Month: March 2007

Is previous monopoly power to blame?

I have no opinion on this ruling’s merits, but I am mildly concerned.

A federal judge [last week] dealt a potentially fatal blow to Vonage Holdings, the Internet-phone service that offers one of the few alternatives to traditional carriers, by ordering it to stop using a technology that connects its network to the public telephone system.

U.S. District Judge Claude Hilton approved the request by Verizon Communications for a permanent injunction two weeks after a jury in Alexandria found that three of its patents had been infringed by Vonage, including one for the technology allowing the Internet company’s 2.2 million customers to call regular phones.

I don’t have the intellectual hissy fit that many libertarians have about intellectual property protections. I think they’re necessary and appropriate in capitalism. Intellectual property has subjective but identifiable value, much like other forms of property. If Verizon innovated a technology, to an extent, it should be able to reap the benefits of that.

That said, I’m a Vonage customer. I like its service. I refuse to pay Verizon’s prices, which I deem absurdly high. If Verizon wins through the appeals process and decides against licensing its technology to Vonage in favor of forcing voice-over-Internet protocol companies out of business, I will not become a Verizon customer. I suspect many VoIP customers feel the same. I have a cell phone, which will be enough. Frustrating, but enough.

If it ultimately wins, this should be an opportunity for Verizon to figure out that it can earn an additional revenue stream if it doesn’t kill the golden goose. The mere existence of VoIP should tell it that it’s been passed. Will it listen?

Giving him a dollar is as likely to make him a millionaire.

Anything to make parents feel better is logical, I guess.

Even though the studies (and circumcisions) were performed on grown men, the study results are relevant to baby circumcisions since the biology is the same — presence of penis foreskin increases the risk of contracting HIV, whether the circumcision was performed at birth or in adulthood.

In addition to focusing on males circumcised as adults, these studies only analyzed female-to-male HIV transmission. Any assumption beyond that is nothing more than an assumption, with potentially dreadful consequences for the male circumcised as an infant to prevent an unlikely HIV infection. We’re not discussing insignificant decisions. We’re discussing medically unnecessary surgery. There should be more than “this is probably true”.

That’s all nice, but the specific facts of the writer’s theory are fascinatingly wrong. The biology is fundamentally not the same. The infant foreskin is attached to the infant glans by synechia. This bond will not separate for several years, at the earliest, unless forcibly torn apart as is required in infant circumcision. Any sort of tearing may lead to bleeding and scarring. The surgeon will also have no effective method for determining how much skin is too much. He or she must guess how the infant’s penis will develop. Of course, he or she will not have input from the patient as to how much of his foreskin he might like to keep. (The answer might be 100%.)

With adult circumcision, the foreskin is no longer attached to the glans. The bond is broken. There will be no need to forcibly separate the two parts of the adult penis. The adult penis is fully developed. The surgeon may judge how much foreskin he or she has to work with. But his or her judgment isn’t necessary. The male to be circumcised is fully aware of the decision. It’s his penis being operated on and he is presumably intelligent enough to request how much foreskin he’d like to keep. The decision changes from an uneducated guess to informed consent.

The study results are not relevant because the biology is not the same.

Justice is blind, right?

From Charles Krauthammer in today’s Washington Post:

Alberto Gonzales has to go.

Okay, we’re off to a great start. Gonzales should’ve never been confirmed as Attorney General because of permissive stance on torture. And Mr. Krauthammer has shown a less than admirable permissiveness on torture. But that’s a great opening line.

I say this with no pleasure — he’s a decent and honorable man — and without the slightest expectation that his departure will blunt the Democratic assault on the Bush administration over the firing of eight U.S. attorneys. In fact, it will probably inflame their blood lust, which is why the president might want to hang on to Gonzales at least through this crisis. That might be tactically wise. But in time, and the sooner the better, Gonzales must resign.

I don’t get it. The Democrats are to blame. What? And doing the right thing would only fuel the out-of-control Democrats? I’m lost. So, “tactically wise” is better than leadership? I know I’d be foolish to expect leadership from the President, but we should at least demand it.

It’s not a question of probity but of competence. Gonzales has allowed a scandal to be created where there was none. That is quite an achievement. He had a two-foot putt and he muffed it.

How could he allow his aides to go to Capitol Hill unprepared and misinformed and therefore give inaccurate and misleading testimony? How could Gonzales permit his deputy to say that the prosecutors were fired for performance reasons when all he had to say was that U.S. attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president and the president wanted them replaced?

Oh. Now it makes sense. Gonzales didn’t do anything wrong, you see. There is no scandal in firing U.S. attorneys because they didn’t prosecute Democrats vigorously enough. People like me who think that politics should not be involved in deciding who to prosecute are mistaken. We’re being silly. A monarchical privilege is attached to the office of president.

