Surprise! View from a Farley is switching designs at this very moment. There are a few bugs that will have to be ironed out, but, to use Bill O’Reilly’s words, we’ve decided to do it live!
You may notice a few bugs. I’ll keep you updated here!
UPDATE (23 July 2008): Still working through some issues, including pages appearing like posts. There will also be some minor design changes.
Whoever thought having the Olympics in China was a good idea is probably trying to bury themselves very, very far underground right now. For something that should be raising China’s worldwide reputation, the preparation for the Olympics is serving as confirmation of everyone’s worst fears about China - repression of citizens, Tibet, and pollution that makes 19th century London look like Yosemite.
The Tibet problem came to a head a few months ago, but over the past several weeks, the Olympic preparations have become even more disturbing. China has decided to bar entertainers it deems “threatening.” Assault with a deadly microphone. Unheard of environmental protections are being put in place to cut down on pollution ahead of the Olympics. If only that was a permanent measure!
Despite China’s misdeeds, the Olympics are a perfect opportunity for China to become part of the “rest of the world.” The Chinese government can try all they want - throw a tantrum, restrict the flow of information - but you can’t have thousands of press descend on your country and not have some things escape control. The Olympics are about nations coming together. China’s national identity should not overshadow the collective identity of the entire world because if it does, then China’s identity will have overshadowed the entire meaning of the Olympics.
This isn’t the first time the Olympics have been held in an unsavory country. The Olympics were held in Nazi Germany in 1936, shortly before World War II. At those games, Jesse Owens won four gold medals, much to the chagrin of the racist Nazi party.
Put simply, watch the games now (or in a few weeks, to be precise) and criticize China later.
A quick note, some of the stories that I share within this post are second-hand, particularly the ones involving the wait staff, because I do not usually stay for night-time events.
In a month working at a club, I’ve learned more about human nature than can really be put down on paper. It’s the type of thing that you can only gain through experience and for that reason I’m incredibly grateful for my job. The type of interaction that I have with club members every day speaks volumes about the diversity of attitudes and general dispositions among humans - people who feel entitled to everything; the ones who ask for things, and the ones who don’t; the ones who are constantly upset about something; the extremely friendly people; the clueless; the snobbish.
I discussed a few of my favorite moments in an earlier post, but the staff is faced daily with these laugh-or-cry scenarios. We usually laugh and we’re not indifferent to the fact that we are subservient to the members. It’s not so amusing when a member becomes so clearly rude and obnoxious that we want to “accidentally” push them into the pool. It’s not so amusing when the wait staff has to stay around until 12:30 AM for one table that won’t leave. It’s not so amusing when the members at the table see that they’ve been the only table for over an hour, but they still stay. It’s not so amusing, indeed it’s sickening to see a pregnant woman get drunk whenever she comes to the club.
Just last night, there was one table that didn’t get up until 12:15 AM after being seated at 9:45 PM. Reservations are required, but they came anyway. The last tables are usually seated at 8 or 8:30 PM, but they waltzed in at 9:45 PM. Unfortunately, the staff can’t turn them down because of some ongoing friction between members and management, but that’s a different foxhunt all together.
I’m told that at one point during the evening, one person at the table that stayed late (a guest of a member) remarked that they ought to leave because they were keeping the staff late. The member responded, “I’ll stay as late as I want. They get paid, you know.” The staff didn’t take that too well. In fact, everyone who has heard about it is quite insulted by the obnoxiousness of the comment. Several of the staff members don’t even get paid hourly!
This will come back to haunt those particular members, though. The staff really appreciates the nice families, of which we have several, so we go out of our way to make sure they have a great time. When this crowd comes through again, they’ll get the bare minimum amount of service. The staff will be courteous, but not kind. This is a good lesson to learn - people are nice to people who are nice to them.
