le petit radiateur

On payments

2011-03-06T23:39:00.000-08:00

Ohad Sammet, writing for TechCrunch:

“We hear a lot of chatter about new payment services, and who’s competing in the space, and obviously who’ll win the space or own a big piece of it. Lately we’ve seen some movement when both Apple and Google announced new payment options for digital publishers and exchanged a few blows. So are the giants going to displace PayPal soon?”

The current chatter about new payment services is usually triggered by extrapolations of the promises of NFC technology that is getting built into newish mobile hardware. There's a lot of valid discussion that can be had about this topic, but Apple's (or Google's) recent announcements of their terms for subscriptions have very little to do with it.

The subscription services launched by Apple and Google have to do with the cost structure of publishing content on their platforms, and what is the cut that is retained before paying the publishers. This is completely unrelated to the underlying payment infrastructure that is used to make these transactions.¹

“The bottom line is that it is much harder to compete in payments using the same path PayPal took 10 years ago. Creating yet another network based on existing methods is a “me too” strategy that doesn’t provide real incentive for merchants to switch [...]. This is not real disruption. What is, then? I’m betting on two trends—payroll (becoming the wallet, getting people to keep their money with you) and short term credit (built from the ground up to be a robust system). This warrants a whole different discussion. Right now, however, it seems that Google and Apple are not going down those paths or presenting an alternative; and until they do so I believe they won’t be serious players in core payments.”

I don't see anything that would indicate that Google and Apple are not going down those paths, because as mentioned above, the subscription announcement have got nothing to do with this. (Neither do I see, by the way, anything that would indicate they are going down those paths, beyond rumors.)

What is clear however is that real disruption is exactly what is needed ; most of the complexities of payment systems today have to do with the existing cost structures and current infrastructure capabilities, and neither of these are immune to changes.

As Ohad mentions, using bank payments today has massive implications in terms of taking on risk for short-term credit. But in a connected world, I struggle to see any technological reason why a transaction between a payer and payee cannot be instantiated, validated and confirmed in a matter of seconds. This would eliminate the need for any payment processor to take on that short term credit risk.

And credit card payments are saddled with overly complex cost structures and terms, which — besides the fact that they are a golden goose for the likes of VISA and Mastercard — are obstacles to massive-scale acceptance as a peer-to-peer payment system — even with the beautiful work of companies like Square. The fees for merchants are variable depending on the terms of their contracts, on the physical presence of the card (swipe) and they are a confusing combination of both fixed costs (percentage of transaction) and variable costs (flat fee) ; although here again, Square must be applauded for taking this on and doing away with the confusing flat fee.

These constraints are based on antiquated systems and therefore heightened risk, and there is much potential for disruption here. There is also no reason whatsoever that a rectangular piece of plastic be required for effecting a payment. That is I think the last ball and chain of companies like Square, and while the ubiquity of the plastic card is what enables them to get the initial penetration and acceptance required for success, I also hope that they are already preparing for a future where these anachronistic artifacts are happily forgotten.

1. In Apple's case, the user pays 100% of the cost of the transaction using their iTunes account, which is backed by a credit card. Apple then distributes 70% of that to the publisher, usually via once-a-month bank transfers. None of that is changing. ↩

Open letter to Google on net neutrality

2010-08-13T23:15:00.000-07:00

Dear Google,
Dear Mr. Brin and Mr. Page,
Dear Mr. Schmidt,

Until this week, Google had been maybe *the* foremost advocate and supporter of Net Neutrality since its inception. I remember first reading about the term and learning what the stakes were on the official Google blog several years ago. One post after another, Google was clearly taking the very strong position of defending the consumers' interests against that of a few corporations, and I was in admiration of that. Vint Cerf was even brought to Google as a spokesperson for Google's net neutrality lobbying efforts, because of the founding figure that he was with regard to the internet. In your eyes, he therefore represented the best person to make the case that the internet deserved to be preserved exactly like it was meant to be.

Your recent "joint legislative framework proposal" with Verizon is deeply hypocritical in this regard, and it has shattered the trust that I had in your organization. Crafting special language for "additional online services" that would not fall under net neutrality provisions is a shamefully sneaky way to insert a massive loophole in the text and completely undermine the principles at the core of net neutrality.
And the idea that wireless access to the internet should be considered separately from wired access to the internet, and therefore should be excluded from any of the critical net neutrality provisions is certainly the most egregious thing I have read in a long time. This amounts to taking people for fools. Wireless access to the internet is to the next decade and beyond what wired access to the internet was to the last two. And even if it were to always remain a marginal mean of accessing the internet, it should still be covered. Access to the internet regardless of the mean and transport of data through all of the internet is what should be protected, and not one bit of all this should be exempted.

