daverea.com

Rarely, in the gargantuan literary spittoon of the Internet and the “blogosphere”, I find someone who has said something that I really wanted to say, except in far greater form and with a better vocabulary. When it comes to expressing my frustration in web-culture’s obsession with oversharing, Mark Dery might as well have taken a transcript of my occasional, staccato, minimally-informed and poorly-constructed thoughts on the matter, reduced them to assembly-language and reverse-engineered them into a gorgeous, scathing prosaic treasure.

You can read it here: Have We No Sense of Decency, Sir, at Long Last?: On Adult Diapers, Erectile Dysfunction, and Other Joys of Oversharing

Of course, the fact that Dery’s indictment of oversharing is itself shared by way of weblog, as is my breathless endorsement thereof, isn’t without a passing wisp of irony – but I think we need to focus on the separation of The Web as a medium for the conveyance of the meaningful, from the web as a patient, reliable, pathologically-willing stand-in for actual social interaction, tangible human connection, and genuine real-life experiences.

"Dad, Cool it with the twitter updates."

(Hat tip: Susannah Breslin)
(Image: @Task Blog)

In Tuesday’s edition of the Rochester Democrat & Chronicle, a letter to the editor was printed that didn’t sit too well with me…

Pedestrians and cyclists a bad mix

On March 24, I took a hike on the Quaker Pond Trail at Mendon Ponds Park, a trail on which bicycles are not allowed, according to the signs. I was unpleasantly surprised to be forced off the trail by two men on off-road bikes who barreled past at high speed. In addition to biking on a trail where they shouldn’t have been, they were quite rude. When I politely pointed out that bikes aren’t allowed on that trail, one of them cursed at me. The wet parts of the trail are being heavily rutted by mountain bikes. The Monroe County Parks Department needs to do a much better job of enforcing its rules on bikes.

I am aware that the county has plans for shared-use pedestrian and bike trails in some parks as a result of intense lobbying by Genesee Regional Off-Road Cyclists. In my opinion, pedestrians and cyclists are not a happy mix. They get in each other’s way, and someone is bound to get hurt.

—JAY GREENBERG
BRIGHTON

So, I decided to write a response. In case they decide not to publish it, I figured I’d post it here as well:

I was dismayed to read “Pedestrians and cyclists a bad mix” in Tuesday’s edition. While Jay Greenberg and other outspoken Rochester Birding Society members have sought to paint off-road cyclists as out-of-control thrill-seekers, experiences in neighboring counties and across the country paint a decidedly friendlier picture: Those on two wheels are just another set of respectful trail users.

While off-road cyclists are the second-largest group of trail users nationwide, one need only look to Ontario County to see multi-use trails enjoyed by pedestrians and cyclists alike. Rather than ostracizing entire classes of taxpayers and creating an adversarial environment via public policy, park officials there welcome cyclists and encourage cooperative trail use.

As an off-road cyclist, I’m disappointed that Mr. Greenberg’s reported experience reflects poorly on the larger community of riders who courteously enjoy the precious few multi-use trails in our region. Before forming an opinion based on his letter, I hope others will take the opportunity to visit the excellent nearby parks that practice inclusion, rather than exclusion, of all who seek to enjoy them.

—DAVID REA
PITTSFORD

The standard yield sign that graces multi-use trails nationwide

This morning, the fine folks at Verizon and Skype unleashed their first attempt at an “official” joint-venture application for Skype on smartphones – including Verizon’s Android-powered offerings. Given the anticipation that’s been brewing, installing the newly-released app was the first thing I did after pulling my Droid from its cradle today.

Unfortunately, seeing the official Skype Mobile application waiting for me in the Android Market was where the positive experience ended. After installing, the app informed me that it wouldn’t work with the phone’s Wi-Fi connection enabled. Odd, I thought, considering that it’s already been well-publicized that Skype-on-Verizon will use the Verizon voice network to deliver calls, but without deducting any minutes from the user’s plan.

