Finding Common Ground on an Open Internet - a joint statement from Lowell McAdam, CEO Verizon Wireless and Eric Schmidt, CEO Google

This message was posted to a popular internet tech blog and appears to be genuine. You might also find it of interest.

From: David Farber
Date: October 22, 2009 7:27:48 AM EDT
To: "ip"
Subject: [IP] Finding Common Ground on an Open Internet - a joint statement from Lowell McAdam, CEO Verizon Wireless and Eric Schmidt, CEO Google.

A Technology and Telecommunications Policy Blog
Thursday, October 22, 2009

Finding Common Ground on an Open Internet

The following is a joint statement from Lowell McAdam, CEO Verizon Wireless and Eric Schmidt, CEO Google.

Verizon and Google might seem unlikely bedfellows in the current debate around network neutrality, or an open Internet. And while it's true we do disagree quite strongly about certain aspects of government policy in this area--such as whether mobile networks should even be part of the discussion--there are many issues on which we agree. For starters we both think it's essential that the Internet remains an unrestricted and open platform--where people can access any content (so long as it's legal), as well as the services and applications of their choice.

How many geeks does it take to change a lightbulb?

Or more accurately, how long and how much does it take to get a specialty lightbulb?

The green-circle light around my car's cigarette lighter burned out. These things happen, especially in a car that's 8 years old. So I removed the old one (it's easily accessible in my car) and went looking to buy a replacement.

Easier said than done.

Comments on "iTunes and Cocoa"

This week, John Gruber wrote an article commenting on the fact that the latest version of iTunes is still a 32-bit application using Apple's Carbon APIs (vs. the newer Cocoa APIs Apple encourages developers to use today.

John makes many good points and discusses the subject very thoroughly. If the question interests you, I highly recommend you jump through the above link and read the article. I'll wait for you to come back here when you're done reading.

Done reading? Great.

During the article, John writes:

Cocoa was not magic pixie dust that inherently made the Finder radically better. But so why did Apple bother? Because Cocoa and 64-bit are the future of Mac OS X. And, for many new APIs, they are the present.

This is a very plausible explanation for why Apple chose to port nearly all of the system applications to the 64-bit Cocoa libraries. It is also really good marketing PR - what better way to encourage others to use your new libraries than to point our that you yourself are using them everywhere.

But there's another possible reason that I think may make even more sense: the need to test all those new libraries.

The 64-bit Cocoa APIs are brand new. As such, they need to be thoroughly tested. What better way to test them than to use them in as many applications as possible? Since the outside world doesn't have the new libraries, there won't be any third-party applications using them, and real-world applications almost always provide better testing than contrived test cases.

With all the system apps using the 64-bit Cocoa libraries, it means developers and testers will be exercising these new libraries with every app they run. Additionally, it guarantees that the application code is portable to both 32- and 64-bit environments, since Apple will still have to ship and test 32-bit versions of them. (Some of the early-model Intel-based Macs only have 32-bit processors.)

If they didn't port all this code to 64-bit Cocoa, then the 64-bit Cocoa libraries would end up shipping with a lot less testing. This would result in bugs being discovered post-release, as third-party apps are developed. That's something no developer ever wants to have to deal with. Aside from the embarrassment, sometimes you find bugs where the best fix is to change the API in a way that breaks applications. This isn't a problem if the API hasn't been released and the only apps are your own. It is difficult, often impossible, and always embarrassing to do this after you have shipped those APIs to customers. Once an API is shipped to customers, its published interface can't change, forcing you to fix the bug in other ways, which may be awkward, less efficient, or downright hack-ish.

As for why Apple didn't port iTunes to 64-bit Cocoa? My guess is that iTunes 9 was under development for quite some time, while the new APIs were still in a state of flux. If you've got a release schedule to meet (and iTunes 9 had to ship on the same day as the new iPod announcements) then you don't want to attempt porting to a potentially unstable platform. Far better to ship on-time and then begin your porting effort afterwards.

Will iTunes be ported to 64-bit Cocoa in the future? It wouldn't surprise me, but there may not be an overriding need to do so at this point. Now that the 64-bit Cocoa libraries have shipped, the "libraries need testing" argument no longer applies, so we're back to the "how will it improve the iTunes app itself" argument. John's article discusses this at length and provides a good explanation, so I won't repeat his arguments here.

Printing costs and a minor surprise

This evening, I decided to compare prices on printers and printing supplies. I've always believed that ink jet printers cost more per page than other kinds of printers, but as it turns out, the reality is not as simple as that.

