Lemons, Tea, and Me ( and you )

Last summer I went on the quest for the perfect ‘adult’ version of an Arnold Palmer — the tasty beverage made by mixing lemonade with iced tea.

I started my quest using Limoncello as the adult drink, and then began to branch out from there. At the same time, my friend Siena set out on a similar task using a vodka infused with Earl Grey tea.

These are some findings:

  1. A shot of Limoncello in a glass of iced tea is quite nice. It’s very refreshing if you’re using a tea with herbal notes – like a Pomengranate Green Tea; its even nicer if you float a bit of sparkling water on top. This is best when the iced tea is unsweetened.

  2. A shot of Sweet Tea Vodka in homemade Lemonade is best if the lemonade is unsweetened. This wasn’t as good with a splash of sparkling water. You can get Sweet Tea Vodka in a bunch of stores, its basically a tea version of Limoncello – about 30 proof and full of sugar.

  3. A shot of Earl Grey Tea infused vodka works well in a sweetened lemonade. I liked mine sweetened with honey. I also liked a bit of ginger in it too. This isn’t bought in stores — to make the vodka, you steep a couple tea bags in vokda for a few minutes; there’s a website with the exact recipe and timings to avoid bitterness.

  4. One of my favorite drinks was serving a San Pelligrino Limonata in a tall glass of ice, and topping it with a shot of Sweet Tea Vodka. The ice and bubbles cut the sweetness quite a bit.

  5. A shot that is 50% Sweet Tea Vodka and 50% Limoncello is a lot sweeter, and smoother, than 50% Earl Grey Vodka and 50% Limoncello.

  6. Unless you have tons of it, homemade Limoncello should be savored on its own. BTW, homemade Limoncello with lime is WAY better than the lemon variety.

  7. I’m missing some drinks we made. There were lots. 2 years worth of experimenting.

Posted in Recipes | Leave a comment

Is Facebook worth $34BN ? Reverse engineering their valuation.

I wrote the below quickly, and a friend pointed out a HUGE mistake I made in haste… the 10:1 google number is alleged to be an earnings ratio, and I based my numbers on revenue. For those that don’t know the difference, a simplified description is: Earnings = Net/Profit; Revenue = Gross/Income.

So the math below is 100% wrong.


Reports came out that Facebook is worth $34BN, up from a previous valuation that pegged it at $20BN.

My first look at this, is that its a drastic overvaluing. Facebook is looking at $1BN in revenue this year, giving it at 34:1 earnings ratio for valuation. That not only looks quite high itself, but Google’s ratio at the time of its IPO was about 10:1.

Some friends have tied this number to growth – but I don’t believe in that argument.

Facebook’s sales haven’t been growing, and its product portfolio hasn’t been growing either — its just a social platform. Google diversified into dozens of monetized verticals, Facebook has only introduced their API.

While its true that Facebook’s userbase is growing, and they have a complete lock on the market at 500MM users, that’s only showing that they have a great product — not that they’re monetizing it well, or are capable of doing so.

In fact, Facebook’s monetization based on users is pretty low — $1,000MM across 500MM users is only $2 per user per year.

A combination of Google’s 10:1 earnings ratio at IPO and this low per-user revenue metric might be how Facebook’s 34BN market valuation was created. Despite being dwarfed by Facebook in users with only 67MM unique users, MySpace has been projected to close 2010 with about $400MM in revenue — or about $6 in revenue per user. If Facebook were to triple its per-user revenue to match MySpace’s performance, $6 user * 550MM users = $3.3MM — which, at a 10:1 ratio like Google’s IPO would come out to 33BN. I’m using slightly out-of-date statistics, so an extra $1BN in error could easily happen.

Having been involved with startups for several years, I can say from experience that this is pretty much in line with the types of comparisons people bring up when claiming a value — and my numbers sort-of match up — so I wouldn’t be surprised if this was how the valuation happened.

Posted in Technology | Leave a comment

Dr. Laura’s issue is with Paid Speech, not Free Speech

I’m increasingly aggravated when people allow pundits to talk about First Amendment rights in the “Dr. Laura” situation.

