Yahoo’s hypocrisy

Admirable rant by Rebecca MacKinnon. Sample:

Yahoo! founder Jerry Yang continues to spew excrement, echoing his shoulder-shrugging of earlier this month, which essentially amounts to saying: So sorry we assisted in human rights violations, but there’s nothing we can do if we’re going to bring the Internet to the Chinese people. One recent quote:

“You have to balance the risk of not participating,” he said. “And people don’t realize that being in the market every day there, and being on the ground, we are seeing changes, on the whole, for the
positive.”Tell that to the family of Shi Tao who is in jail for 10 years.  Jerry Yang should meet with them and tell them to their faces just how sorry he is, but that Shi is being sacrificed for a noble cause. I’m sure they’ll understand…

Yahoo! executives keep framing this issue as black and white: Either you’re in there and do everything the Chinese authorities tell you without question, or you can’t do business in China at all. That is false. Companies can and do make choices. You can engage in China and choose not to do certain kinds of business. Yahoo! has placed user e-mail data within legal jurisdiction of the People’s Republic of China. Google and Microsoft have both chosen not to do so. Why did Yahoo! chose to do this?  Either they weren’t thinking through the consequences or they don’t care…

Écoute et répète: Nous ne donnerons pas des secrets d’état au Français.

Er, or words to that effect. You may have noticed that a French company called Alcatel SA is merging with Lucent, the company that used to be called Bell Labs. So what? Well, Lucent does a lot of work for the Pentagon — and you know what the Yanks think of the French. Even the chips in the DoD canteen have been renamed “Freedom Fries”. Somehow, I’ll be surprised if this corporate marriage works out. After all, Congress got into a lather about a Dubai company owning American sea ports…

Headline courtesy of Good Morning Silicon Valley btw.

Apple@30

From the Melbourne Age

If, at the beginning of 2001, an investor had ignored some noted Wall Street analysts and had bought 1000 shares in Apple, maker of iPods and Macintosh computers, they would have paid about $US7500.

Today, four years later and on Apple’s 30th birthday, that $US7500 investment is worth around $US280,000. There have been two two-for-one stock splits and the shares have ranged this year between $US70 and above $US80. Had the shares been sold last January, for example, the return would have been more than $US340,000.

Google PageRank Checker

Hmmm… Here’s a site that claims to be able to estimate the Google PageRank of any web-page. Memex comes out at 6/10. Statusq gets 5/10. BBC Online gets 9/10 — higher than Amazon.co.uk (8/10) but dead-level with cnn.com (9/10) and BoingBoing.net (9/10). Google.com, needless to say, has a PageRank of 10/10.

I’m not sure I believe these results, because I can’t see how they’re calculated. And since the site is independent of Google and the details of the PageRank algorithm (as distinct from the general principles embodied in it) are secret, it’s difficult to see how one could check the computation.

The Ennerdale Webcam

Here’s something interesting — a webcam showing one of the more remote parts of the Lake District — Ennerdale. It’s run by a partnership between BBCi Cumbria and the YHA [Youth Hostel Association] and is located in the Common Room of the Ennerdale Hostel at Gillerthwaite about 3.5 miles up the valley from Bowness Knott. The camera shows the view from the common room looking up the valley with Pillar and Pillar rock in the background. The image is currently updated every 2 hours from 8am until 4 pm.

Why the slow refresh? Well, because there’s no broadband in Ennerdale — the webcam is “probably one of the most remote webcams in England” — it’s 18km from the nearest telephone exchange.

But that’s not the really interesting thing about it. The Ennerdale cam is the only one I know of that gets its electricity supply from water. The hostel has had its own hydroelectric generator since 2003. In its first year of operation, the back-up diesel generator was only needed for two days.

Thanks to Boyd Harris for the link.

What’s wrong with Microsoft?

This is a serious question, not a rhetorical one. (I raised it tangentially in today’s Observer column.) It’s sparked by clear signs of stress in Redmond, with serious managerial restructuring and the announcement that Vista is going to be late — again. A few days ago, Steve Lohr and John Markoff asked the question in an article in the New York Times.

The company’s marathon effort to come up with the a new version of its desktop operating system, called Windows Vista, has repeatedly stalled. Last week, in the latest setback, Microsoft conceded that Vista would not be ready for consumers until January, missing the holiday sales season, to the chagrin of personal computer makers and electronics retailers — and those computer users eager to move up from Windows XP, a five-year-old product.

In those five years, Apple Computer has turned out four new versions of its Macintosh operating system, beating Microsoft to market with features that will be in Vista, like desktop search, advanced 3-D graphics and “widgets,” an array of small, single-purpose programs like news tickers, traffic reports and weather maps.

So what’s wrong with Microsoft? There is, after all, no shortage of smart software engineers working at the corporate campus in Redmond, Wash. The problem, it seems, is largely that Microsoft’s past success and its bundling strategy have become a weakness.

Lohr and Markoff say that the explanation is that Microsoft is hamstrung by its past success as a monopolist — that it has to make sure that its new operating system is “backwards compatible” with older versions of Microsoft software running on millions and millions of PCs.

