Duh

Unfortunately, duct tape can’t be used in every situation. You can’t, for example, hold up your flat screen TV with it. Or more accurately, it’s not considered socially acceptable to use that much duct tape to hold up your TV, which is a little shocking and clearly indicates the depths to which our culture has decayed.
Fortunately, scientists have your back once again. The product is “Geckskin,” so named because it is based on gecko feet (the part where gecko feet are small and adhesive, not the part where they are green and scaly). Geckos can walk up just about anything and are just about as comfortable climbing upside down on a ceiling as they are on the floor or on a wall.

(You just looked at your ceiling to make sure there isn’t a gecko above you, didn’t you? Ok, NOW you looked.)

The device is small and functions similar to tape or any other adhesive, but has a lifting power dozens of times stronger even than duct tape, easily able to hold a 700 pound device on the wall while at the same time easily released and moved to another location, provided you can hold whatever weighs 700 pounds that was attached before you released it.

Geckskin is made with simple, easily accessible materials, nothing exotic and no power required, so it’s a simple matter to attach anything to just about anything else without having to spend a ton of money and without having to locate new materials. Though only just outside the prototype phase, it’s easy to see how this gets marketed and it’s easy to expect some pretty major sales of such an item. Investors take note!

The most distressing aspect of the story – besides the lack of access to quality education for ever increasing quantities of American students, that is – is that there’s really no reason for it. The actual expense of educating people should, by rights, be declining drastically in this age of digitization, virtual classrooms, and e-readers. In fact, you’d think you could get a college education for practically free by now.
Well, it turns out that you can, if you’re willing to put in the work. The Khan Academy is a not for profit organization built around the premise that human knowledge belongs to the world, and they’re offering that knowledge to students of all types, completely for free. A simple login process allows you to connect your Facebook or Google account to the academy, enabling you to keep track of your progress. The “school” is built around videos produced by some of the world’s foremost academics and containing information on a wide variety of topics which anybody with internet access can view and learn from.

You can also make use of the Academy’s information as a teacher, or a “coach” in their terminology. Coaches can link to their students through the site and build lesson plans and congregate virtually with their students to host “classes” of sorts.

Furthermore, the Khan Academy is expanding rapidly, seeking to partner with local educational institutions. It’s easy to see the value that Khan could provide for local educators facing increasingly compressed budgets and parochial school boards hostile to genuine science education. The videos cover most of the major academic subjects in varying degrees of depth, and new ones are being offered all the time (2,800 are currently online). It’s clear that Khan is anticipating a major market failure and addressing it.

Not that Google won't find out.

It is perhaps this recent spate of catching flak that gave Google the idea of incentivizing its data gathering hordes with some rewards. The program – called “Screenwise” – hasn’t exactly been publicized by Google, but neither are they hiding it. It functions much like any other online data research panel gathering user information; simply allow Google access to your full web-browsing habits by installing a widget in your Chrome browser (it has to be Chrome, of course) and in exchange they’ll periodically send you five dollar Amazon gift cards.

It’s a pretty smart move on Google’s part – the clear implication is that their standard data gathering routines are not sufficient and they need to pay people to take part in allowing full access, which sends the message that there is a lot that Google is missing in day to day operation. And if there’s one thing Google can make use of, it’s additional data gathering, although I’d be willing to bet that the biggest benefit Google is gathering out of this initiative is the appearance of needing more data and, again, the implication that therefore it’s not collecting that much from non-Screenwise users.

It should be noted that Amazon isn’t an official partner in this program, despite the use of the Amazon gift cards. This is entirely a Google initiative. However, the use of third-party gift cards (rather than cash) is common for market research panel rewards.

The latest such prank may take the cake, though. Anonymous hacked into private emails of law enforcement officials pursuing its members, then listened in on a conference call between the FBI and overseas agents, recording the call and posting it (along with relevant emails from the hijacked account) to the internet. And lest you think it’s a hoax, you should know that the cops have already confirmed that, yes, the conference call is theirs and, yes, they’ve been punked and their secure email accounts infiltrated by Anonymous.

First rule of the internet - do NOT piss off Anonymous.

Meanwhile, the SEC continues to offer waivers and exemptions for big banks who are guilty of the apparently much less pressing behavior of evicting homeowners and destroying families. Priorities!

At any rate, next time you’re feeling insecure, just remember that your government is doing its best to look after you by focusing time and money on a bunch of teenaged hackers scattered all over the nation and world – and it’s not even winning.

And now you know why it took 10 years to find Osama Bin Laden.

Tomorrow's Google Doodle will spell out "Fuck You, France"

The reason for the unexpected additional expense is a recent ruling by French courts, holding Google responsible for damages to competing map provider Bottin Carographes (as well as a relatively modest fine). Bottin offers mapping services very similar to Google Maps, but of course it charges for them. Fair enough, but why would anyone pay for something that they can get for free?

As it turns out, they won’t, and Bottin alleged that this meant Google was abusing its position and engaging in “unfair competition.” The crux of the argument apparently is that Google is too big and famous and so shouldn’t be offering quality products for free when other companies are offering perfectly good products of the same nature for a price. Nice work, if you can find it.

It’s hard to escape the conclusion that Bottin is simply rent seeking by going after an American company in a French jurisdiction. Google faces a different business model than Bottin does and makes its money by driving eyeballs to its array of sites, where it can then place ads in front of those users. Building a high quality mapping service and giving it away certainly makes sense within the confines of that strategy, but just because Google is good at it doesn’t mean that it’s an “unfair” method of competition. I’m all for fairness in the markets, but it has to be rational and reasonable.