The economy isn't making people eat poorly - laziness is.

For quite a while now, the self-appointed food cops, politicians and their lackeys in the press have been claiming that the economy is why people aren't eating healthy. They claim that the poor are eating so badly because all they can afford is fast food.

Well, it just ain't true. According to a University of Washington study, healthy foods do not cost more than junk food. Sure, there are some very expensive healthy foods, but most of the basic staples (rice, beans, chicken, carrots, etc.) are much less expensive than fast food and are plenty nutritious.

So why do the people eat so badly if it's not because of cost? According to the article, it's time and convenience. It takes 9-16 hours a week to shop for groceries and cook and serve them at home. In households where all the adults work, nobody wants to take that kind of time, so they eat out, and fast food is cheaper than other kinds of restaurants.

In other words, these people are not eating fast food because they aren't making a lot of money. If they suddenly make more money, they will still not want to go grocery shopping or cook meals for the family. I suppose some might start going to more upscale restaurants, but most families are going to require a really huge raise if they want to eat like that every night.

CCF comments on the Nanny State

The Center for Consumer Freedom writes about the rampant increase of "nannyism" in our government, where in the name of "it's good for you", lawmakers are trying to literally control every aspect of your life because you might prefer something different for yourself.

They quote H.L. Mencken: "The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false face for the urge to rule it." He got it right over half a century ago, and it's far more true now than ever before.

The above link also links to three YouTube clips of a TV interview that the article summarizes: part 1, part 2 and part 3.

I'm pretty much in agreement. If I want to eat really tasty food and give up the chance to live an extra year in a nursing home, that's my right. The government can issue press releases telling me that they think I'm making a bad choice, but they have absolutely no right to force me into agreeing, or raising my taxes for daring to disagree.

Israeli dew collectors

Ganked from yourish.com. Also read the article it links to.

An Israeli tech company has developed a passive device that allows plants to collect dew and excess rainwater, while also cutting off sunlight to weeds. Farms using these (at a cost of about $1 per plant) can use 50% less water - a real boon when growing crops in the desert.

iPhone 3GS and whiney pundits

Yesterday, Apple announced the new iPhone 3GS. It looks like a really nice new model - faster processor, more memory, a compass, etc. Apple announced pricing of $200 for the 16GB model and $300 for the 32GB model (and $100 for the older 8GB 3G (no "S") model).

But these prices are for "qualified customers only", meaning they are subsidized prices. You can get them if you are a new AT&T customer or if you are approaching the end of a contract (making you eligible for a new phone at subsidized prices. If you're not "qualified" and don't want to wait for your contract to expire before upgrading, then you have to pay full price (See the fine print at the bottom of this page) which is $400 higher. But in an unusual gesture, AT&T is offering "early upgrade" pricing of only $200 higher for customers who have less than a year left in an existing iPhone contract.

As far as I know, this is standard for the cell phone business. If you want to buy a new phone and you're nowhere near the end of your contract, then you have to pay full price, which is several hundred dollars higher than the subsidized price. That was the case with both of my phones from Verizon and is (as far as I know) the case for all phones from all carriers in the US.

But apparently, many iPhone users are completely clueless about this, or they just enjoy complaining. This afternoon, I ran across this article which was apparently written by someone who has never done business with a cell phone company before. He makes it sound like existing iPhone customers are being punished, because they have to pay more than new customers. (He doesn't make any mention of the fact that existing customers can get the same price if they wait for their contract to lapse.) And the people commenting on the article seem to be taking it as a personal attack by Apple Corporation itself.

To these people: get a life, get a brain, and learn to read contracts before signing them. You're not going to get something for nothing, no matter how loudly you scream "but I want it and I want it for free and I want it now". If you want to act like a 6-year-old child, then my only answer to you is "go to your room until you learn some manners."

If you want to complain about industry-standard pricing practices, fine, but this is hardly isolated to the iPhone. If you don't want a contractual obligation, then you aren't going to be able to get a subsidized price. But given the hatred Apple got in return for selling the first-generation iPhones without a subsidy (for $600), I doubt the whiners would like that either.

Atlanta Investigation Uncovers Deceptive 'Humane Society' Agenda

Atlanta Investigation Uncovers Deceptive 'Humane Society' Agenda

Just another reason why I tell people not to give any money to the so-called "Humane Society of the United States".

If you support animal welfare, donate to the American Humane Society or even better, to a local animal shelter. They have a greater need for the money and they will spend it on helping animals instead of on political activism.

Dry Bones on Obama's image