The Founders were very much the makers and white hat hackers of their age, with many active in both politics and technology. Thus, in a very real sense our founding documents were nothing less than a political operating system devised to maximize and preserve the creative potential of the individual. Perhaps this is why America holds a unique position in ushering forth the age of Personal Computing.

As we have noted before, Personal Computing and Freedom share a deep and fundamental bond. The general purpose computing device, whether it sits on a desktop or is shrunken to clip onto an article of clothing, is ripe with promise. It only awaits the ingenuity of an End User like you to help you realize your latent potential. Countless careers were born of a young person’s curiosity about how computers work and the sense of empowerment that comes from the realization that anyone’s study could be rewarded with the ability to bend these machine’s to one’s will, solve real world problems, and maybe even earn a livelihood by using this knowledge to start a small business or find a position in industry.

But not everyone wants to see End Users develop such skills or the increasing level of sophistication in thinking about information & technology policy that comes with them.

Thus we see the eternal battle between the forces of freedom and control that gave birth to our nation, mirrored on the technological front with ever more restrictively controlled “walled gardens” offering the often illusory promise of security, fashion, and ease of use for the price of one’s willingness to sacrifice the ability to customize one’s computing environment and forgo the opportunity to freely purchase or install software from “unapproved” sources.

If this pessimistic vision of docile End Users comes to dominate, computers will loose their transformative power, innovation and freedom will suffer, and we will all be so much the poorer should technology tip in an Orwellian direction.

Fortunately, that day is not yet here. Rejoice in the potential of open systems, support vendors and communities that encourage you to tinker and share your discoveries, and never willingly surrender your freedom and independence! ]]> http://weblog.ieuc.org/archives/354/feed 0 http://weblog.ieuc.org/archives/348 http://weblog.ieuc.org/archives/348#comments Mon, 28 Jun 2010 13:38:01 +0000 The IEUC http://weblog.ieuc.org/?p=348

If you reside in Ossining, New York, or a nearby community, we would like to know if you would be interested in participating in a Summer Tech educational program. We are considering offering an Introduction to Computer Science & Programming for middle school and high school students and a survey of Comparative Programming Languages with a seminar format for students at the university level. We might also run an Interactive Fiction Workshop using the Inform 7 authoring environment to teach you how to create your own text adventure games and simulations.

These programs may be offered online in our Educational Outreach Center or we might be able to find a space to meet in person.

We are also setting up a discussion forum for River Town Webmasters, Designers, and Developers.

In any case, if you are interested in any of these offerings, please drop a note to us at: info@ieuc.org

IBM Programming Languages Day

July 29, 2010, Hawthorne NY

The eleventh annual Programming Languages Day will be held at the IBM Thomas J. Watson Research Center on Thursday, July 29, 2010. The day will be held in cooperation with the New Jersey and New England Programming Languages and Systems Seminars. The main goal of the event is to increase awareness of each other’s work, and to encourage interaction and collaboration.

The Programming Languages Day features a keynote presentation and approximately 8 regular presentations. Prof. Doug Lea, State University of New York at Oswego, will deliver the keynote presentation this year.

If you would like to present your work, please send a title and abstract to etorlak@us.ibm.com by June 23, 2010. Tutorials or joint presentations are welcomed. We also solicit input on topics or particular presentations that would be of interest to attendees.

Abstracts will be selected by a committee consisting of Adriana Compagnoni, Stevens Institute of Technology; Joshua Guttman, Worcester Polytechnic Institute; and Emina Torlak, IBM Research. Notification of accepted abstracts will be sent by approximately June 30, 2010.

You are welcome from 9AM onwards, and the keynote presentation will start at 10AM sharp. We expect the program to run until 4PM. The Programming Languages day will be held in room GN-F15 in the Hawthorne-1 building in Hawthorne, New York.

If you plan to attend the Programming Languages Day, please register by sending an e-mail with your name, affiliation, contact information, and dietary restrictions to etorlak@us.ibm.com so that we can plan for lunch and refreshments.

Important Dates:

Talk title and abstract deadline: June 23rd
Acceptance notification: June 30th
PL Day 2010: July 29th

Program committee:

Adriana Compagnoni, Stevens Institute of Technology
Joshua Guttman, Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Emina Torlak, IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

Our old site featured a lot of animated eye candy that was more a demonstration of our scripting prowess than a truly useful navigational affordance. The redesign, Code Name: Placid, features a more traditional three column layout that should be easier to integrate with dynamic PHP-based subsystems like this blog, which will eventually merge much more tightly with our website proper. Our markup is also much lighter this time around as we were able to replace a lot of structural hooks and CSS2 code with more direct CSS3 declarations. The actual layout itself is based on the Faux Absolute Positioning technique. We also make minimal use of javascript to play a brief audio greeting the first time someone arrives on our site regardless of which page they land on. Finally, we are using Google’s Web Fonts to enhance the overall legibility of our copy.

