Google's Civil War

I've been having a conversation (some would say "spirited debate" or "argument") over Google with a friend online. He's a big fan of Google's suite of hardware - Android, ChromeOS laptops, etc. - and sees great things in their future. I appreciate Google for its work in Search, it's free GMail, it's excellent Google Voice transcription service (yes, it also redirects calls, but all I use it for is voice mail transcription), and the fact that Android is keeping Apple honest on iOS. But more and more, it is becoming clear that Google is in trouble. There's a simple fact that almost everyone is ignoring.

Google is at war with itself.

Google began as a creature of the Web. Search was it's be-all, end-all, and contextual ads paid the bills. (The last part is still true today.) The vision of Google was that ultimately the Network would make Mac vs PC distinctions obsolete. Ultimately, their leadership preached, everything will be done online. (Today we'd say "In the Cloud.") Their new ChromeOS is the ultimate expression of that vision - a computer which exists ONLY to be a gateway to applications that are online. Take a ChromeOS device off the web... and it is little more than a large paperweight. Samsung and others are trying to build a whole platform for Netbooks around this OS, which of course primarily runs Google Apps.

But at the same time, Google introduced Android as a way to ensure that the Mobile future included Google, and left no room for an upstart competitor (like Apple's iOS) to lock them out. They followed the Windows model of "license to everyone and anyone" as a way toward massive growth, and Android now runs on more SmartPhones than Apple or any flavor of Windows Mobile. But this has required repeated compromises to keep phone makers happy and to keep wooing iPhone addicts, and now Android is increasingly becoming App-centric with data living locally on the device. The Google of Android is not a company "of the Network" but a company of the cellular carrier, the hardware vendor, and the software maker.

These two parallel courses are fundamentally incompatible. Ultimately, the computer will have to either move "to the network" or remain in our hands. By pursuing two incompatible courses here, Google is not hedging their bets, but rather showing a split within the company and its philosophy. This split now has Google Android devices competing directly with Google ChromeOS devices for the same customers. And that is unlikely to end well for either of them, especially in light of the Apple juggernaut which has a simple message and a clear alternative.

Here's hoping Google figures this out soon, and drops one path. Or at worst, decided to merge ChromeOS and Android, so there is one code base for customers to worry about. Otherwise, the Google of the future will be the Microsoft of today - out of ideas, out of gas, and praying to hold on for just a little bit longer so the execs can cash out.

Tennessee bans sharing

The music industry continues to push for draconian solutions to simple problems. Their newest assault on their customers is a Tennessee law which bans the sharing of your Netflix or Pandora password, which can now be a felony, depending on the level of infraction that the company can prove.

At issue for me is not whether sharing a password is wrong - unless it is within a family, it clearly is wrong - but that somehow the recording industry thinks a law like this is a better solution than simply putting in a technical fix. Why treat a stupid college kid like a Master Criminal, when you can simply lock the door (by limiting a streaming account to one stream at a time)?

It is a mistake to fix simple technical problems, with complicated, life-altering laws.

Your iPhone/iPad is watching you!

In scary Big Brother style, it turns out your iOS cellular enabled iPhone or iPad is tracking your every movement. The database found keeps data from the moment iOS 4 is installed, and appears to track even times when GPS location is not turned on (likely using cell tower triangulation).

Skeptical? I used this sample app to pull the data from my own iPhone. The image below. Note it's careful documentation of my trips to Bath and Houghton, NY, Lancaster, PA, Cherry Hill and Wildwood, NJ, and Delaware. Of course, my own privacy is not breeched because I had already posted photos from each of those trips here to Mod-Blog or to my twitter feed.

Please note, getting this info requires access to your device OR to any computer (Mac or PC) which your iOS device has synced with.

Are we ready for another 1 Party Government?

Back in the days of George H. W. Bush and Clinton, I can remember thinking "If only Congress and the President were from the same political party. So much more would get done!" Unfortunately, I was right. Both under President George W. Bush and President Barack Obama, we have seen the presidency and the Congressional majority from the same party. And the results were the same - massive overreaching, no attempt at compromise, and ultimately a painful correction afterwards. Not to mention a clear incentive towards corruption, without any watchdogs around. My opinion has shifted and I believe a divided government - president from one party, congress from another (or split between parties) is the way to provide the best product from a republic like our own.

But some are already speculating that 2012 may see a Republican sweep with a super-majority in the Senate. Count me among those who would see that as a bad thing. Conservatives AND Liberals, Democrats AND Republicans need the loyal opposition to keep them honest and level-headed.

Forbidden?: Photographing Farms in Florida

Sometimes Law is all about Justice (with a capital J). But sometimes Law is all about petty overreaction. Consider, the case of a new bill SB 1246 written by Sen. Jim Norman (R-Tampa). The bill would outlaw taking photographs of any farm without the express written consent of the owner. Suddenly, beautiful agricultural vistas would literally be a felony.

But there must be a really good explanation, right? One having to do with National Security that clearly justifies this incredible violation of Free Speech and Press Right. Maybe not.

Simpson, president of Simpson Farms near Dade City, said the law would prevent people from posing as farmworkers so that they can secretly film agricultural operations.

