On Tuesday, 13 May 2008, the Fedora Project released the latest version of their Linux distribution, Fedora 9. I was able to get my hands on Fedora 9 the previous Friday after it was discovered "in the wild" on... Doran "Fozz" Barton http://www.fozzilinymoo.org/

I've mentioned a thing or two about the book Liberal Fascism, but last week, Glenn Beck had author Jonah Goldberg on his TV program. I've uploaded the segments to YouTube for public consumption. Goldberg presents an interesting argument, not that... Doran "Fozz" Barton http://www.fozzilinymoo.org/

Aaron's a good guy and a productive contributor to the local open source community, but he's blogging again about how we should all stop using proprietary instant messaging protocols and only use open protocols like Jabber/XMPP. I'm a long-time... Doran "Fozz" Barton http://www.fozzilinymoo.org/

I've been reading the book Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg. The title of the book is guaranteed to set people off, one way or another and for this reason, Goldberg seems to spend a extraordinary amount of effort defending... Doran "Fozz" Barton http://www.fozzilinymoo.org/

Some people have seen this, but now I've uploaded it to YouTube. This is a video I put together on September 12, 2001. I guess it was my way of dealing with the grief I was feeling after the 9/11... Doran "Fozz" Barton http://www.fozzilinymoo.org/

I'm happy to announce that Sophia Rose Edwards was born this morning at 10:35 weighing 6 pounds (2.7 kg) and measuring 19 inches (48 cm). She's a cutie and is doing well.

read more

[When we last visited our intrepid hero, he was engaged in a battle of wits atop the tallest turret of Fallacy Fortress. The fate of the world is again in his hands. We join him now...]

Dr. Destructor: Wait till I get going! Where was I?

Capt. Constructor: Australia. Oh wait. I mean, you were just telling me about spheroids, buckets, and a scale.

Dr. Destructor: Right! I, like many non-virtual Destructors out there, suffer from occasional memory leaks. Don’t tell me you Constructors are immune. Australia? Ha!

Capt. Constructor: Memory and Australia are both quite entertaining topics. But if you’ll excuse me, the world is on the verge of collapse and I hear some spheroids calling my name.

Spheroids: O Captain! my Captain!

[Our hero dashes to the Table of Doom whereon are arranged the spheroid-filled buckets and the badly damaged scale. He buries himself in thought for a full 100 milliseconds, which is an eternity to a modern microprocessor.]

Capt. Constructor: Aha! The solution is simple. One can conceptually number the buckets 0 through 9. Once that is accomplished, the following algorithm should suffice:

void transferSpheroids(int howMany, Bucket& from, Bucket& to) { // The contents of this function are left as an exercise // for the reader. } const int numBuckets = 10; const float normalWeight = 1.0f; const float abnormalWeight = 1.01f; const float singleWeightDiff = abnormalWeight - normalWeight; // See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arithmetic_progression on why // this works. const float expectedWeight = numBuckets * (numBuckets - 1) * normalWeight / 2.0f; int findHeavyBucket(int buckets[]) { for (int whichBucket = 0; whichBucket < numBuckets; whichBucket++) { transferSpheroids(whichBucket, buckets[whichBucket], this.EmptyBucket); } float actualWeight = scale.Weigh(this.EmptyBucket); float totalWeightDiff = actualWeight - expectedWeight; return (int)(totalWeightDiff / singleWeightDiff); } int main() { // Set up the buckets, etc. // … int bucketContainingHeavies = findHeavyBucket(buckets); }

Capt. Constructor: Of course there may be a syntax error or two in there. You’ll forgive me for not bringing my pocket compiler.

Dr. Destructor: Arg! Foiled again! How were you able to solve it so quickly?

Capt. Constructor: You made the mistake of labeling each of the buckets 0 through 9. That was just the clue I needed. It otherwise might have taken me 300 milliseconds or more.

Dr. Destructor: Curses!

Capt. Constructor: Remember, Destructor, nefariosity does not pay.

Dr. Destructor: I believe you mean nefariousness.

Capt. Constructor: Whatever.

