Science fiction writer John Scalzi weighs in on the pricing fight going on between Amazon and Macmillan (the parent company of Tor, which publishes Scalzi's books). What annoys me about the fight is that Scalzi's got two new books out I want to buy, but the fight is keeping them from being available on Kindle. I'd hate to have to break down and go with paper. It's just so last half millennium.
Fortunately, the solution is at hand: iBooks for the iPad. I suspect that's where I'll be buying most fiction from here on out.
One day shortly after the Second World War ended, Winston Churchill and Labour Party Prime Minister Clement Attlee encountered one another at the urinal trough in the House of Common's men's washroom. Attlee arrived first. When Churchill arrived, he stood as far away from him as possible. Attlee said, "Feeling standoffish today, are we, Winston?" Churchill said: "That's right. Every time you see something big, you want to nationalize it."
I'm reminded of that story by news that President Obama plans to regulate the college football playoff system. To be sure, I understand that there are political points to be had by doing so, because there are some powerful Senators whose home state football squads think they get screwed by the BCS system (I'm talking about you Orin Hatch, who ought to be a limited government guy).
With the government already running the banks and the auto industry, and trying to take over the health care industry, however, one might have hoped that sports would escape the ravening maw of Leviathan.
At the House GOP Conference today, President Obama gave by all accounts an excellent performance. Not surprisingly, since he's an excellent speaker and debater. But there is an irony I find quite amusing. Obama said:
The only thing I don't want -- and here I am listening to the American people, and I think they don't want either -- is for Washington to continue being so Washington-like. I know folks when we're in -- in town there, spend a lot of time reading the polls and looking at focus groups and interpreting which party has the upper hand in November and in 2012 and so on and so on and so on. That's their obsession.
But here's the key thing: Obama is best at this. He is best at defusing conflict; he is superb at engaging civilly with his opponents. It's part of his legacy - I remember how many conservatives respected him at the Harvard Law Review. But he needs to do more of this, even though he may get nothing in return. Why? Because unless the tone changes, unless the pure obstructionism and left-right ding-dong cycle stops, we are on a fast track to catastrophe.
That was the core message of Obama in the election. It was one of my core reasons for backing him over Clinton - because he has the capacity to reach out this way. I remain depressed at the prospects for a breakthrough, but this was good politics and good policy. More, please. Do this every month. Maybe over the long haul, the poison of the past has to be worked through with Obama as therapist in chief.
But every single left of center blog I've read today focused mainly on the horse race implications. And every single one thinks that the Democrats came out ahead as a result of this event.
Tomorrow, January 30, at the Reagan Library, I will be speaking at the Federalist Society's Fourth Annual Western Conference, which this year is devoted to the topic State Judiciaries and the Popular Will: What Deference Do Judges Owe to the People?
I'm on the first panel (10:15 am - noon), which is devoted to Should Judges Consider the Economic Climate in Deciding Business Cases?
The recent blogosphere debate over the SEC's guidance on climate change disclosure really ought to be a debate about mandatory disclosure generally or, at least, mandatory disclosure of future trends and uncertainties as required by Regulation S-K Item 303. Which prompts me to repost my October 4, 2004 TCS Daily column:
Mandatory disclosure is a -- maybe the -- defining characteristic of U.S. securities regulation. Issuers selling securities in a public offering must file a registration statement with the SEC containing detailed disclosures, and thereafter comply with the periodic disclosure regime. Although the New Deal-era Congresses that adopted the securities laws thought mandated disclosure was an essential element of securities reform, the mandatory disclosure regime has proven highly controversial among legal academics -- especially among law and economics-minded scholars. Some scholars argue market forces will produce optimal levels of disclosure in a regime of voluntary disclosure, while others argue that various market failures necessitate mandatory disclosure.
Both sides in this longstanding debate assume that market actors rationally pursue wealth maximization goals. In contrast, my work in this area draws on the emergent behavioral economics literature to ask whether systematic departures from rationality might result in a capital market failure necessitating government regulation. I conclude that behavioral economics is a very useful tool, but that it in this instance it cannot fairly be used to justify the system of mandatory disclosure.
The interpretive release approved today provides guidance on certain existing disclosure rules that may require a company to disclose the impact that business or legal developments related to climate change may have on its business. The relevant rules cover a company's risk factors, business description, legal proceedings, and management discussion and analysis. ...
Specifically, the SEC's interpretative guidance highlights the following areas as examples of where climate change may trigger disclosure requirements:
Impact of Legislation and Regulation: When assessing potential disclosure obligations, a company should consider whether the impact of certain existing laws and regulations regarding climate change is material. In certain circumstances, a company should also evaluate the potential impact of pending legislation and regulation related to this topic.
Impact of International Accords: A company should consider, and disclose when material, the risks or effects on its business of international accords and treaties relating to climate change.
Indirect Consequences of Regulation or Business Trends: Legal, technological, political and scientific developments regarding climate change may create new opportunities or risks for companies. For instance, a company may face decreased demand for goods that produce significant greenhouse gas emissions or increased demand for goods that result in lower emissions than competing products. As such, a company should consider, for disclosure purposes, the actual or potential indirect consequences it may face due to climate change related regulatory or business trends.
Physical Impacts of Climate Change: Companies should also evaluate for disclosure purposes the actual and potential material impacts of environmental matters on their business.
Remember the interminable scene in the movie version of 2001 - A Space Odyssey, during which Dr. Heywood Floyd's spaceship is ever so slowly heading to the moon and he's reading reports on an electronic pad? In the novelization of 2001, Arthur C. Clarke provided the back story to that scene:
When he tired of official reports and memoranda and minutes, he would plug his foolscap-sized Newspad into the ship's information circuit and scan the latest reports from Earth. One by one he would conjure up the world's major electronic papers; he knew the codes of the more important ones by heart, and had no need to consult the list on the back of his pad. Switching to the display unit's short-term memory, he would hold the front page while he quickly searched the headlines and noted the items that interested him.
