We all know the story of how Thomas Edison invented the lightbulb. He knew the basics of what he needed to invent: something that would glow consistently when a current was applied to it, but wouldn’t burn up too quickly. The idea for this had been around for fifty years, but no one had been able to make it work practically. He and his assistants tried some 3,000 different ways of making it work, and finally figured out how. And thus the modern lightbulb was born, with Edison as its inventor.

Flash forward to modern software patents. Edison isn’t the inventor, and doesn’t receive the patent or any accolades. Instead, some guy fifty years earlier has the idea for an incandescent lightbulb and describes it without having any practical way of making it work, and just sits back and waits for Edison to come make it a reality. Welcome to the modern patent troll.

Traditional patents are granted for the method by which an invention accomplishes something – the specific filament, for example, or a machine that works in a particular way to do something. Software patents are granted for the concept that the software accomplishes, not the actual code that accomplishes is (that code is still protected by trademark). Amazon’s (in)famous one-click patent doesn’t cover the actual code written to make one-click happen (there are many ways one could write that code), but covers the idea of writing code to make that happen.

If we applied modern patent practices a hundred years ago, Eli Whitney wouldn’t have patented his actual cotton gin, but the idea of using a machine to separate cotton fibers from seeds, regardless of how the machine was designed or built. Edison wouldn’t have had to spend time figuring out how to build a working lightbulb, or patenting the specific method – the vague idea would have been enough.

Edison famously said that invention was 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration. Today’s software (and many hardware) patents are awarded for inspiration, not perspiration.

Stuff for the trek

The main highlight of our trip will be our hike from Lukla up to Everest base camp. We’ll go through a number of different climate systems on the hike. I expect it to be similar to summer mountaineering in the Sierras, so I’m planning to dress accordingly. Because we’ll be spending a decent amount of time over 4,000 meters, I’ll want to be sure to bring warm things.

Clothing

2-3 Stoic Merino wool t-shirts.

1 wool long-sleeve Icebreaker Oasis 200 shirt.

1 Patagonia Houdini wind shell. This is one of the raddest items I’ve ever owned.

1 mid-weight insulation. I still haven’t decided the specific here. Either my Patagonia Cap 3 Midweight Crew, fleece, or a softshell.

1 light Patagonia Down Sweater (it’s really a jacket – they just call it a sweater).

Optional: Patagonia DAS Parka for when it’s really cold. Don’t think I’m actually going to take this.

1 OR Mentor Technical / Rain Shell.

2 pairs travel underwear.

1 pair Icebreaker BodyFit 260 wool long underwear.

2 pairs The North Face Paramount Peak convertible pants.

1 pair Arcteryx Gamma MX Softshell Pants.

1 pair hard shell pants. Not sure if I’m going to take my uber burly pants or just more lightweight rain pants.

Hands, Feet, and Head

1 pair softshell gloves

Optional: 1 pair shell gloves. Haven’t decided whether I actually need to get these. If so, I need to buy new ones, since my old ones wore out.

3 REI liner socks

2 REI wool hiking socks

1 pair waterproof  hiking shoes.

1 pair Outdoor Research Rocky Mountain Low gaiters. These are helpful for keeping little rocks and stuff out of your shoes.

1 pair of SmartWool Mocaroon Slippers for just wearing around.

1 Columbia OmniShade Bora Bora Booney brimmed hat or SF Giants hat

1 wool beanie

1 balaclava

Other Gear

Large North Face duffel bag for all my stuff. These are the burliest, raddest duffels you can get.

28L technical daypack.

NeoAir XTherm sleeping pad. And a repair kit!

15-degree Marmot Helium sleeping bag.

Mini-towel. I use this to deal with sweat. Gross, I know.

2-liter hydration bladder.

32-oz round Nalgene bottle.

