Yearly Archives: 2012

Some thoughts on gun issues

Posted on by

I posted the following as a comment to my brother’s comment about gun control. He’s a boarder patrol agent. Basically he commented about how allowing guns (in the right hands) can save lives. He also argued that if you take guns away from most people only criminals will have them. As most of you know I love to shoot guns. I’ve shot all sorts of guns from pistols to an AR15. I think it’s fun and a good way to enjoy some time with your friends. That being said, here’s my comment to him.

“Alright, I’ve been hearing a lot about how gun control won’t fix the problem. You know I like shooting guns and do believe that we should be able to own guns. Now, I think that there needs to be some level of gun control/additional checking before gun purchases are made but I’m not exactly sure what that is. Secondly, simply saying criminals won’t follow the law isn’t a suitable answer either because there’s no completion of the thought. If criminals won’t follow the law, why are they criminals in the first place? What do we need to do to eliminate their supposed need for the gun to commit said dubious act?

I believe that to truly eliminate (or greatly reduce gun violence) we need to address the root cause, gun control alone won’t work. We have to address the reasons for the criminality. Those include, poverty, inequality, drug addiction, sale of drugs, unemployment, being a convicted felon and so on. All of these causes have significant interaction effects. You can’t separate sale of drugs from drug addiction and drug usage is higher in impoverished areas. So, this indicates to me that we need to address the root cause issue behind poverty and drugs. The extralegal crimes related to drugs include things like murder over turf wars and the sort of activities you’re involved with as a boarder patrol agent, smuggling, etc… We as a society have direct control over what is a legal and illegal drug. We have control over this – it’s a matter of do what we consider the right thing to do about drugs.

The other obvious area we need to address is mental health, which has a different root cause than the others. Many people can’t afford the mental health they need because we as a society don’t value mental health very well and many insurance companies think it’s a waste of time.

In my mind I think that if we want to address the true root cause behind gun violence we need to address poverty, drugs, and mental health. Unless you or anyone else for that matter, is willing to seriously consider fixing many of these issues, then gun control is one of the few options we have to address it. It’s a failed option from the start because it’s a band aid. In my opinion all gun advocates need to pull together and push for reform on those social issues I outlined to keep guns ownership legal as you think it should be. Otherwise we are doomed to repeat this sort of cycle.”

Yes, this is something of a rant, but I think we need to really consider what we value as a culture and how we decide to address an issue like gun control. The events at Sandy Hook and other locations in the past 2 years around the world are horrible.

Patent threatening how websites protect users

Posted on by

I just found this article on Ars Technica about a patent troll, TQP, that threatens the very way encrptions occur on the internet. In fact, this patent based on the single picture, is extremely dangerous. The article claims that the company has sued hundreds of companies, including 100 in the past 12 months. This type of behavior needs to stop. Effectively this patent could be used against any website that uses even the most generic encryption method. The patent is based on a pretty generic frame work and likely is significantly overly broad.

Historically, I’ve had serious issues with many software patents especially when it comes to web services. This one looks incredibly bad and hasn’t made it to any sort of trial yet. One of my problems with this patent is the fact that it uses a very generic “encryptor/decryptor” block, which as long as there’s a counter and psuedorandom number generator involved in the method to use it, could be impacted. This seems like a rather logical method for transmitting and setting the encryption key.

I personally think that anything that targets a user ability to protect their data is the worst of the worst. In the world we live in today, exploiting something that was likely given to the general community without a second thought then a method to “apply” it, is wrong, because it was given to the general public to ensure our data was protected.

That’s one of the most beautiful things about the open source movement. These technologies which can benefit users in many levels, business, personal, government and the interface between the three, are developed because they solve a problem for that community. In many cases these technologies are created by businesses, but by license mandate are required to be given to the community for free. Should this be considered a waste of money by the company creating it? Should they be able to make money off of it? No and Yes. Here’s how they can make money off of the technology they give to the community: use it to provide secure services to your customers. If the customers are using a platform that you don’t own, ensuring that they are able to access their information they are giving to you is in your best interest.

