Whew...Close Call on the PS3

I and many other people worldwide are now breathing a collective sigh of relief due to an announcement posted today on Engadget.com . There has been a rumor floating around for some time about the possibility of creating copy-protected discs that would be playable only on the initial machine. In other words, once you played the game on your PS3, it would be unplayable on any other person's machine. This could possibly be the stupidest thing possible for any company to do, since it would effectively kill any used games market, as well as make it impossible for a kid (or adult) to simply take the game to someone else's house to play it together. It would almost certainly sink the Playstation as a contender in the video game machine market, because who wants to buy a system when you can't share and sell its games? What if you buy a game and hate it? You'd be stuck with it, because you wouldn't be able to sell it...

This rumor started mainly because the word got out that Sony has been working on technology to make this single-system copy protection possible. With the launch date for the PS3 looming nearer and nearer, someone made the leap in logic that this process was going to be used on the PS3. I first saw it in Game Informer magazine, so it really did have a lot of people scared, even in the gaming industry.

Swing and a miss, though, because Sony has now officially confirmed that this isn't going to happen, at least not on the PS3...my guess is they're working on it to copy protect DVDs, or something like that, in an effort to halt piracy. Still, it's something I hope we won't see, because sharing multimedia is half the fun of having it.

Update: Who's Listening to You?

This afternoon on CNN's Situation Room, good ol' Wolf reported to us that Verizon and BellSouth have responded to the allegations that they have entered into contracts with the NSA to supply their database with phone records, insisting that they have done no such thing. This news comes at the same time as news of class-action lawsuits filed in New Jersey and the District of Columbia by customers of the two companies.

So...let's sort out the facts.
1. Verizon and BellSouth deny allegations that they have entered into contracts with the NSA.
2. Not much is coming from AT&T right now.
3. Lots of people are suing the two companies who have responded to the allegations.

My suppositions?
Maybe the two didn't in fact enter into actual contracts...but c'mon, when the NSA tells you to do something, you pretty much better listen. Maybe they only asked once for the records, and haven't yet made an enduring agreement. At the risk of sounding a bit paranoid, AT&T's relative lack of communication on the matter almost seems like an admission of guilt. I'm sure the actual truth of the matter is somewhere in the middle of all of this. It's probably not quite as bad as it looks, but considering the fact that our government likes to do things that it tells us only other countries do when we're not looking, nothing's impossible.

Who's Listening to You?

If you hear heavy breathing on the other end of your phone line, it just might be your government "protecting your interests." The Reuters news service reported today that the NSA is collecting phone records of domestic telephone calls from the big three telephone companies, AT&T Inc., Verizon Communications Inc., and BellSouth Corp., in an effort to build a database of calls to track and locate terrorists. The NSA insists that the program does not include listening to or recording conversations.

President Bush and his officials have defended the actions of the NSA, saying that it "aims to uncover links between international terrorists and their domestic collaborators and only targets communications between a person inside the United States and a person overseas." This is a patently false statement, since phone records from any of those three companies will obviously include billions of domestic calls that terminate domestically as well. This is the largest database in the world, with a goal of collecting all the phone calls made in the United States. The records don't necessarily contain name and address information, but come on, it's the NSA. They can get that information easily any time they want it by checking other databases.

Only Qwest Communications International has refused to help the NSA with its program. According to USA Today, Qwest, with 14 million customers in the Western United States, was "uneasy about the legal implications of handing over customer information to the government without warrants."

Now I'm all for catching terrorists. But at what point does the "War on Terror" become an exercise in stealing our civil rights from us?

Stickin' it to the Oil Companies a Reality?

Dateline NBC reports on May 7th that the end of dependence on foreign oil could be well in sight, and the end of these exorbitant gas prices as well.

