Alternative title: a gander is an entirely different animal than a goose.

Via CoyoteBlog, I see that the good Senator does not think that rules he devised should apply to him.

I've argued before, in some post that I am too lazy to find, that a coherent scheme of individual rights necessarily recognizes an individual's ability to contract away his or her rights, if the price is right. The classic example is a confidentiality agreement. It's every individual's responsibility to determine whether the rights he or she is signing away are worth the particular mess of pottage he or she gets in return.

So, is heath care — or at least, health care from a particular doctor — worth submitting to a gag order?

Continue Reading »

No need to worry about Jon Krakauer writing a book about me.

In the end, the altitude won. 2 of the 4 of us made it all the way up. I was chivalrous and waited with one of our group who could not go on (yeah, chivalrous. It had nothing to do with the altitude catching up with me..) In the end, I made it about a mile from half dome (I did go ahead about a mile on my own to get some pictures).

What an amazing experience. Of course, I stupidly left my camera in my friend's car last night so the pictures will have to wait a bit. Still, here's a few initial thoughts:

- I was really surprised at how quickly the weather changes there. Clouds rolled in super quick. It sprinkled a little, which was welcome.
- There was a really ill timed hot streak that hit right as were leaving the backpacker's camp. This unfortunately coincided with some steep hiking with little shade. That really took the steam out of a few of us.
- One of the strangest parts of the whole thing was the proliferation of discarded clothing all over the place. It's as if people just toss clothes aside as they make their ascent. It was all over, and some of it looked like pretty good stuff. I have no idea why so many people would not just put their sweatshirts in their pack or something.
- The altitude wasn't really a factor for me until the end. Then it hit hard. The last 2 miles were some of the hardest hiking I have ever done.

So, it's Sunday, and I almost achieved my goal. I made it really far, and (given my lack of real preparation) am pretty happy with how I did. My achilles tendons are killing me, but otherwise I am about as sore as if I had played hoops. I'm definitely going back in a less manic manner, and enjoying all that Yosemite has to offer.

So, this weekend I am hiking halfdome. It's one of those things to do before you die sort of places. I'm ashamed to admit that I have lived in the Bay Area since I was 10 or so, and have never been to Yosemite.

Here's the rubs (note the plural..). It's a pretty darn strenuous hike, and (despite playing weekly basketball) I am not in what you would call great shape. I'm gonna be a little embarrased if I don't even make it to the cables. Oh yeah, the cables. To actually get to the top, the last several hundred yards are essentially climbing up a better than 45 degree angle holding on to metal cables. Not the smartest thing I have ever done.

Last (and perhaps most foolishly) I am going with young people. Admittedly they are only 10 years younger, but still it adds up. Instead of staying there the night before, we are engaging in the lunacy of driving up overnight, and starting the hike from there. It makes me old just thinking about it. I'm not sure I could keep up with them even if I were well rested and prepared. Now, I think I might be set up to fail.

Here's the thing. I will be really disappointed in myself if I get all the way there & chicken out & don't climb to the top. I mean sure, if I don't think I can do it physically, I won't, because it is legitimately dangerous. But, I'll still be mad at myself.

I cannot wait for the incredible views tomorrow. This will be a great adventure. Here's hoping I can take it all the way.

Sorry Chris, but this is going to be another "how cool is living in SF" post. The other day I was walking around and found a little trailer selling some incredible crepes. I talked with the folks there briefly, and they let me know that San Francisco has a great tradition of "street food" and that most of it is now coordinated by Twitter.

Turns out, you can get everything from curry to tamales to goat tacos, on the streets of San Francisco (sorry, I couldn't resist..) in conveyances ranging from the classic taco truck to a guy on a bike. And, they use Twitter to tell you exactly where they are going to be. They also give you hints as to what's on the menu.

Acting as a guiding force in this is an organization called La Cocina. They are helping street vendors deal with city ordinances and permits, acting as incubators for food ideas and even offering kitchen space for aspiring street vendors. Here's a map they put together of some of the many choices around SF.

I'm not usually one for the Twitter/flashmob/social networking sort of thing, but (probably because I love food like I love oxygen..) this whole thing just seems very cool to me. It's almost enough to make me sign up for Twitter and follow a bunch of these folks in hopes they make it to my neck of the woods. Especially those bacon wrapped hotdogs!

Among the technologically inclined, its new vehicle may be Facebook.

Having relationship troubles? Is your significant other interrogating you, asking about your communication with people you used to date, or even with acquaintances you speak with infrequently?

Blame Facebook, say three researchers at the University of Guelph, in Ontario.

The reason? Jealousy. And not just any jealousy—"Facebook-specific jealousy," say two Ph.D. candidates in psychology and their advisor. They add that such jealousy may increase the amount of time that you—or your significant other—spend on the social networking site.

