Newer posts are loading.
You are at the newest post.
Click here to check if anything new just came in.

January 22 2013

Four short links: 22 January 2013

  1. Design Like Nobody’s Patenting Anything (Wired) — profile of Maker favourites Sparkfun. Instead of relying on patents for protection, the team prefers to outrace other entrants in the field. “The open source model just forces us to innovate,” says Boudreaux. “When we release something, we’ve got to be thinking about the next rev. We’re doing engineering and innovating and it’s what we wanna be doing and what we do well.”
  2. Agree to Agree — why I respect my friend David Wheeler: his Design Scene app, which features daily design inspiration, obtains prior written permission to feature the sites because doing so is not only making things legally crystal clear, but also makes his intentions clear to the sites he’s linking to. He’s shared the simple license they request.
  3. The Coming Fight Between Druids and Engineers (The Edge) — We live in a time when the loneliest place in any debate is the middle, and the argument over technology’s role in our future is no exception. The relentless onslaught of novelties technological and otherwise is tilting individuals and institutions alike towards becoming Engineers or Druids. It is a pressure we must resist, for to be either a Druid or an Engineer is to be a fool. Druids can’t revive the past, and Engineers cannot build technologies that do not carry hidden trouble. (via Beta Knowledge)
  4. Reimagining Math Textbooks (Dan Meyer) — love this outline of how a textbook could meaningfully interact with students, rather than being recorded lectures or PDF versions of cyclostyled notes and multichoice tests. Rather than using a generic example to illustrate a mathematical concept, we use the example you created. We talk about its perimeter. We talk about its area. The diagrams in the margins change. The text in the textbook changes. Check it out — they actually built it!

December 21 2012

Four short links: 21 December 2012

  1. Amazon’s Product Development Techniquethe product manager should keep iterating on the press release until they’ve come up with benefits that actually sound like benefits. Iterating on a press release is a lot less expensive than iterating on the product itself (and quicker!). (via Fast Company)
  2. Bullying in a Networked World — Harvard literature review on cyberbullying. (via Kinder Braver World)
  3. Lamps (BERG London) — design notes from a project Google did with BERG a year ago. I treat these like backstory in a novel or film: you see a little bit, but the author has imagined a complex history and world that you only see the consequences of. Similarly, BERG spend a long time making complex stories behind the simple objects and interactions they design.
  4. How AH Evaluates CEOs (Ben Horowitz) — my experience backs this up 150% percent. Filed under “stuff I wish I’d known a decade ago”.
Sponsored post
feedback2020-admin

November 30 2012

To eat or be eaten?

One of Marc Andreessen’s many accomplishments was the seminal essay “Why Software is Eating the World.” In it, the creator of Mosaic and Netscape argues for his investment thesis: everything is becoming software. Music and movies led the way, Skype makes the phone company obsolete, and even companies like Fedex and Walmart are all about software: their core competitive advantage isn’t driving trucks or hiring part-time employees, it’s the software they’ve developed for managing their logistics.

I’m not going to argue (much) with Marc, because he’s mostly right. But I’ve also been wondering why, when I look at the software world, I get bored fairly quickly. Yeah, yeah, another language that compiles to the JVM. Yeah, yeah, the Javascript framework of the day. Yeah, yeah, another new component in the Hadoop ecosystem. Seen it. Been there. Done that. In the past 20 years, haven’t we gained more than the ability to use sophisticated JavaScript to display ads based on a real-time prediction of the user’s next purchase?

When I look at what excites me, I see a much bigger world than just software. I’ve already argued that biology is in the process of exploding, and the biological revolution could be even bigger than the computer revolution. I’m increasingly interested in hardware and gadgetry, which I used to ignore almost completely. And we’re following the “Internet of Things” (and in particular, the “Internet of Very Big Things”) very closely. I’m not saying that software is irrelevant or uninteresting. I firmly believe that software will be a component of every (well, almost every) important new technology. But what grabs me these days isn’t software as a thing in itself, but software as a component of some larger system. The software may be what makes it work, but it’s not about the software.

A dozen or so years ago, people were talking about Internet-enabled refrigerators, a trend which (perhaps fortunately) never caught on. But it led to an interesting exercise: thinking of the dumbest device in your home, and imagine what could happen if it was intelligent and network-enabled. My furnace, for example: shortly after buying our house, we had the furnace repairman over 7 times during the month of November. And rather than waiting for me to notice that the house was getting cold at 2AM, it would have been nice for a “smart furnace” to notify the repairman, say “I’m broken, and here’s what’s probably wrong.” (The Nest doesn’t do that, but with a software update it probably could.)

The combination of low-cost, small-footprint computing (the BeagleBone, Raspberry Pi, and the Arduino), along with simple manufacturing (3D printing and CNC machines), and inexpensive sensors (for $150, the Kinect packages a set of sensors that until recently would easily have cost $10,000) means that it’s possible to build smart devices that are much smaller and more capable than anything we could have built back when we were talking about smart refrigerators. We’ve seen Internet-enabled scales, robotic vacuum cleaners, and more is on the way.

At the other end of the scale, GE’s “Unleashing the Industrial Internet” event had a fully instrumented network-capable jet engine on stage, with dozens of sensors delivering realtime data about the engine’s performance. That data can be used for everything from performance optimization to detecting problems. In a panel, Tim O’Reilly asked Matt Reilly of Accenture “do you want more Silicon Valley on your turf?” and his immediate reply was “absolutely.”

Even in biology: synthetic biology is basically nothing more than programming with DNA, using a programming language that we don’t yet understand and for which there is still no “definitive guide.” We’re only beginning to get to the point where we can reliably program and build “living software,” but we are certainly going to get there. And the consequences will be profound, as George Church has pointed out.

I’m not convinced that software is going to eat everything. I don’t see us living in a completely virtual world, mediated completely by browsers and dashboards. But I do see everything eating software: software will be a component of everything we do or buy, from our clothing to our food. Why is the FitBit a separate device? Why not integrate it into your shoes? Can we imagine cookies that incorporate proteins that have been engineered to become unappealing when we’ve eaten too much? Yes, we can, though we may not be happy about that. Seriously, I’ve had discussions about genetically engineered food that would diagnose diseases and turn different colors in your digestive track to indicate cancer and other conditions. (You can guess how you read the results).

Andreessen is certainly right in his fundamental argument that software has disrupted, and will continue to disrupt, just about every industry on the planet. He pointed to health care and education as the next industries to be disrupted; and we’re certainly seeing that, with Coursera and Udacity in education, and conferences like StrataRx in health care. We just need to push his conclusion farther. Is a robotic car a case of software eating the driver, or of the automobile eating software? You tell me. At the Industrial Internet event, Andreessen was quoted as saying “We only invest in hardware/software hybrids that would collapse if you pulled the software out.” Is an autonomous car something that would collapse if you pulled the software out? The car is still drivable. In any case, my “what’s the dumbest device in the house” exercise is way too limiting. When are we going to build something that we can’t now imagine, that isn’t simply an upgrade of what we already have? What would it mean for our walls and floors, or our plumbing, to be intelligent? At the other extreme, when will we build devices where we don’t even notice that they’ve “eaten” software? Again, Matt Reilly: “It will be about flights that are on time, luggage that doesn’t get lost.”

In the last few months, I’ve seen a number of articles on the future of venture investment. Some argue that it’s too easy and inexpensive to look for “the next Netscape,” and as a consequence, big ambitious projects are being starved. It’s hard for me to accept that. Yes, there’s a certain amount of herd thinking in venture capital, but investors also know that when everyone is doing the same thing, they aren’t going to make any money. Fred Wilson has argued that momentum is moving from consumer Internet to enterprise software, certainly a market that is ripe for disruption. But as much as I’d like to see Oracle disrupted, that still isn’t ambitious enough.

Innovation will find the funds that it needs (and it isn’t supposed to be easy). With both SpaceX and Tesla Motors, Elon Musk has proven that it’s possible for the right entrepreneur to take insane risks and make headway. Of course, neither has “succeeded,” in the sense of a lucrative IPO or buyout. That’s not the point either, since being an entrepreneur is all about risking failure. Neither SpaceX nor Tesla are Facebook-like “consumer web” startups, nor even enterprise software startups or education startups. They’re not “software” at all, though they’ve both certainly eaten a lot of software to get where they are. And that leads to the most important question:

What’s the next big thing that’s going to eat software?

Related:

November 14 2012

An innovation agenda to help people win the race against the machines

If the country is going to have a serious conversation about innovation, unemployment and job creation, we must talk about our race against the machines. For centuries, we’ve been automating people out of jobs. Today’s combination of big data, automation and artificial intelligence, however, looks like something new, from self-driving cars to e-discovery software to “robojournalism” to financial advisors to medical diagnostics. Last year, venture capitalist Marc Andreessen wrote that “software is eating the world.”

Computers and distributed systems are now demonstrating skills in the real world that we once thought would always be the domain of human beings. “That’s just not the case any more,” said MIT research professor Andrew McAfee, in an interview earlier this year at the Strata Conference in Santa Clara, Calif.:

McAfee and his research partner, MIT economics professor Erik Brynjolfsson, remain fundamentally optimistic about the effect of the digital revolution on the world economy. But the drivers of joblessness that they explore in their book, Race Against The Machine, deserved to have had more discussion in this year’s political campaign. Given the tepid labor market recovery in the United States and a rebound that has stayed flat, the Obama administration, given an opportunity for a second term, should pull some new policy levers.

What could — or should — the new administration do? On Tuesday, I had the pleasure of speaking at a panel at the Center for Technology Innovation at the Brookings Institute to talk about what a “First 100 Days Innovation Agenda” might look like for the new administration. (Full disclosure: earlier this year, I was paid to moderate a workshop that discussed this issue and contributed to the paper on building an innovation economy that was published this week.) The event was live streamed and should be available on-demand in the future.

In the meantime, below are recommendations from the paper and from professors McAfee and Brynjolfsson, followed by the suggestions I made during the forum, drawing from my conversations with people around the United States on this topic over the past two years.

Ideas from Brookings

Quoted below is the executive summary of the recommendations from the Brookings Center for Technology Innovation. The paper itself goes into more detail on each one.

  • We need better metrics for measuring worker productivity in the 21st century economy. Past approaches based on worker hours or total employees in relation to Gross Domestic Product (GDP) ignore the transformational nature of digital technology.
  • We should encourage entrepreneurship by expanding Small Business Administration credit for start ups, adding entrepreneurial skills to school curricula, and making changes in immigration policy that encourage entrepreneurs to come to America.
  • We need governments that learn to innovate and collaborate, and develop new approaches to service delivery, transparency, and participation. This includes placing more data online and employing data analytical tools, social media, mobile technology, and search results that improve decision-making.
  • We should strengthen infrastructure by investing in broadband, data centers, and mobile cell towers, and improving access to spectrum for wireless applications.
  • We should protect vital digital assets by updating the Federal Information Security Management Act and developing procedures for monitoring threats to critical infrastructure.
  • We need to improve knowledge transmission through faster adoption of digital textbooks, more widespread use of creative commons licenses for instructional materials developed with taxpayer dollars, and policy changes that speed education innovation.
  • We need to increase technology transfer and the commercialization of knowledge from universities and federal laboratories so that public and private investments translate into jobs and economic activity as well as better health, security, and well-being.
  • We should harmonize cross-border laws to promote global innovation and freedom of expression.

Recommendations from McAfee and Brynjolfsson

“Everything I’ve learned during and after Race Against the Machine has left me incredibly optimistic in all important areas except one,” wrote McAfee in an email earlier this week.

“Digital technologies are increasing our productive capacity and ability to innovate, they’re bringing good things to our lives, and they will continue to do all of the above, probably at accelerating rates. As we wrote in the book, however, as technology races ahead, it is leaving a lot of workers behind. Computers and robots are acquiring human-like skills and abilities, which means that the ‘market share’ of people in the workforce — the areas where they are superior to machines — is going down, and will continue to do so. Dealing with this trend will be one of the main challenges, if not the greatest one, that we face over the next generation.”

What to do? “The cure-all to any economic woe is economic growth,” he said, in our previous interview at Strata. Even if that’s happening, McAfee emphasized, the cohort of mid- to lower-wage knowledge workers whose jobs stand to be automated is still going to be affected.

In response, he recommended that policy makers, schools and universities rethink current educational methods and system.

“We’re turning out industrial-era workers and industrial-era skills,” said McAfee. Instead of fact-based learning methods, he suggests focusing on developing the abilities of students to do problem definition, exploration and solving, working with machines.