This is one of the reasons we need to support the EFF initiative to modify software patents. Check that out here: https://defendinnovation.org/

Apple and Quality

Posted on by

I know I’m not always the biggest Apple fan on here. But there’s one thing I have to admit, they typically come out with a really well put together product. If they don’t, they are fairly quick about providing a free solution – such as the case for the iPhone with the antennae issues. However, this version doesn’t seem to be along the same lines. There’s the issue with iOS maps, which is pretty terrible, but there’s also another problem with the sapphire lens selected for the camera causes a purple tint and light flaring. Their solution is to simply point the camera away from the light and that this is normal behavior.

This type of quality issues in a product like this leaves a lot to be desired for some pretty obvious reasons. For a lot of people the cell phone is their only camera. I almost never take pictures, but when I do, it’s on my cell phone. If the pictures are defective by “design” then this is going to be a huge problem. I’m sure that the Instagram filter won’t look right when you add that to the picture as well.

I think that these two issues are starting to indicate a trend with Apple for the beginning of a decline in the perfectionism that most users associate with Apple products. To some extent it was never there the way people like to think that it was, but there was a lot of perfectionism that went into the designing and material selection for the phones.

You could argue that the tint is similar in defect type to the antennae issue, but I think this is different because the camera is such an integral part of the phone. Apple has been developing cameras for years whereas the antennae issue was related to a new skill set, an external antennae.

The next concern for Apple fans, is that the phone is their core product and they really dropped the quality in some ways. Without proper maps, the quality certainly suffers, users are used to the correct maps at a touch of a button, not seven. Will these issues prevent iPhone fans from buying this phone? No, I don’t think so. I think it might push some people away if they were on the fence about getting the same phone, again. I think the larger risk is in the long term. If Apple continues to produce the same products but continues to have quality issues with some expected features on a phone then Apple will begin to lose customers in droves.

For the iPhone6 Apple needs to come out with a different feeling phone, if they do, any issues like camera or whatever will be masked by the fact that it’s totally new. People will flock to it again. If Apple doesn’t come out with a new feeling and has issues, I think that will give more people pause about the whole company. We’re a year or two away from the iPhone6, so that may be premature. Customers and analysts aren’t friendly to stagnating firms. Apple surely doesn’t want to be in that group.

Apple v Samsung: iJury

Posted on by

As most of you are aware Apple crushed Samsung in it’s suit. Every patent of Apple’s was upheld and Samsung owes Apple just a touch over $1Billion. This is going to do a great deal to chill innovation. Many other people are commenting that these patents and the idea of copying isn’t new and that Apple has stolen a great deal themselves. In one discussion with an author at the Urban Times, he seemed to argue that the theft of these ideas is more honest than copying and that Apple was a better company for doing so. Well, there’s a major flaw in that idea, the theft of an idea is essentially copying the idea, the only difference is you act as if it was always yours and that you didn’t copy someone else.

One author thinks that one billion is a small price to pay to be the second largest mobile manufacturer in the world. While I understand the thinking behind this, sure they copied a great deal from Apple and it only cost them a portion of what it could have cost. However, this is a short sighted view. The manner in which Apple has attacked Samsung isn’t going to stop and will likely intensify. The ruling in San Jose wasn’t the only ruling that came in yesterday. In Korea a judge ruled that both companies were infringing each other and banned both products from being imported to the country. The judge also found that Samsung didn’t copy and in the UK a judge also said that Samsung didn’t copy and wasn’t cool enough to be confused with an i Anything – ordering them to post it on their website.

The idea that Apple’s design for the phone’s desktop being unique is a bit absurd. They simply changed the way the buttons looked, but there had been interfaces that were extremely similar for years. I had a Sony Cliq PDA in 2001 and 2002 and some of the way that product looked was similar to the iPhone. Apple repackaged things extremely well. Judge Koh did not allow Samsung to present all the information to the jury related to prior art, which certainly didn’t help Samsung’s case (Samsung released it to the public though).