I’m sure there’s something in this. But it’s not entirely convincing. After all, Apple has some of the same problems (albeit with a smaller consumer base and a more uniform hardware platform). So it was interesting to read Eric Raymond’s comment on the NYT article. He says that the authors have described only symptoms, not the underlying problem.

Closed-source software development has a scaling limit, a maximum complexity above which it collapses under its own weight.

Microsoft hit this wall six years ago, arguably longer; it’s why they’ve had to cancel several strategic projects in favor of superficial patches on the same old codebase. But it’s not a Microsoft-specific problem, just one that’s hitting them the worst because they’re the largest closed-source developer in existence. Management changes won’t address it any more than reshuffling the deck chairs could have kept the Titanic from sinking.

Apple has been able to ship four new versions in the last five years because its OS core is open-source code. Linux, entirely open-source, has bucketed along even faster. Open source evades the scaling limit by decentralizing development, replacing top-heavy monoliths with loosely-coupled peer networks at both the level of the code itself and the organizations that produce it.

You finger backward compatibility as a millstone around Microsoft’s neck, but experience with Linux and other open-source operating systems suggests this is not the real problem. Over the same six-year period Linux has maintained backwards binary compatibility as good as (arguably better than) that of Windows without bloating.

Microsoft’s problems cannot be fixed — indeed, they are doomed to get progressively worse — as long as they’re stuck to a development model premised on centralization, hierarchical control, and secrecy. Open-source operating systems will continue to gain at their expense for many of the same reasons free markets outcompeted centrally-planned economies.

The interesting question is whether we will ever see a Microsoft equivalent of glasnost and perestroika.

Leviathan and the ID Card

In all the stuff that’s been written about the Blair government’s ID card project, the best single piece was this Guardian column by an Oxford academic, Karma Nabulsi.

She begins by highlighting the extent to which the government’s approach to security in the post-9/11 world derives from Hobbes.

Hobbes portrays a dangerous world filled with unknown enemies perpetually striving to murder one’s family and destroy one’s property, a nation filled with untrustworthy neighbours, isolated individuals who live in fear of each other, and only the power of the state to protect society from the evils inherent in human nature. How much of your liberty do you yield to your protector? As much as he says he needs to provide you with protection.

This grim bargain is on offer today, and can be measured in every aspect of public life in Britain. If the primary purpose of the state is to provide the individual with security, this gives the state exclusive power to define the gravity of the security threat. At that point, enter the security and terrorism experts. It also allows the state to define civil and individual liberties, since these must be surrendered according to an assessment made behind closed doors. More fundamentally, political liberty is possessed entirely by the state, for in such a framework the state determines what liberties to grant to individuals. The source of sovereignty resides entirely in the state, not the individual.

This conception of the social contract, Nabulsi argues, is a totally undemocratic one. And it runs completely counter to an equally venerable (and mostly British) tradition.

The theory of the democratic state describes the nature of a social contract in the opposite way to Hobbes. Defined by British writers such as John Stuart Mill, RH Tawney and GDH Cole, among others (and continental Europeans such as Rousseau and Kant), the purpose of the contract is to protect a citizen’s liberty. Its preservation – especially the preservation of political liberty – is the supreme good. In this version of the social contract, the sovereign citizen does not surrender sovereignty, but only specific powers and functions to the state. As political sovereignty is not transferred to the state, not only are civil rights inalienable but so are political liberties, above all the right to determine and to deliberate laws. It is not simply participating in these decisions, it is actually making them.

Nabulsi points out that Hobbes made his argument to answer a specific problem of exceptional insecurity. But, she says, the trade-off he suggested is flawed.

This formula will never provide us with the security we need; instead it increases our need for it. By restoring the purpose of government as one that serves its people through preserving freedom as the supreme good, one restores citizens to their role in deliberating these decisions and cedes the public space back to its owners.

This is a very good essay because it goes right to the heart of the problem. The trouble is, it also highlights the depth of the malaise. Our democracies have been flawed for a long time by this underlying Hobbesian contract, but it took Osama bin Laden to peel back the camouflage and display in its naked illiberality. I used to think that it was partly a weakness of the British (unwritten) constitution, with its implicit embodiement of the state as the ‘Crown Prerogative’ — and that republics would be relatively freer of the disease. But the behaviour of the US in recent decades suggests otherwise. The Bush regime is Hobbesian to the core of its being.

The Tories say that, if elected to power, they will scrap the ID Card, and so they might. But I can’t see them abandoning the Hobbesian contract, for all David Cameron’s spouting about liberty and freedom. We’re screwed, basically.

The changing media landscape

This morning’s Observer column

The Miglia and the Slingbox illustrate how our media ecosystem is changing. They provide early glimpses of the future. Or at least of how the position of TV is changing. Bill Thompson, BBC Online’s resident blogger, has a nice way of putting this. He says that today’s kids will never buy a TV set in the course of their lives. That doesn’t mean they won’t watch TV or video; just that they will access it via a plethora of devices, of which computers and mobile phones are just two examples.

