Why going open source is not a trivial thing

Mitch Kapor's Weblog: Should Groove Have Gone Open Source?

If you work with software this is a quite important statement. Read it carefully and think about it. I believe these issues are also true if one wishes to deliver a "solution platform" rather than an application. I also have a prejudice that the same designs that enable an open source or platfoorm approach may also allow long term software growth and evolution -- but I have no proof points for that prejudice. In contrast, Kapor has lots of proof points:

... There are advantages to going open source as well as challenges. In some cases it may even be necessary to forestall a competitive threat, i.e., do it before it is done to you. When I see businesses whose strategies involve defending a class of business model which is simply going to be obsolete going forward, my heart sinks about all the wasted effort.

Caveat altert: In a transitional era like the one we are in now, it is notable that it's harder to convert a code base developed in a proprietary context to be open source than it is to start from scratch for the same reason renovating a house completely is harder than new construction. Trust me if you haven't been through this. I have. This is one of the reasons it took seven years from the day Netscape announced it was going to open source the Mozilla browser to get to Firefox 1.0.

It typically requires a complete overhaul of the code and the development process, which is much harder than starting from scratch. Typically, the existing code base is not one which is amenable to community development. There is major code re-factoring and rewriting to be done, rethinking and reworking of API's, switching to open standards, and changing of the tool set to use transparent, community-oriented tools for source code management, issue and bug tracking, build status, knowledge base, and synchronous messaging.

The Lefkow murders, mental illness, and jumping to conclusions

ABC News: Man Claims to Have Slain Judge's Family

Judge Lefkow's husband and mother were murdered by a mentally ill man unrelated to the neo-Nazi groups that had threatened her in the past.

I give credit to the police and commentators for not jumping to conclusions about the neo-Nazi connection. The articles I read, in newspapers and blogs, were generally fairly cautious. Hale and his kin were obvious suspects, but both the police and the commentators were clear that there were many possible alternatives.

I haven't seen, however, much discussion of the mental illness aspects of this case. Bart Ross sued his care providers because of what sounds like some fixed beliefs (delusions) about his care. He lived alone and had few social contacts. His suicide note suggests a very troubled and guilt-racked person, not the typical sociopath.

I hope the mainstream newspapers will delve into the deeper story, the important story. Was Bart Ross paranoid schizophrenic, perhaps with some superimposed dementia? What kind of care did he receive for his illness? What is the best way to care for mentally ill adults, particularly paranoid schizophrenics?

Paranoid schizophrenia is a terrible disease that inflicts great suffering on both ill persons and their families. It's also associated with violent and irrational acts. We need to understand it much better, and we need to treat it far, far better than we do. The mainstream newspapers feel neglected and unwanted these days, but this is the kind of story they can and should do well. Perhaps Judge Lefkow, once she has time to grieve, will use her story to avert future tragedies.

GOP theology: a return to basics

Salon.com | The gospel of the rich and powerful

Joe Conason complains about the Bush agenda. I do too, but there's not much new to say. We fought hard because we knew the stakes. We lost.

His summary of GOP theology, however, is interesting. I've been saying the same thing for a while, but Conason is a writer and I'm a hack (emphases mine):

... Appalling as these policies may be, however, they are in no sense inconsistent with the cosmology of the religious right, which melds laissez-faire economics with fundamentalist orthodoxy. Underlying these conservative attacks on the poor by professing Christians is a worldview that dates back to earlier centuries, when the church defended privilege and declared that the wealthy and powerful were God's elect. From that perspective, minimum wages, subsidized health care, and other such laws and regulations only corrupt the poor, who must earn charity by their temporal and spiritual submission.

If these ideas sound a bit old-fashioned -- or even primitive -- be assured that they represent the latest thinking on the evangelical far right, which is where "compassionate conservatism" originated. Guided by the most literal interpretation of Old Testament law, the preachers who have influenced the President are determined to undermine every modern protection enjoyed by poor and working-class Americans. Let's hope they draw the line at bringing back public whippings and debt slavery.