First aid/emergency kit (my standard kit + meds)

• Advil
• Diamox
• Cipro
• Immodium
• Bandaids
• Neosporin
• Moleskin
• athletic tape + yellow stuff (for ankles, etc)
• icy hot ointment
• water purification tablets
• emergency blanket
• multi-tool w/scissors
• waterproof matches
• compass
• mini flashlight
• duck tape

Personal kit

• Toothpaste
• Toothbrush
• Q-tips
• Ear plugs; I have extras, if anyone wants some.
• hand sanitizer
• bug lotion (need to look into this)
• sunscreen
• lip stuff
• shampoo, conditioner, and soap

Trekking poles

Black Diamond Spot Headlamp (possibly backup flashlight)

iPhone

Watch

2 SteriPen Adventurer Water Purifier

10 hand warmers

2 pair polarized sunglasses

1 pair goggles. Spoke with a friend about the trip who suggested that these might be useful if, you know, there’s weather up top. Again, I’m not super concerned about weight on the trip.

1 pair prescription glasses

Binoculars (?)

Travel around Hong Kong & Kathmandu

2 gray cotton t-shirts / short-sleeved collared shirt.

1 pair socks (Wigwam Ultimax Cool Lite Hiker Mid Socks).

1 navy blazer (maybe). Keepin’ it classy.

1 nice button-down shirt (also maybe).

Traveling/other

1 travel lock (Lewis and Clark Travel Sentry Cable Combo Lock)

iPhone charger

Passport, four extra photos

Media industry supporters go crazy over the Internet and piracy, support things like SOPA, and bemoan the “death of music” or the “death of writing” or whatever it is they are involved in, claiming that without robust legal protections against piracy, music, writing, and movies will go away. I don’t buy this argument because these various industries have only existed for 50-100 years, and people have been creating music and writing for far longer (obviously movies are a modern phenomenon, but the point remains).

To explain further, let’s focus on the recording industry. Although they claim they are all about creating music, their business model is actually built on the distribution of music, not its creation. Music itself has been around since the dawn of humanity – the oldest known instrument is the Divje Babe flute, from some 40,000 years ago. Modern recording companies, however, have only been around since the early 21st century. The invention of phonograph in the late 19th century allowed music to be recorded and distributed for the first time in history, and by the 1920′s the technology had been perfected and modern recording companies were born.

Eventually, the record was displaced by the 8-track tape, then by the compact cassette, then by compact discs, but for each of these, the recording industry’s business model has been about the production and distribution of these physical goods. In other words, the recording industry is actually not a creative industry, but a manufacturing industry. It’s not selling music; it’s selling physical tapes, records, or cds.

And this was very valuable: cost effectively manufacturing cds requires a significant capital investment, and getting them physically shipped all over the world requires a lot of logistical expertise and money. Because their manufacturing and distribution expertise was so valuable, the recording industry made a lot of money and was able to align related industries to support it: radio was a key marketing and advertising channel, driving additional sales, as were live concerts.

Record companies like to claim that their business model is really centered around finding new artists to publish, but the only reason for narrow talent acquisition is because of manufacturing cost and scale issues. Sure, a recording session in a studio can be somewhat expensive, but it’s nothing relative to the cost of ramping up manufacturing and distribution of physical media. So their business model required fewer artists to sell more records. Thus the hunt for talent.

Advances in technology and the introduction of the Internet have rendered the two strengths of the music industry worthless. Now that all music is digitally formated, manufacturing expertise is no longer needed, and since the Internet allows digital files to be distributed world-wide at near-zero cost right into consumers’ homes, distribution expertise is no longer needed.

In short, there is no fundamental reason for record companies.

But, they do provide a valuable service. Even if the cost of recording (studio time) is small relative to the cost of manufacturing and distribution, it’s still large relative to most starving artists’ bank accounts. And that’s where Kickstarter and crowdsourcing come in.

This last weekend, two independent artists – a video game creator and a music artist – both posted projects to get community funding for their work. They both raised around $1,000,000 in 24 hours – directly from fans, completely bypassing publishers, and ultimately at a far lower cost than the recording industry model would support.

The recording industry has been buffeted by the winds of change for a decade, but continues to cling to its old business model. That model’s not going to survive another decade. Some of the companies will, but not in their current form.