For those that don’t know, the radio host “Dr.” Laura Schlessinger went on a bit of a politically incorrect tirade on her August 10th radio show , complete with racial epithets and jokes in bad taste. Subsequently, she proclaimed that her show would be ending , “The reason is, I want to regain my First Amendment rights. I want to be able to say what is on my mind.”

Huh? Regain her first amendment rights? Exactly when were they lost?

At no time were Dr. Laura’s rights at risk. At no time was she being restrained from sharing her thoughts. She is, and has always been, free to say whatever she wants.

There’s a small little caveat to Free Speech though — it’s that word “Free”. See, while you’re “Free” to say what you want, whatever it may be, it changes when you’re being “Paid” to speak. When you’re being “Paid” to speak, people can decide that they don’t want to Pay you any more for any reason they want. You can still say things for “Free” — that’s what’s neat about Free Speech — you just can’t make people Pay you to speak.

The matter at hand, is the question if Dr. Laura should be compensated for her speech, and assisted in spreading said speech by the private sector. This is a pretty important question, because furnishing her with a paycheck and a broadcast forum creates a really bad image of her producers, network and sponsors when she starts to engage in “divisive” commentaries — like blatantly racist speech.

This situation has nothing to do with Free Speech. Simply put, this is an issue about Paid Speech and has everything to do with the Free Market , and funding or promoting a forum for Dr. Laura hurts the advertising revenue and brand integrity of her broadcasters and sponsors.

What I find equally troubling about this situation, is the extent to which hypocrisy and demagoguery factors into Dr. Laura’s most ardent supporters. Not only is this decidedly not a Free Speech issue, but the conservative political leaders and pundits who label it as such also claim to be supporters of Free Market economies. Apparently US conservatives such as Sarah Palin believe that Free Markets really shouldn’t be that Free, and that the private sector should be compelled to fund Paid Speech.

That gives me an idea…

Hey @SarahPalin – can you please create a law where private sector companies have to pay me a lot of money to act against their own interests? k thx!

Posted in Politics | Leave a comment

OMG! Apple is trying to patent someone’s app! [ no they're not ]

A tumblr posting just popped up on my radar about Apple trying to patent an app that is identical to one by the company Where-To [Original Posting Here]

The author shows a image comparing a line drawing in Apple’s patent to a screenshot of an application called “Where-To”. The images are indeed strikingly similar.

The author then opens:

It’s pretty easy to argue that software patents are bad for the software industry.

Well yes, it is pretty easy to argue that. It’s also pretty easy to argue that Software Patents are really good for the software industry. See, you can cherry-pick edge cases for both arguments and prove either point. You can make an easy argument out of anything, because it’s easier to do that and argue on black&white philosophical beliefs than it is to think about complex systems.

That’s a huge problem with bloggers though– they don’t like to think. They just like to react.

The author continues:

Regardless of where you stand on that issue, however, it must at least give you pause when Apple, who not only exercises final approval over what may be sold on the world’s largest mobile software distribution platform, but also has exclusive pre-publication access (by way of that approval process) to every app sold or attempted to be sold there, quietly starts patenting app ideas.

But even if you’re fine with that, how about this: one of the diagrams in Apple’s patent application for a travel app is a direct copy, down to the text and the positions of the icons, of an existing third-party app that’s been available on the App Store for years.

Believe it or not this happens ALL THE TIME. It’s not uncommon to see major technology companies have images from their biggest competitors in their patent diagrams. Patent diagrams are meant to illustrate concepts, and if someone does something very clear — then you copy it. So you might see a Yahoo patent application that shows advertising areas that read “Ads by Google” ( check out the “interestingness” application Flickr filed a few years ago ), or you might have an Apple patent application that shows one very-well-done user interface by another company being used as an example to convey an idea. This isn’t “stealing” ( though I wonder how someone can argue both against and for intellectual property in the same breath ) – it’s just conveying a concept. Conveying a concept or an interface in a patent doesn’t mean that you’re patenting it, it just means you’re using it to explain a larger concept.

