9/20/2000

Oh, now this is fucking brilliant.
A federally created commission studying online child protection will recommend to Congress that an independent research bureau be created to review filtering software and may also push for a special kid-friendly Internet zone, its chairman says.
special kid-friendly Internet zone? What are these people smoking?
Telage said there is a "50-50 shot" that new Web domain categories could be created, like ".kids," reserved for kid-friendly content. Others have advocated ".xxx" for adult sites, although Telage said the commission has free-speech reservations about that suggestion.
Well, thank heaven they don't want to isolate smut to its own corner of the Internet. They'd rather force non-smut providers to buy domains in a new ".kids" TLD, instead of relying on a filter so simple it would destroy the criminals that make blocking/filtering software. They'd rather allow Disney and the like to dumb down what anyone under 18 can see. Oh, my aching head. Is it any surprise that the head of this commission is a former NSI executive? And we're letting Donna Rice tell us how to fight immoral content? Donna "There goes Gary Hart's Campaign" Rice? What next?
posted 5:29 PM
Current geek toy: MacOS X. I just got my copy of the beta (along with a mouse I didn't order, instead of the spare AC adapter I did order, but Apple's being nice and letting me keep the mouse, yay!)
posted 2:14 PM
I've been thinking about the whole mp3 brouhaha lately (and spending a lot of time with Macster, searching out new music, and doing research at allmusic -- thanks to Jeff for the pointer) and it strikes me that the problem the RIAA et al. have isn't with publicly traded music per se, but with a loss of control over the packaging/distribution. They've been distributing and promoting albums and singles, selected for their commercial impact (and for radio airplay) for so long that the prospect of people being able to choose which songs to listen to must frighten them to death. It's not just about loss of revenue (studies have shown that music sales are up since Napster launched, for example) but rather about loss of control.

Maybe this is obvious to some folks, but it struck me -- as I was cherry-picking music from various albums based on recommendations from reviews at allmusic -- that the music industry, just like the advertising industry, needs to be able to leverage the awesome statistical power of knowing what people are actually consuming. Take a service like cddb (now Gracenote), for example, which sells (or otherwise makes available) aggregate statistical data on what CDs you're listening to, based on a scrubbed dataset resulting from your inserting a CD into your PC (if you're running software that queries the cddb service for song titles). MP3s already contain this data, so there is no need to query anyone's database. The statistics that cddb provides are just part of the picture. I have to wonder whether Napster's endgame is to either sell information regarding what was downloaded to the music industry, or whether they are maneuvering to be purchased by the music industry or one of its major players. In any case, it's a massive reversal of power for the industry. They're used to being able to promote a no-talent halfwit like Britney Spears, while ignoring entire genres.

I've learned more about the kind of music I like in the past month (thanks to allmusic and amazon and Napster) than I had in the past ten years. I'm taking my first tentative steps towards actually collecting music based on genre, rather than sticking with tried and true favorites (I always liked fugazi, for instance, but now I'm listening to Rites of Spring, Knapsack, Christie Front Drive, Get Up Kids, Falling Forward, Jimmy Eat World, and the Promise Ring, all of whom play music in the same vein, and most of whom I am finding I really enjoy -- without help from the insane control policies of the old school distribution channels. I don't think I could even buy most of this stuff at Tape World in Bangor. Heh.) It's immensely liberating, and it's helping me get out of the ruts I'd fallen into (there are only so many times you can listen to the same two Toad the Wet Sprocket albums, even if you do really like Covered In Roses...)
posted 12:14 PM

9/19/2000

OK, just one complaint: why do people call AOL an Internet company? It's not. It never has been. It's a giant, proprietary BBS.
posted 1:31 PM
Est res magna tacere
posted 2:06 AM

9/18/2000

Here's a little something I wrote for Webdesign-L back in April of 1999, when Jamie Zawinski resigned from the Mozilla project. I only call your attention to it because Dinah recently reposted it to her blog, with my permission, and I think it's worth reposting. Unfortunately, developer.com has screwed up their archives so badly that the article I wrote for them, discussing Mozilla (where I interviewed Jamie) is nowhere to be found. (sigh) If I can find the original, I'll repost it somewhere.

The post follows:

Oddly enough, I wouldn't have heard of jwz if I hadn't been rooting around the underbellies of various technologies. I first became aware of him after reading the XDefaults file for Navigator for X Windows, which remains one of the best, most thoroughly commented things I've ever seen. And it's only a set of property values used by Navigator, and to top that, he starts out by saying that XDefaults files are dangerous and difficult to keep in sync with the applications to which they are supposed to apply. It's not even /code/, for heaven's sake :) He took the initiative to make a statement about the use and applicability of a given form of technology, something he didn't have to do, and did it well. I have an enormous respect for him on that basis. Everything I've seen that he's had a hand in reflects this commitment. It's inspiring, to me, anyway.

Later, I found about:jwz, xkeycaps, and various other excellent hacks that were his fault. And of course, the fact that he can apparently code, write, design, and build bookshelves out of Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse specials, only increases my admiration ;)

I wrote an article on Mozilla.org for developer.com a year ago, and got a chance to interview him. What I found was that he is obviously deeply concerned with the standards process, though we disagreed on the nature of the browser as a tool - he took the tack that standards documented what worked, and allowed everyone else to implement them the same way. Straight IETF dogma, but it's what worked for twenty years.

