Scott Bradford: Off on a Tangent

Fear Mongering on the ‘Fairness’ Doctrine

Posted

In a shameless example of fear-mongering, some Republicans—including Robert McDowell, a member of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)—have been trying to create a tenuous, fictional link between net neutrality and the fairness doctrine. In reality, the two are essentially polar opposites. Net neutrality is the doctrine that nobody—not the government, and not Internet providers—has a right to control how businesses and individuals choose to use the Internet. The fairness doctrine was an unconstitutional requirement withdrawn by the FCC decades ago that media outlets using the broadcast spectrum (i.e., television and radio) grant ‘equal time’ to all sides of issues of public import.

That sounds good, and I’m a big fan of presenting all sides of an issue, but members of the media (whether print, television, radio, or Internet) have a right to publish whatever they want however they want. If the New York Times wants to be wacky left-wing, they can. If Fox News Channel wants to be right-wing, they can. You can read or watch whatever you want, and you can switch to a competitor if you don’t like the ‘slant’ of a particular media source. It’s not the government’s place to require any media outlet to add or remove any content—especially political content—from their programming.

I’m surprised to see guys like McDowell going to these desperate lengths to defend an indefensible position that companies should be able to turn the Web into a giant toll-road for the benefit of phone and cable companies, but linking with the fairness doctrine—a concept that most thinking people revile—seems fairly shrewd. Except it’s not.

It turns out that the fairness doctrine, despite its historic chilling effect on the political media and unquestionable unconstitutionality, is surprisingly well liked. According to a recent Rasmussen poll, 47 percent of Americans want to see this onerous requirement re-applied to radio and television. Only 39 percent oppose it. Thankfully a smaller number want to see this doctrine applied to the Internet . . . but an incredible 31 percent of Americans think that my blog should have to dedicate equal time to all sides of an issue. In other words, if I write 389 words against the fairness doctrine, I would have to write 389 words in favor (or publish somebody else’s 389 words in support). Ludicrous.

So it’s definitely right to oppose the fairness doctrine, but trying to link it with net neutrality is nothing but baseless fear-mongering.

The views expressed in this post are mine and mine alone. They do not necessarily reflect the views of my employer, Web.com.

A ‘Frankenrobot’ With a Biological Brain

Posted

A fascinating story came across the AFP wires today—scientists at the University of Reading have created an experimental robot, and the robot’s ‘brain’ (which would normally be a computer processor) is between 50,000 and 100,000 mouse neurons.

The short explanation is that they put a bunch of mouse neurons in a nutrient-rich liquid with a bunch of electrodes attached (they aren’t actually sitting on the robot, but communicate with it through a wireless link). Sensors on the robot send signals to certain electrodes with stimulus (e.g., if the robot runs into a wall a certain electrode will fire). The neurons, in turn, can sent signals out to other electrodes which instruct the robot (e.g., a particular electrode will make the robot drive forward).

When they first set this up, nothing seems to happen. After about 24 hours though, the neurons start organizing themselves and testing out their environment. Within a week they’re showing brain-like activity, and soon after they start sending signals to the robot and getting stimulus in return. Over time, the ‘brain’ starts to learn and exhibit behaviors (and they actually have a few different ‘brains’, each of which exhibits its own unique behaviors).

The idea is to understand how brains work, which—despite all our scientific research—is largely a mystery. This experiment sets up a simple, small brain out of actual neurons and studies how it arranges itself, how it learns, and so on. What’s amazing about it, if you ask me, is that a bunch of neurons in a petri dish hooked up to electrodes actually does things. It’s slightly unsettling really, but the ‘cool’ factor overwhelms the ‘unsettling’ factor for me.

Shades of World War II

Posted

Jack Kelly writes in RealClearPolitics about Russia’s apparent invasion of neighboring Georgia, comparing the current situation to the lead-up to World War II. In the late 1930s, Neville Chamberlain—Prime Minister of the United Kingdom—had joined with French Prime Minister Edouard Daladier and German Chancellor Adolph Hitler to discuss Hitler’s territorial ambitions. Germany had already annexed Austria with virtually no opposition, and the three leaders now agreed to Hitler’s desire to annex the Sudetenland—part of Czechoslovakia—with Hitler’s fervent assurances that he would then be done.

Chamberlain and Daladier each went home to their respective countries declaring that they had achieved a peaceful resolution to the German crises. Chamberlain famously stated, “My good friends, for the second time in our history, a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honor. I believe it is peace for our time.”

