all micro contact rss

I live in a City with a Powerful Bicycle Lobby. No wonder middle-America thinks we're out of touch.

**Update**: An old friend called me out on Facebook for my harsh words below. I’m going to leave them there, so everyone can read what I now believe was an overly harsh initial reaction to the article I’m quoting here from SFGate. I still believe my original conclusion, but I am not happy about how I explained my reasoning.

My updated, more thought out reasoning, was posted as a comment on Facebook, as well. I will add that to the end of this article, for your convenience, or you can visit it here:

http://www.facebook.com/joecieplinski?v=wall&story_fbid=112235358809466

Thanks, Dave, for making me rethink my argument. Maybe you still disagree with me, but I hope you at least can see I’m trying to explain myself a bit better.

**Pedal power: **In a true example of the squeaky wheel getting the grease, bicyclists are getting a major break over motorists when it comes to the tougher cell phone law making its way through the state Legislature.

The proposed law would increase the fine for texting or using a hand-held cell phone on the road to $50 for a first-time offender.

Adding in all the state’s court fees and surcharges, that really comes to about $255 for drivers. A second offense would come to $445 in most counties.

But thanks to some very effective lobbying by pedal pushers, cyclists won’t have to pay those extra charges. As a result, their fines will be hundreds of dollars less than those of drivers.

The logic is that distracted cyclists do less damage than someone in a car (of course, a car can do a fair amount of damage to a distracted cyclist), and besides, cyclists tend to be young and thus can’t afford the high fine.

As if anyone can.

via [sfgate.com](http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/04/19/BAUU1D023T.DTL&tsp=1)
Only in San Francisco. There’s absolutely no reasonable argument to be made defending bicyclists who ride while texting or talking on a cell phone. This behavior is absolutely as dangerous as driving a car while doing the same. It’s probably more dangerous, as steering and balancing a bike with one hand is far more difficult than driving a car one-handed.

The argument they try to make is that younger people are more likely to be riding bikes. Exactly. And younger people are far more likely to be texting and holding their phones while riding, too. These are exactly the people most likely to be committing this offense. What’s the point of a law that punishes the most likely offenders the least?

Bikes can still run stop signs and red lights. They can kill pedestrians. They can cause fatal car accidents quite easily.

But never mind that. When your Bicycle lobby is doing the corrupt deals at City Hall, maybe it’s time to rethink just how removed you are as a city from the rest of the country.

And now, my updated argument:

To clarify my post: I’m happy I live in a town with a powerful bike lobby, as opposed to a powerful gun or tobacco lobby. We’re never going to argue about whether or not we should be celebrating confederate history month here in SF.

Maybe the bike itself can’t kill me (I’d argue that it could, at least, kill someone small and frail enough), but the truck that swerves to avoid a bike ridden by a texting rider could very easily kill me. I don’t mean to suggest that the level of danger is equal. Just that degrees of danger in the theoretical shouldn’t lead to different fines for different vehicles. The fine amount should be determined by the level of danger in the actual circumstance of the offense. In other words, a law enforcement agent should be able to heighten or lower the fine based on what transpired, regardless of the vehicles that committed the offense. In a perfect world, a car that stops but then drives through a red light at 5 a.m. on an empty city street with clear visibility in all directions and no other cars or people within sight would still get a fine, but a lesser fine than someone zipping through a red light in the middle of the day with many other cars and pedestrians present. This is the same reason why I am against red light cameras at intersections. It takes human judgement away from a situation that desperately needs to be judged by a human. A bike is less likely to cause a dangerous accident, but that doesn’t mean that it can’t ever be the cause of a dangerous accident, or that similar behavior in a car is ALWAYS more dangerous. A city street is a very serious place. It needs to be treated with the appropriate level of respect by everyone on it. To me, not paying full attention to your driving or riding is one step below intentionally trying to cause harm. I just don’t think we should be backing off any opportunity to discourage this behavior, regardless of the vehicle. I’m not trying to pick on the bikers. I know good law-abiding riders get a lot of undeserved crap in this town. But making the fine cheaper for bikers is a clear message that the City doesn’t consider it as serious an offense. I personally think that’s a mistake.It also gives drivers more fuel for their “lazy” thinking. You won’t change their minds by giving yourselves what they will unfortunately only interpret as preferential treatment. (Then again, you might not change their minds, no matter what you do.) I think the best thing for bikers and drivers, and pedestrians, is if we give all vehicles on the street equal status and respect, which requires subjecting bikers to the same moving violation rules and consequences as drivers. At least on paper. Maybe I’m paranoid about this stuff. But I don’t even think people should be texting while walking. We’re just not that good as a species at doing these things simultaneously.I may not have heard of a bike killing someone recently, but I watch bikers blow through stop signs and red lights, ride on the sidewalk, go the wrong way up one way streets, or fail to signal turns on an almost daily basis. True, all those things are currently subject to the same fine as for a car. To me that’s all the more reason why distracted riding should not be an exception.

Adobe Wants you to Forget that Flash mobile is not yet quite Beta

> So when exactly can you expect for Flash to hit your Android phone? Brimelow says no specific dates are being disclosed just yet. Adobe’s CEO, however, divulged some general details during [a recent interview](http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/4148785/adobe-ceo-on-creative-suite-5-and-apple) with the Fox Business Network. > > “Google and RIM and Palm are going to be releasing versions of Flash on smartphones and tablets in the second half of the year,” CEO Shantanu Narayen said. > > This is a change from Adobe’s previous target launch date for Flash on Android; the company had originally said the technology would become available [in the first half of 2010](http://www.pcworld.com/article/189338/adobe_shows_flash_and_air_apps_for_google_android.html).
via [macworld.com](http://www.macworld.com/article/150703/2010/04/android_flash.html?lsrc=rss_main)
In all the kerfuffle about the Adobe/Apple Flash wars, the press and Adobe like to overlook the fact that Flash isn’t even a working product that Apple COULD put on the iPhone if it wanted to. Here is Adobe, announcing that Flash 10.1 mobile is about to start its beta phase, and won’t be released on the Android platform until the SECOND HALF OF THIS YEAR.

