The Fallacy of the Almost-General-Purpose Computer writes Edward Felten. I get the impression I would know exactly why if I could put the correct pieces together, but I can't lay hands on them right now. Has anyone written well about this on the Internet?

[markpasc.blog]

From the piece:

If you're designing a computer, you have two choices. Either you make a general-purpose computer that can do everything that every other computer can do; or you make a special-purpose device that can do only an infinitesimally small fraction of all the interesting computations one might want to do. There's no in-between.

I can tell you that this is true. And I can assure you that every well-educated computer scientist knows why it is true. But what I don't know how to do -- at least not yet -- is to give a simple, non-technical explanation for it. If anybody has a hint about how to do this, please, please let me know.

So there's an extraordinary (and extraordinarily interesting) range of reporting about the argument before the Court. As I was on the front line, let me add a bit more. My hope in doing this is to put this in a bit of context, and to highlight at least what we should be looking for. (EV predicts a 6-3 victory, which is significant, because he and I have a bet, and he took the other side.)

An automated Prior Art generator for patentable ideas.

Design #3398816675

It's a freezer that connects to the web! It displays pornography and uses the Amazon API.

Now THAT is something the world needs.

After a couple of years of wanting this document, I finally felt up to writing "The Metaphor Rant".

The Metaphor Rant is a cogent argument that metaphors should rarely be used in a debate context, and should never be used in a domain that people do not clearly understand. I frequently find myself wanting to be able to link to this essay in online debate contexts, it's just that up until now, it didn't exist. Now it does.

From a Slashdot article.

You may remember the author Prof. Ed Felton from Felton v. RIAA.

Note to self: Read the pingback spec. Form opinion. [Scripting News]

I cry the cry of the academic: "Let no good thing go unsullied with theory!"

The problem with [ping,track,link]back is that you end up sacrificing one of the very attributes of the weblog community that make it so desirable, namely, the lack of bi-directional links. The unidirectional nature of linking is both a liability and an asset, and it's a good idea to understand the dual nature of that before you go wrecking it because you only see the liability part.

Jon Udell mixes Kurzweil's technological predictions and the current demands of the MPAA.  If by 2020 we can port our brain to hardware (or at least augment it), it's likely the MPAA will yell and screem about eyeballs and ears providing an "analog hole" that lets anyone who "sees" a movie or "listens" to a song record the experience (and potentially share it).  All jests aside, this is part of the reason I find hobbling of computers so offensive.  At this point, my computer is an extension of my thinking processes (it's just poorly connected). [John Robb's Radio Weblog]

Another angle on the "Who owns your computer?" question. As computers get more capable, it is importent that they be considered just an extension of a human, like any other tool. This is the logical conclusion of that line of reasoning, but it holds before we get to "brain experience transfer".

A somewhat technical discussion on why hardware-based content protection is doomed to failure for at least several iterations, based on discussing Intel's "LaGrange" technology. This is the first I've heard of this so I don't know how this fits into the "master plan", whether they believe this is the first and final iteration or what, and how this ties to Palladium. The interesting part about this article is that it's strictly technical and discusses why this just isn't going to work for a while. The main thesis paragraph of the essay is probably this one from the middle:

[Why is embedding content protection directly into the silicon of a processor doomed to failure?] Because we don't know, we really don't know, what sorts of protection make sense in the emerging digital, networked marketplaces. Despite 35 years of computer security research, we have not yet increased our understanding of what needs to be protected beyond a simplified, very unworkable notion of military document security. Now joined with a simplified, very unclear notion of what Hollywood might really need (as defined by its lawyers and lobbyists - not the most technically savvy designers).

So what other religious phrases can we adapt to Murphyism?... Don't be the last on your block to get a Murphy Saves bumpersticker. Ask your friends, Have you accepted Murphy as your personal savior?. I haven't read enough of the Book of Murphy yet to know whether Murphy died for my bugs, or because of them.

Actually, I think some Eastern religion fits in much better here. "We all have a little bit of Murphy inside us." "Bugs do not truly die, they reincarnate. The more Murphy karma they have, the bigger they come back." And the coup de grace, "The Murphy that can be understood is not the true Murphy."

At every job I've started since the computer age began, I have been required to sign a document that basically threatens the new employee with expulsion if the phone, computer or office is used for any type of personal business. I have always signed. But now surveillance software has arrived, and I think back on that document with dread and anger. [osOpinion]

I think this is close to the right approach to take if this becomes an issue in your workplace. As I've said before, I think employee surveillance is largely between employee and employer. Point out the decrease in productivity they should expect from their best workers. Especially because of the naive trust placed in computers, it's better that nobody have the information at all.