Andrew's shared items in Google Reader

Dead Media Beat: “Programmed Visions: Software and Memory” by Wendy Chun

2011-04-22T18:10:46Z

*Hmmm. Interesting notion here… Maybe it’s all software’s fault!

http://lab.softwarestudies.com/2011/04/new-software-studies-book-programmed.html

“New media thrives on cycles of obsolescence and renewal: from celebrations of cyber-everything to Y2K, from the dot-com bust to the next big things–mobile mobs, Web 3.0, cloud computing.

“In Programmed Visions, Wendy Hui Kyong Chun argues that these cycles result in part from the ways in which new media encapsulates a logic of programmability. New media proliferates “programmed visions,” which seek to shape and predict–even embody–a future based on past data. These programmed visions have also made computers, based on metaphor, metaphors for metaphor itself, for a general logic of substitutability.

“Chun approaches the concept of programmability through the surprising materialization of software as a “thing” in its own right, tracing the hardening of programming into software and of memory into storage. She argues that the clarity offered by software as metaphor should make us pause, because software also engenders a profound sense of ignorance: who knows what lurks behind our smiling interfaces, behind the objects we click and manipulate? The less we know, the more we are shown.

“This paradox, Chun argues, does not diminish new media’s power, but rather grounds computing’s appeal. Its combination of what can be seen and not seen, known (knowable) and not known–its separation of interface from algorithm and software from hardware–makes it a powerful metaphor for everything we believe is invisible yet generates visible, logical effects, from genetics to the invisible hand of the market, from ideology to culture.”

Webstock: Pirate Bay co-founder addresses conference

2011-02-19T02:25:12Z

First speaker on the second main conference day was Marco Arment, who conceived of, then developed stand-out app Instapaper.He talked about Apple and how the firm has 40 per cent of the smartphone market but a much higher percentage...

Comic for February 12, 2011

2011-02-12T08:00:00Z

Cadbury denies lower fat Dairy Milk bar ‘actually just smaller’

2011-02-04T15:00:23Z

Cadbury’s launched a new Dairy Milk chocolate bar containing 14% less fat than before. ‘It’s exactly the same taste,’ said a spokesman, ‘and still only 99p!’

He dismissed claims by critics that Cadbury have simply reduced the size of the bar by 14% from 140g to 120g to cut costs. ‘You can argue anything with figures. The traditional fat per 100g guide is misleading as people don’t usually eat exactly 100g of chocolate.’

‘The important figure is the fat per pence ratio. With the old bar people consumed 41.3g of fat per 99p, we have reduced this to 35.4g per 99p. That we can deliver this healthier bar at the same cost to the consumer is a real bonus.’

‘We hope to introduce the fat reduction scheme across our entire range. Obviously the target is zero grams of fat for 99p but the market may not be ready for such a revolutionary product.’

A Wagonload Of Monkeys

Leaked State Department Cables Confirm That ACTA Was Designed To Pressure Developing Nations

2011-02-04T15:09:00Z

The site La Quadrature Du Net has a rather comprehensive look at a series of leaked State Department cables that confirm what many people said from the beginning about ACTA: that it was designed by US special interests as an "end run" around existing international intellectual property groups, since those groups had actually started listening to the concerns of many other nations about how overly strict intellectual property laws were stifling innovation, economic growth and were, at times, a threat to human safety. This point had been made by ACTA critics for quite some time, but now the leaked State Department cables effectively confirm it:

One of the core objectives is to circumvent international organizations in charge of "intellectual property", where maximalist countries such as the US and the EU have been facing growing opposition from developing countries. Not just WIPO and WTO, but also the OECD: Initially, the Japanese proposed to ask the OECD for some help in drafting the agreement, but US officials suggest a different process, stressing that that they have sufficient in-house expertise, and insist on avoiding any collaboration with international organizations

The full cable on this matter makes it clear that the US had a big plan and that plan involved bringing together only "like-minded" countries, and Japan was gleeful about this, but had originally expected the OECD would help.

From there, the plans become even clearer. The idea is to first do all of this with those "like-minded" (i.e., protectionist) countries, and then use the agreement to try to pressure those developing nations and other nations concerned about the expansive problems of intellectual property law into "joining." In other words, stack the deck first with those who benefit most, and then use international pressure to force the agreement on those who aren't comfortable with the end result of such laws.