The blogger failed to mention a few really key facts:

  1. This was 1 image out of 10 images.
  2. Other screenshots included a sodoku game, an instant message, a remote control for an airline seat’s console, a barcoded boarding pass, and a bunch of other random things.
  3. The Patent Application is titled “Systems And Methods For Accessing Travel Services Using A Portable Electronic Device” — it teaches about integrating travel services through a mobile device. Stuff like automating checking, boarding , inflight services and ground options for when you land. The Where-To app shows interesting things based on geo-location.

You don’t need to read the legalese claims to understand the two apps are entirely unrelated — you could just read the title, the abstract, or the laymans description. If someone did that, they might learn this was shown as an interface to navigate airport services:

In some embodiments, a user can view available airport services through the integrated application. As used herein, the term “airport services” can refer to any airport amenities and services such as shops, restaurants, ATM’s, lounges, shoe-shiners, information desks, and any other suitable airport services. Accordingly, through the integrated application, airport services can be searched for, browsed, viewed, and otherwise listed or presented to the user. For example, an interface such as interface 602 can be provided on a user’s electronic device. Through interface 602, a user can search for and view information on the various airport services available in the airport.

Apple’s patent has nothing to do with the design or functionality of the Where-To app. They’re not trying to patent someone else’s invention, nor are they trying to patent a variation of the invention or any portion of the app. They just made a wireframe of a user interface that they liked (actually, it was probably their lawyer or draftsman) to illustrate an example screen.

Either 2 things happened:

  1. The blogger didn’t bother reading the patent, and just rushed to make conclusions of his own.
  2. The blogger read the patent, but didn’t care — because there was something in there that could be controversial.

Whichever reason doesn’t matter — both illustrates my underlying point that 99% of people who are talking about software patents should STFU because they’re unable or unwilling to address complex concepts. Whenever patent issues come up, the outspoken masses have knee-jerk reactions based on ideology (on all sides of the issue), and fail to actually read or investigate an issue.

There was even a comment where someone noted:

Filing date is December 2009….which means Apple’s priority date is December 2008. From what I can see, this app went on sale in mid 2009….going to be hard to argue it is prior art.

They didn’t bother reading the application either. On the very first line , we see:

[0001]This application claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 61/147,644, filed on Jan. 27, 2009, which is hereby incorporated by reference herein in its entirety.

How the commenter decided that December 2008 was a priority date bewilders me. The actual priority date is written in that very first line! They also brought up the concept of ‘Priority’ – which is interesting because that suggests they understand how the USPTO works a bit. “Priority” lets an applicant use an earlier date as their official filing date under certain conditions — either a provisional application is turned into a non-provisional application, or a non-provisional application is split into multiple applications. In both of these cases no new material can be submitted to the USPTO after the ‘priority date’ – It’s just a convenient way to let inventors file information about their invention quickly, and have a little more time to get the legal format in full compliance. A provisional application does have 1 year to be turned into a a non-provisional application — but there’s no backwards clock to claim priority based on your filing date.

I’ve been growing extremely unsatisfied with Apple over the past few years, and I’d love to see them get ‘checked’ by the masses over an issue. Unfortunately, there is simply no issue here.

Update: The brilliant folks at TechCrunch have just stoked the fire on this matter too, citing the original posting and then improperly jumping to their own conclusions. They must be really desperate for traffic today. Full Article Here

Posted in Technology | Leave a comment

And the biggest Brand mistake of the month goes to — Target.

Congratulations to Target on being the dumbest Brand of the month — possibly the year.

After the Supreme Court decision that rendered corporate campaign contributions legal and limitless, Target made a contribution to a Minnesota politician named Tom Emmer. Emmer is against gay marriage — and while I disagree with his beliefs — he does have a right to them.

Target’s contribution, however, has created a serious issue for their brand that may snowball out of control. While many politicians are smart enough to avoid hot-button issues like marriage – for both electability and contributions – Emmer embraces them. Instead of making donations to a generic candidate , who happens to oppose Gay Rights, Target stupidly entered the fray of the Gay Marriage debate by funding someone who is actively campaigning against them. Brilliant.