Granted, half a million euros is pocket change for Google, but it’s an important precedent to face down squarely, or else every company that Google beats at its own game will start coming out of the woodwork to sue. Google has said that it is “reviewing its options” – hopefully that means an appeal and ultimately a victory for quality services delivered for free.

Twitter's logo has become ubiquitous

But the devil, as always, is in the details, and the details here are extremely positive in a lot of respects. First, Twitter cannot simply go around breaking the law. If a country outlaws Twitter, or makes the online situation so onerous that Twitter can’t break into that nation’s environment (as is the case in China), then activists and consumers have lost Twitter entirely. By offering censorship tools in a form similar to (and modeled on) DMCA “takedown” requests, Twitter allows the service to remain intact in those nations.

But it’s much bigger than that. Twitter doesn’t simply remove censored tweets, nor does it censor them globally. Instead, the censored tweets are only censored in the country of origin, not in the world at large. That’s big news for those using Twitter to get the word out. But it gets much better; Twitter leaves each censored tweet online, but boldly and clearly covers their content with a “CENSORED” label, making it clear that content has been censored. This also means that for those with the dedication and the (relatively simple) means, it is possible to read the censored content.

It’s understandable that the idea of any sort of censorship system gets some pushback from activists, but Twitter is not a law unto itself and must conform to the regulations of the nations within which it is used. This policy is an extremely forward thinking approach to meeting that requirement while still being true to the spirit of free speech and the internet in general, and should be viewed as such.

What the Times found comes as no surprise to those who are familiar with the Chinese economic situation, or to the usual labor watchdogs. But as Apple continues its incredible climb into consumer electronics dominance, it has drawn increased scrutiny from the rest of us as to the methods it uses to claw its way to the top. And that scrutiny has yielded some pretty despicable fruit.

As it turns out, Apple’s prosperity is due to more than just the innovation and design expertise. Apple is also a relentless cost cutter, and it brings an incredible amount of pressure to bear on its supply chain to keep costs at an absolute minimum. In the United States, that means pushing hard to innovate more efficient processes. But most of the supply chain resides in China, and China’s labor regulations leave something to be desired. Consequently, more efficient processes often means virtual slave labor, unpaid overtime, cramped dorms, 7 day work weeks, and drastically unsafe working conditions.

In a situation where demand so drastically outstrips supply, Apple is facing a major profit incentive to keep cutting costs in any way possible, even at the expense of explicitly stated corporate ethics (Apple maintains that they are conscious of the problem and working to address it). Unfortunately, the profit incentive – which is Apple’s legal obligation – will often win out over ethics, as it so frequently does. It will take sustained consumer pressure to force a change (which is not at all unprecedented – many companies have forced reforms in their supply chains due to consumer demand). One can only hope this is the beginning of the application of that pressure.

I don’t have any embarrassing posts on Facebook (more accurately, I don’t have any shame, so none of my embarrassing posts actually embarrass me) but even if I did, I wouldn’t be worried about anybody finding them with Timeline. The site just tosses data at you like a fire hose, forcing you to chug it down or drown. The “help” question for “how do I remove Timeline” is wildly popular, and there are workarounds posted (my favourite suggests following the link http://plus.google.com for info on doing away with Timeline), but with the transition, soon everyone on Facebook will simply be forced to adhere to the new Timeline format. I can’t wait.
That’s good news for advertisers, for whom Timeline is a boon of demographic and marketing information, all in an easily parsed and data-mined format. For a human being, however, it is – and I apologize for the use of technical jargon – a gigantic pain in the ass.

Sorry if that's hard to read. THEY DESIGNED IT THAT WAY.

Now, maybe I’m just being a luddite and all the kids these days will prefer the new interface. It is certainly designed for the long term, which is understandable for Facebook to be pursuing. But you have to wonder if this might just turn out to be a boon for Google+.

Some of us are certainly hoping so.

That may well explain why they turned around not 24 hours later and shut down the biggest file transfer site on the net. Megaupload, run by the implausibly-named Kim Dotcom, earns millions from its file transfer business, and recently angered the RIAA by releasing an ad featuring several of the most popular musicians all supporting Megaupload. Of course, since the record labels totally own those people, they aren’t allowed to go off the reservation and express their own opinions (this is not entirely sarcasm – in a very real way, record labels market the personas of musicians and therefore claim the rights to their public interactions).

This claim now somewhat less true.

The shutdown has had major implications for other file hosting services, many of whom are scrambling to shut down their affiliate programs or even to turn off the spigot entirely, afraid of being next in the cross hairs of a Federal crackdown. Others are simply isolating US based IP addresses, highlighting the fragmentation that would be sure to result if already stringent intellectual property laws are tightened still further.

Megaupload isn’t going down without a fight, mind you; they’ve lawyered up and are seeking access to their assets to fuel the legal battle that’s sure to ensue. The company was pulling in millions and has the resources to fight this out; it remains to be seen if the Feds are willing to stomach another loss.

Heavy. Expensive. And obsolete.

It’s hard to imagine an industry more in need of innovation like Chegg offers. Textbook publishers essentially have a captive market in students, who will be required to purchase books at whatever outrageous markup the publishers choose to charge (and as college increasingly becomes an exclusively upper class environment, the prices have climbed accordingly, further increasing the trend towards pricing the non-affluent out of social mobility). All the competition effectively happens behind the scenes, leading to a fair degree of what amounts to price-fixing. Chegg changes all that by bringing modern technology into the picture to vastly reduce overhead and distribution costs while increasing access, providing some genuine competitive pressure to college bookstores – and with 4 and a half million users, providing an effective weight on publishers’ prices by giving them a user base worth marketing lower-cost digital books towards. It’s not a complete solution, but it’s most assuredly a step in the right direction – and with a mobile app now on offer, Chegg’s growth prospects look bright.