The first successful gene transplant has been consummated. One species of bacteria has been changed into a totally different species by means of a complete gene transplant.
I wonder what it would be like to do this on a human being? Pig people. Fly women. Lobster boys. That way if they got steamed at you it would be a good thing.
Posted on June 29, 2007
Tomorrow is the long-awaited release day for iPhones. I'm a bit interested myself although I'm not sure yet how I get out of my existing contract, but then again I'm a gadget freak. How many gadget freaks could there possibly be? 10,000 maybe across the country? So who is doing all of the hyping? Why would most people care about a phone?
After all, there is no feature on the iPhone that will fundamentally change a person's lifestyle, like getting a first Tivo, a Palm Pilot or an mp3 player would have. You would have to dig pretty deeply into the Maslovian hierarchy of needs to find out which itch the iPhone yen is scratching.
Does the iPhone cure cancer, attract women (or men) or provide a mobile bubble of peace and goodwill to mankind? Nope. It plays music and has a cool touch screen. The only way that an iPhone could get a geek laid would be for him to trade it to a knowledgeable hooker for services rendered.
This reminds me of the lunatic hypes surrounding pre-Vista Windows releases. Remember Windows 98 and how Microsoft had a big party across the country with people sleeping in the street in line so that they could get an early copy? What was that all about? I might do that for Led Zeppelin reunion tickets, but nothing less.
The iPhone will not add one day onto your life span, make your children into better people, increase the size of your body parts or get you onto American Idol. It is a gadget. In five years time, it will look as antiquated as five year old shoe-box-sized cell phones look now.
IT'S A PHONE, PEOPLE. GET A LIFE!
I'll buy one, of course.
Posted on June 28, 2007
This is absolutely incredible. The long-rumored allegations about CIA skul-duggery during the turbulent '60s and '70s have more or less been confirmed yesterday by the release of the hithero classified collection of Agency paperwork known as "The Family Jewels."
Most of this stuff had been revealed to Congress and generally known, if not confirmed by the public, but still...Some of the highlights include:
That these documents existed surprised no one. Seeing them is nothing short of confirmation for the paranoid. All of these allegations were considered to reside exclusively in the province of nuttyville and were believed by tinfoil hat-wearing conspiracy theorists who perpetually walked funny because of too many alien probes.
So I wonder, which of the many conspiracy stories that live today in Crazytown will turn out to be true 30 years from now? My bet is on Cheney and his slippery oil industry pals lubing up Iraq for some American lovin'.
Posted on June 27, 2007
There has been a very weird story coming out of DC lately involving a pair of pants. Judge Roy Pearson, a Washington administrative law judge, was on the wrong end of a fellow judge's ruling in regards to a civil suit that Pearson filed against a local dry cleaner. Pearson sued for $54 million because the cleaners had lost his pair of pants and more importantly, had advertised "Satisfaction Guaranteed." His interpretation of this advertising claim was that the Cleaner's owners should pay him several thousand of dollars per day over a four year period of disputation. The judge in the case ruled against him and made him pay a few thousand in expenses.
The news services have been ridiculing Judge Pearson and are holding up this case as a poster child for tort reform The story is silly and Pearson sounds like an arrogant old fool. Having said that, I can begrudgingly understand his frustration. Advertising is used way too loosely these days and people should be held accountable for what they say. These cleaners also said "Same Day Service", which they probably didn't adhere to. Their argument was that same day service was available, not that it would always be guaranteed.
I like the fact that someone struck a blow for truth in advertising.
Judge Pearson is, however, crazy.
Posted on June 26, 2007
A recent interim report released by Privacy International rated more than 20 Internet companies on what type of data is retained, for how long, ease in contact (privacy policy questions), ethical compass, and consumer/user control among a few other categories. A Race to the Bottom: Privacy Ranking of Internet Service Companies, a Consultation Reportexamined e-mail providers, search engines, and e-commerce sites by using a methodology comprised of about twenty core parameters. They rank major outfits but they also examine some smaller companies. Google is ranked at the bottom with a rating of "hostile to privacy". Google's proposed 3.1 billion dollar deal with DoubleClick
Because A Race to the Bottom... is an interim report, Privacy International is giving the rated companies a chance to respond by participating in a privacy accord in July. They rightfully point out that Google isn't the only rated company with questionable privacy practices. The first order of business is to discuss existing practices with participating companies in order to understand how customer data is being used. Privacy International encourages rated organization to challenge their findings and provide further information for their full report in September. They intend to publish a full list of invitees and whether or not they will be in attendance. Invitations will be sent by July 12, 2007.
