Slashdot and a couple others picked up recent studies showing a drop in theater attendance and an increased preference to watch movies at home. I have to admit that I'm guilty for following this trend. While Jenny and I just went to see Madagascar, in general we rarely go to see a movie. Having to find a babysitter isn't really an excuse either since both of our parents jump at the chance to watch Maeli. Most of the reasons have to do with comfort and pure economics. Jenny and I attending a theater showing once a month is almost equivalent to our Netflix bill. We have a decent home theater system and prefer the comfort our of living room to the crowded and sometime noisy cineplex. Unless it's an amazing movie, theaters just can't compete with the home.

A well worded argument for the legalization of methamphetamine in particular and drugs in general inspired me to reflect on the costs and benefits of liberal govenment.

Regarding the article, I'd say that Victor's second argument (illegalized drugs impose a greater social cost than legalization) supports his first (adults should have freedom over their bodies). I initially skipped the first because I didn't think it would say anything new or interesting. And it doesn't, really, becasue it assumes the reader is "pro-freedom" for some values of "freedom". The second argument provided enough justification for why freedom might be important, that I looked read the "freedom" argument for insight on what "freedom" means in context.

The words "freedom", "liberty", and "liberal" have lots of meanings. In the essay, liberty is equated with full personal freedom relative to others. So a strictly liberal (let's call it a libertarian) government is enabled (and restricted) to limiting an individual (or organization's) antagonistic acts towards another. For me, examples of antagonistic acts include murder, theft, torture, extortion, and spam. I'd say a libertarian government isn't required outlaw all kinds of antagonism. This allows a libertarian government to have freedom of public speech and public expression (as differentiated from free public and free private). The important thing in libertarian government is that policy must be justified by how it limits antagony and promotes liberty.

The US (and many other governments) are not libertarian in this strict sense. Thy do both more (and sometimes less). They have armies and embassies for interaction with other countries. They fund and regulate civil projects: roads, power, eduction. They redistribute wealth: welfare, health care, social security, subsidies. They enforce social policy by regulating marriage, family, religion, and by providing tax incentives. A libertarian government would not have the power to do some of these things.

It's hard to say what a libertarian government would be like. Could a libertarian government have strong contract, copyright, licensing, and/or patent laws? Can we even say what the society would be like? After all, social issues would fall outside of the government's scope. Or would they?

Abortion is an industry standard social issue. It's often viewed antagonistically: the mother against the unborn child. Some might require I phrase it: the woman against the fetus. The antagony debate endures because it's about a philosophical question: what does it mean to be human and to have human rights?

Required Reading: Michael Crichton elucidates the broken nature of the US patent system in this weekend's New York Times editorial, "This Essay Breaks the Law."

Quite honestly, the current state of intellectual property law in the United States makes me ill.

I've just signed up for TextDrive's Mixed Grill offer. It's a $500-for-life shared hosting plan which is perfect for my needs. I've been looking at changing some of my hosting setup anyway, so expect some movement around here within the next month or two.

An excellent, and lengthy, response by Bill Moyers to CPB's Tomlinson has climbed the blogdex charts. While the crux of the address is Moyers' rebuttle to allegations of bias served with counter allegations of political highjacking of public broadcasting, I found the most powerful elements to be his insights into journalism and the importance of independent media in a democracy. Here are some quotes to whet your appetite:

I came to see that news is what people want to keep hidden, and everything else is publicity.

Hear me: an unconscious people, an indoctrinated people, a people fed only partisan information and opinion that confirm their own bias, a people made morbidly obese in mind and spirit by the junk food of propaganda is less inclined to put up a fight, ask questions and be skeptical. And just as a democracy can die of too many lies, that kind of orthodoxy can kill us, too.

Ideologues don’t want you to go beyond the typical labels of left and right because people may start believing you. They embrace a world view that cannot be proven wrong because they will admit no evidence to the contrary. They want your reporting to validate their belief system and when it doesn’t, God forbid.

Listened to a NPR segment about the show a few weeks ago. Happened to see last night's episode. Can't say that I found the show itself very engaging (plot, characters, etc). But the math kept me busy for a few hours.

The setup for the series is quite simple: two brothers, one FBI agent, other math professor at Caltech. Professor brother sometimes helps agent brother solve crimes. For example, in last night's episode a fugitive was on the lose. They put this on the news and people can call in saying they've seen him, but there are a lot of false sightings. The professor brother finds out about the false positive problem, makes a comment about "Markov Chains", and sets to work. Eventually, he's able to filter out the good reports from the bad ones (based of the timing and assuming that the fugitive's movements satisfy the Markov property). Know the fugitive's movements helps the agent brother track him down.

