Andy's Blog

The Cubs had a disasterous finish to the season. The only thing good was that they never teased the faithful into believing that "this was the year" so the wound will heal much quicker.

There's always next year right? It'll be 100 years since we last won and Mark Cuban may buy the Cubs I don't know why I find that exciting. Perhaps it's the fact that he's so passionate about his teams, he's willing to spend money, and he's been successful with the Mavs. I hope it works out.

As I mentioned before I loaned some money using Kiva, a VERY cool micro-lending organization for small-scale entrepreneurs in developing nations. Recently my loan account received a repayment of $19.84. I can't re-lend the money until the term of the loan completes next July, but it is really cool to see it working. I only wish I could get some more pictures of Gulshen's business, etc.

I created a list at UnSpun called Top things you've done with your life. You can see some of the things I'm glad I've done

But mostly this post is another attempt to showcase the little widgetry that we've recently deployed.

What are you glad you've done?

A few weeks ago my family went on vacation to Williamsburg, VA. On the trip home my kids were watching a movie and Shiree and I had a long conversation. The topics ranged from post-modern theology stuff, to organic farming, to carbon credit trading (to reduce greenhouse gases). Essentially we were talking about "alternative" thinking.

Throughout the conversation we asked ourself. "Is this foolishness to think this?" or "Is the mainstream way of thinking about X right?" Two things that I had mentioned just encapsulated my answers to that those questions. First, in regard to organic farming... I feel pretty strongly that if we adopt organic farming methods for the next 20 years that we won't look back and say "can you believe how dumb we were to raise vegetables with ONLY soil and manure, and lady bugs" (or however you do organic farming ;) I'm not so certain that keeping the current path will merit a comment like "wasn't it a smart thing to continue using growth hormones, genetic engineering, and pesticides to raise our food!" I don't know but if I were a betting man, I'd choose the former prediction. Second, for whatever reason, the topic of breastfeeding came to mind. My mom and her peers (mostly) formula fed their babies. The cultural and scientific establishment convinced moms from that age that formula feeding was better for your baby. It was so complete that even now there remains a strong social stigma for a mom feeding her baby in public (which also has to do with the sexualization of our culture...) despite the fact that there is credible scientific evidence that breastfeeding is important for the development of a babies immune system, brain, etc. In both of these cases you could stick within the norm and in one case you ARE wrong, and in the other case you're likely to be wrong.

Something that emerged from our talking was a general life principle.

It's always best to do things the hard way.

In my examples, it would be HARD economically and otherwise to switch entirely to organic farming, or it was hard for moms to switch back to breastfeeding. But as I've been thinking about that principle it applies universally in life. It's hard, but better to devote time from your day to developing your spiritual life. It's hard, but better to go to all of your children's activities. It's hard, but better to speak honestly to your neighbor when you're annoyed by something they're doing. It's hard, but better to serve the poor in your community. It's hard, but better to drive the speed limit. It's hard, but better to give generously. It's hard, but better to keep a budget. It's hard, but better to be yourself all the time.

I've yet to find a counter example where "it's easier, but better." Perhaps this is just the first law of thermodynamics at work. You put in extra energy doing it the hard way and you reap the benefit of it being better for you. Doing the easy thing AND reaping the benefit would seem to violate the principle.

Anyhow, I've been mulling the "hard way" principle for a few weeks now and trying to enact it in my life, but the thing that pushed me to share the thinking with my two readers is an article that Shiree shared with me by Joe Klein (be sure to listen to the Kennedy speech from the article). It's an excerpt from his book Politics Lost. Klein's point seems to be the perfect example of the "fruit" of doing things the easy way:

Listen to Kennedy's Indianapolis speech and there is a quality of respect for the audience that simply is not present in modern American politics. It isn't merely that he quotes Aeschylus to the destitute and uneducated, although that is remarkable enough. Kennedy's respect for the crowd is not only innate and scrupulous, it is also structural, born of technological innocence: he doesn't know who they are--not scientifically, the way post-modern politicians do. The audience hasn't been sliced and diced by his pollsters, their prejudices and policy priorities cross-tabbed, their favorite words discovered by carefully targeted focus groups. He hasn't been told what not to say to them: Aeschylus would never survive a focus group. Kennedy knows certain things, to be sure: they are poor, they are black, they are aggrieved and quite possibly furious. But he doesn't know too much. He is therefore less constrained than subsequent generations of politicians, freer to share his extravagant humanity with them.

