Southern Utah national parks road trip

In late May Emily and I went on a road trip to Southern Utah with her parents, her sister, and her sister’s husband. Mostly you should just look at the pictures (see the “best of” album if you’re normal and don’t feel like looking at 251 photos). I also made a few photospheres.

Emily and I drove there. The other four flew in and we met in Moab. We stayed in rental houses in Moab and Kanab, and a hotel in Springdale (just outside of Zion). We mostly drove to scenic parking areas and did short day hikes. We did do two longer hikes: 10 miles round-trip to see The Wave and 8 miles round-trip to Observation Point in Zion.

Big Country

The most succinct way to describe the places is “big country.” You can see really far and the distant objects are huge. The landscape is mostly barren. There are scattered trees and shrubs and grasses and sparse animal life. The plants and animals are fragile. There’s a lot of sand and rock. Big canyons.

List of Places

  • Arches National Park – Many natural arch formations in rock. The Fiery Furnace tour was cool.
  • Canyonlands National ParkAmazing views of distant canyons.
  • Goosenecks State Park – Basically just a parking area with a great view of a winding river.
  • Antelope Canyon – A beautiful slot canyon on Navajo land. Expensive compared to the other things we did (you have to purchase a guided tour), but I enjoyed it. I liked the challenge of taking pictures more than I was expecting.
  • The Wave – Remote, striped rock formation in the Paria Canyon-Vermilion Cliffs Wilderness. We didn’t win the lottery for the Coyote Buttes North permit. We decided to enter the wilderness with a Coyote Buttes South permit, which made for a difficult hike.
  • Bryce Canyon National Park – Huge open canyons filled with rock towers called “hoodoos.” High elevation. Woodsier than the others.
  • Zion National Park – An accessible lush canyon. Reminded me of Yosemite with red and white rock instead of black. The Observation Point hike was nice.


Here are a few representative photos. See my Flickr collection for the rest (especially the “best of” album).

Delicate Arch

Monument Valley

Antelope Canyon

The Wave, North Coyote Buttes, Paria Canyon-Vermilion Cliffs Wilderness, Arizona, USA

A flower in Zion National Park

Posted in All | Leave a comment

Net Neutrality, Netflix, and Comcast

Net neutrality is weird and complex. It’s been in the news increasingly more over the past few years. Let’s look at an example.

Netflix recently started paying Comcast (info, more info) so that Comcast would provide customers with a better connection to Netflix. Historically ISPs didn’t take money from websites—they only took money from their subscribers.

What was the problem?

Streaming video uses a lot of bandwidth. Comcast subscribers were “saturating” the network connection between Comcast and Netflix. This means 100% of the available connection was being used. When this happens the Netflix player automatically switches to using a lower quality video stream so that it’s still able to download video fast enough to keep up with the playback speed. This is important when you want to watch a video without intermittent rebuffering.

Why did Comcast ask for money from Netflix?

Because they can. The saturated network connection caused lower quality video but it didn’t obviously break anything. If the network connection was obviously broken people would have complained angrily to Comcast. But with lower quality video people just assume that Netflix sucks.

Why is Comcast able to do this?

It’s in Comcast’s interests to provide the best service possible. If subscribers think Comcast’s service is bad then they’ll switch to another ISP. This is the nature of free markets.

However, there aren’t a lot of options for ISPs. In some areas Comcast may be the only broadband provider.

And Comcast has other incentives to make Netflix look bad: Netflix is a competing product to Comcast’s TV service. If Netflix doesn’t work well it means more people will pay Comcast for TV. Comcast is walking the line between alienating their subscribers and extorting money from Netflix.

What should be done?

That’s a hard question. PR spin can play a big role in how the public perceives this.

Netflix does consume a tremendous amount of bandwidth—perhaps Comcast is justified in asking Netflix to help cover the cost? After all, Comcast wasn’t preventing subscribers from using Netflix… they just weren’t enabling them to use Netflix at an extremely fast speed.

Or perhaps the lack of an effective free market in the ISP space is justification for the government to provide protection to consumers?

What do I think?

