Backup Your Old Google Account

If you have a Google account that you haven't used in awhile, read this.
http://www.androidpolice.com/2015/07/29/psa-google-is-apparently-deleting-old-unused-accounts-without-warning-time-to-back-up/

Bullying, Helicopter Parents, Everyone Gets a Trophy and PC Overkill

Last night I read a post from the Bryan on Scouting blog. If you are in BSA and you don't read this blog, I suggest giving it a look. I find some very useful information and advice from both the blog and from the scouter who comment. This post discussed the idea of singing for lost items. This is a tradition in many troops, and apparently some packs. I never gave it much thought as it isn't something that we did when I was a scout and it isn't something we do in the troop where I am a Scoutmaster, but I have heard of it. I say I haven't given it much though because it didn't seem like a big deal. Maybe a funny way to encourage scouts not to forget things. I wasn't the most outgoing scout, but my troop was a place where I felt comfortable. I generally didn't take things like this personally from fellow scouts the way I might have in school because I trusted and respected the boys in my troop. After reading this post, I gave it some thought and decided that, although it is generally meant "in good fun", I do not think it is appropriate for scout troops.

I don't think a single act of making a scout sing to have a lost item returned qualifies in any way as bullying. It is certainly a mild form of hazing. What I do think is that this sort of tradition encourages bullying and hazing within the troop. Similar traditions might include jokes/skits/songs with underlying or overt prejudice, rank privilege, games that single out or lose scouts (snipe hunting comes to mind), taking/hiding/damaging equipment, and other exclusionary practices. I'm not talking about requiring a scout to be a certain age or rank before participating in an activity for safety or need of a certain skill set to be successful, or about games that some scouts may be better at than others. I'm talking about the games and activities where certain boys are intentionally excluded or singled out for the "fun" of other scouts.There are certainly some gray areas here, but I think most leaders have a pretty good handle on what they are.

Many of the comments made in support of the singing for lost/misplaced items included some allowance that other scouts and leaders might participate in support of the scout who had to sing. This demonstrates that they understand it is an inappropriate practice since an appropriate consequence would not make it necessary for others to stand up and support the victim. Still, this is not bullying in and of itself unless it is a repeated pattern which singles out individual scouts while others are exempt either because they are less prone to being forgetful or because they are not made to sing, but it certainly promotes a culture where scouts feel comfortable mistreating other scouts. Moreover, there are more appropriate ways to deal with this situation.

An adult or youth leader for example could commend the scout who found the missing gear, and quietly remind the boy to whom the gear belonged that he should thank the finder for his honesty, helpfulness, and kindness. Not only does this reinforce the oath and law which is at the core of scouting, but it also models and promotes positive behavior.

This is not PC overkill or "wussification" as one leader called it in the comments. It is not an A for effort. We are still addressing the undesirable behavior, but in a positive, constructive manner. This is teaching our scouts the character which is the foundation of the scouting program. Games, skits and singing are for fun, not for punishment. Adversity does strengthen bonds, but we don't need to artificially create adversity. Learning survival skills, camping in harsh weather, pushing your physical limits in hiking, biking, and boating activities will present plenty of adversity for most scouts over which they can not only bond, but accomplish feats beyond what they thought possible to build both pride and strength of character. Abusing each other through coerced performances or physical punishment is not a necessary part of unit cohesion. Scouting is by no means perfect, just as the scouts and leaders who participate are not perfect, but we owe it to ourselves and to our children to be the best guides that we can be, and to constantly advocate for better behavior from both children and the adults who set the example.