“Reskilling and retraining are a big part of the answer,” he said. “We’re putting the wrong skills out there. Let’s rethink that. Let’s bring government, industry, and the educational institutions together and put together a curriculum that will actually deliver valuable skills out there.”

Brynjolfsson and McAfee made a list of 19 recommendations from Race Against The Machine that are worth considering, including: measuring performance in education, extending school hours, encouraging the immigration and retention of skilled workers, teaching entrepreneurship, investing in the country’s communications and transportation infrastructure, reforming the patent system and revisiting a host of tax subsidy and regulatory policies. While not all of these recommendations could be addressed in the first 100 days, they are all worth adding to the discussion about the choices ahead of the new administration and Congress.

My suggestions

Where do I sit? To unlock more innovation in the economy, the administration should consider:

  • Making evidence-based investments in science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) education and experiential learning programs, with measurements against which teaching methods are working and where. Continue to embrace the maker movement.
  • Focusing on skills matching between millions of open jobs and coordination with industry to determine the training needed to fill them and community colleges and grad programs to create curricula that are relevant.
  • Continuing to invest in basic research and development, particularly in biotechnology, nanotechnology, materials science and alternative energy.
  • Pushing through immigration reform that enables the best and brightest entrepreneurs and researchers to come to the United States to build businesses, study and to stay here after graduation. Make the political compromise to get that engine moving quickly. Simplify visa applications, in accordance with the digital government strategy, so that innovators can build better civic interfaces to provide expedited e-services.
  • Creating more access to early seed-stage capital for startups and small businesses. That means pushing the Security and Exchange Commission to finalize the crowdfunding rules from the JOBS Act.
  • Releasing more open government data from regulators and federal agencies, particularly high-value datasets that are in demand from startups. Catalyze the growing data economy by engaging entrepreneurs and venture capitalists — and respond to their feedback about quality, availability and standards. Collaborate with states and cities on creating open standards for urban data.
  • Putting more code, research and other intellectual property created with taxpayer dollars into the public domain.
  • Using the power of government procurement to encourage small business, once Project RFPEZ is completed.
  • Releasing more spectrum and creating incentives for “last mile” broadband access to enable more participants in the innovation economy.
  • Making libraries digital hubs for communities, enabling them to provide job training, broadband access, open data curation and even as maker spaces.

Your ideas?

When I asked for feedback online before the panel, Robert Bole, director of innovation for the U.S. Broadcasting Board of Governors, commented that the administration should make “block grants of digital services and open data to states.”

Additionally, suggested Bole, the administration should “expand Code for America and Presidential Innovation Fellows. Reform Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR), adoption of RFP-EZ (and ilk). Reform of Universal Service fund for broadband infrastructure expansion. Improve libraries and schools to provide media literacy skills. Investment of career STEM at community colleges. Aggressive restructure & auction of spectrum (with smart public use requirements).”

After she commented during the Brookings forum, I asked Gwynne Kostin what the real issues are for innovation in the federal government. Kostin, who serves as the Director of the Digital Services Innovation Center in the Office of Citizen Services & Innovative Technologies at the U.S General Services Administration, responded by putting at least some of the onus on Congress:

Imagine, for a moment, that President Obama is up late in the White House in the next month and comes across this post when he’s reading his iPad.

What change(s), policy or other action would you recommend to him in these first 100 days? Would you support any of the items from the list above? Why? Or make other ones? If you have ideas, please add them below in the comments.

October 01 2012

Four short links: 1 October 2012

  1. FlightfoxReal people compete to find you the best flights. Crowdsourcing beating algorithms …. (via NY Times)
  2. Code Monster (Crunchzilla) — a fun site for parents to learn to program with their kids. Loving seeing so much activity around teaching kids to program. (via Greg Linden)
  3. Telling People to Leave Finance (Cathy O’Neil) — There’s an army of engineers in finance that could be putting their skills to use with actual innovation rather than so-called financial innovation.
  4. Kittydar (GitHub) — cat face recognition in Javascript.

August 28 2012

Seeking prior art where it most often is found in software

Patent ambushes are on the rise again, and cases such as Apple/Samsung shows that prior art really has to swing the decision–obviousness or novelty is not a strong enough defense. Obviousness and novelty are subjective decisions made by a patent examiner, judge, or jury.

In this context, a recent conversation I had with Keith Bergelt, Chief Executive Officer of the Open Invention Network takes on significance. OIN was formed many years ago to protect the vendors, developers, and users of Linux and related open source software against patent infringement. They do this the way companies prepare a defense: accumulating a portfolio of patents of their own.

According to Bergelt, OIN has spent millions of dollars to purchase patents that uniquely enable Linux and open source and have helped free software vendors and developers understand and prepare to defend against lawsuits. All OIN patents are available under a free license to those who agree to forbear suit on Linux grounds and to cross license their own patents that read on OIN’s Linux System Definition. OIN has nearly 500 licensees and is adding a new one every three days, as everyone from individual developers to large multinationals are coming to recognize its role and the value of an OIN license.

The immediate trigger for our call was an announcement by OIN that they are expanding their Linux System Definition to include key mobile Linux software packages such as Dalvik, which expands the scope of the cross licenses under the OIN license. In this way OIN is increasing the freedom of action under which a company can operate under Linux.

OIN’s expansion of its Linux System Definition affects not only Android, which seems to be in Apple’s sights, but any other mobile distribution based on Linux, such as MeeGo and Tizen. They have been interested in this area for some time, but realize that mobile is skyrocketing in importance.

Meanwhile, they are talking to their supporters about new ways of deep mining for prior art in source code. Patent examiners, as well as developers filing patents in good faith, look mostly at existing patents to find prior art. But in software, most innovation is not patented. It might not even appear in the hundreds of journals and conference proceedings that come out in the computer science field each year. It is abstraction that emerges from code, when analyzed.

A GitHub staffer told me it currently hosts approximately 25 TB of data and adds over 65 GB of new data per day. A lot of that stuff is probably hum-drum, but I bet a fraction of it contains techniques that someone else will try to gain a monopoly over someday through patents.

Naturally, inferring innovative processes from source code is a daunting exercise in machine learning. It’s probably harder than most natural language processing, which tries to infer limited meanings or relationships from words. But OIN feels we have to try. Otherwise more and more patents may impinge (which is different from infringe) on free software.

August 09 2012

Four short links: 9 August 2012

  1. Doing Capitalism in the Innovation Economy (Amazon) — soon-to-be-released book by Bill Janeway, of Warburg-Pincus (and the O’Reilly board). People raved about his session at scifoo. I’m bummed I missed it, but I’ll console myself with his book.
  2. Cell Image Librarya freely accessible, easy-to-search, public repository of reviewed and annotated images, videos, and animations of cells from a variety of organisms, showcasing cell architecture, intracellular functionalities, and both normal and abnormal processes. The purpose of this database is to advance research, education, and training, with the ultimate goal of improving human health. And an excellent source of desktop images.
  3. Smartphone EEG Scanner — unusually, there’s no Kickstarter project for an iPhone version. (Designs and software are open source)
  4. Feynman — excellent graphic novel bio of Feynman, covering the science as well as the personality. Easy to read and very enjoyable.

May 03 2012

Four short links: 3 May 2012

  1. The History of Key Design (Slate) -- fascinating and educational. I loved the detector lock, which shows you how many times it has been used. Would be lovely to see on my Google account. (via Dave Pell)
  2. Why Telcos Don't Grok Open Standards (Simon Phipps) -- Their history is of participants in a market where a legally-constituted cartel of suppliers commission specifications for key shared standards. Technologists contribute freely on the expectation they will recoup their costs through royalties for licensing the patents on their contributions. [...] Since every participant usually ends up having at least some ideas accepted, most participants in the process have some claims on each standard, with the result that net royalties payable between the participants may not be the relative burden they appear if taken in isolation. But it does mean that late entrants to the market can face an insurmountable cost barrier.
  3. The Next Big Thing (Umair Haque) -- Umair frequently skirts the boundaries of Deepak Choprah-esque vacuous self-help, but I applaud his constant challenge to know your values and live truthfully by them. Hence here's a minor challenge. Unless you want to spend your valuable life painstakingly eking out barely better solutions to problems we've already solved which give us answers that fail to matter in the enduring terms of the questions which do, consider the following: If we're going to reboot our institutions, rethink our way of work, life, and play, then what are we going to redesign them for?
  4. The Jig Is Iup (The Atlantic) -- The thing about the advertising model is that it gets people thinking small, lean. Get four college kids in a room, fuel them with pizza, and see what thing they can crank out that their friends might like. Yay! Great! But you know what? They keep tossing out products that look pretty much like what you'd get if you took a homogenous group of young guys in any other endeavor: Cheap, fun, and about as worldchanging as creating a new variation on beer pong. A different angle than Umair, but a challenge to think beyond building another declining value acquisition for your own personal benefit.

April 30 2012

Four short links: 30 April 2012

  1. Chanko (Github) -- trivial A/B testing from within Rails.
  2. OpenMeetings -- Apache project for audio/video conferencing, screen sharing, whiteboard, calendar, and other groupware features.
  3. Low Innovation Internet (Wired) -- I disagree, I think this is a Louis CK Nobody's Happy moment. We renormalize after change and become blind to the amazing things we're surrounded by. Hundreds of thousands (millions?) of people work from home, collaborate to develop software that has saved the world billions of dollars in licensing fees, provide services, write and share books, make voice and video calls, create movies, fund creative projects, buy and sell used goods, and you're unhappy because there aren't "huge changes"? Have you spoken to someone in the publishing, music, TV, film, newspaper, retail, telephone, or indeed any industry that exists outside your cave, you obtuse contrarian pillock? There's no room on my Internet for weenie whiners.
  4. Context-Free Patent Art -- endlessly amusing. (via David Kaneda)

April 06 2012

Announcing Make's Hardware Innovation Workshop

Hardware Innovation Workshop

The maker movement is a remarkable new source of innovation. We are starting to see what results from a powerful combination of open hardware + personal fabrication tools + connected makers. Sometimes this innovation is hard to identify in the excitement that surrounds Maker Faire. Yet at Maker Faire, you can find new products and new startups at various stages of development that you will see almost nowhere else. Business people tell me they come to Maker Faire expecting to have a good time with their family but unexpectedly walk away impressed by the creativity and innovation they find there. As the song says, "there's something happening here." Even now, the pace of development is quickening and the number of hardware startups is rapidly growing.

Tim O'Reilly has been urging that the opportunity is now to showcase makers as professionals who are starting new businesses and developing new products. So, I'm happy to announce a new business conference during the week of Maker Faire, taking advantage of the makers who are already coming to Maker Faire. Presented by Make, the Hardware Innovation Workshop will be held Tuesday and Wednesday, May 15-16, at Xerox PARC in Palo Alto, California. (I'm excited to have PARC host us and this event because of its long history as a source of technology innovation.)

The Hardware Innovation Conference will present a number of hardware-related startups and review the major platforms and the new toolset for prototyping and personal fabrication. It's an intimate setting to meet the leaders of the maker movement and understand how makers are changing the technology landscape, in much the same way that enthusiasts once helped to create the personal computer industry.

Our presenters will include:

  • Massimo Banzi of Arduino, an Italian interaction designer and engineer who created this open source micro controller. The Arduino platform has become the Linux of open source hardware and it is found at the heart of many maker projects.


  • Carl Bass of Autodesk, a maker himself whose new consumer division, which acquired Instructables, is exploring the software and services needed by this emerging maker market.

  • Jay Rogers of Local Motors is creating an open source car through collaborative design and he's built a micro factory for assembly of these cars by the owners themselves.
  • Ayah Bdeir of Little Bits is one of those non-traditional product designers who has developed a new educational product.
  • Allan Chochinov of Core 77 is starting a new program called Products of Design at the School of Visual Arts in NYC, which is reshaping product design around what makers are able to do.
  • Nathan Seidle of Sparkfun Electronics runs one of the major suppliers for maker projects. He's also a partner for makers who have the idea but not the factory to build a new product.
  • Bre Pettis of MakerBot will explore the 3D printing opportunity in consumer markets. MakerBot is the Apple II of the personal fabrication revolution. Brad Feld of Foundry Group will tell us why he's invested in Makerbot.
  • Mark Hatch of TechShop, whose membership model for a community workshop has become a hub for hardware innovators. i>
  • Bunnie Huang of Chumby and author of "Hacking the Xbox," who understands how Asia's manufacturing capacity might be tapped by makers.

