Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Eric Schroeck: Attention Beck and Limbaugh: This is what net neutrality is ...
Given how Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh have consistently fearmongered about net neutrality -- essentially describing it as a government plot to control what you see on the Internet -- it's clear they have no idea what they're talking about. So maybe they need to read up on the current dispute between Comcast and Level 3, one of the nation's biggest Internet backbone companies, to learn what net neutrality is actually about.
First, let's recap just some of the unhinged rhetoric from Beck and Limbaugh to illustrate what net neutrality is not about:
- On November 23, Limbaugh said that net neutrality "limit[s] the amount of conservatism that you will be able to find on the Internet."
- On November 22, Beck claimed the net neutrality rules are "basically a Fairness Doctrine for the Internet" and would allow the government to "control what you see on the Internet."
- On May 18, Limbaugh claimed that President Obama, Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan, and Cass Sunstein want "forced neutrality" to make sure you're reading their "garbage."
- On May 10, Beck said that the FCC is "marching forward" with net neutrality plans, suggests it's putting a "boot on your throat"
- On May 6, Beck stated of net neutrality: "This will control every aspect of the Internet ... We are losing our country"
- On April 9, Beck claimed that net neutrality is the prelude to a "hostile takeover" of America.
Of course, Beck and Limbaugh are not the only right-wing media figures who believe that net neutrality is some sort of government plot to control Internet content. And as Media Matters has noted, Beck, Limbaugh, and the rest are simply wrong about net neutrality.
Perhaps they need a potential real-world application of what net neutrality rules might actually regulate to better understand the concept. So let's take a look at the battle between Comcast and Level 3 to show them what net neutrality is about.
Timothy Karr: Comcast Busted: New Tolls for Netflix Aren't All You Should Wo...
In the past 24 hours Comcast has been exposed committing blatant abuses of its power over all things media.
The New York Times reported last night that the cable giant has threatened to block popular online movie service Netflix unless the company that streams its films paid new and extortionate tolls. Earlier in the day, Comcast was caught red-handed trying to smother the marketplace for competitive Internet modems designed for use on its network -- a violation of fundamental Net Neutrality principles that allow you to choose what devices you want to use.
These are just the latest in a history of abuse by a company determined to become the 21st century's media gatekeeper. If Comcast gets away with these violations, it will be the beginning of the end of the experiment in information democracy called the Internet. What more reason does the Federal Communications Commission need to step up -- for once -- and protect the openness that is central to a better, more participatory and diverse media.
Taken as a whole, these abuses show us what a media monopoly looks like in the Internet age --- one company, consolidating its media power to squash competitors, to stifle innovation and free speech, and to gouge consumers.
Here are seven reasons we must stop an out-of-control Comcast:
1. Killing Off Competition: NetFlix
Comcast is the largest nation's largest broadband provider and pay-TV company. It has leveraged that access to our homes to become the third-largest telephone company in the country with the tentacles of its communications networks reaching across more than a third of the country.
In most these regions, Comcast's market power reigns uncontested, with few to no other companies vying to compete with the cable giant for this package of services. Comcast wants it to stay that way. So much so that it's now moving to kill off competitors. On Monday, Level 3, the service that streams Netflix movies to consumers revealed that Comcast had threatened to cut off the pipe to its customers unless Level 3 pays a steep new toll for transit. The toll was non-negotiable -- no payment, no access -- meaning no Netflix for the 17 million broadband customers who connect via Comcast.
Not by coincidence, Comcast happens to offer its own movie streaming service: Xfinity. By erecting a tollbooth at the edge of its network, the company can price competitors out of the market and ensure that its one online video offering remains the only choice for consumers.
2. Stifling Innovation: Zoom Modems
Just hours before the Netflix story broke, Comcast was accused of violating another basic tenant of the open Internet and the free market. In a complaint filed Monday with the FCC, modem manufacturer Zoom Telephonics presented evidence that exposed Comcast restricting consumer access to innovative new devices. Comcast was doing this by placing unreasonable conditions on cable modems Zoom wants to sell to Comcast customers.
Comcast would prefer users rent their modems from Comcast -- at a monthly fee that over time far exceeds the cost of modems bought on the open marketplace. By blocking the manufacture of independently produced modems, Comcast can lock in these exorbitant rental rates in a marketplace where it already controls about 40 percent of the national cable connections.
If Zoom's complaint is accurate, these practices violate both the letter and the spirit of the Communications Act and the FCC's open Internet principles. It's the same pattern of anti-competitive behavior that the company showed when it throttled BitTorrent (see below). By erecting anti-competitive barricades and stifling innovations in the modem marketplace, Comcast is violating the open Internet principle it repeatedly promised the FCC it would respect.
3. Consolidating Media Power: NBC Takeover
Some may have thought that in the age of the Internet the era of huge companies controlling more media was behind us. But with Comcast hell-bent to take over NBC Universal, we are given an unwelcome glimpse at the future of media consolidation.
For consumers, the merger would give Comcast unprecedented control over what you can watch and how you can watch it. They'll leverage this power to suffocate online TV -- like Netflix, Miro and iTunes -- in favor of their limited offerings. Comcast already raises its rates to the tune of 10 percent a year. With less competition, they'll jack up prices even more. Even if you don't have Comcast at home, you could end up paying more to get NBC shows. Comcast will also have an incentive to promote NBC shows over local or independent programming, making it even harder to find alternative voices on the cable menu.