The cables show that ACTA -- although negotiated between "like-minded countries" -- is ultimately meant to be imposed on developing countries. Early on, the US and Japan deem necessary to recruit developing countries so as to ensure the "legitimacy" of the agreement. Jordan and Morocco are the first to be mentioned, given their acceptance of tough copyright, trademark and patents provisions in bilateral free trade agreements recently concluded with the US.

However, one key concern for the negotiators is that ACTA might appear for what it is -- that is to say an agreement drafted by rich countries to be imposed on the developing world. Mexican officials are especially keen on helping out on this front. During a meeting with US counterparts, Mexicans stress "their willingness to join the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) negotiations and push-back against Brazilian efforts to undermine IPR in international health organizations," according to the US account of the meeting. Brazil's push for progressive policies on the international arena is denounced by Mexican officials, who offer to play the "good cops" by acting alongside the US to push for maximal patent and copyright standards at the global level.

Mexico selling out to US interests over its own people -- how nice. In fact, in one of the cables, Japan explicitly states that the purpose of ACTA is to impose rules on China, Russia and Brazil.

Oh yeah, remember all those claims from US officials about how ACTA was just an agreement to align "enforcement" techniques and really had nothing (nothing!) to do with changing laws? Yeah, turns out they were lying. In discussing the early plans for ACTA, US officials indicated to Japanese officials that the US was perfectly happy to change its laws to greater protectionism around copyright and patents:

He added that Congress has welcomed the opportunity to engage on these issues, changing laws where necessary. Moore stressed that the United States is keen to move forward quickly, but with an effective, high-standard agreement. As we work together to reach out to other like-minded countries, he said, it will be essential for Japan to consider seriously improvements to its enforcement regime.

Again, almost nothing in these cables is new or a surprise. But it does confirm what many ACTA critics had said early on, and prove that US official statements on ACTA were clearly inaccurate at best, and deliberately misleading at worst.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

JOURNAL: The Winner Take Most Economy

2011-01-17T18:53:03Z

Cynthia Freeland has an excellent article called "The Rise of the New Global Elite" in the Atlantic. It explores the yawning gulf between the interests of this global economic elite and ours and the backlash that is forming. Here's an expansion of her drivers of the winner take most economy. They are, in order of onset:

Financialization. Extreme economic leverage (from derivatives to debt). The rise of transactional morality.
Globalization. Wage, regulatory, and tax arbitrage. The collapse of moral standards via relativism. A willingness to enable mercantilists (China/Japan/Germany).
Internetization. Globally portable productivity. Network effects that lock-in success. Extreme technological leverage.

In short, these drivers have made it possible to concentrate wealth like never before over the past 30 years (and it's accelerating). The problem with this isn't that some people have made lots of money. The problem is that it has been systemically destructive and we ALL are going to pay a very high price for it.

License Agreements - UserFriendly

2011-01-15T17:18:02Z

Be honest guys. Have any of you ever actually *read* a license agreement? ... - UserFriendly

Telecom database access privacy concerns

2011-01-16T09:44:44Z

NZPA reports:

A marketing company working for Telecom’s rival, Slingshot, has been accused of accessing the telco’s Wireline database, which contains personal customer information.

Telecom Retail CEO Alan Gourdie said the telco was investigating the accusation of potentially fraudulently activity, detailed in today’s Herald on Sunday.

“If our investigation confirms unauthorised access we will pursue all appropriate action.”

Access to Telecom Retail’s Wireline information requires passwords and pin numbers and should only be accessed by authorised personnel, he said.

While the initial investigation will be on the marketing company’s conduct (and perhaps into possible criminal conduct on the part of several parties), questions must also be asked of Telecom – which Privacy Commissioner Marie Shroff has said she will do.

Regardless of whether a security breach has occurred, even if by the marketing company having acted unlawfully (and neither of these facts are yet established), there are obligations on Telecom (and other “agencies” making data available to third parties) to take reasonable measures to safeguard personal information. This is not limited to preventing unauthorised disclosure, but includes preventing unauthorised access and use. It can also extend to ensuring that systems are properly designed to protect personal information.