This is why the BBC was lucky to get one final instalment of licence fee income. At the end of the current Charter period, the media landscape will be unrecognisable…

“We bloom only once…”

I would like to have been in Ireland yesterday for John McGahern’s funeral. But I’d already been over in Monday for another one and it would have been logistically impossible. Besides, it would have been impertinent, for I knew McGahern only through his writing. But he and I had a good friend in common, and my friend went to Leitrim for the funeral. This is how he described the day.

It was a traditional Irish funeral in a country church. There was no music, and there were no speeches by the graveside.

His first cousin said the mass and gave the homily, which had been worked out between the two of them for several days and contained McGahern’s own directions as to what should be in — lines from John Donne, from Proust, from Yeats, and then a version of himself, why he ended up back in the church, though he was an unbeliever. For all his differences with the church, it was where he first discovered his first book, his first magic, his first aesthetic, his first sense of beauty, and he could no more turn his back on it than he could turn his back on a part of himself.

[Seamus] Heaney and [Brian] Friel and all the boys — they all travelled. The Minister for Culture was there …. All the playwrights were there, and the short-story writers — Eugene McCabe, Colm Toibin, Tom Murphy — they all turned up and stood in the rain outside the door. The two Lessons were read by neighbours from the area in which That They May Face the Rising Sun is set.

He was buried behind the church, in the same grave as his mother, under that same headstone that he had laughed so much about — his father showing off what a big man he was by getting the biggest headstone in Ballinamore. And there it was: “Susan McGahern N.T.” [National Teacher] He was buried with her, and his instructions were that the four local men from around his area were to fill it in the grave fully. There was to be no token spadeful and then waiting for everyone to go. It was to be filled in fully, and while that was going on the rosary was to be said by the graveside so that people could hear clay returning to clay.

It was a wild Leitrim day — clouds scudding across the sky, but bright. An Irish spring day. Not cold. Just as the coffin was being lowered into the grave there was a peal of thunder and a shower of rain. Then it cleared as quickly as it had come. The four sisters were there, and Madeline, his second wife.

The locals turned out for him. He was brought from Dublin this morning, and at every village in Leitrim the route was lined by locals. Apart from anything else, there was a sense of silent gratitude to him for his redemption of other people’s shame — because the Ireland that hammered him is now coming out in the tribunals looking into corruption, child abuse and the rest. And people who did nothing then were just so grateful that there was a wholesomeness about him that they hadn’t realised at the time. There was sense of gratitude to him for having stayed rather than having gone. It would have been awful if he had died in exile in Italy or somewhere. But to have stayed on and then to have seen through the change was what everyone was grateful to him for.

He had extraordinary integrity. But also an extraordinary concern with his place in history and the rest of it. He choreographed the last few years of his life once he got the cancer — in the televison programmes he made for example: there wasn’t a single aspect of his version of himself that he wanted to leave to chance. It’s going to be a hard job for a biographer to crack into an alternative version. He has left such a definitive — and it would seem irrefutable — set of answers to questions.

He left instructions that everyone that was at the funeral was to be invited to a proper wake, with drinks laid on in the hotel in Carrick-on-Shannon. It was like a wedding reception rather than a funeral. The hotel staff were welcoming people with drinks. Then the bell went and everyone was summoned in to “Mr McGahern’s Meal”.

The best piece about him was by Colm Toibin in the Irish Times. It ends like this:

One night in Co Leitrim, when he had recovered from his first bout of illness, Catriona Crowe and myself sat up late with him. We drank and talked. He’d found the hospital and its community of doctors and nurses interesting and funny but also difficult. He was half amused and half annoyed at being offered professional counselling in the face of death, he said. He sighed at the very thought of it. Then he lifted his glass, drank his whiskey and having left a few seconds of silence he spoke again. “We bloom only once and you’d want to be very foolish not to know that”. He looked at us and laughed calmly and resumed the earlier discussion about some recent books he had loved. In the morning, he and Madelaine took us for a walk around the lane by the lake — the world of his last novel, That They May Face the Rising Sun. I remember him explaining the strange brutality of the way swans send their young away from them and into the world. He was, as always, fascinated by things in their variety. He was also laughing and talking, managing his manners and responses — the same gift for poise and grace his readers find in his sentences. In ‘Memoir’, his last book, he was to find that gift useful one more time. It seems immensely sad despite his own calm acceptance of our fate in the world, that his great gift for words and for friendship had bloomed only once, and will not come again.

Microsoft customer care

Microsoft is currently running ludicrous ads on UK TV in which toy castles are built around user’s laptops — to demonstrate the company’s ‘commitment’ to security. Here’s what Microsoft’s commitment to security is really like.

Security firms have released patches for a critical loophole in Microsoft’s browser that leaves users open to attack.

The release pre-empts Microsoft which is not due to release a fix for the bug until 11 April.

The security firms said the patches were needed because hundreds of websites had been created to exploit the loophole.

So here’s Microsoft’s actual approach to security: “we take it so seriously that you will have to wait until our software-patch train comes round on its next scheduled delivery”.