And this will just be the first in a wave of media mega-mergers. "As the economy recovers, we will see more proposed media industry combinations," explains FCC Commissioner Michael Copps. "While I look at each proposed transaction on its individual merits, my long-standing skepticism about the harms imposed by so few controlling so much persists."
4. Censoring Free Speech: Vinh Pham
Comcast customer Vinh Pham got caught in the black hole that is Comcast customer service. All he wanted was to get his Internet and cable working without opting for Comcast's "Triple Play," which included phone services as well.
"I do not want your freaking Triple Play," Pham says. "Who the hell still uses landlines, let alone buy landlines through their cable company? Stop trying to sell me [something] I don't want."
Every time he tried to make the change his account crashed. So Pham took matters into his own hands, fixing his modem so that he actually received the services he was being charged for on his monthly bill. But after Pham shared his experience via his personal blog, Comcast decided to lower the hammer.
Comcast contacted the company that hosts Pham's blog and demanded the entire blog be censored. (This is nothing new. They had a similar reaction when one of their on-air hosts decided to protest a distinguished service award for Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly.)
Reporting on the affair, blogger-activist Phil Dampier wrote: "When cable giants like Comcast trample all over free speech (and their paying customers), it's teaches a valuable lesson why giving them a chance to grow even larger through a merger with NBC-Universal is a dangerous mistake."
5. Lobbyists, Lawyers and Lies: Cohen's Kumbaya
Earlier this month, Comcast's top lobbyist, David Cohen, declared Net Neutrality an issue over which Washington needn't concern itself any longer. "It's time to put this [Net Neutrality] debate behind us," he said to the strains of Kumbaya. "Check the box and move on."
Now, don't think this means Comcast has changed its tune on the importance of the open Internet. It's still trying to kill Net Neutrality. It's just making a softer sell to convince Washington to trust Comcast to protect the rights of Internet users. "Real self-regulation" by the industry itself is the answer, Cohen told a room of nodding lobbyists and lawyers.
But the only thing you can trust about Comcast is that it will seek to boost its bottom line and serve shareholders by any means possible. That's the nature of corporations. And naturally, the public shouldn't expect corporations like Comcast to look out for its best interests. Public policy is designed for that role. Are you listening FCC?
6. Blocking Internet Access: BitTorrent
Comcast gave us a taste of a world without Net Neutrality when an Associated Press investigation in 2007 caught the cable giant red-handed, jamming use of popular file-sharing applications.
Despite mounting evidence of Internet blocking, the company refused to come clean and disclose its "network management" practices. A coalition of Net Neutrality supporters and legal scholars filed a complaint with the FCC.
In response to the public outcry and a mountain of evidence, FCC Chair Kevin Martin sanctioned Comcast for violating Net Neutrality. Martin ruled that Comcast had "arbitrarily" blocked Internet access and failed to disclose to consumers what it was doing. But the ink was barely dry on the FCC order before Comcast sued the FCC in federal court, challenging not only the agency's ruling but its entire authority to protect Internet users.
7. Blocking Public Access: Harvard
In 2008, The FCC called a public hearing at Harvard University to weigh whether Comcast was blocking public access to the Internet (see above). In characteristic fashion, Comcast responded by blocking public access to the hearing itself. The company deployed paid seat-fillers to bar others from entering an official FCC event.
While Comcast seat-warmers snoozed, a collection of Harvard and MIT scholars, Internet advocates, industry leaders, engineers and policymakers nearly all agreed that Internet blocking has serious consequences for each and every one of us.
That the Boston hearing was marred by Comcast's efforts to stack the crowd in its favor -- leaving concerned citizens out in the cold -- demonstrates again why we can't trust a media monopoly with an Internet that is vital to our democracy.
Those who should ultimately decide the Internet's future are people like you and me -- everyone who uses the Internet every day and in every way. That's why every citizen needs to get involved right now.
Comcast's most recent abuses come just days before FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski is to announce a vote on new Net Neutrality rules.
If the FCC stays on the sidelines, Comcast will turn the Internet into cable TV. Its runaway abuse of media power will impact pretty much everything we do online.
This is a moment of truth for Julius Genachowski. The FCC chairman can no longer endlessly weighing whether to take action. The public must tell him to move now to restore the agency's authority to protect consumers against a new generation of monopolists.
In The South's Alternate Universe, It's Time to Celebrate the Confederacy [R...
Joe Strupp: Media Critics: MSNBC Is Not a Left-Wing Fox News
You hear it all the time - MSNBC and Fox News. One is the opposite ideological wing of the other. The two bookend the political and ideological debate on cable television.
But is that really fair? Is it right to say that Fox is the right-wing MSNBC and visa versa?
Media experts and public opinion data indicate it is not.
Those who cover media and follow television news contend that Fox News has a clearer political bent than MSNBC, strong ties to the Republican party, and a clear conflict with the paid employment of at least five potential GOP presidential candidates.
There is also the matter of Fox's recent $1 million donation to the Republican Governors Association. Add to that the leadership of Roger Ailes -- a veteran, hard-line Republican operative -- and the differences are much stronger than some would like to admit.
