Trial By Fire

USA Propaganda vs. Chinese Censorship on Google

I don't normally write about politics, but after looking at Revealing China Censorship via Google Images, I have to object to the continual focus on censorship by so many self-righteous blogger zealots.

I do agree that the issue with Google, and their censorship in China, is worth examining.  The most interesting aspect isn't really the censorship, but the moral Google vs. the immoral Google arguments, those are entertaining.  But, now it's getting serious.  And flawed.  People are actually believing that the dominance of images of tanks shown for Tiananmen Square on Google USA should be what the Chinese see!  Bloggers are claiming something is morally wrong because the Chinese site shows none of these, but rather images of life and people at Tiananmen Square.

What we are seeing is censorship, but not of Chinese content, but rather censorship of USA propaganda.   In the USA when you say "Tiananmen Square" all that people think about is the tragic events of 1989.  The entire focus is on this political event, not on the people in the square today, or the meaning of it at any time before.  It cannot be possibly be in the interests of the Chinese people to pound into their brain a single event solely from a western perspective.

When you search for "World Trade Center", yes, you will find about half the images are those of the terrorist attacks.  But, the first four are of the WTC, standing proud in its finest days.  Many of the other images are healing images, images of memorials.  Over time, the US needs to come to grips with this tragedy.  Searching for vietnam does not bring up an entire page of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial.  No, in fact, there is only one war image on the first page.  Just as seaches for World Trade Center, 20 years from now, may have fewer result images of the tragedy, and more relevance to the overall course of history.

Please do not tell me that thinking people believe that a 600-year-old public space where events and history unfolded in China should be represented by an entire page of tanks on Google Images!  Please!

What we see as censorship looks different in China I suspect.  I'm sure the most conservative Chinese views are that it serves political interests by suppressing unwanted and disruptive information.  But, maybe there's another view, and I'm guessing that there are Chinese liberal thinkers who believe that balance, and some minimization of USA propaganda might not be so bad.  Neither Google produces balanced information.  It's as ridiculous to see no tank confrontations as it is to see a whole page of tank confrontations.  Progress has to start somewhere, and I don't think this is black and white.

This will surely be an interesting debate, but let's be a bit more fair to both Google and to China.  Admit that the contents of the Internet is prejudiced toward Western views.  Do we really want to push Western values on everyone in the world?  I, for one, want people to think for themselves.  As did many people who founded the USA.  By cooperating with non-western governments and swallowing our pride (and prejudices) a bit, maybe it's all a good thing in the end.

DRM: Assurances, Please, Not Limits

The other day, I mentioned to someone whose opinion I respect that "I think DRM is necessary". His instant comeback was that DRM is dead.  Forget it.  It's useless junk.

It was hard to argue.  From any thinking person's perspective DRM is useless junk.  Recently Fred Wilson decided to Boycott the iTunes Music Store.  Three cheers, Fred. Cory Doctorow has many excellent arguments against DRM.  I couldn't even believe what I was saying really.  DRM is necessary?  Where's my head at?

So why did I say that?

Because I think of "Digital Rights" differently.  When I think of digital rights management, I think of the rights of me, the music consumer.  Yes, I want them to be managed, assured, and I want technology to serve my interests.  I want to be able to watch and play what I buy where I want, without restriction, and yes, I think technology should assure me I can do that.  But, there's no way to talk about that kind of technology and call it DRM.  DRM is evil, and it's pointless.  We need a new word.

I'll call it DRAT.  Digital Rights Assurance Technology.  That's what I want. DRAT.

What does DRAT do for you?

With DRAT, I am guaranteed that any content I buy will be mine forever.  It doesn't matter if there's a new format 15 years from now.  DRAT protects me.  It makes sure that I'll be able to use it, even (or perhaps especially) if that new technology doesn't support DRAT.  Such is the magic of DRAT.

