| Sunday, May 5, 2002 |
15:42 - Everything but blogging this weekend...
|
(top) |
Much apology for the lack of blog content here (yeah, I'm sure hundreds of people are just getting all itchy and restless over it). I've been spending all day yesterday and today in video-editing, picture-obtaining, and application-filling-out for the under-the-wire application for The Amazing Race that my dad says we have to enter. It's due on Wednesday.
But I just finished editing the video to under the required 3 minutes (actually, it's 2 minutes, 59 seconds, and 21 frames) and transferring it to VHS. And now I'm about to head over to the beach or something.
See, this is what I mean, about weekends being my time to "relax". I think this is how I relax.
|
| Friday, May 3, 2002 |
03:33 - Random Responses to Random Observations
http://www.livejournal.com/talkread.bml?journal=makali&itemid=45887
|
(top) |
Matt Robinson has some observations about stupid UI decisions in the world. I'd like to take this opportunity to add my own comments, and thereby to call attention to his own laugh-out-loud blog.
- Trillian has "emotisounds" enabled by default now. This means that when chatting on IRC or ICQ, or.. whatever, and someone types "OMG LOL!!!1" my computer makes a hideous giggling sound. Gah! I really worry about some people who type "LOL". They seem to do it a hell of a lot, and I can't help but wonder if they really are "laughing out loud" or just sniggering and stuffing more lard and coke down their throats. People who express their emotions with acronyms scare me. Actually no, they piss me off; it highlights an increasing inability for people to communicate effectively with each other.
I've wondered about "LOL" for a long time. Now, I'm under no illusions that anybody who types "LOL" ever means that he's actually, physically, laughing out loud. The likelihood of that is pretty frickin' slim. But that's not what gets me. No, what gets me is this: People have overused "LOL" to the point where they have evidently forgotten what it stands for entirely. Nothing else can explain how it gets used periodically these days:
- "LOLOLOLOLOL!!!!"
- A variation on the venerable "hehehehe", which I have loathed with a secret burning passion ever since I first encountered it being spewed by AOLers back in 1994. An abbreviated, iconic shorthand, that form was popularized apparently as some kind of attempt to appear as some kind of technological superstar-- you're playing your keyboard like a guitar! Wheedle on those two keys, and it sounds like you're laughing to the guy on the other end! Boy-howdy, you can sure make that fingerboard sing! Hehehehe!
But somehow it got mated with "LOL"-- an onomatopoeia mingled with an acronym-- to form "LOLOLOLOL", which evidently the same AOLers can read fluently. I don't know-- to me, it can mean only two things:
- "Laughing out loud out loud out loud out loud"
- Something that sounds sort of like "Low low low low low low"
Sure, accuse me of being pedantic. But I challenge anyone to read out loud a passage of text containing "LOLOLOL" and not read it as one of the two possibilities above. And then, I further challenge, I dare you to ever attempt to use it again.
- "LOOOOOOOOOOL!!!"
- This one is just precious. It completely abandons any pretense of being an acronym-- I don't think any AOLer, even, could type this while under the impression that "Laughing out out out out out out out loud!" is a meaningful expression. No, this one is just "LOL" that's been streeeeeeeetched in order to affect more emphasis.
It's silly, it's obvious, it's cheap. But still, I would dare somebody to read it out loud with a straight face.
And for extra credit, immediately follow it with "And DROOOOOOOOOOL!"
The other point to which I must respond is this:
- Microsoft's OLE (and later ActiveX, COM, COM+, etc) gimmick when Win 3 and 3.1 came out was that "Whee! Look, you can put bits of Excel inside Word!" thing... Which was alright for some things I guess: it's convenient to be able to edit some figures in a report document without having to load up Excel and reimport the table. They overstepped the line when
Outbreak Outlook Express used this same functionality to show HTML in email using Internet Explorer's rendering engine though. Aside from the whole huge virus/trojan/worm issues that this caused, I'm pissed off that advertising companies can send me mail that requests images from their servers which allows them to set cookies that link my email address to the web pages I visit (and thereby allows them to build up a profile on me in order to send me more unwanted advertising). And the virus issue just will not go away. The only way this will stop is if Microsoft rewrites Outhouse Outlook Express from scratch and makes some fundamentally different design decisions about what their product should and shouldn't be able to do.
My response to this is brief:
"...Or, conceivably, if people will ever take the apocalyptically drastic step of using some other program than Outlook or Outlook Express for their e-mail."
(Though, of course, that's a pipe dream. Every bit as much as is the possibility of open-source software producting professional-grade, easy-to-use, consistent and useful consumer desktop software.)
That is all.
|
|
02:04 - See, this is the kind of thing I'm talking about.
|
(top) |
So at about 7:30 PM today, this being a Friday evening, I was sitting at work getting my iMac all outfitted for CVS and code building. (David had just joined the cabal, setting up his new $999 iBook today for the same purpose-- so I figured I should follow suit, especially considering the CVS chalk-talk Chris had just given a couple of days ago for the benefit of us tool-writing QA people.) Don't ever tell me I don't know how to party.
I installed the free Developer Tools from Apple; it comes with CVS, among many other things (such as ProjectBuilder, the descendant of the NextSTEP framework builder application). Then I downloaded a tool called Concurrent Version Library (CVL), a CVS front-end for OS X (and Windows and OpenSTEP) which automates the checkout/edit/checkin process of CVS. Very nice.
Then I noticed a tool in the Developer folder: FileMerge. I opened it up. Ah, very nice-- you select two files (either by file-browsing, or by dragging the two files into two little wells). (It's also fired-off from the Comparison tool within CVL.) Then you press the Compare button.
And... well, it's a nice graphical diff utility. But wait... uh, hold on. Look... look at how it displays the differences. Gray bars that expand smoothly with those little curves in the central gutter, with an arrow indicating which version of that diff to use. You can select each one and specify the behavior. The differences are marked in the scrollbar with little tick marks.
And... look what happens when you scroll down. The diffs... they smoothly flow upward so the diffs in the middle of the screen are visible straight-across. They shift smoothly-- with the curves bordered by antialiased lines that morph to the new shape as you scroll.
This is a diff tool?!
Chris was driving the computer as we discovered this-- and when we saw the behavior of the diff bars as he scrolled down, he and I both erupted in laughter-- the kind of raucous, exhilarated laughter of discovery, the kind of laughter you emit when you see an impossible injoke in a movie, or a gorgeously-turned Lileks phrase, or some righteous caption-contest entries, or a masterful mind-warp like at the end of Fight Club or The Game. We sat there playing with it for a good five minutes, not believing what we were seeing. Then Chris said, "Okay, who signs POs around here? I have got to get myself a Mac."
See, this is exactly the kind of thing I'm on about. This is a diff tool-- one of those things that's so pedestrian and so rudimentary that the full functionality that the everyday coder needs from it was present in command-line tools ten years ago. But when Apple engineers come along and get their hands on it, they see the opportunity to make it damned cool-- using the advantages of Quartz and Cocoa to their fullest, they throw in a feature which-- while it doesn't add more to the functionality of the software than, say, a simple straight line or two from one side to the other would accomplish-- has the elegance and beauty and style to make a jaded programmer's heart go boompdy-doomp. The functionality was there in Quartz, it was easy to add, it made it look really bloody cool-- and they didn't go overboard. They did it in such a way that you have to just sit and stare and play with it, a big dopey smile on your face, thinking ahh, yes... this is the way it's supposed to be. It doesn't get in the way. It doesn't slow things down. It just makes the programmer feel like someone just turned on the air-conditioner on a sweltering summer day.
This isn't Microsoft's every-function-on-the-planet-plus-ToolTips-on-every-damn-thing kind of design ethic. This isn't the slavish drudgery of producing gray tools for dead-eyed coders to use late into the night in order to meet an impossible deadline.
This is the joy of creating, made manifest in the very tools that the creators themselves use.
I don't think I've ever before seen such a clear, simple, self-evident illustration of what makes Apple Apple-- and how impoverished the technology industry would be without them.
|
|
19:22 - Doom III is comin'
http://www.macgamer.com/news/item.php?id=5113
|
(top) |
Seems Doom III is in imminent danger of being released. It's supposed to have an all-new 3D engine, something that's head-and-shoulders above today's standard crop.
The 3D games produced by id Software have been in three distinct stages: the Wolfenstein era, the Doom era, and the Quake era, which is still the current one. We've already had our Return to Castle Wolfenstein; now, I suppose, it's time to revisit Doom.
I always sort of assumed Quake was the successor to Doom, though-- not just in inherited technology, but also in storyline. I suppose that if I'd bothered to look any deeper into the story (such as it was), I'd have discovered that the two game series had entirely different settings and premises. But, well, as far as I could ever tell, both were primarily concerned with shooting everything that moved-- and hey, they were certainly good at what they did, right?
Well, I guess we're returning to the more-horror-than-action genre now, with Doom III. Whatever anybody might say about how video games desensitize people to violence and so on-- well, all I can say is that playing Doom II on the 486s in Blacker Hovse on those sultry Pasadena autumn nights was what got me primed for Vertigo comics, Peter Jackson movies, anime, dealing with Scurves, and just about everything that helped me through college and beyond. So yes, it did certainly have an effect on me. Good? Bad? I'm the one with the gun.
Oh, and by the way--
The possibility of DOOM III coming to the Mac seems almost a sure bet, considering the facts that id Software founder John Carmack has on multiple occasions publicly embraced the platform and every recent title from the company has been ported. More importantly though is the fact that Carmack himself first unveiled the new DOOM III engine on a Mac at last year's MacWorld Tokyo, which is also the one and only time the game has been publicly displayed since. For many the remaining days till DOOM III's next and official showing at E3 will seem like months, but you can be sure MacGamer will be among those attending to provide coverage of the title when the time comes.
|
| Thursday, May 2, 2002 |
00:15 - Ahead of its time, I guess...
|
(top) |
A NewsRadio episode from 1996 or so had a line regarding trying to remove an embarrassing picture from the Internet:
"You can't take something off of the Internet. It'd be like trying to get pee out of a swimming pool."
|
|
20:30 - iPod envy
http://www.sunspot.net/technology/pluggedin/bal-pl.hot02may02.story?coll=bal%2Dpe%2D
|
(top) |
It seems that the iPod, expensive and comparatively low-capacity and Mac-only as it is, has managed to become the de facto archetypical MP3 player, the gold standard against which all others are measured. It's displaced the old Rios, the ones with the weird asymmetrical hand-held design, in the psyche of all reviewers. And now, reviews about the Rio Riot by SonicBlue seem unable to talk about the Riot without comparing it to the iPod.
Even better, they can't seem to bring themselves ever to award the win to the iPod's challenger.
Unfortunately, the RioRiot lacks the iPod's elegant design and glistening good looks. It has the feel of a prototype that was rushed into production, with control buttons that aren't as intuitive as the iPod's wheel-and-button combination. The Rio-Riot's power and earphone jacks look so much alike and are placed so close together that I nearly shorted out the device.
The company says the rechargeable lithium-ion battery is good for more than 10 hours, but mine conked out at closer to seven. Still, more than enough for jogging or most flights.
True, the Riot has more capacity. True, it's Windows-compatible. True, it has an FM tuner and funky software. But, well, it's no iPod-killer.
Seems Apple's made a universally accepted winner, for the first time in a long time. At the risk of sounding too sycophantic... Well done.
|
|
20:21 - Steven den Beste is a war criminal!
http://www.denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2002/05/usageinflation.shtml
|
(top) |
Go read this post of his. Then you'll see that I mean it as a compliment.
|
|
19:51 - Now that's just cool.
http://www.pizzaidf.org
|
(top) |
Lileks' latest Bleat contained the rhetorical thought, "If Saudi Arabia had a Star Trek, do you think they’d put a Jewish Chekov at the helm?" To which Glenn Reynolds responded, "Indeed. Of course the phrase "If Saudi Arabia had a Star Trek," captures much of the problem all by itself, doesn't it?"
Here's another little example of the culture clash we've got on our hands: a website that allows anybody in the world to send pizza to active-duty soldiers in the Israeli Defense Forces. $16.95 will buy a pizza and Pepsi for five soldiers, properly Kosher and everything.