  • Check our event website for full program details.

    The lesson for us from makers is that hardware isn't as hard as it used to be. It's benefiting from the same forces that allowed open source to reshape the software industry and create the web economy. Makers are part of a prototyping revolution that is inviting a new audience to design and develop products. Open technologies and new collaborative processes just might change the face of manufacturing by making it much more personal and more automated. Unlike traditional manufacturers, makers are able to pivot easily to serve niche markets. In addition, larger companies are hiring makers and maker advocates to infuse their own teams with creative ideas and keep track of these new market opportunities.

    The conventional wisdom is that Silicon Valley investors don't like hardware startups, but that's not stopping makers. We even see hardware startups raising capital from non-traditional sources such as Kickstarter. (Twine raised over $850,000.) This is causing some investors to pay attention. As an angel investor said to me recently: "Everybody's just looking at mobile/social. I want to look at things outside that well-developed space and that's why I'm looking at makers."

    Please join me along with Tim O'Reilly and the creative team of Make Magazine and Maker Faire for a program focused on maker-led innovation at a historic location in the Silicon Valley. Due to the venue, we are limited to 300 participants. If you're coming from outside the Bay Area, you can stay for the weekend of fun at Maker Faire, May 19-20th.

    Event: Hardware Innovation Workshop
    Dates: May 15-16
    Location: Xerox PARC, Palo Alto, CA

    March 20 2012

    The give and take between e-publishing standards and innovation

    Bill McCoy, executive director of the International Digital Publishing Forum (IDPF), recently sat down with O'Reilly online managing editor Mac Slocum to talk about the Readium Project and EPUB 3. He also addressed the "EPUB-iness" of formats like KF8 and iBooks, and stressed that extending and building upon the EPUB 3 standard is important for ensuring continued innovation:

    "There are two ends to the spectrum when you see people taking a standard and doing things that are similar to or based on that standard but extending it. One is the need for innovation. Even a lean and nimble standards group like the IDPF can't move as rapidly as the pace of innovation at any individual organization or company. So, given the need to innovate, you're going to go beyond the standard ... that is the good side of extending.

    "The bad side is when you fork and deviate or when you do things that are unnecessarily different. I think you're seeing a little of both in those efforts [KF8 and iBooks], but I'm hoping to emphasize and encourage the good. We can't let standards prevent innovation ... but we want that innovation to not lock consumers in to one closed silo." (Discussed at 4:18.)

    You can view the entire interview with McCoy in the following video:

    The future of publishing has a busy schedule.
    Stay up to date with Tools of Change for Publishing events, publications, research and resources. Visit us at oreilly.com/toc.

    Related:

    February 13 2012

    Open innovation works in the public sector, say federal CTOs

    President Barack Obama named Aneesh Chopra as the nation’s first chief technology officer in April 2009. In the nearly three years since, he was a tireless, passionate advocate for applying technology to make government and society work better. If you're not familiar with the work of the nation's first CTO, make sure to read Nancy Scola's extended "exit interview" with Aneesh Chopra at the Atlantic. where he was clear about his role: "As an advisor to the president, I have three main responsibilities," he said: "To make sure he has the best information to make the right policy calls for the country, which is a question of my judgment."

    On his last day at the White House, Chopra released an "open innovator's toolkit" that highlights twenty different case studies in how he, his staff and his fellow chief technology officers at federal agencies have been trying to stimulate innovation in government.

    Chopra announced the toolkit last week at a forum on open innovation at the Center for American Progress in Washington. The forum was moderated by former Virginia congressman Tom Perriello, who currently serves as counselor for policy to the Center for American Progress and featured Todd Park, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services CTO, Peter Levin, senior advisor to the Veterans Affair Secretary and U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs CTO, and Chris Vein, deputy U.S. CTO for government innovation at the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. Video of the event is embedded below:

    An open innovator's toolkit

    "Today, we are unveiling 20 specific techniques that are in of themselves interesting and useful -- but they speak to this broader movement of how we are shifting, in many ways, or expanding upon the traditional policy levers of government," said Chopra in his remarks on Wednesday. In the interview with the Atlantic and in last week's forum, Chopra laid out four pillars in the administration's approach to open innovation:

    • Moving beyond providing public sector data by request to publishing machine-readable open data by default
    • Engaging with the public not simply as a regulator but as "impatient convener"
    • Using prizes and competitions to achieve outcomes, not just procurements
    • Focusing on attracting talented people to government by allowing them to serve as “entrepreneurs-in-residence.”

    "We are clearly moving to a world where you don't just get data by requesting it but it's the default setting to publish it," said Chopra. "We're moving to a world where we're acting beyond the role of regulator to one of 'impatient convening.' We are clearly moving to a world where we're not just investing through mechanisms like procurement and RFPs to one where where we're tapping into the expertise of the American people through challenges, prizes and competition. And we are changing the face of government, recruiting individuals who have more of an entrepreneur-in-residence feel than a traditional careerist position that has in it the expectation of a lifetime of service. "

    "Entrepreneurs and innovators around the country are contributing to our greater good. In some cases, they're coming in for a tour of duty, as you'll hear from Todd and Peter. But in many others, they're coming in where they can and how they can because if we tap into the collective expertise of the American people we can actually overcome some of the most vexing challenges that today, when you read the newspaper and you watch Washington, you say, 'Gosh, do we have it in us' to get beyond the divisions and these challenges, not just at the federal government but across all level of the public sector."

    Open innovation, applied

    Applying open innovation "is a task we’ve seen deployed effectively across our nation’s most innovative companies," writes Chopra in the memorandum on open innovation that the White House released this week. "Procter & Gamble’s “Connect+Develop” strategy to source 50% of its innovations from the outside; Amazon’s “Just Do It” awards to celebrate innovative ideas from within; and Facebook’s “Development Platform” that generated an estimated 180,000 jobs in 2011 focused on growing the economy while returning benefits to Facebook in the process."

    The examples that Chopra cited are "bonafide," said MIT principal research professor Andrew McAfee, via email. "Open innovation or crowdsourcing or whatever you want to call it is real, and is (slowly) making inroads into mainstream (i.e. non high-tech) corporate America. P&G is real. Innocentive is real. Kickstarter is real. Idea solicitations like the ones from Starbucks are real, and lead-user innovation is really real."

    McAfee also shared the insight of Eric Von Hippel on innovation:

    “What is changing,” is that it is getting easier for consumers to innovate, with the Internet and such tools, and it is becoming more visible for the same reason. Historically though the only person who had the incentive to publicize innovation was the producer. People build institutions around how a process works and the mass production era products were built by mass production companies, but they weren’t invented by them. When you create institutions like mass production companies you create the infrastructure to help and protect them such as heavy patent protection. Now though we see that innovation is distributed, open collaborative.”

    In his remarks, Chopra hailed a crowdsourced approach to the design of DARPA's next-generation combat vehicle, where an idea from a U.S. immigrant led to a better outcome. "The techniques we’ve deployed along the way have empowered innovators, consumers, and policymakers at all levels to better use technology, data, and innovation," wrote Chopra in the memo.

    "We’ve demonstrated that “open innovation,” the crowdsourcing of citizen expertise to enhance government innovation, delivers real results. Fundamentally, we believe that the American people, when equipped with the right tools, can solve many problems." To be fair, the "toolkit" in question amounts more to a list of links and case studies than a detailed manual or textbook, but people interested in innovating in government at the local, state and national level should find it useful.

    The question now is whether the country and its citizens will be the "winners in the productivity revolutions of the future," posed Chopra, looking to the markets for mobile technology, healthcare and clean energy. In that context, Chopra said that "open data is an active ingredient" in job creation and economic development, citing existing examples. 6 million Californians can now download their energy data through the Green Button, said Chopra, with new Web apps like Watt Quiz providing better interfaces for citizens to make more informed consumption decision.

    More than 76,000 Americans found places to get treatment or health services using iTriage, said Chopra, with open data spurring better healthcare decisions by a more informed mobile citizenry. He hailed the role of collaborative innovation in open government, with citing mobile healthcare app ginger.io.

    Open government platforms

    During his tenure as US CTO, Chopra was a proponent of open data, participatory platforms and one of the Obama administration's most prominent evangelists for the use of technology to make government more open and collaborative. Our September 2010 interview on his work is embedded below:

    In his talk last Wednesday, Chopra highlighted two notable examples of open government. First, he described the "startup culture" at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, highlighting the process by which the new .gov agency designed a better mortgage disclosure form.

    Second, Chopra cited two e-petitions to veto the Stop Online Piracy Act and Protect IP Act on the White House e-petition platform, We The People, as an important example of open government in actions. The e-petitions, which gathered more than 103,000 signatures, are proof that when citizens are given the opportunity to participate, they will, said Chopra. The White House response, which came at a historic moment in the week the Web changed Washington. "SOPA/PIPA is exactly what We the People was meant to do," Chopra told Nancy Scola.

    Traditionally, Congress formally requests a Statement of Administration Policy, called a "SAP." Requests for SAPs come in all the time from Congress. We respond based on the dynamics of Washington, priorities and timelines. One would argue that a Washington-centric approach would have have been to await the request for a SAP and publish it, oftentimes when a major vote is happening. If you contrast that were SOPA/PIPA was, still in committee or just getting out of committee, and not yet on the floor, traditionally a White House would not issue a SAP that early. So the train we were on, the routine Washington line of business, we would have awaited the right time to issue a SAP, and done it at congressional request. It just wasn't time yet. The We the People process flipped upside-down to whom we are responsible for providing input. In gathering over a hundred thousand signatures, on SOPA/PIPA, the American people effectively demanded a SAP.

    Innovation for healthcare and veterans

    "I think people will embrace the open innovation approach because it works," said Todd Park at last week's forum, citing examples at Novartis, Aventis and Walgreens, amongst others. Park cited "Joy's Law," by Sun Microsystems computer science pioneer Bill Joy: "no matter who you are, you have to remember that most of the smart people don't work for you."

    Part of making that work is opening up systems in a way that enables citizens, developers and industry to collaborate in creating solutions. "We're moving the culture away from proprietary, closed systems … into something that is modular, standards-based & open, said Peter Levin.

    If you went to the Veterans Affairs website in 2009, you couldn't see where you were in the process, said Levin. One of the ways to solve that problem is to create a platform for people to talk to each other, he explained, which the VA was able to do that through its Facebook page.

    That may be a "colossal policy change," in his view, but it had an important result: "the whole patronizing fear that if we open up dialogue, open up channels, you'll create a problem you can't undo - that's not true for us," he said.

    If you want to rock and roll, emphasized Park, don't just have your own smart people work on a challenge. That's an approach that Aventis executives found success using in a data diabetes challenge. Walgreens will be installing "Health Guides" at its stores to act as a free "health concierge," said Park, as opposed to what they would have done normally. They launched a challenge and, in under three months, got 50 credible prototypes. Now, said Park, mHealthCoach is building Health Guides for Walgreens.

    One of the most important observations Park made, however, may have been that there has been too much of a focus on apps created from open data, as opposed to data informing policy makers and care givers. If you want to revolutionize the healthcare industry, open data needs to be at the fingertips of the people who need it most, where then need it most, when they need it most.

    For instance, at a recent conference, he said, "Aetna rolled out this innovation called a nurse." If you want to have data help people, built a better IT cockpit for that nurse that helps that person become more omniscient. Have the nurse talk over the telephone with a human who can be helped by the power of the open data in front of the healthcare worker.

    Who will pick up the first federal CTO's baton?

    Tim O'Reilly made a case for Chopra in April 2009, when the news of his selection leaked. Tim put the role of a federal CTO in the context of someone who provides "visionary leadership, to help a company (or in this case, a government) explore the transformative potential of new technology." In many respects, he delivered upon that goal during his tenure. The person who fills the role will need to provide similar leadership, and to do so in a difficult context, given economic and political headwinds that confront the White House.

    As he turns the page towards the next chapter of his career -- one which sources cited by the Washington Post might lead him into politics in Virginia -- the open question now will be who President Obama will choose to be the next "T" in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, a role that remains undefined, in terms of Congressional action.

    The administration made a strong choice in federal CIO Steven VanRoekel. Inside of government, Park or Levin are both strong candidates for the role, along with Andrew Blumenthal, CTO at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. In the interim, Chris Vein, deputy chief technology office for public sector innovation, is carrying the open government innovation banner in the White House.

    In this election year, who the administration chooses to pick up the baton from Chopra will be an important symbol of its commitment to harnessing technology on behalf of the American people. Given the need for open innovation to addressing the nation's grand challenges, from healthcare to energy to education, the person tapped to run this next leg will play an important role in the country's future.

