The Best Blue Hue

Have you ever put on a blue shirt, only to be disappointed by the imperfection of the hue of the blue? Well, fret no more. Scientists at the Oregon State University have found a solution to the age old question of the “perfect blue”. As Lab Spaces explains, “An accidental discovery in a laboratory at Oregon State University has apparently solved a quest that over thousands of years has absorbed the energies of ancient Egyptians, the Han dynasty in China, Mayan cultures and more – the creation of a near-perfect blue pigment."

If you are like me, you are rejoicing at the fact that this mighty quest has been completed, and… wait, what was this ancient task, finding the perfect blue? I may be in the minority, but I am wearing a blue shirt at the moment, and find I have little quarrel with the its blue. I find it odd that a more perfect blue is the focus of scientists’ attention. When I think of the energy needs of today and how science has yet to provide a viable solution to the quickly diminishing natural sources of energy, I wonder how finding a better blue is a victory. Sure, this new blue is great, but is it cause for celebration among scientists who could otherwise be finding new sources of energy? Probably not.

Jail, The New Detention

There's nothing like a good old-fashioned food fight. Although apparently in Chicago (dare I take the Fox News route and mention it is Obama's home town and then try to imply/explicitly state some kind of causal relationship?), food fights are akin to a murder rampage or a drunk driving charge, as they all land you in the same place: jail. Did I mention these cuisine warriors were children in elementary school? Come on Chicago. I know you lost the Olympics, but don't take out your frustration on the kids. As the New York Times article explains, “'My children have to appear in court,' Erica Russell, the mother of two eighth-grade girls who spent eight hours in jail, said Tuesday. 'They were handcuffed, slammed in a wagon, had their mug shots taken and treated like real criminals.'”

Somehow this seems ridiculous. Children having a food fight should have recess taken away, not be carted off to the police station. The notion that charges are being filed are absurd, but now many students have to go to court to keep a misdemeanor off of their records.

This says it all, “By the end of the day, 25 of the students, ages 11 to 15, had been rounded up, arrested, taken from school and put in jail. A spokesman for the Chicago police said the charges were reckless conduct, a misdemeanor.” Taken from school to jail. Fantastic message, city of Chicago. Great lesson you're teaching the kids. And apparently it's the only one, because you pulled them out of school.

The Wave of the Future? or You Can't Stop the Signal

For all of this Blog's rants on the technological godsend/evil internet juggernaut that is Google, it is hard to believe that the subject of Google Wave has yet to feature prominently. Wave is Google's “revolutionary” new communication/collaborative workspace platform that is sloooooooowly being rolled out to people who signed up as early as May. While technophiles the world wide web over have been hailing it as a breakthrough, one has to wonder, is Wave really the next Gmail or Google Search?

A simple explanation of what Wave does is efficiently allow people to collaborate. Imagine being able to work on a project with other people, in different locations, and having the ability to instantly share text, pictures, sounds, and files. (And keep imagining, because the chance of you actually getting a Wave invite soon are in the mid to high 'absolutely nots'.) While it is revolutionary in a way, one of the first things I though (along with about a baker's dozen other people) is “wow, this sounds a whole lot like Microsoft Groove, just for free.” It's funny how our first intuitions are usually correct. Now, you're probably saying to yourself, “oh, ya...Microsoft Groove...I've heard of that..” Microsoft Groove is very similar to Google Wave, the main difference being Groove is PC based and Wave is Cloud based. Functionally, they are nearly identical, with the edge going to Groove for its seamless Microsoft Office integration.

Seven years ago, a similar analogy could have been made between Gmail and the number of private internet email systems that utilized Outlook. Outlook was and is the superior mail client, but who doesn't have a Gmail account? It's free why not sign up? That is the attitude that has allowed Gmail to become the largest webmail provider in the world. Wave has this factor going for it. Strike that. Wave needs this factor to be the revolution people have come to expect it to be. You see, Wave is currently in a private (or invite only) beta. Which has basically created a situation like this.

