Friendly URLs and freedom of speech

Friendly URLs are being used more and more,  the idea behind it being that the most important idea (or the most relevant words) published in a web page, if it is relevant enough, should be reflected in the URL. My opinion is that such procedures are silly, since URLs are part of the networking protocols involved and should have no relation at all with the content, but it seems that I've lost that battle, and given that it hurts nobody, we'll let that stay.

The main reason why that is happening is that many of the main searching/crawling algortithms used by the internet search engines (yes, I mean Google) give extra 'points' to words contained in the URLs. And since, to 'exist' in the Internet you have to be as high as possible in Google's (consider that a placeholder for your favorite search engine) result list, friendly URLs use is growing fast.

Why do I bring the freedom of speech into this article? I came to think about this while watching TV news about the iranian elections, specially regarding how many internet services are being censored in an effort to control the information (both coming from the country or being given to the country's people). This is not new and should surprise nobody, since we all know examples of internet traffic being controlled, blog posts being censored (and in some cases their writers being sent to jail), search results being filtered, etc... China and Cuba come first to mind, but there are others.

The kind of governments I'm talking about need to invest big efforts into these duties (or making others make those efforts, let's everybody remember how companies like Google or Yahoo have agreed up to some point to filter their results in such countries). Internet is meant to be free, so, why is it getting easier to censor? Regarding the most important blog platforms and communication groups or newspapers web sites, if you want information about Iran's election fraud (presumptive), by blocking anything that contains the words 'iran' or 'Ahmadinejad' (and maybe a couple more) you've done 90% of the job. That's it. A couple of lines in a proxy configuration.

So, here's my thought: Internet is the tool for freedom of information, freedom of speech, etc... and one of the most important changes that is happening these days is due to economic reasons (google will position you higher, so you use that kind of URLs to grab as much visitors as possible and the only reason for that is to get more money/invest return,....). And I have no problem with that, our world is run by economics. But not when it might the very basis of the flow of information.

Am I being too naive? Have I chosen a too childish example to express my concerns(I mean, boy, who cares about friendly URLs anyway?)? I'd love to hear your thougts

Free markets lead to free people

I'm sure I've heard that somewhere, but I couldn't honestly say where. Anyway, it reflects my views on what commercial exchange should be: The lesser the barriers, the better. The market (the people) will take care of balance, making sure prices are not too high (if someone tries to sell something at a high rate, with too much profit, someone else will offer it at a lower rate, still make a profit and trhow the first one out of the game. On the other hand, prices cannot fall lower than a fair rate, because when profit is not made, no one will offer it at such rates.

The paragraph above describes the 'simplest' (some might say naive) view on a fully free unbounded market, and a too optimistic one. But that's the basis: freedom in markets should be regulation enough to ensure the flow of goods: Wherever a need arises a demand is created and the market will balance it so it is soon covred with an appropiate offer. Offer and demand. The 'magic' balance of capitalism.

So, the so-called free world (or first world) doesn't have a free market, it is regulated and controlled: Heavily in some countries, a little less in others. But always regulated. Taxes are collected and used to cover some basic needs of their people, or to adjust their unbalances. Regulatory commissions, tribunals, etc,.... overlook market operations, make rules, propose and execute sanctions, control abuses, .... A company cannot sell anything at whatever the price, cannot abuse their employees, cannot monopolize a whole area of their bussiness (well, some of those things happen, it is not a perfect world, but some institutions are there to ensure it as far as possible - and please let's leave corruption aside for this theoretical exercise).

So, why doesn't market regulate itself? Where is that balance? Why doesn't an abuser company loose all its employees to a fairer one? Why doesn't a company that overprices, let's say, certain essential goods (food, gas, energy...) go broke because no one buys from them? The answer is something I like to call 'illusion of freedom'. We are not as free as we pretend, and the market is not free as our little theory requires. Sometimes you cannot choose: some grocery stores are closer to your home than others, so you are not entirely free to choose between them. Some areas only have smalll populations, which cannot support more than one provider of goods, whom would then be able to inflate prices. Or even cannot afford any provider at all, which stops them from getting some goods (and it doesn't matter when a population is not good bussines for a Channel or Luis Vuitton boutique, but it would be catastrophic if they got no farmacies or hospitals or food supply only because it is not good bussiness).

And then we have bad practises: in a free market companies, providers... everybody on the 'offer' side fight a fair fight to get a share of buyers (the 'demand' side). But oftetimes those in priviledged postitions will abuse it (I have a great share of the market, so I'll drop prices so I get everybody else out and do my will), or the fight is not so fair (we both have a pretty good part of the market controlled, so let´s deal so prices don't drop and we both keep our profits up). Or..... Does any of those situations sound familiar? If your answer was 'no', grab a paper from any country any day randomly in the last couple of years and take a look at the economy pages.

And finally, freedom means knowledge (and vicecersa, knowledge means freedom). For anybody to be absolutely free to choose, he has to kwow all (or at least most) of its alternatives. And know them well: What good he is being offered by any of the providers, the quality of it, the origin and whatever he feels is important for the decision. Also, what he is commiting to in the deal, and what the other part is (support, right of return,....). Freedom and transparency are key. So when you are being sold a share of a packet composed of a few debts some thousands of people the other way around the world used to pay for an inflated price of some other thing that really doesn't have any value and of which you have never heard of (and if you had it wouldn't maka any difference because you wouldn't understand it) you are not being free to choose. You are, nobody is forcing you to nothing, but that's theory, because you don't have the knowledge.