Posted on June 22, 2007
The US has slipped its new passport rules by another six months, specifically in the case of Americans traveling across the Canadian, Mexican or Caribbean borders by land or by sea. Americans will only have to show id cards instead of passport until probably next summer. The reason for this latest slip in border crossing rules stems from the US government's inability to keep up with the backlogged applications (currently 3 million).
I understand the desire to secure the border and stop known terrorists from getting in to the US and I'm not thrilled with an open Mexican border for immigration reasons..but the US Canadian border should be as permeable as humanly possible. It is in the best interests of both countries to make it trivial to cross back and forth. There are many border cities on both sides where residents of both countries pass over throughout the day. I live in both countries and I'm bothered by the growing problems created by needless and meaningless security measures in both countries.
How come we can't have open borders with Canada (including trade) the way that the Europeans have with the EU?
Posted on June 21, 2007
Mayor Michael Bloomberg has switched political parties again. Seven years ago he switched from being a Democrat to a Republican to successfully run for Mayor of New York. Now, he has become an Independent, presumably to run for President in 2008 as a 3rd party candidate.
Can he win?
Probably not. No 3rd party candidate in modern times has gained any political traction. In 1992, similarly rich, although much kookier businessman-candidate Ross Perot spent $65million of his own money and did not get a single electoral vote (for those who do not understand what an electoral vote is--don't ask.)
On the other hand the country is ready for a big, big change. George Bush is an abomination on the political scene--an anti-intellectual, evangelical, narrow-minded, cronyist imperialist. This election will have voters fleeing his shadow like rabbits hiding from a hawk, but where do they hide? John Kerry was one of the worst Democrat candidates in my lifetime and Al Gore ran a stupid campaign 6 years ago, regardless of his current image cleanup. So who then? Hillary Clinton is a known quantity and that may save her, but known doesn't always mean loved. Obama is an exciting candidate but if something turns up tarnishing his image, he's done for. Presumably there are numerous political operatives out there trying to do exactly that.
So why not Bloomberg? He's a pro-choice, pro gay marriage fiscal conservative who's wealthy enough to tell special interest lobbyists to go jump into the Hudson. I'd consider voting for him myself.
http://www.tmz.com/2007/06/19/oj-did-it-leaked-online/
Posted on June 20, 2007
Boingboing has a link to a highly amusing video (link above) that a couple of Czech funny guys slipped into an automated landscape panoramic shot featured on state-run television. As the camera slowly slides across the bucolic countryside, we see something scary in the distance. Priceless video.
So this is why you can't believe video or pictures anymore. If this a joke by amateurs, imagine what a professional working for an intelligence agency could do. If that bit of simulation doesn't convince you, check out this article in TMZ discussing the problems with fake vaginas for the new movie "Knocked Up"
Posted on June 19, 2007
Towards a new kind of privacy...freedom from ads. I've written about this before, but it keeps getting worse. I went to see a movie this weekend (Oceans 11, don't ask) at my local multiplex. The movie was supposed to start at 7:05. Okay, I know the drill--get there close to the time, but a little early, otherwise you don't get a seat at all. So I get there a little before 7 with my popcorn. The local ads were in full rotation. Insurance agents, ambulance chasing lawyers, teeny delis, car dealers and flower shops. Each ad was 5-10 seconds long. That means a minimum of 6 ads per minute. Well, it'll stop at 7:05, right? Time for the previews, which I don't mind at all. Nope. The local ads ran til 7:25, followed by 5 minutes of national ads, then 10 minutes of previews. This means that the show did not actually start until 30 minutes after the published start time. Meanwhile I was bombarded with (do the math), at least 120 rube commercials plus a couple of slick Pepsi ones.
BTW, here's a link to an article saying that we're about to see more nanoads on tv and presumably in theaters. These are only a few seconds.
What do we do about this? Does anyone have an idea? Is it even illegal?
Posted on June 18, 2007
I have had a remarkably low level of interest in the upcoming Presidential election. I've realized that I was more against the Bushies than for anyone else. It's not because I'm apathetic, but because the candidates are blurring. After all, they're all politicians, aren't they? That term carries a lot of baggage these days. It means "amoral", "cynical", "opportunistic" and sometimes "corrupt". Ever since the '60s, we've been inundated with one demoralizing story after another about politicians invading our privacy, taking bag money from lobbyists and invading sovereign countries for personal reasons.