Wave's biggest hurdle is not Groove, the application you've never heard of. It is the closed beta that for some reason Google has imposed upon it. I remember the Gmail beta, where invites were about as rare as water on a boat. Wave is at the other end of the spectrum. Every time Google releases a new set of invites, Wave is a trending topic on twitter, and message boards are abuzz with people begging for invites. Some of the more desperate are even turning to eBay, where invites are now being sold.

If Google really wants Wave to be the wave of the future, they need to saturate the market, make the ability to use Wave a commodity that is able to be bought and sold.

It should also be noted that Google Wave purportedly gets its name from the show Firefly, with a Wave being any kind of transmission from one ship to another. And Firefly was awesome.

Tragic, Simply Tragic

I really have nothing to say. I shed a tear.


Victim In Fatal Car Accident Tragically Not Glenn Beck

New Restrictive Technology = Fail

I'm usually a fan of FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, but an article Thursday on TheHill.com merited a face-palm type of reaction. The article was about the dangers of driving while texting. I believe it is currently illegal in California to text while driving (though I must admit to frequently disregarding the law in this regard). California is generally ahead of the curve on this kind of legislation, and we need only to look out the window on the 10 Freeway to see having the legislation on the books and in people's minds is not enough to enforce this rule.

First of all, not everyone has a Bluetooth stereo in their car or a speakerphone function on their mobile. Though this segment is limited, some people simply have no means to use a mobile device in a hands-free capacity. More importantly, though, does anyone reading this actually know what hands-free means? Does that mean I can dial a number and let the car take over, dial and then navigate multiple menus to put on speakerphone, or can I not dial the number at all, but rather have to use some kind of voice command to call a friend. I certainly don't know, and have relatively little interest in finding out. Having learned to drive while using a cellular phone, it is a luxury I am simply not willing to give up. Back to the chairman, the article mentioned some ways to forcibly prevent people from driving and texting. He proposed some ideas, the most frivolous of which was, “There may also be opportunities to use RFID-sensor technology in keychains that would disable selected functions on a driver's device activated by the start up of their car.”

This reminds me of two things: 1) the forced speed caps in cars that Ford has proposed multiple times over the year, and 2) the breathalyzers put in cars of those who have been convicted of a DUI that must be blown in to start the car. The Ford idea has been scrapped again and again because people simply hate the idea. The only people who that really appeals to are overzealous parents who want to ensure their teen-driver's safety. The breathalyzer is somewhat more justified, but for most is simply an annoyance rather than a preventative tool. Especially as phones are becoming more advanced (and open-source, a la Android and WebOS), something like this is simply going to annoy people, rather than make them safer drivers.

A passionate comment about the article came from the operator of ZoomSafer. Obviously this person is coming at the issue with a slight bias, but they are strong advocates for stricter enforcement of these laws. Even they admit that “States such as California that currently prohibit handset use are having difficulty breaking people of their distracted driving habits, as recent photos of First Lady Maria Shriver using her cell phone while driving show.” I have written about this before, but forcing people to be limited with new technology will never be welcome and will always be overcome by someone.

A Long Time Ago in a Galaxy Not So Far Away

Net Neutrality: Because Anything John McCain Suggests Relating To Computers, I Suggest You Do The Opposite

How many times does the average college student search the internet every day using their preferred search engine (Google, Yahoo!, or even ...shudder...Bing)? 25? 50? What about text messages? The same number? What if these commodities were priced in the same manner? Depending on your “plan”, you would receive a certain number of searches for free (or none if you don't want to cough up an extra fee) and pay for each search beyond that number. Sound terrible? That is only one of the unlikely, but possible restrictions internet service providers could come up with the increase profits should net neutrality regulations fail.

On Thursday, the FCC unanimously voted to “formalize net neutrality guidelines”, but profit minded cable companies were not far behind, having already recruited some Senate leaders to their cause of maximizing their profit margins. Senator John McCain immediately introduced the “Internet Freedom Act.” This is the same John McCain who admitted to having little to no knowledge of how to operate a computer. Apparently he is passionate about freedom and the internet. However, it appears his vision of a free internet is one where companies are free to discriminate among traffic and users based on what kind of internet service plan they have. One of McCain and his supporters' arguments holds that net neutrality regulation will stifle innovation and competition.