    Related:

    January 13 2012

    Top Stories: January 9-14, 2012

    Here's a look at the top stories published across O'Reilly sites this week.

    What is big data?
    It's the hot trend in software right now, but what does big data mean, and how can you exploit it? Strata chair Edd Dumbill presents an introduction and orientation to the big data landscape.

    Can Maryland's other "CIO" cultivate innovation in government?
    Maryland's first chief innovation officer, Bryan Sivak, is looking for the levers that will help state government to be smarter, not bigger. From embracing collective intelligence to data-driven policy, Sivak is defining what it means to be innovative in government.

    Three reasons why we're in a golden age of publishing entrepreneurship
    Books, publishing processes and readers have all made the jump to digital, and that's creating considerable opportunities for publishing startups.

    The rise of programmable self
    Taking a cue from the Quantified Self movement, the programmable self is the combination of a digital motivation hack with a digital system that tracks behavior. Fred Trotter looks at companies and projects relevant to the programmable-self space.

    A venture into self-publishing
    Scott Berkun turned to self-publishing with his latest book, "Mindfire." In this TOC podcast, Berkun discusses the experience and says the biggest surprise was the required PR effort.


    Tools of Change for Publishing, being held February 13-15 in New York, is where the publishing and tech industries converge. Register to attend TOC 2012.

    November 22 2011

    Congress considers anti-piracy bills that could cripple Internet industries



    Sections

    Imagine a world where YouTube, Flickr, Facebook or Twitter had never been created due to the cost of regulatory compliance. Imagine an Internet where any website where users can upload text, pictures or video is liable for copyrighted material uploaded to it. Imagine a world where the addresses to those websites could not be found using search engines like Google and Bing, even if you typed them in directly.

    Imagine an Internet split into many sections, depending upon where you lived, where a user's request to visit another website was routed through an addressing system that could not be securely authenticated. Imagine a world where a government could require that a website hosting videos of a bloody revolution be taken down because it also hosted clips from a Hollywood movie.

    Imagine that it's 2012, and much of that world has come to pass after President Obama has signed into law an anti-online piracy bill that Congress enacted in a rare show of bipartisan support. In an election year, after all, would Congress and the President risk being seen as "soft on cybercrime?"

    Yes, the examples above represent worst-case scenarios, but unfortunately, they're grounded in reality. In a time when the American economy needs to catalyze innovation to compete in a global marketplace, members of the United States Congress have advanced legislation that could lead to precisely that landscape.

    The Stop Online Piracy Act "is a bill that would eviscerate the predictable legal environment created by the DMCA [Digital Millennium Copyright Act], subjecting online innovators to a new era of uncertainty and risk," said David Sohn, senior policy counsel at the Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT) in Washington, D.C., in a statement. "It would force pervasive scrutiny and surveillance of Internet users' online activities. It would chill the growth of social media and conscript every online platform into a new role as content police. And it would lay the groundwork for an increasingly balkanized Internet, directly undercutting U.S. foreign policy advocacy in support of a single, global, open network."

    The names of the "Stop Online Piracy Act (H.R. 3261) and "PROTECT IP Act" (S. 968) make it clear what they're meant to do: protect the intellectual property of content creators against online piracy. What they would do, if enacted and signed into law, is more contentious. SOPA is "really a Trojan horse that might be better named the Social Media Surveillance Act," said Leslie Harris, CEO of CDT, in a press conference. "Expect it to have a devastating effect on social media content and expression."

    To ground the potential issue in familiar examples, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) explained how SOPA could affect Etsy, Flickr and Vimeo. Don't use those sites? OK. Substitute eBay, Instagram and YouTube. Or the next generation of online innovation.

    Let's be clear: online piracy and the theft of intellectual property are serious problems for the global media. Nor is piracy something that legislators, regulators, publishers or members of the media should condone. Given that context, this legislation has strong support from an industry coalition of content creators, including labor unions, artists guilds, movie studios and television networks.

    Those pro-legislation constituencies do have their supporters. Andrew Keen wrote at TechCrunch that the "death of the Internet was exaggerated," disparaging the claims of the organizations, individuals and experts who have come out against the bills. Scott Cleland argued at Forbes, that this "anti-piracy legislation will become law," citing the scope of IP theft and the need to address it by some means.

    Neither of these commentators, however, addressed the significant technical, legal and security concerns that persist around the provisions in SOPA and the PROTECT IP Act. The drafters of SOPA apply several enforcement mechanisms to combat online piracy. There's broad support for measures to restrict revenues that support sites that distribute copyrighted material or child pornography. The most controversial provision of the bills centers on the use of the domain name system as a means to prevent people from accessing sites hosting infringing content.

    The Stop Online Privacy Act goes further than the Protect IP Act in a number of important ways, and it mirrors provisions in other acts. Nate Anderson wrote at Ars Technica that the House takes the Senate's bad Internet censorship bill and make it worse.

    The CDT recommends a more focused "follow-the-money" approach "narrowly targeting clear bad actors and drying up their financial lifeblood, could reduce online infringement without risking so much damage to Internet openness, innovation, and security," said Sohn. "Fighting large-scale infringement is an important goal. But SOPA would do far too much collateral damage to innovation, online expression, and privacy. Congress needs to listen to the full range of stakeholders and seriously rethink how it should address the problem of online infringement."

    Significant legal and technical concerns persist about SOPA and the PROTECT IP Act. CDT has a useful SOPA summary that clearly explains these issues. Sohn joined with Andrew McDiarmid to write an editorial in the Atlantic that says SOPA is a "dangerous bill that would threaten legitimate websites."

    In a widely cited editorial for the New York Times last week, Rebecca MacKinnon, author and co-founder of Global Voices, argued that the U.S should not support the creation of a "Great Firewall of America":

    The potential for abuse of power through digital networks — upon which we as citizens now depend for nearly everything, including our politics — is one of the most insidious threats to democracy in the Internet age. We live in a time of tremendous political polarization. Public trust in both government and corporations is low, and deservedly so. This is no time for politicians and industry lobbyists in Washington to be devising new Internet censorship mechanisms, adding new opportunities for abuse of corporate and government power over online speech. While American intellectual property deserves protection, that protection must be won and defended in a manner that does not stifle innovation, erode due process under the law, and weaken the protection of political and civil rights on the Internet.

    Tim O'Reilly said the following about SOPA and PROTECT IP Act:

    We're in one of the greatest periods of social and business transformation since the Industrial Revolution, a transformation driven by the open architecture of the Internet. We're still in early stages of that revolution. New technologies, new companies, and new business models appear every day, creating new benefits to society and the economy. But now, fundamental elements of that Internet architecture are under attack. These legislative attacks are not motivated by clear thinking about the future of the Internet or the global economy, but instead are motivated by the desire to protect large, entrenched companies with outdated business models that are threatened by the Internet. Rather than adapting, and competing with new and better services, they are going to Congress asking for protection. If they succeed, they will vitiate the Internet economy.

    As a publisher, I have experience from the front lines of the copyright wars. O'Reilly first began putting our books online in 1987. Now, in 2011, ebooks are the fastest growing part of our business. We are proud that we have never used DRM on our books, and that sales have never suffered as a result. Instead, we are selling books in markets around the world that we were never able to reach in print. Existing copyright laws, and the goodwill of our customers, who constantly report pirated editions to us, are more than sufficient to protect our intellectual property and to enable a rich market for paid content. By making our content more accessible to readers around the world, we've expanded our business and our impact.

    Opposition from the legal, technical and VC community

    How we choose to address the issue of online piracy matters a great deal to both the American people and to the rest of the world. It says something about who we are as a free society, how we value due process and whether Congress listens to the people who understand how something that is to be regulated works.

    SOPA "really stands for the proposition that online communication tools, and the DNS, can and should be used for enforcement," said Cynthia Wong, head of the Project on Global Internet Freedom at the CDT, in a press conference. Once these enforcement tools are put in place, she said, they provide a model for governments to restrict hate speech or online criticism of public officials in the name of copyright protection. "What we're really risking is further balkanization of the Internet."

    Dozens of law professors say that the PROTECT IP Act is unconstitutional. More than a hundred technology entrepreneurs blasted the PROTECT IP Act in a letter to Congress.

    The concerns of the technology industry regarding the effect of SOPA and the PROTECT IP Act on innovation were confirmed by a new study on the impact of Internet copyright regulations by consulting firm Booz Allen Hamilton. They study found that 70% of angel investors said an increase in anti-piracy regulations would deter them from investing in websites that feature user-generated content.

    "The debate over digital content is a vast landscape peppered with many opinions and very little real data," says Matthew Le Merle, a partner at Booz & Company, in a prepared statement. "We decided to conduct this empirical study to shed light on one important issue. Would angel investors really take their money elsewhere if the regulatory landscape fundamentally changed with regard to copyright regulation and the internet? The answer was definitive."

    "The 'content industries' like to make claims about their economic losses," wrote Tim O'Reilly on Google+. "At last, VCs and startups are starting to point out how much they have to lose from overreaching IP laws." O'Reilly was among those interviewed for the Booz Allen Hamilton study.

    Fundamental cybersecurity concerns about PROTECT IP

    An eminent group of Internet engineers and security professionals published a PROTECT IP whitepaper that demonstrates why the technical provisions would be both ineffective and would damage online security.

    "As a group, we're usually not involved in policy," said David Dagon, a postdoctoral fellow in computer science at Georgia Tech, at a press briefing this fall. This group of technicians, researchers and operational specialists was brought together by the implications of protecting the integrity and security of DNS infrastructure, he said. "The part that most alarms us are the extent to which requirements of the Act would affect DNSSEC," the Domain Name System Security Extensions. DNSSEC is a joint effort between ICANN and VeriSign, with support from the U.S. Department of Commerce, to make the domain name system more secure when used on IP networks.

    The old version of DNS is not secure enough, explained Paul Vixie, founder of Internet Systems Consortium, at the press briefing. Bad guys could insert code into it. The basic solution was to add cryptographic signatures added to every answer sent back by a name server. That way there's assurance to the requester of a domain name that the information being received is the same as the information sent by the source. That technology, after a lot of design and development, is in mid-stride for being deployed as DNSSEC around the world.

    The value of DNSSEC was recently demonstrated when the FBI revealed "Operation Ghost Click, argued Ernesto Falcon, director of government affairs at Public Knowledge. Operation Ghost Click dismantled a global cybercriminal network that stole $14 million using well-documented security holes in the DNS.

    An "absolutely central aspect" of the design of DNSSEC is to detect any change in the answer along the way, said Vixie. "The provisions of this bill try to do the same thing in the spirit of telling the user that the site has been taken down by court order. Unfortunately, the bill tampers at a very low level of architecture of the Internet. The effect will be that it will look like it's been tampered with."

    Vixie emphasized that the researchers have "no issue with protecting intellectual property. "Many of us have patents and copyrights and are not empathetic at all with piracy. Other provisions will be effective, he said. "This particular one will not be."

    Security researcher Dan Kaminsky (@dakami), who found and fixed a fundamental flaw in DNS, strongly argued that the security challenges that the world faces can't be ignored.

    "America is getting hacked," he said. "We're seeing widespread level of our assets getting broken into. It's untenable. It's something we have to fix or our economy can't work."

    The problem with the DNS provisions in the PROTECT IP Act is the impact they would have outside of pirate sites, said Kaminsky, which he observed have some 53 billion page views ever year.

    Kaminsky said these provisions would both be largely ineffectual and increase the security risks for financial services companies, among others. "The amount of tech work someone needs to do is approximately 30 seconds," he said. "With a click, resolution can be exported overseas. It's not just Pirate Bay. There are lookups to Bank of America and Citibank overseas. We'd be handing over American Internet access to entities we do not trust, entities that are unambiguously bad guys. The best case technology for finally protecting asserts on the Internet is significantly impacted" by these provisions, he said.

    That assessment is backed up by components of the U.S. government's own research community. Sandia Labs told CNET that SOPA will negatively impact U.S. cybersecurity.

    If we as a country put this around our DNS servers, we'll see an exodus from around the United States, said Dagon. "We believe the volume of users is so large that it will provide opportunities for mischief. Every behavior will be communicated to some server overseas. The volume is such that it's something policy makers should reflect on."