He said he could not name an instance in which that happened. But animal rights groups such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and Animal Freedom display undercover videos on their web sites to make their case that livestock farming and meat consumption are cruel.

Someone please tell Senator Norman to drop this travesty of a bill now. It is a bad idea on so many levels.

Can we STOP joking about prison rape?

Among the most disturbing trends in American comedies is not the growing incidence of groin kicks (common in even chidren's movies today). It is the fact that jokes about prison rape are now so common as to be expected in any movie or television show about jails or prisons. Recent studies, however, show sexual abuse in prison is no laughing matter. And even more surprising, a huge number of them are perpetrated not prisoner-on-prisoner, but guard-on-prisoner.

How many people are really victimized every year? Recent BJS studies using a “snapshot” technique have found that, of those incarcerated on the days the surveys were administered, about 90,000 had been abused in the previous year, but as we have argued previously, those numbers were also misleadingly low. Finally, in January, the Justice Department published its first plausible estimates. In 2008, it now says, more than 216,600 people were sexually abused in prisons and jails and, in the case of at least 17,100 of them, in juvenile detention. Overall, that’s almost six hundred people a day—twenty-five an hour.

It is time to stop trivializing this horrible phenomenon, and recognize it as a very, very bad thing. Convicts give up many of their rights when they commit a crime and are convicted. But ensuring basic human rights is something we should always do, because otherwise we are all dehumanized.

Are "Bath Salts" the new designer drug?

There is an old joke that asks, "Who was the first person to look at a slimy snail and think, 'That looks tasty!'" But human ingenuity knows no bounds when it is trying to fill it's belly. And unfortunately, it appears it is equally brilliant in finding ways to destroy the brain. Consider this: evidence that next wave in the Drug War is bath salts. I can't imagine anyone willingly snorting something as random as this, "just to see what happens". And yet, this scourge is so widespread that many states are considering emergency bans.

Sold under such names as Ivory Wave, Bliss, White Lightning and Hurricane Charlie, the chemicals can cause hallucinations, paranoia, rapid heart rates and suicidal thoughts, authorities say. The chemicals are in products sold legally at convenience stores and on the Internet as bath salts and even plant foods. However, they aren't necessarily being used for the purposes on the label...

Ryan said cathinone, the parent substance of the drugs, comes from a plant grown in Africa and is regulated. He said MDPV and mephedrone are made in a lab, and they aren't regulated because they're not marketed for human consumption. The stimulants affect neurotransmitters in the brain, he said.

"It causes intense cravings for it. They'll binge on it three or four days before they show up in an ER. Even though it's a horrible trip, they want to do it again and again," Ryan said.

Banks accounting for unpaid mortgages as "income"?

There is a fundamental difficulty with regulating banks in the modern age. Unlike days past, banks often no longer derive value from tangible assets like gold and silver, but instead are number-engines creating value out of mathematics. That is not to say what they do is illusory - not at all! - but it means it is easy to game the system by tweaking the way the engine runs.

For example, Forbes is reporting that even after accounting-rules changes, many banks are still allowed to count mortgages as "income" even if no one is paying them... until the house is actually foreclosed upon. This means that banking giants like Bank of America and Chase can continue creating value from these properties (in the eyes of shareholders) even though they no longer have any real benefit to the company.

I can't help wondering if this explains a number of anecdotes I have heard of late from people trying to buy short sales (i.e. homes not actually foreclosed upon) where the bank showed very little interest in selling. After all, a sale is a real loss (assuming they sell for less than the mortgage is worth) whereas a continued unsold property is producing phantom income for the balance sheet.

How can addiction destroy a nation?

In the drug legalization debate, there are many sides to come at it from. Societal costs, difficulty of enforcement, libertarianism, etc. But it is important to remember that addictive substances should also be feared for the distortions they can put onto economies. Consider this situation in Yemen with their national addiction, Qat.

Qat, a mild narcotic plant, is chewed daily in almost every part of the country and is an integral part of the culture here. It has become Yemen's addiction, requiring a steady supply to feed the nation's growing demand.
"The farmers here prefer growing qat to growing grapes," laments Mohammed. "Growing qat makes them more money, but growing it also uses up much more water."...
The situation is so critical that, out of the country's 15 aquifers, only two are being replenished. Some members of Yemen's government have floated the idea of moving the capital, as well as desalinating seawater on the coast and pumping it to Sana'a...
When asked if he knows his country will soon run out of water and what that means for future generations, he sighs.
"The farmers here -- we have no future -- we have to rely on God," says Mohammed. "We only have God's mercy to rely on."

Sometimes the costs on society of bad choices do not end with the individual. These bad choices can easily mushroom and draw thousands of others into a trap with no way out.

Secretary of Transportation would disable cell phones in cars

I try to give the benefit of the doubt to both sides, but there are times when someone says something that simply makes no sense. Consider for this point, Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood who is proposing requiring car companies to actively jam all cell phones in cars in an effort to end "distracted driving."

The US government may require cars to include scrambling tech that would disable mobile-phone use by drivers, and perhaps passengers.