Comcast has a network and Netflix has a network. Ultimately both of these networks are paid for by the customers. It doesn’t make sense for Comcast to pay Netflix or Netflix to pay Comcast—that’s just shuffling the customers’ money back and forth. There is overhead associated with shuffling money back and forth: negotiations, contracts, lawyers, PR spin, news coverage. This is waste. I’m an idealist. I hate waste. Maybe that means Comcast needs to charge subscribers more to cover their costs. Fine. I’m happy to pay more for a better Internet connection.

Should the government attempt to regulate this? At least partially, yes. The Internet resembles public utilities like water and power (benefit the public good, high infrastructure cost), and I think some amount of regulation is justified.

Transparency is important. Content providers like Netflix should always be allowed to publicly talk about problems like this. Comcast might attempt to get Netflix to agree to stay quiet about the details of their arrangement, and I think that should be made illegal.

ISPs should be required to publicly post details about whether they block traffic to any third parties. Whether they have saturated links to any third parties. Whether certain types of traffic receive worse treatment than others.

With this information consumers can make an informed choice. Entrant ISPs will have more opportunity to complete. It will encourage the free market.

Should it be illegal for ISPs to solicit money from content providers? Maybe. I don’t think it’s an urgent problem. Enforcing transparency is a good first step. I think we can afford to wait a bit longer to decide whether net neutrality should be a legal requirement.

In any case, because of the current dearth in consumer ISP choice Netflix probably made the right move in paying Comcast.

Disclaimer: I own stock in Netflix and I hate Comcast (in case they’re listening: I have reasons that I’d be happy to share with anyone important at Comcast).

Posted in Computers | 1 Comment

Two Interesting Sci-fi Movies


An indie time travel movie made with a $7,000 budget. It has a Blair Witch feel but with far less nauseating camera movement. The story is really cool and extremely complex. Definitely a solid movie. I loved the understated delivery and steady pace (though these might cause some people to lose interest). I like to think that hipsters would love this movie if only they allowed themselves to enjoy sci-fi.

In Time

Much higher budget and more mainstream than Primer. Fun science fiction idea, high production value, entertaining story, decent acting. Not a masterpiece with a single theme delivered powerfully, but I thought it was different and worth watching. Written and directed by Andrew Niccol, who also wrote and directed Gattaca and Lord of War and wrote (but didn’t direct) The Truman Show and The Terminal.

Posted in All | Leave a comment

Men’s Razor Comparison

I’ve tested six different men’s razors from Gillette and Schick over the past few months. My favorite is the Gillette Mach 3, with the Schick Quattro Titanium coming in second.

Executive Summary

  • More blades isn’t strictly better—there are trade-offs.
  • More blades means less pressure-per-blade. You’re less likely to cut yourself, but there is an increased sandpaper effect where the razor tugs at the hair instead of quickly slicing through. The sandpaper effect is neutralized if you shave regularly, but can be irritating if you typically go a few days between shaves.
  • More blades means the blades must be packed closer together to keep the razor head manageably narrow. This causes increased clogging—it’s more difficult to rinse out hair.
  • Not all swivel designs are equal. The older Gillette SensorExcel razor heads pivot in the middle whereas the newer Gillette Mach 3 and Fusion pivot closer to the bottom. The newer design allows the razor head to swing away from your face, which seems to reduce accidental cuts. It also means less pressure on the top-most blade which means a less-close shave around edges.
  • The Schick Quattro Titanium blades seemed to stay sharp a little longer. Aside from that I couldn’t discern any difference in blade life.

Comparison Table

# blades Ability to shave close under nose Rinsability (water flow through the blades)
Gillette SensorExcel 3 great poor
Gillette Mach 3 (winner!) 3 average great
Gillette Fusion 5 below average—swivel design reduces pressure at top-most blade great
Gillette Fusion ProGlide Power 5 below average—swivel design reduces pressure at top-most blade great
Schick Quattro Titanium (runner up!) 4 average average
Schick Hydro 5 5 poor—gel reservoir above blades is very wide average


Gillette SensorExcel

Average. Basic but works well. Three blades. Slight swivel. Not a clear water flow path so it’s a little difficult to rinse/unclog. Close shave, but easy to cut yourself if you’re not careful. Only three blades means the head is small which makes it easier to shave around my mouth and under my nose.

Gillette Mach 3 (winner!)