To make things even worse, Emmer is a supporter ( both financially and personally ) of Bradlee Dean, an unconventional minister / rock musician with some fairly extreme views on homosexuality, including the supporting the practice of executing gays and lesbians.

So Target contributed money to Emmer, Emmer said some things that are offensive to many of their customers, and then Emmer gave some money in turn to Dean who said things are beyond offensive to even more of their customers. That’s a fine mess they’re in.

Target is going to be giving tons of money to hundreds of candidates , because we live in a society where cash contributions mean political access and favors. Few people will have the foresight, or ability, to figure out which of the people they need to support to get some patronage are – for lack of a better phrase – polarizing assholes. This is a sad fact, but its unavoidable.

Anyone in PR and branding with half a brain knows that mistakes happen and people can forgive. But instead of condemning the situation, saying “This is awful – as are the comments”, backstepping out of the situation, and then making a 10x contribution to a politically related yet entirely non-offensive charity ( like a halfway house for at-risk LGBT teens ), Target said nothing. Days later they issued a statement that basically says “So what? Deal with it. We’ll contribute equally to politicians on both sides as we see fit, and this isn’t our fault.”.

Sorry, that’s not good enough. In fact this is bad, downright stupid, and will hurt the Target brand dearly. Instead of distancing themself from hate-speech and a politicized situation, Target is defending their actions. Consumers are now becoming outraged not only at the politics of the situation, but the arrogance of the corporate stance.

In a few weeks, Target will probably be forced to make amends and have a press conference where they apologize to hurting customers but they did no real wrong, and then make some sort of token goodwill gesture or contribution. It will be a touching moment that is perfectly executed after being orchestrated by a PR fix-it consultancy along with a gay lobby group that makes them realize that they can severely hurt the brand and bottom-line. Unfortunately this will be a forced moment – and one that should have come much sooner.

Making contributions to candidates is a dangerous game; your brand can become tied up in political nightmares no one should face. Most large contributers are smart enough to donate to Political Action Committees (PACS) that are rather nebulous — Save the Earth, Save the Environment, Save the Puppies, etc — then let them deal with funneling money to political campaigns. In fact, many PACs are nothing but intermediaries and shell groups designed to make political contributions to candidates with controversial stances non-offensive. Contributions like this can ensure candidates get their payoffs, and contributors get their patronage. Why Target strayed from this puzzles me.

Target injected its brand into a heated political topic, and shouldn’t have. Target had a lot of opportunities to backstep and pull out and they didn’t – in fact, they made things much worse. The subject matter of the debate is irrelevant — this could have been healthcare, sick puppies, immigration, or really anything — a mass-market brand should always come across as politically neutral.

Posted in Advertising, Politics | Leave a comment

Using Game Based Mechanics to Get Healthy

I’d like to think I’m a healthy guy: 14 years a vegetarian, don’t smoke, don’t do drugs, don’t binge drink, mostly eat a low-fat diet that is rich in things like “dark leafy greens” and nutritiously rich ‘superfoods’ like quinoa, practice yoga, and walk or bike several miles every day.

But ( and this is a big “but” ) I don’t exercise nearly as much as I should. Let’s be honest — Walking and Biking don’t count as real exercise — they’re a great component of a healthy lifestyle, but they honestly don’t make up for what you should be doing.

This year I peaked at the unhealthiest I’ve ever been. While my bloodwork at a checkup was magnificent (my doctor even gave me gold stars!) , I had put on 30lbs (of fat) in a 2yr period — almost all of it on my gut. My BMI went from 22.4 to 26.4 . That was not cool.

In effort to fix myself I tried some ridiculous things. I started doing bike sprints back and forth over the Williamsburg Bridge ( which, btw, are really hard ). This task built up my endurance, but it didn’t make me feel any healthier. Then, I freely admit this as I have no shame, I tried exercise videos like Jillian Michael’s “30 Day Shred”. Not only did Ms. Michael’s “Level 1″ basic routine completely floor me, it left me sore for weeks. Only 2 days into her program, I had stressed my body so much that I had trouble walking for days.

It became painfully clear to me (literally, I might add) that I was in bad physical shape, and that I had to do what I most dreaded – I had to start running. I really didn’t want to run, but I knew it was the only way I could get my heartrate up for sustained periods of time, and that was the only actual to get healthy.