With this in mind, I savored this quote in a recent WSJ article surveying the Republican field:

Finally, there are the men not in the field: Mitch Daniels, Paul Ryan, Chris Christie, Jeb Bush, Haley Barbour. This was the GOP A-Team, the guys who should have showed up to the first debate but didn’t because running for president is hard and the spouses were reluctant. Nothing commends them for it. If this election is as important as they all say it is, they had a duty to step up. Abraham Lincoln did not shy from the contest of 1860 because of Mary Todd. If Mr. Obama wins in November—or, rather, when he does—the failure will lie as heavily on their shoulders as it will with the nominee.

My guess is that the A-Team decided not to “step up” for two reasons, neither of them having anything to do with their spouses.

First, it’s actually not the most important election of all time. Hyperventilating aside, Obama is a relatively middle-of-the-road President pursuing a relatively middle-of-the-road policy platform. He wants to raise taxes slightly – to levels in line with those during the Clinton administration, which were already low in an historical context. He authored a Heritage Foundation-inspired health care plan well to the right of HilaryCare. He has pursued a militarily aggressive foreign policy, and has instituted a far tougher anti-illegal immigration policy than ever before. GOP candidates are campaigning against a version of Obama that wants to raise taxes to historically high levels, nationalize healthcare, is an “appeaser” when it comes to foreign policy, and has a lax immigration policy. That strawman doesn’t exist, the GOP A-Team knows it, and knew that their policy platform would actually not be much different than Obama’s.

Second, the Republican party has changed dramatically over the last decade, change that has accelerated over the last three years. What has changed? Well, the party has splintered, held together only by its hatred of all things Obama. As Matt Steinglass, writing in the Economist puts it:

Republicans’ disenchantment with their current presidential candidates is not an incidental characteristic of this crop of candidates. It’s a structural feature of a contemporary Republican Party whose pieces don’t hang together.

Steinglass  describes the different factions, then writes (with my emphasis):

These factions have been glued together over the past three years by the intensity of their partisan hatred for Barack Obama, and all of the underlying resentments that antipathy masks. Republicans have buried their differences by assaulting everything Mr Obama supports, and because Mr Obama is a pretty middle-of-the-road politician, that includes a whole lot of things that many Republicans used to support.

Only Romney and Gingrich have been willing to disavow their entire past in order to appeal to the current Republican base. And they are paying for it – everyone dislikes them. I think the Republican A-Team took one look at the current environment, one look at their records, and reasonably decided that running with their records in this environment would be political suicide. Gingrich was already politically dead, so he’s playing with house money (or Sheldon Adelson’s money). And Romney, already the presumed front runner, apparently decided several years ago to totally disown his previous persona. Ron Paul and Rick Santorum are both consistent, but neither are serious contenders.

In the end, this is an important election year. But it’s only important because the Republican candidates are so extreme in their views, and the Republican base is so incoherent.

1. Special teams turnovers were the biggest factor this game. Their normal returner (Ginn) wasn’t in the game, and the replacement returner turned the ball over twice. A turnover on a kick-off is especially crushing, since you almost automatically give the opposing team amazing field position. In the end, each of these two critical turnovers led directly to scores, and were the largest reason we lost, but not the only reason.

2. Alex Smith. Our offense in general sucked. It couldn’t move the ball at all. I don’t have the numbers in front of me, but I’m pretty sure we were something like 1-10 on third down conversions. I think we have a number of offensive problems – mediocre receivers, a porous offensive line, but one of our glaring weaknesses is our quarterback. Against the Saints, Alex appeared to redeem himself somewhat, but I don’t think his performance was actually that impressive – he played well, but it’s only impressive because he so rarely plays well. Yes, he got us into the NFC Championship, but by making passes that Tony Romo, Eli Manning, and any number of other decent quarterbacks make every game. The Niners are making a mistake if they view a couple lucky fourth down drives against the Saints as evidence of Alex Smith’s transcendence as a quarterback, and against the Giants, he showed why.

