Thursday, June 23, 2005

Total educational awareness

No child left behind?
Just follow this simple flow chart and no child will be left behind!

Found from Doc Searls
To Bush and his crew, education is all about measurement. What's sickening is that just about every educational "reform" involves more of this crap. Kids' natural curiousity, their ability to learn in their own ways, their unique non-curricular aspirations, their inherent genius, the fact that all of them develop at different rates and in different ways, are all flattened like pavement. "No child left behind" is the box nobody (least of all kids) are allowed to think outside of.
Reminds me of the flow charts made by people in US government beaurocracy for the "Total Information Awareness" program. Like TIA, what this chart probably represents is a way to spend billions of taxpayer dollars on beaurocratic machinations without actually addressing the underlying problems. I see a love and worship of computers and databases and Visio here, but not of the human beings who are teachers and students and parents. This program, if it ever staggers to its feet, will probably be ISO certified.

Incidentally, the No Child Left Behind program stipulates by law that schools must provide contact information for their students to be used by military recruiters. From what I've read, these recuiters seem to have been trained in agressive sales and cult recruitment techniques. This data gathering tactic fits in with the total information awareness philosophy and seems a perversion of what is implied by the name of the program.

Schneier link

Bruce Schneier has a nice pointer to a news snippet whereby soldiers boarding a commercial flight were required to surrender pocket knives, nose-hair clippers, and lighters, despite being decked out in full combat weaponry (rifle, handgun, etc.). Another example of failing to build human discernment into a system designed by lovers of rules and data. I like the quote Scheier gives at the end as well:
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."
-- Ralph Waldo Emerson

Wikipedia entry on the Byzantine Empire

Wikipedia has an excellent entry on the Byzantine Empire. In scope it covers the time from the unified Roman Empire through the split up to the dissolution of the empire during the time of the Crusades. I very much enjoy the coverage of the strategies employed by various leaders to hold and expand the empire, including the interesting thema system used to expand, settle, and militarily hold onto territory. Also of great interest is coverage of the interplay between religion and politics in the eastern and western portions of the Roman empire and in the crusades and ultimate end of the empire.

Tuesday, June 21, 2005

Who'd have thought

Yes indeed, patenting of plots. Link from Slashdot.
Knight and Associates is the first patent prosecution firm to attempt to obtain utility patent protection on fictional plots. Knight and Associates consists of Andrew Knight and a team of independent contractors comprising skilled writers and experienced patent attorneys, ready to turn valuable new fictional plots or storylines into U.S. utility patent applications. Knight and Associates is located in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area, the hub of American intellectual property law and the location of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

Stallman on software patents

I love the commons, the ability to share ideas, to expand on them, to bring them to new places. Richard Stallman does too. Those who see only money in human endeavour, record labels, software patent houses, "intellectual property" advocates, do not.

Patent absurdity

If patent law had been applied to novels in the 1880s, great books would not have been written. If the EU applies it to software, every computer user will be restricted, says Richard Stallman

Monday June 20, 2005

Next month, the European Parliament will vote on the vital question of whether to allow patents covering software, which would restrict every computer user and tie software developers up in knots.

Many politicians may be voting blindly - not being programmers, they don't understand what software patents do. They often think patents are similar to copyright law (except for some details), which is not the case.

For example, when I publicly asked Patrick Devedjian, then the minister for industry, how France would vote on the issue of software patents, he responded with an impassioned defence of copyright law, praising Victor Hugo for his role in the adoption of copyright.

Those who imagine effects like those of copyright law cannot grasp the real effects of software patents. We can use Hugo as an example to illustrate the difference between the two.

A novel and a modern complex programme have certain points in common: each is large and implements many ideas. Suppose patent law had been applied to novels in the 1800s; suppose states such as France had permitted the patenting of literary ideas. How would this have affected Hugo's writing? How would the effects of literary patents compare with the effects of literary copyright?

Consider the novel Les Misérables, written by Hugo. Because he wrote it, the copyright belonged only to him. He did not have to fear that some stranger could sue him for copyright infringement and win. That was impossible, because copyright covers only the details of a work of authorship, and only restricts copying. Hugo had not copied Les Misérables, so he was not in danger.

Patents work differently. They cover ideas - each patent is a monopoly on practising some idea, which is described in the patent itself.

Here's one example of a hypothetical literary patent:

Claim 1: a communication process that represents, in the mind of a reader, the concept of a character who has been in jail for a long time and becomes bitter towards society and humankind.

Claim 2: a communication process according to claim 1, wherein said character subsequently finds moral redemption through the kindness of another.

Claim 3: a communication process according to claims 1 and 2, wherein said character changes his name during the story.

