What I'm Reading
Department of Civil Disobedience: Google Should Deliver Its YouTube Data to Viacom in Paper Form
The recent court order directing Google to hand over data to Viacom about every YouTube video ever watched strikes many people as an absurd overreach of the law into the privacy of anyone who has ever used YouTube (i.e., almost everyone on the Internet). Google should definitely keep fighting the ruling if it can.
But if it can’t, perhaps it should comply with it in a creative way. The data in question are data logs containing the records of every video watched on YouTube, by whom, and at what times. The court is also ordering that Google hand over all videos that have ever been taken down for any reason. The logs alone take up 12 terabytes. Google should print them out and deliver them on paper.
It would literally fill up the Library of Congress. That is roughly the equivalent of all the printed books in the Library of Congress (by one estimate, others put it at 20 terabytes—either way, it’s a lot of paper). The court order never states what form, the data must be delivered in.
(Photo via, appropriately enough, the Library of Congress And hat tip to reader Paul Christiansen for the original suggestion).
Crunch Network: CrunchGear drool over the sexiest new gadgets and hardware.
In the Online Advocacy World, Free ain’t always Free
Several conversations over the past few days have kept coming back to the same point: in the online world, things that seem cheap often aren’t, and things that seem expensive may actually be the cheaper alternative. For instance, Eric Rardin mentioned it in an email today, pointing out that just about any kind of “free” online outreach you can think of (blogs, list-building, social networking, etc.) actually takes a significant amount of time, and that a group or campaign looking to build a list may be better off buying names from a good opt-in source (such as Care2, the company Eric “coincidentally” works for).
Want to get an idea of the REAL cost of social networking outreach, for instance? Eric recommends a certain company’s social networking return-on-investment calculator. Another example would be advertising — Google Ads or BlogAds may be a cheaper attention-getting tool than spending staff time trying to reach people online through more hands-on means. Video? Cheap to shoot, free to post, a serious pain to edit.
The same logic often applies when you’re building websites. For instance, open-source software such as the Joomla platform I’ve been using lately doesn’t cost anything to download and install, but it can be extremely time-consuming to get set up — and there’s no manual. Yes there’s documentation, but it’s sparse at best and written by tech nerds for whom English is rarely their first language, even if it theoretically is. I’ve spent hours digging around for solutions to what should be relatively simple problems, when if I’d bought any of several $100-$200 content management systems, I’d get a manual, an online product support forum run by the guys who built the software AND a tech support phone number. Maddening. Free is free, except when it ain’t — and if you’re planning a web technology or outreach project, be sure to count the REAL costs.
– cpd
Encouraging results from Peer-to-Patent
Congratulations to the organizers of
Peer-to-Patent,
which is carrying off one of the most audacious experiments in
Internet activism in our day. A lot of ink has been spilled about
Barack Obama's application of social networking techniques to
presidential campaigning (and to Ron Paul's successful fund-raising
before that) but Peer-to-Patent makes those achievements seem entirely
run-of-the-mill.
The premise behind Peer-to-Patent, which many observers called
impractical, was that thousands of experts in technical fields would
flock to the site to read patent applications (if you've ever read
one, you'd hike the stakes against success several notches right
there) and would find prior art that would lead to rejection or
restrictions on patent claims.
Well, it's working. A report released by the non-profit project in
PDF format
reports the data from surveys and an analysis of patents handled
during the first year of the project. The sample is small (23 patents)
but bears some impressive fruit.
First, people are signing up: over 2,000 so far. Second, they're
submitting prior art: 202 pieces. Most important: they're enjoying the
work and would volunteer again.
The patent examiners--employees of the US Trademark and Patent Office
who are responsible for evaluating applications--also like the
project. They overwhelmingly say they appreciate the submissions and
would like to work with the community more.
How about the proof of the patent pudding? Nine rejections of patent
claims cited prior art found by the Peer-to-Patent volunteers.
Even more significant is the sources of the prior art. When
patent examiners reject a patent, they usually cite previous patents
as prior art. This has undeniable value by keeping someone who is not
truly an inventor from gaining control over an existing technology,
but it doesn't perform the crucial role of the Patent Office in
protecting public information that is already open for use by
everyone.
