rants.org

Is it just me, or does Barack Obama consistently do much better than polls project? I seem to recall this happening in Illinois, too, both in the Democratic Senate primary contest, and then again in the general election (yes, he was expected to win the general election by a lot, but he did even better than that). Now he’s done it again in Iowa, and I’ll bet a nickel that he does better than projected in New Hampshire as well.

What could it be? Could people be telling pollsters one thing and then voting another? Or was this time just an artifact of the Iowa caucus system (but… I thought the effects of the caucus system would have been taken into account by pollsters, since they do ask about peoples’ second choices as well).

I just sent this letter to New Scientist magazine; no idea if they’ll print it or not, so I’m posting it here too, as several people have recently expressed interest in this idea:

James Love’s proposal for cash prizes to replace today’s patent monopolies (“Fair prices, fair profit”, page 24, Nov. 10-16 New Scientist Special Issue) would be a welcome improvement on the current patent system. But there may be an even better solution: sliding registration fees with a public buyout option.

Under this system, the patent applicant names a monetary value for the patent at the time of registration. They may pick any value at all — ten dollars or ten billion — but the registration fee will be a percentage of that value, so there is an incentive not to declare too high. Each year upon renewing the registration, the patent owner has a chance to adjust the declared value up or down, and the renewal fee adjusts accordingly.

Now comes the key: since the declared value of the patent is a matter of public record, any party can liberate the patent into the “public domain” (to use the language of copyright law, whence this proposal originally came) by paying the patent holder that amount, in a mandatory transaction. The registered owner must accept, and, having chosen the value in the first place, cannot claim to have received less than the patent’s worth.

This system preserves all the market dynamics that defenders of the current patent system rhapsodize about: there is still an open market in patents, and a patent can sell for more or less than its registered value (since a purchaser may be interested in retaining the monopoly, rather than in liberating). At the same time, the public always has a clear path by which to liberate a given patent, and at a speed that matches the urgency of the public’s need.

By doing away with the need for a national board to decide who gets cash reimbursements, and depending instead on free market dynamics, the proportional registration system may be more acceptable to those who worry about the political implications of having governments decide what rewards to give to what drug companies.

-Karl Fogel

I’m not convinced that any patent system at all is necessary, by the way, but the issues with patents are a bit trickier than with copyrights.

Patents are partly a means of preventing people from keeping secrets: if someone invents a new artificial heart valve, we want them to publish about it in great detail, and granting them a temporary monopoly as a reward for doing so is one way to ensure this happens. On the other hand, medicine and medical devices are almost always the example the patent industry uses when it wants to scare us into imagining a world devoid of innovation, so it’s appropriate to note that there’s a whole separate secrecy-prevention mechanism in place for that category of inventions: the medical approval process (in the U.S. this is run by the FDA, for example). You can’t get your drug or heart valve approved anyway without revealing the technical specs, so the anti-secrecy argument is rather weak in the very case of the poster-child industry for the pro-patent lobby, as it happens.

While I’d be very happy to see the proportional registration system adopted for either patents or copyrights, the real purpose of the proposal is to show that even if you accept the argument that monopoly-based market dynamics are necessary, there’s still a better way to do it than the way we do it now. I’d really like to see on what grounds the pro-monopoly lobby would argue against the proposal… They often talk about how we must “balance” the needs of the creators against the needs of the public (a false choice if ever there were one), but if balance is the desired goal, what could be more balanced than a system where the public gets a buyout option based on the owner-determined market value?

Rather than duplicate what I’ve written elsewhere, I’ll just point to it:

http://www.questioncopyright.org/open_government_data_principles

‘Nuff said.

If you haven’t read The Feud in this Tuesday’s New York Times “Science Times” section, do have a look. It’s worth it just for the unintentionally self-damning quotes from the two heart surgeons involved, Dr. Denton A. Cooley (now 87) and Dr. Michael E. DeBakey (now 99), who have apparently been engaged in a 38-year-long feud over the circumstances surrounding the first implantation of a fully artificial heart in a human.

However, my favorite part of the article had nothing to do with the feud:

Dr. Cooley recalled that a lawyer had once asked him during a trial if he considered himself the best heart surgeon in the world.