If such a patent had existed in 1862 when Les Misérables was published, the novel would have infringed all three claims - all these things happened to Jean Valjean in the novel. Hugo could have been sued, and would have lost. The novel could have been prohibited - in effect, censored - by the patent holder.

Now consider this hypothetical literary patent:

Claim 1: a communication process that represents, in the mind of a reader, the concept of a character who has been in jail for a long time and subsequently changes his name.

Les Misérables would have infringed that patent too, because it also fits the life story of Jean Valjean.

These patents would all cover the story of one character in a novel. They overlap, but they do not precisely duplicate each other, so they could all be valid simultaneously - all the patent holders could have sued Victor Hugo. Any one of them could have prohibited publication of Les Misérables.

You might think these ideas are so simple that no patent office would have issued them. We programmers are often amazed by the simplicity of the ideas that real software patents cover - for instance, the European Patent Office has issued a patent on the progress bar, and one on accepting payment via credit cards. These would be laughable if they were not so dangerous.

Other aspects of Les Misérables could also have fallen foul of patents. For instance, there could have been a patent on a fictionalised portrayal of the Battle of Waterloo, or a patent on using Parisian slang in fiction. Two more lawsuits.

In fact, there is no limit to the number of different patents that might have been applicable for suing the author of a work like Les Misérables. All the patent holders would claim they deserved a reward for the literary progress that their patented ideas represented - but these obstacles would not promote progress in literature. They would only obstruct it.

However, a very broad patent could have made all these issues irrelevant. Imagine patents with broad claims, like these:

Communication process structured with narration that continues through many pages.

A narration structure sometimes resembling a fugue or improvisation.

Intrigue articulated around the confrontation of specific characters, each in turn setting traps for the others.

Who would the patent holders have been? They could have been other novelists, perhaps Dumas or Balzac, who had written such novels - but not necessarily.

It isn't necessary to write a programme to patent a software idea, so if our hypothetical literary patents follow the real patent system, these patent holders would not have had to write novels, or stories, or anything - except patent applications.

Patent parasite companies - businesses that produce nothing except threats and lawsuits - are growing larger.

Given these broad patents, Hugo would not have reached the point of asking what patents might get him sued for using the character of Jean Valjean. He could not even have considered writing a novel of this kind.

This analogy can help non-programmers to see what software patents do. Software patents cover features, such as defining abbreviations in a word processor or natural order recalculation in a spreadsheet.

They cover algorithms that programmes need to use. They cover aspects of file formats, such as Microsoft's new formats for Word files. The MPEG 2 video format is covered by 39 different US patents.

Just as one novel could infringe many different literary patents at once, one programme can infringe many different patents at once. It is so much work to identify all the patents infringed by a large programme that only one such study has been done.

A 2004 study of Linux, the kernel of the GNU/Linux operating system, found that it infringed 283 different US software patents. That means each of these 283 different patents covers a computational process found somewhere in the thousands of pages of source code of Linux.

The text of the directive approved by the council of ministers clearly authorises patents covering software techniques.

Its backers claim the requirement for patents to have a "technical character" will exclude software patents - but it will not. It is easy to describe a computer programme in a "technical" way, the boards of appeal of the European Patent Office said.

The board is aware that its comparatively broad interpretation of the term "invention" in Article 52 (1) EPC will include activities so familiar that their technical character tends to be overlooked, such as the act of writing using pen and paper.

Any usable software can be "loaded and executed in a computer, programmed computer network or other programmable apparatus" in order to do its job, which is the criterion in article 5 (2) of the directive for patents to prohibit even the publication of programmes.

The way to prevent software patents from bollixing software development is simple: don't authorise them. In the first reading, in 2003, the European parliament adopted the necessary amendments to exclude software patents, but the council of ministers reversed the decision.

Citizens of the EU should phone their MEPs without delay, urging them to sustain the parliament's previous decision in the second reading of the directive.

© 2005 Richard Stallman (rms@gnu.org). Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article are permitted worldwide without royalty in any medium provided this notice is preserved.

Friday, June 17, 2005

Ouch

Star Wars is made a metaphor for the state of North American society in the New York Times by the author of Snow Crash

Scientists and technologists have the same uneasy status in our society as the Jedi in the Galactic Republic. They are scorned by the cultural left and the cultural right, and young people avoid science and math classes in hordes. The tedious particulars of keeping ourselves alive, comfortable and free are being taken offline to countries where people are happy to sweat the details, as long as we have some foreign exchange left to send their way. Nothing is more seductive than to think that we, like the Jedi, could be masters of the most advanced technologies while living simple lives: to have a geek standard of living and spend our copious leisure time vegging out.

If the "Star Wars" movies are remembered a century from now, it'll be because they are such exact parables for this state of affairs. Young people in other countries will watch them in classrooms as an answer to the question: Whatever became of that big rich country that used to buy the stuff we make? The answer: It went the way of the old Republic.