This is the kind of moral support that I'll bet they'd just love to get, too. Imagine the morale in the IDF unit that's being widely accused of massacring civilians in Jenin, facts to the contrary notwithstanding. You feel about as appreciated as a Vietnam Marine at the end of his tour of duty-- and then a jeep rolls up with a pizza delivery box.
The symbolism is as thick as a deep-dish pizza crust. I mean, right there you've got what has become one of the most universally-loved, internationally-developed foods on the planet-- an Italian appetizer dish adopted by Americans and turned into the Great Equalizer, a shared circular entree pre-sliced into equal portions, serving everyone at the table simultaneously and democratically. It's the food of choice for up-too-late college students and Chicago restaurateurs alike. And it's portable, endlessly customizable, and can be eaten without utensils.
And now it can be delivered at the whim of anyone in the world to the front battle lines. Talk about cutting out the middleman; now the world can register its approval or disapproval of the IDF by voting with cheese.
Has the nature of war changed, or what?
By the way, be sure to read the "Messages" section of the site.
|
|
19:09 - Perspective from the Front
http://talg.blogspot.com/
|
(top) |
Tal G. in Jerusalem is a blog that doesn't tend to have a huge amount of content-- but that's okay, because there's more first-hand context from the very battle lines in a single posting there than there is in three screenfuls of your typical American blog.
Just today, for instance, the info bites come fast and furious:
James Lileks has a fine rant today. But one of his points is a criticism of Arab nations for not contributing to improve conditions in Palestinian refugee camps.
Actually, the squalidness of the refugee camps is intentionally maintained by the PA and the UN Relief Works Agency. When the PA was established in 1994 it decided not to aid the refugee camps because if their residents became too comfortable, they might abandon their dreams of returning to their grandparents' homes inside Israel's pre-1967 borders.
There is a camp called Shuafat which now falls within the boundaries of Jerusalem, but UNRWA etc. have steadfastly opposed efforts by the municipality to pave streets and install a modern sewage system.
Someone living in Shuafat found my cellphone which I had dropped, but I declined to go and collect it.
There's also this:
This just in: Arafat has backtracked on his agreement to jail Tourism-Minister-assassination-planner Ahmed Saadat and heavy-arms-and-explosives-smuggler Fuad Shubeiki in Jericho with British/American guards. Jailing them was part of the deal made with Israel for releasing Arafat from house arrest.
Sigh.
He asks whether the Israeli actions of late are likely to cause any kind of dent in the extremism of the more intelligent Palestinians, the ones who are willing to be rational-- or whether they'll just be driven further toward radicalism. The only positive alternative is that they'll instead be cowed by Israel's refusal to back down or be intimidated; but if they're weighing such options along with what must certainly seem to them like a glorious tactical victory for Arafat (Look-- the stupid Americans and the accursed Sharon let him go scot free, he doesn't even have to obey their outrageous demands of jailing extremists, and we have a new martyrdom cause on our side in the form of the Jenin Massacre™... Allahu akbar, man!), then it'll be a hard sell indeed.
It seems to me that if there were any "thinking Palestinians" out there who truly wanted peace, they'd be organizing demonstrations and protests against Arafat and demanding a halt to the counterproductive and abhorrent actions of their countrymen who strap on bombs and run into crowded coffee shops.
It's called an act of good faith. It can work wonders, when those who receive the message are willing to hear it. When the audience is civilized.
But, of course, when Israel commits such an act-- like, oh, say, releasing Arafat-- he may as well be laying his olive branch on a bonfire.
|
|
17:03 - Don't Rall yourself into a corner here, Garry...
http://www.doonesbury.com
|
(top) |
You know, I'm starting to get awfully sick of Doonesbury's pro-Palestinian streak lately-- not because being pro-Palestinian is inherently an indefensible position, but because the way he's doing it seems... well, un-Doonesbury.
After all, in the past, Trudeau has always seemed to take a position in his strips of "self-effacing liberal". You know-- the storylines dealing with gay issues and AIDS, like the Mark/Chase storyline, take the larger stance of being pro-gay, but the individual strips poke gentle fun at Mark's hairstyle and his relationship with his father and the songs he chooses on the radio. You spend these strips laughing at gays, but when you put the paper down you find you've been laughing with them.
Similarly, Trudeau has always been good about attacking both sides of any political issue with fairly even-handed vigor; Clinton the waffle got just as harsh a treatment as did Bush Sr. the no-see-um and Gingrich the bomb. He's never been as equal-opportunity as, say, Tom Tomorrow... but his work has been a credit to his stance throughout his long career.
That's why I'm finding myself more and more dismayed by the current streak. This one is unabashedly pro-Palestinian to the point of modern revisionism-- in complete defiance of any attempt at addressing the actual issues, even the Palestinian characters are imbued with the sullen, cynical, baggy-eyed urbanity of Trudeau's middle-American core cast. Almost as though his goal is to prove to his readers that Palestinians as a people want nothing more fervently than to trade stocks and play video games and eat at McDonald's and have sex in the streets, and that anything we may have heard in recent months to the effect that they hold suicide-bombing in higher regard than drinking Pepsi is the product of a vicious warmongering smear campaign.
Shortly after 9/11, he tackled the problem of racial profiling by putting a scary-looking Arab on a plane, scaring the bejeezus out of his seatmate Mike-- until you discover that he's a baggy-eyed, cynical Palm-Pilot salesman who's just out to live the American Dream like the rest of us. That was fine, because at the time it was a very real concern-- we had no idea that events would transpire such that incidences of anti-Muslim aggression in the US would be so vastly outnumbered by incidences of anti-Jewish aggression in Europe. His concern has turned out to be a non-issue in the scheme of things.
But lately, it seems as though he's realized that what he'd figured would be important to lampoon has turned out not to be-- and so rather than drifting back towards center, he's slammed the rudder hard-a-port.
Read over the past couple of weeks' worth of Doonesbury strips. I knew Trudeau was a fiery liberal and all, but this is just weird. If it goes any further, he'll be comparing Sharon to Hitler-- and if you haven't read Lileks' latest Bleat on why that comparison can be ascribed to nothing but utter barking madness, you need to go do so right now.
I wonder if Trudeau will redeem himself by sending Roland to Jenin, there to uncover evidence of Palestinians rigging the water and gas systems with shrapnel bombs and using civilian women and children as human shields and digging up corpses from local cemeteries in order to increase the body-count for the benefit of the UN investigators.
Sure, it wouldn't make for very good comedy. But hey, if the only reason why he's been hanging so hard a left lately is because it's easier to be funny that way, he might want to reevaluate his tactics somewhat.
|
| Wednesday, May 1, 2002 |
22:44 - Bluh.
|
(top) |
There hasn't been, and won't be, much in the way of bloggage for today. We had a long and gruelling network problem to plow through today at work, and right now I really don't feel much like typing. What I really feel like doing is lying semi-comatose on my waterbed and watching whatever well-worn Simpsons comes on in fifteen minutes. And then maybe I'll fall asleep or something.
|
| Tuesday, April 30, 2002 |
13:05 - Dammit.
|
(top) |
Kris just got back from interviewing a job applicant over lunch. The guy said he had just come off a project at a FireWire solutions company; they were creating some kind of ultimate home-stereo/video system, with all the controlling and recording and management integrated and all the audio and video and other traffic traveling over FireWire. He said it was an extremely enjoyable project. You know, one of those things where you feel like you're changing the world, like you have the answer, like everything's going to be all right now.
But, he said, it got cancelled.
Why?
Because the company "got scared off by USB 2.0".
Intel's getting to be just about as petty with their Not-Invented-Here mentality as Microsoft is. They need to have their scrota eaten just about as badly.
|
|
12:59 - What, you just now noticed?
http://www.dorktower.com/
|
(top) |
Heh. Yeah, that's what I've been saying all this time...
|
|
12:56 - Seanbaby reviews Buzkashi
http://www.seanbaby.com/news/buzkashi.htm
|
(top) |
I was almost positive that I'd blogged this Seanbaby article before, but a cursory glance through the database tells me nay. And because I'm revisiting it over lunch and laughing so hard I'm having difficulty swallowing, I think it's only fair that I share the experience. Besides, even if I have blogged it before, it's worth doing so again. Just because.
There is one Afghani thing everyone should see before their country becomes a smoldering terrorist paste-filled crater, or at least a deeper terrorist paste-filled crater: their insane goat-slinging national sport, Buzkashi. Buzkashi was started in the time of Genghis Kahn, but unlike other sports started in the time of Genghis Kahn like Synchronized Impale the Villager, Horseback Crotch Kick, and Female Horseback Crotch Kick, Buzkashi survived relatively unchanged all the way to modern day, give or take a few million tons of anti-personnel explosives.
The first thing you need for Buzkashi, besides a warrior soul prepared for death, is the game ball or "boz." To prepare it, find a goat. Now chop off its head and most of its legs. This probably won't finish it off... Afghani goats are raised on soil composed of 80 percent land mine and require either intense persistence or voodoo to kill. So after the chopping, you need to submerge it in cold water for 24 hours. This helps toughen it up so the corpse doesn't fall apart during gameplay. And before you ask, yes, this is the exact same technique that Joseph Stalin and Hitler would have invented if they dictated the policy of sporting goods manufacturing and were goats.
Word is that Seanbaby is now writing regular articles for The Wave, the first of which I managed by dumb luck to catch while I was at the car wash a while ago. So now I'll have to go pick up copies wherever I can. Seanbaby's stuff is not to be missed.
|
| Monday, April 29, 2002 |
01:20 - Oh yes, thanks for reminding me...
http://hikeryote.blogspot.com/?/2002_04_28_hikeryote_archive.html#75990984
|
(top) |
Hiker's post on the same Transformers article that I mentioned reminded me of something I'd intended to say but forgot.
But consider this: the Decepticons were a short-sighted race that wanted to rule the universe by controlling its energy resources. They were proud, vicious, and specialized in sneak attacks. They had no compunctions about using us miserable fleshlings as human shields. Eventually they were reduced to cowering in caves on a remote asteroid that no one really cared about. Do they remind you of anybody?
The Autobot/Decepticon war spanned millions of years without any clear victor. In its wake countless planets were devastated by giant robots bent on violence. It is a grim lesson that we should take to heart, as we embark on what could be the longest, bitterest war of all time.
Indeed. Now, what I was suddenly reminded of was that when I was heavily into Transformers, through elementary and middle school when my room's shelves were covered with neatly stood-at-attention robots with their Tech Specs strips hanging perpendicularly like filing-cabinet tabs, there was some perplexity in the general adultitude about whether the Transformers were "appropriate" for kids.
The main competition for kids' hearts and minds at the time was G.I. Joe. In what must have been a formative precursor of the rift that would forever divide the macho jocks from the sci-fi nerds in later years, the kids of my school sifted themselves either into the G.I. Joe platoon or the Transformers legion. Nevermore would the twain meet, and we regarded each other as subhuman. You know-- kids can be so cruel, and all that.
I was loud about my disapproval of G.I. Joe. As a conscientious third grader, I voiced my disgust with little hesitation-- how could my fellow kids be such monsters as to revel in war, in the killing of humans by humans? How could they justify their fascination with such barbarism?
You see, I had a moral high ground: the Transformers, you see, weren't human. They were, in fact, not of this earth-- they were a technological impossibility, what with their arbitrary changing of size and their obviously-gratuitous-even-to-a-nine-year-old divisions into five-man themed groups. It was all a marketing stunt, and even at our tender age, we knew it. And that's what we loved about it, just as the nostalgists love it now. It was a story-- it wasn't something that could actually happen.
I remember overhearing my mom discussing the Transformers with another mom, either over the phone or over coffee or something. "But aren't they supposed to be these terrible, warring things...? How are they any better than G.I. Joe in that regard?"
I knew what the difference was. Maybe I couldn't have put it into words at the time, but I could tell how it all worked. I knew why I liked what I did and didn't like what I didn't.
The lesson Hiker suggests we learn from the Transformers is a cautionary one, while the G.I. Joe lesson that has congealed over the years is a threat. The Transformers teach by metaphor, G.I. Joe teaches by example. But while G.I. Joe is a paean to American might in arms, inexorable and unstoppable and not caring who or what gets in the way-- the Transformers' lesson is more subtle, more European: Don't throw away the good things we have in pursuit of the goal. But then, the Autobots' victory was always more in doubt with every passing set of end credits.
|
|
19:58 - Calling all nerds...
http://slashdot.org/apple/02/04/29/1127254.shtml?tid=107
|
(top) |
The obvious gag, that many people (including Paul) have noted, is that emacs now runs on eMacs.