3. The play calling. What was up with the play calling? I wasn’t there, I don’t know the field situation, but it sure seemed like we threw a lot of big passes, ran some, and didn’t throw many short-distance passes. I’m pretty sure we got where we were by running and throwing short passes. What happened? Did Harbaugh suddenly believe the hype that Smith was a good quarterback?

4. The offensive line. I noticed this against the Saints, as well as all season, but for all his faults, Smith gets hit an awful lot. Now, some of that has to lie on him – other QBs scramble around and make plays happen. When rushers are coming at him, Smith does scramble around, and will occasionally run for it (and he’s a decent runner), but rarely makes plays happen, rarely throws it away, and often gets sacked. However, it feels like he never has much time to do anything before the defense closes in. Really, where are his linemen?

The nice thing is that the defense is young, and will be back next year. Hopefully we can make some improvements in the off-season, and have another great season.

While we’re on that note, I’d like to make another note on comment moderation: please leave a comment, but if it’s not germaine, useful, helpful, or interesting, it’ll probably not get through moderation. Not that this matters, since I get about two non-spam comments a year, and they are from me. But the truth is that I’ve seen many other bloggers do this, and people cry out that this is against their free speech! What idiots. Really? Me not providing you a platform where you can spew hate or ignorance is abridging your freedom of speech? Sure, it’s abridging your free speech – that is, your ability to use platforms and tools to spread your ideas for free – but it’s not abridging your freedom of speech – your ability to spread your ideas without going to prison.

I found a plugin for WordPress called “Really Static” that allows you to export your entire WP site to a different server as static files. I’ve tried it out here, and I’m adding this post in an effort to test it. For now (not sure how long this will be the case), http://josh.orum.com hosts a completely static version of this site.

Supporting files had to be copied over by hand (css, js, images), and interactive things like comments don’t work, but in general it worked as expected.

This may sound strange because odd shapes obviously don’t move around in real life, but I try to think about how they would move if they did. One of my first professional Flash videos was for Cisco (way back in 1999), and it included a bouncing ball. Getting that ball to bounce right  was a formative experience. It took absolutely forever, but made the movie “feel” right and the client loved it.

There are a few things I concentrate on to make sure things feel natural:

• When there is movement, I nearly always apply an easing effect – this gives the element a dynamic feel. In the natural world, things are either accelerating or decelerating; they are almost never moving at a constant speed from start to stop. I usually go with accelerating because it makes the video more dynamic.
• When objects in the real world stop quickly, they don’t just stop. They distort slightly and “bounce.” Usually, I’ll have the shape overshoot the destination by a hair, then rebound. If I’m really trying to make it perfect, the shape should distort slightly as well.
• When objects stop slowly, they also don’t just stop, but they slow down and then settle. As an object is in motion, gravity distorts it differently than when its stopped. It’s a two-step process, and it’s hard to get right.
• Objects don’t just appear; they fade in or blink in. Or at least there’s something that happens when they appear. This keeps things feeling subtle and natural. Things don’t just appear, but they do gradually appear.

While it’s not particularly natural, I like to make text move and pause – viewers shouldn’t have to read things while they are moving into a scene, but after they’ve arrived. In fact, I want viewers not to read things while they are moving because it’s difficult. One of my favorite things is to have text move quickly, too fast to be read, then slow waaay down for a few seconds as it’s read, and then fly quickly away.

That’s all for now!

One challenge I’ve always run into with this blog is the desire to write very long, comprehensive and considered posts. Almost articles. They are difficult for me to write. So I have a whole list of half-complete draft posts and very few completed posts. Things with titles like “Who make the decisions?” and “What I don’t like about DRM” and “A conservative argument for progressive taxes.” Maybe I’ll write them at some point. Maybe I’ll get better about writing long posts.

Regardless, Tumblr is more about quick funny posts. I’m trying to be better about updating it. At some point in the future, you will see it integrated into orum.com, or maybe even taking over orum.com. We will see. Until then, it’s over there.