Blogs

Today I was playing with a few social networking applications that offer location services. Why? I want to stop posting only cryptic status messages in Facebook and sometimes really say what am I doing as my friends do (real friends, not only facebook friends), plus I also want to post some location information in my profile and keep track of trips.

One of the most important features to me was compatibility with FireEagle, which is a broker of location information to be used by other applications and social networking sites, that will give me a low entry/exit barrier. I also wanted something that can write to my Facebook profile, as I use Facebook a lot. The resulting setting was a non-trivial data flow that I had to draw to understand:

There are a few sites that are designed to handle location information in a social networking setting. The one I liked the most, from the ones I visited, is Dopplr which is a place for frequent travellers to boast about how many places they have been and where are they going next. Dopplr can read/write from FireEagle and has a nice application for Facebook. The Dopplr site is also pretty neat, I must say, and the Raumzeitgeist has a very cool look.

Then there is Plazes in which you can name a place, put it on the map, take a photo of it, etc. I like the "radar" function that can scan places around your location (it found that stupid club down the street the "Macarena" which is a tourist trap like many others in Barcelona). Now, Plazes has only write access to FireEagle, and that is too bad, BUT it can write to Twitter, which I found very good, given that I know a lot of people use Twitter, even some friends who are subscribed to my feed, but I haven't used it much. If I start using Plazes, then I will start using Twitter, that is 2 for the prize of 1.

To tame a bit all this mess I also "use" Plaxo. I say "use" with quotes because I really do nothing there, just register a set of data sources, I like it a lot because it can aggregate very well from different sources: it reads the RSS feeds from my blogs/sites and also has hooks for delicious, Amazon, Flickr, last.fm and many other sites I use and like. It integrates very tightly with Twitter, as it can read/write the status line, and it reads the "posted items" in Facebook which are useful -- I usually see ~45 clicks briefly after posting an item.

With respect to Facebook, Twitter and Dopplr have Facebook applications. The Twitter application can read Twitter status feeds and post them on Facebook, and the same with Dopplr.

A priori, I do not dislike complex stuff, I even like complicated things, but I do not want to spend a lot of time on this. Looking at the data graph to find if there is any source that can reach all the nodes, I see that if I post my location to Plazes it should propagate to the other services. I will try that, and after playing a bit, I will tell you how it went. Perhaps I can post an update to Facebook.

Or Twitter? Or Plaxo? Or somewhere else? :-)

This is a very nice interview that Larry King did last night to the author of "Religulous", Bill Maher. "Religulous" the movie launches on October 3rd.

Some excerpts from the interview follow.

BM: The big question that got all the play in the news snippets was asking what should we do about evil? [...] So Obama gives a very nuanced answer, and again this is why I do like this guy. [...] He said, "Yes, we should be aware of evil, but we should be humble about evil." And what he was trying to say, I think, was you know what? It's easy to sit back in America and go, "Well, we're the good people. That's common knowledge. Evil is always over there and never here."

He was saying you know what? We have a lot of evil right here. Look at the prison system. Look at the justice system. Look how we treat immigrants. We torture people now in America. There's, you know, rampant sexual harassment of women in the military. There's a lot of evil that we're doing. OK. This didn't go over very well.

Then McCain is asked. What do we do about evil? Two words. Defeat it. Now, of course, to the people in this audience, this goes over great because when they hear evil, they think of something very tangible: the devil. They're not kidding. They believe in this comic-book figure called the devil who's going to poke your ass in hell if you're bad. Heaven, air conditioning. OK.

So, you know, you have to take this into account. These are voters. These are people who think evil is the devil. We can defeat it by the end of my first term. We will defeat evil. And, you know, how are you going to have a country, supposed to be a super power, in this world making the right decisions if this is the kind of thing, thinking that goes into it? It's like trying to write a song when half the keys are out, you know, the keys on the piano are out of tune.

Why belief is a tough think to counter:

BM: I asked Jesus at Holy Land [a theme park], "Why can't God just defeat the devil and get rid of evil?"

You know, and it's the same reason the comic-book character can't get rid of his nemesis. Then there's no story. If God gets rid of the devil -- and he could, he's all powerful -- well, then there's no fear. There's no reason to come to church. There's no reason to pass the plate. We're all out of a job. You know, it's got to go on.