Conason expresses these core ideas far more succinctly that I have. The premise that wealth and power is a sign of God's blessing predates medeival christianity, it predates monontheism, heck, it probably predates language. It is the oldest and the most powerful theology. It is resurgent in America and it is the theology of George Bush.

Given human nature, it's not surprising that the old ways are back. What's odd is that there ever were a few powerful people who actually tried to follow the inhuman, illogical and unattainable teachings of Christ. What's peculiar is that the Book of Job hasn't been deleted from the Old Testament.

By comparision the theology that wealth is virtue, and that poverty and disease are a sign of God's virtue, makes perfect sense. It's good to return to a sane world where the powerful behave as they ought to.

Faughnan's Notes needs a new home - Blogger doom

Faughnan's Notes

I've given up on Google's Blogger/Blogspot. They've had periods of reliability over the past four months, but the rule has been unreliable and mediocre service. The past week has been quite dismal.

I'm looking for a new host. I expect to pay; I've never been a fan of "free" services and Blogger has reinforced my prejudices. (BTW, I think it's fascinating that even while Microsoft's desire to sell leased software has been frustrated web apps have been able to deliver the same result from a different direction.)

If you have recommendations for a host or software solution please email me at jfaughnan@spamcop.net. I'm leaning towards installing a package on my current web hosting solution (lunarpages - faughnan.com).

Patrick Leahy and privacy

Senator predicts 'overdue' changes to privacy | CNET News.com

WASHINGTON--Recent data mishaps at ChoicePoint and Reed Elsevier Group's LexisNexis service could usher in a dramatic reshaping of privacy laws, a U.S. senator predicted.

Vermont's Patrick Leahy, the top Democrat on the Judiciary committee, said Wednesday evening that a recent slew of data thefts and other leaks requires a 'comprehensive rethinking' of the laws regulating companies that compile electronic dossiers on Americans that are typically purchased by creditors, employers or police.

Howard Dean. Patrick Leahy. I want to live in Vermont.

If Paul Wellstone had not died in a plane crash prior the 2002 senate race, then Norm Coleman wouldn't be Minnesota's (wretched, awful) senator and Patrick Leahy might chair the judiciary committee. Then we'd be a happier and healthier nation.

The one bright spot is that there's always been a fair interest in privacy in conservative America. Of course this interest was stronger when Clinton was president, but it's not entirely gone. I'm not optimistic however. There just hasn't been much real outrage about the Lexis/Nexis and ChoicePoint security breaches, or the flaws in the ChoicePoint profiles. As far as I can tell, the American people don't really care.

Remember Argentina: The US trade gap and the charity of strangers

BBC NEWS | Business | US trade gap expands to $58.4bn

...The trade deficit makes up much of the red ink in the US's current account [deficit], the measure of the divergence between the US's incomings and outgoings.

Both the current account and budget deficits - the latter currently close to $500bn - are funded largely by the purchase of dollar-denominated debt by foreign central banks.

The inflow of about $2bn a day, estimated by some economists to be about 80% of the world's excess savings, also keeps the dollar from sliding further and faster.

We Americans keep spending, you foreigners keep sending us money so we can spend. What a deal! I think I'll buy another Mac. Or maybe a Mercedes.

Meanwhile Manhattan, previously sold to the Japanese and the Saudis, is now being sold to the Italians. Somehow I suspect New Yorkers came ahead on each sale.

We Yanks are partying like the boom and bust never happened. We don't pay taxes, and foreigners pay for our government's services and invasions. We buy Armani and foreigners keep our credit card rates low. Those bogeyman bond traders who are supposed to threaten irresponsible nations just wink at us. Greenspan keeps the taps runnin' and foreign money flows out. Yeah, our homes cost bazillions now, but that's not inflation, that's wealth. Right?