I'm complaining about the gas prices all of the time, and I live in an agricultural state, where the gas is 20 cents cheaper a gallon than in good ol' Chicagoland for mid-grade, because it's 10% ethanol. All those vegetable products produce enough sugars that could be fermented and used to run cars instead of petroleum products. There has long been an assertion among conspiracy theorists that "the Man" is working with the oil companies and car companies to keep gas mileage down and prices high. I'm sure something like that really does exist; however, the President has to put gas in his car too, and so he was quoted on April 25th saying, “Ethanol will replace gasoline consumption. Ethanol is good for the whole country.” Whether Big Oil will see it the same way is another matter, although it is interesting that in the last three years BP has relabeled itself as an energy company, not just an oil company, and is doing research into alternate and renewable energy sources.

The Dateline report focused on Brazil, who last month announced that it no longer has to import oil from anywhere, but is now self-sustaining. That is mainly due to ethanol, which is being produced from harvests of its sugarcane fields. Brazil has been committed to ethanol for 30 years now, and 90 days from now every car sold there will be a flex-fuel model, meaning it can run on either gasoline or ethanol. The Dateline report mainly consists of an interview with Vinod Khosla, a self-made multibillionaire who was a founder of Sun Microsystems, and is himself a biomedical engineer. He's spent the last three years working on alternative fuels, and says that he could envision the United States eliminating its dependence on foreign oil by switching to ethanol inside of five years. He admits that the gas mileage is slightly less with ethanol (read very slightly), but adds that the price could be more like 70 cents to a dollar a gallon, since production costs are so little and there would be no import taxes.

Best of all, it's far more environmentally conscious. It's a renewable resource, that in fact is nontoxic (Khosla sampled the byproduct straight from the production tank), and can be produced from almost any plant that is fermentable, since ethanol production facilities are in essence just big moonshine stills. Khosla asks us to imagine ethanol plants next to paper mills and orange juice factories, taking the leftover byproduct and turning it into usable fuel.

Sustainability. I can't wait. Maybe we will turn into an environmentally responsible nation...after the next election, of course.

...if it weren't for you meddling Americans!

We just can't keep our hands out of the world's business, can we? Last Tuesday, there was word from Mexico (via AP newswire) that a drug decriminalization bill would be passing, and that Presidente Vicente Fox had pledged to sign it. The bill, aimed at reducing organized crime instead of targeting users (way to go, Mexico!) would eliminate criminal penalties for possession of small amounts of drugs. Any drugs. The measure passed through Mexico's Congress the Friday before.

That is, until the next day. On Tuesday, a spokesman for Fox called the bill “an advance,” but on Wednesday, his office issued a different statement. “Without underestimating the progress made on the issue, and with sensitivity toward the opinions expressed by various sectors of society, the administration has decided to suggest changes.” Fox said he will "ask Congress to make the needed corrections to make it absolutely clear in our country, the possession of drugs and their consumption are, and will continue to be, a criminal offense.”

So what happened? We did. Once again, we stuck our fingers into somebody else's pie. The United States weighed in with criticism of the measure. According to a statement by US Embassy Spokeswoman Judith Bryan, “U.S. officials ... urged Mexican representatives to review the legislation urgently, to avoid the perception that drug use would be tolerated in Mexico, and to prevent drug tourism.” So we're worried that drug use might increase among border visitors and tourists. College spring break might take on a whole new flavor. Would it increase drug use? Probably a little, for a little while. But I still don't understand the reason we had to get involved. We're so busy trying to keep drugs out or pretend they don't exist...what, are we jealous now that our friend to the south was going to allow them? Are we so intent on locking up drug users that we don't want anyone else to take the privilege from us? And do they think that there aren't already other places in the world for drug users to go to on vacation?

"If I don't have them, you don't get to have them either." The picture above pretty much sums up what happens in North America, and most of the rest of the world, for that matter. "Here, Vicente, why dontcha change that part right there, ok? Sign here, initial here."

End result: Hours after the US statement was issued, Fox refused to sign the bill. His office did not mention the statement from the US government in its reasoning. But come on, why else would he change his mind about something like that in a few hours?

