adam @ 404

I’d like to read the entire study by Jianguo Liu which asserts that rising divorce rates are bad for the environment when it comes out. My interest is peaked because there is likely going to be a whole slew of “averages” that will weave a story about the lives and patterns of divorced households and more generally people living alone. Ultimately, these stories are going to be used by someone to make moral and ethical prescriptions that really have no concern for the goal of environmental sustainability but only serve their agenda.

My major concern here is that by simply analyzing the resource consumption levels of single-person households (divorced, single) vs multi-person (married) households, the study serves to distract attention away from the day-to-day consumption patterns of both groups that ultimately consume much more resources than “eco-friendly” patterns. “I live in a McMansion and drive 3 hummers, have a couple cottages, but hey, I’m married.” You know what I’m getting at here.

Basically, this study will say “sharing resources is good.” I hope that is truly the moral of the story, not just, stay married or get married and have a few kids. Sharing is great but when those resources are consumed at ever-increasing rates across the board, and in unsustainable manners, it doesn’t matter how many households can share them because ultimately our consumption is going to outpace natural supply and environmental resilience. It will be nice if the study points out that sharing of resources doesn’t just happen on a familial level but at a community, city and regional levels (public transportation being a great example if it is heavily used in comparison to individual modes).

I’d like to hold off judgement on this study but it really sounds like a sleight of hand, or rather a one-dimensional analysis that argues a single life-decision is worse than another for the Environnment, and solely responsible for ones environment impact. Maybe I’ll put together a study about how much ‘greener’ it is on average and in-total to live in a city versus the suburbs by analyzing the top 50 most populace metropolitan areas in the US. Whadya think? Hopefully Liu’s study will also analyze resource consumption along other dimensions.

Update: I just realized another great analysis would be how income wealth affects efficiencies of resource consumption. I bet if we analyzed those numbers it would turn out that it’s totally kick ass for the environment to be poor! So think about it, that is being poor.

Michigan is in the news. UAW and GM come to terms on a contract, state government avoids shutdown by increasing taxes in a struggling economy to balance the budget. Times are tough. Reading through the comments section of a criticism of the recent UAW-GM contract, it struck me that I’ve never really read or heard any constructive debate about how to pragmatically solve the problems of these old industrial giants in day-to-day life. There’s a history of conflict and heck, I should say it, macho posturing between those who support corporate executives vs. those who support the union (and their leaders). It’s a godamn pity you would bicker all the way down on a sinking ship.

It’s one big 100 year hangover, and Michigan, please hear me. Simply working the same old factory line is not helping, urban decay chic bohemianism is not helping, leaving the state for a good job is not helping (*huhem*), insisting that your 20th century industrial executive strategy will come back into fad is not helping, and continually bickering about what should have gone right is not helping. The state really needs idea people, creativity, innovation and/or a diversification of industry, not necessarily interdependent on each other. At the base of all these is a willingness to walk off the cliff, and take risks in the face of entrenchment, oblivion, ignorance and outright discouragement. It’s not a focus on any bottom line, its a focus on one’s passion which usually yields far greater profits in one’s life and others.

My romantic motivational speech time is over. Here are some projects backed by Michigan friends that have the right passion, innovation and creativity: Envoi, Tyvek, and Zattoo.

I really hope this Verizon Wireless contract of mine runs out soon. I’m not complaining about the fact that their cellular quality of service is, well, probably the best of all providers, but they’re up to their “controlling everything from end-to-end” tricks again. So now they’re suing the FCC over the terms of sale of the latest wireless spectrum. Verizon is a Dinosaur in the age of the Internet, like AOL was until they realized they didn’t have enough market power to demand people get their version of the Internet. If you never experienced AOL in its early years, you might not understand this comparison, but just imagine a world where the services of Google, Amazon, youTube, and Myspace were all provided by AOL and only by AOL and you’re getting close. Now, “do-no-evil” Internet companies are demanding the telecommunication spectrums be given what they’ve needed for years, honest competition and consumer choice.

And Verizon doesn’t like this one bit. They didn’t like me trying to sync my cell phone calendar and contacts to my Mac for a while and they sure don’t like allowing me to move my own files via bluetooth between my phone and other devices. They disable all those factory features and provide their own phone operating system. All the signs are there, Verizon wants to control all channels of access to anything that might involve their services, even when those services run through public airwaves or through public ground. Even if you don’t believe in concepts of public ownership, you rascal of an Objectivist you, you know that the FCC and other government bodies create a regulated field where there aren’t going to be more than 1 set of cable pipes, 1 set of gas lines, 1 set of sewer pipes, or 1 set of phone lines to consumer doorsteps.

Given these realities which are even more real in the electromagnetic spectrum, even libertarians can agree, Verizon is just being silly. The commercial free speech rights of an entity that can purchase the use of a physical radio spectrum from the most powerful government in the world, well, just doesn’t concern me as much as the millions of individual voices they can potentially squelch from a burgeoning global experience. Let’s hope people don’t realize how cool their wireless devices will be when given the freedom of choice on the Internet, ‘cos then Verizasaur will really be screwed.