DRAT guarantees me I never have to reacquire my music.  If my house burns down, who cares.  I bought my music with DRAT.  DRAT keeps track of my ownership so long as I live, and I can always get another copy, if indeed copies are what's happening in my player.  Is my player storing my DRAT music?  Maybe.  Hmm, pretty small little gadget.  Oh well, I don't know how it works.  The player just knows who I am, that I'm its owner, and therefore knows about all the DRAT content I should be able to listen to with it.  Thanks DRAT.

More than that, DRAT means I don't have to store my content.  If I just bought the new release of the 6-part Star Wars video content set, but I happen to be over at my friends house, I can watch it over there with my friends even though I didn't remember to bring it.  There is no "bring it" in the world of DRAT.  Why should there be?  I'll be watching video on demand here at my home someday, and why should I have to "take it" to somebody else's house who has video on demand.  DRAT is a major technology breakthrough for the VOD world since I never forget anything any more.

With DRAT, sharing is OK.  I live with Grace, she has lots of music.  Now that I've chosen DRAT, her music is suddenly available to me on my devices, in my car, on my computer.  How did it get there?  I don't know.  It's probably not stored, right?  It's somewhere.  How does it know?  Who cares!  DRAT takes care of it.  Grace told DRAT I'm allowed to listen to her music, and magically I am.  It's great.

DRAT also does some surprising things.  It protects my shareholdings in music.  I love Pat Metheny.  And now that I have DRAT, I know that the money I paid for Pat's music goes to him and anybody he decides to share it with.  I know that because of DRAT, nobody has taken the music I own and deprived Pat of his livelihood.  I like Pat.  I want him to succeed and make more albums.  Sometimes I tell DRAT to let other people listen to my Pat Metheny albums.  Sometimes they start becoming Pat Metheny shareholders, and sometimes they don't.  That's my decision because I own the music I bought.  But, Pat trusts me and I trust him.  And DRAT makes it all work.

So, DRAT:

1. Assures me my content is mine forever
2. Frees me from having to acquire every time I need a copy
3. Eliminates my need to worry about storing it
4. Allows me to decide how I share it
5. Protects my sharholdings in the artists I care about

Where can I get DRAT?

It doesn't look like I can right now.  The only people who seem to be working on DRAT are trying to use politics and evangelism, such as DigitalConsumer.org's Bill of Rights.  The technology people are so distracted by DRM that they haven't been worrying about DRAT.

Can such things be solved with technology?  Of course they can!

What about my money?  Money is a digital commodity, managed with wire transfers, ATMs, credit cards, and legal instruments.  My money is mine forever.  I never have to reaquire it.  I don't need to keep it under my mattress.  And if I travel to another country, somehow magically my money is there too!  And I didn't even have to "bring it all with me".  Just like DRAT!  Obviously, technology is solving the problem with money, and despite my mild displeasure with banks, I'd never accuse them of limiting the way I use it.  I can give it to anybody, exchange it for any type of currency available, and (inflation notwithstanding) can use it 10 years from now just as easily as I can use it today.

The Irony

The irony is that if you decide "I'll create DRAT", the first thing you might realize is that DRAT Version 0.5 Beta looks a lot like DRM. Somehow, you'd need to augment the formats we store now, adding additional data, like metadata.  You'd need to figure out how to simultaneously make sure that owners were empowered and artist rights were respected by making the format open (such as TCP/IP).

So the DRM systems of today are one step needed for DRAT.  But, alas, it seems a misstep.  Nobody looks at DRM and focuses on the empowerment of the content owner.  The "Rights Assurance" part of DRAT is virtually absent in DRM, and in fact has been replaced with "Rights Limitations".

One thing is certain.  If I really had DRAT, I'd look for it on every player I bought.  I'd want to be sure I used it, since I desparately want those benefits.  If DRAT really served consumer needs, I bet lots of people would do the same.  They'd want it on all their devices, just like Stereo, Dolby, or FM Radio.  So, DRAT could be a stunning commercial success.

If you know of anybody creating DRAT, please let me know.  Until then, I guess I just have to do without and keep navigating the unfortunate digital content space trying to obtain my assurances using whatever anarchistic means I can find.

Drat. 