I took the tack that things were moving too fast to rely on post-hoc docs, and that the W3C was trying to synchronize development /before/ the software was released, rather than later, because the Web is more than just a word processor or text editor - the universality of the medium demands it. He was kind enough to write back and thank me for the chance to address some of the issues, and noted that it was good to see them presented from another perspective.

I don't know if it's just the timing, or the context (Netscape gobbled up by AOL, the InterNIC transformed into a billboard for Network Solutions - "the dot com company", the MS antitrust trial, and the release of IE5 with an obvious contempt for full standards support) but I'll admit that it wasn't just the /fact/ that Jamie quit both Netscape and Mozilla.org, but the fact that he was so conscientious about documenting his reasons, that struck me with such force. In the midst of mass dissembling, Jamie took some time to speak his mind.

I've always thought that the key to understanding the US Declaration of Independence, and the thing that separated it from any other manifesto, was the up-front statement of the belief that "a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should document the causes which impel them to the separation". Jamie, in his writings about his resignation, reflects this ideal, and I respect him for taking the time to document his dissatisfaction, when, as many have pointed out, he could have just taken the money and played the hermit.

Now, back to the issue at hand - is this representative of a sea change in the culture and fundamental workings of the Internet? No, probably not. It's symptomatic, perhaps, but not a turning point.

But Network Solutions isn't about to document why it took over the InterNIC, Microsoft isn't going to give us anything that isn't spun through lawyers or marketing staff, and Postel is dead and will tell no tales. Even Eric Raymond, who seems to be buckling under the pressures of representing an anarchy, has left a set of excellent discussion - both theoretical and pragmatic - of why he is such a strong believer in the Open Source movement.

I think the important lesson here is that we can only expect to hear the truth, or at least a declaration of "the causes which impel", from committed individuals. Companies are not in the business of providing philosophy, at least not unless there is a business plan and sound financials to back it up. No surprises here, I know.

But when Jamie writes that an organization should be judged on its behavior /as/ an organization, like AOL with regard to censorship, and even manages to make a case without attacking the practices of a /single/ company, placing the behavior into context of the whole, we should listen. He has the freedom now to speak his mind on issues that affect us all, and he presents a solid case damning them, without a lot of romantic claptrap.

I dunno - I suppose I'm rambling now, but I wanted to make those points. It's really easy to say "Microsoft is evil", or "AOL is run by the Bavarian Illuminati", or "corporations are soulless". I know :-) I've done it on occasion. It's a lot harder to treat a subject with the distance required in order to represent it fairly. The former allows us to blow off steam, essentially a selfish act. The latter, if done properly, is a gift to the society in which we all live.

It's up to all of us to determine whether we like the new Internet, where commercial interests control the vast majority of "respectable" information sources, where advertising and editorial are somewhat loosely defined, but still hide behind the illusion of objectivity, where the machinations of the old guard (the W3C, IETF, and similar organizations) are cast aside by standards-flouting corporations with deep pockets. And whether we, either as individuals or acting on unified fronts, can do anything to change it.

Even the Melissa virus has been played as yet another argument for why you should trust the commercial interests and big name news outlets - you never know, after all, who's being malicious when they provide information on the Web and Usenet. It frightens me to think that the underlying rationale boils down to "we're respectable, you know our brand, never mind the ad banners". And, of course, such a statement also suggests that you can't trust anybody but the big names.

There was a story on slashdot a week ago discussing a case of rape where a woman met a man online, and then met in person. The details are graphic, but the overwhelming message was that police dismissed the case because of the Internet factor - saying, in essence, that she must have wanted to be beat up and violated - after all, she led the man on in AOL chat.

We still have a long way to go if we're to fully integrate the Net into the fabric of everyone's daily lives. I still refuse to distinguish in conversation whether a given conversation took place in email - I talked to someone, regardless of the medium. I'm better friends with people I've never met in "real life" than I am with people I've known for years, and probably spend more time deepening those online friendships. But if I can't make my family understand the positive side-effects of this strange ethereal existence, how can we expect to tame the evils?

Perhaps by trying to speak our truths, we can at least sleep easy at night, knowing that we've not allowed ourselves to be silenced in a medium which above all allows the individual the same /chance/ to speak or write. Even if the large-scale corporate mouthpieces drown out our messages with long streams of carefully spun nothingspeak, framed by ad banners on a distracting 30-second refresh.

And perhaps we can all find a place where we feel strongly about what we are doing and don't need to struggle with the issues that finally drove Jamie to hang it up this time around.
posted 3:05 PM
I guess Brewer, Maine had an enlightened bunch of teachers, at least at the high school, because I never said the pledge of allegiance and nobody ever gave me any static for it. Of course, I never tried to drown it out by singing revolutionary workers' party songs or anything, but hey.

The thing is, it's always embarrassing to see two wildly ignorant people argue over something they obviously don't know anything about. I'm all for education, as anyone who knows me will attest. But it seems to me that the real problem here isn't with the kid who wants to sit silently, or with the principal who doesn't appear to know anything about the law, but with the idiot teacher who decided to call attention to the kid and create the whole scene in the first place. So, the school is punishing the kid. Stupid. There is nothing worse in the world than a stupid teacher, no more horrifying a potential for the blind abuse of authority. The principal is just trying to keep order, probably bored stiff and overworked. The kid is just trying not to buckle under to mindless conformity; to establish or preserve a sense of herself as an individual. But the teacher -- the teacher has no excuse for being so fucking dumb.
posted 10:50 AM
Today was a good day. Nap, bike ride, good steak, and what more can you say?
posted 12:55 AM