It's also lost on no one that you now have with Android a vested corporate interest in shaping how internet regulations can work in your favor in the realm of wireless broadband. And to see such a quick and bold reversal from Google on something that was hailed as a core principle and value for your company is appalling and offensive. This is nothing short of a shameful sell-out to greed and power. I sincerely hope you reconsider your stance.

Sincerely,
Hugues de Saint Salvy

 Magic Trackpad + Keyboard

2010-08-09T23:30:00.000-07:00

I'd like to see this. For a living-room setup (which is my case with my Mac Mini), it's a lot easier to handle one single item than two separate devices.

Ctrl-Alt-Delete on a mac keyboard

2009-08-21T15:07:00.000-07:00

If you're trying to control a Windows system from a Mac computer, you might be wondering how to send the command Ctrl-Alt-Delete (control-alt-delete). It's often necessary to use this command, for example to unlock a session that was previously locked, as shown in the picture below:

If you're running Windows on your Mac using Boot Camp, it's pretty simple: the Option key replaces the Alt key.

In some cases however, pressing the keys Control, Option (alt), and Delete on the keyboard of a Mac laptop does not have the desired effect. I ran into this issue today, and since it seems that many people are asking how to do this, I thought I'd post some answers:

VNC
If you are using VNC to access another Windows machine, you should use the following keys: Fn + Ctrl + Cmd + Delete
(function-control-command-delete), as shown in the example picture below:

Remote Desktop

If you are using Microsoft's Remote Desktop Connection to access a windows (virtual) machine, you should use the following keys: Fn + Ctrl + Opt + Delete
(function-control-option-delete), also as shown in the picture below:

I hope this helps.

look at the bright side of life

2008-12-12T15:50:00.000-08:00

Some uplifting optimism from Paul Krugman in an email interview with Andrew Leonard (Salon.com) about the economic meltdown:

How bad do you think this is going to get?
Awful. Without a major stimulus package -- sorry, I guess the politically correct term is now "economic recovery plan" -- I'd say that we were definitely headed for double-digit unemployment. Right now the economy is clearly falling as fast as, or faster than, it was in 1981-82, which was a terrifying slump. If Obama doesn't come up with a massive plan, and possibly even if he does, this is going to be a slump that pushes 10 million-plus Americans below the poverty line, and more.

Hey, why sugarcoat reality? Thanks Paul.
Here's to an "economic recovery plan" that invests in American infrastructure instead of more hi-def televisions. Better be a big plan too.

the unnecessary bailout

2008-11-16T21:33:00.000-08:00

I was watching This Week in Northern California on KQED this morning, and Carolyn Said of the San Francisco Chronicle was echoing a theme that I seem to hear everywhere: an implied link between the increasing number of foreclosures and the fact that many people are owing more on their mortgage than their house is actually worth.

"Meanwhile, California led the nation in the number of foreclosures in October. Recent surveys show that hundreds of thousands of Bay Area homeowners owe more on their mortgages than their homes are worth. In response to the growing crisis, a number of key financial institutions including Citibank have pledged to put a temporary moratorium on foreclosures and rapidly rewrite loans."

The idea that somehow the state or federal government should be helping all the people whose homes are now worth less than what they owe is preposterous. The problem occurs when people can no longer afford to make their monthly mortgage payments ; this is completely unrelated to the current value of the home. The amount of the monthly payment was determined using the value of the home at the time of purchase, the length of the loan and the initial interest rate offered.

We (the government) have limited means of spending in the current economical climate, and this money should be spent wisely and parsimoniously. That means help should first go to those owners facing foreclosures, unable to meet the terms of their mortgage payments, either because they have lost a job and/or are unable to face a hike in their interest rate and are also unable to sell the house. If any plan is to be introduced to allow people to renegotiate their interest rate or payment schedule in order to reduce their monthly payment, it needs to be targeted towards those people first.

The millions of homeowners still able to pay their mortgage payments, even if their house has gone down in value below their purchase price, just have to ride it out like you do during any crisis. They might not like the idea of their investment being completely in the tank, but that is a risk that everybody takes and is not threatening the economy.

