How bad was January?

January 2010: extremes and monthly summary
[Via Dr. Jeff Masters' WunderBlog]

The globe recorded its fourth warmest January since record keeping began in 1880, according to NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center. NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies rated January 2010 as the 2nd warmest January on record, behind January 2007. January 2010 global ocean temperatures were the 2nd warmest on record, next to 1998. Land temperatures in the Southern Hemisphere were the warmest on record, but in the Northern Hemisphere, they were the 18th warmest

[More]

Hotter and hotter. The warming oceans are a concern, as they are the major heat sinks for our world. Sea ice extent in the Arctic is almost as low as was seen in 2007 and is the 4th lowest every for January.

And the summer ice-melt season now lasts a month longer than it did in the 80s. That is one less month for the Arctic ice to freeze. Autumn ice freezing now happens about 4 days later every decade. But this is not uniform, with some areas showing much faster changes.

Some areas have a melt season (last figure) that is adding 40 days per decade.

I’m glad that some people in the eastern US had some cold weather this winter. BUt the rest of the world really did not. Anyone who thinks the snow storms in January weakened climate change are just not paying attention.

Maybe I would get a subscription to the NYT

by raneko

Could Bundled Deals Set The iPad Free?
[Via Xeni @ Blogging.la]

The low-end iPad has a retail price of $499 and a materials and manufacturing cost of about $229, according to iSuppli.

Clearly, Apple has plenty of room to be flexible on pricing, just as it did with the iPhone, which started at $599 and is now $199.

Apple plans to take a 30% cut on any media that is bought by iPad users through its online store.

That means Apple could sell the iPad for $100 and still profit from all the media it can sell over the lifetime of the iPad.

But what is more likely is a situation where Apple can sell the Pad for $100 to publishers and then they can offer it for free as part of a subscription deal.

For example, Ryan Tate over at Gawker, reports that the New York Times is considering charging as much as $30 per month for a subscription to the iPad version of the newspaper.

At that price, the New York Times would have enough margin to offer a ‘free’ iPad with an annual subscription. Especially since it can charge advertisers higher rates for the richer ads it can deliver on the iPad.

[More]

If this happened, it could change the face of media. It would be as big a revolution as the original Mac.

Would Apple do this? It would be a really innovative marketing scheme, opening up iPad purchases to people who might never have thought about getting them. And, it might actually work for the publishers, particularly if they banded together so that a free iPad could be had for getting a bulk subscription to many content providers. especially if they worked a little to make the iPad content rally nice. Take a look at Wired’s idea.

Bundle things like the NYT, Wired, Sports Illustrated, etc. into one price to get a free iPad. Make it like cable or satellite TV. If you get the bigger package, you get a better iPad. Essentially, Apple then sells the ‘cable-ready’ boxes for these media companies.

And why stop at print, Include Hulu and other digital video. They all get a piece of the subscription pie. Now we get Apple not only as the set-top box maker but the ‘cable’ company itself. What kind of business model is this then?

Would I pay a monthly subscription fee to get a free iPad? Well, I pay a fee now for satellite TV that gives me a free DVR. Why not one that gives me a free iPad?

And, as time goes on, this new media device and market could become as large as the cable system, providing media (music, news, print, movies, TV) that simply are not available any other ways.

Maybe this is why cable channels are trying to buy media companies and content creators? That would give them a hook into this new revenue stream. Instead of just seeing it as a competitor.

Of course, this also indicates that Apple TV might be incorporated into this whole process, making it the set-top box while the iPad is the mobile box.

An interesting hypothesis. We shall see.

[Listening to: Swallow Wind from the album "Modern Times" by Al Stewart]

[Listening to: Chicago We Can Change The World from the album "C.S.N. (Disc 3)" by Crosby, Stills & Nash]

Ethics win in Canada

by scazon
Winning Essay In High School Ethics Writing Competition Argues That File Sharing Isn’t Wrong
[Via Techdirt]

Well, this is interesting. Despite the various biased, one-sided, “education programs” designed by the entertainment industry for schools, it seems that plenty of students are smart enough to make ethical decisions in a more nuanced and understanding fashion. Michael Geist points us to the rather surprising news that the winner of a high school ethics essay contest wrote his essay explaining why file sharing may be illegal, but it’s not ethically wrong.

She argues that there are a variety of reasons why kids still engage in unauthorized file trading, but one of them is that they just don’t think copyright laws are morally justified. Instead, they see the benefit and the opportunities presented in easier sharing and distribution of works, allowing more people to hear and discover new artists, while opening up lots of new potential business models. All good stuff.