Hitler, of course, was not a man of honor, and the agreements England and France made with him did not bring peace. We now know that appeasement doesn’t work, and once a regime gets a taste for invasion and annexation it tends to continue doing it. There is legitimate concern that Vladamir Putin’s Russia, which continues its invasion of Georgia despite having agreed to a cessation of hostilities, is beginning a walk down the same path in an effort reconstitute the bygone Soviet Union (the collapse of which Putin has called “the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the [20th] century”). Chillingly, as Kelly states, “Putin is using the same excuse for invading Georgia (protecting Russian ethnic minorities) that Hitler used for invading Czechoslovakia and Poland (protecting German minorities).”

We need to be very careful not to repeat the mistakes of Chamberlain and Daladier, and to treat the Georgian crisis with appropriate seriousness as a potential harbinger of things to come from Putin’s Russia.

War for South Ossetia . . . or the Whole of Georgia?

Posted

I haven’t written about the War for South Ossetia yet since, initially, the confliict seemed to be pretty minor and inconsequential in the grand scheme of things. South Ossetia is, technically, part of Georgia (the country, not the U.S. state) though it declared independence in the early 1990s and has essentially operated independently since then, though no U.N. members have recognized South Ossetia as independent.

Neighboring North Ossetia is part of Russia, and Russia has (unofficially) supported South Ossetia and opposed Georgian influence in the region. The situation between Russia and Georgia over South Ossetia began to spiral out of control last week. Georgia, claiming that seperatists in South Ossetia had initiated violence, sent troops into South Ossetia on Thursday. With surprising speed, Russian military forces amassed on the border and entered South Ossetia pushing Georgian troops out of the breakaway province.

If it had ended there, it would have been a non-story. But Russian forces continue to press into Georgia proper and bomb Georgian targets, and the Russian government has refused to accept a cease fire offered by Georgia. Russia has publicly issued an ultimatum to the Georgian government, demanding their complete withdrawal from South Ossetia and binding agreement to never reenter South Ossetia with military forces.

Some are beginning to suspect that Russia’s intentions may extend beyond securing South Ossetia to annexation of the province, and perhaps the entirety of Georgia, as Russian forces continue to invade sovereign Georgian territory without provocation.

A Bike for Leaving the Beaten Path

Posted

So last fall I bought a Trek 7100 hybrid bicycle (right), which has served me very, very well over the last year or so. I’ve put quite a few miles on that bike and have enjoyed [pretty much] each one of them. There’s just one small problem.

The Trek is a hybrid, which means it has elements of a mountain bike and elements of a road bike. Its geometry, tuning, and tires (300c) are all designed for traveling primarily on pavement—roads and paved trails—and very, very limited off-road use when absolutely necessary. That makes it similar to a road bike. The main difference between a ‘hybrid’ and a road bike is that the general shape is more like a mountain bike and you sit more upright—helpful if you have back problems, like my scoliosis. That makes it slower than a road bike, but much more comfortable.

Anyway, you don’t want to be riding very far off-pavement on a hybrid with its smooth, narrow tires and comfort-oriented geometry. That rules out some of the major unpaved bike trails in the area: many segments of the Cross County Trail and the entire C&O Canal Towpath are two prime examples.

So yesterday I bought a relatively inexpensive low-end mountain bike—the Schwinn Mesa (right)—for when I feel like a shorter, rougher ride than the on-trail excursions I’ve been doing on my Trek. I rode about 5 miles on the Cross County Trail yesterday (the northernmost segment) successfully, though my mountain biking reflexes are a little rusty and I did manage to take one impressive spill (you should see the colorful bruise on my knee). All-in-all, it was fun. I’ll probably aim for about 70 percent road/trail riding on my Trek, and about 30 percent off-road on my Schwinn.

I also figure the Schwinn, being quite a bit less expensive than the Trek, can be my project bike for learning how to do all my hard-core bicycle maintenance and make sure it works before touching the Trek ;-). If I can avoid taking either to the bike shops, I figure it will cover its own cost within a year or two of heavy riding and regular maintenance/repairs.

Scott Bradford is a writer and technologist who has been putting his opinions online since 1995. He believes in three inviolable human rights: life, liberty, and property. He is a Catholic Christian who worships the trinitarian God described in the Nicene Creed. Scott is a husband, nerd, pet lover, and AMC/Jeep enthusiast with a B.S. degree in public administration from George Mason University.