"Intellectually, are they more honest than Fox, I think they are," Eric Deggans, media critic for the St. Petersburg Times, said of MSNBC. "I saw that Fox was more consistent in reflecting a right wing tilt than MSNBC was in reflecting a liberal tilt. I think Fox is much more evolved in what it does than MSNBC does, in reflecting a political bent, it being right-wing."
Deggans added: "Fox seems to violate tenants of fairness more often. I have written a thousand columns criticizing Fox News, I have criticized MSNBC when I think they make mistakes or go too far. I have criticized Fox more often. I have a problem with how Fox's ideology seeps into the way they report the news, in a framework that is already tilted toward the right. That makes the product unfair."
Alex S. Jones, executive director of the Shorenstein Center on Press, Politics and Public Policy at Harvard University, agreed.
"There is no question that the affinity between Fox and the Republican Party goes all the way to Rupert Murdoch, which in my view is not a good thing," Jones said. "One is sort of unrelentingly partisan and the other is more of an equal-opportunity basher. They are not equivalent, they are both advocacy, but not equivalent."
Jones also pointed to the recent suspensions of Keith Olbermann and Joe Scarborough for donating to political candidates, noting that Fox has a far worse record of such conflicts and no punishments.
"I think that MSNBC is right and Fox is wrong about allowing people to make campaign contributions -- that is just a bad idea," Jones said. "In my experience, the people who are the sort of signature voices of MSNBC, Maddow and Olbermann, tend to be more broadly critical and include Democrats in their criticism. They don't seem to be averse to criticize their own. That is not true with the voices of Fox News. Never a discouraging word is heard."
James Rainey, media reporter at the Los Angeles Times, said a key difference is the degree to which Fox News overlaps opinion with news.
"One of the big questions on all of these is how much the opinion stuff bleeds over into what is supposed to be news, particularly with Fox it is clear it does bleed over," he said. "Particularly if you watch Megyn Kelly. I have been severely admonished by the Fox spokespeople that there is absolutely no opinion, that they play it extremely straight during the day segment. You can watch these shows and it is clear that there is a sharp point of view on many of them. On Megyn Kelly and on Fox & Friends."
He noted Kelly's prolonged interest in the New Black Panther case of alleged voter intimidation: "There could have been some bad behavior, but it is a matter of proportion. To watch her program you would have thought this was the end of democracy as we know it."
Rainey also pointed to Ailes' impact, adding: "There is no other news operation that I know of that has a Roger Ailes in charge, someone who is steeped in political activism and political rhetoric. His philosophy pervades everything they do at Fox. If there is someone equivalent to Roger Ailes at MSNBC, I would like to see who it is."
Jeff Bercovici, a veteran media writer at Forbes, agreed that Ailes' influence is a key distinction between the networks.
"One big difference between the two of them is that there is no real Roger Ailes at MSNBC, no equivalent of him and he sets the tone at Fox and gives the marching orders. At MSNBC, their approach and ideology is emerging from trial and error."
Some research also indicates Fox News' slanted coverage and political conflicts are apparent to at least some viewers.
A report put out one year ago by the Pew Research Center for People and the Press found that Fox News was viewed as the most ideological network:
The Fox News Channel is viewed by Americans in more ideological terms than other television news networks. And while the public is evenly divided in its view of hosts of cable news programs having strong political opinions, more Fox News viewers see this as a good thing than as a bad thing.
Nearly half of Americans (47%) say they think of Fox News as "mostly conservative," 14% say it is "mostly liberal," and 24% say it is "neither in particular." Opinion about the ideological orientation of other TV news outlets is more mixed: while many view CNN and the three broadcast networks as mostly liberal, about the same percentages say they are neither in particular. However, somewhat more say MSNBC is mostly liberal than say it is neither in particular, by 36% to 27%. The perceptions of those who regularly tune into these news networks are similar to those of the public. Nearly half (48%) of regular Fox viewers say the network is mostly conservative. About four-in-ten (41%) regular viewers of CNN describe the network as mostly liberal and 36% of regular MSNBC viewers say the same about that network.
Media experts contend that such a view is not surprising, given Fox's slanted tilt and GOP conflicts.
"Are Fox News and MSNBC the same? The short answer is no," declared Pam Fine, journalism professor at the University of Kansas and a former managing editor at The Star-Tribune in Minneapolis and The Indianapolis Star. "Fox is run by a former political operative and the company is unabashed in its support for Republican candidates ... Another important question is which organization does a better job of providing consequential reporting on events and issues? MSNBC would have to be given the edge."
Tim McGuire, Frank Russell Chair for the business of journalism at Arizona State University's Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication, said the comparison is not a surprise given how viewers respond to news outlets they agree with, but made clear it is not fair.
"Certainly, you can make the argument that Fox is more outrageous about its opinion and its approach," McGuire said. "I certainly find a difference; as a news man I see a huge difference. There is no doubt that Ailes has found success."
"It's got no credibility for me at all. I simply don't turn it on," he said of Fox. "I believe it subverts anything connected with journalism. I don't believe it has presenting factual information in a comprehensive manner as its goal. Fox tips on the propaganda side most of the time."
Ed Wasserman, a journalism professor at Washington and Lee University and a veteran columnist for The Miami Herald, said he cannot understand the comparison.
"I bristle when I hear the comparisons because what I see on MSNBC is interesting and fairly honest and there is a fundamental dishonesty at Fox," he said. "Fox's approach is very reflective of contemporary conservative politics, which is changing the subject."