Artwork from Coldplay's Latest Album
A year ago, I really did not like music. To a certain extent, I still dislike music to this day. I can’t stand rap (for philosophical reasons because it’s awful) or country music (because it’s just bad). I almost changed my tune (no pun intended) when Coldplay came out with their new album a few weeks ago. First, I just downloaded “Viva la Vida” after hearing it in an iPod + iTunes commercial, but after a few days of trying to resist, I downloaded the whole album. I still dislike most music, but I’m a bit of a Coldplay crazy now!
Coldplay has managed to blend excellent music with provocative lyrics. Alternative music groups have a tendency to make their lyrics so outlandish that you are more likely to find their meaning by visiting your local astrologist and using a decoder ring than listening to and thinking about the lyrics. Viva la Vida is probably the most played song from the new album, but the song also has the most interesting lyrics. The song begins:
I used to rule the world
Seas would rise when I gave the word
Now in the morning I sleep alone
Sweep the streets I used to own
The song is what somebody with whom I work would call “kill yourself music.” I admit the song isn’t upbeat, but the lyrics are fascinating. I can’t post them here for copyright reasons, but the song is about a fallen hero. I’ve often wondered what happens when people fade from the spotlight and this song expresses that. After the Clinton years, for example, I wondered how Clinton coped with moving from a busy life as commander-in-chief to the memoir-writer-in-chief.
Coldplay isn’t afraid to leave several minutes of silence, either. “Life in Technicolor” has about a minute without vocals at one point.
Other great songs include ” Clocks“, from an earlier album (with a great piano section you may recognize) and “Lost!” from this album. Even the people that don’t usually like this type of music should at least listen to “Viva la Vida.” It remains my favorite.
Merrill Lynch reported a $4.7 billion loss last quarter. IndyMac was seized by federal regulators. The U.S. government is bailing out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. But this isn’t the worst news. No, this doesn’t even register when viewed in light of the real bad news. The Coca-Cola Company’s second quarter net income fell 23%! I may have to make a very large purchase of Diet Coke to bail them out. I assure you this fall in their profit was certainly not because of me. I keep them in business!
I’m not sure how to weigh in on the current state of the economy. I’m not an economist, but I’ve been reading quite a bit and I’m pretty firmly in the pro-globalization column. If the crisis in the United States means than more of our companies are owned by foreign companies, then some good may have come out of this ordeal. In the meantime, I suppose I’ll just have to put my trust in the United States Department of Treasury, of all places.
In the meantime, I hope your money is safe! If they’re not, I encourage you to make yourself feel better by pouring yourself a Diet Coke. It’ll make you feel better!
Formulaic writing assumes that writing is like chemistry. The rationale seems to be that if you put in precise amounts of this and that you will get a great finished product. That obviously not true. Learning to write is like learning to walk. You learn by observation and then just do it. You stumble and fall, but then you walk smoothly and unaided. Put one foot in front of the other and move - it’s just that simple and just that complex. Writing is the same - put the pen to the paper (or hands to the keys) and start writing. It requires a personal effort and, just like walking, outside aid will only get you so far. Another person cannot write for you, just as another person cannot walk for you.
In elementary school, I learned to write a five paragraph essay. Introduction, three body paragraphs, conlclusion. In middle school, I was told that an introductory paragraph should be constructed like an inverse pyramid - starting with generalities and becoming specific, culminating in a thesis statement. A conclusion, I was told, should be like a regular pyramid. The TRIAC method is preferable for a body paragraph:
Topic sentence
Reserach
Interpret
Analyze
Concluding sentence
I don’t take issue with the fact that all of those elements might be useful in a paragraph, but I’ve seen a whole ton of writing that is so formulaic, it sounds inhuman. Writing is too complicated to be formulaic. Students should simply explore until they find a style that works for them. Certain requirements are, of course, necessary, but it shouldn’t be in a formula like this. I write what I think and I keep it as logical as possible. God (I use that metaphorically) forbid I explain a quotation before I actually present it or I start a paragraph with specifics.