But what’s most surprising is that this essay actually won the contest. While there are plenty of us who understand the views expressed in the paper, you would think that most folks who haven’t thought too much about these issues will quickly resort to the “but.. but… infringement is bad!” arguments, and refuse to even consider an essay arguing that copyright infringement can be morally justified. So, kudos to the judges for at least having an open mind on this one.

[More]

I thought this would be an interesting view, considering the power of media corporations. But then I saw it was from Canada. The essay itself says this:

In Canada, downloading copyrighted material for personal use through sharing, aka peer-to-peer networks, is legal. Uploading the material, however, is not. Canadian law thus presents a catch-22 situation. You are allowed to download as much copyrighted material available as you like, but the person who makes it possible by uploading the material in the first place has broken the law.

What a rational process! They can do this because there is a tax on recoding media that is used to compensate artists. Again, a pretty reasonable way to deal with the fact that you can not stop file sharing.

People need to remember that media companies actually tried to prevent libraries from lending out copies of books. They lost that battle. They would love to be able to prevent second-hand book stores from existing. Luckily, they lost.

They tried to stop the makers of player pianos from doing business. They will continue to do this. It is their nature. But at least Canada seems to have arrived at some sort of compromise. And that is their nature.

[Listening to: Too Much of Nothing from the album "The Very Best of Peter, Paul and Mary" by Peter, Paul And Mary]

Reductio ad absurdum

Could Looking At London’s 2012 Olympics Logo Land People In Prison?
[Via Techdirt]

Well, here’s a fun one sent in by ChurchHatesTucker. You may have heard the somewhat troubling story of the guy found guilty of child pornography for downloading images of the cartoon Simpsons performing sexual acts. It does seem a bit ridiculous to claim that naked versions of famous cartoon characters represent actual child porn, but… so sayeth the court. But, here’s the potential problem:

That is the logo for the 2012 Olympics in London. My first reaction to it was that it’s just hideous from a design standpoint, but others quickly noticed something worse. You can look at that logo and… um… see what appears to be Lisa Simpson… doing something she shouldn’t be doing. Yeah. Once you see it, it never goes away. So, as CHT notes, given that ruling of child porn for having an image of a Simpsons cartoon child performing sex acts… is looking at the 2012 Olympic logo going to be classified as viewing child porn now?

[More]

The Supreme Court has ruled that something counts as child pornography even if no real children were ever involved. A cartoon is just as bad as the real thing. If that is true, then the logical conclusion is that the 2012 Olympics is child porn.

It certainly seems to represent a known child cartoon character doing something sexual. That should be pornography and result in court sanctions.

And if it isn’t, why not? At what point does a cartoon representation of sex move from child pornography to a logo?

Thank goodness I don’t have to worry about this. The case was in Australia and represented the views of the AUSTRALIAN Supreme Court. So it is okay to view the logo in the US. At least so far.

[Listening to: Brother Of Mine - I) The Big Dream, II) Nothing Can Come Between Us, III) Long Lost Brother Of Mine from the album "Anderson Bruford Wakeman Howe" by Anderson Bruford Wakeman Howe]

Now we have the numbers

by Engin Erdogan

New Poll Shows Support for Repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ – The Caucus Blog – NYTimes.com
[Via The Caucus]

As the Obama administration proposes repealing the policy known as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” a new New York Times/CBS News poll finds that a majority of the public support allowing openly gay men and women to serve in the military.

There’s less support, however, for allowing homosexuals to serve openly.

Confused?

[More]

Interesting that there is a 15% drop in favorability based solely on the word chosen. This reflects the similar 16% or so drop I described in the support for evolution depending on whether mankind or animals were involved. It seems that about 1 out of 6 people are very susceptible to word choice when they make decisions.

These people are for gay people but against homosexuals. It would seem that they do not think in any real way about the question but simply respond viscerally to the words chosen.

This suggests why our politics are so screwed up. With the relative numbers of liberals and conservatives about the same, the ability to get elected comes down to this 16% who seem to decide on what to do based purely on the words chosen, not on any real policy decision.

Thus you have people who are against the health care plans, until they are given specifics. Then they are for it.

I am not saying this is surprising. Politicians and marketers have known this for years. We just have what appear to be firmer numbers of just how many react this way. 15%. So you could get just about anything done by just getting those 15% to move your way, using the right choice of words.

And as a rational person (or so I hope) it pains me to think that the future of the country is being determined by people who hate homosexuals but love gays.