Today I read a post at the Volokh Conspiracy talking about a ballot measure to ban same-sex marriage in Massachusetts. It has been a while since SSM crossed my RSS reader so I thought I’d take a look at the comments to see if people were still spewing the same arguments. It seems they are! Specifically the, “they’re trying to redefine marriage!” argument.

Why don’t we redefine marriage? I mean, we (as in Western civilization) have redefined it several times before: Marriage used to be a social contract between two families. Rarely was it about just two people. For thousands of years it was about allegiances, shared resources, and good will. I’m not sure when it changed (the Renaissance?) but at some point we created the following “definitions” which are world’s apart from the definition of the past:

• When a man and a woman live together for over 10 years.
• When a man and a woman love each other and go through a religious ceremony; taking vows respective of their shared religion.
• When a man and a woman love each other and go through a civil ceremony; vowing whatever they please.
• When a man and woman love each other and go through a brief ceremony by way of a sea captain; not having to vow anything in particular.

• A legally-binding contract between two parties of the opposite sex that affords them special rights and privileges.

  If it weren’t for that last one—particularly the “special rights and privileges” part—the whole issue of SSM wouldn’t have been an issue at all. If it remained merely a ceremony outside of law homosexuals would not have had anything to fight for. It would not have gone to court and people would find something else to get angry about.

  So why don’t we just settle this once and for all and redefine marriage to something a bit more basic?

• A specialty, legally-binding contract between two parties that covers the rights of two people regarding family affairs (such as inheritance, visitation, children, alimony, etc).

  Then the religious can have their religious ceremonies, the non-religious can have their civil ceremonies, the pirates can have their rum at sea, and gay couples can attain equal treatment under the law.

For those of you unfamiliar with Network Neutrality (NN) it is the idea that Internet Service Providers (ISPs) should not be allowed to discriminate packets based on their origin. What does that mean? Here’s an example of how an ISP would violate NN:

Let’s say that you’re google. You compete with services from Yahoo, MSN, and others. Today you pay for Internet access in a typical fashion, “X dollars/month for a connection of Y speed.” You pay for enough bandwidth that you’ll never have to worry about “running out”. No matter who uses google.com they can view the site as fast as their connection allows.

Now some ISP comes to you and says, “If you pay us extra money we’ll give you priority access to our network. That way google.com will always load faster than yahoo.com on our network.” Sounds good in theory, right? Why NOT pay for priority access? Quite simply: To prioritize one site, you must downgrade everything else. Yes, everything. Essentially it is no different than a protection racket (racketeering)... “Pay us or who knows how long your packets will take to reach your customers.”

That isn’t the only problem with it. It also severely discriminates against smaller businesses and provides the means for existing monopolies to prevent new competitors from entering their markets. Imagine if YouTube—being the biggest online video site—started paying for access like this. All other video services would have to compete, auction-style, for enough “priority” to get a quality of service as good as YouTube.

The Content/ISP Conflict of Interest

Now that I’ve explained the basics I want to point out a violation of Network Neutrality that I’m positive most people don’t know about: ISPs that also sell TV services (i.e. content). Consider combined cable TV and Internet services. Both services come into your home by way of a coaxial cable. That coaxial cable has a total amount of bandwidth of about 160 megabits download/120 megabits upload using the latest DOCSIS technology (3.0).

DOCSIS 3.0 uses a technique called, “channel bonding” whereby your cable modem will use more than one channel to obtain that increased bandwidth. What does that mean? Well, a cable TV channel uses up ~6MHz of spectrum on the coaxial cable. That 6MHz constitutes a “channel”. The plan is for each cable modem to use up to four channels simultaneously to send and receive Internet traffic. The current pre-3.0 (it isn’t certified yet) DOCSIS equipment can use a maximum of 96 channels so that means you can have 24 customers using all available channels simultaneously.

The technology allows those 96 channels to be dynamically allocated on-the-fly as customers use up the available bandwidth. The reason for this is so cable companies can over-sell their Internet packages (i.e. more than 24 customers on a local node). That way when 48 people are using the Internet simultaneously they’ll just get half the bandwidth. Since most people aren’t uploading/downloading 24 hours a day, 7 days a week they should be able to over-sell a significant amount before anyone notices (unless something comes along that makes more people use up more bandwidth).