It has, however, occured to me that perhaps I do write formulaically, it’s just been internalized with me more than some of my classmates. I was fortunate enough this year for the classes in which I did the most writing - English and U.S. Histroy - to be lead by teachers who did not care what formula (if any) was used, so long as the writing fit the requirements. Below is something I wrote mid-year (for a U.S. History class) and haven’t looked at since, that I’ve decided to share. I received a good grade, but I’m interested to see if anyone thinks it’s formulaic. Our assignment was to discuss what caused the Civil War. I decided to do something more interesting than just slavery (I don’t consider that a primary cause), so I tried a different argument.
Let me know what you think!
Copyright Notice: This is MINE. You may not copy without express permission. It’s summer and I have some free time on my hands; suing someone for copyright infringement might be fun.
Causes of the Civil War (Clever Title, I Know)
The Civil War was fought for hundreds of different reasons against enemies both foreign and domestic. Every man, woman, and child in the United States found themselves in the face of disaster. Some people were fighting over the issue of slavery. Others were fighting over the right to free western expansion. Over time, the southern states had slowly become detached from their northern counterparts – economically, politically, and ideologically. But the differences between the North and South, which stretched from trivial arguments over tariffs to essential issues of morality and ethics, like slavery, all stemmed from a fundamental difference over the role of the federal government. While many factors from the differing economies of the North and South to slavery and sectionalism played a role in starting the Civil War, the true cause was a dispute over the very core of the United States government and if a strong federal government should exist at all.
The increasing power of the federal government was marked by a series of high profile Supreme Court decisions. In 1819, the Supreme Court had to decide which government had supreme authority, that of the federal government or that of the states. Maryland wished to tax its branch of the national bank, which would in effect allow state government to govern federal government operations. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the United States government. Said Chief Justice John Marshall in the case of McCulloch v. Maryland:
“The states have no power, by taxation or otherwise, to retard, impede, burden, or in any manner control the operations of the constitutional laws enacted by Congress.”
A similar case appeared before the high court in 1824 in the form of Gibbons v. Ogden. Two merchants argued over shipping rights on the Hudson River. This was a legal first because the action involved both New York and New Jersey and one state could not pass judgment over the other. Again, the Supreme Court under John Marshall ruled in favor of federal government power. Though the case concerned interstate commerce, the opinion solidifies national government power. John Marshall wrote:
“It is the power to regulate; that is, to prescribe the rule by which commerce is to be governed. This power, like all others vested in Congress, is complete in itself, may be exercised to its utmost extent, and acknowledges no limitations, other than are prescribed in the constitution.”
These decisions signify a strengthened federal government, particularly in the case of McCulloch v. Maryland in which the court not only found the action to be unlawful, but went so far as to say states have “no power…[to] control the operations of the constitutional laws enacted by Congress.” While the Constitution already asserts the supremacy of the federal government, the clause is left open to interpretation. The Supreme Court under John Marshall made it clear that no state is more powerful than the federal government.
Despite these decisions favorable to a strong federal government, the Dred Scott v. Sanford decision reduced slaves from enslaved people to property governed by state law. Dred Scott was the slave of Dr. John Emerson of Missouri. When Emerson moved to Illinois, Scott moved with him. However, while slavery was legal in Missouri, it was illegal in Illinois. When John Emerson moved back to Missouri and left Scott behind (Scott was hired out by his master), Scott sued for his freedom, arguing that under the Illinois constitution, he was completely free. The Supreme Court took a different approach and ruled against Scott. Chief Justice Roger B. Taney wrote, “…neither Congress nor a territorial legislature can exclude slavery from any United States Territory.” Apparently, Justice Taney also suffered from a massive, if altogether too common at the time, superiority complex. According to him:
“[African Americans are] beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations, and so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect.”