    Allan A. Friedman, a fellow in governance studies at the Brookings Institution, detailed significant cybersecurity risks posed by SOPA and the PROTECT IP Act that policy makers should consider. There are "very real threats to cybersecurity in a small section of both bills in their attempts to execute policy through the Internet architecture," he wrote. "While these bills will not 'break the Internet,' they further burden cyberspace with three new risks. First, the added complexity makes the goals of stability and security more difficult. Second, the expected reaction of Internet users will lead to demonstrably less secure behavior, exposing many American Internet users, their computers and even their employers to known risks. Finally, and most importantly, these bills will set back other efforts to secure cyberspace, both domestically and internationally."

    It would be "quite a burden on United States companies to follow these rules," said Vixie. "In order to solve these problems on a global basis without affecting our economy to prevent bypass, they would have to work on an international level with countries and have them do takedowns locally. I don't believe that there is a unilaterally imposable technical solution that Congress can mandate to address this issue."

    Danny McPherson, the chief security officer for Verisign, agreed. "Were there such a tech solution, I wouldn't have waited for Congress," he said at the briefing. "I would have used it 15 years ago versus malware."

    More lawmakers come out against SOPA

    As Declan McCullagh reported for CNET, the "SOPA copyright bill's backers include the Republican or Democratic heads of all the relevant House and Senate committees, and groups as varied as the Teamsters and the AFL-CIO." As the week begins, PROTECT IP had 39 co-sponsors in the Senate and SOPA had 24 co-sponsors in the House.

    Why is SOPA on the Congressional agenda now, given the huge challenges that the country faces with employment, education, healthcare, energy and the long war abroad? As always, follow the money. An analysis by MapLight.org showed that supporters of SOPA have given 12 times as much money to members of Congress than those opposing it.

    Despite that notable imbalance, a growing number of U.S. Representatives and Senators in Congress have expressed principled opposition to the PROTECT IP Act and its companion bill in the House.

    In the House, Representatives Issa and Lofgren sent a 'Dear Colleague' letter opposing SOPA to Congressional leaders. Last week, Representatives Eshoo, Lofgren, Paul, Doggett, Honda, Miller, Thompson, Matsui, Doyle and Polis sent a letter opposing SOPA to the leaders of the House Judiciary Committee. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi tweeted that Congressional leaders "need to find a better solution than #SOPA #DontBreakTheInternet.

    Oregon Senator Ron Wyden has been an important voice against the PROTECT IP Act and took action to put a hold on it earlier this year. Wyden told the audience at Web 2.0 Summit that the Protect IP Act is about letting the content sector attack the innovation sector. In the video below, I interview Senator Wyden more specifically about the issues raised in the PROTECT IP ACT:

    In a press conference on Tuesday, Representative Darrell Issa and Representative Zoe Lofgren addressed concerns with SOPA:

    Last week, Rep. Issa told The Hill that SOPA has no chance of passing the House and that "Congress was using Google as a piñata." Issa said to Gautham Nagesh that "I don't believe this bill has any chance on the House floor. I think it's way too extreme, it infringes on too many areas that our leadership will know is simply too dangerous to do in its current form."

    When asked for further comment on Monday, Congressman Mike Honda made the following statement via email:

    "The internet censorship bills currently moving through Congress, the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the PROTECT IP Act, set a dangerous precedent and represent a big step backwards in Washington's efforts to foster growth in the digital sector. These bills would have a profound effect on how the internet functions on a basic level, undermining the legal process and overturning long-standing practices like ‘safe harbors’ that were established in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

    I have serious concerns about the overly broad definitions of theft included in SOPA that could be used to shut down dozens of lawful exchange sites that are valuable outlets for small-scale buying and selling. I am also uneasy about the use of DNS blocking as a viable solution, especially within the lens of consumer security standards like DNSSEC. Finally, the complete immunity from federal and state laws granted in SOPA to several industries could set off an anti-consumer and anti-competitive wave that will strike at the very core of the internet.

    The fact that Congress is considering these haphazard bills is a cause for alarm. I agree with the goal of combating online piracy and am committed to coming up with bi-partisan solutions. I am extremely intrigued by the ideas currently proposed as alternatives, particularly the idea of implementing an International Trade Commission complaint process, but these pieces of legislation as currently drafted will cause substantial harm to innovation and the economic opportunities created by the Internet in my Silicon Valley District and to the fundamental openness of the internet."

    A Congressional hearing stacked against the Internet

    It's not hard to see the House Judiciary Committee has not been equally representing both sides of the debate in either the resources it provides online or in the witnesses it called to testify at a recent hearing.

    If you read the U.S. House Judiciary website "resource pages" on "rogue websites, for instance, you'd never know that there's any opposition to the Stop Online Piracy Act at all, even from within the committee.

    Similarly, if you visited the hearing for H.R. 3261 on the House Judiciary committee website, you would not see any of the documents that Representatives Lofgren or Issa read into the record during last week's hearing.

    If you want a more balanced picture of the hearing, turn to InfoDocket.com, which has collected many more SOPA resources.

    For media reports on the SOPA hearing, read The Hill, Politico, The Atlantic Wire, Wired, Washington Post, or, most frank of all, ArsTechnica, which captured a truth that became clear to many observers who sat through all of it: "The hearing was designed to shove the legislation forward and to brand companies who object as siding with 'the pirates'."

    As Carl Franzen put it at TPM's Idealab, this hearing provided an official venue for the bill's supporters to explain why SOPA should pass. The problem with that approach is that the witness list (five for SOPA, one against) left the committee wide open to accusations of anti-Internet bias in the witness list.

    Opponents of SOPA were dismayed to hear full support for the bill as drafted by the U.S. Register of Copyrights, Maria Pallente, who said that without SOPA, copyright will ultimately fail.

    Despite the stacked deck, several representatives raised concerns about freedom of expression and innovation, including Reps. Lofgren, Issa and Maxine Waters.

    Rep. Dan Lungren raised a key issue in his questioning, when he asked the representative of the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) to respond to the concerns of former Homeland Security Assistant Secretary and former NSA General Counsel, Stewart Baker and Internet engineers regarding SOPA hurting cybersecurity because of its effect on DNSSEC. (The MPAA disagreed, for the record.) Nobody testifying at the hearing said they had the technical expertise to comment on SOPA and DNSSEC, which begged the question: Why weren't any Internet engineers invited?

    Based upon the witness list and the resources offered online, it does not appear that the Congressmen who sponsored the bill were being entirely forthright when they said that the Internet industry was welcome to comment. Rep. Issa said at the hearing that the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) had been denied a request to testify.

    There's also an important point about open government to make: this hearing was of great interest to the American people, most of whom could not attend in person. The halls of the Rayburn Congressional office building were full for the hearing, with many people turned to a spillover room. That public interest means that broadcasting the hearing online is even more important — and yet the livestream was choppy or simply inaccessible to many citizens. That effectively shut the public out of the SOPA hearings.

    Archived video of the three-and-a-half-hour hearing is available but it's far from user friendly. The Government Oversight and Reform Committee was able to post Rep Issa's remarks on YouTube the day after the hearing.

    Matt Lira, director of new media for the House Majority Leader, says that they "are working on that, structurally; it won't be a problem in 2nd session."

    Wikileaks, DNS and the Internet commons

    What's happening in Congress now needs to be put in context with a longer continuum of proposed legislation, Internet policy choices and government actions.

    Over the past year, a spirited debate about what Wikileaks means for the future of journalism, whistleblowing and Internet freedom has revealed a couple of important realities. One of the best outcomes of the Wikileaks saga is that it has catalyzed discussion about how the technical infrastructure of the Internet relates to freedom of expression online. It remains critically important to heighten general awareness of some of the laws relevant to the Internet that are being discussed in Washington, particularly for media organizations and the audiences affected by them.

    As someone who has covered the space for a while, I know that the alphabet soup of that surrounds Internet policy is hard enough to swallow for reporters immersed in it. For most people, it's too much to navigate. This article, for example, was originally envisioned as a primer on DNS, COICA, ICE, DHS, ACTA and the issues associated with them. For serious geeks, some of these definitions may be old hat, but the government policy surrounding them is worth tracking. Below, you'll find both explanations of the terms.

    The domain name system is one of the hallmark technologies that makes the Internet work. (If you already know how DNS works, skip down to the next section.) DNS stands for Domain Name System, a globally interoperable way for people to easily access websites. This is how an online user is taken to his or her desired website when after entering a URL (Uniform Resource Locator) into the address field of a Web browser. Without the DNS, users would have to know the string of numbers that make up an Internet Protocol (IP) address for a given website. While a few geeks might be able to pull that off, the vast majority of people wouldn't be able to find the website as easily. Historically, the DNS is coordinated by ICANN and a system of regional organizations that help coordinate the global IP addressing system.

    Why does DNS matter to the media and citizens they inform? Think of it like this: what would it mean to the ability of broadcast news to reach citizens if it became much more difficult to tune into the station? Nancy Scola explained why DNS matters for Wikileaks over at TechPresident last winter.

    Scola examined how Congress seeks to tame the Internet in a recent feature at Salon.com. " For all the rhetoric," she writes, "this isn't even really about copyright. This is about the Internet — and more to the point, the infrastructure and operations of the Internet that make the Internet the Internet. SOPA targets search engines, Internet service providers, ad networks and payment networks precisely because those components are so central to the functioning of the Internet. Those are digital forces that should be messed with only with the greatest of care."

    The Internet is a remarkably robust decentralized network, designed to hold up in the event of a nuclear attack. That said, it does have a centralized choke point: the domain name server system. That makes tampering with the DNS as a means to limit access online content attractive to some. That said, the aftermath of the delisting of wikileaks.org showed, however, the organization was able to get another domain (wikileaks.ch) and mirror its content to over a thousand other servers.

    At present, responsibility for addressing illegal activity on the Internet, particularly copyright, is spread throughout multiple parties. Copyright issues in the United States are addressed by a Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) takedown.

    Let's take a walk back through some important history on copyright legislation. Last year, the "Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act" (COICA) (S. 3804), introduced by Sen. Patrick Leahy on September 20, 2010, would have changed that dynamic. The bill, which passed the Senate Judiciary Committee, was meant to "fight online copyright infringement."

    The mechanisms in the bill for enforcement would have forced domain name registries to prevent resolution of domains that online users try to visit. (Sound familiar?) These registries are the companies and organizations that administer top-level domains like .com, .org, .net, and so on, not a second-level provider like GoDaddy, or a DNS provider like the one that delisted Wikileaks.

    It's worth considering how Wikileaks first lost its DNS registration for Wikileaks.org and then the ability to receive donations through PayPal. Another DNS provider put Wikileaks.org back online, but the precedent of how DNS could be used as a mechanism for censorship online was made.

    Such precedents are important, both for networks within the borders of the United States and beyond. As more general top-level domains are rolled out by ICANN in the years ahead, more governments will receive control over commercial top-level domains.

    If the United States Congress follows through in creating legislation, other governments will have cover and do the same with domains linked to websites that they declare are in violation of their own laws. Domestic actions on Internet policy, in other words, have global impact in a networked age.

    COICA enforcement would have required financial transaction providers to prevent transactions for "customers located within the United States based on purchases associated with the domain name." What was particularly notable about Wikileaks as a case study, then, was not the use of DNS, which the organization quickly routed around. It was how cutting off electronic payment mechanisms starved Wikileaks' operation of funding. (The effectiveness of which was noted by Google's Katherine Oyama last week during the hearing before the U.S. House.)

    COICA received widespread criticism from civil liberties organizations, although not to the level that COICA's descendants have more recently. Senator Leahy said that the "Chamber of Commerce, organized labor, content owners and a tremendous cross-section of industry groups all support this legislation." On that count, COICA is supported by the Motion Picture Association of America, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Screen Actors Guild, Viacom, and the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, Moving Picture Technicians, Artists and Allied Crafts of the United States. (These supporters should look familiar as well.)

    COICA was opposed by organizations and individuals such as the CDT, the EFF, the Distributed Computing Industry Association, Tim Berners-Lee, the American Civil Liberties Union and Human Rights Watch.

    As Mike Masnick wrote at TechDirt, the creator of the World Wide Web, Tim Berners-Lee, came out against COICA:

    "We all use the web now for all kinds of parts our lives, some trivial, some critical to our life as part of a social world," says Tim Berners-Lee, creator of the Web. "In the spirit going back to Magna Carta, we require a principle that: No person or organization shall be deprived of their ability to connect to others at will without due process of law, with the presumption of innocence until found guilty. Neither governments nor corporations should be allowed to use disconnection from the Internet as a way of arbitrarily furthering their own aims."