The reports do not say how long the alleged improper access went on, but does report that it was “common practice” by multiple staff (now former staff), which suggests a long time frame. The reports indicate that the access was via a single login (now deactivated) of a legitimate user. Questions include:

Were user logins (and failed logins) recorded?
If so, were they ever audited and how?
And if so, why was the improper use not detected?
Did the database allow multiple simultaneous logins, and if so was this intended / appropriate?
What password expiry regime (if any) was used for this database?
What restrictions (if any) were placed on legitimate users to prevent them from disclosing login information?
Were there any user warnings / confirmation processes as to appropriate use built into the database?
Was only the minimum amount of personal information necessary made available in Wireline in the first place?
Are there any other logins for this database, and other Telecom databases, showing unusual activity, which have not been adequately investigated?

Companies can and frequently do provide third-party access to their customer data. While proper contracts can ensure the commercial and legal aspects of these arrangements are appropriately documented, companies holding personal information must still be aware of their inherent obligations under the Privacy Act.

Comic for January 11, 2011

2011-01-11T08:00:00Z

Bird Flu-resistant chickens ‘actually cats’

2011-01-14T15:00:15Z

Researchers who have developed a new genetically modified strain of chickens that are able to resist bird flu have denied claims they are actually cats.

‘Altering the chicken’s genes has had a minor cosmetic effect’, admitted lead scientist Professor Alan Song, ‘there’s been a shortening of the wings and the feathers have taken on more of a fur like appearance, but flavour is unaffected even if the meat is a little stringy.’

Critics are unconvinced by these explanations though, pointing to the long slender tail, a mouth full of teeth, and purring. Attempts to prove doubters wrong by releasing grainy footage of one of the chickens hatching has so far failed to convince, with Peter Wilson of the British Poultry Association claiming it is ‘just a kitten emerging from a pre-cut rugby ball’.

This news also casts doubt on the work being undertaken at a research facility in Battersea on a Swine Flu resistant pig that barks.

A Wagonload of Monkeys

A Big Day For Free Video

2011-01-11T21:19:42Z

Everyone's already seen this, but let me just say: THANKS GOOGLE! This is a very good day for software freedom and Web standards. I am surprised and delighted that Google is doing this.

Incidentally, it's also a good day for us at Mozilla: the pressure that was building on us to support H.264 should ease off considerably.

Forking Etiquette

2010-12-30T09:00:01Z

My wife and I were eating lunch during our holiday vacation, and she asked me, in a suspiciously casual tone of voice, if I were aware of the proper etiquette for using a fork. I responded with a blank stare, which was my way of saying that her yammering was distracting me from shoveling a respectable percentage of the resort's entire buffet from my plate into my maw.

Undaunted, Shelly went on to demonstrate her point, holding a knife in her right hand, and a fork in her left hand with the tines pointed inexplicably downward. Her index finger was on the back of each utensil, and she explained that you should continue holding the knife even while you're not sawing on a dead animal.

Against all odds, Shelly's words penetrated the fog of my feeding frenzy. As her explanation sunk in, I started to go into traumatic etiquette shock. That's the feeling you get when you realize that for several decades people have watched you eat and probably compared you unfavorably to a stoned raccoon on garbage day.

The world started moving in slow motion as I looked around the dining room to verify this stunning revelation. Sure enough, every adult diner was using the method Shelly described. How could I have gone my entire life without noticing? I was shocked and ashamed.

I quickly tried to imitate the proper forking method. That turned out to be problematic because I'm a vegetarian. I didn't have anything on my plate that needed cutting, and the upside down fork method was a disaster for eating rice. I could only balance a few grains at a time on the back of my fork, and half of those ended up on my lap, where I have been told a napkin should have been.

I knew there was something missing in Shelly's explanation of proper fork use, but she wasn't giving me any more clues. The other diners all seemed to be eating meat; they were no help. I briefly considered a catapult solution, which would have involved pushing some rice onto the back of the fork, glancing furtively around the room to make sure no one was looking, and launching the payload toward my face. That probably sounds stupid to you, but keep in mind that I had already bought into the notion of using a fork upside down. I couldn't rule out anything.

I was determined to fork properly from this moment on, and not add to a lifetime of humiliation. It took me an hour to finish my rice, averaging three grains per fork. The buffet had soup, but I couldn't imagine how long it would take to consume it with my spoon turned upside down, or backwards, or using just the edge; Shelly hadn't covered spoon etiquette, so I was mostly guessing.