Taney also wrote that every state has the ability to treat slaves as they like but that no state “can by naturalizing an alien invest him with the rights and privileges secured to a citizen of a State under the Federal Government.” Essentially, the decision made slaves property, recognized by the laws of the slave states and immune to the efforts of the federal government and the free states to indo the slave states’ property laws. The decision instantly angered Abolitionists. There was a fatal disconnect between the reasoning of the North and South in this case. The Northern Abolitionists believed slaves were people, other Northerners were simply indignant at the Southern victory, and Southerners believed slaves were property all along. These major differences in opinion of the rights of slaves paralleled regional views of federal authority. Dred Scott v. Sanford was a victory for the South, but the federal government was still too powerful for the South’s liking.
The State of South Carolina took the lead. On December 24, 1860, South Carolina seceded from the Union. The resolution concluded:
“…the Union heretofore existing between this State and the other States of North America is dissolved and…South Carolina has resumed her position among the nations of the world, as a separate and independent state, with the full power to levy war…”
South Carolina also listed many grievances as reason for their departure. Within the statement, there lies the concept that South Carolina has the power “to levy war.” In the eyes of the Union, South Carolina’s secession was casus belli. South Carolina declared it was their free right to “drop out” of the Union whenever it wished, just as it had joined. The resolution reads:
“We maintain that in every compact between two or more parties, the obligation is mutual; that the failure of one of the contracting parties to perform a material part of the agreement entirely releases the obligation of the other…”
South Carolina’s view was that the relationship between State and Union was a simple contractual one. And South Carolina’s views were representative of the other Confederate states. Soon after South Carolina brazenly published their views, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas also seceded. Arkansas, Tennessee, North Carolina, and Virginia joined after the first shots had been fired. South Carolina’s philosophy about the federal government was a sort of “opt-in/opt-out” arrangement versus any sort of actual commitment. President Abraham Lincoln held a very different view as he expressed in a special address to Congress in 1860:
“…they [the South] commenced by an insidious debauching of the public mind. They invented an ingenious sophism which, if conceded, was followed by perfectly logical steps, through all the incidents, to the complete destruction of the Union. The sophism itself is that any State of the Union may consistently with the national Constitution, and therefore lawfully and peacefully, withdraw from the Union without the consent of the Union or of any other State.”
In the days to come, he would back his opposition to secession with threats of military force. South Carolina’s resolution of secession shows the Civil War as a war of ideology as much as anything. It was the view of South Carolina, Florida, Mississippi, and others that government was a simple contract, but to Lincoln and the States of the Union, the pact entered into by all states was irrevocable.
The separation of the Union into the United States of America and the Confederate States of America was not precipitated by any one event alone. But there was a certain degree of inevitability from the first Supreme Court cases favoring strong federal government, to the Dred Scott case, to South Carolina’s secession. The problem was chronic, but its acute manifestation was the Civil War. Every cause of the Civil War stemmed from the fundamental ideological difference in the role of government. Can you “drop out” of the federal government? Is the state or federal government more powerful? Those questions tore the nation apart. After years of fighting, however, the United States of America was once again united under a powerful, decisive federal government that has endured for 143 years.
Oh, this was so predictable. In fact, I’d be surprised if The New Yorker didn’t use this cover on purpose - they wanted this battle. For any visually impaired readers, the cover portrays Barack and Michelle Obama in the Oval Office with Obama in Muslim garb and Michelle dressed in camouflage pants (would’ve been funnier if it was a pantsuit) with a machine gun over her shoulder. A portrait of Osama bin Laden hands on the wall, an America flag burns in the fireplace, and they’re giving each other what Fox News calls a “terrorist fist jab” and I call an odd social procedure often observed to show familiarity between friends and to replace handshakes among a less formal audience.
