Category: Technology

Central planning at its finest

More iPod fun today:

Don’t assume that Duke University students carrying Apple iPods around campus are listening to the latest hits.

They might be studying.
…

This much is certain: An increasing number of professors at Duke and other college campuses are experimenting with making lectures and study materials available to students via iPods and other MP3 players.

No surprise there. College campuses generally incorporate technology quickly. I’ve been connected to the Internets in some capacity since 1991, thanks to Virginia Tech’s leadership in exposing students to technology. I had “high-speed” (19.6k Rolm) access my freshman year. If iPods had existed then, I’m sure some portions of the university would’ve required them. There’s one difference, though. We wouldn’t have pretended this was true:

Duke University has become a case study in the national iPod experiment. A year ago, all incoming freshmen were given a free iPod.

It’s probably safe to assume that “free” means the iPod was required, so the university included the cost in its tuition charge, unless Duke is suddenly in the habit of giving a few hundred dollars to each student just because it makes the administrators feel good. It’s possible that I’m wrong and Duke bore the cost, or arranged some sort of marketing agreement with Apple. I doubt it.

Post Script: Quick research proves how free the iPods weren’t. They cost Duke $500,000 from a special technology fund. Perhaps the funds came from donors, so students didn’t feel the cost directly. However, the article mentions legitimate technology needs, like dorm security, that Duke didn’t fund. Are iPods more important than students being safe on campus? Does that impose a cost on students?

Very aggressive. A new day, and you won’t be pushed around.

If only he and his colleagues believed this statement in response to the bill pending in Congress that would criminalize gambling on the Internets by turning financial institutions into a police extension of the state (or is that “extension of the police state”?):

“Adults are entitled to do with their money what they want to do,” [Rep. Barney Frank] said.

I want to retire at fifty, but the government keeps requisitioning 40 percent of my income every year. Am I entitled to stop contributing taxes for government benefits I don’t receive? I can dream.

Breaking News: Loud music causes hearing damage

I’ve written before about the misguided claim that Something Must Be Done about the potential for hearing damage resulting from unwise use of iPods and similar mp3 players. I didn’t mention any inevitable government busybody involvement at the time because I didn’t think further than the absurd lawsuit. I should have.

More research is needed to determine whether popular portable music players like Apple Computer Inc.’s iPod increase the risk of hearing loss, the National Institutes of Health said in response to a U.S. lawmaker’s request for a review of the issue.
…

The proximity of the source of the sound to the ears can contribute to hearing loss, but “more research is required to determine if a particular type (of earphone) increases the risk,” said James Battey, director of the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders, in the NIH letter.

Rep. Edward Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat, sent a letter on January 26 asking NIH to review research to determine whether portable music players are contributing to premature hearing loss as well as to recommend what people can do to prevent it from happening.

Study it. I’m not going to complain too much, but mostly because I know it wouldn’t help. And the findings can be useful in pointing out the obvious helping people better understand the risks in a way that pain and tinnitus from listening too loudly could never accomplish. Of course, it would also be prudent for companies that market mp3 players to study possible effects, since legal liability, rational or not, might be involved. Again, all of that is more good than bad. But Congress can’t contain itself. This next quote portends where this story will end:

“Kids are often more familiar with these products than parents, but they don’t realize how harmful these products can be to hearing,” he said. “It can lead to a lifelong ailment.”

And there you go. Can we please save the money on the research and just write the report and the corresponding legislation now? At least if we’re going to be intentionally stupid, we should be efficient in achieving it.

The instructions explain the volume controls

Because turning the volume down is too obvious:

A Louisiana man claims in a lawsuit that Apple’s iPod music player can cause hearing loss in people who use it.

Apple has sold more than 42 million of the devices since they went on sale in 2001, including 14 million in the fourth quarter last year. The devices can produce sounds of more than 115 decibels, a volume that can damage the hearing of a person exposed to the sound for more than 28 seconds per day, according to the complaint.

The iPod players are “inherently defective in design and are not sufficiently adorned with adequate warnings regarding the likelihood of hearing loss,” according to the complaint, filed Tuesday in U.S. District Court in San Jose, Calif., on behalf of John Kiel Patterson of Louisiana.

Personally, I use my iPod at a low volume. Most times, I keep the volume at no more than 20% of the available volume. Perhaps this is still a significant volume and I don’t know it, but I’ve noticed no difference. And if a song, audiobook, or podcast is too loud, I quickly turn it down. (I usually don’t have to because I’m smart enough to start low and adjust up. Strange concept.) It seems apparent that Mr. Patterson’s lawsuit is without merit.