The Pillory of Social Media

This snowy morning, scrolling through my social media feeds, I came across this article. It sums up why I avoid certain places on social media, and why I often walk away from it in the middle of surfing. The righteous indignation of the social media stalkers. Everyone is else is racist, bigoted, simple-minded, or just plain stupid. True, there are a plethora of idiots who out themselves daily on social media. They do that in other places as well though, it just isn't as public. The interwebz are a place where a million people (yes, literally a million) can see just how stupid someone else is in a matter of minutes.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/15/magazine/how-one-stupid-tweet-ruined-justine-saccos-life.html?_r=1

The bit in her that caught my attention was the question, "Were you a bully in school?" That is what really summed it up. I've been on both sides of the bully scenario in real life. I'm not sure about social media. Like I said early, I often walk away when it gets "real". I put real in quotes because I am using the word ironically. Often that word is used exactly at the moment when someone is at their least sincere. In my job I work with students and teachers using technology in a high school. This makes me more cautious in my online than I might otherwise be, but I still say stupid things. We caution students and teachers about over-sharing online using slogans like "Think before You Click", "Pause before You Post", and "You Can't Take it Back". The reality, though, is that we are human. We say dumb shit. Most of us aren't being intentionally racist, bigoted, unkind, or uncaring, we just aren't thinking carefully before we let the words come out of our mouths or before we click send. Frankly, I don't want to live in a world where I have to carefully consider every word that leaves my lips. If my words offend you, maybe it is your problem and not mine. Surely we both have problems, and likely my words are the least of them.

In college I had a professor for whom I have the utmost admiration and respect. She introduced me to the phrase, "A choice of words is a choice of worlds." I try to live by that. Our words say so much about who we are, what we believe, and what we want to be. Sometimes, however, my understanding of my words may be different from your understanding of my words. In the article the author points out that is is the case with Sacco. He also draws an appropriate parallel between social media shaming and the public shaming that occurred in colonial America. The righteous indignation of public shaming and glib attitude toward its consequences has penetrated most media outlets as well. Reports revel in the gotcha moment. Not the Woodward and Bernstein gotcha moment of "hey we caught someone doing something illegal, or really awful and we're exposing them for the good of the country", but the "hey we caught some person doing something stupid or vaguely immoral and we're going to take the opportunity to get everyone's attention." Less the protector of society, and more the schoolyard bully.

The final paragraph sums things up better than I can. It will take a few moments of your time, but it is definitely worth a careful reading and some consideration.

Patent Troll Piece of $#!*

Yes, I've written about this before, but it is something that is on my mind all the time. I see so many articles on it that when I see one that really grabs my attention I have to share it. I love this response. Apparently it works sometimes.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140521/06322827302/patent-troll-apparently-didnt-appreciate-being-called-piece-shit-sues-over-basic-location-functionality.shtml

It did this time thought. But, the article makes a great point. If you understand patents and copyright the point is to encourage innovation. Some libertarians might say that it is not the government's place to encourage or discourage any behavior short of preventing any individual or group from infringing on the liberty of another. I do believe that patents and copyrights are defensible. I believe that people have the right to benefit financially from their own hard work and innovation. Patents and copyrights make this possible. However, when the "innovator" isn't really doing any innovating they should not be allowed to patent the "innovation." The problem is that our patent office and legal system are so far behind the technological curve that those granting patents and handing down legal opinions do not really understand that they are following neither the spirit or letter of these laws.

I haven't spent any time in the courtrooms where these decisions are being made, but I have to believe that they lawyers aren't doing a very good job of explaining these things to judges and juries either.

What is important?

A couple of things reminded me in the past few days about what is important. I'm going to work backward though because that is where I am at this moment. I'm watching Hating Breitbart instead of getting done the things around my house that need to be done. For those of you who don't know Breitbart is sort of like the antithesis of Arianna Huffington. He is an unabashedly biased reporter. Whereas the Huffington Post looks to the left for inspiration, Breitbart.com looks to the right. Is this a problem? Not really. They tell us who they are and what they believe. Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, and other major media outlets on the other hand, claim to be unbiased while focusing their reporting and selection based on a political agenda.