To the person who wants to see something objectionable, The New Yorker is suggesting that the Obamas are terrorists. Those people have, apparently, failed to think this through. The Obamas are clearly not terrorists and The New Yorker would have no reason to suggest that they are. Those people have also forgotten that The New Yorker often publishes humorous cartoons on its cover. The articles are also humorous! It’s obvious to me, but apparently not obvious to the McCain and Obama campaigns, that The New Yorker is not suggesting Obama has terrorist ties, but is pointing to the obsurdity of the claims that he does.
Think about it: A friendly fist gesture, while I admit it is bizzare, is construed to be related to terrorism. Rumors are circulated about Obama being a (gasp) Muslim. His middle name is Hussein, he must be related to Saddam Hussein. I think the humor is self explanatory. The New Yorker is mocking, and rightly so, the sheer stupidity of those who believe these rumors, as well as those who spread them maliciously.
There is, however, a debate surrounding this cover that’s taking place at a level significantly higher than that of the ignorant people spreading false rumors and that of those attacking The New Yorker for their decision to publish it. Should The New Yorker have published the cover or should they have withheld it, anticipating the misinterpretation of its meaning?
One of the guests on The News Hour with Jim Lehrer this evening, a sociologist, seemed to think that because the cover was so controversial, the humorous effect was lost. Agreed. But he also seemed to think that the loss of humor was enough reason to not publish. I don’t agree because this should be about showing people the humor, not hoping they get it and shying away from controversy.
What do you all think?
I’ve had my iPhone 3G for about thirty-six hours and I’m very pleased. The first iPhone was amazing, but the iPhone 3G’s additional/upgraded hardware perfectly compliments iPhone software 2.0 for what is, overall, a much improved user experience.
Apple and AT&T were able to reach an agreement for the cost of iPhone 3G to be heavily subsidized, with the catch being that phone activation must take place in-store. AT&T hopes that this will cut down on users unlocking their phones to use them on any network.
So I found myself in line outside the AT&T store on Madison Avenue yesterday morning at 6:45 AM. (Had this phone not required in-store activation, I still would have been in line). Buying my new phone in an Apple store would have been more enjoyable, but the lines at AT&T stores were generally shorter. The doors opened at 8 AM EDT, and about about 15 people went in and 20 minutes later, everyone had come out. They were slowly letting people in, replacing the people coming out, but it was 9 AM before I even got into the store. Processing 20 people an hour is not good.
At this point, I ran into the rampant unprofessionalism in AT&T stores. I knew I might run into some unprofessional employees based on my experience calling AT&T stores for details on their launch procedures. They were often unknowledgeable and brusque, some even outright rude. On Thursday, I had called the very store at which I was waiting in line and asked what a reasonable time to show up would be, based on their experience with the first iPhone. They said: “No, that’s not the kind of thing we can talk about. We can’t just tell you an estimate. I don’t know why you’d think we can give that information, but everyone needs to stand in line and we can’t help one customer over an other.”
Because of that experience, I was partially prepared for this type of behavior, but I didn’t expect the store to sink to the organizational standard of a Florida voting center. The troubles began in store: First, I asked one employee if they had any iPhone 3G cases (they only had original iPhone cases on display). She wasn’t sure, so she asked another employee. Instead of giving her a straight answer, that employee started messing around, saying they didn’t, then they did, going back and forth. I’m sure he thought he was humorous. This left me waiting while my employee was fighting with Mr. Idiot and the guy whose phone Mr. Idiot was trying to activate was also left waiting. He had complete disregard for the fact that there were hundreds of people in line and he was holding them up.
Second, (this is my personal favorite “unprofessional moment”) was when AT&T employee “Felix” ran across the store telling, “iTunes is down! Apple is down! No activations! That’s why it’s stupid to launch in 22 countries at once.” Felix seemed to be overly cheerful that a few hundred people were waiting for an activation that would not come hours.
Aside from the actively unprofessional employees, a disturbing number of AT&T employees were simply milling about, talking and texting. Believe me, there was no shortage of things to do (crowd control was becoming a necessity as people started to get annoyed). The only people doing anything were the people actually activating phones and a nice employee named “Revka” who was running phones and calming people down.