When I first read about Google Friend Connect, an upcoming service that will allow website owners to easily add social network functionality to their own websites, I immediately thought of these lines from NBC’s “The Office”:

Dwight: Why am I being forced to come in tomorrow and pretend that a website made sales that I made?
Ryan: This is a temporary measure to increase the legitimacy of the site.
Stanley: I don’t like when my clients call me to help them use the website, I’m not seeing commissions on that.
Ryan: I hear you Stanley, that is a great observation. Problems like that will not happen when we launch Dunder Mifflin Infinity 2 point O.
Stanley: When will that be?
Ryan: TBD. Phyllis?
Phyllis: Did the police solve the problem with the…
Ryan: Yes, yes they did, yes they did.
Ryan: Yes, the social networking feature of the Dunder Mifflin Infinity website was infiltrated by sexual predators.
Dwight: I don’t understand why our website has to have social networking at all.
Jim: Yeah, I actually have to agree with Dwight on that one.
Ryan: It’s all about creating a one stop shop consumer experience, alright? You’re chatting with your friends, you’re talking about the latest music, about the election; all of it is happening in our virtual paper store.
Jim: And then an older gentleman asked you “Boxers or briefs?”
Creed: I don’t get the big fuss here, I like the site.
Kelly: If I’d have created a website with as many problems, I’d kill myself.
Ryan: Do you have a question Kelly?
Kelly: Yeah I have a lot of questions. Number one, how dare you?
Michael: [slow clapping] Ryan has done a very good job, and I am not applauding sarcastically. Think about it, a month ago nobody would go on this site because we were worried about getting molested, or losing our identity, having it stolen. But now, at a time TBD, all of the problems will be in the past. Ya done good kid, ya done good.
– Source: OfficeQuotes.net

I thought all this was pretty funny, but the ability to drop social features onto your website with little more than some pasting of JavaScript might just prove us all wrong.  :)

Example:

3 of your friends liked SemiGloss Oxford White Cardstock #80.  Click here to get new friends!

A friend of mine, Ali Akbar (@aliakbar), has made me aware of an interesting development going on with the domain he bought, googleappsengine.com (note the “s”). When he bought it, he approached me asking if I would be a blogger for the site, with intent to blog about Google App Engine news and announcements on the domain. He seemed quite excited about it, and, as a fan of Google App Engine, saw this as the perfect domain to write under since Google didn’t seem to be using it.

On Friday, without even time to set up the blog he was intending to create, Ali received the following very generic letter from Google (which he shared with me), asking him, in a very bullied fashion, without any offer to even make it right, to surrender the domain or face legal consequences:

Dear Sir/Madam:

Google is the owner of the well-known trademark and trade name GOOGLE, as well as the domain name GOOGLE.COM. As you are no doubt aware, GOOGLE is the trademark used to identify our award-winning search engine, located at www.google.com. Since its inception in 1997, the GOOGLE search engine has become one of the most highly recognized and widely used Internet search engines in the world. Google owns numerous trademark registrations and applications for its GOOGLE mark in countries around the world.

Google has used and actively promoted its GOOGLE mark for a number of years, and has invested considerable time and money establishing exclusive proprietary rights in the GOOGLE mark for a wide range of goods and services. As a result of its efforts, the GOOGLE mark has become a famous mark and a property right of incalculable value.

You have registered, without Google’s permission or authorization, the domain name googleappsengine.com (the ‘Domain Name’). The Domain Name is either confusingly similar to or incorporates the famous GOOGLE mark in its entirety, and, by its very composition, suggests Google’s sponsorship or endorsement of your website and correspondingly, your activities.

Your use of the Domain Name constitutes trademark infringement and dilution of Google’s trademark rights and unfair competition. Your use of the Domain Name is diluting use because it weakens the ability of the GOOGLE mark and domain name to identify a single source, namely Google. Further, your registration and use of the Domain Name misleads consumers into believing that some association exists between Google and you, which tarnishes the goodwill and reputation of Google’s services and trademarks. Moreover, your registration and use of the Domain Name is also actionable under the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (’UDRP’). Under similar circumstances, Google has prevailed in numerous UDRP actions. These decisions are located online at www.icann.org/udrp/udrpdec.htm.

In view of your infringement of our rights, we must demand that you provide written assurances within 7 days that you will:

1. Immediately discontinue any and all use of the Domain Name;
2. Take immediate steps to transfer the Domain Name to Google;
3. Identify and agree to transfer to Google any other domain names registered by you that contain GOOGLE or are confusingly similar to the GOOGLE mark;
4. Immediately and permanently refrain from any use of the term GOOGLE or any variation thereof that is likely to cause confusion or dilution.

Sincerely,
The Google Trademark Team

What???!! “You have registered, without Google’s permission or authorization, the domain name googleappsengine.com (the ‘Domain Name’).” So wait - now I have to get Google’s permission before I get any name that even resembles the Google trademark?

