Quality of life is a topic often discussed. There are so many different methods used
to try and measure this rather intangible aspect of our experience. We all have some sort of intuitive grasp of what it means, however: fulfillment and engagement, contentment and industry.
We want to neither go without nor to have everything simply handed to us. We desire peaceful lives sprinkled generously with happy events while also being spared from overly repetitious dullness. We crave companionship and simultaneously seek out competition. We hope that taken together these characteristics will lead to a wonderful tapestry woven of our experiences, relationships and memories which can whisper to us the meaning of our lives.
So quality of life does not seem to be an overly esoteric concept, yet it can be devilishly hard to get a hold of. Certainly life is not perfect and many things can and do go awry over the course of a lifetime; but even with those unavoidable bumps, we ought to find patterns of life quality in our choices and experiences.
Actually Finding It Is Another Thing
Living well is something that is learned. At least, I know that I'm still learning more about what it means to do so every day.
One thing I've noticed is that we tend to construct unfortunate narratives which get us to focus on things that do not really contribute to quality of life at all. It's perhaps easier to identify these narratives by imagining the autobiography of a live driven by them:
"On that fateful day 25 years ago, I finally managed to find a store in the mall that had the phone I had been looking for. I activated it and downloaded Angry Birds. The very next day I went to work with people I can't really remember anymore working on something I only recall as being rather boring; at least I don't think I learned anything from it, though it certainly allowed me to pay for all the network I was using with my new phone."
Really? It isn't like we all need to be riding rockets to the moon or painting the next Mona Lisa, but certainly we can live in a way that adds to something worth reflecting on in years to come.
Yet collectively, we are investing so much in things with far too little meaning, typified by punch-the-clock jobs used to make us into engines of consumption. Yes, we need to work. Yes, new toys and gadgets are awesome. Yes, Angry Birds is indeed a little addictive. These should be fillers, though, not the content of our existence.
So I Asked Myself: What Can I Do?
If I wish to live in a world where people are living lives worth living, then I need to try and help create an environment that supports that.
I wish to engage in ways that contribute to the mindset of living meaningfully. I want the things I make to contribute to and support the unfolding of meaning in the lives of others.
Getting there means stepping aside from some of the dominant models in society today such as "the person as consumer" and "the person as work unit". It means finding models of value that emphasize lives lived with quality. It means creating things that reflect that value.
In short, I can't rightfully expect to find lives of quality if my own efforts work in the opposite direction. I know I will not always achieve such high aspirations, but I can certainly try and, hopefully, succeed often enough to make a difference of some size.
Epilogue
This set of make, play and live blog entries may read like so much philosophy, but these are things I truly care about and which I want to find at the heart of my efforts. They are the metrics by which I wish to measure myself by, and which I hope to inspire others to consider as well. If I can manage that, what better life could there be?
Some new market research says Android tablets have now taken 39% of global market share. There are reasons to suspect that Nook and Fire tablets account for a bit more than half of that, but we’re still left with something of a mystery to explain.
We know why people are buying the Nook and Fire; they’re media-consumption devices tied to strong brands – book and movie viewers with web access as an additional draw. The mystery is this: Who has been buying the general-purpose Android tablets, and for what uses?
Somebody is buying them. We know this because retailers and distributors keep restocking newer models; if the sell-through percentage on the older ones was bad, that wouldn’t happen. There’s a lot of talk of “channel-stuffing” which ignores a salient fact: electronics retailers aren’t in business for their health. Carrying inventory costs money, and non-performing product categories aren’t cut a lot of slack these days. When you see vendor shipment reports rising as fast as they have been in this category, a hell of a lot of product has to be being bought off of retailers’ shelves somewhere.
More generally: a sufficiently determined vendor can maintain an illusion of steady or only slightly declining sales by channel stuffing if they’re willing to pay enough marketing support that they are, in effect, covering the cost of goods and shelf space for the retailer. (Hello, Windows Phone 7!) What they can’t do in the absence of actual sell-through is induce the retailer to dramatically increase his exposure. Android retailers have been doing that.
The mystery deepens because until quite recently Android tablets could be divided neatly into two groups: a handful like the Galaxy Tab that were acceptable designs at ridiculously high price points, and a bunch of shoddy crap with no obvious use cases at all. It wasn’t like early Android smartphones; even the G-1, the very first, was a respectable design that was useful the day it shipped and is still useful today. In the tablet category, “low-end” meant 4-to-7-inch Taiwanese devices with weak processors, streaky displays and only intermittently functional single-touch sensing.
Yet, the behavior of vendors and retailers tells us this shoddy crap actually sold, and sold in ton lots. The handful of high-end Galaxy-Tab-like devices that were not crap were simply too pricey to be driving the market volume.