I’m encouraging you to read up and support Network Neutrality for the Internet. It’s definitely a complex issue, but I encourage you to take a stance and write your elected representatives to tell them to support Net Neutrality.

Recently, The Department of Justice issued a report arguing against any type of network neutrality regulations saying they would ultimately be anti-competive and hinder the free market. In my mind, Network neutrality is about protecting consumers and ensuring non-discriminatory pricing and equal access for all data on the Internet. The same Internet which has been funded by citizens and conceived through research in public institutions. Up to this point, the Internet has been network neutral and we have seen the rise of some amazing things happen on the Web and Internet from virtually little upfront investment. Without net neutrality its easy to imagine circumstances in which customers and companies are essentially levied tolls for what they ‘use’ or offer in addition to the current ISP charges for access.

Another argument from the report that urks me is the claim that if end-consumer broadband ISPs aren’t allowed to charge application and content providers directly (who aren’t necessarily their customers), they won’t be able to keep up with the Internet’s growth in regards to capacity and service needs, passing undue costs to the end-consumer. Companies and consumers already pay the operators of their respective networks for these costs of growth and maintenance, and sometimes citizens even subsidize the expansion of broadband networks through tax dollars (to the private sector for the greater good of the public Internet access).

The fact is, the telecommunications industry is already one of the most monopolistic industries in America today. It’s like the DoJ was so deluded as to say there’s healthy free market activities in the airline industry where major airlines often take corporate welfare bailouts when in the throws of bankruptcy. When’s the last time that there was individual consumer choice over your cable provider? It wasn’t until the recent past that people were given a choice over their long distance providers. The DoJ’s free market rhetoric is disingenous in the face of the industry’s current state for end-consumers. Recent reports that Comcast is shutting off broadband subscribers from their ‘unlimited’ service due to ‘overuse’ without stating any solid policies is the brash behavior of a company enjoying the fruits of too little consumer choice. If network neutrality is not maintained, the only free market that will be fettered is the one which via the Internet has created thousands of jobs and spurred countless innovative technologies and services in the past 15 years.

There’s a thought-provoking column at ArsTechnica proposing that no regulation might be better in the short term because it keeps the network operators under their best behavior and various other reasons. It’s got some weight behind it, but the DoJ report stating that there are studies showing that network operators must charge content providers (web sites) fees directly to keep up with the capacity needs of the Internet suggests they are leaving an open legal door for operators to be on their worst behavior.

As an aside, I would actually be interested in an extensive list of emerging network computing technologies threatened by potential Network Neutrality legislation (e.g. features of ipv6 like flow labeling would be under scrutiny in its application). Legislation does pose the risk of trampling network layer innovation but it’s good to understand what the value of these technologies are, and if they are simply necessary for the future success and progress of the Internet or an overzealous solution to a neutral alternative. From what I’ve read, most deal with providing guaranteed quality of service to the Internet for real-time applications like video streaming.

I read the op-ed article by David Farber and Michael Katz that talked about the real-time needs of a heart monitor application, but my initial thought was ‘Isn’t that was Internet 2 was for?’ and ‘Are you really relying on the Internet cloud for a heart monitor?’ It wasn’t a compelling example for me (I don’t have a hard time imagining a seperate network of networks for life supporting services like health care, fire, emergency response, etc…), but perhaps I’m not taking into account the technical and cost benefits of evolving a single internet to support uses like telemedicine by leveraging the Internet’s (*huhem*) network effect.

The definition of network neutrality suffers from many overloaded meanings in the face of technical topics such as providing quality of service and traffic prioritization (it doesn’t suffer in the face of existing standards for transmission rates and limits because those are widely accepted). Opponents of NN will often point out this ambiguity in the definition arguing that it is against NN to provide QoS and prioritization of traffic since it violates treating all packets equally. Henning Schulzrinne calls this argument a red herring as Network Neutrality does not restrict QoS features as so long as they remain content neutral. So technology offerings for QoS or the prospect of such should not be subject to pricing models or carrier policies that simply take into account the type of application or content data being delivered to consumers.

More content on Net Neutrality:

• Article about a third-way for network neutrality. Interesting read.
• Henning Schulzrinne Audio Testimony (on NYC council resolution) where he talks about Network Neutrality as content and application neutrality.
• ArsTechnica reaction to DoJ report
• Computer Networking: A Top Down Approach Featuring the Internet has a good chapter about multimedia network applications that describes three different camps of network researchers: those that feel the existing best-effort nature of the Internet is satisfactory given incremental increases in bandwidth, those that feel there needs to be a protocol for bandwidth reservation that would require major routing infrastructure changes, and the “differentiated-services” camp that proposes multiple classes of data packets that require minimal changes to routing infrastructure and basic changes at the consumer edge of the network for pricing and policing of the different data request classes.