Maybe I should take a minute to explain net neutrality to the 'non-Engadget Reader types' out there. When the phrase “net neutrality regulation” is used, it refers to the idea of the government passing legislation that forbids internet service providers (ISP's) from discriminating who gets to see what content on the internet. They do not change anything, they simply are a pre-emptive protection against future changes which would limit individual freedom to use the internet. McCain's bill, the Internet Freedom Act, attempts to take away the ability of the FCC to ensure those protections. As PC World Magazine puts it,

"According to the text of the McCain bill, the FCC "shall not propose, promulgate, or issue any regulations regarding the Internet or IP-enabled services." Isn't that what the FCC does? Isn't that sort of like introducing a bill to prohibit the Treasury from printing money, or a bill to prohibit the IRS from collecting taxes?"

In this context, it seems as though McCain ISP's want the FCC to not do its job simply so that future profit sources will not dry up before they have been tapped. While their arguments make anyone mildly tech savvy quiver, there are examples of internet regulation around the world where we can look for answers.

A casual glance at China, a country where internet regulations exist in full force, reveals a stark difference from McCain's position. Sure, there is new media innovation in China. Unfortunately, a large portion of that goes to simply avoiding the regulations put in place by internet regulators (in the case of China, regulations put in place by the Government). Innovation is essentially wasted on artificial problems that we simply do not have in the United States because of our free or “neutral” internet. This is the opposite of what opponents of net neutrality argue. Instead of creating new internet services because there is no limit on what can be done, web talent would likely spend time trying to simply return themselves and other to the state of the internet we have now.

Innovative new services, such as Twitter and Google's communication suite (Wave, Voice, etc) would simply not have developed in an environment where internet users are not able to use their data connection in any way they see fit. Skype and Facebook are officially blocked in China (though both have many users through proxy services), and Twitter's freedom ebbs and flows depending on the feeling of the government. These services would have had no incentive to be created if there was the chance of arbitrarily blocking them from public use.

The United States has always been a country that has prided itself on the freedoms it grants its citizens. To enact legislation that takes away the ability of the United States to ensure freedom is contrary to the idea which has enabled innovation to grow in this country and directly creates jobs and creativity, as opposed to blocking it.

EDIT: October 27 2009:

The Daily Show yesterday also poked fun at the idea of John McCain introducing technology legislation (and it's inherent 'non-free' ideas). Net Neutrality section starts right after the first commercial break.

Does This Mean that McDonalds Every Day Will Get Me a Handicap Placard?

I recently read an article on BBC News dealing with our overweight society. And no, it was not an article detailing ways to get skinny or eat more health conscious. It was this article. Here is the first sentence, and try not to laugh:

"They want so-called "fat-ism" to be made illegal on the same grounds as race, age and religious discrimination. "

Now, I am not a supporter of discrimination in any way, but fat-ism? Really? Of course we should not pre-judge people who are overweight, excuse me, kilogramically challenged, but is legislation necessary to support this? At best, maybe.

The article goes even further into the absurd though. It also wants to create "a law [that] bans "fat-ism" in housing and employment and stops doctors pressing patients to slim down." Stops doctors pressing patients to slim down? Is that not related to their job? If a person has a medical condition which causes them to become fat, their doctor will surely know about it and recomend the healthiest option for them. But if they have no such condition? Are they still not allowed to be pressured to lose weight? This makes about as much sense as telling dentists not to pressure people to brush their teeth.

If you want to actually be healthy and follow the best diet plan for you, you consult a doctor or nutritionist. If you want to feel better about yourself, maybe a therapist is more what you need.

Next time you're in a supermarket, remember it may well be a hate crime to yell "Move out of the way fatty! Well person coming down the aisle!"