An AT&T employee did as much as she could to transfer my phone number from iPhone to iPhone without contacting the Apple activation server. I was then told to go home and complete the activation process myself by plugging in to iTunes 7.7. For several hours, I had two iPhones - old and new - neither of which was capable of sending or receiving calls.
When I returned home hours later, I was able to successfully activate my phone. As it turns out, Apple’s activation servers failed, probably because there were so many requests. What strikes me as odd is that Apple did not plan for a huge load. They knew iPhone 3G would be popular, so why didn’t they increase capacity? Or did they, but just not by enough? Perhaps there is an alternate explanation of which I do not yet know. I’ve never heard of any other company that gets screwed because people like their products too much.
I do not harbor any long-term bad feelings towards the fols at Apple, but I could strangle a few AT&T employees with their little iPhone tethering cords. AT&T’s issue is a lack of professionalism and a terrible retail experience. Apple is more forgivable because we don’t notice their victories (keeping apple.com online all the time, keeping iTunes running, etc.) because their victories are expected. When they fail, we openly and contantly criticize them. They had a few dicey hours, but it’s important to remember that at the end of the day, the activating was running more smoothly than the day before, and people were going home satisfied.
Just hours after the release of iPhone 3G, it’s pretty clear that the real coup was not the hardware, but the software. Most of Apple’s pre-loaded applications saw some change in iPhone software 2.0 (the ability to move and delete multiple message in Mail or the new scientific calculator mode in Calculator, just to name a couple). With 2.0 comes greatly increased security and, most importantly, the ability to add third-party applications from the App Store.
I’m still looking for the ability to cut-and-paste and send multimedia messages. I hope this is forthcoming in a future update! Most other features can be added by third-party applications (voice dialing, turn-by-turn directions, etc.) which makes allowing third-party applications a time-saving decision for Apple!
The changes Apple has made in iPhone software 2.0 (and the parallel release for iPod Touch) have been for the better. In the course of my testing, I’ve noticed two minor bugs.
With all of this discussion on software, it’s important to mention the new hardware!
iPhone 3G uses A-GPS, which basically means that the phone acquires your location generally through cell towers and other indicators, which allows the GPS receiver to connect more quickly. Essentially, the GPS receiver only has to figure out where it is within a certain radius, rather than the entire world. It works surprisingly quickly. I’ve been able to acquire a GPS lock in seconds and the maps application will track your progress with a nice blue dot. It works in cars and I’m looking forward to turn-by-turn navigation software (this may be delayed by a clause in the SDK agreement). It sucks battery life very quickly, but I imagine it will be extraordinarily useful when I’m in the middle of nowhere and I want to figure out where the nearest Starbucks is!
3G is so much faster than EDGE, the older data network. While that is not in dispute, 3G’s coverage is considerably less than EDGE’s. I was very worried when I looked at my iPhone and I saw that I barely had any signal strength at all. I thought my phone was broken or something. In fact, it was displaying it’s 3G signal only. When 3G died completely, I found that I had full EDGE coverage. This does not show in the signal indicator, however, because the indicator shows only one or the other, not a hybrid. So don’t panic if it looks like you have no reception. 3G is also a battery hog, but it was only a few seconds slower than WiFi in my tests.
Apple has vastly improved audio quality. The external speaker is louder and clearer, but the plastic back helps with signal reception on calls as well. 3G allows more voice data to be transferred, so a call in an area with full 3G coverage is a breath of fresh air. It’s probably the best call quality I’ve ever heard on any phone.
The old iPhone had an oddly angled headphone jack that prevented many headphones from being used without special adapters, such as the Bose QuiteComfort 3 Acoustic Noise Cancelling Headphones. The new iPhone has a flush headphone jack and my Bose headphones are working excellently!