Pretty great. Three blades. Maybe not as close as the SensorExcel. The swivel design is different than the SensorExcel: The downside is that it’s a little harder to shave around my mouth and under my nose, but the upsides are 1) it’s extremely easy to rinse/unclog and 2) less likely to cut myself, which means I can shave faster. It has a slight “paddle effect” (I think of it like holding a ping pong paddle to your face and sliding), but it’s not bad.

Gillette Fusion

Bad. The razor felt dull—like it was catching on my hair rather than cutting it. Severe sandpaper effect, and I thought it was hard to shave around my mouth and under my nose. To compensate for the top of the blade pivoting away from your face, the Fusion razors include an extra “trimming” blade, which terrifies me.

Gillette Fusion ProGlide Power

Good. Similar to Gillette Fusion, but maybe with better blades? This is the “powered” version. It has a battery and an on/off button, which causes it to vibrate. The vibration seemed silly. I couldn’t tell if it helped, and I definitely found it distracting. It made me nervous.

Schick Quattro Titanium (runner up!)

Pretty good. Similar to the three blade Gillette SensorExcel. Does seem like the blade lasts longer than other razors. Slightly more obstructed water flow path than the Gillette Mach 3, so a little harder to rinse/unclog.

Schick Hydro 5

All in all pretty similar to the Gillette Mach 3. Differences: Slightly more obstructed water flow path, so a little harder to rinse/unclog. Slightly harder to shave around mouth and nose. The “Hydro” means it has “Hydrating Gel Reservoirs.” I don’t like hydrating gel. It feels like a lot of work to make sure I rinse all of it off.

Posted in All | 1 Comment

Casual Bike Shoes

I love clipless bike pedals, but the shoes tend to be ugly and uncomfortable. I’ve been looking for something better.

Today I tried on some shoes from DZR. I couldn’t quite bring myself to buy any, but I definitely like them. They’re stylish and fairly comfortable. Definitely worth checking out if you’re in the market for clipless shoes that you can walk around in.

Edit: Chrome also makes some attractive clipless bike shoes. I haven’t tried them. I do try to avoid laces on bike shoes—I worry about them getting caught on my chainring and I don’t like them flopping around.

Posted in Cycling | Leave a comment

Should the NSA be allowed to scan our personal email?

It seems pretty likely that the NSA is operating a large-scale system called XKeyscore that captures and scans private Internet communications like email. Yesterday I talked about the constitutionality of such a system.

Regardless of whether the NSA is allowed to do this, is this something we, as a society, want? There is a lot of room for disagreement because it’s difficult to measure and compare the costs and benefits, but I’ve formed an opinion: No, absolutely not.

The Benefits

The only benefit I can think of is the potential to thwart terrorist attacks and other crime. That’s admirable—we don’t like terrorist attacks or crime so obviously we want to reduce them.

The Costs

Monetary cost

The most quantifiable cost is the actual money spent by the NSA to create and operate this system. The NSA’s budget is classified, but hundreds of millions of dollars seems like a fair guess.

A less obvious cost is the revenue that will be lost by American Internet companies from customers who desire stronger privacy guarantees. (See this article for more discussion.)

Risk of stolen data

The world is full of hackers with malicious intent. People who spend all day every day trying to steal other people’s private information. They regularly breach the security of companies with strong monetary incentives to keep your data secure. The NSA and it’s employees have only weak incentives to keep your data secure. From your own experience, do you find government employees to be more or less competent than private sector workers? The revelation of government collection of billions of private emails is an enticing target. It’s only a matter of time before a random kid in Russia steals and publishes billions of personal emails.

Bad precedent

If the US is supposed to be a stalwart of free speech and protection from unreasonable searches, what’s going to happen in the rest of the world? We’re setting a bad example for everyone else. Oppressive governments will perform this same collection of information and it will be misused even worse than here.

Threat to free speech

The founders of this country knew what they were doing when they created the First Amendment to The Constitution (free speech, free assembly). Open discussion is an important safety check on the government. Someone who is afraid their words might be used against them might be less likely to say what’s on their mind. Fear of retribution hinders free speech.

Reconciling the pros and cons

While the threat of further terrorist attacks is real, I think the benefit of increased physical security does not justify the tremendous loss of fundamental rights. By violating our values we lower ourselves to the level of those who would attack us. When we forfeit our rights and allow ourselves to live in fear, the terrorists win.