Evangelicals and their new found mission of saving the environment:

BM: One reason I have always been anti-Evangelical and people who take the Bible literally is because it allows you to be horrible to animals, people, too. Slavery is OK with the Bible, keeping women down, and honor killings and let's not even go into how bad they are to people. But animals, you know, the Bible says man can have dominion over animals. And also they believe people have a soul, whatever that is, but animals don't. So do whatever you want with them.

So if they're getting more on the page of being kind to animals and helping the environment, then sign me up.

Animal rights:

BM: [Candidates] forgot about poor people, let alone animals. Anyone who doesn't have a vote, forget about it. Children, why are old people taken care of so well economically in America and children not? Because old people vote. So I don't know. It's a host of issues that I wish, again, my champion of the liberal wing would take on, like the drug war and animal rights. But I'm not holding my breath. I'd be happy if they could end the war.

Smoking pot on the film:

BM: We were in Amsterdam, where it's legal. In America, I only smoke it when I'm 12 miles offshore. I have a boat, Larry. I go out there beyond U.S. territorial waters and I light up.

At some point in the interview Larry suggests that he adheres to the idea that people are not so religious in practice:

BM: I don't know how it's more weak minded to be the one who is saying, look, I don't know what happens when you die. So I'm just going to say I don't know. That, to me, seems a more honest approach than believing in.

LK: Well, in truth, don't most people think that? Would you gather that they don't know? Because if they knew, why would they fear it so much? [...] why fear death?

BM: You know, I agree. I've never been the person who's been troubled by those big questions. [...] See, there may be answers. I'm not saying that there isn't something out there. I'm not strictly an atheist. An atheist is certain there's no god. [...] You know, people say could it be Jesus? Yes, it could be Jesus. It also could be Furby or the lint in my navel. I have a feeling it's probably not something that smacks of the story that bronze-age men would write down, people who didn't know what an atom or a germ was, or where the sun went at night, or why their women got pregnant. You know, if the Bible was written by a god who's beyond time, it wouldn't be so limited to the morays of that era.

CNN Full Transcript: Larry King interviews Bill Maher on 2008-08-19

Youtube video: Part 1 - Part 2 - Part 3

Religulous trailer:

The Inalienable Rights Enforcement Initiative is an initiative that could end up in the November'08 ballot in California. It calls for legalizing the growth, sale, and possession of marijuana, collecting taxes on its through a system of stamps and licenses.

Here is the proposition to end the prohibition:

This initiative will amend the Constitution of California to defend and safeguard the inalienable rights of the People against infringement by governments and corporations, providing for the lawful growth, sale, and possession of marijuana. Marijuana will be taxed through a system of stamps and licenses--a $5 stamp will be required for the sale of an eighth ounce of marijuana and a $50 annual license will be required for the growth of one marijuana plant. To protect participants and encourage participation in the system, such licenses and stamps will be available anonymously in stores where marijuana is sold. Valid possession of such a license or stamp will entitle possessors to protection against infringement of their inalienable rights by governments and corporations with respect to the lawful growth, sale, or possession of marijuana. This system will be financed by 10% of the revenues generated by the sale of stamps and licenses. The remaining 90% of revenues will be divided equally-30% to finance the costs of drug treatment, 30% to invest in job training and new jobs, and 30% to be spent at the local level. Any excess shall be redistributed equally among the People, except those in a household making more than five times the median salary.

The Declaration Of Independence From Marijuana Prohibition:

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for the People to assume the power to throw off a harmful and unconstitutional exercise of power by the federal government, and to provide new laws designed to promote, defend, and safeguard their inalienable rights and best interests, a decent respect to the opinions of humankind requires that they should declare their reasons.

We hold these truths to be self-evident--That all people are by nature equal, with inalienable rights, including the rights to life, liberty, reasonable privacy, reasonable property, and a fair opportunity to learn, prosper, and be reasonably happy, healthy, safe, and secure--That the powers and privileges of governments and corporations are granted by the People and are limited to promoting, defending, and safeguarding the inalienable rights and pursuing the best interests of the People--That whenever these powers or privileges become destructive of the rights and best interests of the People, the People have the power to alter or to abolish the power or privilege, and to take the steps necessary and proper to promote, defend, and safeguard their inalienable rights and best interests against government or corporate infringement.