I do have some complaints. I’d like my phone to be 802.11n capable and I’d like more battery life. Spending some time on 3G and GPS can drain battery remarkably quickly.
The iPhone SDK, released in March, allowed developers to write native applications for iPhone and users are finally able to use the resultant products. About 500 applications are available now, with tons more to come, and about 25% are free. The App store is available through iTunes, as well as on iPhones and iPod Touches, and installation is all automatic. It’s as easy as buying a song. The applications for the App store are a mixed bag, but it’s obvious that Apple is the best at writing software for their products and when you let in third-parties, some of them are not so good. I’ve been using a few applications for a while and I’ve briefly reviewed them below.
As I said above, Apple is the best at designing software for their own products. Remote conntects to iTunes over a local wireless network, then allows you to control your movies, music, and more. It’ll also control Apple TV. It has an interface that’s almost exactly like the interface for the iPod function on iPhone and iPod Touch, except it won’t play media locally, it just controls external devices. It works smoothly and it’s free!
I’m a big fan of Twitter and while I don’t use the desktop version of Twitterific, I do have the ad-supported version on my iPhone. You can view and send tweets and direct messages, but I’m a bit concerned about how it asks to use your current location once, then it keeps on updating you location in your profile. I don’t want creepy Internet people at my house! The application is also slow and jerky. It’s only usable over a strong EDGE connection, 3G, or WiFi. A weak EDGE connection will time-out. I’m looking for increased usability and the ability to look at all the tweets for a particular person. Twitterific does, however, get a big plus for graphic design and for having two versions available: a free, ad-supported version and an ad-free version for $9.99.
I was looking for a lot more from AIM. It’s usable over EDGE, 3G, and WiFi, but the design is simple in a bad way. AOL with their massive resources put together an application at which many independent developers are laughing. It does have the advantage of being free, but I hope that in future updates, they make some small changes that will vastly improve AIM. I’d like a mute function for one, the ability to chat with multiple people, and the ability to send pictures. If AIM could tap into Contacts and get buddy names so that I could see “Joe Smith” instead of having to look at “iluvfootball123″ all the time, that would be even better. That may be something Apple has to fix, however, because buddy names currently do not sync into iPhone’s contacts.
The iPhone 3G is not a must-have product unless you’re an Apple fanboy, but iPhone software 2.0 is. The third-party applications will be interesting to watch and this will begin a new era of applications that will benefit iPhone users significantly. The activation process will calm down soon and while it is not a must-have, the hardware enhancements, both big and small, make iPhone 3G worth it.
A Review of MobileMe will be Released in the Coming Days
My sister is a complete nut when it comes to sustainable, organic food. My family shops at Whole Foods to placate her, but every once in a while she’ll send us e-mails telling us that we will contribute to world collapse if we don’t start growing our food in our backyard. I’m not sure if her claims are correct, but it can’t hurt to eat locally - particularly if it’s excellent food.
The answer is the Stone Barns Center for Food and Agriculture. My connection to Stone Barns started last year when my sister became an intern specializing in visitor education. From their about page:
Stone Barns Center for Food and Agriculture is a farm, a kitchen, a classroom–an exhibit, a laboratory, a campus. The mission of this unique, nonprofit, member-driven collaboration is to celebrate, teach and advance community-based food production and enjoyment, from farm to classroom to table.
The farm is nice, but I don’t really care that much about the sustainablility aspect. I know it’s sustainable because people I trust told me so; I don’t need to watch how the expert farm people milk cows to understand from where my food comes. This approach is simplistic, I know, but it’s the food that makes Stone Barns special.
The restaurant is related to the New York City “Blue Hill.” This rural outpost is aptly named “Blue Hill at Stone Barns.” Very clever. To make a long story short (I really want to play with my iPhone 3G; geeky people will understand) the food is really good, from the farm on location, and it’s very expensive ($125 per person from the Farmer’s Table selection at the momet). The amazing thing is that for the Farmer’s Table, you can order off the menu, but a waiter comes over and asks you what your likes and dislikes are, after which the chef prepares something unique. That’s dining Apple style.