Each had its own two-digit reference; when he punched that, the postage-stamp-sized rectangle would expand until it neatly filled the screen and he could read it with comfort. When he had finished, he would flash back to the complete page and select a new subject for detailed examination.
Floyd sometimes wondered if the Newspad, and the fantastic technology behind it, was the last word in man's quest for perfect communications. Here he was, far out in space, speeding away from Earth at thousands of miles an hour, yet in a few milliseconds he could see the headlines of any newspaper he pleased. (That very word "newspaper," of course, was an anachronistic hangover into the age of electronics.) The text was updated automatically on every hour; even if one read only the English versions, one could spend an entire lifetime doing nothing but absorbing the ever-changing flow of information from the news satellites.
Clarke was off by 9 years, and got the name ever so slightly wrong, but Steve Jobs has finally given us the Newspad iPad.
I've wanted a Newspad ever since I first read 2001 almost 40 years ago and in a few weeks I'm going to have one. It's the longest I've ever waited for a toy.
When the iPad was announced yesterday I found myself surprisingly uninspired. At first it took me a while to figure out why the new product left me cold. But now I know: my problem with the iPad is that it just won't make my life better, simpler, and less burdensome.
The iPad will not rearrange my life the way the iPhone did.
The easiest way to explain this is to run through how the iPhone changed my life. It made a ton of stuff I used to carry around completely unnecessary. It replaced the following devices:
my old cell phone;
my blackberry;
my Flip video recorder;
my digital camera; and
my iPod.
Here's a list of what the iPad replaces:
That's right: nothing.
The iPad replaces nothing I have. It isn't a usefully functional personal computer and it doesn't work well as a phone. Instead, it would add to the stuff I carry around with me.
I don't see the iPad as something to carry on a daily basis. Instead, I see the iPad as a much more functional version of the Kindle.
The president was wrong about the Supreme Court decision. Obama said, "Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations, to spend without limit in our elections." ...
There are a lot of grounds to criticize the Supreme Court's campaign finance decision. It will allow corporations to spend shareholder money to influence the election of candidates many of those shareholders don't support. And it does open up a loophole that allows foreign corporations to influence federal elections through their U.S. subsidiaries.
But the Court did not overturn "a century of law." The provision upended by the Court was only seven years old. It was a novel innovation of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law adopted during the Bush Administration.
By now you will doubtless have read that US Supreme Court Associate Justice Samuel Alito supposedly mouthed the words "not true" in response to President Barack Obama's criticism of the Supreme Court's recent Citizens United decision. Glenn Greenwald criticizes Alito, observing that:
There's a reason that Supreme Court Justices -- along with the Joint Chiefs of Staff -- never applaud or otherwise express any reaction at a State of the Union address. It's vital -- both as a matter of perception and reality -- that those institutions remain apolitical, separate and detached from partisan wars. The Court's pronouncements on (and resolutions of) the most inflammatory and passionate political disputes retain legitimacy only if they possess a credible claim to being objectively grounded in law and the Constitution, not political considerations. The Court's credibility in this regard has -- justifiably -- declined substantially over the past decade, beginning with Bush v. Gore (where 5 conservative Justices issued a ruling ensuring the election of a Republican President), followed by countless 5-4 decisions in which conservative Justices rule in a way that promotes GOP political beliefs, while the more "liberal" Justices do to the reverse (Citizens United is but the latest example).
I agree with Greenwald that Alito's reaction was inappropriate, but I disagree with Greenwald's remedy. I think the core of the problem is that the Supreme Court is not "apolitical, separate and detached from partisan wars." Since the Warren Court era, the SCOTUS has routinely seen fit to weigh in as the final arbiter of one political and cultural debate after another. The solution therefore is simple: Unless the plain text of the Constitution as understood by the Framers is being violated, the SCOTUS ought to leave "inflammatory and passionate political disputes" to the political sphere.
Brandishing an iPad, which appeared similar to an iPhone but with a bigger screen, Mr Jobs said the device would have a wide range of uses, from emailing and web browsing to viewing video and reading e-books....
The iPad will start shipping in the US in 60 days, with a price of $499 for a bottom of the range model which can only connect wirelessly using WiFi and Bluetooth technologies and has 16 gigabytes of storage, Apple said. The top of the range version, with 64 gigabytes and the ability to connect to AT&T’s 3G wireless network, would sell for $829, it added. Mr Jobs said Apple hoped to launch the product internationally in June or July.
The iPad has a screen measuring 9.7 inches diagonally, weighs 1.5 pounds and has 10 hours of battery life, Mr Jobs said.
I want one. I don't need one. But I want one. I love my Mac, my iPod, and my iPhone. They look great. They work great. Very high hedonistic value.
I see no reason to think the iPad will be any different. The iPad will be fun to use at home as an entertainment adjunct and on short trips as a laptop replacement. (Even if the name does sound like a feminine hygiene product.)
The only question is when to buy. There's bound to be a few glitches for early adopters and, if the iPhone is any precedent, the price is bound to come down sooner rather than later.
Apropos of which, the FT article continues:
“Apple generally gets it right the first time, they usually only make minor adjustments later,” said Roger Kay, an analyst at Endpoint Associates.
, during which Dr. Heywood Floyd's spaceship is ever so slowly heading to the moon and he's reading reports on an electronic pad? In the novelization of 
, Arthur C. Clarke provided the back story to that scene:
Social Media