Australian Photographs

I added a Photo Album this morning.  I'll add things to it from time to time, and would love comments.  These are my favorite original images taken over the last two years.

I'm not terribly impressed with TypePad photo albums.  Normally TypePad puts design at a very high priority.  Their photo album features are the exception I think.

Why Microsoft Produces Inferior Software

This post by Don Box epitomizes one of the reasons why Microsoft, despite their market dominance, produces some of the worst software in the industry, and has lowered consumer expectations to the point that nobody expects computers to work well or serve their needs well.

Before I talk about Don's post, it is important to note that Don is no entry-level programmer.  In fact, Don is one of the architects of the Indigo project, and is responsible for designing parts of the architecture that will make .Net (and your future software applications) work.  He has just written a authoritative book, Essential .Net Volume 1: The Common Language Runtime.

I don't mean to single out Don.  In fact, I don't even know Don.  He's probably a great guy, and his blog is filled with intelligent and insightful posts.  But, this particular post reminds me of many experiences I've had while working inside Microsoft on Microsoft teams, talking to the "best" and the brightest.  Don's naive understanding of the software world is more typical of Microsoft engineers than most people would believe.

In his post, Don explains how recently, he discovered the joys of Scheme (a dialect of Lisp).  Don says:

In writing Scheme programs, I've learned a lot about coding, design, architecture, and aesthetics.

He goes on to enumerate the lessons he's learned:  That small is beautiful; that lambda expressions can be a powerful tool; that code can be data and data can be code.

These are things that any 1996 Computer Science curriculum would have contained in abundance.  They are an important part of the conceptual framework by which an engineer plots their course, and judges the logical correctness of their solutions.  Lisp has been around since 1959, and the very concepts Don is "discovering" were part of the foundation of the language for over 45 years.

The notion that a Microsoft architect could discover such things at this point in his career is almost unthinkable.  It's reprehensible.  The idea that critical technology platforms are being designed by people who have just discovered such fundamental concepts is terrifying.  And yet, time and time again, I have talked to Microsoft high-level engineers who have argued with me about these things, even in one case reinventing the concept of generic invocation and saying it was his own invention.  He actually believed it was his own invention, and he was designing part of the COM architecture. 

How can such hubris exist among engineers who are not schooled in the basic theories of their trade?  Part of it is the Microsoft culture of superiority.  In 1994 I worked a team in Redmond who were responsible for integrating my company's technology (TrueGrid) into the VB4 product line.  We had thousands of customers, and Microsoft had selected us because our technology was the best-of-breed.  The way Microsoft managed this was almost beyond belief.

Rather than trusting the judgement of our team, who had proven in the market that we had a deep understanding of the needs of our users, Microsoft assigned someone who had never written a specification before.  In fact, he had never designed a product himself, nor participated in the design and testing of a major product which had been delivered to customers.  He was not, in short, a software designer.  He was one of the myriads of Microsoft "product managers" whose job entailed evangelism, communication with outside vendors, and was the general "voice of Microsoft" when it came to the ISV partner program.

His specification was awful.  He did not understand how to create a scalable interface.  Features which were requested were thrown in, often collapsing the utility of other features.  We tried to assist by lending our knowledge to the project.  We argued.  We emailed.  We persevered.  We lost.

In the end, the technology developed was almost embarassing.  What was an excellent product that we had proven satisfied many, many needs well had turned into a poorly designed albatross which even VB users would complain about.  It was the low point of my entire career, and one of the chief reasons I divorced myself from the project.  In any discussion with Microsoft, there was no reasoning or logic.  Because it was Microsoft's spec, it had to be right.  It didn't matter that we had superior product and market knowledge.

Microsoft engineers are like alchemists, mixing together technologies and ideas that few of them understand.  No wonder the COM object model is such an abortion.  No wonder we need 1GB of memory on our computers to run MS Office.  No wonder Windows can't reliably suspend on a laptop, or things need to be reinstalled for reasons that nobody understands.  Microsoft charges forward, implementing things for commercial selfish benefit, but really has only a rudimentary understanding of how to design software.