By the way, take a look at Slashdot; the most negative thing anyone's said about the eMac all day is, "Kind of ugly, I think... And this is coming from someone who's used Macs for a long, long time. They should just go back to the Color Classic form factor and forget about all this space-shuttle-nosecone concept."
The article is listed under the "Yum-yum-gimme-some department". Once upon a time, as Paul says, this thread would have been the "slow-proc dept" or "fruity design dept".
Ah, how times change.
|
|
18:49 - Hey, it was this or Cabbage Patch Kids...
http://www.cnn.com/2002/SHOWBIZ/TV/04/29/transformers.ap/index.html
|
(top) |
There are others who tend to focus on this topic a bit more than I do, and with good reason-- I know I can't hold a candle to their all-encompassing grasp of the subject. My life doesn't intersect with the Transformers to anywhere near the degree that Hiker's does. But you know... it was an awfully big part of my life back in fourth grade, and the fact that I don't seem to be taking part in this new wave of nostalgia owes more to the fact that I simply don't like to collect stuff than to any disdain for it.
I'm perfectly happy to stand on the sidelines and smile as this phenomenon rolls by. And I'll certainly eat up any articles like this one that cover it.
Until relatively recently, Peter Cullen didn't know people like Weiner existed.
But now the veteran voice-over actor, who supplied the voice of heroic Optimus Prime in "The Transformers" cartoon, has met hundreds of admirers and attended a fan convention.
Despite the program's low-production values and cynical marketing purpose (even fans acknowledge it's something of a glorified toy commercial) Cullen said he and other actors took pride in making the stories wholesome.
Prime, who transformed into a big-rig truck, led the good-guy Autobot robots in war against the resource-depleting Decepticons, led by the sinister Megatron, who changed into a massive silver handgun.
"I wanted Optimus Prime to be strong and just and fair," said Cullen, who now plays Eeyore in Disney's "Winnie the Pooh" cartoons. "I saw him like John Wayne, and did a little of that voice. ... I wanted him to be a super-hero, not stupid or off-the-wall. He never yelled or lost his temper. I think the kids appreciated that."
Hmm. Maybe this is why I grew up liking stories like Preacher.
Oh, and Hollings and the Content Faction, take note:
Meanwhile, bootleg copies of all 98 original cartoon episodes proliferated for years on the Internet, the complete set selling for $70 to $90. Now Rhino Home Video is releasing the program's first 16-episode season on DVD, which retails for about $60. Other seasons will follow.
A day before its April 23 debut, advance sales of that 17-year-old cartoon show ranked No. 7 on the Amazon.com list of best-selling DVDs.
Transformer fans even posted praise for the discs weeks in advance, rejoicing that they no longer had to pirate the episodes.
"No more downloading, encoding and video CD burning for me!" one fan wrote on the Amazon review section. "I want the real thing!"
Got that?
|
|
17:42 - Content vs. Technology
http://www.reason.com/0205/fe.mg.hollywood.shtml
|
(top) |
The battle lines have been drawn, says Mike Godwin. The Content Faction (Disney, Time-Warner, the record companies) and the Tech Faction (Apple, HP, the hardware and software makers) have thrown down their gauntlets and are assuming the sumo stance.
One way to understand the conflict between the Content Faction and the Tech Faction is to look at how they describe their customers. For the content industries, they’re "consumers." By contrast, the information technology companies talk about "users."
If you see people as consumers, you control access to what you offer, and you do everything you can to prevent theft, for the same reason supermarkets have cameras by the door and bookstores have electronic theft detectors. Allowing people to take stuff for free is inconsistent with your business model.
But if you see people as users, you want to give them more features and power at cheaper prices. The impulse to empower users was at the heart of the microcomputer revolution: Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak wanted to put computing power into ordinary people’s hands, and that’s why they founded Apple Computer. If this is your approach -- enabling people to do new things -- it’s hard to adjust to the idea of building in limitations.
Yeah, exactly. And I should note that software can be written completely independently of any company-- it's a product that requires no overhead for production, so it can be created by a kid in his bedroom. It's more democratic even than garage-band music; you don't even need to cut an album. You can become famous for a breakthrough idea in software, purely by creating it. There's nothing more to it-- no distribution, no having to have connections, book gigs, coattail anyone, bribe anyone, anything. Software is still changing so fast-- fueled by hardware and infrastructure that's still changing and improving faster than any other technology at any other time in history-- that there are all kinds of ideas out there just waiting to be had. The software "industry" is still fundamentally an artificial layer pasted on top of a free continuum of thought that has no need as yet for such barriers and channels. It will one day, but not yet.
And that's why barriers on capability are such anathema to tech people. All they're doing is trying to give people superpowers-- and it's sometyhing they are able to do purely through thought and ingenuity. Who's going to avoid having or acting on a brilliant idea because of the potential legal details of what might eventually be done with it? Ideas don't work that way. The motto of software creation is "Because it can be done"; the motto of content creation is "Because it makes business sense".
The Content Faction may be right that what people really want is compelling content over broadband. It may even be the case that, if they were asked, most people would be willing to trade the open, robust, relatively simple tools they now have for a more constrained digital world in which they have more content choices. But for now, nobody’s asking ordinary people what they want.
Well, I'll tell you what I want. I want superpowers. So get your filthy laws off my computer, Hollings.
|
|
16:33 - Only in Mac Land...
http://www.mired.com/mac/mac_04_29_2002.html
|
(top) |
One of the first things we noticed this morning was that the headings on the PR pages for the new eMac are, for the first time since the Apple II days, not done in the signature Apple Garamond font. Instead, writes MacCommunist editor Lukas Hauser, they're using Adobe Myriad Roman.
Why is this newsworthy, one might ask? Well, because Apple Garamond is the font, man! It's the font they've always used! It's synonymous with Apple, as "venerable-if-effete" as it is. Unlike Microsoft, Apple sticks with a look for its PR materials. I have some old ads for Macs from the late 80s; they have the same look as current ads do. Same photographic style, same text layout, and the same fonts.
Remember when Windows 95 came out? All the posters seemed to be showing off how many fonts it could do or something? "Microsoft", "Windows", and "95" were all in different fonts and pasted haphazardly all around the poster. And each new version since then has fallen prey to the same layout crapulence. But Apple's been Garamond since Day 1.
It may be that the new text style is just being used to denote a different positioning for the educational computers; main-line products get the traditional Garamond look. I can deal with that.
But either way, I think I'm going to have to pay more attention to MacCommunist.
"It's possible that Apple is hoping to totally re-position itself to the PC masses, who all-too-much associate the delicate Apple Garamond font with the old, gay Apple," said Lukas Hauser, the writer of this article.
|
|
13:12 - Defeated by a ruse so hackneyed, it would make Stan Lee blush!
|
(top) |
Okay, these recent Simpsons episodes are getting so there's something bizarre and surprising and rewarding each week-- and that's not in any way a bad thing.
Last night's episode (which I have to assume is new, judging by the "Bin Laden in a Blender" web cartoon made by a dot-com company that dies in the bubble) took a pretty merciless pot-shot at Stan Lee. I don't know what kind of sordid story lies behind what seems like a growing animosity between the Simpsons producers and Stan Lee, but it's certainly out in the open now. They portrayed the man as an annoying, delusional, paranoid, bitter old coot, hanging around the Android's Dungeon and being so irritating that even the Comic Book Guy spent the whole episode trying to make him go away. One priceless scene has Stan Lee trying to convince a kid that he didn't need to buy a Batman figurine to fit into his Batmobile-- see, the Incredible Hulk can fit into it just fine. See? Rrrgh... <crunch> <smash> rrmph. There! Fits just fine. (Said Batmobile is now a broken shambles.) The kid beats a hasty retreat, and Stan Lee busies himself rearranging the comics randomly on the shelf.
To say nothing of the whole Incredible Hulk ending. This is certainly a lot less flattering a portrayal than Kevin Smith gave him. I wonder what lies behind all this?
UPDATE: Okay, so Stan Lee was actually the voice of Stan Lee. So he's just doing self-effacing humor. In which case he rules.
|
|
11:38 - Stage Three: Mockery...
http://www.raytracer25.btinternet.co.uk/iToilet/itoilet.html
|
(top) |
I'm just posting this so as to try to forestall a dozen ICQ messages which would otherwise probably be waiting for me when I get home from work, pointing me gleefully toward this URL.
Yes, yes. I've seen it.
Ho ho, very amusing. And yet, this kind of thing infuriates me no end. Not because of the Mac mockery-- we've all gotten used to that. Remember the iBrator? We all loved the iBrator. Some of my friends even had it as their desktop background for a while. This new incarnation is no different-- in fact, it's firmly on the hackneyed side, considering that it appears to be making fun of iBooks that left the market a year ago, even though the page is brand-new.
No, what really steams my cauliflower is the underlying attitude behind something like this. I mean, humor and satire is one thing. Mac parody sites are full of such stuff-- and it's all the funnier when it's written by someone who's a Mac fan. We like to poke fun at ourselves just like any marginalized group does.
But this kind of inflammatory ranting just makes my skin crawl:
The iToilet features dual pipe™ technology. This makes the iToilet flush twice as fast as a Pentium-based model!
* Well, if truth be told, Apple has yet to find a way to equal the superiority and speed of the Pentium, but Steve Jobs insists that adding the second pipe does make the iToilet flush twice as fast (Hey, we did it with the G4 and nobody realised!)
And...
Stupid boring idiotic people who choose to use other cheap inferior toilets (such as the ridiculously fast and super-reliable Microsoft "Toilet 2000" or "Loo XP") have to unclog the old-fashioned way - by pressing the "unclog" button. We laugh in their faces because the procedure is just so much quicker and far more fun with the iToilet! To unclog, follow these simple instructions:
STEP 1: When the message box pops up telling you that the iToilet has clogged, simply click the restart button in the dialogue box. Keep clicking this button until you realise that it won't do anything anyway because the iToilet has totally frozen and is not responding. Proceed to Step 2
STEP 2: Press and hold the following keys on your iToilet keypad: Ctrl+Shift+Alt+Command+Esc. This doesn't do anything either, so proceed to Step 3.
...Et cetera.
This isn't satire. This is vicious and bitter-minded venom. Satire wouldn't have lines singing the praises of Windows XP. The wording, the texture is all wrong for satire-- it points at a much more petty motivation for doing this kind of thing. Just hearing someone voluntarily standing up and cheering for Microsoft sickens me-- and the thought that it's not done as parody made it difficult for me to drive in to work this morning without veering off into a ditch.
Th guy claims to be a 3D artist with his own studio specializing in 3D Studio Max. Since he's in the industry, one would have to assume that he's familiar with the reasons why Macs are widely favored there. It's not because of Macolytes, it's because the machines are better suited to the task. And he's either railing against what he sees as a ridiculous contender against the righteous Microsoft hegemony, or else he's just got a very poorly developed sense of humor.
I'm going to mail him and find out. I certainly hope it's the latter; because people who take pleasure in kicking the underdog are not welcome on my planet.
|
|
11:13 - Gah!
http://www.apple.com/education/emac/
|
(top) |
I think that's the reaction everybody has had this morning to the out-of-the-blue announcement of the eMac. At least, once we realized it was for real, and not some kind of bizarre post-April-Fools joke.
It's a new edumacation-oriented Mac-- priced at $999 and $1199, which is what I would probably peg as its biggest weakness for its target market-- which seems to amount specification-wise to the new iMac with a 17" CRT and no DVD-R option, which brings the price down by about $400. Now, granted, it means Steve-o's "Death of the CRT" comment back in January may have been a tad premature-- so I'm wondering whether this machine has only been in development for less than four months or something.
It's a nice piece of design work. The speakers have covers (which they seem to have removed for a few of the PR shots). The screen is big, supports hi-res mode (1280x1024), and weighs 50 pounds (hey, built-in theft protection, as some wag pointed out). It has a G4. It has lots of FireWire and USB. The AirPort slot is right inside the optical-drive door, which makes me wonder-- yeah, it's easy to install, but it's also easy for a kid to yank it out... isn't it? ...Unless it's a PCMCIA card...?