Banning of speech in China

Entering "I love freedom of speech, human rights, and democracy" in the title of a blog on MSN China results in the following error message
您 必须输入您的共享空间标题。标题不能包含禁止的语言,例如亵渎的语言。请键入一个不同的标题。Which means: “You must enter a title for your space. The title must not contain prohibited language, such as profanity. Please type a different title.”
Never place too much trust in anything big and unaccountable like corporations and all-too-often, governments.

Thursday, June 16, 2005

Don Murray on debt relief for African countries

Don Murray comments on the details of debt relief for African countries and ends with this:
Africa is a tangled, bloody web.
But, of course, much less interesting than the Michael Jackson trial.

Henry Morgentaler's honorary degree

I'd like to preface this entry by stating that I may modify it or add to it once I've had the time to listen to the full speech Mr. Henry Morgentaler made as he recieved his honorary degree from the University of Western Ontario. The topic of this entry is a loaded one and I want to express myself clearly and to benefit from the thinking that takes place as I write and reflect on it.

Mr. Henry Morgentaler was born in Poland and survived the WWII in a German concentration camp he was placed in because of the fact that he is a Jew. He studied medecine after the war, lodging with a family required to house him under the UN programme that provided his education. Following this he moved to Montreal and became more and more involved in the cause of abortion rights, opening abortion clinics across the country and several times facing charges and doing time in jail in the process.

There are many stances one can take on abortion, including that it is morally wrong, that it can be justified under certain circumstances such as pregnancy due to rape or threat to the life of the mother, and that it represents the right for a woman to control her own body. The underlying philosophies for one's stance on abortion, likewise, can vary as well. One's stance may spring from religious, feminist, or humanist underpinnings and may vary between people though they claim to be basing their stances on a similar foundation.

A subject as broadly defined and justified and as tied to strong beliefs such as the rights of the fetus and the rights of women is, not surprisingly, extremely prone to heated disagreement and the entrenching of opposed and embittered camps. The language surrounding the issue is polarized, with terms such as "pro-choice", "anti-choice", "pro-abortion", and "anti-abortion" used both to describe and to condemn. Mr. Morgentaler has been right in the middle of this in Canada.

As I stated above, I have not yet listened to the full speech Mr. Morgentaler made. I will though. I have read the CBC article on the speech which included a few quotes. These quotes seem to indicate that as part of his speech, Mr. Morgentaler suggested that abortion offers a woman the opportunity to have children whom they can love and that the increased in the ratio of loved to unloved childred is good for society. He stated that "Well-loved children grow into adults who do not build concentration camps, do not rape and do not murder" and that "the most important factor is that there are fewer unwanted children, fewer children likely to be abused, brutalized or neglected ... children so victimized they may grow up for a thirst for vengeance which seeks an outlet in violence". Mr. Morgentaler also made a causal link between a decrease in crime since 1991 and an increase in the women's access to abortion.

I can understand a conviction that the right to abortion is important because it is part of the right of a woman to wrest control of her body from the state and from a male-dominated society. I can understand the justification of abortion to save a woman's life or because the pregnancy came about through rape. I can understand but do not accept the argument based on the bettterment of society through pruning away those who would not be exposed to loving environments. Mr. Morgenaler's argument has a wierd similarity to the one made by Swift in A Modest Proposal. One difference is that Mr. Swift was attempting to evoke revulsion in his audience. Both arguments, however, involve an argument that devalues human life in the process of pursuing what is presented as a greater good.

My main objection to Mr. Morgentaler's rationale for abortion is that decisions must never be about whether or not people should live or not based on social or humanistic or genetic goals. Mr. Morgentaler does make such an argument since it is based on considerations of human beings and their actions once born, not women and their rights to privacy and control over their bodies. His argument stems from his humanistic values rather than from the femenist values most often associated with the fight for abortion rights for women. In essence, Mr. Morgentaler has carried out a thought experiment in which a fetus is born and grows up unloved. The results of that experiment leads to a decision to condone the abortion of a fetus. This is dangerous. This line of reasoning, besides being used to support abortion rights, can lead to things such as eugenics programs, forced sterilizations, and genocidal campaigns such as occurred in Rwanda and Europe under the Nazis in WWII. How far one runs with this reasoning is, of course, relevant to the judgement of a person's actions. I am not discussing the relative severity of results of reasoning here, but rather the line of reasoning itself. Life must never be devalued in any rationalization for any action. Life is a greater good. If one wants to fight hatred one should fight to do things that show a value for life such as working againsts poverty, inequity, enslavement, violence, and a myriad of other things that devalue life. Working against these things may indeed lead to fighting for abortion rights.