Kent Collins, chair of radio and television journalism at the University of Missouri School of Journalism, agreed.
"Fox is more pervasive in its political leanings, so much of its programming, the majority of it, is very clearly biased and shows favoritism for Republican and conservative ideas and positions and people," he said. "You see this not in just the obvious commentary by its key folks, but also in more subtle ways with the way headlines, teases and supers are written, particularly the crawls across the bottom."
Forbes' Bercovici said it comes down to basic factual accuracy:
"It is my rough, anecdotal sense that most of the real howlers in terms of taking liberties with the facts you see on Beck and O'Reilly. I don't recall an instance where someone called out Olbermann or Maddow and they were just making it up. I can remember that for Beck and O'Reilly."
"MSNBC has a lot of NBC News DNA and resources. MSNBC sticks closer to the facts."
That last one was a bluff so it’s probably good they passed. I can’t even k...
Paraphrased email between me and a marketer. The sad thing is that this is only slightly paraphrased:
Them: We would like to buy a text ad on your blog.
me: Ok. It’s $75.
Them: We will write a guest post on your blog with 4 embedded links to our product. We will give you $15.
me: Um…no.
Them: We will give you $18.
me: No.
Them: You will put 4 links to our product pages on your blogroll page. We will pay you $2 per 1,000 click-throughs that result in sales.
me: Wow. Does this usually work for you?
Them: You will write a review about our product. We will send you high quality photos of the product if you agree.
me: That sounds great but the electric company just stopped accepting high-quality photos as forms of currency. I will send you a high-quality photo of me saying no to you.
Them: We are not currently paying for marketing but your readers would appreciate learning about our product.
me: Nice try, Obi-Wan. Your Jedi mind-tricks won’t work on me.
Them: This is no trick. We can offer your readers a 10% coupon if they tweet about our product. Your readers will thank you.
me: You will send me $1,000 and I will send you a high-quality photo of me spending it.
Them: This would not benefit us at this time.
me: You will send me a dog as big as a pony and I will send you a high-quality photo of me riding it.
Them: We have many other bloggers interested in being in this exclusive program. If you are not interested in this program please let us know so that we can move on to our next choice.
me: You will send me a cloak of invisibility and I will send you high-quality photos of me being invisible in it.
Them: We are sorry that you are passing on this valuable opportunity to help your readers. We will keep you in mind for future products which meet your requirements.
me: You will send me four dead cats in a shoebox. I will send you high-quality photos of them as marionettes.
them: Thank you for your time. Your blog is not a good fit for us presently.
me: So you aren’t interested in placing your links on my blog?
them: Yes. Please notify us when the links are active.
me: You will send me a large Sasquatch. I will send you high-quality photos of me playing Chinese-Freeze-Tag with it.
So far I have received no response.
I win.
Cong. Bob Filner: Confronting racist Tea Party violence on election #OL
And here's his mugshot, from his Congressional website, followed by what it says on that same page:
Two months in jail forged California Congressman's passion for justice: Congressman Bob Filner as he is booked into the Jackson, Mississippi Jail in June, 1961.Filner, then an eighteen-year-old sophomore at Cornell University, was arrested for "disturbing the peace" and "inciting a riot" while taking part in the now-famous Freedom Rides - groups of people who traveled to Alabama and Mississippi in an attempt to integrate restaurants, restrooms, and bus station waiting rooms. Filner refused to post bail and spent two months in the Mississippi State Penitentiary to help keep national attention focused on the issue of integration. The Supreme Court overturned Filner's conviction - and eventually all the Jim Crow laws in the South. In 1961, the Freedom Riders were greeted with fury, fists, and firebombs. They returned in 2001 to Jackson to celebrate their fortieth anniversary - greeted by the first black Mayor in the City's history.
Here's a video report of the election night confrontation from the Southwestern College Sun (transcript on the flip):
Violence erupted at San Diego's Golden Hall election. Bob Filner was attacked by Republican Challenger Nick Popaditch and his supporters.Filner, a Southwestern College reporter and Filner supporters were set upon by a mob of about 100, led by Popaditch.
Filner and student journalist Monika Tuncibilek were trapped with their backs to a pillar, surrounded by Popaditch supporters.
At least one member of his entourage was punched in the face. Filner was shoved and spat at as he grabbed the arm Tuncibilek to keep her from being assaulted or injured.
Popaditch led an angry mob that called Filner a "communist" and chanted "papa-ditch" then later changed the chant to "Bob's-a-bitch."
Popaditch supporters followed Popaditch as he rushed at Filner and his staff as soon as he entered Golden Hall. Filner supporters were overwhelmed by people holding Popaditch signs.
Filner was surrounded with his back against a wall as he attempted to make his way to one of the news stations for an interview. Popaditch darted across the hall to get in front of Filner and confronted him.
A Popaditch supporter said the incident was only "one candidate trying to give another a handshake" and that "one ran, one followed." Filner supporters called the Popaditch camp "childish."
At one point a Popaditch supporter punched a member of Filner's camp while Popaditch was seen smiling about 10 feet away. Police eventually established control over the crowd. There were no arrests.
Filner won re-election to the 51st Congressional District with 60 percent of the vote.
This is a relatively restrained account, however. In the interview, Filner connected what he experienced that night with his training in the Civil Rights Movement in how to protect himself when being attacked. And well he should have.