“Yes,” he replied.

“Don’t you think that’s being rather immodest?” the lawyer asked.

“Perhaps,” Dr. Cooley responded. “But remember I’m under oath.”

The New York Times probably didn’t fact-check that, since they’re just transcribing a quote: for the purposes of the piece, the important thing is that Cooley told the story, not whether it’s true. But court documents are public records, and it would be nice if someone were to track this one down. If it’s real, then it’s a verifiable instance of an anecdote I first read years ago in The Little, Brown Book of Anecdotes, edited by Clifton Fadiman (a wonderful book that is, oddly enough, neither little nor brown — it’s just published by Little, Brown & Company):

ROWLAND, Henry Augustus (1848-1901), US physicist, professor of physics at Johns Hopkins University (1875-1901). He laid the foundation for modern spectroscopy.

1. Professor Rowland was summoned as an expert witness at a trial. During cross-examination a lawyer demanded, “What are your qualifications as an expert witness in this case?”

“I am the greatest living expert on the subject under discussion,” replied the professor quietly.

Later a friend, well acquainted with the professor’s modest and retiring disposition, observed that he had been amazed to hear him praise himself in this way; it was completely out of character. Rowland asked, “Well, what did you expect me to do? I was under oath.”

(This anecdote is also told of others.)

I have to admit, my instinct is that Cooley just appropriated this old chestnut for himself, and that it never actually happened (to him). After all, what expert wouldn’t fantasize about finding themselves under oath for such a question? But I’d be pleased to discover that I’m wrong and that it really took place.

Last July, at OSCON in Portland, Oregon, I put a whiteboard in the main conference hallway (with help from the indefatigable Vee McMillen), and wrote

across the top, dividing the rest of the board into a grid of blank cells. Our hope was to get an ad hoc brainstorm on what tools open source developers feel the world is missing — anything at all, not necessarily just development tools.

By the end of the conference, the board looked like this:

(One reason I waited so long to post this image was that I’d wanted to transcribe the board first, but of course never found the free hour or two… Then I got sane and realized that if it were posted, either I could transcribe it or anyone else could. Duh. At Eric Hanchrow’s suggestion, I set up a wiki, where the transcription process is now finished. Thanks to everyone who helped!)

If you’re considering starting an open source project, there are a lot of good ideas on that board; have a look. Even if none of them quite fits the bill, one might push your thinking in a new direction.

Of course, earlier in the conference, the board wasn’t quite as… shall we say… constructive:

What finally motivated me to make this post was receiving the following mail from Greg Wilson, reprinted here with his permission:

From: Greg Wilson
Subject: student projects
To: Karl Fogel
Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2007 13:52:12 -0500 (EST)

I'm running a combined grad/undergrad course on software
consulting next term (Jan-May'08), and need to find projects
for 25 to 35 bright, hard-working programmers, each of whom
will spend about 120 hours on it. I want students to work in
pairs or triples (so that they have someone local to bounce
ideas off); I also want the projects to be open source (so
that students can talk about/show off their work) and to have
real customers (people outside the CS department); it's a
bonus if those customers are in Toronto for face-to-face
meetings, but not essential.  If you have something, please
let me know.

Thanks,
Greg

So: anyone need some eager student programmers for an open source project?

“This flight starts and ends at different airports.”

Well, that’s reassuring…

I received the oddest spearphishing attack the other day. At least, I’m pretty sure that’s what it was, though can’t be 100% positive. Here’s the correspondence, with the name changed slightly to protect the innocent (if she is innocent, which I highly doubt).

From: "Marina Mitropoulos (ABCTours)" <express@abctours.gr>
To: <kfogel@red-bean.com>
Subject:  urgent!
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 13:43:07 +0300

Dear Mr Fogel,

I would like your help in a very serious matter.

Recently, my boss received an unknown senders email referring to me
and accusing me for many terrible things that are not true and my job
place is in jeopardy right now.

I need your help to find this persons Id or even the password of his
email. I want to find out who’s this person that is trying to ruin my
life.

The email that this message came from is: gianluigi.farina@alice.it

Will you please help me?