By the end of the meal I was still wondering if this whole episode had been an elaborate practical joke, with everyone else in on it. I pulled out my iPhone and Googled "fork etiquette." A dried branch of a lady with an upper class accent appeared on video demonstrating the technique Shelly had described. My mortification was complete.

In my defense, I grew up in a small town, in a farming environment. We valued efficiency over ritual. Inefficiency was synonymous with stupidity. If there had been a way to eat faster by somehow involving your ass cheeks, that's how I would have learned to do it. If someone sneezed where I grew up, there was no reason to say "God Bless you," because either God was already handling it or he didn't exist. God didn't need a middle man to handle a simple sneezing transaction.

Anyway, back to my story, I was horrified and humiliated by my lack of forking knowledge. I started to panic, wondering what other rules of etiquette had somehow escaped my notice. Was I supposed to open doors using nothing but my elbows? Should I dial my phone with a single knuckle? Should I salute anyone wearing a hat and ask, "How's the war going, Captain?" My point is that there's no way to deduce etiquette from logic.

Recently I did more research and discovered that Shelly's forking technique is called the Continental method. It's the method used in Europe as well as anywhere else that the British have killed the locals. I also learned that you're allowed to turn your fork right-side-up for scooping anything can't be stabbed. Fair enough.

Best of all, there is an American forking method too, and that is what I had always used. That involves holding the fork in your right hand, like a pen, with the tines pointing up. But I have been informed that cutting food with the edge of my fork is bad form, no matter how efficient it is. Bah! I reject that tyranny.

Last night at a local restaurant I observed a boy, about ten years old, at a nearby table who took the principle of dining efficiency to such a high level that I wept tears of admiration. The restaurant provided a fork and spoon rolled up in a paper napkin. They expect you to break the paper seal and free the utensils from the napkin. But the boy realized he could use the entire sealed unit as a fork-spoon with a napkin surround. He would grab the entire bundle, stab some food with the fork and wipe his mouth on the wrapped bundle. I don't use the "genius" label too often, but I think it applies in this case, even though he was just kidding around. I believe I witnessed the invention of the napkinforkspoon. And someday, God willing, when efficiency replaces etiquette, we will all be using it.

The "IT as a Business" Train Wreck

2011-01-06T00:40:00Z

I just read this year-old article by InfoWorld's Bob Lewis titled Run IT as a business -- why that's a train wreck waiting to happen. It reminded me of comments on a CIO article I posted in 2008 as The Limits of Running IT Like a Business. Here I would like to emphasize a few of Bob's points via excerpts from the 2010 article.

When IT is a business, selling to its internal customers, its principal product is software that "meets requirements." This all but ensures a less-than-optimal solution, lack of business ownership, and poor acceptance of the results...

Tim Hegwood, CIO of MRI Companies, is trying to steer his company's mindset away from a focus on software delivery. "We're still struggling to institute the concept that 'there are no IT projects -- only projects designed to solve business problems,'" he reports...

Larry Sadler, IT service manager at ONFC, experiences similar difficulties. "The 'customer' concept is deeply embedded in the departmental silos here," he says. "This results in an attitude of 'I want this or that aspect done, and without any interruption.'"

According to [Bassam Fawaz, CIO of a large global logistics company], "IT should relinquish its increasing stance as an order taker, and earn and advance its intended role as the qualified engineer of what makes a business hum..."

Another unintended consequence of running IT as a business with internal customers, while less tangible, might be even more important: Defining IT's role this way creates an arm's-length relationship between IT and the rest of the business...

When IT acts as a separate, stand-alone business, the rest of the enterprise will treat it as a vendor. Other than in dysfunctional, highly political environments, business executives don't trust vendors to the extent they trust each other...

Businesses that take running IT as a business seriously have to bill IT's internal customers for services rendered. That means instituting chargebacks, also known by the more impressive-sounding synonym "transfer pricing," but more accurately described as "full employment for accountants..."

When the only incentive managers have to promote efficiency is the impact of chargebacks on their departmental budgets, chargebacks are just a Band-Aid. They won't fix the real problem: that nobody cares about the success of the business, only their own fiefdom.

Anita Cassidy, president of IT Directions and coauthor of "A Practical Guide to Reducing IT Costs..." [says] "I watched one company make several poor strategic decisions for the enterprise as a whole," she adds. "Because of its chargeback system, its managers were more concerned about reducing their individual costs than doing what was best for the enterprise. I watched another significantly increase shadow costs and inefficiencies within the business.