We also hold these truths to be self-evident-That, as an intoxicant, marijuana is far less harmful to the health and safety of the People than alcohol--That, as a smoking substance, marijuana is far less addictive or harmful to the health of the People than tobacco--That, even though alcohol
is harmful to the health and safety of the People, the prohibition of alcohol from 1920 to 1933 only increased the harms associated with alcohol use: criminals seized control of the alcohol market, crime and violence increased greatly, and poverty, unemployment, and corruption flourished, while otherwise lawful alcohol drinkers were treated as "criminals" subject to detention, arrest, and incarceration, even though they had not harmed the rights of anyone-- That, as with alcohol prohibition, the prohibition of marijuana has only increased the harms associated with the use of marijuana: criminals control a multi-billion dollar market, crime and violence have increased greatly, and poverty, unemployment, and corruption flourish, while otherwise law-abiding marijuana smokers are treated as "criminals" subject to detention, arrest, and incarceration, even though they have not harmed the rights of anyone-That the history of marijuana prohibition is a history of repeated injuries and infringements upon the inalienable rights, powers, and best interests of the People.

Despite the harms of marijuana prohibition, politicians persist in imposing and upholding marijuana prohibition, because these politicians are not working for the People--they are working for the corporate executives who financed their campaigns, such as corporate executives in the alcohol industry who want to protect their monopoly on intoxication, corporate executives in the tobacco industry who want to protect their monopoly on smoking, corporate executives in the pharmaceutical industry who want to protect their monopoly on expensive medicines, and corporate executives in the many industries threatened by competition with hemp. These corporate executives pull the strings of the government to perpetuate marijuana prohibition despite its harms, because they do not care about the inalienable rights and best interests of the People--they care about taking as much money from the People as possible. These corporate executives also use their control of the mainstream media to make it seem like marijuana prohibition is a failed attempt to serve the interests of the People, censoring the idea that marijuana prohibition is a successful attempt to serve corporate interests at the expense of the People. For these corporate interests, politicians sacrifice the inalienable rights and best interests of the People. This corruption and corporate influence is worse at the national level, where the People can least afford political influence and the media is most effective at manipulating public debate. Because of this corruption, it is futile for the People to turn to the federal government for protection--because the federal government is the source of the harm. The repeated attempts by the People to reduce the harms of marijuana prohibition have been answered only by repeated injury. The harm from marijuana prohibition is ongoing and the need for relief is urgent. Such is the suffering of the People, and such is the necessity that constrains us to alter our former systems of government. A government with a character marked by every act that defines a tyrant is unfit to be the ruler of a free people. Therefore, appealing to humankind for the rightness of our intentions--

We, the People, do hereby solemnly publish and declare that we are and of right ought to be free and independent from the prohibition of marijuana, free to provide for the lawful growth, sale, and possession of marijuana, free from any power or privilege that unreasonably infringes upon our inalienable rights, and free to take the steps and exercise the powers necessary and proper to safeguard our inalienable rights and best interests against government or corporate infringement.

Via: Laist. See the full text of the initiative, or visit NORML.org.

15 years ago in this same month I was completely focused in studying for the PAA/PCE, which was like the SAT exam in the US. It had two main subjects in the PAA part: maths and Spanish, and several subjects in the PCE part: maths, physics, chemistry, biology, history, etc. I studied like crazy for the maths part using an old physics book that included a lot of math problems.

I knew I had a chance for getting a top score at this test, I just had to focus and avoid making stupid mistakes. But I failed. I said that -1 had 1 square root: i and failed to count -i, so I had one of the 90 or so questions wrong. There were 2 or 3 guys who tied in the first place in maths and I was not one of them.

As a consolation price, I got the best score in physics, answering all 50 questions or so without errors. It was a consequence of studying maths with a physics book.

In the interview clipped here, I say that I work at the Young Men Christian Association (YMCA) with children -- at that time I thought you could be a Christian-Atheist, but that's a long story :-). I also say that the PAA/PCE favors rich students as they are able to pay for lessons outside the high school to prepare themselves better.

I also say that I want to study to become an Engineer (I did) and I say --and I did not remember this-- that I would like to work independently as an entrepreneur.

In retrospective, these 15 years make sense. I did not want to study more physics, and I am OK with that. I wanted to become an Engineer, and I did. I also wanted to become an entrepreneur, and I also did, but at some point I had to leave that to focus on finishing my PhD. Academia was not in my plans 15 years ago, it appeared later on, and that's fine too. With 16 years, you cannot predict so well your future :-)

(Thanks to Cristian O. for sending me this newspaper clip!)