Im waiting for your kind reply,

Thank u

Marina

Now, I didn’t read that original mail when it first arrived. When email from an unknown sender has the subject line “urgent!”, I don’t even consciously process it as spam anymore — a couple of neurons somewhere in my brainstem take care of hitting the Delete key, while I go on to read the next subject line in my inbox.

But then came another message from her:

From: "Marina Mitropoulos (ABCTours)" <express@abctours.gr>
To: <kfogel@red-bean.com>
Subject: KNOTSPAM  Hi, Karl, long time no see...
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 15:57:12 +0300

    Dear Mr Fogel,

    [...the rest is the same as the original...]

Whoa. Only a human could have sent that, because it had the “KNOTSPAM” marker signifying that the sender has read my web page explaining how to send me email that won’t be mistaken for spam. So she was real, and she was trying to talk to me in particular.

(Note the “Hi, Karl, long time no see…” in the new subject line, by the way. This was a lie: as she later admitted, she was a complete stranger.)

Now somewhat intrigued, I replied:

From: Karl Fogel <kfogel@red-bean.com>
To: "Marina Mitropoulos \(ABCTours\)" <express@abctours.gr>
Subject: Re: KNOTSPAM  Hi, Karl, long time no see...
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 13:44:36 -0700

Do we know each other?  What makes you think I can help with this?

When I received your first mail, I assumed it was spam.  But then I
received your second mail, with the "KNOTSPAM" marking in the subject
line, which means that you read my web page and figured out how to
send me email.  That was a surprise.  But I don't recognize your name,
and I have no record of ever having exchanged email with you before.
If we are acquainted, I apologize -- I do not have a good memory for
names.

Who are you?

-Karl

She replied a day or so later:

From: "Marina Mitropoulos (ABCTours)" <express@abctours.gr>
To: "Karl Fogel" <kfogel@red-bean.com>
Subject: Re: KNOTSPAM  Hi, Karl, long time no see...
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 10:20:58 +0200

Dear Karl,

No, we do not know each other, I work for a travel agency in Greece,
my name is Marina Mitropoulos and as I wrote you in my previous email
I am in a jeopardy to lose my job because of some idiot that is trying
to make me look very bad at my boss's eyes.

Unfortunately, this person did a good job by sending all he/she wanted
through a free account email from a foreigner provider.

I don’t know to whom to turn to find out the truth, I’m not
interesting in to read his/her emails, I only want to find out from
where (country/area) this account was opened and if there's any real
name given, or if nothing of the above if I can at least read some of
other emails and try to understand to whom it could belong to by the
way of writing..(I hope you understand what I’m trying to say)

I understand that this could sound a bit unorthodox to you, but If you
can help me I would very much appreciate it.

I have tried even with a private investigator but here in Greece
things are not so easy to find out a thing like that as it is in
united states…

I have searched the internet for trying to find anything I can on my
own, but I’m clueless with these things and I only end up paying some
stupid site for promising me to find it and at the end they couldn’t
even find my work emails details… anyway…

I deeply apologize if I caused you any kind trouble, it was not my
intention,  I only need help if you can please...

If you wish to contact me here's my phone nr +306974301136

I thank you again even for reading this email and for responding to it…

I m waiting your response,

Thank u again.

Marina Mitropoulos

Hmmm, a phone number! Why, I remember when I couldn’t pry that out of a woman at a bar for all the charm in the world… and now they’re throwing them at me by email. I love the Internet! Just kidding. Here’s how I responded:

From: Karl Fogel <kfogel@red-bean.com>
To: "Marina Mitropoulos \(ABCTours\)" <express@abctours.gr>
Subject: Re: KNOTSPAM  Hi, Karl, long time no see...
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 10:25:37 -0700

I can't help with your problem.

But I'm fascinated that you picked a complete stranger at random on
the Internet to ask for help.  That seems very, very odd.  I don't
think it's likely to solve your problem.  Most strangers would be
suspicious that maybe you have some other motivation.  For example, if
someone's telling lies about you on the Internet, then it's just as
easily possible that you are telling lies about yourself: from an
outsider's point of view, neither one is more likely than the other!