As it turns out, this new Skype app will only sign in if Wi-Fi is disabled on the handset – meaning that no other apps can use that Wi-Fi connection, either. Re-activating Wi-Fi causes an automatic log-out from Skype – so much for that “always on” connection that’s advertised in the app’s description!

Fortunately, there are a few ways to enjoy Skype connectivity on your Android-powered device. Rather than installing the Verizon Skype app, check out these alternatives:

Sipdroid

A decently well-integrated SIP client (that is, a soft-phone that can make and receive VoIP calls using the SIP protocol) that doubles as a Skype client.

Fring

A nice multi-protocol chat and VoIP client with a slick user interface; it’s gone through some revision lately, but gets better and better as its user base grows.

Truphone

While this one isn’t Droid-compatible, I tried out an early beta version and found it to be fairly workable. If you have an Eris or are saving your pennies for a Nexus One, HTC Incredible or Devour, this one might be worth a test-drive…

In 1947, the Heathkit company – a formerly-bankrupt aircraft manufacturer – introduced its first electronic kit. The $39.50 oscilloscope became a best seller, a dozen years after the company’s new owners bought Heath for a whopping $300. Back then, hobbyists built ham radios, black-and-white TVs and hi-fi sets from vacuum tubes, soldering fiberglass circuit boards together with glowing guns from Radio Shack, hunched over basement workbenches, surrounded by a haze of blue-gray flux smoke. It was long before the days of microscopic surface-mount components, squirted from machines at tens of thousands of parts per hour.

Not long ago, I wrote here about the atrophy of amateur radio, and inquired (unsurprisingly, unsuccessfully) if there was any hope for that pastime. Most things ham trigger a lot of nostalgia in me – recollections of dad-chauffeured car trips to the city for radio classes with Jason; of my “Elmer”, Ed, N2EH (now a silent key); of good times spent with the other hams at the RIT Radio Club, who were among the best of my college friends; and of countless growing-up hours spent tinkering, building things, and un-building things. For a long time, I thought this spirit of geek tinkering was similarly waning, but recently I’ve had a few reasons to change my tune…

First off, the pieces and parts. In the golden age, resistors, capacitors, coils, tubes and transistors were the parts du jour – and you could do some pretty cool things with them. The 70s and 80s brought integrated circuits – and my generation of tinkerers dove head-first into logic gates, op-amps, newly-commodified microprocessors and LED displays. But as the demands of the tech-buying public called for more miniaturization and richer feature sets, things got more difficult. Ball grid array packages – unsolderable by all but the most-dedicated and well-funded (or craziest?) hobbyists – ushered in an age of inaccessible parts. But now, thanks to projects like Arduino, and companies like Bug Labs and Gumstix, pluggable modules and microcontrollers are becoming basic building blocks in themselves.

But more than just the evolution of what’s available to build with, there has been a renaissance in the builders, too. People like Diana Eng and Jeri Ellsworth, and groups like the recently-formed Interlok Rochester – or, hell, the entire readership of Make Magazine – remind me that the spirit of tinkering is alive and well. Maybe hobbyists aren’t exactly making the next iPhone – though they’re certainly trying and in some cases, succeeding! When you’re faced with the immense complexity that’s possible via today’s gadgets, it’s easy to get discouraged about the potential for electronics as a hobby. But it’s also easy to be hopeful and inspired when you look at what these folks are doing. To the tinkerers: keep up the good work! And to those who’ll bring us the next generation of electronic building blocks, I can’t wait to see what you’ve got in store…

…if you drive a blue car, since it’s about to look completely fugly:

Yes, friends and neighbors, that’s what we get to put on our cars starting in Spring 2010. Adorably-retro, don’t you think? No? Didn’t think so.

If you live near a city of just about any size, or manage to take in a newspaper or local newscast on occasion, you’ve probably heard about “gun buybacks”. Operated with the intent to “take dangerous guns off the streets”, they’re an opportunity for politicians to hand out tax dollars (usually in the form of Wal Mart gift certificates or pre-paid debit cads) in exchange for voluntarily-surrendered guns. While the proponents of so-called buyback programs (how can the government “buy back” something it never owned in the first place?) are quick to extol their theoretical virtues, it’s been proven time and time again that cash-for-guns programs are really only useful for political grandstanding and headline-grabbing.