I am astounded at the bullyish nature of this letter, and to assume that anyone that buys any name even resembling the Google trademark to be a violation against their trademark name. Google clearly hasn’t been very good at defending this in the past - just searching with their own search engine, I’m finding tons of examples of sites using the Google name in their own domain name (yes, I “Google’d” it):

googlefight.com
googlesystem.blogspot.com
googleguide.com
googlealert.com
googlerankings.com

The list just gets started from there…

Now, let me preface this with the fact that I am not a Lawyer, but I did learn this in Law class in college. The “Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy” which Google references can be found here, and in the document, it states:

c. How to Demonstrate Your Rights to and Legitimate Interests in the Domain Name in Responding to a Complaint. When you receive a complaint, you should refer to Paragraph 5 of the Rules of Procedure in determining how your response should be prepared. Any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be proved based on its evaluation of all evidence presented, shall demonstrate your rights or legitimate interests to the domain name for purposes of Paragraph 4(a)(ii):

  (i) before any notice to you of the dispute, your use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or

  (ii) you (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the domain name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or

  (iii) you are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.

Based on Ali’s approaches to me, there was no intention for commercial gain, nor to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue. I also have e-mail to prove his demonstrable preparations to use the domain in connection with a bona fide offering. Let me also add that my intention to blog for him was simply in my own support of the Google App Engine. I personally had nothing huge to gain from it other than possibly a little exposure from what could possibly be a good blog.

Let me also add that Trademark issue is a very different issue than the Copyright issue I mentioned before with the Mormon Church and Wikileaks. That issue was about Wikileaks knowingly stealing the content owned by the Mormon Church and using it for unintended purposes. This issue is simply about using the Google domain to further promote Google and its properties. Ali had intent to do such, and with my limited knowledge he should have every right to do so.

What if Facebook were to go after my other blog, FacebookAdvice, or even the book I co-wrote, “I’m on Facebook — Now What???“? What about my friend Nick O’Neill’s AllFacebook, or my other friend, Justin Smith’s InsideFacebook. What about my other blog, OpensocialNow? Does this mean I’m the next target to be bullied by Google?

Of course, GoogleAppsEngine.com isn’t my domain, and I don’t know what would make Ali feel better, but my suggestion to Google is to apologize to Ali for such a rude and inappropriate letter to what may be one of their biggest fans, and make right with him. How about, instead of threatening to take it away from him, offering him at least some swag and a little money for the domain? Come on Google - let’s not be evil here. I know you’re better than that.

As for Ali, last I heard he is not backing down. It’s a David vs. Goliath battle, but let’s hope Google can be a little better than Goliath in this case and just back down a little.

What do you think? Am I wrong on this issue? Is this just the same as the copyright issue I mentioned earlier? I’m very interested to hear your thoughts - this seems very unfair to me.

Photo courtesy http://mathmath-ecomm.blogspot.com/2007/11/google-is-useful-but-worried.html

Share This

Fábio Akita talks about being pragmatic when deciding whether to use Ruby on Rails:

It is here now and many people are already benefiting from it. But, does it make it suitable for every web application? Definitely not. For that you have to decide yourself through hands-on experience. The result for your situation will differ from someone else. There are several reasons to choose one framework over the other: some are technical, some are economics, some are cultural. Whatever the case, there is no Silver Bullet. How many times do we have to repeat that. Fred Brooks warned us 3 decades ago! And this time is no different: RoR is NO Silver Bullet. Nor is ASP.NET for that matter.

Is RoR right for you? Choosing a platform is rarely a simple decision. However, you have a good chance of making the right choice if you start by putting down your requirements for your project. Write down what you want your application to do for users, and then start looking for a framework that will help you accomplish those goals.

Choosing the technology first is like buying a spring form pan before finding out whether your customer prefers pie over cheesecake, or perhaps would just like to buy a loaf of bread, thank you very much. There’s a very good chance you will guess wrong.

RoR is a great framework and has sparked developers of other web application frameworks to get their act together. Just make sure you look at the pros and cons surrounding Ruby on Rails and any other platform you evaluate.