    Berners-Lee reiterated his opposition to the U.S. government censoring the Web last week.

    Tim Berners Lee tweet

    ICE and the Internet

    The concerns of the Internet community over the use of DNS for enforcement have played out over the last year. Those concerns emerged when the White House's new intellectual property enforcement office indicated that the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) division of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) would expand website takedowns to online pharmacies. The issues around the seizure of domain names became more complex over the 2010 Thanksgiving holiday, when online piracy enforcement moved to music blogs. The operator of one of those music blogs, Joe Hoffman, went on the record to the New York Times to state that his site had no information about what they were being charged with. This highlighted the due process and transparency issues around enforcement.

    "A fundamental problem with the ICE seizures is insufficient regard for due process--the right of people to defend themselves before adverse actions are taken against them," said John Bergmayer, staff attorney at Public Knowledge, a Washington, D.C.-based public interest group. "Various kinds of property seizures have been abused in other areas of the law for years. I think there's an important distinction to be drawn on the domestic domain name vs. international domain name issue. In the one case it's domain seizure, in the other it's blocking."

    Bergmayer argues that when it comes to domestic domain names, the government has all the tools it needs to redirect domains. "This might be bad policy and law but it doesn't really 'break' DNS per se — it uses extraordinary means to change what the canonical DNS entry is for a domain."

    When it comes to international domains, there are different considerations. "End-user ISPs and anyone who operates a DNS server in the U.S. can be directed to actually break DNS for particular sites," said Bergmayer. "They are directed to not follow the canonical DNS entry. [There are] dumb technological problems with that — it both breaks the functioning of the Internet, could fragment it into various incompatible nets, raises security problems, and ultimately could be routed around with a simple Firefox plug-in."

    SOPA and Internet freedom

    When asked about anti-piracy legislation by Rep. Howard Berman, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that there "is no contradiction between intellectual property rights protection and enforcement and ensuring freedom of expression on the Internet."

    Sohn disagrees. SOPA "undermines cybersecurity and encourages, country by country, balkanization of the Internet," he said. "It's a blunt instrument. It certainly will affect free speech."

    Wong similarly disputes that position. SOPA "is really hard to square with the United States' current foreign policy goal of one Internet," she said. "If adopted, it could have a real effect on human rights defenders. We've seen the ability of tools like Tor to help. If government creates obligations on these services to moderate the behavior of users, it will be hard."

    Should Secretary Clinton continue to offer full support for these bills, she could be presented with an additional diplomatic headache: the European Parliament warned of global dangers from U.S. domain revocation proposals on Thursday.

    Intermediary liability and ACTA

    Another important element of the future of copyright at a global level surrounds the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), an agreement that would establish international standards for intellectual property.

    Why does ACTA matter to the media and citizens? Consider the phrase "intermediary liability." That's the principle that websites on the Internet, like YouTube, Internet service providers, web hosting companies or social networks, should not be held liable for the content created or uploaded by their users.

    White House deputy chief technology officer for Internet policy Danny Weitzner explained what intermediary liability is and why it matters in the context of copyright and the PROTECT IP Act at this year's Web 2.0 Summit. Fast forward to minute 12:42 for his remarks.

    "Requiring intermediary action is always troubling, but if you're going to do it, it's better to go after direct business relationships than more indirect or technical connections," said Bergmayer. "Thus, one of the big problems with the ICE takedowns is the involvement of registries, who have no direct business relationship with the sites in question (and thus no incentive to try to protect their customers). Online service providers have sometimes been heroes in protecting their customers, and it's good to try to preserve that dynamic."

    The CDT has published a comprehensive white paper on intermediary liability (PDF) and strongly advocates for the protection of intermediaries online.

    The Google Public Policy blog wrote about intermediary liability back in 2007, when India considered changes to its technology laws. As Doc Searls described it in his post on the Internet in China, holding content carriers accountable for copyright through intermediary liability can be thought of as a kind of "encirclement."

    That's because, as MacKinnon wrote in her article on the Internet "self-discipline", in China, "all Internet and mobile companies are held responsible for everything their users post, transmit, or search for."

    In theory, as the ACTA FAQ sheets from Canada state, the treaty is meant to focus on copyright issues, not free speech. In practice, as the EFF makes clear in its ACTA brief, the potential for intermediary liability to be an issue in other countries is a legitimate concern.

    "When it comes to intermediary-directed actions, there's a fundamental disagreement about whether those count as 'enforcement' provisions," said Bergmayer. "I would argue that it goes beyond ';enforcement' when you take a new party X and tell him he now is legally obligated to do something new. That's the creation of a new obligation, forced deputization. To me, increased 'enforcement' means, basically, that cops start doing their job better, that courts process cases more quickly — not restructuring the balance of legal responsibilities."

    The EFF submitted its concerns about ACTA after the official request for comments last December. ACTA is "likely to cause harm to investment and innovation in the U.S. technology sector and to American citizens' ability to engage in currently lawful conduct," said Bergmayer.

    On ACTA, Bergmayer made an important point relating to how the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) tries to frame it as non-binding is often lost.

    "The agreement is binding from an international law perspective, and the U.S.TR can't do anything about that. If the U.S. is out of compliance, other countries would have all the usual remedies against the U.S. in international bodies. In U.S. courts, it would not be binding, but only persuasive," he said.

    What's at stake for the open Internet with ACTA, SOPA and PROTECT IP Act? It's "what's been at stake for more than 15 years: the possibility that a coalition of forces who are afraid of the Internet will shut it down," Harvard Law professor Yochai Benkler told me at the eG8 forum this spring. I saw Benkler again at the Club de Madrid annual conference this past week and talked more with him about the challenges to the Internet as we know it today, including SOPA. He mentioned that his paper on the latter bill had been receiving more attention and was more relevant in the context of the introduction of the former bill. The paper compares the attack on Wikileaks to key elements of PROTECT IP on a deep level.

    "There is still a very powerful counter argument, one that says both for innovation and for freedom, we need an open Net," he said. "Both for growth and welfare, and for democracy and participation, we need to make sure that the Internet remains an open Internet, remains a commons we all share, remains neutral at all layers, the physical layer, at the logical layer, at the data layer, at the content layer — at all of these layers, we must have an open Internet. That's still very strong, but it seems more threatened today than it has been for five or six years. We seem to be closer to the risk we were at in the late '90s, than the risk we were at five years ago."

    The sleeping Internet giant awakes

    In the weeks since SOPA was introduced, the technology media has done a creditable job raising awareness about the bill, albeit with some rhetoric that might mask the genuinely substantive concerns about its provisions. A coalition of organizations that oppose the bill created a website, FightForTheFuture.org, and a simple video that asserts that "PROTECT IP Breaks the Internet."

    Mike Masnick has being blogging non-stop at TechDirt. The EFF has documented an explosion of opposition to the bill, including venture capitalists like Albert Wenger, Brad Burnham, Fred Wilson and many others opposed to the PROTECT IP Act in a letter to Congress. In a rare journey to the nation's capital, Wilson and others visited Capital Hill this fall in an effort to explain to lawmakers why this approach is problematic.

    They're far from alone. AOL, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, Twitter, eBay, LinkedIn, Mozilla and Zynga wrote a letter to Congress opposing SOPA.

    I joined "The Alyona Show" to talk about growing opposition from the tech industry to the SOPA last week. The show's producers read my article in the Huffington Post, "Internet Companies and Lawmakers Speak Out Against the Stop Online Piracy Act," and asked me to come in to talk about it.

    As the CDT has cataloged, there's a growing chorus of opposition to SOPA.

    That rising tide begs a questions: If Congress declared war on the Internet, as GigaOm's Mathew Ingram put it, what happens if the Internet fights back?

    Last week, websites across the Internet joined in "American Censorship Day" and encouraged citizens to contact their representatives. A White House epetition to "Stop the E-PARASITE Act" gained 18,000 signatures, which means that the White House will respond to it. An Avaaz petition to "Save the Internet now has more than 517,000 signatures.

    In what looks like a new horizon for Internet activism, Tumblr said that its users were averaging 3.6 calls every second to Congress at one point using an innovative Internet "click to call" tool the blogging platform created to "protect the Net." Tumblr's historic day resulted in 87,834 call to representatives averaging 53 seconds per call.

    Tumblr is not alone. SendWrite received more than 3,000 letters telling Congress to stop SOPA. Votizen collected hundreds of supporters for letters opposing PIPA.

    Reddit galvanized its substantial community around censorship. The Reddit community also crowdsourced discovery and aggregation of potentially infringing content on the congressional websites of the representatives that sponsored the legislation. As Ars Technica reported, however, SOPA sponsors are probably not about to make themselves felons.

    OpenCongress logged 53,000 site visits and 65,000 pages views to its SOPA and PROTECT IP Act information, with 810 emails sent from the public to Congress. OpenCongress has been hosting an important experiment in open government over the past few days: a public markup of SOPA, where citizens comment on provisions in the bill text.

    Will any of these online efforts have an offline impact? Over at Forbes, Kashmir Hill took an in-depth look at whether Internet lobbying can be as effective as money spent in Washington, but the question about impact is left unanswered. We'll see. To know whether all of that effort made a difference, we'd need to know whether the bill was subsequently amended (not yet), withdrawn (unlikely), voted down (no opportunity yet), or if more lawmakers come out against it. Pelosi did so last week, although it's not clear if online activism prompted the move.

    The bottom line here is that, as currently drafted, SOPA and the PROTECT IP Act have the potential to negatively affect innovation and Internet security, and enshrine into law the principle that a website hosting user-generated content is liable for any infringing content posted to it. The bills would increase the regulatory burden upon both startups and huge Internet companies, including new requirements to track users in ways that might be conflict with the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) instructions to create "privacy by design."

    "It's not possible to predict the future, but it is possible to shape it for good or ill," Tim O'Reilly said in our interview. "There is a clear and present danger to the future. The threat isn't online piracy. It is ill-considered laws driven by the narrow interests of companies that are unable to compete in a changing marketplace."

    As the importance of the Internet as a platform for collective action, commerce, open government and media grows, so too does the need for citizens, officials and journalists to understand how it works.

    "Washington is sometimes rightfully criticized for harboring some crazy ideas when it comes to the Internet," wrote Nancy Scola in Salon. "But the federal government has gotten some basic things very right, from funding the Internet in its early stages to having the wisdom to enshrine Section 230 and the safe harbors. It would be a shame to see Congress trash that legacy with a single bill."

    Digital literacy involves much more than knowing how to manage Facebook privacy settings, download software updates or choose strong passwords. Similarly, civic literacy involves more than knowing where to vote once every two or four years. If you use social media, watch online video, work on open source software, run an online business or believe in the Internet, it's long past time to become more literate on both counts.

    Most American citizens oppose government involvement in blocking access to content online, particularly when the word "censor" is accurately applied. When asked if ISPs, social media sites and search engines should block access — as they would under SOPA — only a third of Americans agree.

    Negative attention and significant questions about innovation and cybersecurity appear to have harmed the prospects for SOPA in the U.S. House. While the SOPA debate is far from over, Congressman Issa said on Friday that efforts to grease the skids of SOPA had failed.

    Whatever your opinion of SOPA, the PROTECT IP Act or other proposed legislation, there are now a growing number of digital tools to become better informed and to let your legislators know where you stand. Learn more about SOPA. It's never been easier to do so. It is, after all, your Internet.

    Reposted bycheg00 cheg00

    November 04 2011

    The maker movement's potential for education, jobs and innovation is growing

    Dale DoughertyDale Dougherty (@dalepd), one of the co-founders of O'Reilly Media, was honored at the White House yesterday as a "Champion of Change." This White House initiative profiles Americans who are helping their fellow citizens "meet the challenges of the 21st century." The recognition came as part of what the White House is calling "Make it in America," which convenes people from around the country to discuss American manufacturing and jobs.

    "This is so completely deserved," wrote Tim O'Reilly on Google+. "When you see kids at Maker Faire suddenly turned on to science and math because they want to make things, when you see them dragging their parents around with eyes shining, you realize just how dull our education system has made some of the most exciting and interesting stuff in the world. Dale has taken a huge step towards changing that. I'm honored to have worked with Dale now for more than 25 years, making big ideas happen. He's a genius."

    The event was streamed online at WhiteHouse.gov/live. Video of the event is up on YouTube, where you can watch Dougherty's comments, beginning at 58:18. Most of the other speakers focused on energy, transportation or other economic issues. Dougherty went in a different direction. "You're sort of the anti-Washington message, in that you guys just hang out and do great stuff," said U.S. CTO Aneesh Chopra when introducing Dougherty.