So when the Peer-to-Patent project finds that volunteers submit a
relatively high percentage of non-patent prior art, it suggests that
they can really keep free information free: unencumbered by
unwarranted patents.
We need a lot more data, of course, before we'll know whether
Peer-to-Patent really works. But it's different from other
patent-busting projects because it's structured around effective group
participation. It's not just a form to fill out or a Slashdot-style,
free-for-all comment page. It's a real community, with a clearly
defined purpose and a spirit of cooperation.
Even if it becomes institutionalized, Peer-to-Patent can't fix
everything that's wrong about the patent system. That will require a
close look at laws, at patent office regulations and funding, and even
at the structure and incentives in the court system that handles
patent litigation.
What Peer-to-Patent does suggest is that governments and
volunteers from around the world can work together to solve problems.
Government can become more efficient and respond more flexibly to
public needs, while individuals can effectively wield power by working
together. Technology is central to the effort. Let's watch this
project.
Keep Rocking: 30+ Sites for Free & Legal Music
Downloading illegal music has become a hot topic on the Web. So much so that it’s easy to forget about the plethora of sites dedicated to free, legal music. We’ve put together a list of 30+ sites that will keep your MP3 player playing until your batteries are completely drained.
Whether you’re into pop, jazz, metal or classical, there’s something here for everyone. Let us know which are your favorites.
Amazon MP3 Store - The vast majority of the music at Amazon is for sale, but they do have a rotation of free tracks available for download.
AmieStreet.com - Focused on promoting new and independent music, their downloads range from free to $0.98 as they grow in popularity.
Archive.org - An enormous collection of public domain music, expired copyright tracks, as well as some free contemporary music.
ArtistServer.com - It started off as a resource for independent electronic musicians, but is now open to all. All tracks can be downloaded for free.
BeSonic.com - Offers over 13,000 free tracks from mostly European acts.
BetterPropaganda.com - A music webzine covering hundreds of music labels, and offering thousands of free & legal songs for you to download.
CCMixter.org - a site dedicated to music that you can download to remix and post your results, all under the Creative Commons license.
Download.com - Most people think CNet’s Download.com is just about software, but they also have tens of thousands of free MP3s you can download from new as well as up and coming bands.
Epitonic.com - A large selection of free tracks from smaller record companies that are free to download with larger releases available for purchase.
EZ-Tracks.com - Offers over 30,000 legal downloads that are managed through a partnership with the labels. Starts you off with credit for 101 free upon registering.
FreeAlbums.blogsome.com - A blog that posts reviews of complete albums that are available for free downloads from numerous sources.
GarageBand.com - Independent bands can upload their music, then have it rated by users, as well as downloaded for free.
Imeem.com - Features streaming music from all of the major labels as well as numerous smaller companies, with numerous free downloadable tracks.
ItsFreeDownloads.com - Finding the free downloads on iTunes can be a chore, this site does the work for you and lets you know what’s free each week.
Jamendo.com - Artists upload their albums under Creative Commons, allowing new listeners to discover their work. Although free, there is the opportunity to donate to the performers of your choice.
Last.fm - While most people know Last.fm for its streaming and social aspects, they offer a weekly chart of downloadable free mp3s.
LegalTorrents.com - Proving that not all BitTorrent activity is illegal, LegalTorrents is filled with completely legal material.
Live Music Archive - Part of Archive.org, features thousands of live performances by smaller bands as well as the likes of the Grateful Dead and Jason Mraz.
MetalHordes.com - A band promotion site focusing on various forms of heavy metal, and allowing bands to upload mp3s users can download for free.
MP3.com - Besides their paid section, MP3.com does offer a large selection of free tracks from acts small and large alike.
MP3.com.au - Focusing on Australian bands, mp3.com.au offers a repository for bands to upload their music for people to download and try for free.
MP34U - Works in conjunction with Muzic.com, this site finds sources of free music & legal music from all over the Web.
MP3Raid.com - Searches multiple sources to bring you approximately a million free song downloads.
Muzic.com - A sister site to MP34U, wherein the artists upload their tracks themselves, and muzic.com helps them promote their work.
Purevolume.com - Allows independent musicians to set up profiles for themselves, stream their music and gives them the option of enabling their work for free downloads.