I’ll be back with an iPhone 3G review ASAP.
Google loves to play both sides of an argument. First, they claim it’s extremely difficult for them to filter out copyrighted material from YouTube, but at the same time they’ve been very strict and very effective at filtering out child pornography. Why can they do one and not the other? I’m sure Viacom would like to know. Google has also argued that they don’t need to protect their data, particularly IP addresses, more stringently because a user could generally not be identified through IP address. This is in addition to Google’s history of keeping more user data than God. But now that Viacom wants this data, YouTube (owned by Google) is saying the exact opposite - releasing IP addresses to Viacom’s legal team seems like the end of the world for Google.
Viacom is trying to get these records (which, to be clear, include the username, IP address, video data, and viewing statistics for every YouTube user) in connection with their March 2007 lawsuit Viacom International, Inc., Comedy Partners, Country Music Television, Inc., Paramount Pictures Corporation, and Black Entertainment Television, LLC v. Youtube, Inc., YouTube, LLC, and Google Inc. Viacom is claiming massive copyright infringement has taken place on YouTube (I don’t think this is a point of contention, we’ve all seen this), but more importantly that the scale of this infringement combined with YouTube not proactively removing copyrighted content has hurt Viacom and even aided Google in the form of ad revenue. Viacom is also alleging inducement of copyright infringement, a relatively new claim in copyright cases and the result of Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc., Et Al.v.Grokster LTD, Et Al.
I definitely do not have the legal expertise to analyze the case itself, but I’m quite interested by the data Google is being forced to turn over. I should note that the blogosphere has gone absolutely up-the-wall-best-to-put-some-people-in-an-insane-asylum crazy over this latest decision in the ongoing battle between Google and Viacom. TechCrunch suggested that Google toy with Viacom by sending the records over in paper format. (The records total 12 terabytes and, in paper format, would probably fill the Googleplex). My lawyer relations tell me type of game has been played by litigators in the past, so the courts are now very specific about how data is turned over. Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require all parties to agree to the format of the data, and failing agreement, the judge decides.
So, it seems, Google will have to turn over the data. The EFF is already going crazy, but I’m not sure the privacy implications are as dire as some believe. Google and Viacom, according to The New York Times, are working on ways of protecting user privacy, though no deal has been formalized and Viacom is under no obligation to agree to any such deal. Google wants to anonymize the data by redacting IP addresses and user names. But an EFF representative says even that’s not enough because when AOL release anonymized user data for research in 2006, The New York Times was able to track down one AOL user by analyzing her search queries only.
As far as I’m concerned, this is a moot point because the data, anonymized or not, will never be made public. Viacom certainly does not want the data to get out because it makes them look terrible and if anyone leaked it, their job and the next several years of their life would hang in the balance. Google definitely doesn’t want this data to get out. The only people that will see this are paralegals, assistants, and a handful of lawyers. I’m certain some people are concerned that the data will be used to target them individually, for illegal acts like copyright infringement, totally unrelated to Viacom’s cause of action against YouTube. Good news for them because the court’s protection order will not allow them to use the data for anything other than their initial claim. It’s just not that big of a deal.
I also find it somewhat hypocritical that anti-copyright activists want to make it hard for copyright holders to get data without a lawsuit, but when the copyright holder pursues legal means of obtaining the data, they also go crazy. I think a lawsuit should be a requirement for someone to obtain user data, but when the data is ordered, it should be delivered.
I’m worried about the precedent that this case sets, but in this particular instance I, as a YouTube user, am satisfied with the safeguards in place to prevent my privacy being violated. But if those safeguards are ever lessened in the future, then that’s a big problem. I’ll be following this case closely, like all copyright cases, because it could tie up some loose ends left by other cases.