It's an interesting thesis.  I disagree with it, that Facebook fuels jealousy within couples, and that this in fact causes (perhaps I should say provides an excuse to those already so inclined?) people to spend more time on the network, but I'm not an avid Facebook user.  I have an account but I'll go weeks without looking at it.  And then sometimes I'll post entry after entry in frenzied fashion.  And while I have a partner who's an avid Facebooker, my partner doesn't seem to look at my contacts, nor at what I write there, though we're "friends" on the service.  And I (sorry if you're reading this) never look at what she posts.  Our offline relationship seems to be enough.

But then my experience may be atypical.  Still, I'd say that, rather than "causing" or "creating" jealousy, Facebook and social networking generally, like any good technology, allows the jealous to exercise their vice more efficiently, and with greater frequency if they're the sort that finds jealousy stimulating.

Many do.  We've had labor-saving technologies serving most of the seven deadly sins, Wrath, Greed, Lust, Gluttony, etc. for decades.

It was only a matter of time before Envy caught up.

Betty or Veronica? Like Ginger or Marianne, boxers or briefs or Dark Knight or Batman it's the sort of question that defines people. Well, now we know the official answer, and I don't like it. Archie has forsaken the girl next door for the vapid rich girl.

My bias to Betty is strong, I admit. I have always been a sucker for the whole girl next door thing, and Betty (despite being a blonde bombshell herself) was more the salt of the earth type. She seemed kinder and nicer than Veronica, and definitely treated other people (with the possible exception of Archie) better than Veronica did.

And, what are we to make of the whole triangle? Was Archie casually dating both of them? Was he stringing them both along? Were they both stringing him along? It was one of the stranger love triangles portrayed in any medium. Both the possible paramours were not only well aware of each other, but actively hung out together. It's a wonder Archie survived.

PS – the veiled reference in the article to future Archie is sort of creepy. Apparently we needed to know if they consumated the relationship or not.

Kimberly Block's ADA lawsuit against Squeeze Inn might have ended differently.

The Sacramento woman who sued the tiny Squeeze Inn hamburger restaurant over its lack of wheelchair access has dropped her lawsuit.

Kimberly Block, 41, filed a civil rights complaint July 6 against the Squeeze Inn under the Americans with Disabilities Act. In the lawsuit, Block claimed she suffered "embarrassment and humiliation" when she tried to eat there last November.

For reasons set forth in our previous post and comments on the topic, Block's suit seemed a classic shakedown, the sort of abuse of a well-meant law which gives a bad odor to anyone who attempts to use it for legitimate purposes.  While I support the idea behind the Americans With Disabilities Act, abusive or ill-founded suits like those filed by Block (her fourth this year) and individuals like Thomas Mundy give me, and many others, pause about the law.

Still, the internet does get the word out.  When the ADA was enacted, the internet was limited to people who could afford dollars a minute for access, or university systems.   A suit like that filed by Block and her attorney, Jason Singleton of Eureka California, would have proceeded in silence with barely a voice raised in protest.  And months later, people in and out of Sacramento would wonder whatever happened to the cramped cheeseburger joint on Fruitridge Road?

Another only in San Francisco moment (sort of like when I was walking to work this morning, and a gentleman in a light purple zoot suit, complete with matching long scarf, politely enquired if I wanted to buy a jeweled watch) as Hasbro converted famously curvy Lombard Street into a Candyland board to celebrate the game's 60th birthday.

It's nice that they got kids from local shelters & hospitals to play, and I bet it was a fun experience, but couldn't they have given them a better game? Heck, even chutes & ladders. I would love to see a huge version of Carabande on Lombard, but the insurance would be a nightmare. Heh.

If you want to use the word "Edge" in a videogame, Tim Langdell would like to have a word with you.  Or perhaps a nice lawsuit.

Eight months ago David Papazian was on top of the world. His company, Mobigame, had just released its first videogame for the iPhone. In the space of just a few weeks it had won two prestigious awards. The past two years of early mornings, late nights and tireless endeavour were set to pay off; the sacrifices had been worth it, the indie developer dream was coming true.

Today, he sits dejected and worn. Banned in the UK, USA and Germany, his game may be critically acclaimed but, for most, it is also impossible to buy. On 15th July, 2009, just one week after Apple nominated Mobigame's debut title as one of their 'Top 30 Favourite iPhone Games', it was removed from the App Store. Not because it's unfinished, or because it might damage your hardware, nor any of the usual reasons that software is removed from sale. Rather, it's banned because of its name: Edge.

That's because "The Edge" is a registered trademark of "The Edge," a 1980s relic game company formerly known as "Softek: Masters of Development."  Though the company's actual output of games released since 1990 would make 3D Realms, of "Duke Nukem Forever" fame, seem industrious, The Edge, and its President Tim Langdell, have marked up impressive revenues in trademark litigation.