So, hey-- it could be a winner. Sure caught us all by surprise. Nice pre-WWDC fanfare-less announcement, Steve. We never know what you're gonna do next, do we?
Naturally, because it's a CRT-based all-in-one, its shape is reminiscent of the orignial iMac (which, incidentally, is still being sold). What really gets me is how so many of the headlines are now cackling about the machine's lack of candy-like colors. "No pretty colors on this souped-up machine!" crows the San Francisco Chronicle. Has nobody been paying attention? For two years now we've been hearing groundless rumors being started by random pundits about how the TiBook will be available in several anodized metallic colors and patterns, how the iPod would soon come with snap-on color patterns, how the Luxo iMac would soon be available in black and green and ultramarine. Hello? They haven't been doing multiple colors for years now. That was an iMac stunt, designed to grab people's attention for Apple's comeback. And now that comeback has succeeded, and so Apple's design aesthetic has moved on to the current silvery-white and stainless-steel look. No, it's not "Snow", so all you resellers-- quit listing the iBook and the iPod and the iMac as "Snow", like you expect there to be new color options any day now.
I'm also hearing that some morons are still pissing and moaning about the lack of floppy drives in new Macs, and (bizarrely) acting surprised that this one doesn't have a floppy either. Why the crap should it? Macs haven't had floppies since 1998-- and good riddance to 'em. We don't need floppies. We have CDs. Burning a CD is now almost as fast as writing to a floppy-- so why confuse people with two forms of media that do almost exactly the same thing? What's the point of supporting an obsolete 80s technology when we have a perfectly serviceable replacement? These machines are designed to be online at all times, so they can share files over the network just fine. Boot floppy? Hey, Slick, Macs can boot from CD just fine, unlike PCs. No freaky BIOS settings here. Just hold down C while booting. "But it would only cost them like $5 to add a floppy drive, and then it could be compatible with PCs!" Yeah, and they'd have to make room in the case and design around it, and it'd be another component to worry about in a machine designed for simplicity. Look, floppies are dead, and the sooner you get used to that, the better off we'll all be.
And if your beef with the lack of floppy is because it interferes with your ability to run Linux on a Mac, well, I've got a few ideas for where you can insert that disk.
|
| Sunday, April 28, 2002 |
17:59 - Music for Context
http://www.taiko.org
|
(top) |
Several years ago, when I was working part-time as an usher for the performances by various groups at Beckman Auditorium at Caltech, I ushed a show by San Jose Taiko. These guys are the premier Japanese Taiko troupe in the country, from what I can gather, and their show has only gotten better.
I saw them again today. One thing that I couldn't help but notice is how much fun the performers are obviously having. They time-keeping shouts they give to each other aren't just clinical cue markers; they're whoops of exhilaration. And I don't blame them a bit. After all, I mean-- can you imagine a performance art that's more fun than banging on drums in costume, moving in sync with eight or ten other people, the spotlights flashing off your sticks, your arms slashing off in various diagonals like a primal version of an N'Sync dance act? It's probably one of the most tiring things you can do on stage (well, that arts patrons will watch), but one of the most energizing ever.
It makes me think-- Taiko is a great example of a musical form that shares a lot of fundamental structural elements with Western music. I heard on NPR a little while ago from a Japanese jazz-group member that before Western influence came along, Japanese music didn't really have any concept of harmony; music was mostly just ascetic, simple melodies on a single instrument. Very Shinto. They weren't using the Dorian scale or anything weird that would be totally incompatible with Western music, preventing "fusion" stuff or anything. But when Western music came along, the Japanese found out with a shock the possibilities that are opened up just by allowing a concept like harmony-- the Beethoven, Mozart, and so on of the day-- and the result is that today, if you want to find the biggest source of Western-style pop music, all you have to do is look at the anime industry.
Heading off to see The Scorpion King. Back later.
|
|
13:45 - We got lucky this time...
http://www.jpost.com/Editions/2002/04/28/LatestNews/LatestNews.47878.html
|
(top) |
...But it seems it's only a matter of time.
Let the bloody IDF do its job.
|
| Saturday, April 27, 2002 |
02:05 - And there's also this.
http://www.iw3p.com/DailyPundit/2002_04_21_dailypundit_archive.php#85041056
|
(top) |
William Quick has a great little essay on the "honor-shame" nature of Islamic countries, and why they act the way they do toward Israel and the US.
Quick gist: It's because a) Everybody else is more successful than they are, even though b) God tells them that they're supposed to be the winners. And of course it's beyond question that God could be wrong.
Therefore, if anybody but them is winning, it must be because they're enemies of God and must be destroyed.
Quick's conclusion is exactly the same as Steven den Beste's was a while ago:
Honor-shame cultures are culturally incapable of renouncing war unless one of two things happens: Either every other state or culture submits to them ("Islam" means "submission"), or they are defeated so decisively the culture itself is destroyed.
Imperial Japan was an honor-shame culture - and history records how that turned out.
Yes. Now, nobody will win any Pulitzers by advocating cultural genocide. But you know, Japan's turned out pretty well in the long run, wouldn't you say?
Israel has more innovative networking-equipment companies than anybody outside Silicon Valley. Japan has raised consumerism to an art form. And you know, one may decry the evils of consumerism and reliance on technology and so on. But I'll take them any day against there being a large amorphous force in the world that wants my country and everything it stands for and every country and culture like it to die.
For a while they flew on, motionless against the starry sweep of the Galaxy, itself motionless against the infinite sweep of the Universe. And then they turned around. "It'll have to go," the men of Krikkit said as they headed back for home.
On the way back they sang a number of tuneful and reflective songs on the subjects of peace, justice, morality, culture, sport, family life and the obliteration of all other life forms.
We can't seal off the Islamic world in an envelope of Slo-time, like they did with the planet Krikkit. We may just have to do the next best thing.
And anybody who disputes the statement that this is about self-defense hasn't been to lower Manhattan recently.
|
|
01:53 - Oh, now that's charming.
http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/04/27/saudi.controllers/index.html
|
(top) |
So the Saudis on their way to visit Bush in Texas requested that no wimmin' be allowed to direct their flights.
Honestly, when they're getting this petty, and this brash-- they know as well as we do that this is a ridiculous, invasive, insensitive thing to ask of us-- it's as though they're doing it just to spite us. It's just swagger. One gets the impression that they think they're invincible, that we woudn't dare touch them. They have the infidels' oil. They walk on water.
And we, meanwhile, wring our hands over bombing during Ramadan and making sure the al Qaeda prisoners get ethnically appropriate meals.
Is it or is it not time to start acting a little bit less like such pussies? Can you imagine what kind of stuff we could be accomplishing right now if we didn't spend all our time being flustered over political correctness that even our opponents can't fathom appreciating?
But at least there's some small consolation:
As for Abdullah's departure from Texas, Pallone said no FAA facilities changed staffing and that in fact a female air traffic controller in Fort Worth directed the prince's flight.
So there.
|
| Friday, April 26, 2002 |
17:24 - Turn On Your Mind
http://www.macobserver.com/forums/viewtopic.php?topic=5148&forum=1&10
|
(top) |
There's a lively discussion going on over at the Mac Observer Forums, over the prospect of Apple creating a set-top box for digital TV. (Think TiVo with MPEG-4, DVD burning, IP file sharing and broadcasting, and Mac-side control.)
Opinion is swaying back and forth-- there are the pros and the cons, and both have their merits. But there's one post out of the clamor that just leaped out at me, by the user "unpeople":
it won't happen, for one very simple reason: steve jobs doesn't like tv
if you understand the man, you understand the plan: jobs believes, rightly, that computers are for turning on the mind, while tv turns off the mind... that's why apple's digital hub is all about creative devices, like digital cameras and camcorders; passive devices, like game consoles and tv tuners don't fit the profile (one could argue that the ipod is a passive device, but music is the perfect background for the creative process)
i could be totally wrong, of course, and apple could announce tomorrow that it's jumping head-first into the "convergence" market, but i'd be willing to bet big money that (a) they won't (b) microsoft will (c) time will show that apple made the right choice
I like that piece of insight. It certainly explains a lot.
Naturally, you'll never gain a 100% market share appealing to the creators instead of the consumers-- the latter account for a tiny percentage of the world at large. And come to think of it, that percentage is reflected pretty clearly in the market-share percentage of the Mac.
|
|
16:35 - Oh good, I'm not the only one.
http://www.macnet2.com/opinion/oped/index.shtml
|
(top) |
John Manzione is apparently still seething with rage-- this article of his, in response to the revelation that Bill Gates had threatened to cancel development of Office for the Mac unless Apple bundled IE with new Macs, is a good deal more incoherent than I'd come to expect from him.
But I'd say he has a good reason.
I don't know about you but I know what I am going to do, both personally and professionally. On the personal side it's not much of a risk but on the business side I am about to take a stand against the largest technology company in the world. I don't care about the ramifications of this move either, sometimes you have to take a stand even if you risk losing your audience.
Personally I have removed every piece of Microsoft software on all my Macs. No more Office, no more IE, no more Microsoft of any kind.
Business wise I will no longer accept any Microsoft products for review. I will no longer take a neutral position when it comes to Microsoft. As a matter of fact, every time I get the opportunity to slam Microsoft for its business practices I will do so. I am even considering a new column which will expose the evil that is Microsoft. I'll be looking for writers that want to take this task on.
Sure, good idea. It'd be no skin off my nose to follow suit-- I've been doing so since about 1997. No Microsoft products get past my threshold.
Yeah, I know it wouldn't do a bit of good-- it probably wouldn't even be a blip on their radar if every concerned Mac user were to institute a comprehensive boycott of all Microsoft products. Even if everybody on the planet who had the guts to mothball their Xboxes and turn off their Asheron's Call machines and refuse to watch any show on TV that runs Microsoft ads and refuse to use AVI movies or Word files, they'd still never even notice. Because there are damned few people willing to do such things, even though there are perfectly serviceable alternatives for all of those things. The path of least resistance is just so very attractive. It's just so easy to express defeat-- y'know, ah well, whatreyagonnado?
But I don't care how much or how little it hurts Microsoft. I have no interest in falling prey to the Virtuous Defeatism that Lileks railed against ("No matter how hard we try, we won't have total and cost-free victory-- so we shouldn't even try to do what we can achieve!") when it was yet unclear what we were going to do in Afghanistan. I'm still going to take a stand, futile though it might be.
Who knows-- it might even spread.
|
|
11:43 - Canadian Snipers
http://www.nationalpost.com/home/story.html?f=/stories/20020423/3932.html
|
(top) |
I'd heard that the Canadian military had been traditionally known in particular for its proficiency with artillery. Apparently, Canadian artillerymen were always regarded as the ones you went to if you wanted something far away to die.
Well, now it seems that Canadian snipers are what are turning heads-- a similar sort of thing, but an interesting shift if it means anything.
"Their professionalism was amazing," Lieut. Overbaugh said. "The Canadians were a very large asset to the mission. I would have loved to have 12 Canadian sniper teams out there. I'd have no problems fighting alongside of them again."
He said the Canadian snipers had equipment far superior to theirs. Their rifles had longer range than the U.S. weapons and better high-tech sights. Lieut. Overbaugh said if another mission comes up, he will request the Canadian sniper teams be sent with his unit.
That's cool. But I couldn't help smiling at this paragraph:
Crawling up into a good position, they set up their .50-calibre rifle -- the MacMillan Tac-50, a weapon the corporal compares to having superhuman power in your hands. "Firing it feels like someone slashing you on the back of your hockey helmet with a hockey stick."
|
|
11:10 - Seems the G-Class is here.
http://www.mercedes-benz.com/e/cars/g-class/default.htm
|
(top) |
On the way to work this morning, I passed two car-carriers headed to Mercedes dealerships. In both of their loads were new G-Class SUVs.
Now that even Jeep has gone yuppie and bulbous, I suppose it's good that at least somebody has taken up the torch of the "timeless-look" vehicle-- one that looks like it could have been built new in the 70s, 80s, 40s, or today.
One thing I noticed about the motorcycle world is that aside from the Gold Wings and the sportbikes with the ultra-involved fairings, motorcycle makers seem fairly immune to the styling trends of the automotive world. A new Honda Nighthawk looks pretty much the same today as it did in 1983. Harleys-- well, it goes without saying that they look the same as they ever did. But in the sportbike world, it's awfully hard to place the era of a bike's design.