There are potential consequences to everyone who knows how to operate the volume if Mr. Patterson’s lawsuit ends in a victory for him:

Apple was forced to pull the iPod from store shelves in France and upgrade software on the device to limit sound to 100 decibels, but has not followed suit in the United States, according to the complaint. The headphones commonly referred to as ear buds, which ship with the iPod, also contribute to noise-induced hearing loss because they do not dilute the sound entering the ear and are closer to the ear canal than other sound sources, the complaint states.

I prefer the volume choice the iPod offers since I’m not always listening with earphones. Sometimes I feed my music to my car stereo through an FM transmitter. The transmitter sends a low volume signal. Turning up the volume on the iPod is the most effective way to get a quality, reasonable volume sound. When I want to hook it up to my stereo, the same scenario applies.

Apple appears to have engineered the iPod to be versatile, implementing flexibility with a dose of trust in the consumer’s intelligence. Aside from the meddling aspect, a change such as that imposed in France would reduce the functionality of the iPod. One day I’m going to want a video iPod. I expect it to offer me the same choice I have today. People like Mr. Patterson need to stop with the money grabs helping.

Join the revolution, eh

I wrote a few weeks ago that Sirius would not carry Howard Stern on its Canadian service due to decency standards in Canada revolving around the country having no equivalent to our First Amendment. It’s embarrassing that a democracy in the 21st century has no guaranteed free speech, but at least it gives us some perspective on how much worse our situation could be. Unless our courts decide not to be activist or legislate from the bench and allow Congress to pass laws restricting pay content. But I digress. Yesterday, Sirius Canada announced that it would begin airing Howard Stern’s radio show beginning Monday.

“It’s no secret that Howard Stern’s programming is not consistent with the kind of programming you would find on CBC/Radio Canada’s airwaves, but this is a Sirius Canada decision,” said CBC spokesman Jason MacDonald.

The subscription-based network is 40 per cent owned by the CBC, 40 per cent by Standard Radio and 20 per cent by Sirius in the United States.

“Sirius Canada is a separate company,” noted MacDonald.

“Yes, we’re partners and Sirius Canada made the decision that was right for it based on what the market demands.”

This is obviously a triumph for free speech and free markets in Canada, but I don’t know how long it’ll last. Stern said as much yesterday. He was joking, but this makes me wonder:

[MacDonald] said new technology that allows Sirius Canada subscribers to block out Stern if they so choose was a significant factor in finalizing the deal.

Sirius Canada has said it does not expect Stern to run into censorship trouble this time because his satellite show is a pay service.

“It’s really up to the public to decide whether it wants to submit a complaint, regardless of the fact that it’s a service that is purchasable,” says CRTC spokeswoman Miriam Gennaro.

She couldn’t immediately say, however, whether different standards will apply to satellite radio.

I know Ted Stevens, Brent Bozell, and James Dobson would love to implement such a scheme in the United States, but I’m thankful the First Amendment says what it says. Now, if we just convince those non-“activist” judges to read it with the same deference to the text they would apply to any more favored portion of the Constitution. I know that’s crazy talk, but I can dream, right?

I was much angrier last night

Last night I tried to put a few songs onto my iPod. Unlike every other experience, last night’s attempt became a debacle. iTunes refused to transfer any songs until I’d installed the latest firmware update to my iPod. I downloaded the update (iPod Updater 2006-01-10) and installed it as recommended. Unlike the intended effect, Apple’s update hosed my iPod’s hard drive. Outstanding. Now, not only do I still have to transfer those few songs I’d intended to transfer last night, I have to transfer every song that was already on it since I had to reformat the hard drive to make my iPod work again.

Today’s lesson: Do not install iPod Updater 2006-01-10. It will corrupt your iPod’s hard drive.

Assaulting your own ears is a crime

I’ve written about the basic idea behind Sirius Canada refusing to broadcast Howard Stern because of Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission restrictions. It’s absurd, and a reminder that we’re still free, despite our FCC nonsense. With this decision to definitely exclude Stern’s broadcast from Sirius’s Canadian subscribers, I’d like to point out something I mentioned before. From the article:

Leaving Howard Stern off its 100-channel service will hamper Sirius Canada as it attempts to eliminate a growing grey market of Canadians that [sic] have chosen to purchase U.S. hardware and listen to U.S. satellite radio services.

Canadian law makes it illegal to subscribe to and receive unauthorized U.S. satellite radio signals. But policing satellite radio is far more difficult for Canadian authorities than U.S. satellite TV services that are illegally picked up via stationary dishes in about 600,000 Canadian homes.