Any developer or programmer attempting to release a game using the word "Edge" places itself at risk of an infringement notice, a cease-and-desist order, and a lawsuit from The Edge, Langdell, and company.  This despite the fact that "Edge" is such such a commonly used word, on its own and in combinations like "Bleeding Edge," "Cutting Edge," and "Edge of This, That, Or The Other Thing" that one doubts the distinctiveness of the mark, as generic a term as can be imagined, much less a likelihood of confusion, which is required to establish a claim of infringement.

Unfortunately, as small-time developers like Mobigame whose story is linked above can attest, the damages and legal fees which can result from a successful trademark infringement claim, even one involving a word as generic as Timothy Langdell's "The Edge," can be catastrophic.  Better to fork over, or name one's product something else (though Langdell has never, to my knowledge, published a game called "Edge") than to take the risk that a company whose primary business may be trademark litigation will strike.

In fact, what games does "The Edge" publish?  Its primary product seems to be Bobby Bearing, a retread from the 1980s which is licensed for mobile phones and retro-on-demand services like Gametap:

which bears an uncanny resemblance to Atari's "Marble Madness," published years earlier:

Mobigames, through its counsel, disputes that "The Edge" is a valid trademark registration in the first place, disputing the distinctiveness of the term, in other words that it's absolutely generic.  That may or may not fly, but there can be little doubt as to The Edge's record against deeper pocketed defendants such as Marvel Entertainment, which The Edge litigated and lost to over the terms "Cutting Edge," "Double Edge," and "Over the Edge."

But the distinctiveness, or lack thereof, of the term aside, The Edge's, and Langdell's, pattern of threat and litigation, while not actually publishing any games, illustrates a weakness in the US and world intellectual property system.  The very point of a trade or service mark is to protect value in a distinctive name for a distinctive product.  By repeatedly making threats, filing suits and disputes, whatever value there may have been in the name, "The Edge," has been destroyed by Langdell and the company itself.  Any product the company may, some day in the distant future, produce will have little value because it's attached to a "trademark troll."  While the point of a trademark is to protect a good name, The Edge has no good name to protect.

Meanwhile, The Edge sits like a bloated spider at the center of its trademark web, pulling in flies like Mobigame for the sin of using a verboten, yet utterly nondistinctive word.  It's possible the company's most valuable asset is its claim to ownership of a word.  It certainly doesn't appear to be making games.

Use it or lose it.

Thanks to reader Tom Lawrence for the tip.

Unless I'm dealing with Google.

Google, and the groups suing the company over Google's past, present, and future efforts to digitize the contents of libraries, are taking the position that books and other creative works of intellectual property are fungible.

Under a proposed class action settlement agreement, authors will be paid a set royalty rate for the digitization of their works, which will then be available to the public through the internet, whether the authors desire it or not.  Already published books, under the settlement, will become commodities like fish or dog food or paper.

The problem is that books, by and large, are not fungible:

<Adj.> 1 : being of such a nature that one part or quantity may be replaced by another equal part or quantity in the satisfaction of an obligation <oil, wheat, and lumber are fungible commodities>;
2 : interchangeable;
3 : flexible;

While, as a consumer of books, I'm happy enough for myself that if this settlement goes through I'll have access to many more than I have now, and for free, I'm deeply concerned about the fairness of this settlement to the authors themselves.  I'm sure many will be happy to get a little money they wouldn't otherwise receive.  Others don't know about the settlement, or don't care.  And still others think they should have the right to control their intellectual property, absolutely.

In the latest objection [to the Google Books class action settlement], Scott E. Gant, an author and partner at Boies Schiller & Flexner, a prominent Washington law firm, plans to file a sweeping opposition to the settlement on Wednesday urging the court to reject it.

“This is a predominantly commercial transaction and one that should be undertaken through the normal commercial process, which is negotiation and informed consent,” Mr. Gant said in an interview. Google and its partners are “trying to ram this through so that millions of copyright holders will have no idea that this is happening.”

Unlike most previous objections to the project, which focused on policy issues and recommended modifications to the settlement, Mr. Gant argues that the agreement, which gives Google commercial rights to millions of books without having to negotiate for them individually, amounts to an abuse of the class-action process. He also contends that it does not sufficiently compensate authors and does not adequately notify and represent all the authors affected.

This is the problem with the settlement.  Under ordinary legal principles, if I take a fungible commodity from you, say I total your car, all I owe you is the market value of a suitable replacement.  Every 2004 Toyota Camry is the same.