There was one little problem though — I can’t run.

After many glowing recommendations, I looked into the C25K program. C25k stands for “Couch to 5k” — a beginners program designed to help people get up off the coach and move from no physical activity to running a 5K race in just 9 weeks. It’s a great, well respected and established plan. It outlines a simple and proven strategy to reach the exact goal I was after… so I bookmarked the site, jotted down some “how to” notes to bring along, and started my plan by heading off to the track with my girlfriend.

And it was on that very first day of the C25K that I completely lost all faith in myself. Despite my expectations and hopes, I couldn’t even run 1/4 of a lap without nearly falling down from exhaustion. My legs hurt. My feet hurt. My stomach hurt. My lungs hurt. My back hurt. Everything hurt. It was miserable. I would have been mad at myself, if I weren’t so preoccupied with feeling completely humiliated. I should have done better than the “Week 1″ plan — it’s a system designed to get fat people off couches, and I walk + bike every day… I even do little sprints here and there… but I couldn’t run a mere 1/4 of a lap around a track. It was shameful. I was shameful.

I’m not the one to back down from a challenge, but I realized that the C25K program — despite being a great system — was simply not going to work for me. Aside from the fact that I couldn’t even fathom meeting the week 1 goals, I knew that I needed to be more aggressive, and I needed to ‘game’ myself into working at this harder. Utterly dejected, I resolved to do whatever it takes to somehow best the C25K.

It took a lot of work and experimentation, but I managed to pull off some magical goals:

  1. 3.5 weeks into running, I ran 3.5 miles straight — that’s a 5.6K run — besting the C25K program by 5.5 weeks ;
  2. After 3-4 weeks, I got down to a 9:45 ‘best’ mile, and my average hovered aroun 10:15 ;
  3. After 6 weeks, my best run was a 8:45 mile ;
  4. After 9 weeks, I could regularly run 5 miles straight.

On top of all that, I started losing a lot of fat, toning all my muscles, and actually feeling good for once! I honestly can’t remember the last time I felt so healthy.

If you’re a seasoned runner, you’d laugh at my “accomplishments”. But keep in mind, on Day 1 I could not even run 1/4 of a lap — 1/16 of a mile. Within 9 weeks I went from not being able to run for longer than 20 seconds without stopping, to being able to run for over 50 minutes.

How did I do it? Game mechanics.

As an internet industry professional with a background in advertising, I’m very familiar with game-based marketing and loyalty programs — engagements designed to foster and retain connections between a customer and the property/brand you represent. When I just stared running, I was in the middle of designing several customer loyalty programs and campaigns with ArtWeLove and a consulting client. I thought to myself:

If game mechanics can be used to strengthen a customer’s engagement with my brands, there is no reason why I should not be able to create a compelling campign where this Track is the Brand and I am the Target Customer.

So I thought of the most addictive video games I’ve ever played — titles like Puzzle Fighter, Bust a Move, and Puyo Puyo — and I thought about how people act when they gamble in Las Vegas on games where both an element of strategy and risk are involved.

I looked for examples of games where moderate success was possible if one “Plays it Safe”, but much higher levels of a windfall successs are only possible if the player is willing to take risks that lead to greater rewards. With this in mind, over the course of a several days I fine-tuned a program that was designed to game me — ensuring that I meet my fitness goals. In this process, I essentially created a 12 step program ( though there aren’t 12 steps ) — and it worked.

12 (actually 4) Steps to Gaming Yourself

note: this is not medical advice, use at your own risk

  1. Like all 12 step programs, you need to admit defeat before you start. You’re not using this program because you want to, or because you think its fun — it’s because you know that: you’re unhealthy, you need to change , nothing else has worked. You need to admit this — that you’re out of shape, that you need to change, and for 9/10 people (including me) you’re at least somewhat fat. You need to realize that you’re at the bottom, because once you’re there, you can either wallow in your own shit, or take the opportunity to only look up. If you can’t do this, don’t bother. You’ll never win at this game – or any other – unless you decide to play it.