If she’s a spearphisher, she’s going out of her way to keep her cover. She stayed in character to reply:

From: "Marina Mitropoulos (ABCTours)" <express@abctours.gr>
To: "Karl Fogel" <kfogel@red-bean.com>
Subject: Re: KNOTSPAM  Hi, Karl, long time no see...
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 10:01:33 +0200

I see your point and I totally understand... and in this case there is
no point for me to try convince you otherwise.

Just informational, I dont have any motivation to get into this email
and snoop around for fun, I need it to find out who is trying to hurt
me… and this action to “picked up someone random” on the internet , it
shows how really desperate I am to find out the truth.

I thought you could do something to help, but I see now how silly it
might seems to you all this and Im very sorry I disturbed you but I
thank u deeply for even replying to my mail.

Marina.

I have no idea what to think now (other than I love the Internet!, of course). Searching for her real name gets exactly one hit, on a web page at the same ostensible Greek travel agency as her email address. On the off chance that she’s telling the truth, I’ve changed her name, and that of the travel agency. But not her number: if you want to get in touch with her, go for it, and good luck!

I like this photograph because the light and image somehow seem to capture the sound of the bluegrass jam at the Atlas Cafe in San Francisco last Thursday. The photograph was taken by Wilfredo Sánchez Vega, and the fellow at the center — the one most in focus, the one for whom the light rays seem to part, the one with, yes, the banjo — is none other than Ben Collins-Sussman, Subversion developer extraordinaire and well-known speaker on topics open-source. He also played a darned good solo that night!

Lee Bollinger has gotten a lot of criticism for his extremely harsh introduction of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the president of Iran, before a Columbia University audience on September 24th. Most of the criticism has been that it was a rude way to treat a guest. I’m not sure I buy that one: a politician coming to give a speech is not quite the same thing as a guest in one’s home, and anyway Bollinger telegraphed quite clearly in advance that he would not be sparing in his remarks; Ahmadinejad could have cancelled if he were worried about how he would be treated. (For what it’s worth, Ahmadinejad’s own speech contained passages so nonsensical as to be indistinguishable from the sort of insane mumblings that usually cause passers-by to cross to the other side of the street. No, really — check out the transcript. That dude’s a looney!)

Bollinger started his remarks with a detailed explanation of his motives, so there would be no mistaking what he was trying to do. Good for him: he tried to do the right thing. I actually think most of what he said was justified, if a little over-the-top and needlessly ponderous in tone. He made Will Franken very happy, anyway.

Nonetheless, I think Bollinger muffed it. He elevated Ahmadinejad’s importance by attributing Iran’s policies to its president. But everyone knows Ahmadinejad isn’t running the show over there: the mullahs are. When Bollinger said to Ahmadinejad “you exhibit all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator”, he was exactly wrong. Far from being a dictator, Ahmadinejad is barely a president. He was elected from a filtered set of acceptable candidates (anyone objectionable to the religious council was not allowed on the ballot), and his every move is supervised by those who really run the show. Ahmadinejad is a figurehead; it’s doubtful he could have gotten elected in a truly open field. In a way, it hardly matters that the President of Iran is an incoherent conspiracy theorist with at best a shaky grasp of science and history — even were he a savant, he would effect little good, so perhaps it’s better that he’s an obvious joke.

What I wish Bollinger had asked was “Mr. President, why did you ally yourself with the perversion of democracy by standing for office in an election in which many legitimate candidates were not allowed to run? Do you believe in democracy, and if so, will you publicly call on the religious leaders of Iran to allow truly open and fair elections next time?”

Instead, Bollinger treated Ahmadinejad like he matters, which is exactly what Ahmadinejad wanted. It will probably give him a boost in the polls back home, too. Sigh.

Surprisingly, the verb “wikipudiate” does not seem to exist yet. At least, a Google search turns up no hits. I think I’ll add it to the glossiary:

Wikipudiate: (v) To refute someone by referring them to a Wikipedia article. Ex: “I’ve been wikipudiated!” Alternatively, to deny an assertion of fact on the grounds of its provenance in Wikipedia. Ex: “You’ve been wikipudiated!” (wikipudiation, n)