One final note; a reduction in crime rates between 1991 can be explained well by the fact that a large proportion of the population, namely the Baby Boom generation, has passed through its youthful criminal age. Through demographids, there are fewer kids (not fewer "unloved" kids) around, proportionally, to commit acts of vandalism, burglary, assault, etc.

Friday, June 10, 2005

Linguistic ambiguity

Juan Cole tries to address problems arising from Americans having trouble understanding the meaning of the term "fixed around", as in But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. Having grown up with some exposure to the English language as used in North America and in the UK and elsewhere in the commonwealth, I did not have trouble understanding that this term meant that a policy was extablished first and then everything else was made to fit. I think the misunderstanding stems from the misapprehension of the word fixed. Fixed can mean to set in place, to glue, to bind to. Americans probably understand it only to mean to repair, to make whole again. I think that this take on the word leads to difficulty grasping the expression.

I do find that when listening to or reading the English as used in the media in the UK, a higher standard of vocabulary usage is found than when one is audience to English used by the media in the US or Canada. This is evident when one watches even popular comedies such as Keeping up Appearances, or Black Adder, or even Red Dwarf. Most North American comedies end up foregoing linguistic comedy and sticking with making people look foolish by placing them in incongruous situations. It's not that the message is not being conveyed in North America, but rather that the arsenal of words to use is smaller. Perhaps it's not even that; perhaps it's that when one has a less subtle and varied grasp of one's vocabulary one is led to a more literalistic and direct usage of the language. Perhaps knowing lots of words is not enough. Perhaps one needs to strive to know words intimately in all their shadings. I think that the result of the failure to do so can be a diminished capacity for subtle communication.

Wednesday, June 08, 2005

Mixed up world

Maine border officials confiscated a homemade sword, a hatchet, a knife, brass knuckles and a chain saw stained with what appeared to be blood from a Gregory Despres the other day but let the man, sporting blood-stained clothes, into the US. Soon thereafter, the brutally slain bodies of the two people he had killed, a country musician and his wife, were found.

One might think that this is a case of incompetence and an example of how the system is failing us. However, the Maine border officials seem to have jumped through hoops trying to find a way to detain Mr. Despres but in the end let him in because he's a US citizen. Cooperation between Canadian and US officials soon did lead to the apprehension and arrest of Mr. Despres. Actual human thought and social interaction took place here.

In other news, US airport screeners labelled a woman a terrorist and put her on a watchlist because a misplaced bread knife used earlier to make sandwiches was found in her luggage. Officials seem to have taken pleasure in telling the woman that she is now considered a terrorist and that her constitutional rights do not apply.

Setting aside the gruesomeness of the first crime, I find the behaviour of the officials in the case of the bread knife to be much more disturbing and lacking evidence of actual mental processing. I'd much rather deal with the thoughtful and diligent Maine officials than the airport screening zombies.

Tuesday, June 07, 2005

Border security

A few weeks ago our family went to Michigan for the funeral of one of Nancy's uncles, Tom Dempsy. We always fear getting pulled over at the border, not because we have something to hide but rather because it's a hassle and is carried out by people with unquestionable power to mess up your day.

We arrived at the border and in due time pulled up to the customs booth. The border guy and we had the following exchange:
  • You Canadian?
  • Yes.
  • What is your destination?
  • Grand Rapids. We're going to a funeral.
  • Sorry to hear that. Dutch?
  • Yes.
  • Bye.
If you were the head of a terrorist organization the best way to get something into a country would probably be to pander to the "feelings" of border officials. It seems that "feelings" are used all to often, leading to the very real risk of arbitrary action and decisions made on the basis of prejudice. To get more accurate in detecting true threats it would probably be best to keep track of who is being hauled in for a detailed inspection and match that up with actual results. This is a basic rule of behavioural psychology. To improve a skill with inherently poor success/failure feedback you need to improve the quality of the feedback. I would much prefer this to the current favourite technique of putting all of your personal data in a huge database and using that to judge you. This is corrosive to a free society and reflects society's current love affair with databases and technology over human wisdom and oversight.

Friday, June 03, 2005

UPS a daisy

Well. I made a complaint to UPS yesterday about a driver who stops most days on University by Union station right where my bus picks me up. He stops during rush hour, usually for ten minutes or so. I feel that this slows traffic down rather a lot and is an unfair tradeoff between the time he saves and the time he wastes for hundreds of commuters.

I made a call to UPS to complain about this yesterday and just got a call back from a very knowledgeable guy who knew that there's a laneway behind the building. He said he'd talk with the driver and ask him to park in the laneway.

We'll see what happens. I'm glad to say I was polite during the whole exchange and was greeted back with equal civility and professionalism. I still feel a bit like a whiner though.