Later in the episode, the professor goes over the Monty Hall problem with his class. Looking for resources on that problem lead me to another which I found even more counterintuitive.

Suppose there's family with two children. If I tell you the older child is a girl, what are the chances that the younger child is a girl? Presuming that gender is independent of birth order and the gender of one sibling doesn't affect the gender of the other, then the answer is 50%. Likewise, if I tell you that the younger child is a girl, the chances that the older child is a girl are 50%. Now what if I tell you that one of children is a girl (could be older or younger), what is the probability that the other child is a girl? One third. Here's why.

Suppose that there are 4000 families with two children. Since each gender is equally likely for any birth, about 2000 families will have a boy first, and 2000 will have a girl first. Of the 2000 that had a boy first, about 1000 will have a boy second and 1000 will have a girl second. So we get the following:

• About 1000 have two boys.


• About 1000 have two girls.


• About 1000 have a girl and then a boy.


• About 1000 have a boy and then a girl.

To find the probability that the other child is a girl given one is, we divide the number of families where both children are girls by the number in which at least one is. The quotient is 1000 / 3000, so the probability is one third.

Now, for the unintuition. Suppose that I tell you one of the children is a girl and that her name is Mary. Does the probability that the other child is a girl change? If so, how? In general, it does change, and if we make "reasonable" assumptions, the answer is one half. Here's why.

Suppose that we 4000 families as before. Furthermore, let's suppose that four out of every thousand girls is named Mary. (Estimate comes from the social security department.) Then of the 2000 families with one girl, the girl is named Mary in about 8. Of the 1000 families with two girls, about 4 will name the older Mary. Of those four, we can assume that none will name their younger child Mary. As for the 996 that didn't name their oldest Mary, about 4 will name their younger child Mary. So in total, of the 4000 families, about 16 will have a girl named Mary. And of those, half will be families with two girls. So the probability that one child is a girl given the the other is a girl named Mary is one half.

So, now Yahoo! has a music store to compete with iTunes. There's a pretty decent review over on Ian Roger's blog.

My trouble with these music services is not the DRM (though that is a pain) but the fact that they sell lossy copies of the music. If I'm going to actually buy music, I want a lossless copy which is why I still buy CDs. The only music store I know if which offers DRM-less lossless files is Shawn Gordon's Mindawn. Are there others?

Did I ever mention that Nellie McKay's music rocks? No? Well it does. Go listen to it.

Strongbad (of Homestarrunner fame) made an appearance on NPR last weekend.

The media industry is already regrouping after the defeat of the broadcast flag last week. While broadcasters will first attempt to win over Congress to enact broadcast flag legislation, the NY Times reports network media may pull over-the-air HD programming in retaliation of further failed attempt to build their "polite marketplace" of the digital future:

In 2002, Mel Karmazin, then president of Viacom, threatened to withdraw high-definition versions of programming from the airwaves if the flag technology was not adopted, a threat echoed by other broadcasters and movie studios.

While apparently 20 million or so home still use rabbit ears exclusively, I say let 'em take their HD content and go home. I'd rather have no over-the-air HD content than hand over the consumer electronics industry to the media moguls and open the door to such restrictive technology. Moreover, I don't really see how the networks think they could get away with pulling HD off the air and somehow not face the wrath of both the public and Congress for reneging on their promises (made in the 80's!) to provide high-def programming. They've been sitting on prime spectrum space for decades, blocking efforts to reallocate channels for emergancy personnel, and effectively robbing the US public. If they retaliate by pulling HD content then they should lose the extra spectrum channels they were given based on those promises.

We face "an impending period of transitional chaos for media" and the broadcast flag and these scare tactics are simply the networks' attempt to ensure continued control of mass media in the future. I certainly hope we won't buckle under the pressure to sign away our digitial rights simply to see ugly HD close-ups of reality TV stars.

I just noticed this article on PowerPoint which was picked up by reddit:

Sometimes the best presentation is... no presentation. Ditch the slides completely. Put the projector in the closet, roll the screen back up, and turn the damn lights back on!

I couldn't agree more.

Yesterday I gave a short presentation on the DMCA for my business law class this semester. I have shiny new PowerBook and was considering trying out KeyNote, but I decided against it. I was lucky enough to be assigned a topic for my presentation that I cared about, and I wanted, or at least hoped, that for ten minutes I could enlighten a few others about this controversial law. So I put away PowerPoint, delayed playing with KeyNote, and even held off on the handouts. Instead, I just talked.