I guess the Canadian government doesn’t understand care what Canadians want. Better to impose some notion of the common good than to hope they choose it as their private wish. And if government policy can harm Canadian retailers trying to sell Canadian receivers, I guess that earns bonus points, even though I thought capitalism was somewhat good in Canada. Throw in the tax revenues going to the United States government instead of the Canadian government because many Canadians are “illegally” procuring Sirius, and I can’t imagine how America doesn’t immediately adopt such a policy.

All snark aside, this is the nonsense we see when censors and content nannies try to circumvent the marketplace of ideas. I think Howard Stern is hilarious, and it’s a reason why I subscribe to Sirius. People who don’t think he’s funny don’t have to listen. That’s especially true now that it’s not free. Letting other citizens interfere with private transactions between two consenting individuals, whatever the technology used to conduct that transactions, is absurd. That’s not concern; it’s collectivism, with only a few decision-makers deciding what’s good. It may work in appearance, as Canada can claim with the superficial absence of Howard Stern from Canadian airwaves satellite beams. But those who want what’s denied will find it, becoming nominal criminals in the process. Sure, society is harmed by Stern in Canada this morning, but it’s not those listening who feel the pain.

Business shouldn’t fear customers

This article about peer-to-peer file-sharing networks shutting down in the wake of last year’s Supreme Court decision holding companies liable for copyright infringement on their networks is interesting. Specifically, this quote:

Mitch Bainwol, head of the music industry trade group Recording Industry Association of America, concedes some file-sharers will find other means of obtaining pirated music online.

“There will always be new technological challenges,” Bainwol said.

I’m surprised that the RIAA seems to concede what was apparent to everyone else almost from the moment Napster showed up. Technology changes the way people live and consume culture. Change is inevitable. It’s one of the most tedious (and useful!) features of capitalism. Those who anticipate, or even play catch-up on the back side of a change, will succeed. When customers start using a product in a way unexpected and/or unintended by a business, understanding and adapting are the most effective responses.

In the case of downloading music and the RIAA, it’s okay to be surprised at the rise of the mp3 player. It’s not okay to exclusively treat customers as criminals (even when they are acting as such) because the new technology won’t go away. Figure out a way to give them what they want, and do it fast. The legal profitable behavior has a better chance of supplanting the illegal unprofitable behavior. A shorter way of saying that goes something like this:

“The company or companies that find the most effective method for transforming downloaders into consumers will be the biggest winners in 2006.” [- Morpheus founder Michael Weiss]

Replace 2006 with 2000 and that’s what smart people were saying when this nonsense started. Only fearful economic dinosaurs don’t know that.

For further thoughts, see this entry at Catallarchy. The premise of the argument and its eventual conclusion are preposterous, but it’s worth noting that someone entertains such a position.

Overdue site maintenance

Short version: http://www.rollingdoughnut.com/index.xml now offers the full-content RSS feed.

Long version: I’ve been detail-challenged with the underlying technical aspects of my site. Content to trust Movable Type to format everything correctly, I never noticed that the “Syndicate this site (XML)” link actually directed the RSS feed to index.rdf. I haven’t gotten into any depth on RSS, other than utilizing for reading blogs and news. In Mozilla’s Thunderbird, I had full content on every post, whether I used index.rdf or index.xml. I never tested the RSS feed to see what it would do in other aggregators. I should have.

Since I read The Internets from multiple locations, I decided I needed a web-based aggregator. I settled on Newsgator and migrated my list of blog and news feeds during Friday’s snow day. I tested my site since I noticed a few differences among various feeds to which I subscribe. My feeds (index.rdf and index.xml) consisted of 40-word excerpts rather than full content. I fixed what should rightly be described as an unknown, ongoing problem. The index.xml feed is now full content. If you subscribe by RSS, change your link from the index.rdf link to index.xml if you want the full content in your aggregator. (I haven’t figured out how to fix the index.rdf feed yet, so only index.xml is full content.)

If none of that made sense, ignore everything and keep reading in whatever way makes you happy.

Behold the power of The Internets

Browsing through the Congressional votes database on the Washington Post’s site today, I discovered a unique and interesting way to review legislative votes. Sure, anyone could think that organizing by party and state. I might even come up with region. But gender? I wouldn’t have thought that overly useful. And baby-boomer status? I guess age could matter. I wouldn’t use that, though. But here’s the Holy Grail (data for vote 618, H.R. 4440):


Astrological sign
Yes
No
Not Voting
Aquarius3311
Sagittarius2412
Taurus2121
Gemini4502
Leo2903
Aries3001
Capricorn3401
Libra4102
Scorpio3000
Cancer5400
Virgo4800
Pisces2600
Total415413

Someone please explain to me when that might ever be useful. Other than the bored hippie constituency, maybe, I don’t get it. Just because technology rocks doesn’t mean we should use it to use it.