  2. I promised myself that I would run on the public track — not on the street, not on a treadmill, not on the greenway — but on the overpopulated track. I did this so I could continually guage and humiliate myself — knowing that there are people significantly better than me. As an average sized 32 year old male, I couldn’t help but be embarassed when Senior Citizens lapped me. It was also humiliating to see clinically obese people run with more stamina and endurance than me. Running on the public track kept reminding me that other people can play this game better than me. If I want to win, I need to beat them. The track is also littered with great markers — every 1/4 lap is clearly marked , and various other markings show intermediate distances.

  3. I promised myself that I would run and exercise each and every day no matter what. Experts say to only run every other day, I don’t care about them – they know me. Friends kept noting that you’re not supposed to run every day either. I didn’t care about that either – they know me, but they’re not experts. This logic is impeccable.

    My first 2 weeks I ran 7 days a week and stacked other exercises on top of this routine 3 days a week. After 2 weeks I dropped down to 4-5 days of running each week, and alternated those days with other forms of exercise (instead of stacking them). In order to keep some variety for my muscles, I would run 2-3 days straight for endurance / distance, and then 1 day for speed. If I recall correctly, Dr. McDougall notes that for his namesake lowfat-vegan diet, one must to commit to the first 10 days which are the hardest — once that point, sticking to the plan is significantly easier. I took this approach to running like that as well.

  4. I played my Running Game (details below) every day. My girlfriend thinks its both amazing and insane that I was able to codify a ruleset like this to motivate me – especially one so excruciatingly complex. But it is honestly really simple to master, and can get you from not being able to run to running long distances in a matter of weeks.

The Running Game

  1. I set a distance target of 3 miles – a number that I arbitrarily made up as the distance relatively healthy people seem to be able to run easily. This means that every day I need to run 3 miles. This does not mean that I need to go on a 3 mile run — but that I have to run 3 miles before leaving the track. At an average pace of 12:30 — which most people can achieve after a week or running — that means a max of about 37minutes of running a day. So I could run 1/4 a lap, then stop, 12 times. I could run 1 mile, then stop, 3 times. However, if I were to run 1 mile and then walk 1 mile, I would have to do that 3 times as well — only distances spent running count(!) — this was a huge departure from most other running programs, but it’s a key point to get results.

  2. I set endurance goals based on distance. The C25K program set goals based on time. I think that’s great for some people – but for me it just doesn’t work well – I needed my primary measure to be distance. I chose 1/4 mile markers for 2 reasons:

    a. I couldn’t run 1/4 mile on the first day, so I find that significant b. these intervals are clearly labeled on the track, and its very easy to estimate the midpoint between any two as a secondary mark.

  3. Every day, I would try to “level up” — making the distance that I’m trying to run slightly longer. On the first day, I started on the “1/4 lap” level – meaning that I had to run 1/4 of a lap. In order to clear a level, I had to perfect it 3x within 2 days or 2x in a row.

  4. At least half of my running each day must be spent at the current level or pursuing the next level. Example: If you’re trying to advance from .5 Miles to .75 M, only .5 M lengths count towards your 3 M quota of the day. Any smaller distances only count as a half fraction: a .25 M length in this example would only count as .125 M towards the 3 mile quota. This system penalizes you for bad performance.

  5. When perfecting a level, a level may be “overshot” and count towards advancing to a higher level. In essence, you advance to the shortest common distance of your last few attempts (if they’re higher). So if you’re trying to run “.5M” and can run “.75M” — do it! Example: trying to run “.5M” you run .5M, .5M, .75M — you clear “.5M” ; trying to run “.5M” you run .75M , .75M , 1M — you clear “.75M”.

  6. In order to offset penalties for under-performance and entice rapid leveling-up, you automatically create and maintain a daily “bank” of accrued distances that will count at 100% so long as you stay “committed” and can cash out at an “eligible” time. Two non-sucessive distances in a bank may also count as “in a row” to clear a level as well.

