The Wall Street Journal reports that the Federal Aviation Administration has grounded Boeing’s 787 Dreamliner in the United States. The move follows a spate of incidents involving the electrical systems on latest Boeing jetliner.

The FAA ordered the temporary grounding while it investigates the increasing frequency of smoke-related emergencies.   Japanese carriers ANA and JAL have both grounded their 787 fleets following well-publicized incidents involving their aircraft.  The Journal notes that the latest scare, involving ANA Flight 692 bound for Tokyo, pushed the FAA to widen the scope of the inquiry:

Wednesday’s incident has expanded the world-wide probe of the 787′s electrical troubles. After previous reported problems, officials had said they were examining the electrical system on the 787 broadly, but all the recent incidents involved components in the aft electrical-equipment bay located behind the wings. The latest problem emerged in a forward bay that until now had been free from scrutiny. This bay sits underneath the flight deck and behind the nose landing gear.

While teething problems are not unusual with new airplane models, the dramatic nature of the move could prove a huge headache for Boeing. In an environment of defense cutbacks, the commercial airplane business is more critical than ever for the aerospace giant, and the new 787 is the linchpin of its product line, embodying the latest in technical and design innovation.

Image courtesy of Spaceaero2 via Wikipedia

Holiday sat down with ReasonTV’s Tracy Oppenheimer to talk about his own experiences manipulating the media for clients like Tucker Max, and the insight he’s since gained into the new world of journalism.

“There’s no question that I think it’s great that people have access to publishing in a way they have never had before, but there is the law of unintended consequences and what that’s done in this case is make misinformation a lot easier,” says Holiday, “we’ve embraced this new technology, but we haven’t erected any defenses, made any changes or changed how we consume the news, or believe what we read based on these changes.”

As of midnight, Wikipedia is shut down for 24 hours, and hundreds of other popular websites have gone dark right along with it. They are standing together in protest of two controversial pieces of legislation that threaten Internet security and undermine the freedom of speech all in an effort to crack down on online “piracy” — the illegal distribution of copyrighted material.

Hollywood, the music industry, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have gone to bat on behalf of the proposed laws on the grounds that they will help protect valuable copyrighted property. And while the goal is laudable, the ends don’t justify the means. The Stop Online Piracy Act and the Protect IP Act have far-reaching consequences for the Internet’s infrastructure, individual liberties, and innovation in the digital age.

Under the laws, upon a court order, third-party companies and websites would be forced to crack down on rogue websites — and even ones that unwittingly host or link to material that may violate copyrights or trademarks, whether or not they have knowledge of the violation. Internet service providers would be required to block Internet addresses of offending sites — a measure that Internet engineers warn could threaten Internet security. Search engines would be prohibited from including pirate sites in search results, a requirement that goes well beyond current law and may, in fact, violate the First Amendment. Heritage’s James Gattuso and Paul Rosenzweig explain ramifications:

[L]imits on speech here are almost certain to be extended to other cases. If links to pirate sites are banned, why not links to sites disseminating national security secrets? Or sites “facilitating” violence by propagating extreme political positions? Moreover, other countries that have pursued content controls of their own, such as China, may be encouraged by steps in the U.S. to limit content.

It is concerns like these that have caused a firestorm in the online world, leading Wikipedia to declare that the laws “would be devastating to the free and open web” and prompting Google to campaign against the laws on its highly trafficked search engine. Meanwhile, PC Magazine reports that co-founders of top tech firms like Twitter, Google, Yahoo, and eBay wrote an open letter opposing the laws, arguing that they would undermine the “regulatory climate that promotes entrepreneurship, innovation, the creation of content and free expression online.”

Here’s why: Under the laws, websites like Facebook, with its hundreds of millions of users, or YouTube, where 48 hours of video are uploaded every minute, would now be accountable for all content posted on their sites. As a result, websites would be discouraged from engaging in speech or from providing a forum where others can do the same. That, in turn, will stifle innovation–the lifeblood of the economy. One study showed that among 200 venture capitalists and angel investors, almost all would stop funding digital media intermediaries if these laws are enacted.

Setting aside the burden the laws would impose on the freedom of speech and innovation, they don’t even make practical sense. Trying to block content online is tantamount to blocking the Mississippi River with a two-by-four. It can’t be done. Countries like Iran routinely censor content, yet information still flows through–oftentimes with the help of the United States. This attempt to crack down on pirated material is a futile effort by industries that are suffering at the hands of a technology that has surpassed it, much like when Hollywood was up in arms over VCRs in the 1980s and when the music industry threw a fit over MP3 players in the late 1990s.

The Internet is the greatest engine for free speech and innovation ever known to humankind. Certainly its power can be used for good as well as bad, but censoring content, jeopardizing the security of the Internet, and stifling innovation is not the answer for protecting intellectual property rights.

Image via Wikipedia

You might have spotted this story concerning pop star Lady Gaga’s interesting choice of footwear.  As a culture warrior, my first thought of course is about the fall of society and propriety, but a trained eye might notice something completely different.

I used to work at a company that made steel molds for the plastic industry.  It is an involved process.

In order to build a plastic mold, first a ceramic design is sculpted carefully by hand.  Precise measurements are made and a computer model is generated for later use.

The types of plastic are considered, will it be strong enough to carry the desired load for the product (in this case 100+ pounds), what is the mix needed and what type of steel is best to use given these parameters?

Blueprints are drawn for the design of the mold, showing where each cut, screw hole and pin will be placed.  Ejector pins, guide pins and locking screw locations, are all carefully planned during this process.

Once the mold design is finalized,  the steel has to be ordered.  After it arrives it has to be ground flat and square on all sides.

The steel is baked and treated so it can withstand the constant pounding produced by the molding process.

The pattern for the actual piece is then cut into the steel using a CNC machine that has been programed with the exact pattern via a CAM program such as Mastercam.

Next, the water lines are drilled and then screw holes and pins using hardened drills that can cut through steel.  All of this has to be highly lubricated as well to keep the cutters from seizing up during the process.  The greatest care must be made to be sure that none of these cuts go through the pattern or come too close to it for fear of weakening the mold.

Then the pattern is polished by hand using small sticks of various grits. It is the most labor intensive part of the process.

When complete, the mold is tested, and the pieces created are checked.  Any adjustments that might be necessary are made.

Only then can the mold be put into production.

The entire process, even if nothing goes wrong, (cracks in the steel, misplaced cuts etc…) is an expensive one in man hours and skilled labor (hundreds of thousands of dollars minimum).  A potential manufacturer needs to convince a financier that they will be able to sell enough of the product at the desired price point to not only recover these and the other associated costs, but make a profit.

Which brings us to Lady Gaga’s heels on her $4500 shoes.

Wealthy investors concluded that enough rich (or stupid or both) people would pay $4500 for shoes with penis heels to begin every costly step that I described above.  The expensive manufacturing infrastructure necessary for this product, the pay for dozens of skilled and unskilled workers at each level needed over time, the capital overhead,  raw materials, they financed the lot in the hopes of increasing their wealth by selling this interesting product to other wealthy people.

So, when you look at Lady Gaga’s ridiculous heels, remember they are more than just another shock attempt by an overrated celeb.  They are the final result of capitalism in action creating jobs and  putting food on the table of families that, in all likelihood, will never in their lives enter a shop where this product is sold.