So here I sit in my living room reflecting on my own political beliefs and morals. The fact that I am a bit of a news junkie. I love learning, reading, and following the news.I don't really care about the latest antics of some Hollywood personality, or who is going to get picked first in the next draft. I do, however, want to know what is going on the political sphere, especially where it concerns my family's constitutional rights and the future of the United States as a free society. I do that by reading news feeds, and watching documentaries from as many sources as I can. I want to make decisions based on the best information available. For whom should I vote? What companies/services should I use/avoid? These and other decisions need to be made with good information. Information that I do not believe is reliably available by simply watching Fox, CNN, or MSNBC. I do not believe that I can get this information by simply reading one newspaper, website, or blog. So I have assembled a small collection of sources which I believe report reliably on issues about which I care.

The other thing that is important to me is prioritizing my time. And recently I have found myself losing sight of some of that. A few years ago I read The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People. My main takeaway was the importance/urgency matrix. It looks a bit like this:

Lately it seems that everything is urgent, and not all of it is important. Sure, some of these things can overlap. Building/maintaining relationships for example can involve social media. Procrastination can allow things to shift from the not urgent to the urgent category. I have more and more allowed myself to be drawn into the "urgent, but not important" category. Some of these tasks are subjectively placed into a quadrant. It can be difficult to decide and sometimes agree upon what goes where. I remember my parents had a sign which read, "A lack of planning on your part, does not constitute an emergency on mine." While something may be important to you, it may not be important to someone else. Therefore, it is often necessary to complete this sort of task before it becomes urgent. Likewise, we should not let others impose their ideals on us. We cannot be held accountable if they did not plan and now have an urgent matter which, while important to them, is of little or no importance to us.

This book helped me change the way I organized my life. I realized that much of what I was doing was not really all that important. I had to do a better job at prioritizing. For me, that means putting my own family and goals first. I often allow myself to get drawn in by things which are urgent, but important to others, and not to me. It is part of what inspired me to go back to school. That was something which had been important to me for some time, but I had put it off because it did not seem urgent. It is also one of the reasons I stopped spending much time on social media. I still pop into Facebook or Google+ occasionally either to post pictures or see what is going on. I do this though because I want to maintain those personal connections, not because I am looking for an excuse to avoid something else. I was once a great procrastinator. No longer, but I do still take some time on the weekend to rest, relax, and be unproductive on purpose. In the end, each one of us has to decide what is important and prioritize based on that.

Antenna v. Aereo

This has been on my mind for a while, and while I've talked to a few people about it, I haven't really said anything here. If you aren't familiar with the case here is a quick summary. Aereo is an upstart tech company that provides a service which allows viewers to view local broadcast television in their homes. It does this by using a small antenna at a central location to receive over the air (OTA) TV signals and then streams them via a broadband connection to the users home. How can they stream someone else's content without paying re-transmission fees you ask. Aereo houses an antenna for every user. Meaning they aren't simply rebroadcasting, but rather they are leasing equipment. The lessee decides when and how to use that equipment.

In 1984 Universal Studios sued Sony over their Betamax video recording device. Sony won. Otherwise you wouldn't have been able to record television programming for the last 30 year. Likewise, you wouldn't be able to use DVR services like Tivo and Hopper. I don't know about the rest of the world, but I probably wouldn't watch much TV at all if I had to watch it at the time it was broadcast. Maybe that would make it a better world. People wouldn't watch so much damn TV... That, however, isn't the point here. The point is that while the producers own the content, they don't own my time, my home, my TV, my antenna, or my internet service (well in some cases the producers like Time Warner, may produce content, and own cable broadband services, but I pay for those things separately and unless they want to start including free cable with my internet at the same price, then they can't claim that one depends on the other).

Functionally, Aereo's system is similar to an antenna, a tuner, and a VCR. The fact that it is in a remote location is no more relevant than the difference between a Walkman cassette player and an iPod that is streaming music from iTunes. These are all private performances where copyright law is concerned. Aereo even takes it's limitations on technology a step further. While they could allow users to access any antenna from anywhere in the country, they do not. The restrict users to a single zip code and allow users to access only channels which area available in that area. The broadcast companies, of course, completely ignore this fact. Even if you don't plan to use Aereo, this case could affect you. Should Aereo lose, you may not longer be able to use your DVR, VCR, or other "time-shifting"/recording equipment.