The East County Magazine reported:
OPADITCH INCITES MOB, CURSES AT FILNER AND REPORTEDLY PUSHES OPPONENT AT ELECTION CENTRAL
By Miriam Raftery
ECM reporter Mary Paulet contributed to this reportNovember 5, 2010 (San Diego) - In the sore loser category, Republican Nick Popaditch wins hands down.
Multiple credible news sites have reported that after Democratic Congressman Bob Filner was declared winner by a 20-point margin, a mob of Popaditch supporters, including Tea Party and white supremacist members, cornered and spat on Popaditch's opponent, Filner. Video by the Chula Vista Star News reveals that Popaditch cursed at Filner, called him a liar, and made no efforts to calm down an increasingly virulent mob that forced Filner out of Golden Hall's Election Central and into the lobby. Filner told CityBeat that he was shoved by Popaditch.
"Last night, Nick Popadith made Election Central a threatening and unsafe place to be," CityBeat's Dave Masse wrote. Mayor Jerry Sanders' security detail ultimately rescued the Congressman from the mob, CityBeat reported.
East County Magazine reporter Mary Paulet interviewed a witness, Robin Buse, during the altercation, whose statement confirms Filner's allegation. Buse told ECM that she saw Popaditch push Filner. "I ran and got the cops," added Buse, a Filner supporter. Others, fearful for their safety, confirmed assaults by Popaditch and his supporters.
A second witness, who asked not to be named, said she also saw pushing and cussing. She added that a Popaditch supporter also pushed a Filner supporter. East County Magazine editor Miriam Raftery, also at the scene, spoke with yet another distraught person who said "Popaditch just went after Filner." Raftery photographed police officers moving in to calm down the mob.
A Southwestern College Sun reporter said that a Popaditch supporter punched a Filner supporter in the face, that Popaditch backers spat on Filner supporters and chanted "Bob's a bitch."
The San Diego Union-Tribune quotes Filner as saying "It was like a mob scene...there was violence in their eyes."
And CityBeat's Last Blog On Earth reported that one of Popaditch's supporters had bragged about his role in the confrontation on white supremacist Stormfront website:
The video contains amateur footage of the Popaditch Experience at Election Central, followed by images of insurgents, militias, the Irish Republican Army, a whole lot of AK-47s (Aurick lists researching AKs and revisionist history as among his interests on his "about me") and Mel Gibson in Braveheart (wtf). ?It also makes reference to snipers and is accompanied by this call to action (emphasis added):When political and diplomatic negotiations fail then we have only violent rebellion left to insure our people are fairly represented. We may have to force our government to respect our demands at gunpoint!
This election was a complete fraud for those of you that still can't see the obvious and we have almost exausted all peaceful negotiation with this tyrannical governement, so what is left? Total war is all that's left to us! I saw the begining of it last night and so did all of you, but most of you do not realize it yet. This is a game they let us win a few seats in the House but this is not in any way a decisive victory and the tyrants are still in power! Now is the time we begin to force them to recogzise our power, and we've only just begun to fight. We have rebel friends around the world too that will join us in our eternal struggle for freedom.
Later, Aurick came back and added this comment to his video:At frames 204 -206 you can see Filner cowardly hiding his back against the support beam as trys to avoid Nick Popaditch and all of our questions we have for the weasle. It? iwas a joy to see him as the coward I always knew he was, if you couold see it any better it would be obvious he's afraid and probably for the first time in his privileadged litte rich boy life.
As is so typical, this two-bit punk has no idea who Filner is. Tea Party violence is not "exuberance", is not "isolated", is not "incidental." This is who they are. Filner and Lewis and many others still alive have seen this before up close and personal in the 1960s. This is violent white supremacy.
And no, there is no such thing as "reverse-white-supremacy."
Researchers get trapped photons to act like massive particles
A Bose-Einstein Condensate is a strange substance. When a set of appropriate particles are cooled so that they all occupy a ground state, they begin to exhibit wave-like properties that enable them to behave as a superfluid, moving without any turbulence or resistance. But getting enough particles, such as atoms, to occupy a single low-energy state requires that they be chilled down to a fraction of a Kelvin above absolute zero, which meant that the first observation of a BEC didn't occur until 1995. Now, researchers have found a way to create a room-temperature BEC, but it required the use of unexpected material: light.
Light, which is constantly being absorbed, reflected, and re-emitted, isn't the easiest thing to pin down. Getting a collection of photons to enter a single energy state is even harder. But a team of researchers at Germany's Institut für Angewandte Physik figured out how to modify a well-known system—the laser—to force a large collection of photons into a sort of thermal equilibrium.
Read the comments on this post
Quantum entanglement, meet Heisenberg
"I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics." That's what Richard Feynman said in 1965, and it is not getting any easier. Scientists are reporting in the journal Science that they have linked the uncertainty principle and “spooky” nonlocal interactions.
Quantum measurements are governed by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. It states that measurements of pairs of physical quantities, such as time and energy or position and momentum, are linked such that the more you know about one, the less you do about the other. If you know exactly where a particle is, you know nothing about its momentum, and vice versa.
When the states of two quantum systems are coupled, they are said to be entangled. For example, if a particle decays into two with opposite spins, quantum mechanics states that each particle has a 50 percent chance of being spin up or spin down. If you measure one particle to be spin up, then you have collapsed the wave function and changed the probability of the second particle to be 100 percent spin down.
