (NDVR for the remainder of this post) is a DVR setup where the actual recording takes place in the central office of the service provider, and is then streamed to the user whenever playback of the recorded program is requested. This setup has a huge number advantages over current DVRs for cable/IPTV providers, especially for their wallets. In an NDVR setup the cable company has to spend less money on each device since each “DVR” sent to a customer is really just a network client with no hard drive or other substantial amount of storage. To avoid copyright implications the system currently requires customer to select to record a show ahead of time. The (possible) advantage for customers is that the number of hours/programs recorded with an NDVR, and the number of programs recorded concurrently, would only be limited by what the cable company chose to offer, not by any constraints of the customer’s DVR hardware.

This ruling has already caused Time Warner to bring up the possibility of an NDVR deployment during their most recent conference call. This also means that Comcast could upgrade the software on their “crippled” NDVR setup to offer similar features to customers using existing and forthcoming set-top boxes.

I really like where this case is headed. Copyright cartels, like the RIAA, MPAA, and various broadcaster associations, have long taken advantage of the public’s mostly apathetic look at copyright law and have lobbied and successfully gained ridiculous increases in copyright protections, resulting in a body of copyright law which in no way embodies the intent copyrights laws were originally created. This steady march of power grabbing by these cartels has also led to the destruction of fair use, the virtual elimination of any modern works from the public domain, the proliferation of DRM, and the criminalization of reverse engineering. However, rulings like this one show that the copyright cartels are not the only ones with money who care about fair use and protecting the intent of copyright laws. Sadly, service providers such as Cablevision are fighting the good fight on this issue, but only because of the potential profits they could see if they succeed. Unfortunately, these same companies have not fought nearly as hard against providing customer data to these copyright cartels.

The product being discussed here, the NDVR, is a great idea and I do hope more companies are quick to follow suit. The deployment of these devices would also provide devices capable of streaming ALL content recorded by the cable provider (whether the customer previously asked for it to be recorded or not) should the legal landscape progress enough to allow such a service to exist in the US. This device could also spell trouble for satellite companies, who currently have no way to deliver such a service to the majority of their customers. Both DirectTV and DishNetwork are working on IP-based on-demand delivery systems, but as yet these systems are neither robust nor ubiquitous enough to offer a comparable solution.