For a more in-depth understanding of this case read the links below. This is important to anyone who cares about copyright. Not just for television, but for copyright in general. Private performance rights are protected under fair use, but if they are to remain that way, Aereo needs to win this case. Technology can confuse this issue since it is almost always impossible for lawmakers to predict how laws they create today will affect technology that is invented tomorrow, but copyright is about encouraging innovation by protecting innovators from the theft of intellectual property. It is not about preventing consumers and potential innovators from accessing that intellectual property unless the pay absolute top dollar.

Here is an analogy that I came across the other day which I believe applies here. Programmers who by the nature of their work create intellectual property. Programmers are paid when they create their programs. Other programmers build on those older programs to make them better or useful in new ways. Programmers do not receive royalties, and do not expect to receive royalties, in perpetuity.

Similarly, teachers share intellectual property, sometimes of their own creation, with their students. They do not charge their students every time the student applies some bit of knowledge s/he learned in a teacher's classroom. Why then does Hollywood believe that every time someone sees a small bit of something they created (I use that term loosely by the way considering that they often borrow plot lines and themes from other stories) is viewed or even referenced? I'll leave you to form your own opinion from here...

http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2014/04/30/broadcasters-advertisers-watch-aereo-case-closely/
https://aereo.com/
http://www.solidsignal.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._of_America_v._Universal_City_Studios,_Inc.
http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/supreme_court_preview/briefs-v3/13-461_resp_amcu_36ipclp.authcheckdam.pdf
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/american-broadcasting-companies-inc-v-aereo-inc/

A Disney Movie without a Prince Charming?

We watched Frozen with our kids last night. It's a pretty good movie outright. Nice CGI, well-developed characters (at least by Disney standards), some catchy songs, and a funny little snowman. What made it impressive, however, was the notable lack of a male savior. Sure, the main characters get some help from a guy along the way. And the snowman is male, though not particularly masculine, but, spoiler alert, it isn't the kiss of a prince that saves the day. When a male character does finally kiss a female character, he asks permission. Even then, he isn't the one who initiates the kiss. From a feminist perspective, this is a big shift for Disney. Even the stronger female characters in Disney movies are still completely reliant on men.
It does have a few problems, but it is a clear pass on the Bechdel Test. Anna spends a good deal of energy chasing men, and Kristoff criticizes her feelings and calls her "feisty pants." Not super respectful. Anna also needs more than a little help from Kristoff. She does take control of the situation most of the time; She isn't totally infatuated by Kristoff, and she almost always assumes the lead in making decisions on what she (and Kristoff after she meets him) about how she will deal with various situations. While the song "Fixer Upper" might seem problematic on the surface it is really a commentary on how so often women (and men) are pushed together by the people around them, but that doesn't mean that they have to listen. There may or may not be some emotional (love inspired) tension between Kristoff and Anna, but it certainly isn't overt, and is more likely brought to the movie by the preconceptions of the viewer rather than any specific interaction between those two characters.
People are complex beings. Men and women both. To portray any character as perfect would be to slight humanity. The lead characters in this movie are strong women and Disney should be commended for that. More importantly, I think this shows an important change in our culture. Feminism isn't on the fringe anymore. This is a feminist movie. Make no mistake. It is not perfect, but it is also not extreme. It is mainstream movie inspired by a classic tale. It is Disney kitsch, but it shows progress and gives hope.
I've always thought of myself as a feminist, but like most boys and men in our society I subconsciously believed that men should not just respect women, but they should be their protectors. Without us, women aren't capable of anything worth doing, and that idea makes men think that they deserve to exercise a certain amount of control over women. We all need help. We all rely on each other. This movie shows that not only should men respect women, but should treat them as equals, as leaders, as people who can make decisions and take responsibility for their own actions. They don't need men to save them, just to occasionally help them pursue their own goals.
Yep, its a Disney movie. So don't take all of this too seriously. It's entertainment, but entertainment is a reflection of culture. And I think this is a pretty positive reflection.