So what happens when the two particles have moved apart? Entangled interactions are referred to as nonlocal interactions when the measurement of one of the particles would have to travel faster than the speed of light to collapse the wave function of the second particle. Einstein really did not like this, and referred to these interactions as "spooky," because one particle seems to instantaneously know what was measured on the other.
Linking these two apparently separate phenomena is the concept of steerability. Steerability refers to the ability to influence the states of one particle with measurements made on another. If two people each have access to an entangled system, then they each have some idea of what measurements each other have made, and they can make educated guesses as to the states of each other’s systems.
What the researchers have shown is that the strength of nonlocal interactions is a tradeoff between steerability and uncertainty. The more influence one has on the system, the more uncertainty there is. And the more you decrease the uncertainty, the less you can steer the measurements. In a nutshell, the uncertainty principle puts a limit on the amount of information that an entangled system can hold.
Science, 2010. DOI: 10.1126/science.1192065 (About DOIs).
Read the comments on this post
We Need Net Neutrality: Comcast Demands Bandwith Payment From Level 3
Bad idea jeans:
Level 3 Communications, Inc. (NASDAQ: LVLT) today issued the following statement, which can be attributed to Thomas Stortz, Chief Legal Officer of Level 3:
“On November 19, 2010, Comcast informed Level 3 that, for the first time, it will demand a recurring fee from Level 3 to transmit Internet online movies and other content to Comcast’s customers who request such content. By taking this action, Comcast is effectively putting up a toll booth at the borders of its broadband Internet access network, enabling it to unilaterally decide how much to charge for content which competes with its own cable TV and Xfinity delivered content. This action by Comcast threatens the open Internet and is a clear abuse of the dominant control that Comcast exerts in broadband access markets as the nation’s largest cable provider.
“On November 22, after being informed by Comcast that its demand for payment was ‘take it or leave it,’ Level 3 agreed to the terms, under protest, in order to ensure customers did not experience any disruptions.
“Level 3 operates one of several broadband backbone networks, which are part of the Internet and which independent providers of online content use to transmit movies, sports, games and other entertainment to consumers. When a Comcast customer requests such content, for example an online movie or game, Level 3 transmits the content to Comcast for delivery to consumers.
This should also factor in to the Comcast-NBC merger which is just going to make the media-broadband world even worse.
Ten questions science should answer
Ten questions science must answerBrian Cox: Can we make a scientific way of thinking all pervasive?
This would be the greatest achievement for science over the coming centuries. I say this because I do not believe that we currently run our world according to evidence-based principles. If we did, we would be investing in an energy Manhattan project to quickly develop and deploy clean energy technologies. We would be investing far larger amounts of our GDP in the eradication of diseases such as malaria, and we would be learning to live and work in space - not as an interesting and extravagant sideline, but as an essential part of our long-term survival strategy.
One only has to look at the so-called controversies in areas such as climate science or the vaccination of our children to see that the rationalist project is far from triumphant at the turn of the 21st century - indeed, it is possible to argue that it is under threat. I believe that we will only be able to build a safer, fairer, more prosperous and more peaceful world when a majority of the population understand the methods of science and accept the guidance offered by an evidence-based investigation of the challenges ahead. Scientific education must therefore be the foundation upon which our future rests.
(Image: Modern Rationalism, public domain/Wikimedia Commons)
BREAKING: Netflix under attack
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Adam Green, BoldProgressives.org" <info@boldprogressives.org>
Date: November 29, 2010 23:53:14 EST
To: "Scott Blomquist" <vtblom@gmail.com>
Subject: BREAKING: Netflix under attack
Reply-To: "Adam Green, BoldProgressives.org" <info@boldprogressives.org>
Scott,
BREAKING: The New York Times just reported that Comcast is blocking Netflix unless a new fee is paid to Comcast -- so Netflix's price goes up and people use Comcast's video service instead.
This outrageous abuse of power by Comcast comes on the very week that President Obama's FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski will announce whether he'll fulfill Obama's promise to protect the open Internet and Net Neutrality -- which would prevent this type of corporate abuse.
The FCC needs to hear from us now, before the chairman's big announcement this week.
Then, please tell your friends. We'll deliver thousands of messages to the FCC this week. Sign here.
What else could Comcast do if the FCC doesn't protect Net Neutrality?
Internet providers like Comcast can drive their financial competitors (or political opponents) out of business by charging them more, for no good reason -- exactly what's happening right now.
For instance, Comcast could block or degrade iTunes, which competes with Comcast's own online music store.
Worse, the FCC will soon decide whether to allow Comcast to buy NBC! Can you imagine what Comcast will do to block customers from getting video from ABC, CBS, and other media outlets? This is way more serious than just movies -- the FCC's decision impacts pretty much everything.
Thanks for being a bold progressive,
Adam Green, Jason Rosenbaum, Stephanie Taylor, Forrest Brown, and the PCCC team
P.S. You can read excerpts from the New York Times story on the petition page.
Want to support our work? We're entirely funded by our members—no corporate contributions, no big checks from CEOs. And our tiny staff ensures that small contributions go a long way. We've received over 60,246 small-dollar donations. Can you help us hit 65,000?