I've never heard anybody calling for a plan to help people whose stock portfolio is worth less than what they paid for it, and this should be no different.

Eiffel in blue

2008-09-19T01:07:00.000-07:00

France has the rolling presidency of the European Union for six months (ending in January). For the occasion, the Eiffel tower is wearing the European colors. I took this quick picture while in Paris last week, from a "bateau-mouche".

(Some rights reserved)

About Apple's "locked strategy" for the iPhone

2008-02-18T10:59:00.000-08:00

An article in today's New York Times chronicles the smuggling of iPhones across the planet, notably to China, where a large part of the "missing" phones are reported to be. The author explains that this "shows what happens when the world’s hottest consumer product defies a company’s attempt to slowly introduce it" and that the smuggling, while further proof of the iPhone's popularity, is a blow to Apple’s business model of exclusive partnership deals, similar to their partnership with AT&T in the United States.

To be sure, Apple is not getting as much money from unlocked phones, since they are not receiving any cut of the monthly subscription fees for those phones (reportedly a part of all of Apple's agreements with carriers in the US and in Europe to date). And it is also accurate that Apple is continuing to seek similar exclusive agreements in the new markets where it wants to offer the phone, and may be struggling to achieve those in China.

However, I feel that the article fails to mention an important reason behind Apple's initial marketing strategy: Apple offered exclusivity to US phone carriers such as AT&T and Verizon partly as a carrot, in order to ensure they had enough leverage to push through their Visual Voicemail feature. Visual Voicemail can require significant changes in the back-end operations of a cellular carrier's network, and is therefore not as attractive a feature to those carriers as it is to consumers. However, Apple believed strongly in changing the game for voicemail (thank god) and they promoted this feature right from the beginning, so they had to offer something in exchange for the carrier's efforts.

So while Apple could certainly choose to forgo its demands to share in the monthly subscriber revenues, the following quotes from analysts do not reflect the entire situation:

Some analysts say abandoning the locked phone system and allowing buyers to sign up with any carrier they choose, in any country, could spur sales.

“The model is threatened,” Mr. Wolf, the analyst, said. But “if they sold the phone unlocked with no exclusive carrier, demand could be much higher.”

From Apple's standpoint, "allowing buyers to sign up with any carrier" assumes that all carriers offer Visual Voicemail capability, and it would be tough to convince those carriers to spend the money for those network modifications without the promise of a large uptick in subscribers...

Junk food subisidies and other disasters...

2007-07-26T13:40:00.000-07:00

Here is some required reading about the US farm bill that is about to be passed into law in Congress, yet again with no substantial changes.

This piece by Michael Pollan (the author of "The Omnivore's Dilemma") explains how far-reaching the consequences of this farm bill are, and what they mean to each person.

If you agree that the way we grow food, "make" food and eat food has gone seriously awry, contact your local lawmaker and insist that they overcome their political maneuvers and look out for the interests of their citizens.

Update (2007-10-16): Here's another interesting piece on Salon.com's "How The World Works" series. Andrew Leonard talks about a new ad campaign from Oxfam that criticizes where the major part of the Farm Bill's huge subsidies go – no problems with that –, but shuns the other important problems of our agricultural subsidies. From it:

The goal of the ad campaign's creators is obviously to keep it simple. No mention of how removing subsidies altogether would help farmers in the developing world, who can't compete with the low prices for commodity goods that result from subsidized American overproduction. No mention of the challenge of figuring out what crops and agricultural practices should be encouraged by the Farm Bill, in place of the current system, which, for example, provides huge incentives for King Corn monoculture. No mention of the Farm Bill's huge influence on the American diet,

Just the simple equation: The Farm Bill disproportionately caters to the greedy rich. Not that there's anything wrong with pointing that out.

oops!

2007-07-14T02:55:00.000-07:00

I like this little movie from Travis Darcy. It received the first prize at the "Green World" contest of the San Francisco International Film Festival last May, where anybody could submit a 2 minute movie about the environment.
This one is pretty good ; cute and funny. Well, actually not that funny...

Green my Apple

2007-04-10T23:54:00.000-07:00

(Some rights reserved)

Here's a wallpaper (1440x900) that I put together to contribute to the "Green my Apple" campaign. This campaign by Greenpeace is designed to encourage Apple to be more conscious of their impact on our environment and modify their products and processes to reduce waste and toxic products. Find out more at: www.greenmyapple.org/

Feel free to use it for your desktop.