But there is another path. The path taken by programming languages like Lisp and Scheme and by internally extensible software applications like Spreadsheets (host to the most common form of End User Programming) and recent Hypertext environments. Such systems, offer a range of powerful primitives that can be combined in an infinite number of ways to meet any given End User’s personal needs. They empower End Users to craft their own solutions or to mix and match components from other sources. They don’t discriminate between commercial and non-commercial solutions, since no one economic model is best at meeting real world needs, nor can any one vendor know which tools are best.

An optimal workflow will often draw on both free and proprietary software and when found, it should be possible to encapsulate such a solution so it can be shared. Indeed, it is this sort of compositional freedom that holds the greatest potential to empower End Users and simplify life.

Apple already enjoys a tremendous marketing lead with its iPhone and has a strong reputation for creating new functionality. But it also has developed an unquenchable thirst for control that leads it to consistently refuse to meet standing consumer needs in an attempt to insure that its customers are never quite satisfied by always leaving something important out. To sell more phones, it leaves out a built-in microphone and camera from its Touch devices that would let their WiFi capabilities moot the need for a cell contract. To boost App store sales, it denies users the ability to directly install third party software. To insure that developers commit to its native API’s so they can’t port their Apps to other platforms, it prohibits the installation of interpreters for programming languages on its phones.

All of these things you can’t do as a matter of business policy on the Apple platform led to Droid’s successful Droid Does marketing campaign. This is one thing the new Apple can’t bear, real consumer choice.

So rather than relax its strangle hold on its customers so they will freely choose its products and services, Apple has turned to the very dark side tactics of sowing Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt to attack the Android platform. It isn’t the copying of some specific technology that truly scares Apple, it is the fact that Google’s Android Platform is more Open than its own and has enough technical appeal and interface sophistication to hold its own in the market.

In the glory days of Apple Computer, the company embraced competition through technological superiority as it strove to empower its End Users. When the company dropped “Computer” from its corporate name it renounced the promise of End User Computing and sough to transform its once independent customers into mindless drones dependent on Apple for their next entertainment fix.

This new Apple fears competition and evidences utter contempt for consumers as it now turns to the courts in an effort to stave off the loss of customer defections of its own making.

If you hold Apple Stock, now would be a good time to make it known to management that trying to stifle innovation and consumer choice with IP litigation hurts the entire industry, could lead to a flurry of patent litigation by making it socially acceptable for other companies to go after Apple, and threatens to destroy the long term value of your investment. If you were thinking of buying Apple products, hold off and let Apple know that you don’t appreciate its strong handed attempt to gain a monopoly over mobiles devices.

[Obligatory FTC Disclaimer: The Institute and some of its officers, directors, staff & volunteers have made use of free Google Services which might in theory bias us in favor of positions that would advance Google's interests, which in this case run in concert with those of HTC which is being sued by Apple. Some of us also use Apple products and services. We have not canvased everyone to determine whether any of us directly or indirectly own stock in any of these companies, but that possibility no doubt exists. So the reader should assume that potential relationships exist and consider this to be a notice thereof.

That said, our writing is solely motivated by our desire to advocate for the interests of End Users like you and we only include this notice because it is required by the FTC to avoid the risk of running afoul of their regulations and becoming subject to substantial fines. If you are a blogger and have ever received anything of value or have any kind of theoretical relationship with an entity you are blogging about, you should consult with a lawyer to determine your disclaimer obligations under these new rules.]

This is another case of taking a very generic idea with utterly no novel engineering behind it and turning it into a patentable innovation by attaching it to a subject domain. This is almost the same recipe that cooks up most business method patents.

Take a generic idea like reporting something of interest, qualify it slightly, throw in some generic computing steps like turning references to resources into hypertext links to them, sorting items, or displaying some content, and be the first to the patent office with a permutation that hasn’t been patented yet.

In this case, “generate a news feed”, “attach informational links”, “attach links that let you perform some actions with the current item”, “limit who sees what (i.e. don’t display info about people the user doesn’t know)”, “sort the news items”, and finally “display them”. This sort of “innovation” is totally generic and obvious in that each step could apply to any kind of information stored on a computer and nowhere in such a patent does anyone learn anything they wouldn’t have thought of doing themselves if tasked with solving the same problem. In short, all that is being rewarded is paying the patent application fees to enrich the government.