Ok, I'm no economist. Modern economics reminds me of modern physics -- both have far outstripped my dwindling intellectual resources. The universe is an infinite pile of infinitely expanding grapefruits, and the flow of capital between the US, China and India means we can party forever.

All the same, I'd be interested in an investment strategy that allowed me to make a goodly bet that the house of cards collapses before 2010. I'm willing to lose the bet (but not all my assets!) if the game goes on. Anyone know a legitimate place that offers such wagers to non-billionaires? (There's a name for this kind of complex financial instrument but I need more coffee to remember it. [1])

[1] Google came to my rescue. The search on "complex financial instrument" provided a nice list from DeloitteLearning (course costs money and is IE only!). The term is "Derivative and it takes one deep into the bowels of finance -- a field where mathematicians have gone to play. So all I need is a packaged derivative that won't wipe me out if it goes south, but lets me bet that the wheels come off the train.

Phil Bradley's posts on search and net services: March 7-11

Phil Bradley's Blog: March 7-11

Phil is a librarian, with a special interest in net search and design. I always enjoy following his blog, but in the past few days (3/7-11) he's had some exceptional entries. I wonder if he's been at a conference recently. I'll post separately on a few of the things he mentioned, but it's worth going through the March archives and reading from 3/7 onwards.

Blogger outage

Faughnan's Tech: Blogger was a mess today!

Blogger/blogspot has been out of order for at least the past day or so. I don't know how reliable it will be today. If anyone needed proof that Google was imperfect then they need only turn to Blogger. It's the Google equivalent of Microsoft Word.

The disadvantage of "free": no threats!

Faughnan's Tech: Blogger was a mess today!

A real mess. Sadly, Blogger is a "free" Google property. I can't threaten to deprive them of a revenue stream because I don't pay them. Blogger needs a business model.

Plagiocephaly and the law of unintended consequences

Baby's First Helmet (washingtonpost.com)

This is an intelligent and accessible discussion of plagiocephaly, aka 'funny looking baby heads'. We ask parents to place babies on their backs to reduce the incidence of sudden death (seems to work!), but this has an unintended consequence -- squished heads. The problem probably resolves on its own, but noone can guarantee full resolution. The helmets seem to speed up head rounding and they seem troublefree. They're not cheap though!

Prodigies and their futures

Boston.com / News / Boston Globe / Magazine

An interesting article on the prodigy and their outcomes.

I was never a prodigy, but I knew a few in my undergrad days. Those I knew were more or less like most bright people, but they could learn just about anything with astounding speed. A typical trait would be to goof off throughout much of a semester, then cover the course material in the last two weeks and finish with an excellent grade. They didn't necessarily have exceptional ideas or insights (though they did ok!); there doesn't seem to be a strong correlation between unusual creativity and being a prodigy. Reading between the lines in this article, it seems some of the pressure prodigies experience is caused by the false beliefs of parents, teachers and the children themselves that their extraordinary ability to learn also implies an extraordinary ability to create. If they turn out to be only as creative as other very bright people, they may feel as though they've failed. The children mentioned in the article also seemed to have somewhat intense parents.

Lastly they all seem to feel a frustrated obligation to try to fix the world. Hmm. I'm neither a genius nor a prodigy, but that I can understand.

One of the curiosities of a prodigy's life is that while they start out immensely far ahead of their peers, but by their twenties they start to slide into the 99% percentile rather than the 99.999%. To them that can feel like a big drop. A prodigy seems to be a mixture of both genius and accelerated maturation of the brain; by adulthood they lose the maturational advantage but may continue to be a genius.

Of course genius (based on IQ) doesn't translate to "success" (fame, wealth, offspring, sex - whatever) either. Glorious success is a funnny thing, a mixture of talent, luck, perseverance, and inclination. IQ helps with the talent part, but learning ability is only a portion of a quarter of the "success equation". If IQ alone is less than 1/8th of the "success equation", then it's no surprise that most of the adult prodigies are not "successful" on a national stage. Of course an enhanced ability to analyze and understand the world may also limit one's desire to sell body and soul in the pursuit of fame and power.

