Tuesday, February 20, 2007

Europe looking to adopt a Big Brother

Yes, most of us are aware that, to a degree, our technology-driven lives are being tracked. The whose and whats of credit card purchases, cell phone calls, and web browsing can paint a startling picture of a person, and definitely raises privacy concerns. But when government look to pass legislation to assure themselves of the ability to do these things—Europe's Plan to Track Phone and Net Use (NYTimes)—it all becomes even more disconcerting:

European governments are preparing legislation to require companies to keep detailed data about people’s Internet and phone use that goes beyond what the countries will be required to do under a European Union directive.

In Germany, a proposal from the Ministry of Justice would essentially prohibit using false information to create an e-mail account, making the standard Internet practice of creating accounts with pseudonyms illegal.

A draft law in the Netherlands would likewise go further than the European Union requires, in this case by requiring phone companies to save records of a caller’s precise location during an entire mobile phone conversation.

Even now, Internet service providers in Europe divulge customer information — which they normally keep on hand for about three months, for billing purposes — to police officials with legally valid orders on a routine basis, said Peter Fleischer, the Paris-based European privacy counsel for Google. The data concerns how the communication was sent and by whom but not its content.
Not only would such Internet laws be unefforcable, as Mr. Fleischer points out in the article, but in the event they somehow did, the end result would just be decentralizing the Internet (which almost always really refers to just the "World Wide Web") into privatized or underground internets. I can't see how that's a good thing.

What is it exactly that governments aim to do by monitoring people? Catch terrorists? Solve murder mysteries? Perhaps noble goals, but not the right means.

Sunday, February 18, 2007

DAVID LEE!

it's been interesting times lately in terms of players i like actually doing what i want. i've liked d-wade since his rookie season because of his apparent no-nonsense hard-working attitude. usually when i like a player (or a team, i.e.—the knicks), they end up sucking. so in last year's playoffs, imagine my delight when Wade leads his team to a finals victory.

i know there are many that disagree, but i'm happy that Brett Favre is returning to the Pack. yes, he's past his prime, but i've never been one for the storybook ending crap. i'm never one to want to leave anything left on the table. i'd rather know for sure i've played past my prime, than to leave wondering "what if." Favre is still very capable of being an integral part of a winning championship team (John Elway comes to mind, since they beat the Pack back in '98 when he was 38 years of age). i think if you are past your prime and go out on top as a champion, then it's much more of a no-brainer than quitting while you still have substantial game left and you're still one of the top players in your position in the league.

and that brings me to the catalyst for this post. David Lee. since last season i've grown to become a big fan of Lee. he always gives 100% and often surprises you with his level of play. perhaps it's because he gets zero hype as the Knicks' lone white dude (or for just being a white dude in the NBA). but he definitely has great talent and skills. he's been getting much credit this season around the league, and reached a new high this weekend during the All-Star Rookie-Sophomore game when Lee doesn't miss from floor; sophomores drill rookies (ESPN). Lee went a perfect 14-14 to lead the sophs with 30 points. Although most were dunks or lay-ins, he didn't always go for the safest shots, notably with a windmill jam and a jumping-turnaround-lay-in off a pass that he caught mid-air.

i'm hoping that Lee remains a knick for the rest of his playing days. it's refreshing to have a knick who plays 100%, doesn't have an overbearing ego, and delivers consistently. and as many are talking about, with Lee and (Eddie) Curry both being very young still, the knicks have a positive outlook for the near and far future. one can hope...

Friday, February 16, 2007

Sampras/Agassi

stealing an article from chris' blog, but with a different focus—Pete and Andre are friends: Q&A: Pete Sampras

SI: How often do you talk to Andre Agassi?
Sampras: I talked to him a little after the U.S. Open. He invited my wife and me to his foundation dinner so we went and talked and hung out. We promised each other we would stay in touch. I think we have been through too much together and do get along quite well. We both have a wife and two kids. We have a lot in common at this stage in our lives.
SI: Would you describe you and Agassi as friends today?
Sampras: I would. Not anything where we stay in touch week to week, but if he were ever in L.A. or I were in Las Vegas, I think we would reach out to one another just to get together or have our kids play. The great thing that happened with us is that everything we went through, completing for major titles, I think we came out better friends than when we went into it. It's a credit to who we are and what we represent.

How cool is that? Sampras and Agassi's kids playing together.
"My daddy ALWAYS kicked your daddy's ass."
"NUH UH!"
How long 'til they're competing against each other on the juniors circuit?

Wednesday, February 14, 2007

All your genes (will soon) belong to someone else

Michael Crichton sheds some light on a real screw up by the US Patent Office in a NYTimes op piece: Patenting Life.
You can’t patent snow, eagles or gravity, and you shouldn’t be able to patent genes, either. Yet by now one-fifth of the genes in your body are privately owned.

how crazy is this? how ABSURD is this? not only that, it is even more wrong when people make a profit at the expense of people trying to fight diseases:

Gene patents are now used to halt research, prevent medical testing and keep vital information from you and your doctor. Gene patents slow the pace of medical advance on deadly diseases. And they raise costs exorbitantly: a test for breast cancer that could be done for $1,000 now costs $3,000.

Why? Because the holder of the gene patent can charge whatever he wants, and does. Couldn’t somebody make a cheaper test? Sure, but the patent holder blocks any competitor’s test. He owns the gene. Nobody else can test for it. In fact, you can’t even donate your own breast cancer gene to another scientist without permission. The gene may exist in your body, but it’s now private property.

...

Fortunately, two congressmen want to make the full benefit of the decoded genome available to us all. Last Friday, Xavier Becerra, a Democrat of California, and Dave Weldon, a Republican of Florida, sponsored the Genomic Research and Accessibility Act, to ban the practice of patenting genes found in nature. Mr. Becerra has been careful to say the bill does not hamper invention, but rather promotes it. He’s right. This bill will fuel innovation, and return our common genetic heritage to us. It deserves our support.

so with that, i wish you a happy valentine's day. i'd give you my heart, but Big Business owns the patent.

Tuesday, February 13, 2007

Makes you go Wiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

Although the Wii classic controller is designed pretty sweetly, you can't beat playing old-school games off the Wii's Virtual Console (download service) with their respective original controllers... which is why RetroUSB's old school controller port converter for Wii is so cool!

Too bad they aren't out yet, 'cause then I'd take Kid Icarus or Ice Climber (GameSpot), just released today on the VC, for a spin with an old NES controller...

the chosen one

I have totally suffered from what this article talks about—How Not to Talk to Your Kids (New York Mag):
“Emphasizing effort gives a child a variable that they can control,” she explains. “They come to see themselves as in control of their success. Emphasizing natural intelligence takes it out of the child’s control, and it provides no good recipe for responding to a failure.”

In follow-up interviews, Dweck discovered that those who think that innate intelligence is the key to success begin to discount the importance of effort. I am smart, the kids’ reasoning goes; I don’t need to put out effort. Expending effort becomes stigmatized—it’s public proof that you can’t cut it on your natural gifts.

I guess the Chinese pile-on-the-criticism/don't-expect-any-compliments approach to education may be getting some new support.