Politicians today are masters of doing things the easy way. They know exactly what you want to hear and they feed it to you. On the other hand it would be harder for us to hear what we don't want to hear if politicians were honest. As for me... I'm doing it the hard way.

Last fall I started going to a "stylist" for my hair. No reason really, but it was an awesome experience and it's cheaper than Hair Cuttery. When you go to a stylist though you've got to be more deliberate about your hair cut routine because you can't just drop in and get a cut. I've got cuts scheduled until July. The odd thing about this though is that you can measure your year in hair cuts. It's hard to believe it, but this year is already two-hair cuts long!

Erik Benson wrote a very insightful post about trying.

I was reminded of it when I visited a nativity that the local church puts on every Christmas. It's quite a production. You walk along a path outside stopping at several scenes along the way and the narrator tells the story of Christmas. When you're finished you end up in a marketplace with people tossing pottery, carving wood spoons, weaving, serving up period food, etc. It's very well done.

But I wanted to note the beginning. It draws enough visitors such that you have to wait once you enter. You sit in the sanctuary of the church until your guide/narrator calls your number to take the tour. While we were waiting we listened to 5-6 middle-age black men, a young boy (under 13) and a black woman sing Christmas carols and traditional hymns. If you saw them purely through a talent lense they were pretty mediocre. But it you saw them a people who were TRYING, people who cared, and wanted to serve; they were WONDERFUL, and you wanted to hear them more. Definitely a highlight of the evening. You've missed it this year, but I recommend you stop by the Mount Pleasant Church of the Brethern.

One more thing... The singers were from Mt. Zion Baptist Church in Elkton. I really appreciated the inter-denominational cooperation/unity.

I'm a Hair Cuttery guy. I like that I can run over to the shop and if there's no line, be in and out in 15 minutes for $15. They don't do a GREAT job, and you get a different person all the time, but it's good enough for me.

However, Shiree made an appointment for me with the woman that does her hair last night. She runs her own salon out of her basement. You park in her driveway and walk around behind her house to the basement entrance. When you enter everything is tastefully decorated and smells nice. You're greeted by Michelle (name changed to protect the innocent, and I don't really remember her name anyhow), a very smiley, bubbly woman whom you easily imagine as a high school cheerleader. She escorts you to your "throne" and for 30 minutes you're pampered. She is a perfectionist concerned about every last detail. She used a straight-razor on my neck, washed my hair after cutting it to get rid of the clippings, and even trimmed my eyebrows (apparently they were too long but I didn't have any ear or nose hair that needed trimming... yet). She then proceeded to instruct me about "palm aids" and how if I wanted to blow dry my hair in the morning that they would be better than gels because they reveal the colors and cut of the hair. I told her that I'd stick with gel for now and she offered to teach me when I'm ready; as if I were here hair paduan.

Damage... $15 + tip. Cool. I'm going back.

Kids DIG my new powerbook!

I sat on our frontporch doing a little work on my new powerbook, and I heard three things in this order:

1. Trick or treat
2. Nice laptop!
3. Nice pumpkins

Call me a Mac biggot, but the evening would've been decidedly different if I had been working on my Compaq EVO from work. Maybe it's times to buy AAPL again.

Andrew Knight posted an interesting comment over on my original post about plot patents. I started to reply in a comment but it got meaty enough to be it's own post...

Here's what Mr. Knight said:

First, it would take no "revamping" of the patent system to allow patenting of fictional storylines. Under binding case law, storylines are probably already patentable.

Second, take a look at www.plotpatents.com/legal_analysis.htm for an explanation -- including the moral justification -- for storyline patents.

OK. So copyright doesn't protect a storyline, but rather the full expression of a storyline (i.e. a complete work pusblished or not). Fine. I also wouldn't be surprised if you could successfully defend plot patents before a court; not because I believe in the case but because it seems that the trend is toward broader applicability of patent law not narrower.

However, the nut of your defense is this statement:

"the present pursuit is guided by the realization that, fundamentally, the making of a movie (or writing of a novel or filming of a television show, etc.) involving a new, nonobvious storyline requires the performance of certain definite steps. The combination of the fewest steps necessary to produce a movie or novel or show having the new storyline is a method that should be and, consistent with existing law, probably is patentable."