Only at the end of 2011 did this begin to change in a significant way. I had predicted on this blog that it would, but was about two months too optimistic about the timing. Now we have a bunch of midrange designs that are no longer crap but I don’t think are quite good enough yet, and I’m still wondering – who is buying these things, and for what?
The afterlife of the HP TouchPad may provide a clue, if of a negative kind. When HP released the discontinued hardware to retailers in order to cut its losses. there was a popular run on the product that was frenzied enough to attract media attention. I observed at the time that this suggested a large pent-up demand for tablets below the iPad price point.
Now it’s time to go back for another look at the TouchPad. Because likely, it’s an index of the same demand that was grabbing crappy tablets off the shelf before the TouchPad, and is buying this month’s so-so tablets. Thus, what those were being bought for is partly defined by the things that the discontinued TouchPad couldn’t do.
Internet over the cellular network? No. The TouchPad, and low-end tablets in general, are only useful as WiFi devices.
Privileged access to a trove of tied content? No. That’s what’s selling the Nook and the Fire, but the TouchPad sold without that kind of hook and low-end Android devices don’t seem to need it either.
The usage profile we’re left with is, basically, (1) web browsing, (2) YouTube, and (3) gaming. Or, to be even more concrete: Facebook, LOLcat videos, and Angry Birds. Do not underestimate Angry Birds – every time I’ve seen a tablet being used in public by kids, they’ve been playing Angry Bird on it.
If this is what’s been going on, what does it imply about the future?
I think the most obvious implication is cautionary for Apple, B&N, and Amazon and even Google: the behavior of early adopters may be leading them to overestimate the mass-market value of their walled gardens. The mobs of people who bought out the TouchPad stock within a day of release were signaling a lack of interest in iTunes; likewise, whoever have been buying crappy Android tablets in mass quantities clearly don’t care much about Amazon or B&N e-books or even the Google Android market (many of the low-end devices don’t license it).
It’s only going to get more interesting out there as the generic Android tablets improve. The trends are clear; we’re probably no more than 5 or 6 weeks from general availability of Android 4.0 tablets with 10-inch capacitative multitouch displays at $250.
When that happens, I think life is going to get more than a bit precarious for the Nooks and Kindles of the world. Those are being sold near or below cost because the vendors expect to make back the margin on tied media, but I suspect they’re fooling themselves – misreading demand for the generic abilities of the devices as demand for their particular gold-plating. Until now the distinction hasn’t mattered much, but they’re going to be increasingly vulnerable to disruption from below.
Yes, that goes for the iPad, too. We’re already seeing erosion of its share, 10% over the last year according to Strategy Analytics. That’s more ominous than it might seem precisely because in most objective ways the iPad’s competition has been pretty weak sauce. That’s changing now; in the near future, better hardware capacity than the iPad will be available at a lower price point.
At that point, we’re going to find out exactly how much tablet consumers are actually willing to pay Apple for its software and its brand. Interesting times…
If you've been watching the DNA Lounge webcasts over the last decade, you may have noticed that the picture is kinda dark and grainy, nightclubs being what they are.
I'm wondering whether the available tech has advanced to the point where I could improve low-light performance and/or resolution without spending a fortune.
I strongly suspect the answer is no, but I figured I'd throw it out there.
About half of the shots you typically see on the stream are coming from that same batch of camcorders that I bought back in 1999, all of which are Sony TRS17 or similar. They are indestructible. They're "nightshot" camcorders, meaning they have IR, but we don't use that. They just happened to be pretty good in low light without IR. The rest of the shots, especially for shots of live acts on stage, come from a pair of Panasonic WV-NS324 pan-tilt-zoom cameras.
All of them feed analog SD NTSC to a video switcher, and from there to the webcast. Details.
So, one option would be to replace them all with whatever the lowest-end HD camcorder is, re-cable everything for HDMI-over-Cat5, and get an HDMI switcher. This would mean getting rid of the panning cameras and replacing those with fixed-position fixed-zoom shots, which is probably fine. But, even if the camcorders are only a couple hundred bucks each, that would still probably come out to over $5k, which is kind of steep for something that makes us no money whatsoever. It also couldn't easily be done incrementally, due to the switch from composite coax to HDMI.
You'd think there would be an easy way to deliver video from the cameras to the switcher as MPEG streams over Ethernet, instead of going through uncompressed HDMI and a bunch of Cat5 converters, but if there is, I'm unaware of it.
Please note: before you suggest a camera or camera system, bear in mind that most "security systems" are designed to be used in environments that are as bright as the surface of the Sun. Most non-camcorder video cameras eat shit in less than 7 lux or so. What I have now are lower than 1 lux. If something says "0 lux" that's a lie (that means "it comes with an IR spotlight, and will give you a goofy-looking black-and-white image.")