I used to like to watch debates, figuring that's a great way to take the measure of a candidate, but the last two presidential debates were consummately boring. They ducked all of the tough answers and responded with gobble-gobble poli-speak instead of plain english. And I think that I know why. Each candidate is surrounded by so many hangers-on and staff that their output is no longer the result of an individual, but that of a group and committees rarely take strong positions. What would Hillary or Rudy say if they were completely and utterly by them self?
So I had an idea for something that might work. Put each candidate into a room with a computer for a few hours and have them answer random questions. No filtering up front, no nonverbals from handlers in the room--just the candidate and the Internet. That would be a more interesting test of what they really think, because after a while, they'd probably just open up a bit and say what they really think.
Isn't is sad that we can have a two year election road show and not really know what the candidates are like as people and what they really think?
Posted on June 15, 2007
by Suzanne
While AT&T Wireless is pimping the new iphone, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has permission to release previously sealed and redacted documents that describe a secret, secure room in AT&T's facilities that gave the National Security Agency (NSA) direct access to customers' e-mails and other Internet communications. EFF Legal Director Cindy Cohn says that the evidence presented is critical in supporting EFF's claim that AT&T is cooperating with the NSA in "the illegal dragnet surveillance of millions of ordinary Americans."
EFF filed a class action lawsuit in 2006 accusing the telecom conglomerate of illegally helping the NSA to spy on millions of average Americans. A lower court allowed the case to go forward while the Government is asking the 9th U.S. Court of Appeals for a dismissal due to the possible exposure of state secrets. EFF's newly released brief explains why the case should go forward in respect to liberty and security. The official press release offers links to the various documents that are now fully available. Their release is a real victory in an age when our leadership does everything they can to avoid full disclosure via documents and electronic communications.
Posted on June 14, 2007
The last episode of the terminal show of the final season of the Seasons played on Sunday and upset a lot of people.
SHOW SPOILER COMING UP
The viciously crazy Phil Leotardo finally gets whacked at a gas station, ending the short-lived gang war. Tony visits the completely senile Junior at the asylum then sits down at his favorite restaurant as his family comes in one at a time, sits and munches on onion rings. As the last one, Meadow, comes in, Tony looks up, the camera cuts to a number of suspicious people milling around the restaurant and then the screen goes completely black. Was Tony and family killed? Were they about to be picked up by undercover FBI agents? Was it a dream? Was it just another normal dinner presented in a surreal manner? I have a theory, which I'll toss out in a minute.
The media-interesting part of all this is how upset Americans are at a lack of closure in this 7 year series. I've been reading numerous blogs and news articles and there is a river of anger flowing at David Chase, the series creator, because of the ambiguity.
Who cares? Life isn't neat, plays don't end neatly nor do many great movies, so why must television show wrap up in a ridiculously tidy way?
I thought the last episode was brilliant and intellectually responsible. It would have undermined the integrity of the whole show to have the last episode devolve into a treacly, good-natured, end-of-MASH finale type show ("Ah Paulie, I'll miss you too...write me once a while, capisce?")
My theory(s). The likeliest one is that Tony was just killed. Someone walked behind him and put a bullet into his head and the black is what he would perceive, as Bobby speculated in the boat to Tony several shows before.
My more complicated theory is one that I haven't read anywhere else, but here it goes. The wonderful Sergio Leone movie, Once Upon a Time in America, ends in a very similar manner. Robert DeNiro, as Noodles, the Jewish gangster leans back at the end of the movie on an opium bed and laughs. Was he about to be killed as there were armed men nearby trying to do exactly that? Or was it a signal that he was dreaming the last half hour of the movie in an opium dream (he smoked some earlier in the movie in the same den). So, what if the Sopranos ending was the same kind of thing? Three episodes before, Tony went to Vegas and ate peyote with one of Christopher's ex-girlfriends. Perhaps everything after that was a hallucination. A supporting thought is that in the last few episodes, Tony acts likes a surprisingly nice guy (by his standards). He doesn't get mad, is supportive of his family while those around him act like fantasy satires in Tony's mind. Dr. Melfi drops him because she sees him as a criminal sociopath, Carmella becomes a shrewd self-serving harpy, AJ gets his life together over night, Meadow decides to go back to law school. After Bobbie dies, Tony is a supportive brother to Janice, which is a series first. Paulie returns to being a lovable kook as Tony sees him instead of the volatile psychopath that we all see. So maybe it was a peyote dream, full of wish-fulfillment and triggered by lingering guilt over his killing of his nephew.
Posted on June 13, 2007
I bought a used car recently that was digitally equipped. You know, complex computer gizmos that computer mileage per gallon or hectares per dram or something. Anyway, there is a digital memo feature on the console that allows you to make dozens of voice recordings. In case you think of something while you're driving down the road, like reminding yourself to buy bananas or something.