Indeed, the innovation here is so trivial that no real programmer with an ounce of integrity would consider it worthy of patent protection or worth the time and expense of pursuing the same. Solo programmers and early stage startups simply don’t have the money to play the patent game. Moreover, a patent concept as broad as this would seem so unlikely to be granted before the fact that a developer would be highly unlikely to be able to raise the funds from outside investors to seek it.

Granting Software Patents on sweeping concepts only empowers big companies with deep pockets who can fire this sort of low quality buckshot at the PTO in high volume knowing that a few of their applications will slip through giving them the power to extract royalties from big competitors and to stifle the formation of smaller ones. Every time a patent like this is granted it becomes much harder for true innovators to get backing and bring real innovation to the market. The cost and threat of litigation forces them to sell out to a big player, to shutter their doors if challenged, or more likely to not even bother trying in the first place.

Unfortunately, we will never know how many jobs have been lost or never created because our legal culture falsely assumes that software innovation would not take place but for the existence of patent monopolies. Sadly, since small scale innovators can’t afford to lobby congress as effectively as the mega-corporations that benefit from the current system, patent reform is unlikely in the short run.

That leaves the onus on End Users like you to use your market power en-mass to punish companies that use sweeping software patents unethically. While you can’t do anything to influence Patent Trolls, you can bring pressure to bear on real companies that depend on your patronage as part of their business models.

Facebook is such a company and we trust that it will most likely do the right thing and commit this patent to the Public Domain or promise to only use it defensively if confronted by similar claims. Indeed, it was most likely fear of just his sort of patent being granted to someone else that drove Facebook’s business decision to pursue it in the first place.

However, if Facebook were to try to employ it offensively against innovative competitors, it would then fall on its customers to take action by abandoning its platform in large enough numbers to force it to rethink its course of action. Since the management team at Facebook is not stupid, it is highly probable that they will do the right thing!

Remember, the best defense against the abuse of Software and Business Method Patents is a vigilant global community of End Users willing to put up with a little inconvenience should the need arise to insure that sleazy business behavior is punished in the marketplace since that is the only way to make ethical business behavior the only profitable way to do business.

Invoking the automatic upgrade link took us to the usual upgrade page, but nothing happened after the initial upgrade message was drawn on the page.

Disabling all of our active plugins did seem to free up the Automatic Upgrade process, although one data error was reported.

It also looks like some of our old plugins stopped working after the upgrade. We will wait to see if they get upgraded in a next few weeks before permanently deleting them.

Sometimes, as in the case of the Apple Newton, the technology isn’t quite mature enough to deliver on its potential until the marketing damage caused by a poor first impression is irreparable to the brand.

Other times arrogance, avarice, and a failure of vision conspire to cripple a new device, before it even reaches the hands of its potential End Users. Such is the case of Apple’s much vaunted iPad which is only a worthy successor for the Screen of the Newton.

With a decade to improve on that truly innovative creation, we expected no less than a new OS with multi-touch support, as well as a stylus to drive state-of-the-art handwriting recognition, a forward facing cam for video-conferencing, preemptive multitasking, a zoomable interface, a full compliment of standard USB, ethernet, firewire, and solid state memory card ports, a core of deeply integrated notetaking, sketching, and communications modules with an open architecture allowing them to be extended in unforeseen directions, a fresh platform-wide programming language to simplify such development, User Swappable power packs, and an option for wireless video out to an optional transceiver that could be plugged into industry standard projectors.

We expected the freedom to purchase or develop additional software, without paying to join an Apple Developer Program or having to purchase only Apple Sanctioned content through an Apple Store that will probably add to our costs. We would have gladly paid a premium above even laptop prices for the kind of game changer Apple could have offered.

What we were offered was little more than an oversized iPod Touch optimized to act as a mobile cash register to fill Apple’s till.

The old Apple Computer understood that its End Users wanted power and freedom and were willing to pay a premium to have it. Perhaps even more importantly, it believed that we were intelligent individuals and not stupid drones needing to be coddled and told what to think.

How ironic that the face on the giant video wall dictating to the unwashed masses should be none other than that of Steve Jobs himself. Welcome to 1984.

Yet again, Apple has betrayed its core values.

At the IEUC, we still believe in End Users and Open Innovation and look forward to seeing what the rest of the industry will develop to leapfrog this latest affront to common sense.

Once deadlines are past, we will resume daily postings!