    "I started this magazine called 'MAKE'," Dougherty said. "It's sort of a 21st-century 'Popular Mechanics,' and it really meant to describe how to make things for fun and play. [We] started an event called MakerFaire, just bringing people together to see what they make in their basements, their garages, and what they're doing with technology. It really kind of came from the technology side into what you might call manufacturing, but people are building robots, people are building new forms of lighting, people are building … new forms of things that are just in their heads," he said.

    "You mentioned tinkering," said Dougherty, responding to an earlier comment by Chopra. "Tinkering was once a solid middle-class skill. It was how you made your life better. You got a better home, you fixed your car, you did a lot of things. We've kind of lost some of that, and tinkering is on the fringe instead of in the middle today.

    The software community is influencing manufacturing today, said Dougherty, including new ways of thinking about it. "It's a culture. I think when you look at 'MAKE' and MakerFaire, this is a new culture, and it is a way to kind of redefine what this means." It's about seeing manufacturing as a "creative enterprise," not something "where you're told to do something but where you're invited to solve a problem or figure things out."

    This emergent culture is one in which makers create because of passion and personal interest. "People are building robots because they want to," Dougherty said. "It's an expression of who they are and what they love to do. When you get these people together, they really turn each other on, and they turn on other people."

    I caught up with Dougherty and talked with him about the White House event and what's happening more broadly in the maker space. Our interview follows.

    What does this recognition mean to you?

    Dale Dougherty: I see it as a recognition for the maker movement and the can-do spirit of makers. I'm proud of what makers are doing, so I appreciated the opportunity to tell this story to business and government leaders. Makers are the champions of change.

    How fast is the maker community growing?

    Dale Dougherty: It's hard to put a number on the spread of an idea. The key thing is that it continues to spread and more people are getting connected. I know that the maker audience is getting younger every year, which is a good sign. That means we've involved more families and young people.

    What's particularly exciting to you in the maker movement right now?

    Dale Dougherty: Kits. We just wrapped up a special issue of "MAKE" on kits. Kits are a very interesting alternative to packaged consumer products. They provide parts and instructions for you to make something yourself. There's such a broad range of kits available that I wanted to bring them together in one issue. We have a great lead article by MIT researcher and economist, Michael Schrage, on how kits drive innovation. I didn't know, for example, that the first steam engine was sold as a kit. So were the first personal computers. Today we're looking at 3-D printers such as the Makerbot. We're also looking at the RallyFighter, a kit car from Local Motors, which you can build in their new microfactory in Arizona. Also, Jose Gomez-Marquez of MIT writes about DIY medical devices and how they can be hacked by medical practitioners in third-world countries to produce custom solutions.

    What does making mean for education?

    Dale Dougherty: Making is learning. Remember John Dewey's phrase "learn by doing." It's a hundred-year-old educational philosophy based on experiential learning that seems forgotten, if not forbidden, today. I see a huge opportunity to change the nature of our educational system.

    How is the maker movement currently influencing government?

    Dale Dougherty: The DIY mindset seems essential for a democratic society, especially one that is undergoing constant change. Think of Ralph Waldo Emerson's famous essay, "Self-Reliance." Taking responsibility for yourself and your community is critical. You can't have a democracy without participation. Everything we can do for ourselves we should do and not wait or expect others to do it for us. If you want things to change, step up and make it happen.

    The theme of the Washington meeting was "Make It in America." America is the leading manufacturing economy, but that lead is shrinking. As one speaker said, we have to refute the idea that manufacturing is "dirty, dangerous and disappearing."

    Do we want to remain a country that makes things? There are obvious reasons many would like that answer to be 'yes,' but the biggest reason is that manufacturing has historically been a source of middle class jobs.

    Some folks asked how to influence people so that they value manufacturing in American and how to get young kids interested in careers in manufacturing. One answer I have is that you have to get more people participating, to think of manufacturing as something that we all do, not just a few. We want to get people to see themselves as makers. This is the broad democratic invitation of the maker movement.

    Flipping this a bit, how should the maker movement influence government?

    Dale Dougherty: I see four things that the maker movement can bring:

    1. Openness — Once you get started doing something, you find others doing similar things. This creates opportunities for sharing and learning together. Collaboration just seems baked into the maker movement. Let's work together.
    2. Willingness to take risks — Let's not avoid risks. Let's not fear failure. Let's move ahead and learn from what experiences we have. The most important thing is iterating, making things better, learning new ways of doing things.
    3. Creativity — What excites many people is the opportunity to do creative work. If we can't define work as creative, maybe it won't get done.
    4. Personal — Technology has become personal. It's something we can use and shape to our own goals. Making is personal; what you make is an expression of who you are. It means something and that meaning can be shared in public.

    What lies ahead in the space? DIY solar, bioreactors, hacking cars?

    Dale Dougherty: That's what we'd all like to know. I don't spend too much time thinking about the future. There's so much going on right now.

    October 30 2011

    On Dennis Ritchie: A conversation with Brian Kernighan

    The phrase "Kernighan and Ritchie" has entered computing jargon independently of the lexical tokens from which it is constituted. I talked on Friday with Brian Kernighan about Dennis Ritchie, who sadly passed away two weeks ago at the age of 70. Brian had gotten to know me a bit when he contributed a chapter on regular expressions to the O'Reilly book Beautiful Code. He said, "It's just remarkable how much we all still depend on things Dennis created." Kernighan went on to say that Ritchie was not self-promotional, but just quietly went about doing the work he saw needed to be done.

    Plenty of ink has been devoted over the past 40 years to the impacts of the C language and of the Unix operating system, both of which sprang to a great extent from Ritchie's work, and more ink on the key principles they raised that have enabled key advances in computing: portability, encapsulation, many small programs cooperating through pipelining, a preference for representing data in text format, and so on. So I did not concentrate on these hoary, familiar insights, but talked to Kernighan about a few other aspects of Ritchie's work.

    More than bits of C remain

    It's noteworthy that Android added C support through the Native Development Kit. They needed the support in order to offer 3D graphics through the OpenGL libraries, which were written in C, but the NDK has proven very popular with developers who embellish their applications with device-specific code that has to be written in C.

    Apple's Cocoa and iOS have an easier time with C support, because their Objective-C code can directly call C functions. The "C family" that includes Objective-C and C++ is obviously thriving, but plain old C is still a key language too. Kernighan freely admits, "A lot of things are done better in other languages," but C is still queen for its "efficiency and expressiveness" at low-level computing.

    Ritchie created C with hardware in mind, and with the goal of making access to this hardware as efficient as possible while preserving the readability and portability that assembly language lacks. So it's not surprising that C is still used for embedded systems and other code that refers to hardware ports or specific memory locations. But C has also proven a darn good fit for any code requiring bit-level operations. Finally, it is still first choice for blazingly fast applications, which is why every modern scripting language has some kind of C gateway and why programmers still "drop down to C" for some operations. And of course, if you use a function such printf or cos from your favorite scripting language, you are most likely standing on the shoulders of the people who wrote those C library functions.

    Kernighan told me that Ritchie was always conscious of the benefits of using minimal resources. Much of what he did was a reaction against the systems he was working with when creating Unix with Ken Thompson (a reaction to the Multics operating system) and C (a reaction to the PL/1 language that Multics was based on). EPL, Bliss, and especially BCPL were more positive influences on C. The things that made C successful not only inspired languages and systems that followed, but kept C a serious contender even after they were developed.

    After Unix, Ritchie worked a great deal on Rob Pike's Plan 9 system. Not only did Ritchie use it exclusively, but he contributed to the code and helped manage the project at Bell Labs.

    Constraints

    The computing environment of the 1970s was unbelievably limited by modern standards. Kernighan said that Ritchie and Thompson had to design Unix to run in 24,000 bytes. And similar constraints existed in everything: disk space, bandwidth (when networks were invented!), and even I/O devices. The infamous terseness of Unix commands and output were predicated on their use at printers, and helped to save paper.

    But that was OK back then. You could make do with a fourteen-character limit on filenames, because programs were divided into relatively few files and you might have to manage only a few hundred files in your own work. You'd never need to run more than 32,768 processes or listen on more than 1024 incoming connections on your system. The Unix definition of time soon proved to be more problematic, both because some Unix programs may last beyond 2038 and because a granularity of less than a second is often important.

    But Kernighan points out that keeping things within the limits of a word (16 bits on the PDP-11 that Ritchie wrote for) had additional benefits by reducing complexity and hence the chance for error. If you want to accommodate huge numbers of files within a directory, you have to create a complex addressing system for files. And because the complex system is costly, you need to keep the old, simple system with it and create a series of levels that can be climbed as the user adds more files to the directory. All this makes it harder to program a system that is bug-free, not to mention lean and fast.

    The joys of pure computer science

    Kernighan's and Ritchie's seminal work came in the 1970s, when Kernighan said the computer field still presented "low-hanging fruit." Partly because they and their cohorts did so well, we don't have much more to do in the basic computer development that underlies the ever-changing cornucopia of protocols and applications that are the current focus of programmers. New algorithms will continue to develop, particularly thanks to the growth of multiprocessing and especially heterogeneous processors. New operating system constructs will be needed in those environments too. But most of the field has moved away from basic computer science toward various applications that deal directly with real-world activities.

    We know there are more Dennis Ritchies out there, but they won't be working heavily in the areas that Ritchie worked in. To a large extent, he completed what he started, and inspired many others of his own generation.

    September 26 2011

    Four short links: 26 September 2011

    1. BERG London Week 328 -- we're a design company, with a design culture built over 6 years, yet we're having to cultivate a new engineering culture that sits within it and alongside it, and the two have different crystal grains. It's good that they do—engineering through a design process can feel harried and for some projects that does not lead to good outcomes. And vice versa. But it throws up all kinds of questions for me: do we really want two domains of engineering and design; what is the common protocol—the common language—of engineering culture, and indeed of our design culture; how do these lattices touch and interact where they meet; how do we go from an unthought process to one chosen deliberately; how is change (the group understanding of, and agreement with a common language) to be brought about, and what will it feel like as it happens. I think more and more businesses will have to explicitly confront the challenge of reconciling design with engineering, novelty with constancy, innovation with repetition. Science is doing something once in a way that others might able to reproduce, however long it takes. Business is doing it the same way a million times, as fast as possible.
    2. Why We Love The Things We Build -- psychological research to look at people valuing the things they build. Lots of interesting findings: participants thought others would value their origami creations highly, despite assigning little value to the amateur creations of others and incomplete items were not valued as highly as completed items. (via BoingBoing)
    3. Gut Flora Social Network (New Scientist) -- although there's real science behind it, I think it's mostly a callous play to get web journalists to say "this social network is a bit shit". (via Dave Moskowitz)
    4. The Unintended Consequences of Cyberbullying Rhetoric (danah boyd) -- actual research on bullying and cyberbullying, indicating that those involved in cyberbullying don't think of what they're involved in as bullying, because that implies power relationships they don't want to acknowledge. Instead it's all part of the "drama" of high-school.

    September 23 2011

    Four short links: 23 September 2011

    1. How Many Really? -- project by BERG and BBC to help make sense of large numbers of people, in the context of your social network. Clever! (via BERG London)
    2. Why the Best Days of Open Hardware Are Yet To Come (Bunnie Huang) -- as Moore’s law decelerates, there is a potential for greater standardization of platforms. A provocative picture of life in a world where Moore's Law is breaking up. A must-read.
    3. Ira Glass on RadioLab -- fascinating analysis of a product that's the result of skilled creators with high standards and a desire to do things differently. Lessons for all who would be different. (via Courtney Johnston)
    4. Scripting Photoshop with Javascript -- Javascript is the new BASIC. (via Brett Taylor)

    September 16 2011

    Putting innovation and tech to work against breast cancer

    GE challengeIn April, Jeff Hammerbacher looked around Silicon Valley and made an observation to Businessweek that spread like wildfire: "The best minds of my generation are thinking about how to make people click ads," he said. "That sucks."

    With the launch of General Electric's Healthymagination Cancer Challenge, the best and brightest technical minds have been called to work on something that matters: fight breast cancer.

    The open innovation challenge was launched yesterday in New York City. GE and a number of venture capitalists are putting $100 million behind the challenge as part of GE's larger billion-dollar commitment to fund cancer-related R&D over the next five years.

    Tim O'Reilly moderated two panels during the launch yesterday that highlighted some of the challenges and opportunities in the fight against breast cancer. Video of the event is embedded below.