    This is the single most complex rule of the game, akin to “offsides” in association football, so it needs a heftier explanation. During a running session, all completed distances go into your daily “bank”. You are considered to be “committed” as long as your walking breaks are no longer than the greater distance of 1/4 a lap or 1/4 your last distance and your last distance is at least 1/4 of a lap. You are “eligible” to cash out when you complete a distance for the level that you are trying to clear or have reached the 3 mile daily quota. For example, if you’re still trying to clear 1/4 lap, 1/2 lap or 1 lap, any distances below those levels will count fully as long as: 1. you don’t walk for more than 1/4 a lap , and 2. you either fill your daily quota or sucessfully clear the 1/4, 1/2 or full lap. Also, If you run a mile straight, you can walk a full lap before you must start running again, and as long as all your successive distances are at least 1/4 of a lap followed by no more than 1/4 lap of walking, your bank will be active and you can cash-out on 3 M or clear the level on your next full mile that session.

This program won’t work for everyone. Admittedly, you probably need to be INTJ/ENTP or exhibit a hint of Asperger’s Syndrome for it to float-your-boat. The benefits of this program have been great – I’m now running 5 miles per session , both as a continuous run or made up of various segments ranging from 1M to 4M — allowing me to work on pace and endurance at the same time. Soon I should be able to attempt my one true goal — outrunning a starved lion on the African plain next Summer. (that is a joke).

Posted in Personal | Leave a comment

Don’t Get Too Excited About the LOC’s Copyright Decisions

Today the Library of Congress announced new laws ( perhaps more accurately interpretations of existing laws , as their rulings created ‘exemptions’ to the DMCA laws ) designed to strengthen the concepts of “Fair Use” in as it applies to the corpus of U.S. Copyright law.

The LOC’s decisions are both shocking and enlightening — few expected such an interpretation could ever be possible given the extensive amount of lobbying special interests spend before lawmakers.

Honestly, while I’d agree that their decisions are “correct” and within the spirit of the law, I’m completely fucking floored they had the balls to do the right thing. This is – undoubtedly – a HUGE day in U.S. law.

In a nutshell, the Library of Congress said that it does not violate the DMCA or Copyright Law to circumvent digital protections — that is to say that one is free to descramble a DVD for legal use, jailbreak a digital device (ie: iphone), or circumvent a hardware dongle for legally obtained software. For years people have said that a common-sense and fair interpretation of the law should allow for these things — but industry lobbies used highly paid lawyers with bizarre reasonings and countless campaign donations to influence the development of laws to suit their interests.

While I’m very excited about this win for democracy and fairness, I’m not entirely sure that the decisions are anything to be excited about in terms of ‘resolution’ to these issues.

While the Library of Congress has clarified the law to allow for these types of uses as not a violation of Copyright , they have not (nor are they probably able to) ensured that these are rights that may not be given up through contract law.

For decades, lawyers have relied upon contract law to make up for deficiencies in copyright law – creating new protections for their clients by sidestepping any arguments around copyright. For example, while it would not be a violation of US Copyright Law (under the new interpretations) for a user to modify Apple’s software, there could exist a contractual clause — like an End User License Agreement [EULA] or Terms of Service [TOS] between a consumer and Apple or their cellphone carrier to make modification of the device prohibited. Apple could then sue customers based not on Copyright, but on Contract Law.

If you don’t think these types of contracts would come into play, look at the full text of TOS and EULA of software that you buy… or websites that you use like Facebook or MySpace. You might note numerous passages that talk about who can access the servers and under what conditions — large media companies like these routinely use Contract law to chip away at access to fair-use content. Expecting industries to become more relaxed at this practice, while they lose certain copyright protections they believed they had, is nothing short of ridiculous.

It would have been truly remarkable if Congress were to ensure that people have irrevocable rights to circumvent copy protections and modify devices — rights that can not be given up or outlawed within any contract. Sadly we don’t have that yet. However, this decision also means that the numerous lawsuits that the media lobby might bring up in these areas would not be in federal courts and handled by federal investigative agencies — but that they would be in civil courts with the plaintiffs responsible for their entire bill. I’ll drink to that!

Posted in Technology | Leave a comment

Everyone’s talking about the need for a privacy oriented Open Source solution for an open social graph

And a lot of people are asking me “Weren’t you doing that four years ago?”