Update (2007-05-02): Apple has heard the call and is anwering. Great news!

Suggestion for increased security in Google Docs & Spreadsheets

2007-01-26T00:19:00.000-08:00

At some point last year Google launched "Google Docs & Spreadsheets", offering their users the opportunity to store, edit and share documents online. I love this product and I use it very frequently, for sharing documents, but also to keep a golden copy of important documents online so that I can access them wherever I am on the planet, with nothing more than a web connection.
However, as I started to add more personal documents I also became increasingly concerned about the potential for loss or abuse of my data. I am not so much worried about some Google employee being able to view my data stored on their servers. I know Google is very keen on protecting the data and privacy of its users, although I agree with John Battelle that we shouldn't become complacent and ignore the dangers of all our data being so vulnerable, within reach of one ill-intentioned but well-connected individual.
I am not so worried either about the lack of SSL encryption in Google Docs & Spreadsheets, which means that my data is being transmitted unencrypted from my computer to Google's server, available to be snatched by anybody watching Internet packets go by on my wireless network. I am worried about it of course, but it is possible to force Google Docs & Spreadsheets to work in SSL by using a Firefox extension such as CustomizeGoogle. (* see update below)
What I became concerned about was the potential for somebody from my inner circle of acquaintances (colleagues, friends, passing visitors, etc...) to be granted access to my personal documents without my knowledge or desire. It is well-known that identity theft crimes are often committed by a person in the inner circle of the victim, and by the same token I think this is how my data is the most vulnerable.

Google Docs & Spreadsheets is restricting access to your documents through your Google account and password, which are certainly secure in terms of their encryption ; however I find that many people are now logged almost constantly in their Google account, be it through the Google personalized homepage, Gmail, or any other Google service. This is good for Google of course, who benefits from the knowledge of your surfing habits, however it can open a breach in your own security. The "secure" protection that you thought your Google password provided is not going to be much of a barrier. For this reason, I posted a message on the Google Group for Google Docs & Spreadsheets, with a suggestion to improve the security for those few sensitive documents that you may have stored. The idea is inspired by the method that Google themselves (itself?) put in place to restrict access to your Search History: add a new layer of security, even though you are already logged into your Google account. Here is how Google explains it:

To help protect your privacy, we'll sometimes ask you to verify your password even though you're already signed in. This may happen more frequently for services like Personalized Search which involves your personal information.

My suggestion for Google Docs & Spreadsheet is very similar. Here is how the main page currently looks like:
Let's say you have two documents, "Sensitive Info Spreadsheet" and "Top Secret Document", that you would really like to keep private. The idea is to be able to lock (meaning: to encrypt) those documents and to ensure that they cannot be decrypted and read without first entering a password. My suggested implementation would be to add, next to the document title, a little lock that you could click/un-click, not unlike how the "star" function works. This could look something like this:
Clicking (activating) the little lock would do just that. The document would become instantly encrypted and protected, using your Google password (the same as your Google account). In order to read or unlock the document, you would have to enter your password in a little pop-up input field, like this:
I think this would be simple and efficient, however I welcome your comments and feedback. If you like this idea, I would recommend that you go to my post in the "Ideas & Suggestions" Google group and either rate my post and/or add a message to the thread. Hopefully if enough people express their interest in this, Google might pick up on it and implement it sooner.

Update (2007-07-26): Google upgraded their Docs & Spreadsheets about a month ago, and since around that time they also implemented SSL support for spreadsheets as well. This is a welcome improvement, unfortunately it does not address the other security and privacy issues mentioned above.

I am famous :)

2007-01-11T17:13:00.000-08:00

Who knew Steve Jobs was reading my blog...!?! And since the very first post too!!
It's good to see he too can learn from my infinite wisdom and visionary instincts...

Good work Steve!

Work on the price a bit, will you? Cingular's monthly plans are already a rip-off for internet access...

I like: the random-access voicemail, the conference calls, the smart contact lists, the Wi-Fi connectivity.
I dislike: ...well, not much!

Here are the details.
[photo from Apple website]

Actually...

2006-02-08T01:50:00.000-08:00

Actually, the Washington Post is starting to look into some facts, with this article on their front page, that goes into some detail regarding what is reproached to Iran, and what is hard evidence versus allegations.