This is nice in a way. It means bike design isn't susceptible to the wild swings of stylistic overcompensation that gives us our periodic infatuations with "retro" cars, and it means the makers are more free to concentrate on performance and quality than on style. But you know, I do like style. It's my primary field of interest, in fact, in things with wheels. So I do sort of find myself miffed at that lack of emphasis.
Ah well. There will always be car designs to comment upon.
|
|
10:54 - The Ghost of Technology Past
|
(top) |
Lance used to work for a company called WorldTalk. Back in the mid-90s, WorldTalk had a killer app: an e-mail gateway server package that could translate between just about any of the dozens of proprietary e-mail formats that were in use at the time, in the pre-Web, pre-online-desktop Internet. Companies using cc:Mail could talk to companies using Lotus Notes could talk to companies using SMTP could talk to companies using MS Exchange. All you had to do was buy the WorldTalk gateway, which cost $70,000 and ran on an HP-UX machine which the company preconfigured for you and included in the deal.
It was ingenious, and it worked great. The software included translators for each of the mail systems that would preserve the maximum common formatting that both the sender and the recipient could handle, and it would translate everything in a bidirectional way so that nobody would ever know there was a middleman. To a cc:Mail sender, WorldTalk looked like a cc:Mail server. To an Exchange client, it looked like an Exchange server. They sold all kinds of copies and were making a killing.
Of course, this was in the days before good ol' SMTP mail grew to account for slightly over 100% of Internet e-mail traffic. This consolidation killed off cc:Mail, Lotus Notes, and all the little proprietary competitors one by one. And obviously WorldTalk's market was going to go away eventually.
But whether or not this consolidation would have ever really caused the destruction of WorldTalk through the complete deflation of their business plan is a side issue and now a moot point.
Because, you see, the WorldTalk execs made an odd decision back in about 1996: They figured, hey-- there's this new platform called Windows NT. It's cheap, it runs on any PC-- why don't we produce a cut-rate version of our software that runs on NT, includes only the most popular translators, and costs only $700? That's only one-hundredth the cost of the full standalone HP-UX package we sell right now. Sure, we'll lose some HP-UX customers, but the NT market will explode!
So they did. They sold an NT version of their gateway software that cost $700. And by God, they sold ten times as many copies.
WorldTalk was dead within a year.
This story is what I think of whenever anyone comes up with the brilliant suggestion that Apple should port Mac OS X to the off-the-shelf Intel platform. Hey, they say-- it already compiles for Intel. It wouldn't cost you anything, and it would increase your market share!
Yeah, well, that's just what WorldTalk thought. The instant they started selling the NT version, people stopped buying the $70,000 platform, which is where all their margins came from. Their profits went from astronomical to zero in months flat.
Just because you can do something doesn't mean it's smart to do it.
One of Microsoft's biggest unsung triumphs in Windows, one of the superhuman achievements that few people trumpet, is that it includes drivers and support for practically every piece of hardware in the world. Throw together any kind of running PC, and Windows will probably run on it. This is not an accident, and it's not because all PC hardware is inherently compatible. Nothing could be further from the truth (well, few things could, anyway). The Windows driver code structure is one of the hugest, most complex, and most rickety structures ever seen-- and the fact that Windows works as well as it does is a marvel. Microsoft doesn't even have to bother putting anything on the Windows box about what kind of hardware it's compatible with. It's an astonishing feat on their part.
Can you imagine what Apple would be letting themselves in for if they took on the task of building in support for all these thousands of vaguely-spec-compliant pieces of hardware?
Because that's what they would have to do. And not only that, they would have to devote their primary share of effort to it-- because in a choice between buying a Mac, priced to please shareholders who expect Apple to make 30% margins in an industry where Dell only makes 8%... or buying or building a cheap PC clone and a copy of Mac OS X to run on it-- which would you choose?
Apple would never sell a Mac again.
Totally aside from any application-compatibility questions, this is the biggest reason why Steve Jobs has repeatedly and bluntly told people (as in the Apple shareholders' meeting yesterday) that he has no plans to bring Mac OS X to the Intel platform. It sounds like a good idea to people who don't understand how the money flows and where the effort goes-- but once you see that "selling more copies" is not the only axis that determines whether a product is successful, it's clear that such a move would be suicide for Apple.
They're profitable right now; they're healthier than Gateway and selling more computers. They have no reason to gamble it all on a make-or-break land-grab whose success is anything but assured. Apple's best hopes are in staying the course. They've got a winning formula right here, and they'd be wise not to tamper with it.
|
| Thursday, April 25, 2002 |
02:00 - Stupid Error Messages
http://iarchitect.com/errormsg.htm
|
(top) |
The Interface Hall of Shame is an outstanding site for anybody who values good user-interface design style and ideals. This page, showcasing shameful Error Messages, is one of the most revealing ones in the whole site. But don't forget to check out the rest of the site too; at the very least, it's good for a laugh.
|
|
17:25 - Blog Clusters (Blusters?)
http://www.denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2002/04/Clustersintheweb.shtml
|
(top) |
It would seem that Steven den Beste has just put up his Atlas of the Blogosphere-- a model that's at least, if not fully accurate or useful for navigation, conceptually pretty realistic. His point is that blogs have formed into clusters or knots based on common interests and common themes, and from what I've seen I'd say it's pretty much true.
He also talks about how blogs have grown out of Usenet; I'd say that this is about half the story. For a long time now, Usenet has been in decline-- especially in usefulness-- from its one-time height of all-inclusive freedom. Nowadays most groups are 90% spam, and the only way I've been able to get any good out of Usenet lately is with private little newsgroup trees hosted on private, password-protected, spam-filtered servers. Usenet has turned third-world on us; the only remnant of the Old Days now is the gated communities, the heavily guarded compounds dedicated to focused interests. Time was that each university and company had its own hierarchy of newsgroups, which didn't get much traffic compared the alt. groups; now, though, one hardly dares venture out of the private servers.
But there was a place for people to go: Web discussion boards. UltimateBB and VBulletin and Ikonboard and their ilk have provided a medium that's a lot more attractive especially to the young newcomers to the Internet-- those who may well not even be aware that Usenet exists. Columns at pro news sites have discussion boards. Static websites have discussion boards. Blogs have discussion boards. While this medium has certain advantages over Usenet ("avatar" images, a more visible and permanent topic-threading structure, the ability to edit and delete posts, and much tighter integration into websites whose content supports them), it obviously also has some major drawbacks. For one, Web servers aren't terribly well suited to this kind of thing. You have to have a database back-end of some type, you have to render HTML, you have to spew out large-content pages over limited amounts of bandwidth, and if people start role-playing, it chews up your CPU something fierce. Usenet was a beautiful example of the old military Internet, with its distributed, fail-safe network structure and its constant stream of update chatter which guaranteed widespread availability for only a small cost in latency. Now, we have extreme centralization and bandwidth-intensiveness-- which is what the Net seems to be gravitating towards. It's all about content and branding now, not performance and reliability. And for today's Web generation, that's all okay.
Blogs are the next step beyond discussion boards. They leverage discussion boards in order to promote community interaction, but the structure is all quite different-- there's now a "Star of the Show", an emcee who provides all the "real" content; the discussion boards are only there as a courtesy and an afterthought. Some blogs put comments inline and give them top billing. Some provide access to the boards through links off the posts. Some (like myself) don't have discussion boards at all. Cross-blog discussion from author to author, interestingly, seems to take place mostly in good ol' direct e-mail, rather than in the discussion forums anyway. So the blog model is a good deal less democratic and more of a potential power trip for the blog owner; but the good news is, starting one's own blog is pretty dang easy.
I had for a while intended to put up my own hierarchy of blog types, based on my own perfunctory observations-- from what I could tell, there were four basic types:
- The "daily journal" style blog. One post per day, in editorial-column style, with a good neatly-tied-up structure and a point to be made. You know who I'm talking about here.
- The link blog. Mostly links to articles, some commentary, but the real content is the links. Lots of 'em.
- The essay blog. Most posts are big, long, and thoughtful.
- The LiveJournal. I've found these mostly to be what (as den Beste notes) calls itself the A/N crowd-- mostly kids posting injokes, dishing with their friends, posting quiz-meme result graphics, and banging out stream-of-consciousness gibberish loudly trying to prove how weird they are.
I'm not sure where I fit in this-- somewhere between 2 and 4, with a little of each. Den Beste seems to have pegged me as exemplary of a postulated "Mac-lovers' Cluster", which I suppose shouldn't surprise me-- though it was by no means my intention when I first started this thing. (I figured I would spend most of my time talking about Tolkien, cars, motorcycles, and movies.) But I guess there's a lesson in that; blogs grow in the telling, as it were, and can take on a life of their own regardless of the author's intent.
What is it about blogs that has made them suddenly the medium of choice for airing one's views? I think it's that there is a major, fundamental difference between two kinds of people who post on the Net: those who have a need to dominate a forum, and those who are content merely to contribute to it. I'm not implying that there's anything wrong with this-- just that I'm sure it's true. Usenet and web-boards both provided the ability for one or two people to rise to the top of the lists and become known as THE poster, the Big Cheese of the forum. They would have single-digit member numbers and a post-frequency tag like "Honor Charter Big Kahuna Member" (as opposed to everybody else's "N00b Whiny Peon Junior Member"). The whole structure of the system would revolve around them-- but not de jure, just de facto.
Hence blogs: a way for opinionated people like me to guarantee their supremacy at the peak of the discussions, the control over the whole shebang. There's no way for someone in the forums to hijack it and take over. And that lets the blog owner do all kinds of fun stuff, which can be good or bad.
In fact, now that I think about it, it all reminds me rather uncomfortably of that classic Life of Brian scene with all the raving nutters standing on pedestals preaching about Armageddon and trying to attract crowds of onlookers like barkers at a midway. (In fact, I feel not unlike Brian in that scene: "Uhh... don't judge other people, or else you might get judged too!" "Who, me? Oh, thank you very much!") I'm also reminded of the loonies in the plaza up at Berkeley, like Paul of the Pillar-- I heard tales of him from my friends who went off to college a couple of years before I did, back in the early 90s; Paul had a sign and a pillar, and he would stand on it and yell, or smoke, or just stand there looking serene. It didn't matter to him, as long as people knew he was there: he was Paul of the Pillar. Dot com.
As for cross-linking-- I have no idea who links to me. I've never checked the logs. I'm totally in the dark as to how many people read this thing, and frankly I kinda like it that way. (Though I must admit it's sort of unnerving when I get e-mails from old high-school friends responding to some recent inflammatory post as though to imply that he had been reading it all along and I only just now went over the line, or when I get mail out of the blue from some "A-list" blogger who found his or her way here God only knows how.) I also don't know, therefore, how many people find other sites through the links on this page; but considering how much back-tracing exploration that emerges, startled, here, can only be happening as a result of people poring over referrer logs, I guess I can infer that traffic must be heavier than I'd thought.
I can also infer that the clusters den Beste talks about, while they're definitely a good illustration of how things tend to be structured, are extremely porous and malleable. And that's one thing about the blog world that I think is pretty cool.
|
|
13:57 - Whirring away into the night
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/personaltechnology/134435832_ptnewmac13.html
|
(top) |
An old Mac is being retired.
No, an old Mac. As in, a Mac SE from 1986. And it was still in full-time use, doing newsletters, writing, even networking.
But the venerable machine has been giving us a few problems in recent years.
The school group wanted to put the newsletter up on its Internet site, so we put the newsletter on a disk. But no one could open the disk — the conclusion was that our floppy drive was just a tiny bit off, making the disk unreadable except on our machine. We thought it would make a great encryption device, but the market for it would have been small.
It could no longer be used for even simple things like e-mail on the Internet. And when you turned it on, you got the unhappy Mac face, but if you turned it off and then on again quickly, the happy Mac face appeared.
So they got a new iMac. Mostly for the size, they say-- it fits so easily on the desktop. But, I mean, c'mon... this is a fifteen-year-old machine. And it still works most of the time, enough so that the owners aren't going to junk it. Who could? They're going to put it out to stud-- er, pasture, I mean. It'll graze happily in the out-of-the-workpath fields of pre-hard-drive nostalgia, its happy-Mac startup icon still smiling away.