So yes, we need regulated markets. The lesser the better (I don't trust public officers as much as I should, and I thing bigger power produces bigger corruption), but a good amount of regulation and regulators is needed. And laws. And freedom of speach. And freedom of access to information. And freedom of access to analysis of such information. I don't want a goverment telling me 'this stuff is no good for you, so let's forbid it'. I prefer that 'that stuff' is completely transparent. And I want to get access to experts opinions about them. And probably a government to control that info so it is the truth. That way I'll be free to choose. And with that freedom, and the knowledge available and understandable, why would I choose to do something that is bad for me?

Web Browsing in mobile devices - the iPhone experience

Recently, some of my friends (me included) had a vigorous debate on how good were the new mobile devices for a REAL web browsing experience, and hence, how useful are the new micro-PCs. For "mobile devices" we meant the most recent HTC models (Kaiser, Touch Diamond) or the brand new 3G iPhone. And for micro-PCs we were referring to Asus EEE et al. And for REAL web brosing experience we meant heavily surfing the net, sending full emails (not SMS like emails, but multi paragraph long useful emails) and instant messaging (chat applications).

I am the happy owner of a 3G iPhone and my opinion was that it is cute and fun for browsing with its multitouch screen and its zoom capabilities, but I had to admit that on the first month of using it I used it more for an ocassional browsing (checking Google Reader or email in the bus queue and that kind of stuff). But, sadly, a couple of days ago I had an accident with my laptop (its cause is not of interest now, let's just say that I'm not the most agile guy in the block) and it is on the Technical Support now for fixing. So for a few days/weeks I am stuck with my iPhone for all my personal web use (when at home, currently I'm writing this blog entry from my office computer ;) ). So I had a chance (and I'll be having it for some time ahead) of really testing the subjects of the debate, and I'd like to share my conclusions.

First things first, a mobile device has permanent data connection. This is inherent to the kind of gadget we are talking about, the iPhone/HTC are based on a telephone and the Asus EEE are... well... computers. But let's put that apart: after all, that's something you already know when you buy either of them.

From the hardware standpoint, the iPhone seems to be enough for me. There are a couple of inconveniences that need to be solved by the manufacturers of these kind of devices: the screen size and the keyboard.

The screen size is clearly short for most modern web pages, and the iPhone fights this with its cool zoom feature. While browsing if you 'double click' (double press) a part of the page, the paragraph is automatically adjusted to the screen size, thus being bigger and more readable. It is not as fun as the two fingers custom zoom, but definitely faster and easier for the user.

The keyboard size impacts in your performance because there is no way you are going to type closely as fast in that keyboard as you do in a laptop keyboard. The easier solution that comes to mind is the "predictor" utilities that try to anticipate what you want to write as you type it, or to correct your typos. Here's my biggest complain about th iPhone: it is too intrusive! The 'predicted' word is taken over whatever you write unless you explicitly discard it! That's annoying when the dictionary doesn't know the word you want, because it keeps changing it (it is said to keep learning from your choices, but so far I am 'at fight' with mine. It specially has problems in accepting one-letter words, and in spanish there are quite a few of them)

Anyway, if you don't hate that feature, in general it is a good keyboard. You can perform well with it, but not great.

Now, let's turn our view on the software side. For my analysis, there are three fundamental fields to explore, as I stated in the beginning: Web-browser, Mail application and Instant Messaging.

The web browser included in the iPhone is the Mac's Safari (obviously adapted for the device). It is simply GREAT for most tastks, I love it. But it has a few limitations. First of all, it's support for flash (which keeps being more and more used in modern webs) is VERY limited: In most sites you'll see a mark indicating you must download a plugin to see the flash parts and it is impossible to see any flash video (except for youtube's, which are opened in the quicktime, and then they look fantastic, I must admit). And the other handicap is that it crashes quite frequently, specially when you try things like zooming or scrolling in a large web page which is not fully loaded. I hope this stuff is solved in future software updates, because the main impression is just great.

The MAIL application is PERFECT. It has preconfigured some services, like GMail, so you don't need any URL for POP3 or that kind of stuff (which not everyone is familiar with) but just yout name and password to add new accounts. Push options can be configured separately for each account and it works smoothly. A great hit here.

And finally, the iPhone does not provide any instant messaging application (Where is my loved iChat? :'( ). It relies on the web interfaces of such services like GTalk, MSN Messenger,.... But that's not a great solution. Fortunately, there's a bunch of free applications for this in the AppStore. I use Parlingo (it let's me open different accounts simultaneously and chat with folks in either of them with a common interface) but there are others, so suit yourself. (Also a great option AOL's AIM application for the iPhone, which in addition let's you send SMS for free).

So, my conclusion is that with one of these mobile devices you don't need an ultra-portable Asus EEE or similar. I find most of my day-to-day needs are covered with my iPhone (and I assume this applies with small differences to HTC's or the last NOKIA, Samsung, etc. mobile-PDAs,let's hope software updates keep making them better), and it has the advantages of, first, having its own communication capabilities when no Wifi is available; and second, of being ACTUALLY utra-portable, i.e., it fits my jean's pockets ;)

Quote on the environment

I kept randomly reading some of the blogs on environment written on the Blog Action Day and I found a quote posted in www.rocketfinance.net by rocketc that I wanted to share, since it simply expresses what I've been talking about this past weeks. The quote is attributed to Patrick Moore, founder of the Greenpeace movement, and says

“I now look at the mainstream environmental movement that I loved and can barely recognize it. Why? Because it has abandoned science to follow agendas that have little to do with saving the earth … We won public support because our protests were founded on logical, scientific arguments. That has largely gone now, to be replaced by a policy of sensationalism, misinformation, and never-ending conflict.”


Nothing to add.

Just a link to the full article where Dr. Moore made the remark. It is worth reading.