Article on Iran from Asia Times

2006-02-08T01:10:00.000-08:00

I discovered this article from Asia Times on Usenet (soc.culture.iranian - thank you Arash!) from Dr Kaveh L. Afrasiabi, a respected US-educated Iranian scholar.

I definitely recommend it, it makes for a very interesting read.
It corroborates several of my views, especially the lack of scrutiny and fact-checking from the media.

Why refer Iran to the UNSC now, as opposed to a month from now?

2006-02-03T15:56:00.000-08:00

When I heard that Russia and China had given their support to a resolution that wanted to refer Iran's nuclear activities to the UN Security Council, I was surprised, but nevertheless happy to see that their backing of the document was conditional to the fact that nothing would happen with the Security Council until March, after the IAEA releases its report about Iran's program investigation.

I strongly believe that the negotiations and the IAEA investigation should be allowed to run their course, and appropriate decisions (whichever one) can be taken then, in due time.

Seriously, what's the big rush in referring Iran to the Security Council now?? Why is that so important to the US and the EU3? Why can they not afford to wait one more month when they know the IAEA is supposed to publish its findings on March 6?

Nobody has put forward a compelling reason to do so and botch the IAEA's investigation.
And everybody agrees that whatever Iran's alleged intentions, civil energy or weapons, there is definitely no *imminent* threat.

I can't help but parallel that with the rush to war from the Bush administration in Feb/Mar 2003, when they would not wait two weeks for the weapons inspectors' report on WMDs.

If anybody knows of a compelling reason to refer Iran's nuclear issue to the Security Council NOW, please let me know.

There is nothing to gain (no action until March 6 anyway) and everything to lose (Iran said it would be compelled by its law to pull off from their voluntary adhesion to the Additional Protocol, which ensures the IAEA is conducting regular inspections)...

Iran: "Information Circular 665" about its nuclear activities

2006-01-30T21:47:00.000-08:00

Below are excerpts (and a link to the full text) of a document sent by Iran to the IAEA last week. The document tries to recap the major developments and facts related to the ongoing negotiations about its nuclear activities.
One of the goals of the document is to fight the bias and the politicization that surrounds the discussions and media coverage of the Iranian nuclear issue.

Because in fact, a week later, I have yet to find any mention of it in the media, I am publishing some excerpts here. The full document was posted on the IAEA's website on January 24th, 2006.

Iran is committed to nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation
"Islamic Republic of Iran, as the main victim of chemical weapons has always been among the most active member states of international organizations such as the IAEA and OPCW entrusted in combating weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Iran attaches great importance to international cooperation in nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation[...] specially establishment of Nuclear Weapons Free Zone in Middle East[.]
[...]
Islamic Republic of Iran is fully committed to the principles of nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation and the nuclear weapons option is not in Iran's Defense Doctrine".

Iran is cooperating with the IAEA on its nuclear program
"During the last 27 years the Islamic Republic of Iran has spared no effort in cooperating with the Agency as far as its commitments under the NPT is concerned. Iran is the only Member State which voluntarily invited, in late 80s, the IAEA safeguard inspectors, headed by the DDG, to visit all sites and facilities at their discretion, even those locations not declarable under the Safeguards Agreement.
Islamic Republic of Iran is the only Member State that is implementing the Additional Protocol prior to ratification by its legislative body.
[...]
Iran has proactively cooperated with the Agency in an extraordinary manner during the last two years with almost continuous inspections, amount to over 1400 man-day inspection, which is unprecedented in the history of the IAEA."

Iran re-states that its decision to suspend enrichment activities in 2003 was voluntary and non-binding
"In order to give the IAEA chance to conduct technical activities proving that the allegations [of high level uranium enrichment for weapons] are baseless and with the aim of decreasing the political tension, Iran voluntarily decided to suspend its enrichment activities.
[...]
There has always been consensus in the IAEA, particularly in the Board of Governors, that the suspension of enrichment activities is voluntary, non-legally binding measure. This essential non-legally binding parameter has been reflected in Tehran and Paris Agreements between Iran and EU3/EU as well as all decisions, conclusions and even resolutions of the Board of Governors."