Monday, November 29, 2010
level 3 comcast
WASHINGTON — Level 3 Communications Inc., an Internet backbone company that supports Netflix Inc.'s increasingly popular movie streaming service, complained Monday that cable giant Comcast Corp. is charging it an unfair fee for the right to send data to its subscribers.
Comcast replied it is being swamped by a flood of data and needs to be paid.
Level 3 said it agreed to pay under protest, but that the fee violates the principles of an "open Internet." It also goes against the Federal Communications Commission's proposed rules preventing broadband Internet providers from favoring certain types of traffic, it said.
"Comcast is effectively putting up a toll booth at the borders of its broadband Internet access network, enabling it to unilaterally decide how much to charge for content," said Level 3's chief legal officer, Thomas Stortz, in a statement.
Comcast called Level 3's position "duplicitous" and said a previous deal for the companies to handle traffic for each other had become unbalanced in Level 3's favor.
The spat reflects the complicated commercial relationships of the Internet, where it's not always clear who should be paying whom.
Level 3's main business is carrying Internet traffic across the country, charging Internet service providers like Comcast fees to connect to Web sites and other ISPs.
However, it is moving into the business of distributing Internet content such as movies for companies including Netflix. Under that business model, it is acting like a content-delivery network, which usually pays ISPs for fast access to their networks.
Level 3, which is based in Broomfield, Colo., is now pushing to Comcast five times the traffic that goes the other way.
"When one provider exploits this type of relationship by pushing the burden of massive traffic growth onto the other provider and its customers, we believe this is not fair," Comcast's senior vice president Joe Waz said in a statement.
The dispute comes at a sensitive time for Comcast Corp., which is trying to get regulatory clearance to buy majority control of NBC Universal from General Electric Co. for cash and assets worth $13.75 billion.
The government is examining the deal, especially around concerns that the nation's largest cable TV provider could wield undue power in the distribution of online video once it takes control.
Level 3 said Comcast made a take-it-or-leave-it demand last week and it only agreed to the terms under protest to prevent consumer disruptions. Comcast said it is meeting with Level 3 later this week to discuss a new solution.
The fight is related to a heated policy dispute in Washington over proposed rules governing Internet traffic.
FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski has been pushing to adopt so-called "network neutrality" rules for more than a year, arguing that they are necessary to prevent phone and cable giants from using their broadband monopolies to become online gatekeepers.
Public interest groups were quick to jump on Level 3's complaint Monday to argue that premium services should not be allowed.
"Comcast's request of payment in exchange for content transmission is yet another example of why citizens need strong, effective network neutrality rules that include a ban on such 'paid prioritization' practices," Andrew Jay Schwartzman, senior vice president of Media Access Project, said in a statement.
The FCC had no comment.
It's not the first time Comcast, which is based in Philadelphia, has been accused of unfairly regulating Web traffic.
In 2008, the FCC ordered the cable giant to stop slowing and blocking its subscribers from accessing an online file-sharing service called BitTorrent, which lets people swap movies and other big files over the Internet.
For Netflix, the dustup could affect its popular video-streaming offering, to which it is pushing customers to save on the cost of sending rental DVDs in the mail.
Netflix declined to comment.
Starting next year, Level 3 will become Netflix's primary network for piping Internet video, although Netflix also will continue to rely on systems run by Limelight Networks Inc. and Akamai Technologies Inc.
If Level 3 is forced to pay more to send movies to homes that rely on Comcast for Internet service, it eventually could try to pass on the costs to Netflix and its subscribers.
As more of its 17 million subscribers embrace Internet streaming, Netflix's service has emerged as the biggest source of Internet traffic in the U.S. during peak evening periods, according to a recent study by Sandvine Inc.
___
AP Business Writers Michael Liedtke in San Francisco and Peter Svensson in New York contributed to this report.
Public Defender for Mohamed Mohamud Suggests “Potential for Entrapment” at A...
Mug shot of Mohamed Mohamud
Mohamed Mohamud was arraigned in federal court in Portland, OR, today, to hear his single indictment on one count of attempting to use a weapon of mass destruction. It sounds like the federal public defender on his case is well aware of issues raised here and elsewhere this weekend:
Mohamud was sitting hunched forward, conversing quietly with his attorney. Stephen Sady, assistant federal public defender.
[snip]
“This situation is very unusual,” Sady said. He said that by Friday night, the press had been given a copy of the criminal complaint, which was essentially a press release.
“The arrest was obviously timed for maximum impact and maximum publicity.” Sady said.
[snip]
He said a quite sophisticated government agency had been “basically grooming” the individual and Sady said there was “potential for entrapment.”
“It’s the first meeting that matters,” he said, complaining that the government’s recording devices had failed in the first meeting.
Sady asked Acosta to make sure that every device that was used in the investigation that could collect and store data be preserved as pristinely as they are today. Not just the recordings, Sady emphasized, but also the recording devices.
As long as there’s a public defender alert enough to recognize the potential for entrapment, and the import of the missing recording and recording device of the first meeting between Mohamud and the FBI, I think we can presume this defendant is in competent legal hands.
Steven T. Wax, the federal public defender for the District of Oregon, said in anticipation of his office handling today’s arraignment, that Stephen Sady, the chief deputy federal public defender, “has been working on the case this weekend.”
Stephen Wax was the 2004 attorney for Brandon Mayfield.