And I think it worked. There were no fancy graphics, no bullet points to get in between me and my fellow classmates. In the end, I believe I gave a much better presentation without the technological crutches. At least the professor seemed to think so too.

So I definitely agree -- use PowerPoint or KeyNote only when necessary. Too often they just get in the way.

Speaking of presentations, I'm headed off to ApacheCon tomorrow. I won't be giving any presentations, but I'm looking forward to listening to quite a few. This will be the first time I've actually been able to arrange to go and I'm excited. Besides, after yesterday's snow storm here, San Diego is lookin' mighty fine.

If you read, listen, or see one thing on copyright and fair use, this ought to be it:

http://smartleydunn.com/wired/

If you're at all interested in HDTV and the broadcast flag and the FCC, you need to read this article: Spectrum Wars (02/18/2005). In fact, even if you aren't interested, if your a US citizen, you should read this. Picked it up from BoingBoing today.

Okay, I try to keep most political rants off my blog (perhaps I need another space for that), but this Newsday article really bothered me: "Writers jailed in 2002 for political satire -- After three years at Guantanamo, Afghan writers found to be no threat to United States."

Innocents getting shafted always gets to me. Here two political satirists were jailed, for three years in Gitmo, because someone lied to the US and then couldn't recognize satire. In the first case, we, the US, were used. In the second, we were stupid. Some idiot slept through English class and then gets a post chasing down terrorists and isn't intelligent enough to recognize a real threat. Moreover, the injustice started by the US blindly accepting foreign accusations. Oh yeah, I forgot, that's how this whole mess started -- bad intelligence. I'm upset and embarrassed.

For example, let's take a look at this bit of critical thinking by Army Col. Samuel Rob who "was serving this summer as the chief lawyer for U.S. forces in Afghanistan" from the article:

"What if this is a truly bad individual, the next World Trade Center bomber, and you let him go? What do you say to the families?" asked Rob.

Okay, how about we re-phrase that:

"What if this is a truly good individual, the next Nobel Peace Prize winner, and you imprison him? What do you say to the families?"

Let's think about that, shall we?

Engadget is one of my more favorite websites. I just noticed something today on the site which I find really interesting: Focus Ads. There's a small link under some of the ads on the site that says "Comment on this Advertiser" which leads you to a discussion forum about the ad and the company. Now that is a great idea.

Ads on websites, particularly blogs, can be very obtrusive. But here we have an example of incorporating the ad into the site content itself. It becomes part of the discussion. I like it.

There will be no video iPod next week or any time soon either. Why? Because Apple understand what the MPAA industries does not:

Apple insiders have also said executives see consumers needing the capability to easily import the DVD movies they own to a usable format (similar to the encoding functionality provided for audio CDs with iTunes) in order for a video iPod to be truly successful. (ThinkSecret)

Not only is it difficult to import DVD movies to your PC, in the US it's illegal. And this is exactly how the movie industry wants it to be. You see, they don't want you to be able to import your DVD collection. Instead, they all want to do what Sony is doing -- get you to buy your movies all over again in a different format. In Sony's case, it's buying UMDs for your PSP. For a video iPod it would be buying some DRM laden movie download. Maybe they'll let you transfer and watch some of the TV you've recorded on your Tivo, but not your DVD collection. Just keep 321 Studios in mind.

And Apple understands this. They understand that even if people wanted portable video (which has yet to be proven) the market won't take off until people can transfer the movies they already own. Thus the movie industry has stifled the technology and may leave the portable video market stillborn.

Word is out about a new set of Hi-MD Minidiscs and the MZ-RH10 will have what minidisc players should have had years ago: direct support for MP3 playback.

Say what you will, I've always loved MiniDiscs. MD players and recorders were always audio devices first, PC accessories second. I really wish they had replaced cassette tapes in the US. With real MP3 and data support and the fact that Hi-MD discs are so cheap, I'm tempted to go back to MD when it comes time to replace my iPod.

More info at Gizmodo and Engadget.

I Am A: Neutral Good Elf Bard Mage


Alignment:
Neutral Good characters believe in the power of good above all else. They will work to make the world a better place, and will do whatever is necessary to bring that about, whether it goes for or against whatever is considered 'normal'.


Race:
Elves are the eldest of all races, although they are generally a bit smaller than humans. They are generally well-cultured, artistic, easy-going, and because of their long lives, unconcerned with day-to-day activities that other races frequently concern themselves with. Elves are, effectively, immortal, although they can be killed. After a thousand years or so, they simply pass on to the next plane of existance.