Which (remember IANAL) is argued as a result of the collapse of the "Printed Matter Doctrine" and the emergence of business method and software patents. i.e. A novel, non-obvious software patent isn't ostensibly different from a plot-line because a plot-line can be expressed as a series of steps.

If that's your argument though, then what isn't patentable; so long as it passes the novelty, non-obviousness, utility, and definiteness tests? Clearly any action has "steps". I'd contend that your argument would allow room to patent "The Move" from Seinfeld. It's novel, non-obvious, useful, definite and is expressed in a serious of steps.

Leaving the "whether" question, let's enage the "why question". Why should plot patents be allowed? Your argument is basically:

1. "a patented invention protects each and every possible embodiment of a broad invention" whereas copyright will only protect "one of uncountably many possible expressions of those new and unique (broad) concepts"
2. Most plot "inventors" aren't talented enough to turn a plot into a "possible embodiment"
3. Plot "inventors" are left with two choices..."to sacrificially innovate for the unearned benefit of thieves, or to not innovate"
4. This is bad because "Hollywood is failing" and "[t]here is a substantial need for original, intellectually exciting plots in all forms of entertainment, such as novels and, particularly, motion pictures"
5. Therefore we should protect plot-lines

First you tell us why we have patents at all:

Traditionally, patent protection has provided the economic and moral impetus for technological improvements in all fields. An inventor is motivated to absorb the substantial financial, time, and personal costs of identifying problems with current technologies and inventing solutions to those problems when he is assured the right to exploit that invention by excluding others from making, using, selling, offering to sell, and importing his invention.

So the question arises, what is the "technological improvement" of a plot? Or, what is the "financial, time, and personal cost" of coming up with a plot? It may have taken you years to come up with a certain plot, but hypothetically I could come up with the same plot in a couple of minutes. The minimum amount of time to duplicate your thinking is very short. On the contrary the minimum amount of time to duplicate the thinking for a car engine or a new pharmaceutical is vast. If for no other reason than it takes time for clinical trials and prototypes etc. so that you can demonstrate that it's possible (definiteness right?). If there is substantial "financial, time, and personal costs" to come up with a plot it's because the "inventor" is inefficient. Protecting the inventor of the car or drug is right. Protecting the "inventor" of the plot is not. IMHO.

Finally some observations...

1. You'd be hard pressed to prove that plots are "hackneyed" because great plot "inventors" are opressed by the current lack of IP protection. Hollywood plot sucks because the average American wants nothing to do with "original, intellectually exciting plots." They want explosions, and skin.


2. Your view of Hollywood is inconsistent. Hollywood is both "failing" and yet "a skilled, experienced Hollywood writer could ... embody the unique plot in a far superior story" I suppose you would argue that Hollywood is good at "expressing old, stale concepts in new, creative, exciting ways" but they're bad at creating "new concepts"


3. You may make noble arguments about plot "inventors" but your Postscript speaks volumes. You're in it for the money.

I don't think this is gonna work, but I'm gonna have a fun time watching you try. ;)

Earlier this week FEMA announced that it wasn't going to take journalists along in boats that were searching for victims and bodies. Journalists were ticked off and began protesting the decision. Read about it here

As I read articles about the above, two things struck me. First, the response of the media seemed so false. They said things veiled in good intentions, but I can't see how their actions were anything other than trying to make prime time more graphic to lure eyeballs. Second this quote by Larry Siems from the PEN American Center (freedom of speech/anti-censorship organization) is both idiotic and sad.

It's impossible for me to imagine how you report a story whose subject is death without allowing the public to see images of the subject of the story.

Idiotic because who can't imagine it! It's called words Mr. Siems. Try reading a book like All Quiet on the Western Front. I didn't need pictures and yet it is one of the most moving and heart wrenching stories about war and death that I've read (not like I've read tons). Sad because we're losing the written word. I'm not a hardened English teacher or some pedantic academic (as if you can't tell from my posts ;) but it's sad that our ancestors were people of words and increasingly our intellect and emotions remain dull unless we can SEE something. Sigh... I wish that story hadn't happened.