The concept of Intellectual Property allows a person to 'own' a piece of information. But how far does the definition of 'a piece of information' go? Surely the process for creating a specific soda product falls into this category, for this is exactly what Pepsi-Cola and Coca-Cola do. This is a 'recipe' for a product if you will. While the basic ingredients it is comprised of are known to the public, the specific combinations of those ingredients, and in what form is a closely guarded secret. So what about the 'recipe' for a piece of software? Any programmer can tell you the constructs needed to build a piece of software, but the specific combination is the secret. But how complex must a 'recipe' be before it can be considered Intellectual Property? Bisquick is simply a common combination of certain ingredients that can then be used in other, more complex, final products (pancakes, biscuits, waffles, coffee cake...). So it is a component of a larger final product. At what point must we deny ownership of a combination of basic ingredients? Is it 3 ingredients, 4, 5, 10, 20? The complexity, or number of ingredients, needed to secure a patent or copyright has been steadily, and dangerously decreasing. Assuming that patent and copyright laws were created to spur innovation and creativity, their purpose will be perverted when such a basic level of combinations is allowed to be patented that no one can create a new final product, because it will infringe upon the copyrights of the many components it must necessarily be built out of. The system needs reform. I don't know what the answer is, but I do know that the problem will only get worse until an answer is found.

[This Entry]

So here is a set of somewhat connected thoughts about my life:

1. Acoustic music is awesome.
2. BYU can actually put together a decent show sometimes.
3. I kind of know Linear Algebra.
4. Ultimate has proven itself amazing, once again.
5. I get sunburned in under 2 hours.
6. I can't get a date.
7a. I don't like being lied to.
7b. Fake excuses don't make me feel better when I know it's a lie.
7c. I can take rejection and disappointment, story of my life; but lying to me? That's just insulting.
8. I can still enjoy acoustic music even though I can't get a date.
9. I haven't had a meaningful relationship since I threw away the 3 year one I had because I was trying to do what was "right".
10. I'm a little depressed about everything right now, but getting $100 rebate checks in the mail make me feel better... And Ice Cream.. mmm Ice Cream...
11. I have alot of work to do, and no desire to do it.

Your life is probably better than mine, so enjoy it.

[This Entry]

The world of media distribution is changing. A new industry is emerging and, as with most new industries, an old industry will need to adjust. In 1880 the light bulb was invented. The candle making industry thought this would destroy them. But there are still plenty of candle makers around; they have had to adjust their business, but they haven't disappeared. Adam Smith's metaphor of the invisible hand dictated that this change occur. The consumers and the industry need to accept the changes that occur with developing technologies. With respect to artistic content creation and distribution the consumers have embraced the new technologies that represent an "on-demand" mindset. Meanwhile the companies existing around the traditional approach to distribution have been fighting this change. What these companies don't seem to understand is that the consumers will continue to use the new technology regardless of the legality of it. The industry providing the content needs to accept this fact, and adjust to the new means of creation and distribution rather than continuing to fight it, alienating the very people they are trying to sell to.

[This Entry]

This is the paper I wrote after reading "The Success of Open Source" by Steven Weber:
http://www.singingtree.com/~kyle/blog/files/OSS.html


[This Entry]

It is refreshing to see a company stand their ground against the United States government in a moral dispute. Google has refused to provide the U.S. Justice Department with access to private user data. Allowing the government access to this kind of information freely, in both meanings of the word, is a very dangerous place to go. Regardless of the intended good that is to be done with the sensitive information, allowing the access sets a precedent. The current issue may be innocuous, an attempt to help prevent kids from stumbling upon pornography on the Internet, but future issues will assuredly not be so clear. And once the precedent has been set, it will be just about impossible to prevent any government agency from getting whatever information they deem important for whatever cause they happen to be pursuing. Privacy advocates have been crying out against Google almost since their creation. They claimed Google would use the data it collected for nefarious purposes. For just as long, Google as insisted that they value their customers' privacy above all else. This is proof of Google's commitment, especially considering that all other companies turned over their information to the Department of Justice without question. If this information access is allowed, how long will it be before the government begins demanding access to Google email accounts? Sergey Brin is right, "It's a path we shouldn't go down." It's too dangerous to the let the government have this access, and outside the bounds of the Department of Justice to demand it. Hopefully the court system will see this, and rule in Google's favor.