Primary Class:
Bards are the entertainers. They sing, dance, and play instruments to make other people happy, and, frequently, make money. They also tend to dabble in magic a bit.


Secondary Class:
Mages harness the magical energies for their own use. Spells, spell books, and long hours in the library are their loves. While often not physically strong, their mental talents can make up for this.


Deity:
Oghma is the Neutral Good god of knowledge and invention. He is also known as the Binder of What is Known, and is the Patron of Bards. His followers believe that knowledge reigns supreme, and is the basis for everything else that is done. They wear white shirts and pants, with a black and gold braided vest, and a small, box-like hat. All priests of Oghma are known as Loremasters. Oghma's symbol is a scroll.


Find out What D&D Character Are You?, courtesy of NeppyMan (e-mail)

I was trying to remember the name of that new site Paul Graham is linking to (it's reddit.com by the way) and I ended up googling the phrase "read it." The results were interesting. Number one on the list is Steve Jobs' Stanford address, "You've got to find what you love." Turns out I had just re-read that address yesterday and if you've only read the excerpts, then you really should read it yourself. Seriously. It's excellent.

The second link was something else you should read, at least, if you're an American you should -- The US Constitution. Again, if you haven't recently, read it again.

Apparently, after recommending Steve Jobs and the US Constitution, Google next suggests you read TV Guide, some blogs on ZDNet, the GPL, DDJ, and a couple other random things. Quite an interesting list of what we think others should read or what we consider to be authoritative.

Don't miss Dave Berry's article:

The nation's mood does not improve when the Department of Making Everybody in the Homeland Nervous raises the Official National Terror Index Level to "Yikes!" based on having received credible information indicating that al-Qaida terrorist cells are, quote, "up to something" and "could be in your attic right now."

...

In other bad news, the Department of Homeland Fear, acting on credible information, raises the National Terror Index Level to "EEEEEEEE," which is a level so high that only dogs can detect it.

The Department of Homeland Security is such a horrible idea and even more horrific name that I love when people point out what it should have been called.

Wired has an article on The Best Games You Haven't Played for 2004. They forgot one.

The best game you haven't played in 2004 is Gish. Gish is a PC game by independent game developer Chronic Logic. The demo is free and highly recommended. The full copy is only $20.00.

The premise of the game is that you play Gish, a ball of tar, who rolls his way through sewers and tunnels. The controls are simple and the physics engine is fantastic. The developers took some simple concepts and made an excellent platformer. Check out the BoingBoing article on Gish from earlier this year.

Security planning for the Bush inauguration requires a really big map:

[AP Photo]

In case you actually make it through those security checks and still want to protest, you might want to try to turn your back on Bush.

Good reading on People v. Barlow. I'm particularly interested in learning more about the governement's use (or restriction) of "sensitive security information" (SSI).

John Udell recently commented on blog networks which can act as a sort of "planetary nervous system":

The blog network is made of people. We are the nodes, actively filtering and retransmitting knowledge. Clearly this architecture can help manage the glut of information. More subtly, it can also help ensure that no vital inputs are suppressed because nobody has to rely on a single source. If one of the feeds I monitor doesn’t react to some event in a given domain, another probably will. When they all react, I know it was an especially important event.

Depending how you look at it, one of the strengths or weaknesses of blogs is that bloggers are under no obligation to offer "fair and balanced" reporting. Blogs, as a news source, tend to be very focused and highly opinionated. While traditional media sources are not the perfect example of an open and diverse press, there has at least been an expectation that the editors and producers have a responsibility to provide both sides of any story. In the blogosphere, that responsibility is reversed. The reader is now required to monitor the appropriate channels in order to get the whole story. That's not to say that readers never needed to monitor to more than one source before, but that in the blogosphere it is absolutely essential.

Thus, while John points out that "nobody has to rely on a single source," I'd like to also point out that within the blogosphere, nobody can rely on a single source.

Even with multiple sources, blog networks are vulnerable to Group Think, that is, that bloggers will both link and more importantly read other blogs with which they most closely agree. The result is a blog echo chamber (or a blog planetarium).

An interesting experiment (perhaps already completed by someone) would be to map links and trackbacks between blogs. I wouldn't be surprised if we find something akin to Valdis Krebs' maps of political books purchased on Amazon.

This isn't to say that the blogosphere cannot be a "planetary nervous system" sifting and wading through the daily deluge of information, but that only those individuals and systems which take into account the sphere as a whole and not just the local network will be assured an accurate and informed picture.