What can you do?

Minimum effort: Read and sign this letter to the US Congress.

Low effort: Donate money to non-profit organizations that support government transparency and individual rights and liberties, such as the ACLU, EFF and EPIC.

More effort: Type a succinct and clear letter in your own words, print it, and mail it to your two senators and to your representative. You can look up your congress members here or here.

Want to read more?

Editorials from people who know their shit

Moxie Marlinspike, We Should All Have Something to Hide
Michael Arrington, Journalists Need to Start Asking About Storage, Not Access
Bruce Schneier has made numerous posts in June, July and August.
Jennifer Stisa Granick and Christopher Jon Sprigman, The Criminal N.S.A., a New York Times Op-Ed Contribution

News articles

Some of the original reports from The Guardian:
NSA collecting phone records of millions of Verizon customers daily
NSA Prism program taps in to user data of Apple, Google and others
UK gathering secret intelligence via covert NSA operation
NSA’s Prism surveillance program: how it works and what it can do

Or see all relevant NSA articles in The Guardian.

From The Washington Post:
NSA slides explain the PRISM data-collection program
U.S., British intelligence mining data from nine U.S. Internet companies in broad secret program
Edward Snowden says motive behind leaks was to expose ‘surveillance state’
Edward Snowden comes forward as source of NSA leaks
Code name ‘Verax’: Snowden, in exchanges with Post reporter, made clear he knew risks

From CNET:
NSA spying flap extends to contents of U.S. phone calls

Posted in All, Computers | Leave a comment

Violating the Fourth Amendment

I recently tweeted:

“Hey why do @NSACareers and @BarackObama seem to think it’s ok to break the law and access my communications? I find that strange.”

That’s a bold assertion, so I’m obliged to explain myself. The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution states:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Applicability to Modern Electronic Communication

Katz v. United States extended Fourth Amendment protection to all areas where a person has a “reasonable expectation of privacy.” The case specifically dealt with phone calls, but I feel that it also applies to Internet communication, like emails (and I think the EFF agrees with me). Think about it this way: When you email a friend, do you expect a stranger to be able to read it? While the emails I send to my wife are generally mundane, I absolutely expect that random people are not able to read them. I have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Warrant Upon Probable Cause

The Fourth Amendment provides that the government may search my communications if they obtain a warrant, and that a warrant shall only be issued if there is probable cause to believe that I am committing a crime.

It doesn’t matter whether recent laws (FISA, PATRIOT Act, Protect America Act, 2008 FISA revisions, etc) or executive orders allow or don’t allow searching of my communications. If those laws violate my Fourth Amendment rights then they are unconstitutional.


So, has the US government been searching the electronic communications of US citizens for whom it does not have probable cause? It seems likely.

There have been a number of NSA programs that collect, store, and search massive amounts of untargeted electronic communication: XKeyscore (Wikipedia, The Guardian, leaked NSA presentation), Stellar Wind, Trailblazer, Room 641A. A Washington Post story published yesterday reveals a leaked audit that found 2,776 violations of surveillance rules.

This evidence comes from various whistleblowers over the years, the most prominent being Edward Snowden. It’s certainly not bulletproof evidence, but I’m inclined to believe that most of it is true.


Obama has said:

“This applies very narrowly … This is not a situation where we simply go into The Internet and start searching any way that we want.” [reference]

“There is no spying on Americans.” [reference]

“We don’t have a domestic spying program,” [reference]

These are lies, and I expect better from the man I voted for.

Related articles from people much smarter than I:
Are Internet Backbone Pen Registers Constitutional?
Debate: Metadata and the Fourth Amendment

Posted in All, Computers | Leave a comment

Four Pidgin Summer of Code students

Pidgin was awarded four students for this year’s Google Summer of Code. It was a difficult process to select just four students from the 34 great applications we received. These are the projects we finally chose:

We’re looking forward to seeing what they create! The coding period begins June 17 and ends September 23.

As always, thanks to everyone who applied. And remember, this is an open source project and you’re welcome to contribute even if you’re not participating in Summer of Code.

Posted in All, Computers, Pidgin | 2 Comments