Iran is trying to restore evenhandedness in the coverage of the issue
"[The document] reveals the facts confirming the exclusive nature of Iranian nuclear program and activities and full cooperation with international community. It also shows that the international has been, to a great extent misled with bias, politicized and exaggerated information on Iranian nuclear programs and activities.
[...] While appreciating the tremendous constructive work by the IAEA,[...] Iran has however serious concerns about the misunderstandings, confusions, misperceptions and the underestimation of great progress so far made on political grounds."

Iran explains that the voluntary suspension of the uranium enrichment was offered by Iran to ease political tensions while investigating the traces of highly enriched uranium found in Natanz.
It also explains that the conclusions of this investigation have confirmed that the HEU (Highly Enriched Uranium) particles were not from Iran, but due to prior contamination of the centrifuge outside of Iran.
Therefore, Iran argues that there is no reason to maintain the suspension on enrichment activities.

"After more than two and a half years of voluntary suspension, the triggering issue of contamination being resolved, there is no reason for Iranian Government to further deprive its nation from its inalienable right in doing research. The Agency was thus informed on 3 January 2006 that it will resume R&D as 10 January 2006, and requested the Agency to conduct timely and necessary preparations. Iran reiterated that such activities will be conducted in accordance with the Safeguards agreement of Iran with the IAEA. It further informed that it R&D is in small scale and not planned for nuclear fuel production. Thus, the suspension of enrichment on commercial scale, started since 2003, will be sustained."

If the president says it, it must be true... Déjà vu?

2006-01-27T16:35:00.000-08:00

As reported by the New York Times today:

Mr. Bush, [while speaking at a news conference on Thursday (Jan.26,2006)] said, "The Iranians have said, 'We want a weapon.' "
In fact, Iran has denied that it is pursuing a weapon, and in the afternoon, the White House spokesman, Scott McClellan, acknowledged that Mr. Bush had misspoken.

Does that sound like déjà vu to you?
...like, maybe, the kind of stuff that happened in the run-up to the Iraq war?? (alternative link)

I'm not suggesting that Mr. Bush has firmly decided on starting a war with Iran, but one of two things are sure:
- either he said that sentence completely unintentionally, which then makes it a lapsus, always an interesting insight into the mind of Mr. Bush...
- or his administration is trying to pull off the same trick of misleading the general public by disseminating these kinds of little statements here and there, knowing full well that this is what sticks in people's memories and that the eventual corrective statement doesn't make it into the public consciousness.

So, misinformation or disinformation? I lean towards the latter.

Restoring some facts about Iran and the nuclear issue

2006-01-23T20:13:00.000-08:00

I have been wanting to post about this for a long time, and I intend to devote a few posts to explaining my point of view.

I think the public debate about Iran and its nuclear ambitions is taking place on a very skewed set of facts and perceptions in most of the western world, and I feel that this does not help anybody: not the Iranians, and not "us" [the western world, or in particular, the US and the EU3 group - France, Germany and the U.K.], because it causes antagonizing and virtual realities instead of a healthy dialogue.

This debate is indeed very much a dialogue de sourds right now ("dialogue of the deaf", a situation in which neither party understands or even acknowledges the point of view of the other, all the while appearing and pretending to engage in dialogue).
And while the serious printed press has generally documented the details of the issue in a somewhat thorough manner, and on occasions provided for a public forum where the parties could directly state their opinions, it appears to me that the general public has a very poor knowledge and understanding of the facts.
And this might be so in part because of the style of reporting of the sensationalist televised media, or the just-as-sensationalist newspaper headlines. If you get your information by "skimming" the headlines in your favourite newspaper or news aggregator, chances are you know very little about what this is really about.

I will no doubt take the "out-of mainstream" line here, and I expect to receive much heated criticism and hate mail, but I feel that somebody needs to play devil's advocate sometimes, or needs to amplify the discourse of the minority (here Iran) against the all-too-powerful majority (the US and Europe).

The fact is, the general understanding with so many people here (in the West) is that Iran wants to develop nuclear weapons and that the EU3 has been in negotations with them to try to get them to stop their nuclear weapons program.
Well none of this is accurate. Here is an accurate summary of the dossier:

Iran is contending that they have a right, under international law and as defined by the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) of which they are a signatory, to develop a civil nuclear program and engage in civil nuclear research, including uranium enrichment to low levels, all for - do i need insist? - civilian and peaceful purposes.
The EU3 (and the US) are concerned about the possibilities of diversion of this nuclear technology (in particular the uranium enrichment) from civilian use into a military program and the subsequent development of nuclear weapons.