Ruckus.com - Ruckus provides free music to people with .edu email addresses, and requires you to renew your licenses for DRM once a year.
SoundClick.com - Offering a mixture of signed and unsigned artists the opportunity to set up profile pages and either stream their music or offer it up for free downloads.
SpiralFrog.com - Major release albums and tracks available for the price of just watching some advertisements.
Stereogum.com - Daily free mp3s from various artists, as well as rotating free albums.
TuneShout.com - A site for independent artists to promote themselves. Artists can upload tracks either for free or at a user cost of $0.89.
We7.com - We7 offers mp3 downloads for free, but they do have advertisements attached to them. If you want them without the ads, they do offer a paid alternative.
---
Related Articles at Mashable! - The Social Networking Blog:
Clickster Offers Supposedly Legal MP3 Downloads
Study Confirms: Piracy Is Better Than The Real Thing
SpiralFrog Signs Sony/ATV for More Free Music
Warner Music Group NOT On Board With QTrax
AnywhereCD, Warner Music Reach Agreement
7digital Raises $8.5 Million for Games and Video
Napster Investor Settles Last Lawsuit for $130M
Mark Schmitt & Reihan Salam: Our Anti-City Constitution
Great Apes Granted ‘Human Rights’ by Spanish Parliament
New Renderings and Floorplans for 100K Project
ISA has been working on some new renderings for the 100K project due to some contests and articles we are working on. The first image below of the 100K rendering plopped onto the actual site is probably my favorite image generated to date. Definitely follow the link to the full-size flickr image on this one. Sometimes I forget that this is going to be an actual built project with all the delays we have suffered and this image just got me really excited about building the homes and seeing them completed on the street. I also like the fact that ISA left the weeds in the sidewalk that surround the property.
We plan to fix up the sidewalk and plant as many trees as possible along the street so this isn’t exactly what it will look like, but it is the best view to see what the buildings will look like on the corner. Also below are updated floorplans for both homes and a rendering of the rear of the homes that shows the metal grid detail for the vines to grow up. Pretty cool.
100K House Street Context Rendering
Updated 100K & 120K Floorplans
100K House Rear View Rendering with Ivy Screen Detail
Other links with these updated images:
100K Current Renderings Flickr Set
Why was Arlington so ahead of its time?
Image via Arlington Fire Journal.Roger Lewis writes in the Post about Arlington's foresight in building the Orange Line where it did:Arlington planners and politicians were bold, optimistic and foresighted. They insisted that the Orange Line to Vienna run underground through Arlington, following Wilson Boulevard and Fairfax Drive, rather than running along the Interstate 66 right of way ... They expected that billions of dollars of private real estate investment would be attracted to the Rosslyn-Ballston corridor ... Yet in the 1960s, Arlington's leaders had no crystal ball. They simply had faith that properly located rail transit would catalyze the revitalization of what was then a suburban strip of spotty, low-density commercial properties.There's one burning question I've been wondering about for a while: why? Planners in Fairfax County made the opposite decision. Montgomery County officials got the Red Line underground and did zone densely in Bethesda and Silver Spring, but spaced their stations widely and ended up with mostly strip-mall development on the rest of the corridor (as Lewis discusses in the piece). Bay Area counties put BART along their freeway medians, creating a system that was almost entirely park-and-ride outside San Francisco.
All of these jurisdictions had the same information at the same time. They all knew rail was expensive. They all had NIMBY neighbors who wanted to keep their towns low density (According to Schrag, Arlington had a group called Co-Opt pushing for downzoning around Metro stations; a similar group in Montgomery got Takoma Park downzoned to single-family homes).
Nevertheless, yet Arlington leaders not only decided to build a denser, transit-oriented corridor but pushed incredibly hard to get WMATA and its predecessor, NCTA, to put the line under Wilson instead of I-66 where it was originally drawn. How did they do it? Were there a few visionary planners in Arlington? A general culture of smart planning? Especially farsighted politicians? A different political climate? In short, why did Arlington make one decision, while most other jurisdictions in Greater Washington and around the country made the exact opposite?