With DaveRea.com being headquartered near Rochester, NY, we decided to take a look at just how well these gun trade-in programs have worked here. As far as one can determine by combing the web, the City of Rochester held at least two “buybacks” during 2008: 159 guns were collected at an event in May and 133 were turned in on June 23rd. Assuming Rochester tracks the national per-capita average for firearm ownership, then these two events (combined) took about 0.15% of the area’s guns “off the street”. Of course, that assumes that they’re all “on the street” to begin with; the majority of guns collected through buyback programs are actually legally-possessed and not involved in any sort of criminal activity.

So how did we do? According to the good folks over at SpotCrime.net, Rochester had 100 shootings on-the-nose in 2008, for a rate of one every 3.65 days. So far in 2009, we’ve already chalked up 64 – that’s one every 3.25 days! I know the stats are pretty coarse, but still: our elected officials spent taxpayer dollars to take almost 300 “dangerous weapons off the street”, and all we have to show for it is a 12% increase in the gun crime rate?!

Update, 8:30AM: According to this morning’s news, we can add two additional (and, unfortunately, fatal) shootings to the count above. This brings Rochester to 66 shootings for 2009, one every 3.15 days, or a nearly-16% increase over 2008.

I know it’s a lot to ask, but here’s a thought for our area’s politicians: In the face of mounting deficit, instead of wasting tax money on so-called “buybacks” where two-in-ten of the guns collected from people who aren’t criminals don’t even work, how about we focus on putting actual law-breakers behind bars where they belong? The city’s politicians are quick to blame our violent tendencies on gang and narcotics-trafficking activity – so how’s about we put that cash into gang and drug enforcement, rather than collecting dusty muskets from the law-abiding?

Still want to hold a “buyback”? Why not take it a step further? With gun values at an all-time high, it seems like a shame to just throw away all those taxpayer dollars buying valuable items for pennies on the dollar.

Rochester simultaneously chalks up almost 3,000 violent crimes each year (and that’s only within city limits) while offering some of the finest training opportunities East of the Mississippi for those who actually want to learn to protect themselves. So why not help some folks out? After all – when the median household income is only a shade over $27,000, not everyone can afford to go out and drop $600 on a defensive firearm. Take those “bought back” guns (well, at least the ones that work), mark them up to 50% of their fair market value, and sell them legally through area FFLs. The city pockets the difference, and in some cases the extra pistol permit fees as well.

Hmm… Everybody wins! The politicians get their photo opportunities, the good people who don’t want guns can get rid of them legally, the good people who do want guns can get them legally, and a few bad people might even end up on the business end of those guns as a result… Bonus!

Despite the flurry of activity here since last November, I’ve managed to let the better part of March go by without a single post … so I figured now’s as good a time as any to chat about a few trends I’ve been noticing lately in the blogosphere. These trends have been annoying me. Maybe I’m not the only one they’ve been annoying?

1. Multiple-page entries
One of the nicest things about web pages is the fact that they can be as long or short as their content needs them to be. What’s the point of splitting your blog entry into 4 pages?! Not only does this annoy me when I have to locate the “next page” button, it interrupts the flow of your entry and messes up those who might actually want to print the thing out onto something that doesn’t have infinitely-variable length: a sheet of paper.

2. Registration-required comments
Don’t make me jump through hoops to comment on your blog. Moderating comments is all well-and-good (heck, we do that here at daverea.com for first-time posters) but demanding that commenters complete a registration form and wait for a confirmation e-mail is annoying. Not to mention by the time I’ve gone through all the hassle of registering, I’ve probably forgotten what I was going to write in my comment in the first place…

3. Lists of little-known Linux apps
Why is everyone publishing lists of obscure Linux programs that “you absolutely must try” all of a sudden? Did someone on the blogosphere put out a call for every grammatically-challenged geek to publicly extol the virtues of their favorite apps – as long as no one else knows about them? Enough already.

