So Edison *Was* A Hack?

That's what Nikola Tesla would have told you. But now it comes out that the first recorded human voice pre-dates Edison's phonograph by about 20 years. Of course, Edison's invention was the complete package, both sound recording and playback, which wins him the golden crown. But Édouard-Léon Scott de Martinville will now have to be credited with making the first recording of a human voice (....at least for now), but it took 150 years to figure out how to play it back. All in all, one of the most interesting stories I've read in a long time. <Link - along with audio of the 1860 recording>

British Regulators Are Upset That GlaxoSmithKline Hid Paxil Study

UK drug regulators are upset after finding out that drug maker GlaxoSmithKline withheld a study from the public that showed their own anti-depressant Seroxat (AKA Paxil) increased the risk of suicide in teenagers by an amazing 6 TIMES! GlaxoSmithKline conducted the study in the hopes of being able to prescribe the drug to teens, but then filed it off in a dark corner of the company's library when the horrendous results appeared. British law only requires drug companies to show a drug study if it impacts any group for which the drug is or will be recommended. Since GlaxoSmithKline had not (yet) suggested that Seroxat/Paxil be prescribed to teens, they were free to shred the study. However, in the UK as in the US, doctors can prescribe drugs 'off-label' to anyone they think might benefit. It's unclear how many teens have been prescribed the drug, but the number is likely in the tens of thousands.

UK regulators are preparing to change the law to make all studies available to regulators. We'll see. Something tells me the lobbyists will have their say (Link to AP story).

Bad Problem Solving Skills: The Virginia Legislature Presents Example #3

If you were the Virginia Legislature, what would you do in this situation?

You pass a law in 2002 requiring all local courts to post their land records on the Internet by July 2008. Then, a concerned citizen alerts you to the fact that many of those documents contain people's social security numbers and are now published on the net for the world to see (and identity thieves to use).

Do you:

1. Immediately shut down the document websites until the SSNs can be redacted.
2. Force the localities to handle (and pay for) the fix as they see fit, with a strict deadline.
   
3. Make it illegal for any citizen to point out that there are SSNs posted on the web, but do nothing about the fact that there are now SSNs posted on the web.

If you said #3, amazingly you'd be right. The concerned citizen in this case is Betty Ostergren who runs The Virginia Watchdog website. The law the legislature passed was know colloquially as "The BJ Ostergren Law" but is officially an amendment to The Personal Information Privacy Act. How does this act protect your privacy? Well, in a nutshell, it protects you from criminals who might want to post your SSN on a website. Of course, the fact that they already have criminal intent clouds that logic, but hey, why be a buzz-kill with the whole "logic" thing?

What Betty was doing that got her noticed, was posting the SSN's of famous/political people on her website in order to draw attention to the fact that those very SSNs were available on a government website. So rather than fix the privacy problem, Virginia has opted to pretend like there is no problem. And anyone who says there is a problem, is a fool, a Communist (to paraphrase Bill Hicks) and now, a criminal. Betty's method may not have been the most subtle way of getting attention, but clearly it worked. However, the legislature can't seem to think their way out of a paper bag long enough to see that REMOVING the SSNs is the ONLY solution to this problem

So now, we're left with this uniquely 'Virginia' legislative solution. The state publishes public information (many with SSNs) on a public website, but the public is not allowed to use that information in any way that might be construed as 'communicating' it, lest they be convicted of breaking this new law. So the Virginia Freedom of Information Act has essentially been 'amended' to say "Here's the public information, you can't talk to anyone about it". Nice.

And as if the irony wasn't thick enough, the patron of the bill was Sen. R. Edward Houck, (D-Spotsylvania), who is also chairman of the Virginia Freedom of Information Advisory Council. Sen Houck offered this very anemic analogy of Ms. Ostergren's attention getting tactics:

"That would be like trying to make it illegal to shoot someone with a firearm and the way you do that is to go out an get an AK-47 and mow down a bunch of people in a parking lot."

Allow me to offer a better analogy.

Sen. Houck's bill is like trying to prevent house fires by disabling smoke alarms. Because if there's no alarm, there's no fire!

Genius! Now I know why we pay these people!

Oh, and Senator Houck? You do know the Internet is global right? So what happens if a Russian organized crime group gets the SSNs?

Butter Flavored Popcorn Ingredient Causes Lung Cancer

The FDA announced that Diacetyl, the ingredient in microwave popcorn that gives it its buttery taste, does cause lung cancer. Multiple workers in factories that produce butter-flavored popcorn have come down with the life threatening lung disease (now known as 'popcorn lung') and at least one consumer has as well.

Many people don't know that the bag used in microwave popcorn also contains a suspected carcinogen, Perfluorooctanoic acid, or PFOA. PFOA is a primary ingredient in Teflon and is also used to coat the inside of microwave popcorn bags as well as fast food packaging materials to make them grease resistant (typically these packaging items have a glossy, wax-like surface).

These two chemicals highlight some of the dangers of eating pre-packaged foods. If you love microwave popcorn, there is a way to make it with a plain paper bag, popcorn, a couple of staples and some oil. Check out this recipe. I use this all the time in order to avoid all the salt in pre-packaged microwave popcorn and this works very well.

Breathalizer Battle Heats Up In Minnesota

One of the more novel legal defenses to be used recently has centered around DUI cases. All over the country, from Florida, to Minnesota, people accused of DUI on the basis of a 'breath test' have requested that the court allow them to closely examine the device that said they were drunk. In most cases, the device is some version of the Intoxilizer made by CMI of Owensboro, KY. The Intoxilizer is probably the most popular 'breathalizer' in the US and as it's use has grown, it's scientific validity has been largely taken for granted. Until now.

Scores of DUI defendants have asked to see the source code of these devices to see what makes them tick, and more importantly, to see if there are any bugs or flaws in the device's programing code. Any bug could be used to instill doubt that the device has accurately recorded the blood alcohol level of a defendant. Additionally, if the device seemed at all capricious about how it determines if someone is, say a .07 vs. a .08 BAC, it would be a 'get out of jail free' card for all these DUI defendants.

Which leads us to the latest development in Minnesota. Multiple courts in Minnesota (including the Minnesota Supreme Court) agreed that the defendants had a right to view the code and asked CMI to turn it over to the defendant's lawyers. CMI refused, stating that the source code was proprietary. This was in spite of the fact that the state contract to purchase the Intoxilizer devices mandated that CMI would provide the source code to the state if asked. Of course, they never did until now, which means it's likely that no one outside of CMI has any idea how the device actually works.

On Monday, the Minnesota Department of Public Safety sued CMI in U.S. District Court to force them to turn over the source code. The DPS needs to code or else they will face a court backlash (which has already begun) in which judges wholesale dismiss DUI cases. CMI for their part, has held fast, but this is the first time that CMI has been the target of a suit.

The more CMI delays and looks reluctant, the more it looks like there might be something really wrong with that source code. No doubt, CMI has a lot to lose. One small bug and DUI cases get thrown out all over the country...and their product becomes the new Quadro Tracker. Refuse to give up the code (or get the court to say they don't have to) and the device becomes questionable in court and useless to their biggest customer, law enforcement agencies.