"I think it will be done," US Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood said on Wednesday morning, according to The Daily Caller. "I think the technology is there and I think you're going to see the technology become adaptable in automobiles to disable these cell phones."

LaHood is on a self-described "rampage" against distracted driving, and if making it impossible to use a mobile phone while in a car can save lives, he's all for it...

This means not only would it be illegal to use the cell phone while driving, but it would also be impossible for you or your passengers to use it. If implemented as proposed here, it would also jam data connections (or else drivers could simply switch to Skype) which would mean the end of Pandora or other music streaming services in the car. And, of course, it would mean the end of being able to contact emergency services from your vehicle.

There is a time and place for government intervention, and "distracted driving" is definitely a problem. But let's be reasonable and realize that such whole hog solutions create more problems than they solve.

Broken Window Theory

When Rudy Giuliani became mayor of New York City, he enacted a number of major reforms based on "Broken Window Theory." An ultra-simplified version of the theory might be summarized as "Small crimes lead to big crimes." A broken window (vandalism) leads to the presence of junkies (since clearly no one is there to fix the window) leads to the presence of drug dealers and mobsters leads to violence on the streets as gangs clash, leads to murder.

Giuliani's work in NYC speaks for itself. After riots in the streets under his predecessor, New York reached historic lows for crime and especially violent crime. And his successor has kept crime low, despite the economic pressures of the Great Recession.

Unfortunately, many communities have apparently not learned the lessons of NYC. In order to meet the budget, they are now openly announcing that reports of "minor" crimes will be ignored, as the police force focuses on "major" or "violent" crimes. If "Broken Window Theory" is right, we know what to expect afterward. A marked increase in all kinds of crime, which the cash-strapped, under-manned police force will be even less able to handle.

Cutting waste is one thing. But in our quest for austerity, we must remember the essential services that a society exists to provide. Safety and security is at the top of that list.

Unemployed not eligible for employment?!

It is a dirty little secret amongst recruiters that they tend to sort people without a current job to the BOTTOM of the pile. This is why most advisers will tell you to NEVER quit a job before you find the next one. But some companies are letting the secret out by explicitly stating in their ads that unemployed people will not be considered. That may be acceptable during good times, but in the middle of the Great Recession, that is a recipe for a permanent underclass of unemployable (yet skilled) people.

Peter May, of Atlanta, said he was hoping Orlando-based recruiter "The People Place" would help him find a job with Sony Ericsson. The company is moving its headquarters to Buckhead, which is located outside Atlanta.
May said he was mortified when he read the message on the website. In all caps, and bold type, it said, "No unemployed candidates will be considered at all."

Note to recruiters - time to change your attitude, before politicians and regulators decide to change it for you!

London's 2012 Olympic Mascots - Destined for Mockery for All Time

I... Uh... Oh, my. Um.... I'll let this one be commented upon by our readers. Suffice to say, this is a BAD IDEA.

Lucasfilm preps Star Wars SitCom?

I believe the phrase is "the worst idea in the history of bad ideas." But hey, what do I know? Star Wars Robot Chicken was amazing, and Star Wars Family Guys was... watchable... barely.

Procrastination as Self-Destruction

From The Doghouse Diaries.

Welcome to the Oligopoly

Many years ago, Federal regulators looked at AT&T and realized that a single company running all phones in America was bad for customers. It limited choice, and gave a single CEO too much power over national communications. So, they broke up the behemoth and brought about our modern world where multiple landline, cellular, and VOIP providers are competing for your business. This has brought down prices and increased choice.

But when the economy tumbled, regulators decided that some banks were "too big to fail" and moved to prop them up with taxpayer dollars. The idea was that these banks should be given support for a short time, to allow the economy to heal, at which point they could be safely returned to the wild. Instead, as it turns out, all of the banks declared "too big to fail" have gotten substantially bigger and more powerful, while smaller banks are failing in record numbers. And what happens when a smaller bank fails? Inevitably, it is sold to one of the "too big to fail" banks.

How much do you want to bet that the NEXT economic crisis is precipitated by bad behavior by one of the "too big to fail" banks with too much power and no incentive to act cautiously, in light of a guaranteed bailout?

What did we get for all those billions?

From here. The sad part is you can be sure the response won't be "we have to change our course", but "we need more of the same!"

Should courts decide what is said in schools?

I know many people will say this is a case of "What's good for the goose is good for the gander." But I am disturbed by news of a court case where the courts are deciding exactly what it is appropriate for school teachers to say about the Creation/Evolution debate. In this case, a student took an teacher to court for calling creationism "religious, superstitious nonsense". And he won the case.

Now, I am one who has challenged the assumptions behind evolution from time to time. I have read a lot of Creation Science, and a lot of Evolutionary Science as well. So, I am sympathetic to anyone looking to get equal time. But the courts do not belong in discussions like this. It can only lead to bad things. With rare exceptions, these kind of issues should be handled locally. Do you really want the Supreme Court taking a position on scientific issues?

CT Church Government Bill dies

The bill reported on by CRChair and I over the last couple of days which would have given the legislature the power to regulate church government, is apparently dead. The uproar appears to have been more than the bill's authors expected, and even after the bill was shelved there are protests planned in Hartford.