Chargebacks had a chilling effect on using the central IT services."

Chargebacks are an attempt to use market forces to regulate the supply and demand for IT services. If that's the best a business can do, it means the business has no strategy, no plans, and no intentional way to turn ideas into action...

The alternatives begin with a radically different model of the relationship between IT and the rest of the business -- that IT must be integrated into the heart of the enterprise, and everyone in IT must collaborate as a peer with those in the business who need what they do.

Nobody in IT should ever say, "You're my customer and my job is to make sure you're satisfied," or ask, "What do you want me to do?"

Instead, they should say, "My job is to help you and the company succeed," followed by "Show me how you do things now," and "Let's figure out a better way of getting this done."

Cassidy sees proper governance as the superior alternative to using chargebacks to set IT's priorities. The company's leaders have to collaborate to determine how funds are spent, or the company won't be able to set and implement a strategic direction...

When IT is integrated into the heart of the enterprise, its priorities aren't defined by who has the budget to spend (by chargebacks). Rather, they're defined by a company leadership team whose members have a shared purpose, who understand what the company must do to achieve that purpose, and who understand the role new technology will play...

Companies that have integrated IT and no internal customers define success differently.

IT's job is to recommend better ways to operate, using technical capabilities business managers might not even know are possible.

These enlightened companies don't have IT projects -- they have business change projects that aren't done until the planned business change has been accomplished...

Where did the standard model [i.e., "IT as a business] come from in the first place? The answer is both ironic and deeply suspicious: It came from the IT outsourcing industry, which has a vested interest in encouraging internal IT to eliminate everything that makes it more attractive than outside service providers...

Take it all away and start acting like a separate business, and what do you have? A separate business, but without a marketing department, sales force, or possibility of turning a profit.

My advice? Don't act like a separate business. Do the opposite -- be the most internal of internal departments. Become so integrated into the enterprise that nobody would dream of working with anyone else.

This article makes so many great points. I strongly recommend reading the whole story if you have time. At the very least, consider what I've emphasized here the next time you interact with IT or the rest of your company.
Tweet

Oracle’s Cloud Office Apps

2010-12-22T02:54:26Z

It's the final document management roll-up of the year and this time it's dominated by Oracle, who has just launched their cloud office software in competition with Google and Microsoft. - CMS Wire

Theo de Radt: Current thinking on OpenBSD IPSEC

2010-12-22T03:13:12Z

Subject: Re: Allegations regarding OpenBSD IPSEC
From: Theo de Raadt
Date: 2010-12-21 19:34:54

... (g) I believe that NETSEC was probably contracted to write backdoors as alleged.

(h) If those were written, I don't believe they made it into our tree. They might have been deployed as their own product. - openbsd-tech list

The Trojan App

2010-12-22T03:34:40Z

Here's what I mean. Maybe you saw the story a couple of days ago about technology being brought to market that would enable mobile phone companies to charge Facebook users by the page for access. Under the new rules a mobile carrier can do that, no problem. But because that mobile network offers its own voice service (they all do) under the new rules they can't similarly restrict Skype or Google Voice or any of the dozens or hundreds of Voice-over-IP third-party services out there. So what's to keep Skype or Google or Yahoo or iChat or MrVoIP from offering a mobile version of its service that includes a free gateway to Facebook?

Nothing.

These are perfectly legitimate applications that are protected from throttling by virtue of their competing with a core service of the ISP, yet in this instance they will have gained a secondary function of acting as a Virtual Private Network link to an otherwise-regulated service like Facebook.

It's a digital loophole. - I, Cringely

Intellectual Ventures: Independence Day Take II

2010-12-21T07:50:41Z

Just like in the story-line of Independence Day, where the alien death ships slowly but surely positioned themselves over each major city, with the eventual outcome well understood, so too is Intellectual Ventures (I.V.) slowly positioning itself as the patent overlord over many major industry segments. Just like in the movie, the eventual outcome is well understood. To wit: Complete usurpation of the U.S. Patent system. The outcome is a, gigantic tax/toll collector controlling the pulse of innovation in the U.S. or, like the movie, extermination of innovation.