That can't be said of books.  Although it may seem that every book by Harold Robbins is just like every other, and for that matter every book by Jacqueline Suzanne or Ira Levin, or that most fantasy books printed today are just yesteryear's Dragonlance novels warmed over, that's not true.  Every book, no matter how horrible, is unique, unless it's plagiarized or stolen, in which case the law grants the victim the right to an injunction against further copying, the right to say, "Stop! This is mine. You may not copy or reprint it without my permission and on such terms as I demand."

Only now it isn't.  Under the Google Books class action settlement, Google, alone in the universe, would be allowed to reprint and redistribute the work of any author who doesn't opt out of the settlement, with or without the author's consent.  And it's a fair bet that most authors don't know that their rights are being bargained away.

How the case got certified as a class action is beyond me.  How a court could order a binding settlement, eliminating the unique right of each author of Harlequin Romance novels, or for that matter more worthy authors, to say, "You may not copy this," calls into question whether class actions are really that good an idea to begin with.

Here's hoping the court recognizes that as well.  The ideal outcome would be for the court to reject any settlement that isn't agreed by each affected author, or better still, to decertify the class entirely, leaving Google, and the authors whose work it may or may not be stealing, to deal with one another in individual lawsuits.

At last, the perfect bathroom book!

What, did you think this entry was about sex?  It's old news, but it was new to me.

Earlier this year, my brother and I celebrated the release of the great PC baseball game Out of the Park Baseball by starting a new league in 1900. The idea is that we use only made up players, but keep the existing teams, expansion rate, and everything else. I chose the Giants (with the vein hope that we will play long enough to see San Francisco) and my brother plays the Cubs (or the Orphans as they were known in 1900) so that we are in the same league. We take terms simming/playing any games we want. The only real rules are that any time we play each other, the home team gets to play or sim the game.

The season played pretty quickly, we would often move the league file back and forth a couple times a week. From the beginning, Chicago was hot and the Giants were sort of lurking a little ways back in 2nd or 3rd. Then Chicago lost 3 OF to injury in short order, which really crippled the team, and led to some ugly lineups. This coincided with a pitching slump that dropped them in the standings.

Around the same time, New York took advantage of their near bottomless pockets, and traded for George Quint, a young 3B who was leading the league in hitting, but that Cinncinnati couldn't afford. We had to give up a pretty good young pitcher, but it was well worth it, as Quint led the majors in hitting and in homers (with an unheard of total of 13!)

The reason we could survive with a 3 man rotation is that we have the best pitcher in the game. Andrew Orson, the Stormin' Mormon, won 34 games in our first season and led the majors in strikeouts. He was also 2nd in ERA. He did wear down a little towards the end of the season, and we had a rough patch when my #3 starter was suspended for throwing at one of Chicago's hitters, leading to a brawl.

It came down to the last 2 days of the season. We were playing the Phillies who were tied atop the league after beating us in the first game. Orson was starting, and he was his usual brilliant self, spinning 8 innings of 3 hit, shutout ball. After handling the Phils, the World Series was anticlimatic, as we swept the Detroit Tigers.

Now we head into the offseason, which should be interesting. There is no free agency, and players can be traded, bought and sold at an owner's whim. Given that Quint and Orson are both in their 20s, the Giants feel pretty good about the future.

This has been a fun experience, creating our own history. I'm looking forward to seeing if Orson is a one year wonder, or if he will someday be our version of Cy Young. And will the Giants be able to keep paying the ridiculous $6,000 salaries of their top stars? If you have any interest in baseball or in league building, I highly recommend Out of the Park. It's very easy to set up any sort of legacy league you want (I have another solo play of the Giants starting with when they came out to SF using real players, so I can watch Willy Mays go!)

Nicholls State University in Louisiana are the Colonels. They are named after a Confederate soldier (and former governor) Louis T. Nicholls. The Colonels previous mascot was a genteel looking white bearded man in a vaguely Confederate gray uniform. Strangely, the NAACP took issue with that. They finally dropped the look in 2004. Now, they have a new logo. It's a different direction, that's for sure. I wonder what Stalin thought of the cover 2? Maybe they could be the commisars now?

OK, just off the top, I am not a Raiders fan. Never have been. To some of their disturbingly cultish fanbase that makes me incapable of discussing the (cue freaky Al Davis voice) greatness of the Raiders (and man, would I love it if I could get some Raiders folks around here. They make the Paulbots look sane!)

Anyway, the latest great step the Raiders have taken is having their head coach punch out an assistant coach. And, here's the kicker, it happened two weeks ago and the story is just now getting out. The assistant refused to identify his attacker! Yikes!

To my mind, this goes beyond the whole rough and tumble the NFL seeks to portray. You can cross a line between manly posturing and assault, and I would say this case qualifies. Add to it the bizarrely paranoid world of the NFL in general (taken to deliriously ridiculous levels by the Raiders) and something tells me Hanson will end up apologizing to the Coach!

But, on the plus side, it was the first hit a Raider has made in at least three years.