The server that hosts my web sites has the IP 199.48.144.20. It is located in Santa Clara, California. But based on the weird behavior I get when retrieving URLs from there, I infer that Google, Youtube, Myspace and Facebook think it's not in the United States.
I assume this means the IP block is mis-listed in some database somewhere. Who runs that database? Since they all have it wrong, they must have gotten their data from the same place.
I don't even know what country it thinks it's in... But it's not here.
The release tarballs are found at:
Also the following public repositories all have a copy of the v1.7.9 tag and the master branch that the tag points at:
url = git://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git
url = https://code.google.com/p/git-core/
url = git://git.sourceforge.jp/gitroot/git-core/git.git
url = git://git-core.git.sourceforge.net/gitroot/git-core/git-core
url = https://github.com/gitster/git
As already reported in various places (including lwn.net and Linus Torvalds), the most notable feature in this release is unarguably the improved support for the pull-request based workflow, in which participants can exchange their histories more securely, even over a potentially untrustable hosting service. This is truly an end-to-end support, starting from the inception of a topic branch with its own description, use of the branch description and the message in a signed tag in a pull-request message, use of the message in a signed tag in the resulting merge commit and verification of the signature when reviewing the resulting history (see this for a tutorial).
There also are many other updates that hopefully make working with Git a more delightful experience. Highlights are:
- "Credential helper" support, that allows integration of HTTP authentication with platform-native key-chain implementations;
- New progress eye-candy output for a couple of lengthy operations e.g. fsck;
- I18N framework enabled for both C and scripted Porcelains;
- Improvement in prompted input from an interactive terminal (most notably, reading the username for HTTP authentication);
- You can now run "git checkout -B <current branch> <elsewhere>" to correct the tip of the checked out branch;
- As another step to support large files better, "git add" stores large files directly into a new packfile without having to hold everything in-core at once; and
- "Signed commit" support, that lets a commit object record a GPG signature on it.
A dozen companies committed to maximizing social good while turning a profit have filed papers with the state to become California's first "benefit corporations." It was the first business day they could register under a recently approved state law that gives companies a way to legally structure their businesses to consider social and environmental efforts as part of their missions.The Rise of Benefit CorporationsWhile that may sound like marketing hype, it's important from a legal standpoint because it helps shield benefit corporations from lawsuits brought by shareholders who say that company do-gooding has diluted the value of their stock.
California becomes the seventh state to adopt this relatively new corporate structure. Until now, California corporate law mandated that shareholders' interests trump those of all other parties. Entrepreneurs who wanted to incorporate green initiatives or social causes into their businesses were often forced to become nonprofits, limiting their ability to raise venture capital.
California's new category allows corporations to officially adopt policies "that create a material positive impact on society and the environment" as an integral part their legal charter. The Huffman legislation also expands the fiduciary duty of executives and board members to include the interests of workers and the community.
When America began, the states chartered corporations for public purposes, like building bridges. They could earn profits, but their legitimacy flowed from their delegated mission.Today, corporations are chartered without any public purposes at all. They are legally bound to pursue a single private purpose: profit maximization. Thus, far from advancing the common good, many for-profit corporations have come to defy the law, corrupt the officials charged with enforcing it and inflict harm on the public with impunity. The consequences are visible in the wreckage left by BP, Massey Energy, Enron, AIG, Lehman Brothers, Blackwater and Exxon Mobil, to name a few recent wrongdoers. Profits rule; anything goes.
We need a new business model inspired by the old one. Corporations should again come to bolster democratic purposes, not thwart them. To be sure, there will be no return to the legislative short leash, especially now that the Supreme Court has invited corporations to spend treasury funds electing pliant and obsequious lawmakers. But socially minded businesses should at least have the right to operate outside the straitjacket legal requirements of Delaware Code profit maximization. [...]
This is an important shift in law. The fear of shareholder litigation has driven many public-spirited businesses, most famously Ben & Jerry's, to take the high bid rather than the high road in a corporate takeover fight. Becoming a Benefit Corporation declares legal independence from the profits-ber-alles model. [...]
It may take a while to displace the rent-seeking leviathans that get rich off lobbying, power plays, pyramid schemes and defense contracts. Then again, a lot of those companies have relocated their operations abroad in search of cheaper labor, while the Benefit Corporations are taking root and blossoming right here in America, restoring the bonds of community while doing honest commerce. This is what economic recovery looks like.