And the fact is, Iran does have this right to civilian nuclear technology. (And we would probably go a long way by first acknowledging that they indeed do, which has been one of their requests from very early on.)
Now we might have concerns, and some of them legitimate, why not? Relationships, between countries as between individuals, do require a crucial element of trust, and this trust is very much lacking in the relationship of Iran with the West.
And so we should work with the Iranians to find ways to ease these concerns. But denying them a legal right to develop civilian nuclear technology on the grounds of concern or worry does not seem like an argument that would give you victory in a court.

more on this later... your opinions are welcome.

Did spam find a way around Gmail's filters?

2006-01-22T13:31:00.000-08:00

My Gmail account used to be virtually free of spam. Not only was I getting no spam in my Inbox, ever, but I also was pretty impressed that I received almost no spam directed to the Spam folder. In over 18 months of account activity now, I must have gotten less than 10 spam messages in my Spam folder.
The Gmail filters were just as effective as they were announced to be.

Well, those days seem to be over...
Starting about a week ago maybe, I began to receive a few messages of spam per day, sometimes only one, sometimes a few more (still <4-5 for now), steadily, every day ; this had never happened before. But what's more, most of them don't make it to the Spam folder, they just get to my Inbox, which means that they are not recognized by Gmail as spam.

I haven't seen any news or blog posts about this issue yet, but it is happening to several other people around me, and it has been happening for the past four or five days now. So I don't think I am an isolated case.
I'm wondering how many people have also noticed this trend?

What’s wrong with cell phones?

2005-09-16T18:58:00.000-07:00

Announcing the (likely) commercial success of the gorgeous new iPod Nano, David Pogue from the New York Times writes:
“Once again, Apple has mastered a lesson that its rivals seem unable to absorb: that the three most important features in a personal music player are style, style and style.”

Well, maybe that's a statement that Nokia, Motorola, Samsung, and all the other cell phone manufacturers should ponder.
Most of the phones released recently are packed with features, mostly unnecessary, but they lack an essential part of the product: style. They look clunky and clumsy, big, uneven, dull… everything but pretty and easy to dissimulate in a pocket without creating an unattractive bulge.

I have nothing against cameras, video players, MP3 players and the like, although I do believe that they are rarely-used gadgets that people just play with to show off their phones a couple of times a year. But they should be integrated into phones only to the extent that they do not interfere with a streamlined design.
The Motorola RAZR is probably the closest you get to a cool-looking phone since the Nokia 8850 in my mind.

Don't get me wrong, I do think that cell ‘phones’ are evolving from regular portable telephony devices to much richer communication devices, and email, SMS, web or TV connectivity are quickly becoming useful features (though the infrastructure behind it is not always ready), and I am sure new services will arise as people devise new ways to make use of wearable inter-connexion.
From a design standpoint, the fact that all these features often go on par with a large screen and/or fullsized keyboard is one challenge of its own. And there are many more challenges. But it is no excuse for releasing ugly products. There is still plenty of room for improvements to be made on the design side.

I am pretty confident that a phone could exist that could be as slim and stylish as the iPod Nano. It would probably not be a full-blown PDA/SmartPhone, it might not have a camera, it might not have enough space for games or ridiculous ringtones, but if it could be
1.) a high-quality phone and
2.) provide connectivity to broadband services,
I am sure it would be a hot seller.

And if the iPod Nano can pack 4Gb of data, there is plenty of space for a gigantic address-book and recording of phone conversations.
A lack of keyboard and gigantic screen would still be a problem if users want to use web connectivity on the phone directly, but i feel it is already a problem even with today's biggest smartphones like the Treos and Blackberrys. And it will be so until new human-machine interfaces are created (voice?) and new displays are used (head-up display in glasses, rollable screens?) so that people don't have to carry a phone the size of a portable PlayStation.

Until then, give me a MotoNANO.

on the rocks...

2005-03-03T15:22:00.000-08:00

This will not just be yet another blog about somebody's personal life or other ramblings that nobody gives a f$#k about... No, I will not talk to you about how boring my job is, or about how all my dates are miserable failures and other pathetic stories...
No!
I will tell you things that are a lot more interesting. Intellingent posts (and funny too) that come straight for the heart.
Things like, ....hmmm....
ok, let me think about it for a minute. i'll get back to it tomorrow, how's that.