Random

I just noticed today a few new features in the Facebook chat window. When a new chat message comes through you may now hear a small, “pop”. It appears as though Facebook has begun adding sounds to their messaging, a much needed addition for those trying to know when people are trying to chat with them on Facebook. I have Facebook open most of the time in a separate tab, and often don’t realize until it’s too late that someone has been trying to chat with me in another tab. Now, assuming I hear the “pop”, that seems to be resolved. You can turn this feature on or off by clicking on “Settings” under the chat box in the chat bar, then checking or unchecking the box labeled, “Play Sounds for New Messages”.

The other addition, which I believe may be new (or I just barely noticed it), is Facebook seems to have added picture emoticons to the chat window. Now if I type, : - ) (without the spaces), it appears as a smiley face like this: I’d love to get a list of these.

Anyone know of any other new features added since the “pop”?

Share This

Note that I’m not going to provide any links to the mentioned content here - you can go research yourself. Unlike Wikileaks, I respect others’ copyright.

One thing you may notice on this blog is that while I rarely pipe in with religious thoughts and my own personal religious beliefs (although I used to quite often), I will not hesitate to step in when a Social Media-related religious event occurs. An interesting Groundswell is happening today between the Headquarters of my Faith, and the controversial anonymous sharing site, Wikileaks. However, I don’t think it’s occurring in the way people think it is.

This morning on Slashdot you may have seen an article about the Mormon Church (or “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints“, which is the Official name of the Church) sending a Cease and Desist to Wikileaks for posting links to a Copyrighted, yet old version (1999) of the Church’s “General Handbook of Instructions” for others to freely download.

I don’t understand why this is news. Having been in LDS Bishoprics before as a Clerk and Executive Secretary, I am very familiar with this manual. It is simply a guide for leaders of the Church to know how to council and guide members of the Church, and according to my understanding, NOT (fully) DOCTRINE. It is simply a Policy manual, and while Bishops and other Leaders of the church may follow its council, in the end they are left up to their own judgement (encouraged by the Church “to follow the promptings of the Spirit”) to decide how to handle matters in the Church. The Church considers the Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Perl of Great Price to be the Official Doctrine of the Church.

The Mormon Church is simply requesting Wikileaks remove the content because it is their own IP, not Wikileaks, and they are removing it as they would any other Church-owned and copyrighted document. Wikileaks and other sites are also portraying the contents of the manual as though it is doctrine for the general membership of the Mormon church, when in reality it was only intended as a guide for Leaders in the first place. The Mormon church has to protect the dissemination of false information as well.

In Charlene Li’s and Josh Bernoff’s book, Groundswell, she starts out with an example that happened last year on Digg.com where a user shared a blog post about how the HD-DVD Encryption standard had been broken. AACS LA quickly sent a cease and desist to Digg.com and the Digg.com founders promptly removed the link. Before Digg knew it, their own users began to backlash against them, occupying the entire front page of Digg with copies of the HD DVD encryption algorithm. Digg had a Groundswell of its own between its own users and it knew it had to do something. What did they do? They listened to their users and put the link back up, stating they would go down fighting rather than ignore their users.

I think with the post on SlashDot this morning some people may be thinking (and some hoping) a similar Groundswell is going to occur with the Mormon Church. Those that think so will be pleasantly surprised - there’s a difference between a Groundswell of your own members and those outside of your membership talking about you. How do you handle a Groundswell of people outside of your customer-base/user-base/member-base? You get in the conversation!

I want to share with you a video from Elder Russell M. Ballard, a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Quorum of 12 Apostles - religious or not, I’d like to encourage you to read this not just from a religious perspective, but also a business perspective and how you can disseminate correct information about your business:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is getting in the Groundswell through its own members. They encourage their members to blog, Twitter, get on Facebook, and clarify misconceptions. The Mormon Church will overcome this Groundswell (if you can even call it one) via its own membership, correcting misinformation Socially rather than through news releases and other means and letting the general media and blogosphere say what it believes. They have a Youtube channel here. They are on Twitter. They have a Facebook Page.

I encourage other churches and even businesses to take this response - there is a lot that can be applied from a religious, or even non-religious perspective from this. When you get your own followers of any business, brand, or religion to spread correct information about your brand it can overcome any misinformation spread about it.

Wikileaks is wrong in this case - they are sharing copyrighted information, not owned by themselves, and without the permission of the owner. The LDS Church isn’t going after them because the shared links are “secret”, but rather it is copyrighted material, and Wikileaks does not have permission to share it! As a book author and software developer I don’t want people using my content without my permission (which I’m generally pretty relaxed on in my personally owned content). Why would I want Wikileaks sharing the content I personally own on their site let alone others?

Share This