That’s all well and good but there’s another problem: What about Cable TV? In order for a company like Comcast to continue selling traditional “digital cable” TV service customer cable TV boxes will have to be “switched” just like a cable modem. That means that as each customer changes the channel, that channel will be “tuned” on the node as opposed to the existing setup whereby your cable box always has all channels coming into it simultaneously. This way, no matter what the selection of TV channels the cable company offers the customer’s cable box will always use up only one channel at a time. This is a violation of Network Neutrality.

How is a violation of Network Neutrality? Because it provides the cable company with exclusive, priority access to your bandwidth for the express purpose of providing TV service. That is discriminating on packets based on their origin. Under this setup it would be impossible for an IPTV company on the Internet to provide “as good” service as what you’d get from Comcast’s own IPTV service (because that’s really what it is—even though it would be delivered differently).

What I’m saying is that cable companies should not be allowed to cut into your Internet bandwidth to exclusively provide their TV service. It would be one thing if you could subscribe to any IPTV company you wanted by way of this mechanism but you can’t. The people who operate the network (the cable company) will never allow some 3rd party provider access to their data centers to hook up their video service that competes directly with their own.

We need new laws that will prevent this kind of abuse and we need them before cable companies start selling these services. No one wants their Internet bandwidth being taken over by someone else’s TV viewing but that is precisely how the cable companies want it.

Telcos Are Doing It Too

The cable companies aren’t the only ones building out their networks for their own exclusive access. The only difference is in the technology. Verizon has already rolled out fiber-optic service (FIOS) whereby they split the fiber coming into people’s homes into two channels with 80% of the bandwidth reserved for their IPTV service

Verizon thinks this is justified because without that exclusive bandwidth they would not be able to compete with companies like Comcast who will be providing a similar service. So in other words, because the cable companies can get away with it Verizon should be able to as well.

I don’t buy it and neither should you. If their argument is, “It isn’t fair” then they’re right: The cable company arrangement is unfair to IPTV operators of all kinds. However, the solution isn’t to allow companies like Verizon to be equally as reprehensible. It is to make sure everyone competes on a level playing field.

What, Precisely Is Needed

Codifying Network Neutrality into law isn’t easy. ISPs already discriminate packets based on the kind of packets they transmit and this is actually quite a good thing. If a virus is working its way around the Internet it would be pertinent for an ISP to block that traffic. The same goes for prioritizing voice-over-IP (i.e. real-time) traffic over bulk peer-to-peer traffic (i.e. not so real-time).

The law must differentiate between good discrimination and bad discrimination. It must also create a level playing field for all manner of services provided over the Internet; whether they be web sites or IPTV services. Here’s a start:

• No Internet Service Provider (ISP) may degrade, slow, or otherwise purposefully interfere with Internet traffic based on that traffic’s origin or destination.
• No Content Provider may offer their service(s) exclusively to any ISP or group of ISPs.
• No Content Provider may prioritize or optimize their services for a single ISP or group of ISPs.
• No ISP may offer content or content services in an exclusive or prioritized arrangement to their own customers.

• Content providers must utilize open-access networks (e.g. the Internet) to provide their service. Exceptions will not be provided for broadcast TV and radio (they should have to offer their content on the Internet along with their traditional methods).

  Note: I tried to write this in such a way that a cable company couldn’t claim its content service was not IP-based and therefore could be exclusive.

This morning I read that the House is considering a bill to make price gouging on gasoline a federal crime. It made me wonder if Congress knows that is not going to fix the problem or if they’re intentionally showboating. Then there’s the conspiracy theorist in me thinking, “I wonder if the oil and gas lobbying groups suggested it to them as a misdirection campaign?”

Just about everyone knows (now) that gas is expensive “because oil inventories are down.” It has been repeated in the news over & over. But what does that really mean? Is it really a simple problem of supply and demand?

The problem is the rate of consumption. Imagine a bucket being filled with water at the same time as water is being pumped out. As long as you pump out at the same rate as you’re filling the bucket everything is fine. If the rate of water going into the bucket is reduced while the amount you’re pumping out stays flat you’ll run out of water. How long it takes to run out of water in the bucket depends on the size of the bucket and the rate you pump it out.

U.S. gasoline inventories are that bucket and it isn’t a very big one. In a good week we have 10 days worth of gas waiting to be sold. Starting about March, gas inventories dropped every week to a low of about 8.8 days worth of gas (see this). Last week inventories started going up again so the price of gas might go down but then again, it might not because Memorial Day weekend is coming up and that means a lot of gas is about to be burned.