[This Entry]

The Internet is the perfect place for Family History work to occur. It is a work that requires millions upon millions of connected pieces of data to be available quickly, to anyone. A centralized database system, as exists at FamilySearch.org, is exactly what's needed to do genealogical work online. Any user, anywhere in the world can access the same set of records and instantly find the information they need. They are also able to instantly add to that information to increase the common knowledge. An atmosphere of working toward a common goal and helping each other permeates genealogical work in general. When combined with the ease and connectivity of the Internet this atmosphere explodes into massive amounts of work being accomplished. The coordination that occurs prevents people from repeating work that has already been done. This elimination of waste work compounds upon itself, creating a synergistic effect. As more people coordinate their efforts via the Internet, less work is wasted on completed projects, and more work is done on unknown areas. This type of collaboration and coordination could not occur without the Internet. There was simply no way to communicate this amount of information as quickly or efficiently.

[This Entry]

The large telecommunication giants feel they aren't being treated fairly in the grand scheme of the Internet. They are attempting to institute a tiered structure which will involve higher prices for 'priority service'. Priority service being defined as faster more reliable connections. They plan to send these price increases to the content providers of the Internet; Google, Yahoo, and any other company that exists primarily on the Internet. The claim made by John Thorne, senior vice president for Verizon, that Google "is enjoying a free lunch that should, by any rational account, be the lunch of the facilities providers." is utterly ludicrous. Telecommunication companies are simply the link between customers and content providers. And they are already getting two slices of the same pie. Customers have to pay them so they can access the content found on the Internet, and paying more for faster and more reliable service is already fairly standard. Content providers have to pay as well in order for their content to be made available to customers. So the telecommunication companies get paid once by customers, and once by providers for the same information. A piece of data traveling from Google to a customer is charged to be sent from Google to the telecommunication company, and then is charged again to go from them to the customer requesting it. And they think it somehow is fair to charge the content providers again for that same data. This is simply another case of the greedy becoming more greedy. Like any moocher, they've seen success, and now want to get their unfair share of the proceeds.

And I could say much more, but then the topic slightly shifts, and I get in trouble for not having a clear subject matter.... so I stop here.

[This Entry]

So... yesterday I decided to make cookies, alot of cookies... I went to the store and bought the ingredients around 10 am or so... and was then making cookies until about 8 pm... yup, 10 hours of cookie making... I made snickerdoodles, oatmeal, butterscotch chip, and peanut butter blossoms. I was going to make chocolate chip too, but miscalculated my butter needs. (have you ever used 2 lbs of butter in 1 day? or 5 lbs of flour?). All told I made somewhere around 350 cookies, give or take 10. We packed them up in the Chinese food boxes Josh had, and then I went around delivering cheer to all the apartments that I knew people in. and I still have alot of cookies left (apparently I don't know all that many people).

Anyways, my heels were really sore by the end of the day, but the cookies taste awesome, and I got to make people happy, so all is well.

-------
Now for something completely different:

Progress on the experiment at work is going quite well. I've just about added all the functionality to Aviones that it will need. And by the end of this week I should have it ready to go. Bring on the underclassman guinea pigs.

[This Entry]

I think applying Title IX to the classroom would drastically lower the competency level of mathematics, science, and any other subject matter in the United States. I believe that the main focus of Title IX in athletics was to ensure equal funding to both male and female teams. Sports teams are not co-ed, and there were many serious circumstances where male teams were receiving more funding than female teams. Title IX has resolved the funding issue. Classrooms, however, are co-ed. There is no discrepancy in funding for males and females. If Title IX were to be enforced over academia a large number of problems would immediately arise. First, schools and universities would suddenly have to deal with all the administrative overhead of knowing and enforcing which students were in which classes. Public schools would be hit especially large, my high school certainly didn't have any extra money, and programs were constantly being cut to stay within the budget. Once students reach a college / university level they should be able to study whatever they want, they're paying for it. If Title IX is enforced, suddenly the majority of students wanting to go into engineering or computer science are told to find a new major because they're male. If the purpose is to create a better educated, and motivated workforce of the future denying students access to their interests will achieve the exact opposite. How could it possibly make sense to deny a student from the field they are interested in because that area has 'too many' males, or 'too many' females. While the motivation behind the bill may be for increasing opportunities in fields dominated by either sex, the result would be a dramatic drop in the quality of students exiting institutions. Rather than focusing on education we'd be focusing on quotas and diversity ratios. The effect would be contrary to the design, and detrimental to society as a whole.

[This Entry]