Oklahoma state senator Ralph Shortey is concerned about the possibility that some nefarious person or entity is using aborted human fetuses in food, and has introduced legislation to put a stop to this. Or, to keep it from starting, because he isn't exactly sure that anybody's really doing this, or how or where they'd be doing it if they were. Still, can't be too careful.SB 1418 is, at least for the moment, just this one sentence:
No person or entity shall manufacture or knowingly sell food or any other product intended for human consumption which contains aborted human fetuses in the ingredients or which used aborted human fetuses in the research or development of any of the ingredients.[...] "People are thinking that this has to do with fetuses being chopped up and put in our burritos," Shortey said, something no one had been thinking until he said it. "That's not the case," he went on. "It's beyond that." That's right -- they are also in our chalupas.
[...] According to Shortey, there are companies out there "using embryonic stem cells to research and basically cause a chemical reaction to determine whether or not something tastes good or not." He said he read last year that a pro-life group was boycotting an unnamed company for this, and I guess if you've read someplace that somebody is upset about something that might be happening somewhere in the world, that's really all you need to know before writing a law banning what you believe that thing to be.
Hawaii is considering a strict data-retention requirement that might ban anonymous Internet access.
The UK now permits trying the same person more than once for the same alleged crime. The result is that no one is ever really acquitted.
There are so many conditions that can allow trying the accused again, that a person could be tried over and over. Each trial gives a different jury the chance to convict him. Sooner or later, even if there is no significant change in the evidence, conviction will occur.
This is why the rule against double jeopardy was made, and the reason is just as valid as it always was.
Blaming poor immigrants is a useful tool for distracting people from how the 1% are screwing them.
Illegal immigration does cause an economic problem: because these immigrants don't dare complain about mistreatment at work, their employers can drive down wages and working conditions for citizens and legal residents of a country.
However, if labor law enforcement were separated from immigration law enforcement, so that even illegal immigrants could complain about abuses by their employers, it would reduce this effect.
Meanwhile, prison labor has the same effect — so why don't the politicians try to eliminate that? Because it isn't a useful distraction, I suspect.
In Russia, public protest is prohibited — even dolls holding signs.
US citizens: sign this petition calling on broadcasters to cover the issue of corporations' political ads.
Twitter has a new system to submit to censorship in each country in parallel.
Although this is designed to inform people they are victims of censorship, I don't think that secondary feature compensates for the harm done by Twitter's acceptance of censorship. Ask yourself, would this sort of censorship in Egypt have helped Mubarak stay in power? I think so.
Prisoners in Libya are being tortured.
It appears the government lacks real control over the country, which is run by various militias.
Protesters at the G8 summit in May plan to disregard Chicago's new anti-protest laws.
I guess you could see "we support tyranny in each country individually" as an improvement over "we treat the whole world as the least common denominator of the world's most tyrannous country in which we want to make money" as an improvement. If you have very low expectations.
"But," you may say, "They have no choice but to obey the law in all the countries in which they have offices." That's true, but I must have missed the article about someone holding a gun to their head and forcing them to open offices there. So they chose to make themselves an uncomfortable bed to lie in. How about that.
When you're in the business of providing a communications medium -- or, if you happen to have a moral compass of any kind -- there are some people you just shouldn't do business with, because it makes you part of the problem.
They said:
One of our core values as a company is to defend and respect each user's voice. We try to keep content up wherever and whenever we can,and omitted,
...unless that interferes with our ability to make a buck.
Q: "Are they each from a single piece of paper?"A: Yes -- by far the most frequently asked question, and the easiest one to answer (I wish they all were simple yes/no questions). But it is usually followed up with "...because some of them look like they're woven..." which is not actually a question, but an observation, and an implied invitation for me to elaborate on the masks' construction. So I elaborate. It's a technique that is both structural and ornamental. Parallel folds make pleats that open up to form the convexities of the face and intersect with each other around the face. Where they intersect, twist folds are formed on the back of the piece which help to keep the pleats closed. The pleats get pretty tightly packed together, and where they run parallel to each other, the space between them looks like an individual strip of paper from the front. Where twist folds occur on the back, it appears that the "strips" of paper are crossing under and over one another.
There's been lots of talk today about how various EU governments are agreeing to sign ACTA (which still needs to be ratified by the EU Parliament). It's gotten the most attention in Poland, where there were mass protests -- but the government there still signed. Of course, not everyone in the Polish government agreed. Amazingly, officials from the Palikot's Movement held up the famed Guy Fawkes/Anonymous masks in Parliament to protest the vote: Of course, we should note that, from the picture, it sure looks like those masks are "counterfeit" copies of the official Guy Fawkes mask that Time Warner holds the rights to. Good thing ACTA is coming into force to stop such blatant "counterfeiting," huh?
Planet Debian upstream is hosted by Branchable.