Mr. Krauthammer goes on, but his logic isn’t worth pursuing. The clear paper trail showing nothing but slimy intentions to pervert the justice system for partisan ends is wrong. Mr. Krauthammer should not now celebrate that because his chosen party is in power in the White House. The Democrats will return to the White House. And if/when a Democratic president pulls this, we should all be equally appalled. This is not complicated.

Firmware Upgrade from the Eyeball Factory?

Some interesting science news today:

Providing a kaleidoscopic upgrade to creatures that are largely colorblind, scientists have endowed mice with a human gene that allows the rodents to see the world in full Technicolor splendor.

The advance, which relied on imaginative tests to confirm that the mice can perceive all the hues that people see, helps resolve a long-standing debate about how color vision arose in human ancestors tens of millions of years ago. That seminal event brought a host of practical advantages, such as the ability to spot ripe fruit, and unveiled new aesthetic pleasures — autumn foliage, magenta sunsets and the blush of a potential mate, among them.

This is fascinating to me. I can’t imagine what it would be like to be colorblind. I’d assume that, if this pans out, many colorblind people would seek out a genetic improvement. That’s only a guess, of course. Still, the capability of the human mind fascinates.

One line in the story made me chuckle.

The work also points to the possibility of curing some of the millions of colorblind Americans — and even enhancing the vision of healthy people, allowing them to experience a richer palette than is possible with standard-issue eyes.

A bit like combat boots or a new company laptop. Are we obligated to discuss who/what issued them as standard? So many questions.

Disclaimer: As a vegan, I’m supposed to be opposed to animal testing in all its forms. For the most part I am. My exceptions are practical and beyond what I care to discuss in this post. In not discussing them, I am offering no approval or disapproval for the animal testing in the article, from which many questions arise. Blah, blah, blah.

Thoughts on Internet Debate

When I came across this quote a few days ago, I liked it. As a blogger, it’s worth remembering when the battle of ideas gets heated.

“If I were to demand that everyone live up to my moral standards, I would be a lonely, cranky and judgmental person. And I’d be less effective. People respond better when you invite them to take a stand on behalf of what they love, than when you insist they conform to your beliefs.” – John Robbins¹

The importance of that sentiment makes more sense to me, based on an entry I never wrote precisely because I didn’t think I could be polite. The subject of that never written entry would’ve been this quote from Cathy Seipp:

“If you know a circumcised man who would like to experience some of the sensitivity nature intended for him, I would be happy to send you some Your-Skin Cones,” writes a guy who apparently sells these things, and for some reason assumes I would be eager to help him spread the pro-foreskin oh-what-a-feeling agenda. Less amusing, though, is when these nutcases add, as they often do, that male circumcision is the equivalent of female genital mutilation, an idiotic and misogynist argument if there ever was one.

This comment made me angrier than almost every other comment I’ve read or heard regarding circumcision, for reasons I’ve indirectly explained many times. Arguments that distinguish male and female genital cutting into “good” and “bad” categories, respectively, are flawed to begin with. But labeling any attempt to compare the two as misogynistic ignores the issue as if it’s already settled, with two ad hominem attacks for kicks. We’re talking about genital modification, not whether you should give your kid Crest or Tom’s of Maine.

Time has cooled my anger. Still, I never posted that, even when the opportunity arose. I didn’t think I could be dispassionate enough. And I only post it today in the context of the quote from John Robbins. My non-response to Ms. Seipp’s claim was a time when I exercised good judgment. I don’t say that to congratulate myself because I’ve failed at this more times than not. But my rare success struck me as important now because Cathy Seipp died Wednesday after a long battle with lung cancer.

I’m not going to get sentimental about her death. I didn’t know her. To my fallible memory, I don’t recall posting any comments on her blog. I’m certain we never had an exchange of ideas on any topic through her blog. Her death is sad, but it doesn’t hit me personally. Nor do I think it’s uncouth to challenge the opinions of those who have died, although the timing would be rude, if that’s what I was after here.

However, reading the news of her death made an impression on me. No matter how offensive or frustrating I found her views, there was still a human being there. That’s vital. I want to be treated with respect, even when someone disagrees with my views. That’s how I want to interact with others, regardless of whether it’s extended to me. Behaving with a touch of humanity is crucial because my opinion is in the minority. I want to end infant circumcision. Countering the all-too-common opinion that it’s “really nothing”, as Ms. Seipp also once said, is part of that process. But treating people who believe that with respect is the right thing to do. I don’t succeed as often as I’d like, of course, so news like this reminds me that kindness matters.

¹ “Reader Letters – 2006 Veggie Awards”, VegNews, April 2007: 21.

I want no part of this conservatism.