This happens every time somebody tries to be progressive. When are we going to stop bullying the rest of the world into doing our bidding and actually listen to them? We're one of the younger nations in the world, and some of our older siblings might have a bit more wisdom in some areas than we do. Still, because we have the biggest guns, we think that makes it okay to push everyone else around, and insist on our way. Did you know that the US has DEA offices in Canada? Why do we need offices that can only enforce American policies on American citizens on Canadian soil, unless we were looking for a way to push Canadians around too? Oh wait, that's already happened with Marc Emery. (He's another story for another post.)

Mexico is pissed. Canada is pissed. Most of the world hates us, because we think we have a duty to tell the rest of the world what to do. Countries like England had great monarchies rise and fall before a bunch of dirty colonists spoke of freedom. China and India have histories thousands of years older than we do, yet we still think it's ok to push international policy our way. The thing we've failed to recognize for a long time is that the world isn't just a big schoolyard. Might doesn't make right, and just because you can make someone do something doesn't mean they do so willingly, or that they will like you for it. We have spent decades creating resentment between us and the rest of the world. If we don't start to get along soon, we're going to find ourselves on the uncomfortable end of the same sharp stick, although this time it'll be held at our backs.

Laptops in the Classroom: Okay or No Way?

The Associated Press reported May 3rd that professors at a number of universities are working to ban laptops in the classroom campus-wide. They already prohibit them in their own classes. These professors have found, with good reason, that numerous students are doing other things on their laptops besides typing neat notes. As most colleges and universities of any size now sport WiFi networks covering almost every inch of campus, it is just as possible for a student to read e-mail and play online games in class as in a dorm room. Proponents of the bans point out that they make students more like stenographers, who will then miss out on discussion and social interaction with the class. Professor Charles Mooney at the University of Pennsylvania banned them two years ago for these reasons, and then this year, he allowed them back in as an experiment. His conclusion has been to continue the ban.

This does happen. I've found students in my own classes trying to pretend they're interested, when really they're bidding for something on eBay or playing solitaire. However, I've had just as many, and probably a lot more, students who actually are using the computer for its intended purpose in my classes. Being an Instructional Technology guy, I'm in the middle on the issue. I can see the point about limiting discussion by staring at a screen, since it is definitely true that the students who seem to talk the least are the ones who are looking over a laptop screen. The act of typing out notes does take some involvement from the class. I can also see the point about students playing games, chatting or surfing the web during class, because I've seen my classmates in my doctoral classes doing it, so it's not just eighteen-year-old greenhorns doing it either. I'm up in the air on whether to ban them because of the supposed interference with classroom discussion...sometimes I wish I had a little more cash, so I could have one myself. I can't read some of the notes I take sometimes, and typing them might help. Whether or not I would notice myself being removed from discussion by the act of typing is debatable...probably something I could study at a later date. I'd like to see the studies on this one before I try to make a decision.

The solution? Instructors need more control over their classroom environments. WiFi has made it easy for people to get online virtually anywhere. Heck, with a $50 hotspotter and a WiFi-equipped computer, you can log onto somebody else's network just by being close enough. So we need to be able to let students use computers for notetaking if they choose to, yet limit the internet availability. Simple. Just shut off the network locally. Chances are, it's probably not more than three Wireless Access Points (WAPs) serving even the largest classrooms. If instructors have the power to shut them off just before class, they won't need to worry that a student is more interested in Yahoo! Mail than notetaking, because the computer won't be good for much else. Sure, a student could still play a game loaded on the computer, but at that point, they're paying good money to sit in a lecture hall and play solitaire, which is just stupid. Universities not wanting to give instructors that kind of technical control could just have instructors choose certain hours of the day to have the WAPs shut off by their IT people. This would still make it possible for technology classes to have WiFi access, but not other classes. For example, there could be 'dead time' from 3:00 to 4:00 pm on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays for English Comp I, but the network would be back on in the classroom at 4:00 for Mechanical Engineering 101. This is most definitely possible, because our home wireless router has this option. I think it's meant to limit kids' internet surfing, but that's what we're mostly talking about anyway, isn't it?