The “Blog Readability Test,” which claims to be able to determine “what level of education is necessary to understand your blog,” says that our Tech Liberation Front blog is just at the “High School” reading level.
I guess the engine behind this thing uses a Flesch-Kincaid Readability Test. That test judges “readability” by examining word length and sentence length. Longer words and sentences decrease “readability.”
I’ve always thought those Flesch-Kincaid tests were silly, but then I would think than since I am the king of the run-on sentence. My TLF blogging colleague Jim Harper is constantly getting on me about that fact since, by contrast, he is the master of brevity. Harper sometimes uses fewer words per sentence than Dr. Suess or EE Cummings.
But I now feel vindicated in some strange way, Jim, because all my run-on sentences may be the only thing keeping our score up at the “High School’ level! Dammit man, start using really big words–like honorificabilitudinitatibus and floccinaucinihilipilification–and make your sentences unnecessarily long like this one, which I am deliberately typing without end in order to shamelessly boost our Blog Readability Test score to the “Genius level” and save us the collective shame of being as easy to read as the Huffington Post!
Garrett M. Graff, an editor at large at Washingtonian magazine–and also the first blogger admitted to a White House briefing–has an excellent op-ed in today’s Washington Post asking the same question many of us on this blog have raised before: Why do we let politicians get away with joking about their tech ignorance? Graff provides many examples of how the President, presidential candidates, and leading members of Congress, often joke about their ignorance of the information technology industry and IT policy issues in general. And then he rightly asks: “So, why is it that we blithely allow our leaders to be ignorant of the force that, probably more than any other, will drive and define the nation’s economic success and reshape its society over the next 20 years? Is it because we’re used to our parents or grandparents struggling to program the VCR (yes, they still use VCRs) so that it doesn’t blink “12:00″ all the time, or because we think it’s cute that they grew up in simpler times?”
It used to be easy to laugh about some of this, but as Graff argues, the time for laughing about tech ignorance is over:
Continue reading →
I’d like to commend the new report from Rob Atkinson and ITIF, Boosting European Prosperity Through the Widespread Use of ICT. The report finds that information and communications technology (ICT) is essentially the vitamin D for supporting the kind of productivity growth that stimulates economic prosperity.
It prescribes 5 five healthy principles for European policymakers to promote greater ICT into their daily lives:
1. Integrate ICT into all industries instead of just focusing on replacing lower productivity industries;
2. Use tax incentives and tariff reductions to spark ICT investment;
3. Support early stage research in emerging ICT areas;
4. Encourage basic computer and Internet skills;
5. Dismantle laws and regulations that protect offline incumbents from online competitors.
However, as it is Europe we’re dealing with here, let me caution policymakers against turning these principles into industrial policy–particularly #s 2, 3 and 4.
I can envision enterprising advocates pushing–through legislation and regulation–open source and open standards as the solution for creating incentives for greater ICT uptake. Not that there’s necessarily anything wrong with open source/standards. I just have a problem with using politicized, and not market, forces to advantage some business models over others. I’ve discussed this before in previous postings on the European Commission’s flawed study on promoting the use of Free / Libre / Open Source Software (FLOSS) in the European Union.
The cell phone industry serves as a good case study on the long-term innovative effects of prescribing a a universal technology standard.
Continue reading →
Honestly, I don’t get it. Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, former governor of Arkansas, is mounting a strong challenge for the GOP nomination primarily by appealing to the social conservative wing of the party and religious groups. He uses rhetoric like this on the campaign trail:
“Over the past 30 years, a decline in moral character has produced a decline in the character of our society. Everything hinges on the men & women we choose to establish public policy. And their character depends on you. There is something you can do: you can live a God-centered life of high moral character, and you can support candidates who share your Christian standards.”
OK, that’s fine, but here’s what I don’t get. Why is Huckabee preaching the gospel of moral decline and cultural disintegration while also playing up endorsements from martial arts expert and actor Chuck Norris, professional wrestler Ric Flair, and rock-and-roll star Ted Nugent? Don’t get me wrong, I spent more time than I care to mention watching Chuck Norris movies and Ric Flair wrestling matches with my Dad growing up, and I used to own all of the Motor City Madman’s (that’s one of Nugent’s many colorful nicknames for you non-fans) albums in the late 1970s.
Continue reading →
When and how does ICT interoperability drive innovation? This is the subject of a new paper on interoperability by the Harvard Berkman Center for Internet & Society (the webcast of yesterday’s launch event at the Reagan Building is now available).
Co-authors Urs Gasser and John Palfrey have published a thoughtful and well-balanced study. There’s a lot to agree with, especially their essential conclusion: that interoperability is important for innovation in the IT sector and the market, not government, is the preferred mechanism for achieving interoperability.
But I also think this paper achieves something more, even if unintentionally. It helps debunk the rhetoric we’re hearing about "openness" (and there are many definitions) as the best and only way to achieve interoperability.
First of all, according to the paper, "interoperability is not an unqualified good and is not an end in itself." Furthermore, just because interoperability is not present doesn’t mean there’s a "market failure" — the authors cite DRM-protected music distribution and the growing shift toward unprotected music as a response to interoperability concerns voiced by consumers.