In fairness, Microsoft's dominance has resulted in one of the most widespread technology platforms.  Windows systems are compatible with one another largely by accident, because they are all running essentially the same software on the same hardware.  But, whatever the reason, Microsoft has succeeded in standarizing the desktop, and ultimately that is good.

But, had they done it better, we probably would have had more, sooner.  Much more. And it would be more reliable.  In fact, if they had done it better, Linux woudn't stand a chance.  Think about it:  How is it possible that the dominant software monopolist, bloated with incredible cash resources, can be vulnerable to software which has been put together by an unmanaged group of programmers with only a shared vision?  How can the open source movement even exist?

Open source is becoming more and more successful for one reason only: Microsoft's persistent production of inferior, poorly designed software.

[tags: Microsoft]

Addicted to Oil

I recently read a very good post on Kuro5hin about oil.  Most who left comments thought it was pretty lame.  I felt the comments were pretty lame.  I am amazed at how people can take a common, shared problem like oil and comment as if they had some magical control of governments to "suggest solutions".  It's nothing other than intellectual masturbation to be so arrogant as to ignore what you can do in preference for arguing about what you think others should do.

Here is what I had to say...

Criticizing the original author's rhetoric, or posturing about what you might do if you had omniscient control of governments and finance is pointless.  Such a tedious thread.  I tire of the propensity of unempowered psuedo-intellectuals to analyze problems from a "global perspective" (as if they could do something) while ignoring personal responsibility (where they can take action).

Regardless of how you feel about the original posting, it is relevant.  There is a crisis of global oil economics which puts the USA in the unfortunate position of being the victim of its own oil addiction.

Most of us cannot do anything except try to elect responsible officials, write letters to Congress, and promote greater understanding of the problem.  But, those are indirect actions.

What of direct actions?  How much oil do you use?

97% of America's transportation needs are powered by oil.  Of that, 50% are used to keep America's cars and trucks on the road.  That is one barrel in seven used globally.

As you drive, count the number of cars that have better gas mileage than yours.  If you count ZERO, you're doing your part better than most.  If you drive an SUV (but don't really need one), a muscle car (and can't find a better way to bolster your ego), it's time to ask the hard questions.

My wife and I are US citizens living in Australia for the moment, but the car situtation here is about the same. Recently, we scrapped our Jeep and bought a small economy car that gets about 40mpg.  It's really all we need.  We didn't do much offroading, and surprisingly, we can fit more in the back of our economy car than we could in the Wrangler.  Last weekend, we took a short trip and it was likely that 90% of the cars on the road passing us were using 30% to 60% more fuel than we were.  I noted that pretty much none of the SUVs had more passengers than our car would carry.  We felt really bad that for all those years we wasted so much fuel with our Jeep.

In the early 80s, the US had just come out of a harrowing OPEC price increase that rocked the nation.  The average MPG for new cars purchased in America in 1984 was 27.5mpg, the highest it has ever been.  For whatever reason, Americans are taking steps backward.  Today, the average fuel consumption of US consumer vehicles is 23.9mpg.  Most SUVs top out at 20mpg.  A significant percentage of the problem is thus directly attributable to consumer behavior.  This is a problem for which each individual can take action.

Americans drive about 2.5 trillion miles per year.  If every American were to drive a car which had better gas mileage, and the 1984 gas consumption figures were to return, America would use 333 million barrels of oil less each year.  And that doesn't place Americans at even the slightest inconvenience.  More can be achieved if people try harder.

I'll accept that there are many perspectives on these numbers and the psychology of American car culture and how it relates to oil dependency.  But, I challenge anybody to argue that there is any reason why any American should buy a Ford Mustang GT.  Even the stock version has a 4.6L engine, has two doors, and gets 17mpg in the city.  You can't use it for a family.  You can't use it for hauling things.  You can't use it for offroading or difficult situations.  It's unsafe, and it has a virtually useless trunk.

Its only purpose is waste.

(In-depth statistics about American driving habits are at the Bureau of Transportation Statistics).