I just read about the vote in Senate not winning to remove troops from Iraq in 120 days and the only thing I could think of was one really bad hangover. Not just a hangover, but the day after being really drunk and remembering the completely embarassing raging drunk things you did the night before, like invading another nation’s country in the name of Freedom and fucking it to all hell up and basically causing a near civil war.

I would hope the only reason someone voted against not removing troops would be that they have this same sense of embarrasment. The one in which you say “Oh shit, we can’t get out yet, I still have to apologize to all the people I puked on last night and try to make things right, offer to clean their carpet and clean up my mess.” Because its not about freedom anymore, it’s about trying to clean up and hoping that things don’t get ten times worse. I feel shitty about the whole thing, and I’m a perfect example of a complacent American who should feel shitty about the whole thing.

Clamor magazine has been around for seven years. Covering various social and political topics from a wide range of writers, the mag has been at the forefront of independent journalism for a surprisingly long run. Their fall issue features a series of incisive articles on the contradictions behind the vertically-integrated and “progressive” clothing company American Apparel. It’s worth checking out online.

As of late, Clamor has had financial pains with operational costs. Take a look around their site, read some stuff, and think about making a donation or starting a subcription.

No, this was not a paid advertisement.

From Asbury Park Press via Mac Daily News.

DOVER TOWNSHIP — Despite impassioned pleas from her supporters, the Ocean County College board of trustees voted unanimously Monday not to reappoint Karen L. Bosley as faculty adviser to the student newspaper, a post she has held for 35 years.

The reason given to the teacher for her dismissal was that the paper contained too many mistakes and that the students weren’t being taught real world skills due to her using Apple Macintosh computers. It’s a scary thought to think that if you don’t use, the implied, Windows PC, you could lose your teaching job. God forbid she use Linux. Obviously there are rumors that her dismissal was for other reasons, like she didn’t view the president of the college in good light and the editorials reflected this. Regardless, I decided to write the president an email expressing my dissatisfaction.

Subject: Apple Macintosh Use Not The Basis For Dismissal
To: jlarson@ocean.edu

Dear President Larson,

I was disappointed to hear that the board of Ocean County College voted to not reappoint faculty adviser Karen L. Bosley. The decision was based on her classroom usage of Apple Macintosh computers for the purpose of teaching newspaper journalism and production. As a former reporter on my high school newspaper, I can tell you that “Macs” are used ubiquitously in the newsroom for writing and production. This is not just one reporter’s observation either, many others will tell you the same thing. Macs, just as well as PCs running Microsoft Windows will teach you the real-world techniques of making a newspaper.

Sincerely,

Adam Kramer
Ann Arbor, Michigan

I’m such a good citizen.

On Attack of the Show, Kevin mentioned something about the hot girls from My Space. And then it dawned on me: The true power that the totally smokin’ vixens of My Space wield! What makes a social network popular? Hot photos! And what is more of a hotter photo than that of a hot babe who is socially whoring herself to the semi-anonymous masses.

This is my call to you, Hot Mamas of My Space! Unite now and create a group, you can demand a wage for your presence and move fluidly between social networking sites at will if your demands are not met!

There was a post in Ann Arbor Is Overrated dot com about a new Wiki for Ann Arbor. The beauty and ugliness of a wiki is that most of them allow for anyone to edit pretty much any content page. In this case, the original annarborisoverrated post referenced the about page of the new wiki as criticizing students as simply rich snobs, ruining ann arbor. I then went to the site to find the about page of the Arbor Wiki completely re-edited.

Welcome to Ann Arbor!

Student parasite (n).

1. An organism that feeds off of students’ meager part-time paychecks, summer job savings, and occasional windfall scholarship. Examples include landlords, eateries and grocery stores, and every retail establishment in Ann Arbor.
2. An organism that feeds indirectly on students by taking advantage either of parents or of indirect revenue streams, such as Football Saturday car parkers.

Student parasites are frequently pathetic creatures, vainly posturing to pretend that it is they who are the primary organisms in the local ecosystem and students who are the blood-sucking hangers-on. Very closely related are the student dung beetles, organisms that do not feed directly off of students, but feed on the leavings of students, all the while pretending that their food sources would not only still exist in the absence of students, but would be better-tasting. Theater-goers of all kinds and Food Co-op patrons fall into this category.

As we all know, students are the lynchpin for all things worth living for in this pathetic town. If not for students, you couldn’t buy a stalk of arugula to save your life within 50 miles at least!

I wouldn’t be surprised if it changes by the time you read this. I’d have to say that this latest edit above seems to be more in-line with my views as a former student and currently University employed resident of Ann Arbor.

You’re not man enough to pass this bill!
-Democrat to Republican

CSPAN is gettin crazy right now over a spending bill. This is better than sports. But hey, men and women yelling at each other, what IS better than that?