So, since it was a used car, I wondered if there was anything recorded already. Being a bit of a digital voyeur, I checked. There was. Dozens of messages, mostly of the "what does this button do?" variety. There was a nice several minute monologue about the previous owner's wife's breasts and a bit of humor when the wife in question was told to record a message and asked what she should say and was told, "say something stupid, like you usually do."
There's a lot of these digital tar pits out there now, trapping and preserving things. Microwaves and cars with voice recorders, log files everywhere, hidden video cameras and indestructible email that will bubble to the surface someday in the future when we least expect it.
I would imagine that we're only a few years away from the point at which most digital artifacts will have some kind of audio and video I/O. This coupled with a little flash memory will play havoc with conventional views of privacy.
Posted on June 12, 2007
President Bush is finally getting the star treatment that he thinks that he deserves. In pro-American Albania, the President was royally feted yesterday with thousands of people coming to see him in downtown TIrana, getting to mob him after a stirring introduction by Prime Minister Sali Berisha.
Albanians also support the Iraq war. NY Times quotes a local Albanian, Ilir Lamce, "U.S.A. have the right and responsibility for all the world to protect the freedom."
The Times says that Bush was also mobbed in the town of Fusche Kruje where the crowd chanted "BOOSH-Y! BOOSH-Y!".
Seriously folks, you can't make this stuff up. And people thought that Borat was fiction. It's too bad that President Bush is real.
Posted on June 11, 2007
Here's a glimpse of the future: Slashdot has an article about teddy bear robots pulling wounded soldiers out of battle. The teddy bear head has been picked because it will supposedly put the hurt man at ease.
Not me. I can't imagine that too many things would be creepier than having a terminator-looking thing with a teddy ruxpin face telling me not too worry.
I wonder if this kind of Spielbergish view of the future isn't right on. It doesn't look like we're going to have truly realistic androids for a long time to come and robotics is getting better. Perhaps the family robots will look like a monster hiding under the bed in Toy Story.
Posted on June 08, 2007
If America's strength is driven by consumerism than Coca-Cola is the chauffeur. From WWII to NASCAR, the Coke company has innovated using every means at their disposal to wrest back another tenth of a point in market share from their arch-enemy, Pepsi. The latest is their announcement that they will be sponsoring their own social-networking system on mobile phones.
This is challenging because there hasn't been a killer app yet for mobile browsing, mostly because of the connection latency and the limited screen size of cell phones. Coke will also be inheriting the liability that is intrinsically to social networking. Pimping kids is dangerously litigious. I can only assume that Coke will filter, censor and carefully limit communication between members to reduce the risk. Either that or they've come up with a good authentication mechanism to prove that kids are kids and pedophiles are not.
Posted on June 07, 2007
I've spent the last six months publicizing my book, Privacy Lost. I've been talking to people in the US and Canada across the political spectra, guested on innumerable radio talk shows and given a few talks. In the process, I've come to some conclusions about privacy that I thought I'd share. I can't justify these, so treat them as informed anecdotes.
Posted on June 06, 2007
As of this summer, globalpov will be getting a slight facelift and become a multi-author blog. Anyone wishing to become a regular contributor should submit a note and explain what they'd like to write about. Experience isn't necessary, but passion helps. The overarching theme is how technology affects society with specific areas in politics, technology in general, the media and pop culture.
Posted on June 06, 2007
Google Earth is the newest security scapegoat in the ongoing war against terrorism. The aborted plot to blow up JFK airport announced last week by the FBI contained the interesting informational nugget that the bad guys were using Google Earth to plan their plot. Several articles have appeared in the press since then suggesting that the Google Earth views should be banned as a security precaution.
The CNET editorial listed above rightly points out the silliness of this kind of Luddite censorship and suggest (tongue-in-cheek) that cell phones should be banned because 9/11 terrorists used them.
Technology is agnostic. No matter how much we might wish that some high-tech capability only worked for "good guys", it is a useless yearning...technology is apolitical, amoral and vaguely whorish--providing services, not just to the highest bidder, but to any sailor with the price, new in town or not.
Tech is about more than buying a phone or logging into a satellite viewing program, it is about a lifestyle. The people who best understand and subsequently exploit technology are the ones who grew up on it, viscerally understand it and crave it--Western running dog capitalists. A kid growing up in a primitive society with restrictive, even brutal customs, a lack of tolerance and respect for the majority of the human race, suppression of the rights of women and a fanatical sense of narcissistic self-righteousness can never truly compete in a war of technology with our open-minded, video game playing consumerist children.