Importantly, the paper identifies that interoperability can be achieved by multiple means: IP licensing, APIs, standards (including "open" standards), and industry consortia.
As it affects innovation, interoperability can help some types of innovation, especially incremental innovations. But higher levels of interoperability may diminish incentives for radical innovations if the network effects of interoperable systems increase switching costs for consumers.
Continue reading →
Via Slashdot, I think this is intended to illustrate an appalling lack of civic-mindedness among voters. But I’m more incredulous at the number of people who wouldn’t take the money:
Only 20 percent said they’d exchange their vote for an iPod touch.
But 66 percent said they’d forfeit their vote for a free ride to NYU. And half said they’d give up the right to vote forever for $1 million.
But they also overwhelmingly lauded the importance of voting.
A million dollars in exchange for never voting again? You’d be an idiot not to take that deal, and I bet that a lot of people who said they wouldn’t take it are lying to the pollsters because they know that’s the answer they’re supposed to give. If there were actually a million dollars on the table, I would be shocked if less than 80 percent of people took it. I mean, look: if you’re feeling guilty about not doing your civic duty, take the money and use half of it to write hundreds of $2300 checks to the politicians you would have voted for. Large campaign contributions have a much bigger impact on the outcome of the election than a single vote does, and you’d have much more freedom to target your contributions in ways that will affect the outcomes of political debates.
The Tiffany & Co v. eBay trial began yesterday, and as this news article noted, the case is about who is responsible for the policing of counterfeit products on eBay.
It’s an important case, and implicates all e-commerce marketplaces, so it’s impact extends beyond just eBay. And its resolution may come down to whether you believe
sites like eBay are akin to a traditional retail store or more like a
facilitator between buyers and sellers, much like a flea market. Tiffany claims that eBay participates in and facilitates the
counterfeiting and trademark infringement of
its jewelry and other items in violation of the Lanham Act.
But here’s the kicker: Tiffany wants to enjoin eBay from selling any item on its site has hasn’t been made, sponsored, or approved by Tiffany. This goes too far, way beyond the policing of trademarks.
Instead, it appears that Tiffany would like to control the distribution channel, and use trademark law to do so. Retailers and distributors often hate that their products can be sold outside of their control. We’ve seen this attempt to control distribution when venues complain about the sale of event tickets on secondary market sites like StubHub, RazorGator and eBay.
eBay has an extensive program for dealing with intellectual property rights violations. Trademark owners should be vigilant when protecting their brands, not vindictive towards marketplaces that are themselves not the bad actors.
In this very entertaining piece, our frequent intellectual sparring partner Tim Wu admits that certain New York City bureaucrats may be driving him to libertarianism.
I really wish Tim would become a true libertarian. As that essay and his brilliant 5-part series essays on “American Lawbreaking” for Slate illustrate, he is an incredibly gifted writer and a first-rate thinker. And, at times, his thinking does lean in the libertarian direction, but not enough to grant him credentials to the club just yet! (Tim and I also share a nerdy affection for Dungeons & Dragons, so I have to admit to liking him for that reason. I was far to familiar with 20-sided dice as a youngster. Sad, but true).
I’m sure plenty of TLFers already read Techdirt, but in case you needed yet another reason to add it to your feed reader, two of the smartest bloggers I know—Julian and Tom—have begun contributing to the site.
Meanwhile, my contributions to TLF have been a little slower than usual as a lot of my blogging energies have been diverted over there. One of the interesting things about contributing to Techdirt has been the opportunity to branch out a little bit into the kind of pure tech/business analysis that wouldn’t really be on-topic for TLF. My latest post is a spin-off of our recent discussion of Bill Rosenblatt’s article about Radiohead and the “race to the bottom”:
The strangest thing about Rosenblatt’s article is the pejorative use of the term “race to the bottom” to describe competition in the music industry. When Apple cuts the price on the iPod, we would be really surprised to see a columnist complaining about how Apple had started a “race to the bottom” that will undermine profits among consumer electronics companies. We understand that, as painful as competition can be for producers, consumers and the economy as a whole benefit from such aggressive price-cutting. Talking about a “race to the bottom” is the language of cartels, which try to hold prices above the competitive level. Music is like any other product As the marginal costs of production and distribution fall, it’s natural that the price of music will fall as well. Smart musicians and companies will find ways to adapt and prosper in the new, more competitive marketplace. As we’ve said before, saying you can’t compete with free is saying you can’t compete at all. The sooner musicians and record labels realize that, the more prepared they’ll be when the price of music drops out from under them.
Google has announced the Google Policy Fellowship – “to support students and organizations working on policy issues fundamental to the future of the Internet and its users.”
Fellows will have the opportunity to work at public interest organizations at the forefront of debates on broadband and access policy, content regulation, copyright and trademark reform, consumer privacy, open government, and more. Participating organizations are based in either Washington, DC or San Francisco, CA, and include: American Library Association, Cato Institute, Center for Democracy and Technology, Competitive Enterprise Institute, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Internet Education Foundation, Media Access Project, New America Foundation, and Public Knowledge.
Continue reading →
The Technology Liberation Front is the tech policy blog dedicated to keeping politicians' hands off the 'net and everything else related to technology.