(author unknown)10 Things You Need to Know From The Economist’s Energy Report
The Economist has an awesome primer this week on what the world’s clean energy landscape could look like, called “The Future of Energy: It’s Closer Than You Think.” But hey, it’s 14-pages long (Economist pages!) and we know in these digital times you just might not have the time or attention span to get through it all. You should read it, but here’s what we thought were 10 important notes and tidbits from the report:
How Are Infotech and Cleantech Markets Different?: The energy market is $6 trillion per year — or about a 10th of the world’s economic output. Infotech is in the “mere hundreds of billions.” The Economist says infotech is disruptive in that it replaces the existing infrastructure (think VoIP to phones), in comparison to the fact that new wind farms don’t replace coal plants. (We beg to differ. As prices of alternative power and fuels become the same price or less than coal power, that will be disruptive and power-generators could choose it as a replacement.)
How are Infotech and Cleantech Markets Similar?: It’s the same people back again. The report names all our daily fodder — Elon Musk, Vinod Khosla, John Doerr, Google founders, Richard Branson. And this choice quote points out the biggest similarities: “This renewed interest in energy is bringing forth a raft of ideas, some bright, some batty, that is indeed reminiscent of the dotcom boom. As happened in that boom, most of these ideas will come to naught. But there could just be a PayPal or a Google or a Sun among them.”
What Regulation Do We Need?: The Economist says, “If the world were rational all of these measures would be swept away and replaced by a proper tax on carbon.”
Carbon Storage Is Experimental and Expensive: Capturing carbon emissions and storing them underground is iffy and costly, concludes the report. We like their easy explanation of how the storage part actually works: the report says that the appropriate place to store carbon is “1 km underground,” the rock has to be porous enough to accommodate the carbon, and has to be covered over with non-porous rock so the carbon won’t leak out. The three places where carbon capture and storage is actually happening, according to the report, are Weyburn-Midale CO2 Project, the Salah Gasfield Project in Algeria run by BP, and a site run by Norwegian oil company Statoil.
Details on Solar Startup 1366 Technologies: The report profiles solar guru Emanuel Sachs of MIT who invented the string ribbon solar manufacturing technique, which Evergreen Solar commercialized, and who is working on a new startup, 1366 technologies (we wrote about it here). The report points out that Sachs and his crew are looking to make solar cells 27 percent more efficient at a cost below $2 a watt, by using nanotech to redesign the surface of the silicon crystals to keep light “bouncing around inside a cell until it is absorbed;” he’s doing the same to the wires, too.
Geothermal is Being Neglected: Geothermal systems, or what the Economist explains as “controlled, artificial volcanism,” are being neglected because the technology is largely invisible. The report quotes an MIT researcher Jefferson Tester that says spending $1 billion on demo geothermal projects over the next 15 years could help create 100 gigawatts of geothermal in the United States by 2050. The report also notes that the Phillipines gets a quarter of its electricity from underground heat!
Biotech Is the Answer to Biofuels: The Economist’s biofuels section focuses on how biofuel startups are using biotech to manipulate microbes, enzymes and crops. “Biotechnology may have cut its teeth on medicines, but the big bucks are likely to be in bulk chemicals. And few chemicals are bulkier than fuels.”
The Most Radical Thinking is Going on In Biofuels: The report names at least 15 biofuel startups and says the sheer number of participants means that “the most radical thinking” in renewable energy is going on in biofuels. Companies named include: Amyris, Ceres, ArborGen, Synthetic Genomics, Choren, Range Fuels, Coskata, Iogen, Abengoa, Mascoma, LS9, Marathon Oil, Codexis, Danisco and Virent Energy.
The Material Genome Project: An interesting tidbit that we hadn’t looked at before — there are about 30,000 inorganic chemical compounds that would be good to make into electrodes, the problem is going through that big ol’ list in the lab. MIT battery scientist Gerbrand Ceder thinks something called the “Material Genome Project,” which uses computer modeling to do the calculations, can help significantly.
Venter’s Synthetic Genomics Working on Algae: The report says genomics scientist Craig Venter and his startup Synthetic Genomics (which we’ve written about here) is genetically engineering algae to secrete its oil as soon as it’s been produced it. The company’s algal cells expel the oil to the surface of the pond, which allows it to be easily collected.