As noted on The Mac Observer, who fusses this much over the retirement of a truly grizzled old warrior of a computer? Indeed, who writes a column about it? Mac users, that's who. Yeah, we know, it's "just a computer". Yeah, and the PCs I've used have shed parts and turned into dusty old hulks when they outlived their usefulness, donating vital organs toward the birth of new beige boxes. The old cases tend to sit around in closets or get flung into the dump once their still-valuable components have been salvaged. It's hard to tell where one computer ends and the next begins.
But Macs-- well, they have personalities. They're members of the family. And this old veteran is gonna be telling war stories for a long time yet to come.
|
| Wednesday, April 24, 2002 |
00:04 - The Sarge's History Lessons
http://www.sgtstryker.com/weblog/archives/week_2002_04_21.html#000750
|
(top) |
Go check out Sgt. Stryker's last couple of days' worth of posts. He's got a flip historical perspective on the past couple of thousand years in the Holy Land that's probably about as accurate as anything we've heard out of Arab News or CNN lately.
And it's funny. And it's informative. I certainly know more than I did ten minutes ago. Go take a look through his "Yep, I'm Gonna Nitpick" and "I'm an Infidel, You're an Infidel" posts.
|
|
22:35 - A stray scrap of thought...
|
(top) |
In heated discussions over the past few days, I've run across the claim many times that religion is inherently valuable in that it "promotes good morals and ethics". Well, in response to that, I say this:
If the only thing preventing you from lying, cheating, stealing, raping, and killing is the fear of going to Hell-- rather than any ability to discern consciously that these things are wrong in and of themselves-- then you're not the kind of person I can trust not to do any of those things.
In other words, if you need religion to tell you that these things are wrong, then you have my pity-- but you can't automatically expect me to need it too.
When it comes to providing incentive to do or not do something, I will always prefer reason rather than fear as the motivator.
|
|
18:22 - Skippy's List
http://www.skippyslist.com
|
(top) |
I've been instructed by Lance to "spread this meme":
THE 213 THINGS Skippy IS NO LONGER ALLOWED TO DO IN THE U.S. ARMY
That is, things against which SPC Schwarz, the site's owner, has been specifically instructed not to do. In most cases, after doing them.
Just... go look. I'm not even going to try to quote any of it.
It doesn't appear to have been updated since late September, at least according to the note at the bottom-- but it's still worth a long, painful laugh.
|
|
18:19 - The "Gazelle Company" Sets Out
http://www.usatoday.com/life/theater/2002/2002-04-24-lion-king.htm
|
(top) |
Hey, look... The Lion King Broadway Musical is actually traveling.
Who knew it could be done? The stationary shows tend to take up entire three-story theaters with all their machinery, scenery, and so on. The traveling show uses 19 trucks to cart all that stuff around; I wonder how much different it is from the previous ones (it would have to be at least a little less ambitious, I'm sure, by necessity).
Of course, Julie Taymor seems to have faith in the venture's success:
But Schumacher isn't worrying about whether the show's technical considerations will prove daunting on the road. "Julie has said that you could do The Lion King on the back of a flatbed truck — because what really transports you is the mythic nature of the story and its wonderful music," he says.
Indeed. And in any case it'd be silly not to try, after all-- to say that the existing shows have been successful would be to do them a grave disservice through impoverishedness of language.
Granted, I'm not the world's hugest fan of the show. But I'll certainly want to see it if it rolls through Silicon Valley.
|
|
13:52 - "Redmond Justice" plays on
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=514&e=4&cid=514&u=/ap/20020423/ap_o
|
(top) |
This is probably news to none, at least conceptually, but here's what Bill Gates has been known to do:
U.S. District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson, who handled the original liability case, found that Microsoft retaliated against other companies many times.
When Apple Computer chose a rival Web browser over Microsoft's, Gates called Apple's chief executive to ask him "how we should announce the cancellation of" Microsoft's translation of the Office business suite for Apple's Macintosh computers.
On paper, this doesn't sound that terrible. But picture yourself, for a moment, in Steve Jobs' shoes, circa 1997. You've just returned to Apple. You're sitting there in your office, you're more than a little bit on edge, your company is being widely ridiculed and yet you have a vision to uphold. You make a decision which is intended to please the idealistic core of your constituency-- bundling Netscape with new Macs. And then the phone rings.
It's Bill Gates, with a snide and smarmy tone, telling you that you've just fucked with the wrong people, boyo. Some people don't know what's good for 'em... such a shame. Well, now you're gonna get your just reward-- reap what you sow. So, would you prefer knife-in-the-back, or concrete shoes, or a good old-fashioned gangland sniper bullet? Perhaps poison? Maybe anthrax? What's your pleasure, friend? I'm all ears. I'm flexible. Let's hear it.
When you hang up the phone, trembling with mingled rage and terror, what do you do? Do you just roll over like a good little vassal to your Lord and Master?
Or do you veeerrry slllooooowwly and caaarefully declare war?
It takes a special kind of pettiness to be Bill Gates. Unfortunately, all that America sees of him is "Genius who made good", not "Jealous little cretin who throws tantrums whenever anyone doesn't do his bidding". And it's too bad that those tantrums leave smoking craters in their wake.
|
|
13:40 - Here, Penny Arcade-- take yourself a whack
http://www.penny-arcade.com/view.php3
|
(top) |
The first thing I saw this morning was an ICQ message of Marcus predicting my imminent blogging of this Penny Arcade strip. Yeah, I was powerless to resist. Who am I to introduce instability into the timeline?
By the way, though Steven den Beste cautioned me the other day against declaring the Xbox out-for-the-count just yet (bearing in mind the iterative improvements over many years that have been part of every other Microsoft product, from Windows to WinCE to IE to Office, supported until it's viable by pure marketing clout and money), I have a counterargument that I forgot to mention in e-mail. And that's that Microsoft's previous iterative development efforts have all been software-- high-margin stuff they could make a profit on even if they only sold a measly few copies. This time, it's hardware... and sold-at-a-loss hardware at that. It's going to cut them a lot deeper if they plan to subsidize Xbox sales (with the new European price cut, they're now making what... -50% margins?) than it ever did to give away Windows in shady bundling deals. Their big gamble is that people will buy enough Xbox games to offset the hardware costs via the licensing deals; but if people rush out and buy Xboxes and then suddenly find that whoops! there aren't any games! ... well, even Microsoft won't be able to sustain that for very long.
Especially if even gamers ridicule it. After all, IE caught on even in its sucky early days because it was bundled with Windows. WinCE is winning on its shiny colors and the Maglite-like glow of the iPaq screen. And Office won because it was ubiquitous (nice little feedback-loop thing there). Not so the case here, where gamers (who are fickle) will rally around the PS2 and Gamecube if they've determined that the Xbox is a waste of money. The competition is strong and has widespread brand loyalty and all kinds of market advantages. That's never been the case before.
So all I'm saying is that the dynamic is going to be different here, because the Xbox is such a clear market loser and a loss leader. That's a bad combination, even for Microsoft.
|
|
10:08 - Look out, Itchy! He's Irish!
|
(top) |
Have you noticed that some racial stereotypes seem to be inextricably with us and are widely regarded as "okay", even by their targets?
I call to witness the Irish stereotype. It just doesn't fit with the stereotypes we consider "bad" today-- the Irish are white, after all. When I was a little kid, I knew what "Black" was, and I knew what "Mexican" was. But I didn't know what "Irish" was, nor "Jewish". As far as I could tell, they were just more flavors of Miscellaneous.
The Irish stereotype survived well into this century, largely as the Irish Cop in WB cartoons and Broadway musicals. Go take a look at Cap'n Wacky's Unfortunate St. Patrick's Day Cards from earlier this century to see what it used to be like. But today, perhaps because immigration from Ireland is no longer a "problem", all we have left from it is the Lucky Charms leprechaun mascot, and self-conscious jocularity like what The Simpsons does on a regular basis. "Whacking Day was invented as an excuse to beat up the Irish!" "Oy, 'tis true! Oy took many a lump. But 'twas all in good fun!"
And the mockery is all in good fun, too, it seems. Somehow we've moved beyond that particular stereotype making fun of people, and instead it makes fun of itself. All the stereotype is targeting now is the Irish stereotype.
The same thing has happened, to a lesser extent, with Italians. We still have the Mafia-fascination that makes The Sopranos a hit, and Hollywood knows they'll never flop with a mob movie as long as they throw in Robert de Niro and Billy Crystal or something. (Yeah, yeah, I liked Analyze This.) There's still some general slicked-back pointedness about Italians as portrayed in the media, something of the old-style stereotyping that hasn't yet moved on to the recursive "meta-stereotyping" style. But I suppose time will bring that about just as it did with the Irish.
But what about blacks? Hell, we've come a long way. We've got stereotypes now, but they're squarely in the latter category-- almost over-the-top in that direction, as a matter of fact. The Black stereotype is such an overcompensation for past wrongs that it's a very flattering one. The contrast is astonishing. It's been decades since we've seen the "doan' hurt me, massah" kind of thing we can see in Jerry on the Job, an early-part-of-the-century daily strip thoughtfully archived for posterity by (who else?) Lileks. No, what we have now is sort of a Shaft/Samuel L. Jackson montage-- a self-assured, swaggering, pimpin' 70s sex machine. It's the Chef of South Park. It's the Green Lantern of Justice League. It's a stereotype that's about the diametric opposite of what it once was, and so it's even beyond being a parody of itself. It's a creation of the media. It's a product of our collective guilt. It's affirmative action for stereotypes.
This has happened because the lot of blacks in America has been particularly grievous, and so it's our immediate first choice when we decide we must do something about racial prejudice. But it seems to me that the "melting pot" is still working; multiculturalism is a fad, and miscegenation continues as our intra-cultural borders dissolve. One day we'll have a lot more meta-stereotypes like the current Irish, Scottish, and Australian ones that we toss about with such abandon today-- and a lot fewer of the direct ones that actually offend people.
|
|
09:19 - Anthems (uh, Antha?)
http://instapundit.blogspot.com/?/2002_04_21_instapundit_archive.html#85031606
|
(top) |
The latest in a series of observations by Glenn Reynolds. The last line of his commentary (while I wouldn't go so far as to say no, it's not too harsh) certainly twangs a sympathetic chord on my nerves.
STILL MORE ON CANADIAN ANTHEM-BOOING: Reader Evan McElravy writes:
It gets uglier. In the past when relations between the "two solitudes" have been tense, as happens from time to time, there are periodic episodes of hockey fans in English cities booing the French verses of "O Canada." There was one game in particular a few years ago, in Calgary I think, where some Canadiens players refused to go back out on the ice after. So Canadians boo their own national anthem too, though I'm not sure that excuses the Detroit fans I've been to a fair number of U.S.-Canada sporting events (baseball and hockey, on both sides of the border) over the years and can't remember it ever having happened, but I suspect it isn't that uncommon. Given that Detroit has a closer intimacy with Canada than any other American city (well, Buffalo), I suspect that there aren't any real hard feelings though. Imagine if individual cities in the U.S. had their own "civic anthems" that played before games. I suspect there would be plenty of booing then and nobody would think twice about; would that really be any better than doing it to another country, though?
I was brought up to believe that booing was generally rude. Of course, we didn't go to many hockey games, either.
UPDATE: Reader Tom Milway writes:
I'm in Montreal right now, and I am a huge hockey fan. Last night at the Molson Centre more than a few idiots booed the Star Spangled Banner. The same thing happened Sunday night in Vancouver, the same night that the Pistons fans booed O Canada. Classless behaviour in cities that benefit extraordinarily from American patronage.
Hmm. You think that sports fans are just idiots? No, that would be too harsh.
Oh yeah, and scroll down through the past several days to see plenty of bizarre observations of hockey-arena behavior along these lines.
Like this one:
STILL MORE ON THE CANADA-BOOING INCIDENT -- Dan Hartung writes:
I recently went to a Blackhawks game and some jerk behind us was constantly yelling "DETROIT SUCKS!"
Except the other team was Pittsburgh.
Don't think a lot of thought goes into this ...