UK: National programme for IT

Medify Solutions

A UK vendor has put up a nice non-technical overview of the UK's ambitious (to put it mildly) national IT program.

The US put men on the moon. The UK is launching a massive healthcare IT programme. I think the US took the easier challenge. I'm hoping the UK puts their team on the "moon".

Upgrading mice

Boing Boing: Mice with human brains coming?

...the university's ethics committee approved the research, under certain conditions. Prof Henry Greely, the head of the committee, said: 'If the mouse shows human-like behaviours, like improved memory or problem-solving, it's time to stop.'

It's reassuring that these guys know when to stop, I am now confident these mice will not acquire any civil rights.

Next up: augmenting fly brains and flying jets with mouse-human neural tissue.

Medicaid: it's the Alzheimer's and the strokes

Economist.com | Medicaid reform

The Economist thinks that Bush's social security redesign will fail and that attention will turn to Medicaid. They helpfully illustrate the article with a picture of a Hispanic family. Idiots. The article is mostly worthless, save for one prize paragraph:

Set up in 1965 to provide health care for the poor, Medicaid, with a total cost of over $320 billion, is now, alongside Medicare, America's biggest government health-care programme. Uncle Sam pays between 50% and 77% of the tab, depending on how poor a state is: on average, 57 cents out of every dollar Medicaid spends. Over 50m Americans rely on the programme for their health care. Most of those who enroll are poor families with children, but most of Medicaid's money is spent on old and disabled people, particularly on nursing-home care. (Medicare, the federally-funded programme for the old, covers only doctor visits, hospital visits and, from next year, prescription drugs.) Medicaid pays for two-thirds of all nursing-home residents in America.

Idiots and cowards. They ought to have featured a picture of an elderly middle class person in a nursing home bed. The medicaid fight is really about nursing home care, most nursing home care is for demented persons, and the vast majority of long term nursing home residents are white middle and upper-middle class adults. The latter group most often managed an informed divestiture of assets that allowed them to pass wealth to their children and transfer their ongoing expenses to medicaid.

To put it mildly, this problem has been predicted for while. We've known for decades that unless we came up with way to slow the onset of Alzheimer's (stroke reduction we may be able to do) there was no solution short of Soylent Green that was going to prevent an explosive increase in nursing home costs. The future is now.

I'll make the bold and radical prediction that the Bush administration will cut costs by denying benefits to the family in the Economist's photo. This will advance the cause of the "ownership agenda" but it will do nothing about Medicaid's costs. (Sound familiar?) True cost reforms will come only by preventing asset transfers from demented adults, encouraging euthenasia, preventing Alzheimer's, setting up nursing homes in low wage nations, or developing fully automated nursing homes (preferably with virtual reality entertainment for the residents).

Of this list I like the Alzheimer's prevention part. Make me president and I'll match 10% of the yearly federal medicaid bill ($32 billion or so) with research funding. (Not likely! :-)

Otherwise I've long considered the other two options (Guatemalan nursing homes and robotic care facilities with virtual reality entertainment) to be great investments.

Now you can completely ignore the Bush medicaid kerfuffle to come.

How to write a paper in one draft

Brad DeLong's Website: Advice on Paper Writing

In way too many years of writing papers, I'm ashamed to admit this trick has never occurred to me. As someone who wrote too many one draft papers, I would have benefitted greatly from Professor DeLong's advice:

Nobody ever told them that if you are going to hand in a first draft, an easy way to significantly improve it is to, when you are finished, cut the last paragraph from the paper and paste it at the beginning. Your final sum-up paragraph--written at the end, as you have by trying to write down what you think discovered what you really do think--is almost always going to make a better first paragraph than the first paragraph that you wrote.