10 Things You Need to Know From The Economist’s Energy Report
The Economist has an awesome primer this week on what the world’s clean energy landscape could look like, called “The Future of Energy: It’s Closer Than You Think.” But hey, it’s 14-pages long (Economist pages!) and we know in these digital times you just might not have the time or attention span to get through it all. You should read it, but here’s what we thought were 10 important notes and tidbits from the report:
How Are Infotech and Cleantech Markets Different?: The energy market is $6 trillion per year — or about a 10th of the world’s economic output. Infotech is in the “mere hundreds of billions.” The Economist says infotech is disruptive in that it replaces the existing infrastructure (think VoIP to phones), in comparison to the fact that new wind farms don’t replace coal plants. (We beg to differ. As prices of alternative power and fuels become the same price or less than coal power, that will be disruptive and power-generators could choose it as a replacement.)
How are Infotech and Cleantech Markets Similar?: It’s the same people back again. The report names all our daily fodder — Elon Musk, Vinod Khosla, John Doerr, Google founders, Richard Branson. And this choice quote points out the biggest similarities: “This renewed interest in energy is bringing forth a raft of ideas, some bright, some batty, that is indeed reminiscent of the dotcom boom. As happened in that boom, most of these ideas will come to naught. But there could just be a PayPal or a Google or a Sun among them.”
What Regulation Do We Need?: The Economist says, “If the world were rational all of these measures would be swept away and replaced by a proper tax on carbon.”
Carbon Storage Is Experimental and Expensive: Capturing carbon emissions and storing them underground is iffy and costly, concludes the report. We like their easy explanation of how the storage part actually works: the report says that the appropriate place to store carbon is “1 km underground,” the rock has to be porous enough to accommodate the carbon, and has to be covered over with non-porous rock so the carbon won’t leak out. The three places where carbon capture and storage is actually happening, according to the report, are Weyburn-Midale CO2 Project, the Salah Gasfield Project in Algeria run by BP, and a site run by Norwegian oil company Statoil.
Details on Solar Startup 1366 Technologies: The report profiles solar guru Emanuel Sachs of MIT who invented the string ribbon solar manufacturing technique, which Evergreen Solar commercialized, and who is working on a new startup, 1366 technologies (we wrote about it here). The report points out that Sachs and his crew are looking to make solar cells 27 percent more efficient at a cost below $2 a watt, by using nanotech to redesign the surface of the silicon crystals to keep light “bouncing around inside a cell until it is absorbed;” he’s doing the same to the wires, too.
Geothermal is Being Neglected: Geothermal systems, or what the Economist explains as “controlled, artificial volcanism,” are being neglected because the technology is largely invisible. The report quotes an MIT researcher Jefferson Tester that says spending $1 billion on demo geothermal projects over the next 15 years could help create 100 gigawatts of geothermal in the United States by 2050. The report also notes that the Phillipines gets a quarter of its electricity from underground heat!
Biotech Is the Answer to Biofuels: The Economist’s biofuels section focuses on how biofuel startups are using biotech to manipulate microbes, enzymes and crops. “Biotechnology may have cut its teeth on medicines, but the big bucks are likely to be in bulk chemicals. And few chemicals are bulkier than fuels.”
The Most Radical Thinking is Going on In Biofuels: The report names at least 15 biofuel startups and says the sheer number of participants means that “the most radical thinking” in renewable energy is going on in biofuels. Companies named include: Amyris, Ceres, ArborGen, Synthetic Genomics, Choren, Range Fuels, Coskata, Iogen, Abengoa, Mascoma, LS9, Marathon Oil, Codexis, Danisco and Virent Energy.
The Material Genome Project: An interesting tidbit that we hadn’t looked at before — there are about 30,000 inorganic chemical compounds that would be good to make into electrodes, the problem is going through that big ol’ list in the lab. MIT battery scientist Gerbrand Ceder thinks something called the “Material Genome Project,” which uses computer modeling to do the calculations, can help significantly.
Venter’s Synthetic Genomics Working on Algae: The report says genomics scientist Craig Venter and his startup Synthetic Genomics (which we’ve written about here) is genetically engineering algae to secrete its oil as soon as it’s been produced it. The company’s algal cells expel the oil to the surface of the pond, which allows it to be easily collected.