    [Disclosure: Tim O'Reilly will be one of the judges in GE's investment challenge.]

    A moment of convergence

    While the Internet is changing healthcare, what happens next is immensely important to everyone.

    "I turned to healthcare partly because I saw an immense hunger among the developers that I work with to start working on stuff that matters," said O'Reilly at the launch.

    O'Reilly noted the combination of medical data and data tools is enticing to developers. "As we've been hearing, there are new diagnostic technologies that are producing massive amounts of data," he said. "And of course, crunching data and extracting meaning is something that the big Silicon Valley companies have worked to perfect. We're at a moment of convergence and I'm fascinated by what is happening as these two worlds come together."

    Bob Kocher of VenRock cited three reasons why "cancer won't know what happened when we've finished":

    1. New data — "We are great at making sense out of data and we're getting better every day," Kocher said.
    2. New demand — "Thank God screening will be available to all Americans," he said. "Hopefully, we will reach them where they are, with technologies that are more sensitive, more reliable, more pleasant, and making it more pervasive. We'll catch cancer at a point where we can absolutely take care of it."
    3. New economics — "Our health system economics are changing in ways that I think actually will foster much better treatment of patients, more reliably, with drugs that work better with fewer side effects," Kocher said.

    What's required for innovation? Beth Comstock, senior VP and CMO at General Electric, said that a global survey by GE returned three simple truths for what's needed: collaboration, the role of the creative individual, and profit with a purpose. When it comes to the latter, "there's nothing more relevant than healthcare."

    Applying that care to where it's needed most was a point of agreement for all of the panelists. "Open innovation in health doesn't matter if we can't get it to the patient and deliver it," said O'Reilly.

    Atul Gawande has written about lowering medical costs by giving the neediest patients better care with a process called "hotspotting." Give the success of the approach in Camden, New Jersey, similar data-driven measures for providing healthcare in communities may be in our future.

    Personalized medicine and molecular biology

    Personalized medicine, driven by the ongoing discoveries in molecular biology, is "just what's next," said GE chairman and CEO Jeffrey Immelt. To take on the immense challenge that breast cancer presents, it will require systems thinking to address both outcomes and cost over time.

    Immelt is not the only executive bullish on the potential of new technologies to help breast cancer patients. "We'll see more innovation in the next five years in cancer research and development than we saw in the last 50 years," said Ron Andrews, CEO of Clarient.

    Innovation needs partnership to scale, however, said Sue Siegel a general partner at Mohr Davidow. The ideas submitted to the GE challenge need to be open and scalable to have the biggest impact, she noted.

    Siegel posited that the road to a cure will be through molecular diagnostics. The challenge is that less than 1% of spending is on diagnostics, said Siegel, in the context of a healthcare industry that represents $2.6 trillion of the U.S. GDP — and yet most clinical decisions are based on diagnostics. In that context, diagnostic data appears to be a significantly undervalued resource.

    "We need to value the diagnostic data as much as we do the therapies," said Risa Stack, a general partner at Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers. Stack said that they're thinking of a "diagnostics registry," a website that would enable people to know the different kinds of diagnostics available to patients.

    "The time for personalized healthcare is now in oncology, said Greg Plowman, senior vice president for research at ImClone Systems, a subsidiary of Eli Lilly. "What's best for the patient is knowing that this drug is best for them," he said. According to Plowman, Eli Lilly is investing heavily in new diagnostics and looking for partnerships.

    Susan Love of UCLA noted that screening for breast cancer, however, is still one size fits all. Breast cancer for young women is more aggressive and less likely to be picked up by traditional mechanisms, she said. "We need to focus on screening — not just personalized medicine at the end. Do it at the beginning."


    Obstacles to innovation in healthcare

    For entrepreneurs, there are always obstacles to building any company. It is, however, 100 times harder to be an entrepreneur inside health and wellness, said Steve Krein, co-founder of StartUp Health. "Everything is stacked against you," he said, from regulations to the patient feedback cycle.

    Krein sees an "incredible amount" of people who are interested in the healthcare space but are frustrated by barriers. He emphasized that there are important opportunities for entrepreneurs to seize, particularly in the "gap" between the Internet and a doctor's visit, where they're left alone with a search box.

    There are two things that take too long, said Kocher: regulations and reimbursement. In his view, the Food and Drug Administration needs to get involved earlier to help startups navigate the system.

    In a larger sense, O'Reilly suggested the healthcare industry apply a lesson from Google's playbook. The search giant solved a problem that Sam Wannamaker famously articulated about advertising: he knew half of ads work but not which half. By applying data-driven approaches to healthcare, there might be huge potential to know more about what's working and create feedback loops that allow physicians and regulators to iterate quickly.

    We now have the ability to move to much more real-time monitoring of what works, O'Reilly said, suggesting that "regulations need to move from a stack of paper to a set of processes for monitoring in real-time."

    That could become particularly important if more health data was voluntarily introduced into the startup ecosystem through the Blue Button, a technical mechanism for enabling citizens to download their personal health information and take it with them. "Once patients have their own data, they're much more willing to share than the law will allow," said O'Reilly, but they "will tend to share if they think it will solve their health crisis."

    As entrepreneurs consider how to innovate, O'Reilly said, it's important to recognize that the "change in business model is often as important as the change in technology."

    A mobile revolution is coming to healthcare

    After the forum, O'Reilly tweeted that healthcare is due for a "UI revolution." He cited a statistic that 1 in 5 physicians now owns an iPad and that by 2014, virtually all physicians are expected to have a tablet.

    Over the past five years, said MedHelp CEO John de Souza during the launch event, monthly visitors to MedHelp.com have grown from 1 million to 12 million, and mobile visitors have grown from 3% to 30% of that traffic.

    The "mobile phone is becoming a health hub," said Souza, with the ability to transmit and collect data. The two big impediments to growth are manual entry and data monitoring. Data needs to be automatically collected and sent on to someone else looking at data through tele-monitoring, where they can analyze it and inform a physician.

    Krein cited the iPad as one of the most transformative technologies in healthcare because the simplified user experience has opened the door to different thinking. Krein said that when they opened up StartupAcademy and 125 entrepreneurs applied, half of them had some element of mobile health in the proposals that included the use of an iOS or Android device.


    The future of healthcare is social

    As reported elsewhere, social media is changing healthcare by connecting patients to information and, increasingly, each other.

    As the panelists acknowledged, advocates have built huge communities and created seminal change both online and offline.

    There is an opportunity for people to share actual outcomes, said O'Reilly. Given that people are using the Internet to share that information, it becomes a useful source for patients and physicians. "We do see people looking for answers in the Internet," he said. "The key thing in patient's education is teaching people how to ask better questions."

    Love went beyond peer-to-peer healthcare: we can really educate the public not just about the treatment but about the research too, she said, including how to get it done and how to participate. "That's the only way to get the cause, not just the cure."

    A personal challenge

    I can't claim to be unbiased about breast cancer. Both my mother and grandmother have had it and survived. Through their experiences, I learned just how many other women are affected. Breast cancer statistics are stark: about 1 in 8 women in the United States will develop invasive breast cancer over the course of their lifetime. More than 200,000 new cases of breast cancer are detected every year in the U.S. alone. Globally, breast cancer is the number one cancer for women in both the developing world and developed world, according to the World Health Organization. Hundreds of thousands of those diagnosed die.

    Nancy Brinkler, the founder of the Susan G. Komen Foundation, lost her sister to breast cancer at the age of 36. We've moved from a society where breast cancer couldn't be said on television to one where billions are invested worldwide, she noted at the launch.

    "We don't have the knowledge of how to defeat it but do know more about the biology," Brinkler said. While relative survival rates have improved for those who have access to early screening and treatment, "where a woman lives or how many resources she has should never determine whether she lives." To move forward "will require a bridge between science and society."

    If healthcare data and the energy of innovation can be harnessed to create earlier detection and targeted therapies, more women diagnosed with breast cancer will join the millions of survivors.

    August 26 2011

    How Free Software Contributed to the Success of Steve Jobs and Apple

    We all have to celebrate the career of Steve Jobs and thank him for the tremendous improvements he has brought to computer interfaces and hardware. The guy's amazing, OK? But Apple is something of a control-freak environment with a hard-handed approach to things such as product announcements and the App Store. An undercurrent of disgruntled consumers and policy-minded free software advocates has transferred their historic antipathy for Microsoft to Apple, now that it has become the brilliant business success of the new century. So I'd like to bring everybody together again for an acknowledgment of how important free software has been to Jobs and to Apple.

    In the great Second Coming, when Jobs returned to Apple 1996, he drove
    two big changes right away: porting over OpenSTEP from NeXT computer
    and adopting a version of the open source BSD as Apple's new operating
    system. OpenSTEP was a proprietary, platform-independent set of APIs
    for Solaris, Windows, and NeXTSTEP. It was derived from NeXTSTEP
    itself, the operating system that ran on Jobs's m68k-based NeXT
    computers. But NeXT worked with the then-powerful Sun Microsystems,
    which had based its own wildly popular SunOS on BSD. OpenSTEP became
    the basis for the familiar Cocoa libraries and run-time that Apple
    developers now depend on.

    (It may seem strange to use the word "Open" in the name of a
    proprietary system. But back then--and in some circles even today--the
    most rudimentary efforts at interoperability were used to justify the
    term. Anybody remember the Open Software Foundation?)

    The foundation for the ground-breaking and still strong Mac OS X was a
    version of BSD based on
    NetBSD and FreeBSD but incorporating some unique
    elements
    . Adopting BSD brought numerous advantages: it permitted
    the Mac to multitask, and it made simple the porting of a huge range
    of Unix-based and BSD-based applications that would expand the Mac
    from its original role as a desktop for creative artists to a much more
    robust and widely deployable system.

    Particularly valuable to Apple--and related to its adoption of a Unix
    variant--was the port of open source Samba, developed for Linux. Samba
    reverse engineers the SMB/CIFS protocol and related protocols that
    permit computers to join Microsoft local networks. Apple also (like
    NeXT) used the historic GCC compiler developed by Richard Stallman,
    and adopted KDE's browser engine (now known as Webkit) for Safari. These free software packages were insanely great; that's why Mac OS X incorporated them.

    I think it is the familiarity of the Unix and BSD software that makes the Mac popular among geeks; it is now by far the most popular laptop one sees at computer conferences. And because of all the great server software that runs on the Mac thanks to its BSD core, it's gradually growing in popularity as a server for homes and small businesses.

    Apple knew it had a good thing in its BSD-based kernel, because it chose to use it also in the iPhone and follow-on products. As I have reported before, the presence of BSD libraries and tools helped a group of free software advocates reverse engineer the iPhone API and create a public library that permitted people outside Apple for the first time to create applications for the iPhone. This led to a thriving community of iPhone apps, none of them approved by Apple of course, but Apple came out with its own API many months later and legitimized the external developer community with its App Store.

    Although the BSD license allowed Apple to keep its changes proprietary, it chose to open-source the resulting operating system under the name Darwin. As a separate project, though, Darwin hasn't seen wide use.

    BSD was not Jobs's first alliance with free software. The NeXT computer was based on the open source Mach 3 kernel developed by Richard Rashid at Carnegie Mellon University. Mach emulated FreeBSD (even though Rashid personally expressed a distaste for it) for its programmer and user interface. Some elements of Mach 3 were incorporated into Darwin, and (to digress a bit) Mach 3 has gone on to have major effects on the computer industry. It was an inspiration for the microkernel design of Microsoft's NT system, which thrust Microsoft into the modern age of operating systems and servers especially. And Rashid himself took a position as Senior Vice President of Research at Microsoft a few years ago.

    The impacts of broad, leaderless, idea-based movements are often surprising and hard to trace, and that's true of open source and free software. The triumphs of Steve Jobs demonstrate this principle--even though free software is the antithesis of how Apple runs its own business. Innovators such as Andrew Tridgell, with Samba and rsync, just keep amazing us over and over again, showing that free software doesn't recognize limits to its accomplishments. A lot of computing history would be very different, and poorer, without it.

    Thanks to Karl Fogel, Brian Jepson, and Don Marti for comments
    that enhanced this posting.

    Older posts are this way If this message doesn't go away, click anywhere on the page to continue loading posts.
    Could not load more posts
    Maybe Soup is currently being updated? I'll try again automatically in a few seconds...
    Just a second, loading more posts...
    You've reached the end.
    (PRO)
    No Soup for you

    Don't be the product, buy the product!

    close
    YES, I want to SOUP ●UP for ...