Well yes, I was. In fact I still do.

My company FindMeOn Open Sourced a lot of technology that enables a private and security based open social graph, in 2006

The findmeon node standard allows people to create ad-hoc links between nodes in an graph. Cryptographic key signing allows publicly unconnected links to be verifiably joined together to trusted parties.

Our commercial service manages node generation and traversing the graph. Even using an account linked to a third party, as ourselves, privacy is maintained .

There’s also a bunch of graphics and images related to security based inter-network social graphs on my/our Identity research site. A warning though, half of it is about monetizing multi-network social graphs:

Posted in FindMeOn, Identity Research, Social Media, Start Ups, Technology | Leave a comment

Facewash: The only way to fix Facebook’s abuse of privacy is to devalue their data.

Short and sweet – the only way to fix Facebook’s abuse of privacy is to devalue their data.

As long as monetizable data exists, a company will try to productize it. This holds true for Facebook, as it does for every other corporate entity and even non-profits – this is simply the core nature of a business/organizational entity.

Bad press, high-profile people deleting accounts, micro-revolutions might win a battle over user privacy, but they’ll never win the underlying war. While some may turn to the government to legislate solutions, seasoned and jaded folks like me know two truths: legislation on technology always “gets it wrong”, and we have the best government that money can buy.

Anyone in the industry long enough can easily tell you that Facebook’s privacy measures aren’t enacted to increase user-experience — they’re enacted to open up the data for Advertising purposes. When information becomes “public” it’s not just open to view by other people — it becomes fair game for multiple monetization strategies: userbase analytics, non-anonymous user info and tracking, data brokerage to third parties, application-development or services by third parties, etc. As long as data is monetizable, companies such as Facebook will continually try to maximize the revenue they possibly can.

For a long time, social networks insisted on closed ecosystems — or so-called walled gardens — to keep their data safe. A recent trend in Data Sportability ( my term for the continued trend of companies releasing standards slightly more open than those currently most open) has seen these companies slowly open up to monetize in new ways — groups like Facebook assume that they’ve won the platform wars and want to increase their reach, groups like Google assume they have the most raw-computing power.

Whether the data exists on Facebook or another site becomes irrelevant – this is a cause & effect scenario that will continuously repeat.

So the only way to make privacy not an issue, is to make the underlying data irrelevant. Without the ability to monetize data in a meaningful way, there exists little or no reason to force egregiously open privacy protocols.

A really simple method of doing this — one I wish I had the time to execute on — is a tool that I would call “Facewash”. Here is how it works:

  • A user drags a bookmarklet onto their browser toolbar, then visits their Facebook profile.
  • Clicking on the bookmarket starts reading information from Facebook — such as their personal info, their likes and dislikes, etc — and sends it into the cloud as unrelated data.
  • The bookmarklet then retrieves new unrelated data from the cloud, and walks the user through updating their profile — removing “Likes”, adding new random “Likes”, changing bits of their profile information that are not core to a user experience.
  • The cloud based system could either try to send back as much of an ‘average’ profile as possible, or could try and create wildly conflicting profiles that would match edge cases of audience profiling.

The end result ? Facebook’s user profiles become worthless to advertising interests. When behavioral and social data starts to have a high probability of irrelevance to the represented audience, the marketing value disappears. Advertisers wouldn’t trust Facebook’s data, and if they did — they wouldn’t know how to market to people. Without the interests of advertisers, corporations like Facebook wouldn’t even bother trying to push for relaxed privacy settings any longer.

My only question is — anyone know a couple of JS developers who want to build this for me ?

Posted in Advertising, Social Media, Technology | Leave a comment

its 2010, and browsers still don’t have a way to stop javascript

if you click this link, in most browsers you’ll wish you hadn’t

It’s 2010, and every browser that I use still disables the interface and any chance to exit/stop javascript during loops/alerts.

If you clicked the button above, you’ll be racing to squeeze in a “Close Window” keyboard shortcut as fast as humanly possible.

Fucking brilliant.

@sayrer fix pls, k thx bye.

Posted in Thoughts | Leave a comment