I tell you what, my Canadian friends: Don't judge us by our hockey fans, and we won't judge you by yours. :)
Oh... and you know, I wrote this before I went over to USS Clueless and saw that den Beste had written almost exactly the same thing. I swear. Don't hurt me.
|
| Tuesday, April 23, 2002 |
22:59 - The Season Begins
|
(top) |
Today I rode the ZX-11 in for the first time this year. Now that Daylight Savings Time is here, and it's light enough in the evenings for me not to have to ride in the dark, it's time to come to work sheathed in leather once again and wipe the bugs off my visor every few days.
I'll probably be doing this two or three times a week. Well, maybe not that often; it does take up a fair amount of time before and afterwards, and it's a pain to try to walk anywhere in motorcycling boots for lunch. No, driving is still going to be the staple mode of transportation.
But still...
|
|
19:24 - Gateway's introduces... a TiBook
http://www.gateway.com/products/notebooks/p4.asp?seg=hm
|
(top) |
Kris and I can't find any consistent dimensions or specifications on these pages, but one thing's for sure: this is one big laptop.
Whether the 15.7" (in the "Product Tour" pop-up window) or the 15" (on the main page) figure for the screen is correct, it's a standard 4:3 screen, so it's massive. And judging by the thickness of the machine on the side views, it's got to be at least 1.5" thick-- maybe even 2". Talk about the Mother of All Laptops.
But what gets us is the motherboard layout. Go to the "Product Tour" and run your mouse around the various sides. Look-- every single side has ports and slots and controls. PCMCIA, optical drive, audio plugs, and FireWire are on the left; USB and "multimedia drive" are on the right; audio controls are on the front; and the back has video, network, parallel and serial ports. Plug everything in and this machine would look like a big cilia-encased paramecium.
That's for the bigger model, the 600L. Now look at the smaller one, the 450L. This one has ports and bays all over the place too-- but in all different places. It's a totally different motherboard layout. No wonder Gateway is hemorrhaging money, if they can't streamline their designs any better than this.
As if I needed to point this out: the Apple laptops cluster all their ports together in one place. The TiBook has all the ports in the back, the slot-loading optical drive in the front, and the PCMCIA slot on the left. The iBook has the drive bay and power on the right and everything else on the left. It may be a nightmare to put back together, but it's certainly a lot neater.
And I'm still not sure what the point is of all the PC makers insisting on having both a DVD drive and a CD-RW, or a DVD-RW and a CD-ROM, or just two optical drives of any kind. "Well, it's so you can rip... from one to another... easi..ly. Or something..."
Hey, good luck to 'em. The way things are looking, they're going to need it.
|
|
19:12 - So Episode I was just a warm-up?
http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101020429/
|
(top) |
The new Time cover story is on Episode II: Attack of the Clones.
It's an oddly astute and self-conscious article, smirking inwardly about how Time itself had joined the hype machine for Episode I before it hit theaters; indeed, considering that the magazine is now plumping for the second episode of the New Series with just as much vigor and an insistence that they were "just kidding" about the first one ("This time for sure!"), and considering Time's cover back in January of the new iMac that got mistakenly released before Jobs even unveiled the machine-- well, one might be forgiven for imagining that running ads disguised as journalism is all it does these days.
Well, it certainly makes Episode II sound like it has possibilities. I'm not going to say I'm really looking forward to it; it seems there's a scene where "Anakin and Obi-Wan drag-race the changeling Zam Wessel across Coruscant's wonderfully varied urban nightscape" (Chekov! Say nuclearr wessels!), and Jar Jar and Watto are back for encores, though who asked for them I'll never be able to guess. (Yeah, yeah, Lucas is a Slave to his Vision-- he listens to no man's plot criticism and no fan's derision! Hey, if that's true, how come the whole first movie was written around a bloody merchandising stunt-- a made-for-video-game racing scene replete with announcers straight out of ESPN-4-KiDz? "Whoah, now there's some Tusken Raiders on the course! Better watch out for those!" "AAOOOOOUUWWW! That's gotta hurt!")
Reportedly, this one's going after the Titanic audience with a tender love story. Oh, good. Yeah, that's the way to recapture the spirit of the first three movies. Oh, and Yoda is the real "action hero" of this movie, too. Cripes.
I don't know... I'll watch it, but I'll tell you where my hopes are not, and that is up.
|
|
18:29 - Oh:
http://www.appleturns.com/scene/?id=3701
|
(top) |
...But don't let that stop you from taking in today's AtAT. While today's episode doesn't seem to take into account the latest hoax report, it does teeter back and forth across the "joke" threshold-- and it's plenty funny to boot.
But that's just the warm-up for further fun little factoids from Apple-land:
Meanwhile, if you took a lot of guff from Gateway fans back in 1997 or thereabouts because Apple was "going out of business," feel free to call them up and gloat unattractively; not only is Gateway still copying Apple's designs, but the company is also now losing money (while Apple's making a profit) and shipping fewer systems than Apple is. No joke; Apple says it sold 813,000 Macs last quarter, while Gateway only shipped 645,000 cowboxes. Of course, there's the fact that Apple's 813,000 Macs were sold worldwide, while Gateway's 645,000 number is for U.S. sales only-- but considering that Gateway pretty much shut down its overseas operations last August and claims that it's "no longer actively selling its products" in the UK, Australia, Japan, etc., we figure those 645,000 domestic systems basically do represent the company's total units sold worldwide.
In other words, yes, Apple appears to be kicking Gateway's flank steaks up one wall and down the other. Yeah, who's beleaguered now, punk?
Huh. I didn't see that one coming, but hey, we'll take it.
Who else suspects that in five years, Dell will be the only PC hardware maker left in the world?
|
|
18:15 - IHBT. IHL. HAND.
http://www.applelinks.com/articles/2002/04/20020423140855.shtml
|
(top) |
According to this AppleLinks article, the now-infamous "Macs are Satan's Computers" article from a couple of days ago was a troll after all. A very, very elaborate and well-done hoax.
As you will recall, I did express my suspicion that it was a troll before I even launched into my anti-religious tirade. After all, I'd recently been baited (unsuccessfully, but still) into falling for the "TruthMedia" review of The Fellowship of the Ring over at SomethingAwful.com, and I wasn't about to bite this time unless it really seemed genuine. And it did.
But apparently it's not. And this isn't even yet known for sure, because Applelinks' conclusion comes mostly from analysis and context and intuition, not from any well-hidden admission of guilt somewhere. After all, the site is huge for a hoax. It's extremely well put-together. And hey, what do I know about how to tell an actual religious zealot from a parody of one?
If it's a hoax, I doff my hat-- but you know, I'm still not going to retract the posts I put up in response to it. I've seen plenty of propaganda that's no less funky than this, produced by people every bit as wacked-out as the author of this one seemed to be, and my comments addressed to them remain. Frankly, I wouldn't be a bit surprised if there were thousands of fundies who did write in about that page with shock and horror over the hellspawn computers they'd been suckered into buying.
Heh. I knew there had to be something of a clue in the fact that my e-mail to the guy bounced.
|
|
18:07 - The Press is Lovin' Apple
http://www.macobserver.com/article/2002/04/23.1.shtml
|
(top) |
The Mac Observer corrals three recent articles, all linked to by Apple in their "Hot News" section, which disparage Windows XP and join the OS X hype bandwagon. This is certainly a welcome change from the doom-n-gloom we heard over and over back in 1997-- it seems that the tide has well and truly turned.
One of the articles mentioned is the one by Stewart Alsop from yesterday. As TMO comments:
You may remember Stewart Alsop as the man who ranted and raved with great gnashing of teeth and pulling of hair when Apple bought NeXT, Inc. in 1997. He wanted the company to buy Be, Inc. instead, a company in which his own venture capital company had a large interest. Later, he predicted the death of Apple, as so many other people have done from about 1982 until last week. In recent months, Mr. Also has changed his tune considerably, starting when he came back to the Mac platform in June of 2001. In any event, it's a very pleasant change to read Mr. Alsop speaking so highly of the Mac platform today, especially considering the heapin' helping of Humble Pie (mixed with a tasty side order of crow) he had to eat in order to do so.
Winnin' folks back to the flock, eh? Sounds good to me.
|
|
13:49 - Do they all do this?
http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/world/story/0,1870,115573,00.html
|
(top) |
I must say, this does kick up my respect for Bush a notch.
Under the watchful eyes of Secret Service experts, according to his spokesman, Mr Bush backed a 2002 Chevrolet Camaro down a practice track and spun 180 degrees at 65 kmh.
The car continued front-end-first in the same direction - an evasive manoeuvre known as the 'J turn' that Secret Service drivers might make if they came under attack.
Over lunch, we couldn't resist tossing back and forth images of Bush's motorcade barreling down a city block-- and inside the Presidential car, all the windows are tinted and rolled up except for the driver's... and Bush is driving, with his arm hanging out the window.
He snatches an intercom mike from the Secret Service guy (hmm, can't say "SS", can I?) and yells into it, "C'mon, see if you can keep up! Yeee-haaa!" And he guns it. (You gotta know the Presidential limo must have God's own engine in it.) And he goes rocketing off out in front of the motorcycles, down the boulevard, running red lights, and the Secret Service guys are pressed back into their seats and holding on for dear life. "Uh.... Mr. President..."
|
| Monday, April 22, 2002 |
21:58 - Hey, everybody! Let's all take turns nailing the coffin shut!
http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,52014,00.html
|
(top) |
Look, look! Seamus Blackley, the driving force behind the Xbox (as I discussed last week), now has one more high-profile, high-tech failure to add to his illustrious résumé.
The co-creator of the Xbox has resigned days after Microsoft conceded the unit was struggling internationally and would miss its initial sales targets.
Seamus Blackley, a physicist by training who also worked in Hollywood before joining Microsoft (MSFT), plans to start a new venture, the details of which he will begin discussing in the next few weeks, said his spokeswoman, Susan Lusty.
News of Blackley's departure comes just days after Microsoft said it would miss its fiscal year-end sales target for the Xbox by as much as 40 percent, a shortfall it blamed on weak international sales. Those weak sales led to price cuts in Europe and Australia last week.
The console has also struggled in Japan, selling just over 190,000 units in its first six weeks there, according to Japanese game magazine publisher Enterbrain. By comparison, the console sold nearly 1.5 million units in its first six weeks in the United States last year.
Pobrissimo. My tears doth stream.
Serves you $%#$% well right, you egotistical little sycophant.
This is possibly the best outcome I could ever have imagined. Rest in peace, Xbox, and may you be ridiculed in memory. And Seamus, may the shame of being behind the Xbox haunt your career for the rest of your life. May you be the John DeLorean of technology.
I'm going to sleep soundly and happily tonight.
|
|
21:04 - Feelin' Free... Classic Free...
http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/main.html
|
(top) |
My copy of Photoshop 7.0 came today. Woo-hoo!
I haven't had a chance yet to play with it much, but it looks like there's a lot of new stuff. I'm jumping straight from 5.5 to 7.0, so I don't know what I missed in the 6.x versions; but this one looks like they've polished up the UI experience one hell of a lot. Tools now have actual labels; palettes are dockable; there's a top toolbar with contextual controls for your current tool; so on and so forth. And all the old stuff that I've always liked about Photoshop-- the zoom behavior, the selection tools, the layering-- is all still there and better than before. Even having the drop-shadow from the top toolbar falling on the title bar of the open picture seems like a cool effect, the first useful application of the 3D depth of OS X that I've seen.
And it's OS X-native now. So no more memory allocation, no more crashing, no more counterintuitive menu organization... and no more Classic.
Ah yes, I am happy.
Now, if only for a scanner driver...
By the way-- I was over on Fark.com the other day, and one person posted a picture which he described as his "Photoshop 7 cherry-popping picture", the first one he'd done with the new version. Someone responded saying, "Wait, how did you get your copy of PS7 so early? Or are you one of those Macintosh people? Not that there's anything wrong with that..."
So do we get PS7 before Wintel people do? Like in the old days? Hey, if so, bonus...
|
|
14:57 - It's your own grave you're digging...
http://www.nydailynews.com/today/News_and_Views/City_Beat/a-148459.asp
|
(top) |
Why, look at this. Msgr. Eugene Clark, as reported in the New York Daily News, says that the sex-abuse cases aren't the fault of the church. (Of course not.) They're the fault of homosexuals and of the United States for being too immoral to stamp them out.