There are better places to get information about the “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” case now before the Supreme Court. (Kip’s explanation is a good start.) What’s more telling than anything is that the Bush administration is on the side of limiting speech. And, even though this isn’t a stand-in for the Bush administration’s opinion, the Wall Street Journal’s take should embarrass every member of the editorial board. Primarily, this:

The pious extension of First Amendment speech rights amid Vietnam from adults to students prior to college was a mistake.

So the Wall Street Journal believes that minors should have no free speech rights. How disturbingly authoritarian. I’ll pass. I think the nation’s children can be educated while possessing an opinion. I thought that was kinda the point of education.

That’s very 2005.

I don’t think I’d brag quite so much if I’d lagged so far behind the market.

NBC Universal will join Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation Inc. to provide content — such as Fox’s “24” and NBC’s “Heroes” — for distribution beginning this summer on AOL, Yahoo, Microsoft Corp.’s MSN and News Corp.’s MySpace sites, the companies said today.

Also included in the new free, ad-supported service will be movies from Universal Pictures and News Corp.’s 20th Century Fox studios, such as “Borat” and “Little Miss Sunshine.”

“This is a game-changer for Internet video,” said News Corp. President Peter Chernin. “We’ll have access to just about the entire U.S. Internet audience at launch. And for the first time, consumers will get what they want — professionally produced video delivered on the sites where they live.”

What does it even mean to “have access to just about the entire U.S. Internet audience at launch”? YouTube has that same access, although it had to build a brand name that established media companies already possess. YouTube didn’t take long to overcome its disadvantage, so there’s obviously more to this product than just access.

If implemented correctly, I don’t see a reason for this to fail. Content is king. However, proper implementation (providing extensive user control) is a major assumption. Like the music industry sitting around for half a decade while peer-to-peer networks exploded, companies with video content will probably enact a plan based in fear (think extensive DRM) and arrogance.

I might be too old, though. I’ll stick with Netflix and DVR.

The article doesn’t mention constitutional principle.

I don’t know what to say about this assessment of Rudy Giuliani as a good presidential candidate for social conservatives.

The animating idea of the “gay rights” movement is every bit as ridiculous as the case for the right to “choose.” The left would have us believe that society has no grounds for its ancient disapproval of homosexuality. If society approves of heterosexual relationships that typically serve to create and sustain families it must also approve of homosexual relationships that typically do not serve that purpose. Those of us who approve of one and not the other are bigots in need of punishment and reeducation.

Nobody ever makes this argument. When clearly stated it is self-refuting nonsense.

Nevertheless, the left cheerfully assumes that all disapproval of homosexuality is bigotry. It goes on its merry way agitating for changes in law and society which would suppress every expression of this society’s distaste for homosexuality and eliminate every distinction between traditional marriage and other sexual relationships.

A proper fisking would take too long. Besides, the absurdity of this conspiracy theory claim should be apparent. My short attempt: government should treat every individual the same. Nothing more, nothing less.

Read the whole thing if you need a good laugh at paranoid someone can be.

Via Andrew Sullivan

Cable throws a strike. No, wait, it’s a ball.

I’m cautiously optimistic and peeved, even though I’ll probably get most of what I wanted from the beginning.

Cable television said it offered to match DirecTV’s deal for the “Extra Innings” package of out-of-market games, but Major League Baseball said the proposal fell short.
…

IN Demand, owned by affiliates of the companies that own the Time Warner, Comcast and Cox cable systems, said Wednesday it was agreeing to the terms and that its partners would carry The Baseball Channel when it launches in 2009 to at least the same number of subscribers who will get the channel on DirecTV.

Here’s why I’m cautious:

“The communication sent to our office today by iN Demand is not responsive to that offer,” [Bob DuPuy, baseball’s chief operating officer] said. “In spite of their public comments, the response falls short of nearly all of the material conditions (among them requirements for carriage of The Baseball Channel and their share of the rights fees for Extra Innings) set forth in the Major League Baseball offer made to them on March 9.”

DuPuy said the March 31 deadline to match remains.

At this point, with ten days to go, I don’t imagine this deal falling apart. Yay, me, since I tried to watch a game on my computer last night. The experience was as excruciating as I’d imagined. Three hours of television isn’t meant to be watched on a tiny screen. I’m not signing up for DirecTV, more because I don’t want to drill holes in my house than anything, so the status quo¹ would be excellent.

I’m peeved because this means that Bud Selig gets what he wanted all along, times two. That makes me angry. Sure, this can be seen as a shrewd move, but that’ll be nothing more than spin. Selig sold out his hardcore fans. He only relented when they complained, and probably then only because someone else in the Major League Baseball office interpreted the obvious signals of disgust. He shouldn’t be rewarded for that with many extra millions. He will be because I’m an addict. Still, it makes me ill.

Go Phillies.

¹ I know my cable company will have to raise prices to pay for this. I’m crazy enough about the Phillies that I have a higher threshold for the inevitable financial pain than I should.