4. Hyperbolic, backwards titles
This week alone, the following titles came across my feedreader: “Firefox May Already be Dead”, “Command Line Terror!”, “Top 10 Reasons I’ll Never Use Ubuntu”, “Programming languages that melt your brain”… And the list goes on. In every case, the content of the entry in question actually contradicts the title – which leads me to believe it was nothing but an eye-catcher to begin with. Call me old-fashioned, but I like to think the headlines we author should reflect the credibility we seek. I’m tired of “X is Dead, Long Live X” titles, and I’m tired of hyped-up, sensational headlines that lead to blog entries whose only extravagance is in their mundanity.

Think we can live without these? I thought so.

Mobile World Congress 2009 has come to a close, and as far as most Android fans are concerned, it was a pretty big disappointment. Billed by many as a “coming out party” for Android, with no shortage of high expectations for unveiling of new handsets, the Barcelona event ended not with a bang, but a whimper. There were a handful of chipset and software announcements, and only one new functioning handset was shown – which is destined for Europe. As far as I’m concerned, Chinese ODMs showing non-functional handsets under glass don’t count. Whining that “we’re working on it” or “we’re not late, we just never intended to announce at this show” doesn’t count either, nor do scribbles in some booth jockey’s notebook. Unfortunately, these were the only headlines that comprised over 1,000 Android-related articles that crossed my feedreader in the last five days.

Few would debate that Android has no shortage of potential. Some bloggers have claimed it stands a chance to unseat the majestic iPhone, and others have asserted that Android has Microsoft running scared and clamoring to hold onto its market share. But potential is just that – and in the fast-paced, compressed time-to-market world of mobile phones, potential can siphon down the drain with frightening speed. If Google really mean business with Android, they need to get it onto a major US carrier’s network.

There were plenty of high-hopes (my own included) that an announcement – or even a rumor – along those lines would hit the wire this week at MWC. I have no doubt that thousands of other eager-eyed early adopters were scanning the headlines right alongside me, searching for any mention of Android in the same breath as Verizon or AT&T. But none came, and MWC ended leaving the tech-heads wondering just what the holdup is. Are the phone manufacturers throwing enough resources at Android integration? Are the carriers resisting the super-flexible but, ultimately, freedom-laced OS? Is Google’s support of OEMs falling short? Maybe the tough economy is putting a pinch on Android budgets. Or maybe all the industry players are waiting for each other’s next move…

I’m no product strategist, but I’ve managed to be involved with at least a few product launches in my short engineering career. I know how much effort goes into bringing a product to market: it’s easy to get 98% of the way there, but the effort to achieve the last 2% of market-readiness is exponentially higher. That’s where Google is today: they’ve got a product that’s on the cusp of being ready, if only their customers (the handset manufacturers, not the end users!) would take it and run. As the poor Android showing at MWC this week has demonstrated, if this symbiosis is happening, it’s not happening fast enough.

When Google released Android as an open-source stack, they short-circuited a lot of the closed-ness of the mobile phone world. They opened up opportunities for developers, phone manufacturers, carriers and end-users alike … so long as the gift was received, incubated, used and released to the market. But in a market this fast-moving, I believe that’s not happening quickly enough to insure Android’s survival.

It’s time for Google to short-circuit the status quo once again: It’s time for Google to start releasing Android builds for popular phone hardware that’s already out in the wild, already in the hands of early-adopters, and (most importantly) already certified to operate on the major carriers’ networks. No, this probably wouldn’t be kosher. Granted, it might not even be possible given the image-signing requirements of many handsets. Yes, it would probably require the users to break something that’s spelled out in fine print somewhere. Yes, people’s warranties might even be voided. Hell, if the Android image was intended to run on a certain shiny messiah-phone, it might even require a little risque jailbreaking. But would it be worth it?

Let’s just say, if our friends in Mountain View ever did unleash an Android image for a mass-market, major-carrier smartphone, I’d be first in line to buy one and make it my daily-driver. I’m sure there’d be a lot of others in line behind me, too.