The other major issue with this case is the idea that laypeople can really understand the issues with patents. They are difficult to understand, written in legalese and intended to be so broad that they can be interpreted in many different ways. I’ve read through several patents and they quite frankly are confusing and in many cases don’t convey the information they are required to convey (how to manufacture or build whatever is patented).

For a patent to be valid it only has three conditions to meet: Novel, which means that nothing like it has been done before; Non-Obvious, which means that (originally) that an expert in the field wouldn’t see this as a natural extension of previous work; now it must be non-obvious to a layperson; the final one is the possibility of industrial application, this means that the technology must be useful in some way. Many of Apple’s patents do not meet the threshold for the first two, novel or non-obvious. Now of course people that disagree will argue that in hindsight these patents are obvious because Apple did such a god job at inventing them. I disagree primarily because many of the patents are reapplication of ideas from the computer to the smart phone.

I’m extremely worried about the future of innovation in light of this ruling. I think that there will be serious repercussions and whatever comes out of this will be terrible for consumers.

Finally check out this video discussing what Apple has invented:

Complexity and politics

Posted on by

I’ve been reading a book called “Rethinking the Fifth Discipline” which is something of a treatise on organizational theory and complexity. The Fifth Discipline, is about creating a learning organization. Where the organization has naturally built-in processes that encourage learning through challenging mental models. What’s that mean? Well, anytime we approach a problem we have our own set ideas about what’s right and wrong with the problem. This leads us to develop specific solutions based on that perspective. When working in an organization these frameworks, perspectives or mental models can lead to conflict. Developing a method of resolving differences in these mental models is paramount to allow a company to move forward.

One of the ways to resolve these differences is to expand everyone’s perspective of the problem. To allow some of the scope to expand to generate a bigger picture. In other words, allowing people to see the forest for the trees. We know that we have a dead tree in the middle of our forest, and our actions to get that tree out may have negative impact on the rest of the forest. If one of the solutions was to burn down the dead tree, there could be some serious implications to the rest of the forest if we did that without really thinking about it. Working to resolve the differences may highlight the fact that we’re in the middle of a drought right now and that burning that dead tree would likely cause the entire forest to go up. This of course would be the worst thing we could do.

This way of viewing problems has several names, including complexity theory and systemic thinking. I believe that we have a serious lack of system thinking in our government today. There are two areas that have struck me as the most obvious and these involve the courts. The first is the continued assault on women’s rights in many different states. These state governments are slowly picking at pieces of reproductive rights of women when choosing to have an abortion or not. In some cases, the ruling is extremely narrow and seems to intentionally avoid looking at the full system of problems. The one shining light example against this is the ruling that has kept open a clinic in Mississippi. The judge realized that if this law was allowed to stand it would have closed the only legal clinic for abortions.

The other area that is a cause for concern is the recent PA ruling on Voter ID requirements. While on the face it seems like it’s fairly straight forward. I mean why shouldn’t there be a law requiring you to show a proper state ID, but then why isn’t a voter registration card considered a valid ID? Couldn’t this resolve the issue? The other factor that doesn’t seem to be considered, is the systemic efforts to make it more difficult to acquire state ID throughout the country, such as Wisconsin closing DMV locations or reducing hours – by the way Wisconsin’s voter ID law was ruled unconstitutional.

Through taking a systemic view the efforts in total indicate an effort to reduce or control the ability of the electorate to vote. While the law itself may make sense on the surface, viewing the entire system displays the total efforts and would indicate that a different ruling should be considered. This is the similar type of issue that there is with the Citizen’s United ruling. With a very narrow focus and inability to look at the full system a ruling that has dramatically changed our political landscape is seen to make a great deal of sense.