The war of technology will always be won by the true believers-- in technology.
Posted on June 05, 2007
15 States are Against REAL ID Act
by Suzanne
The REAL ID Act is set to take effect in May 2008. If it comes to fruition, it would turn state's driver's licenses (and non-driver identification) into a national identity card imposing new burdens on Americans and immigrants alike. The law was a response to the 9/11 Commission's investigation into how terrorists became part of the American fabric to plan and orchestrate the events of the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. 13 of the 19 hijackers had obtained legitimate drivers licenses. The Commission called for national standards for basic American identification documents such as driver's licenses. Standardization does not guarantee safety--personal safety or the safety of your identity in a centralized database that's easily compromised.
Anti-REAL ID legislation is making its way through various state chambers. Some want to "opt out", some want to repeal the law, while others are proposing that they do not comply. 15 states to date have enacted a statute or resolution against the REAL ID Act. State lawmakers realize that it would be too expensive to implement. The federal government's regulations concerning the REAL ID Act estimate costs at $23 billion. New databases would be needed and an interstate data sharing network would need to be created to comply with the law. Some project that payroll would increase as new people would be hired to administer compliance. As a local government employee, I take exception with that suggestion as the M.O. is usually to pile up new work on an existing worker's already full plate. If they're feeling especially generous they might outsource it.
Posted on June 04, 2007
by guest blogger Mike Blejer
Do you remember there was a time when the guy driving around town in a van taking pictures of you and your friends was just creepy ole' Mr. Johnson, and not a billion dollar corporate entity? Ah how I long for simpler times.
Google has recently introduced "street view" into their popular mapping and directions program Google maps. Street view gives you just what it suggests, a view from the streets of San Francisco, where the Google van has driven all about taking photographs everywhere it goes. The user is able to track through the pictures, presumably so they can see what their destination looks like before they set out. But in doing so Google has also built a patchwork quilt of pictures, including the one above, which have found their way to a voting contest on best inadvertent urban snapshot at wired magazine.
Google's defense has been that:
"it takes privacy seriously and considered the privacy implications of its service before it was introduced on Tuesday. "Street View only features imagery taken on public property," the company said. "This imagery is no different from what any person can readily capture or see walking down the street." - New York Times
It may be true that Google is only presenting information that anyone can see, but that's not really the point, and it doesn't follow that what they are presenting is not a privacy violation.
Consider the following pictures:
The first is just a million little pieces of information all sliced up, but when we collect those million little pieces and sequence them properly we get the second image. Even though both pictures contain the same information in the same amounts, it's obvious that they communicate vastly different content to the viewer. Similarly, even though the information that Google is presenting may be harmless and public when taken in as fragments by millions of people, when it is collected and synthesized by one company on one site the results are a whole other story. What's going to happen the first time someone googlemaps their kid's house only to find an image of their son or daughter walking around in the buff? And embarrassment is probably just on the lighter side of things. It doesn't take much to imagine a potential employer or customer looking you up for a meeting and getting a preview of what your living room looks like. What happens the first time you gets online and sees someone's bookshelf with a copy of "HIV and Me: Firsthand Information for Coping with HIV and AIDS?"
Right now it's just still shots, but how long before you're able to watch videos in real time as events unfold? How long before you can follow someone's journey through the day just by getting online? It used to be that in order to be a peeping Tom you had to really put yourself out there, whatever anyone says about the morality of the profession, there was a time when PTs had work ethic. Now you can just sit in the comfort of your parent's basement, sip on your steak smoothie, and surf away. Thanks Google!
Posted on June 02, 2007
The day of reckoning for the music industry are fast approaching. They continue to shift and snap to maintain their position at the trough, but tougher, meaner, little piglets want to feed. A good case in point is the soon-to-be increase in royalties levied against groups playing streaming music on the Internet. The rate hike goes into effect on July 15th and has already been challenged by several prominent groups, most recently, NPR, on behalf of its sister stations.
The evolutionary aspect kicks in when you consider who benefits the most from these rate hikes, and who pays the lobbyists to get favorable legislative treatment. It's the music companies, not the artists. The middlemen. And I don't buy the argument that they take huge investment risks and are entitled to huge rewards. They do sign a lot of new acts that won't pay off, but they rarely market anything less than a sure thing and that's where most of the cost is.
There may not be a place in the New World Order for music distributors. They may have to join slide rule manufacturers, asbestos pot holder makers and members of the Senatorial Ethics Committee in obsolescence hell. Good.
Posted on June 01, 2007