... In short, these patents are not worth the paper they are printed on. But, owing to the excessive cost and uncertainty to have a second look at these patents either during the course of litigation, or through the Patent Office Reexamination procedures, most victims of this licensing extortion racket meekly pay-up. What Myhrvold has wrought is an obscene abuse of the patent system. It should be stopped, either by industry groups banding together to file reexaminations, or by Congress, or both. - John White, IPWatchdog

Owning Culture

2010-12-19T03:40:56Z

But there's another side to the Superman story, which reveals another equally destructive aspect of copyright. Superman's popularity led to a boom in 'superhero' comics, with dozens of new characters introduced by every publisher in the business. One in particular, the red-costumed Captain Marvel (created by C C Beck and Bill Parker for Fawcett Comics), became so popular it eventually overtook even Superman in sales. Captain Marvel was witty and clever, with distinctive and playful art, and helped push the young American comics industry to new heights of quality and sophistication. But National, searching for a way to crush its biggest competitor, sued Fawcett for copyright infringement.

The case dragged on for years before Fawcett finally gave up, settling out of court and promising to shut down the Captain Marvel line. Many comics fans remember the end of Captain Marvel as the day their favourite hero was finally slain - not by alien invaders or supernatural powers - but by copyright lawyers. Looking back today, National's lawsuit looks weak indeed. But in the battle between Superman and Captain Marvel, the better comic lost. - New Zealand Book Council

Follow the Money

2010-12-03T17:08:41Z

There’s a dispute going on right now between Comcast and Level3 Communications concerning the peering agreement between those two companies. Comcast says the dispute has nothing to do with the fact that Level3 just got the Netflix video streaming contract while most observers think that’s all it has to do with.

I think so, too.

Peering is at heart nothing but restraint of trade. Peering came about when various Internet backbone providers noticed they were all connected to the same big data centers and points of interconnection, normally inside telco central offices. Simply pulling an Ethernet cable from one rack to another could interconnect millions of users from two different backbone providers, saving time, distance, router hops and total bits in the process. Peering agreements typically involve no exchange of money since they are intended to be between peers — very similar companies of roughly comparable size that would be sharing equal numbers of bits back and forth. Peering agreements were for big companies, especially backbone providers interconnecting with the fundamental idea that they’d be giving as many bits and they got and therefore no direct compensation would be required. It also kept smaller companies out of the backbone business because they were made to pay, and dearly.

Level3 is mainly a backbone company that is lately delivering a lot of streaming video, too. Comcast points to the disparity between the number of Netflix video bits served (a lot) to the number received (almost none for Netflix other than some Quality of Service data and of course the movie orders). That’s not the deal, says Comcast, which wants Level3 to pay the difference in cash.

On the other hand, Comcast for the most part isn’t an Internet backbone provider. They have some backbone assets, sure, but mainly they are America’s largest broadband ISP. So while Comcast can fault Level3 for taking advantage of their peering agreement terms, Level3 could as easily drop peering with Comcast altogether, still getting to Comcast viewers through other peers, though with the addition of some latency from the extra hops required.

Note that Netflix formerly did its streaming through Akamai’s Content Distribution Network (CDN) which shares revenue with participating ISPs. Level3 probably got the Netflix gig by beating Akamai on price and they beat Akamai on price because they are relying on that darned peering agreement to make it possible.

As an ISP, Comcast could afford to drop one backbone, but not all of them, so Level3 has some power here — more than many commentators have noticed.

There is a lot of posturing here, so let’s try to figure out the real issue, which I think is Google.

Google has long wanted to drop a rack or a container or at least its own fiber connection two hops from every broadband user in Ameica and eventually the world. They’d like to do that through peering agreements like Level3 and certainly have as much of an argument as Level3 has for doing so, given Google’s own fiber assets, which are certainly more than Comcast’s. But Google will pay for access if it must, because global domination is worth the price. The search giant is willing to pay if it must for guaranteed access.

Comcast knows this. As America’s largest broadband ISP, Comcast stands to gain more than any other company from allowing Google to run fiber into every head-end data center the company has. But Google won’t pay if they don’t have to. So to make sure Google pays, Comcast has to make sure Level3 pays.

That’s all it is. Both sides are distorting the peering agreement like crazy to make their points, which aren’t about equity, net neutrality, user rights, legal theory, who is actually paying for the bandwidth (customers), or anything else — just Google’s money.

Comic for December 7, 2010

2010-12-07T08:00:00Z