That’s a year behind schedule, for those keeping score.

Adobe loves playing victim, and the press loves making Apple the big, bad, evil monopoly. Never mind that none of this resembles reality.

Android Tries Harder - Pogue's Posts Blog - NYTimes.com

> Remember the old Avis car-rental slogan? “We’re Number 2. We try harder.” > > That slogan came to mind when a reader, an iPhone app developer, wrote to let me know how hard Google, maker of Android, the No. 2 app phone software, is trying to woo iPhone programmers to write their apps for Android phones instead. > > > “I’m the developer of the Texts From Last Night app for the iPhone. Anyway, I received an e-mail yesterday from someone at Google claiming to be in their Android Advocacy Group. He basically said that he wanted to open a line of communication with me in case I chose to port the app to Android, and he offered to ship me a free Nexus One to play around with. > > > > “It shows that Google is actively recruiting developers to their platform, using the enticements of free hardware and open communication. > > > > “Contrast with Apple’s approach: it took us about three months of resubmitting our app to Apple before they stopped rejecting it for inappropriate content. And even now (after we peaked at the No. 7 paid app), we still have no relationship with anyone there. Huge difference in approaches between the two companies.” > > Apple’s iPhone app store certainly isn’t understocked; it’s got 185,000 programs to choose from. But without a doubt, Google’s Android software catalog is growing much faster—from 6,000 to 25,000 apps since the beginning of the year. Free phones, and aggressive courting of talented app makers, surely has something to do with it.
via [pogue.blogs.nytimes.com](http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/19/android-tries-harder/)
I think this developer and Pogue both reached the same wrong conclusion. The way I look at it, Google has to beg people to develop for Android by bribing them with free phones and emails, while Apple can’t handle the shear volume of apps pouring in on a daily basis. They try harder because they are losing.

It’s easy to offer free phones to developers when there aren’t that many developers out there on your platform. It’s easy to court people with emails and promises of great support when you have such a small fan base. It’s like indie band members signing autographs after the show. Smart business move. But Madonna could never do that. She’d be signing for a week.

Android is growing, to be sure, but as many people try to point out as a talking point against Apple, it’s not about the number of apps; it’s about the quality of those apps. And it’s about who is making those apps. Android apps in general are still hobbyist apps. The equivalent of shareware on a Mac. There are some gems out there, but they are few and far between. And there is little pop-culture Android love in the air.

When Nike and Geico and Samuel L. Jackson make Android apps, that’s when you’ll know Google has had success with the platform. Not that those apps are top-quality apps, mind you. But they are a sign that the average joe-shmoe marketer has recognized the iPhone platform as the 2010 equivalent of having a web site in 2001.

That may happen eventually for Android, but so far Google hasn’t given enough concrete financial motivation to its developers. The potential for profit would speak much louder than a free phone and a personal email.

The Mac and Malware

> The current threat from this malware is actually quite low at the moment, as the backdoor would need to be installed by someone with physical access to your machine. Intego notes that it could be deployed as a trojan, using social engineering to convince an unsuspecting user that the installer is actually something else.
via [arstechnica.com](http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2010/04/new-potential-malware-could-open-a-back-door-to-your-mac.ars?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=rss)
I continue to believe that common sense will do you a lot better as a Mac user than any anti-virus software. The only people who are concerned about viruses on the Mac are the people who write anti-virus programs.

To date, there has never been an actual outbreak of an actual OS X virus in the wild. (Virus meaning a program that can be installed automatically without the user’s knowledge and spread to other machines in a similar automated fashion.) Mac Malware has for many years lived in the realms of labs and hacker contests only.

Trojan Horses are bad, to be sure, but no anti-virus program can protect you if you’re dumb enough to give your admin password to an untrusted installer.

Think twice before typing that password, people. And, please, make your password something other than your cat’s name.

SF GATE: Apple's ban of Flash angers iPhone developers? Not really.

> Like thousands of other developers, Joe Rheaume was excited to get his software – an educational game – onto Apple’s iPhone. > > He originally created the game using Flash, a popular multimedia technology from Adobe Systems. But Apple prohibits Flash on the iPhone, so Rheaume was set to use a new conversion tool from Adobe that would make his game compatible with the smart phone. > > Then about a week ago, Apple changed the rules: No conversion tools. Developers must use Apple’s tools. > > “It just feels insulting,” said Rheaume, a programmer from Madison, Wis. “There’s no point in developing for the iPhone. They’re changing the rules in the middle of the game.”
via [sfgate.com](http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/04/18/BU921CUTHO.DTL&feed=rss.news)
Explain to me how the title of this article is accurate? This guy built a game using Flash. He’s not an iPhone developer.

In order for Apple to anger iPhone developers, it would have to actually anger, you know, iPhone developers. People who actually write iPhone apps. Not Flash developers who are angry they don’t get to port their Flash apps over to the iPhone for free.

The article even admits later on that it’s mostly Flash developers who are doing all the complaining about this issue. As I said before, all of the iPhone developers I know are happy about this Flash restriction.

So let’s get the headline right, shall we? “Apple’s ban of Flash angers lazy Flash developers who wanted a free ride into the App Store ecosystem.”

And as far as Apple losing developers over this goes, what they are losing is the lowest common denominator of lazy developers who want to write once and deploy everywhere. That’s a demographic Apple can certainly afford to lose.