Just watched the local news; friends since childhood and former neighbors all seem shocked that Mohamud could be involved in something like this FBI terror plot.
UPDATE: Acosta set Feb, 1, 2011, for the start of the trial. He also set aside 15 days for it, and assigned it to Judge Garr King.
UPDATE 2: Looks like the Portland Police Bureau’s current relationship with the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force might become much more formalized, if Mayor Sam Adams gets his way:
Afterwards, Mayor Sam Adams talked to reporters in the city park across the courthouse. He said it was important Mohamud be tried in a civilian court, not a military tribunal.
Asked whether he thought the FBI entrapped Mohamud, Adams did not answer the question directly but said it was important such issues be aired before the court.
Adams also said the arrest was prompting him to review whether the city should rejoin the FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force. The city pulled out several years ago when former Mayor Tom Potter complained the police bureau was not able to adequately supervise the officers assigned to it.
Among other things, Adams said he wanted to understand what the city might have learned about the plot earlier if the city was part of the task force. He was not informed of it until hours after Mohamud was arrested. The police bureau was brought into the investigation earlier, however.
US cable giant accused of internet video 'toll booth'
Backbone cries foul over Comcast 'net movie delivery fee'
Internet backbone provider Level 3 Communications says that US cable outfit Comcast is demanding a recurring fee for transmitting internet movies and "other content" to Comcast customers who request the content, accusing the cable provider of violating the Federal Communications Commission's "net neutrality" principles. But Comcast says Level 3 is misrepresenting the negotiations between the two companies.…
Comcast, Level 3 Communications square off over video streaming, network neu...
Comcast, Level 3 Communications square off over video streaming, network neutrality principles originally appeared on Engadget on Mon, 29 Nov 2010 20:23:00 EDT. Please see our terms for use of feeds.
Permalink |
Level 3, Comcast Voices | Email this | CommentsComcast Puts Tollbooth on Net Video, Says Backbone Provider
U.S. Government Now Creating Terrorists So It Can Arrest Them
Mohamud was a student at Oregon State, and as far as we can tell from this AP story, was not promised to get rich quick by becoming a terrorist. He, at least, did have an actual interest in becoming one, because the FBI saw his e-mails to a friend in Pakistan, asking if he knew Osama bin Laden’s AIM handle or whatever. When Mohamud had no luck getting this contact info (WHAT? HIS FRIEND WAS IN PAKISTAN! HE MUST HAVE KNOWN TERRORISTS!), the government swooped in and told him they were hip terrorist guys with a bomb and terrorist letterman’s-jacket with his name stitched on it.
Oh, why was the FBI reading this Mohamud guy’s e-mails in the first place? It’s never explained in this AP story. But c’mon, the kid’s name is Mohamud. He shouldn’t have let his parents name himself that if he didn’t want to be a terrorist. So obviously the answer to this problem was not continued surveillance but rather enticing this kid into dropping out of college to become the ULTIMATE TERRORIST.
It was also very difficult to decipher that this kid is an American citizen because the AP story was so busy telling us he is a “Somali-born teenager” and PRECIOUS SMALL WHITE CHILDREN were at this Portland Christmas event (at which they were never in the danger of exploding).
But here’s an even more fun account in Slate about “four African-American ex-cons from Newburgh, N.Y.” who were enticed into saying they would blow up two synagogues:
Hussain bought meals for the group of four men he assembled because none of them had jobs or money. The owner of a Newburgh restaurant where they occasionally ate considered him “the boss,” because he would pick up the tab. Among his other inducements were the offer of $250,000 and a BMW to the most volubly anti-Semitic plotter, the man the government says was the ringleader, James Cromitie. To drive that car, Cromitie would have needed a driver’s license—which he didn’t have. Another supposed plotter, a Haitian, was a paranoid schizophrenic (according to his imam), which was the reason his deportation had been deferred (according to The Nation’s TomDispatch.com), and who kept bottles of urine in his squalid apartment (according to the New York Times). The last two, both surnamed Williams, have histories of drug busts and minimum-wage jobs in Newburgh. At trial the government asserted that the plot was driven by anti-American hatred. But in papers filed in court by defense lawyers before the trial began, Cromitie is quoted in government transcripts explaining to Hussain that the men “will do it for the money. … They’re not even thinking about the cause.”
One of these guys tried to back out, “saying he didn’t want to hurt any women or children,” but the informant pressured him into staying with the group.
This is just perverse. Perhaps the government will one day figure out how to wind down bureaucracies and bureaucratic divisions once they’ve proved to no longer be necessary. But until then, the FBI will create terrorists for itself to bust because it doesn’t have enough actual, group-aligned terrorists to hunt. And, perhaps, a fake bomb for you to assemble will suddenly arrive on your doorstep one day after you criticize the government or American society. But anti-terrorism efforts have to adjust to the actual threat eventually, right? It’s not like archaic bureaucracies like the Tennessee Valley Authority are still around.
Mohamud was known at the Salman Al-Farisi Center in Corvallis, said Yosof Wanly, imam at the mosque. He said Mohamud was “an average university boy,” drinking the occasional beer with friends in fraternities.
“He had some fraternity friends,” Wanly said. “He would attend athletic (events), basketball games, whatever they are.”
By the way, you know who coaches that basketball team? Known terrorist Barack Obama’s brother-in-law. DUN DUN DUN. [AP/Slate]