BoingBoing picked up a great article from Copyfight about Time-Warner seeking to restrict how long recorded shows could remain on your DVR. For those who don't understand why this might be an issue, imagine if you recorded a program off the TV via your VCR. Then a month later you decide to watch the show again, only to find the VCR has erased your tape leaving you with a warning message that Time-Warner only allows replaying of the program within 4 weeks of the original broadcast date.

Another example of planned obsolescence meets intellectual property.

I've made a few updates to JadeTower:

• New front page menu


• New Journals section that aggregates all the JadeTower blogs


• Updated wiki. MoinMoin 1.3 is out! The old wiki data has not yet been migrated. Also, the new wiki requires you to log in before edits. That should cut down on wiki spam


• Jenny has a weblog: Woodnotes

Still have more I want to do, including tightening the look and feel of the various site components, but it's getting better.

I had heard about the report. Now I finally found a copy:

Defense Science Board: "Strategic Communication" [pdf]

This Task Force concludes that U.S. strategic communication must be transformed. America's negative image in world opinion and diminished ability to persuade are consequences of factors other than failure to implement communications strategies. Interests collide. Leadership counts. Policies matter. Mistakes dismay our friends and provide enemies with unintentional assistance. Strategic communication is not the problem, but it is a problem.

...

To succeed, we must understand the United States is engaged in a generational and global struggle about ideas, not a war between the West and Islam. It is more than a war against the tactic of terrorism. We must think in terms of global networks, both government and non-government. If we continue to concentrate primarily on states ("getting it right" in Iraq, managing the next state conflict better), we will fail.

Of what I've gotten to so far, it's a good read.

Also, if you haven't read the actual 9-11 Commission Report, you should.

I finally had enough of my horrid phone provider, Alltel, and decided to switch to cable completely. Unfortunately, I only have Adelphia to choose from in my area, but just about anything would be an improvement from Alltel's service. My home network is running on cable now and I've sent all their DSL equipment back (which I never wanted in the begining anyway since I have my own modem).

We've decided to drop the land line completey and switch to VoIP too. My Vonage package should arrive tomorrow. I'll be certain to write up my thoughts about it soon.

In the meantime, we've got cable TV too. I haven't had cable TV or satellite TV in over three years now. I've got a nice large high def TV and use it only for my PS2 and my DVD system. For the next three months at least we'll have digital cable and I'm not sure if we'll keep it. Here's why:

One night last week I decided to watch some TV. After searching for a few minutes I noticed that a movie I had been wanting to watch was already playing. It was half over (1 hour of a 2 hour movie), but I figured I'd watch it anyway. That's strike one. See, when I rent DVD's (Jenny and I watch lots of DVD's), I get to choose when I'll watch the movie and I don't have to worry about missing part of it. The DVD fits into my schedule. Anyway, as I was watching there were quite a few times when I missed what someone said or wanted to see a part again. Strike two. With DVD's I can easily pause, rewind, or turn on the subtitles to review part of the movie I didn't catch the first time. Not so with cable TV. And then of course came the ads. Strike three. It really bothers me that I could be paying $40.00 to $50.00 a month (minimum) for digital cable and still have to watch ads. Why would I pay for advertisement that interrupt my enterainment and that I can't skip by? I guess I'm too used to the internet or plain old books where I don't have to put up with such marketing nonsense.

Now, I could buy a tivo or similar device and I could get all those features I miss about DVD's, but why bother? What am I really getting out of it? It would cost a whole lot more for that service than just subscribing to Netflix or Blockbuster's similar offer in which case I get unlimited movies a month. I just don't see the value in cable television.

Anyone care to enlighten me?

Slate article on results of minimum sentencing: 55 year sentence for the offense of carrying firearms three times in connection with dealing marijuanna. Note, this is a first time offender who commited no violent acts. Talk about cruel and unusual punishment.

Actually, the Memoradum Decision for this case this pretty interesting reading, especially section IV on Cruel and Unusual Punishment in which the court justifies the consitutionality of this sentence by turning to Hutto vs Davis. Davis was a 1982 Supreme Court decision which upheld a Viginia sentence of 40 years for dealing 9 ounces of pot. That case also reaffirmed the view of vertical stare decisis in which lower courts must follow the decisions of higher courts lest anarchy reign: "But unless we wish anarchy to prevail within the federal judicial system, a precedent of this Court must be followed by the lower federal courts no matter how misguided the judges of those courts may think it to be."

All of this is even more interesting considering the recent rumors of the conservatives seeking to dismantle the 9th circuit, the court which has been most willing to buck the system. I for one find the checks and balances in place today vital for the long term health and stability of the nation. But then, I suppose, not everyone see it that way.

Thanks to James Ducan for the link.