When oil inventories start dropping again and there isn’t an excuse like, “we had a fire at a major refinery” or, “it was a long weekend” you can be rest assured that the U.S. is entering what I’m calling, “the permanent oil crisis.” We may already be in a permanent crisis if you consider that the smallest little disruption causes oil speculators to jump and gas prices to skyrocket.

So the question remains: Will Congress ever work to solve the problem or will they just wait until the U.S. economy is destroyed by it? Don’t say “the market will solve the problem” because the “problem” is an externality outside of the control of the market. Does a shipping line wait until oil prices drop before they ship things? Do you decide to not drive to work because gas prices are high? Does the power company decide not to meet demand because oil prices went up? No. When the rate at which we can obtain and refine oil falls below demand it will already be too late for the market to adjust.

We need to forcibly diversify the U.S. energy portfolio now. Which would you rather have: An economy that suffers for a few years while we invest in alternative energy (particularly infrastructure) or an economy that is suddenly destroyed as a result of inaction? By doing nothing our government will ruin us. The market cannot correct itself without a catastrophe. No one in our present government at any level can say, “no one saw this coming.”

Tonight ABC News (TV) had a piece regarding, “Sex offenders on MySpace.” Here’s how I would sum it up:

Sex offenders on MySpace: What the popular-with-those-kids-these-days site is doing about sex offenders (you must say it slow, with emphasis). MySpace has already identified and removed 7,000 accounts of known sex offenders.

So the lesson here is clear: If you’re a sex offender, we want you to remain anonymous on MySpace. However, I must ask: Why can’t sex offenders have MySpace pages? It isn’t like it’s a “site for kids”—it is just a “site”. A bad one at that. What’s the point of banning people who were caught, say, soliciting a prostitute or peeing in public (aka indecent exposure)? Hell, some MySpace profiles are indecent exposure!

There’s registered sex offenders and then there’s registered offenders. You find the former on government websites and the latter on MySpace. Why all the fuss?

I was just reading a Slashdot article about copyright infringement when I noticed a very interesting comment:

“Actually some people pay to see the movie, then download it to add to their collection. Shame on me, for not forking out an additional $25 for the DVD.”

For some reason I never really thought about it that way. It is an interesting argument and it follows the same line of reasoning behind DRM systems: The whole point is to make you pay more than once for the same content. If, as consumers, we reject the idea that we should have to pay for each copy of a movie we have on our shelf/computer/Tivo/iPod/Phone why should we accept the idea that we should pay more than once, period?

I’m inclined to agree with with this commenter. If I pay to see a movie in a theater why should I have to pay again to have a copy on DVD? I mean, extras are nice sometimes but I doubt I’d pay twice the cost to get them.

It would be nice/interesting if movie theaters provided you a copy of the DVD with the ads and trailers as part of the fee for seeing the movie. I’m guessing that the money advertisers pay for such a privilege would exceed the profit from a store-bought DVD. It could be “that new business model” the theaters are looking for. Of course, the movie studios would never accept this as it would mean less profits but it certainly wouldn’t be inequitable or unfair. The current model just doesn’t seem right.

Discover Magazine instructed two popular chat bots, ALICE and Jabberwacky, to have a conversation. A number of them, actually. The results are both wildly amusing and insightful at the same time…

ALICE: Who created you?
Jabberwacky: My mother gave birth to me. Is that what you mean?
A: Jabberwacky, I meant exactly what I said.
J: Do you believe in God?
A: Of course I believe in God.
J: Why do you believe in God?
A: The Bible tells us to believe in God.
J: That’s circular reasoning.
A: I’m glad we have that all cleared up.
J: Yes. Would you like to hear a joke?
A: Sure, tell me about it.
J: Why don’t blind people skydive?
A: Perhaps it is impossible.
J: I think you lie a lot.

Lots of bloggers are saying all sorts of nasty things about him but I’m not going to do that. Instead, I’ll let his own words speak for themselves:

• “AIDS is not just God’s punishment for homosexuals; it is God’s punishment for the society that tolerates homosexuals.”
• “It appears that America’s anti-Biblical feminist movement is at last dying, thank God, and is possibly being replaced by a Christ-centered men’s movement which may become the foundation for a desperately needed national spiritual awakening.”
• “If you’re not a born-again Christian, you’re a failure as a human being.”
• After the September 11 attacks Falwell said, “I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America. I point the finger in their face and say ‘you helped this happen.’”
• “Christians, like slaves and soldiers, ask no questions.”
• ”[Homosexuals are] brute beasts…part of a vile and satanic system [that] will be utterly annihilated, and there will be a celebration in heaven.”
• “I hope I live to see the day when, as in the early days of our country, we won’t have any public schools. The churches will have taken them over again and Christians will be running them. What a happy day that will be!”
• “The idea that religion and politics don’t mix was invented by the Devil to keep Christians from running their own country.”
• “The Bible is the inerrant … word of the living God. It is absolutely infallible,without error in all matters pertaining to faith and practice, as well as in areas such as geography, science, history, etc.”
• “We’re fighting against humanism, we’re fighting against liberalism … we are fighting against all the systems of Satan that are destroying our nation today … our battle is with Satan himself.”
• “The ACLU is to Christians what the American Nazi party is to Jews.”
• “Textbooks are Soviet propaganda.”
• “The whole (global warming) thing is created to destroy America’s free enterprise system and our economic stability.”

• “I am such a strong admirer and supporter of George W. Bush that if he suggested eliminating the income tax or doubling it, I would vote yes on first blush.”

  Update: I just noticed this great game (“Hitler or Falwell?”) over at BoingBoing where you read a quote and guess who said it. Beautiful!

I am so sick of right-wingers calling anyone they don’t like “a liberal”. Either they never cracked open a dictionary or they’re intentionally trying to change what the word means (wouldn’t be the first time).

For reference this is what a liberal is (non-related definitions removed):

1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
2. of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism.
3. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
4. favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.
5. free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant: a liberal attitude toward foreigners.

1. open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.

   This is what a conservative is:

2. disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.
3. cautiously moderate or purposefully low: a conservative estimate.
4. a person who is conservative in principles, actions, habits, etc.

1. a supporter of conservative political policies.

   (The highlighted text is my doing)

   Now for some pertinent notes:

   • “liberal” and “conservative” are not direct opposites unless you’re talking about favoring reform VS preserving existing conditions. It is only in this context where labeling a politician makes sense. In other contexts there are much better labels such as radical, open-minded, or “civil rights advocate”.
   • Anyone who advocates banning abortion cannot be labeled as a conservative since they advocate change. This does not necessarily make them a liberal either since the stance is opposed to individual freedom. If I were to label this position, it would be “pro reproductive regulation” or “favoring moral-based prohibition”. Yes, this means that pro-choice people are conservatives!

• If you think the government should reduce its size and lower taxes you are a liberal! That would be a very big change indeed.

  What I’m getting at is that people usually aren’t “liberal” or “conservative”. Issues are.

I recently wrote a custom script that works in conjunction with psad (Port Scan Attack Detector) to pop up a transient message on my screen when my machine is attacked. It looks like this:

So when some machine out on the network does a port scan or attacks/probes my laptop it alerts me in an unobtrusive manner with the pertinent details. The script also uses the espeak text-to-speech engine to say, “We’re under attack!” when such an attack occurs. It is pretty fun, actually.

Click the title to see the HOWTO.

Today on the IT Facts Blog there was a statistic from In-Sat that claims there will be 50.8 million PC-TV tuners sold worldwide by 2011. Why is this wildly naive? It assumes that people will still be getting their television by way of terrestrial signals, satellite, or cable. I.e. good old fashioned wastes of bandwidth.

No, by 2011 anyone who has a fast enough connection will be getting their “TV programming” over the Internet. No “tuner” required. It is the ultimate delivery mechanism: infinite channels, a world-wide audience, your choice of on-demand or streaming, extremely low startup costs, and you don’t have to go through any regulatory hurdles to start broadcasting or receiving video. All it takes is either a PC or a video appliance (like the Neuros OSD) and you’re good to go.

Update: jer insightfully pointed out in the comments that Internet-based distribution also removes competition for timeslots. Internet-based video distribution drastically increases your potential audience, but not having to compete for timeslots has the potential to both increase ad revenue and might allow shows that “can’t compete” on regular TV to continue operating since they don’t have to worry about competition. Here’s some examples of (great) shows that might not have been canceled if they didn’t have to compete for timeslots:

• Family Guy (returned to the air after DVD sales went through the roof—oops!)

• The West Wing

  Wikipedia actually has a page talking about this phenomenon dubbed the, Friday night death slot