"The tendency to homosexuality is a disorder, not a sin," he said. "But the practice of homosexuality is truly sinful."
Some parishioners in the packed pews shifted uneasily, others nodded in agreement and a few walked out. But Clark continued, arguing that it was a "grave mistake" to allow gays in the priesthood. He blamed American society for being "very protective" of homosexuality.
"Homosexuality became in the American exchange of views a protected area," he said. "And unfortunately ... homosexual students were allowed to pass through seminaries. Grave mistake. Not because homosexuals in anyway tend to criminality, but because it is a disorder."
Oh, heavens, we can't be blaming the church for this. We can't hold the venerable institution of Catholicism accountable for the actions of some of its members who managed to lie and cheat their way into a position of power even though the had a mental disorder for which the country should have exterminated them before they'd ever had a chance, huh?
And how does this address the documented fact that most pedophiles are straight men?
"We know — we won't mention it outside the cathedral — we are probably the most immoral country certainly in the Western hemisphere and maybe the larger circle because of the entertainment we suffer and what it's done to our [country's] morals ...," Clark said.
Yeah, it's them video games and rock-n-roll music, isn't it? And a society that encourages people to seek the pursuit of happiness too.
Interesting how there don't seem to be any of these problems in the Netherlands, which is certainly a lot more sexually permissive than the U.S. And indeed most of Europe is. So where's the commensurate horny-priest scandal there?
Indeed, where's the scandal in those churches that let their leaders marry and have sex?
But Catholic League President William Donohue praised Clark. "He makes a great deal of sense and to have this said so articulately by one of the brighter priests in the New York area is very encouraging," Donohue said.
"The internal problem in the church is a lack of governance and due to diligence," he added. "But there is no question about it — this is a societywide problem that goes way beyond the Catholic Church."
Naturally. "It's society's fault!" Now the Church is using that lame excuse?
Listen, Buster: It's not homosexuals who have a problem here. It's the God damned Church.
Sheesh. Every day now it's a new reason to eradicate religion from the planet. See what it does to people's brains? You want to talk about a disorder...
You'd think someone up there was trying to tell us something.
|
|
11:32 - Prejudice and Survival
http://www.lcmedia.com/mind214.htm
|
(top) |
"The Infinite Mind" on NPR last night was about prejudice-- its roots in human behavior and how it works in today's world where "tolerance" is a very new concept.
I didn't hear most of the show, which from the website sounds like something funded by CAIR in order to avert anti-Muslim violence. But the opening essay, by Dr. Fred Goodwin, I did hear-- and it was really a fun listen. One of those flippant, full-of-perspective angles on historical and evolutionary behavior changes that really makes you feel like there are people in this world who "get it". Very refreshing after spending all evening fuming about the religious turd with the vendetta against Macs.
Go visit the page and grab the RealAudio stream.
|
| Sunday, April 21, 2002 |
01:52 - Sorry, I had to.
|
(top) |
I'm not sure why I felt it necessary to write another of what must be a torrent of angry e-mails flooding into this guy's mailbox, but I did. I made sure to make the technological issues much more simplistic than they really are so as to make sure he understands. I probably should have used shorter words anyway.
Dear Teacher of Divinity and Theobiology, or Dungeon Master, or Grand Dragon, or Whatever You Call Yourself,
(I know you probably won't even bother reading this, but that's fine-- I'll be posting it publicly so the rest of the Internet can read it instead.)
Did you know that Microsoft runs its Hotmail service using BSD Unix (because it's a lot more capable and modern and a lot less "obsolete" than Windows 2000, which couldn't handle the load when they tried it)? Did you know that about 90% of the e-mail sent over the Internet is transported using software written by gays and lesbians? Did you know that Linux, the biggest "communist" open-source operating system, is what runs about 50% of the servers on the Internet (and rising), and the market share of the Apache web server (another open-source software package) is about 70% of the Internet and rising?
Did you know that members.truepath.com, the server running your own website, is using Linux and Apache and running DAEEEEEMONS?
(How did I find that out? Must have used black magic or hexes or something. WoooOOooOoooo.)
Did you know that approximately 0% of the cutting-edge and inventive software in the computer industry was written by humorless religious people like yourself-- and about 100% of it was written by people who have a sense of humor and a much more realistic idea than you do of what is important in life?
I won't even begin to address the other inaccuracies in your article, because there are so many of them that it's clear you never intended to be accurate. You just wanted a convenient soapbox from which to shout about your ridiculous little conspiracy theory. What scares me is that people are probably going to think you're a computer expert and know what you're talking about. If only they knew.
I know it must really be threatening to you that the people you consider so "evil" are the ones making all the contributions to society and technology, and all you're doing is telling everybody whom to hate and fear. WE'RE busy making the world a better place, and YOU'RE busy making people's lives tedious and hateful and spiteful. Which of us is helping humanity and which of us is just being malevolently paranoid and bitter?
I know you think that as long as you spend your life being miserable and making sure everybody with whom you have contact is miserable too, you will get to go to Heaven-- and everybody who's spending their lives being happier than you are right now will go to Hell. I'm sure that makes you feel very special.
But making other people unhappy because it will benefit YOU in the end-- you know what I call that? Selfishness. And more and more people are realizing that that's a terrible way to go about interacting with the world. I'm sure that scares the hell out of you.
You look fairly old. You'll probably die before you wake up to this fact, but future generations won't be so deluded: Your little role-playing game that you call "religion" is what's obsolete.
Brian
There. I feel much better now.
UPDATE: His e-mail address bounced. Figures.
|
|
20:30 - This guy must be in league with SATAN.
http://www.fortune.com/indexw.jhtml?channel=artcol.jhtml&doc_id=207355
|
(top) |
Fortune has a nice little article, by Stewart Allsop, on Windows XP and its not-exactly-fulfilled promises.
I agree with the reviewers. There's nothing in Windows XP to cause anyone to go out of his way to get it. In fact, I wonder why such an amazing giant of technology as Microsoft--which argues vociferously for its right to integrate new technology into its operating system--can't do better than this. XP was supposed to finally replace old-world MS-DOS with a modern, stable platform that can be modified for new technologies without the pain and suffering we all experienced in the past. So why doesn't XP work a whole lot better?
Ah, yes. How many versions of Windows now have been "supposed to finally replace old-world MS-DOS with a modern, stable platform"?
It gets better:
XP really isn't all that new or stable. XP is based on what used to be called Windows NT, which Microsoft developed over many years as a competitive response to Unix. Yet XP requires you to do things Unix doesn't require, like restart your machine when you install a new application. That's the Windows legacy: XP has to work with software designed for previous versions of Windows, and programmers know that with Windows software, it's safer to tell users to restart the PC after a program is installed. This reflects the design of the core of the operating system, called the kernel. The kernel in XP is not fully protected against what application programs might do; the kernel in Unix is. So for all the hoopla about stability, XP still puts an extra burden on the user.
I love this. It's not just user-level disappointment that XP doesn't brush your teeth and file your nails and turn you into a Hollywood producer overnight. This is informed frustration from a technologist who knows what he's talking about. He sees Windows XP for what it is: a comic-book mosaic of blues and greens and oranges pasted on top of the same old Windows, replete with more monopoly-power leveraging than ever. He talks about how Windows Messenger is now integrated into the system and can't be turned off without hacking the Registry-- gotta kill AIM and ICQ and Yahoo, after all. Lawsuit? Shyeah, what's the government going to do? We've seen how much good they can do against Microsoft. We've seen how effective they are at making Microsoft stop leveraging their monopoly.
But then there's this icing-on-the-cake:
As many readers know, I've been using the Macintosh more and more at home. Apple recently upgraded its operating system to what's known as OS X. That is based on Unix. You don't have to restart your computer all the time. Managing programs and data is even easier than before. Of course, Apple is still the same old company too. But I'm beginning to think that Apple might actually be able to use such advantages to compete effectively. And I'm beginning to think that Microsoft looks like a company too wedded to past practices to keep up. Heck, what do they need to worry about with $38 billion in cash and net profits close to 30% on every dollar they collect? Yes, indeed, what does Microsoft have to worry about?
Exactly. Allsop gets it. Apple is willing to devote the necessary investment toward making computers better, not just selling more of them. I mean, think about it. All the new features in Windows XP are about making more money or capturing more market share (as if they needed to); Product Activation, single-machine license enforcement, WMA instead of MP3s, Windows Messenger-- they're all about kicking competitors in the teeth and diverting their money into Microsoft's coffers. But the new features that Apple puts into the Mac OS and its computers-- floating LCDs on desktop computers. FireWire. DVD burning. Application "packages" instead of a Registry. Final Cut Pro and all the new software they keep bringing out to go with it. Quartz. AirPort. I could go on. They're about improving the concept of the computer-- not just blathering about it on whiteboards in front of guys in ties, but actually doing it. Apple is about letting people do more and be more, while Microsoft just advertises about people doing more and being more. And that's the fundamental difference between Apple and Microsoft, and the reason why I will always endorse Apple for as long as they remain true to their vision.
Yeah, they're showing us the One True Way. And if that's the way of Satan, draw me a pentagram and kill me some chickens, baby.
|
|
20:10 - Satan's Computer
http://members.truepath.com/objective/propaganda.html
|
(top) |
You know, there's such a fine line between "troll", "joke", and "actual religious nutcase". Indeed, this one puts me in mind of that thing on adequacy.org a while back-- the parents' guide to whether their kids are becoming hackers (Do they use the subversive "open-source" hacking program called Lunix? Do they play "Quake", a well-known hackers' gathering place and terrorism platform?). But alas, it would seem that this thing is for real, hard as that may be to believe.
This article is getting all kinds of raucous belly-laughs all over the Net-- indeed, it's quite worthy of hilarity. It starts out as yet another tract on "debunking" evolutionary theory (mostly by picking apart the first episode of PBS' Evolution mini-series and expressing dismay at how Christians were depicted as not very sympathetic characters, and laughing with no further elaboration at the show's suggestion that chimpanzees have some human-like intelligence because they can be taught to count).
But then it takes a bizarre turn: the rest of the article discusses how Macintoshes and the Mac OS are really the technological equivalent of Satan-worship.
All the stuff in this article has been covered before, by the way-- it's just so surprising that someone would fail to realize how all the "Satanic" stuff in UNIX is about as far from "serious" as it can possibly be. It's all jokes. But then again, it's just like a Christian fundie to fail to grasp the humor in anything and turn it into a pathetic pedestal for his twisted rantings.
After a brief digression about Pokémon, we launch into a litany of the Satanic aspects of the Mac: Clue 1... OS X runs on top of a BSD layer called Darwin. Darwin is "Open Source", which... well, hell. Why don't I just quote it?
Hypnotically encased iMacs trick unsuspecting computer users into accepting Darwinism
However, these propagandists aren't just targeting the young. Take for example Apple Computers, makers of the popular Macintosh line of computers. The real operating system hiding under the newest version of the Macintosh operating system (MacOS X) is called... Darwin! That's right, new Macs are based on Darwinism! While they currently don't advertise this fact to consumers, it is well known among the computer elite, who are mostly Atheists and Pagans. Furthermore, the Darwin OS is released under an "Open Source" license, which is just another name for Communism. They try to hide all of this under a facade of shiny, "lickable" buttons, but the truth has finally come out: Apple Computers promote Godless Darwinism and Communism.
But is this really such a shock? Lets look for a moment at Apple Computers. Founded by long haired hippies, this company has consistently supported 60's counter-cultural "values". But there are even darker undertones to this company than most are aware of. Consider the name of the company and its logo: an apple with a bite taken out of it. This is clearly a reference to the Fall, when Adam and Eve were tempted with an apple2 by the serpent. It is now Apple Computers offering us temptation, thereby aligning themselves with the forces of darkness3.
This company is well known for its cult-like following. It isn't much of a stretch to say that it is a cult. Consider co-founder and leader Steve Jobs' constant exhortation through advertising (i.e. mind control) that its followers should "think different". We have to ask ourselves: "think different than whom or what?" The disturbing answer is that they want us to think different than our Christian upbringing, to reject all the values that we have been taught and to heed not the message of the Lord Jesus Christ!
Given the now obvious anti-Christian and cultish nature of Apple Computers, is it any wonder that they have decided to base their newest operating system on Darwinism? This just reaffirms the position that Darwinism is an inherently anti-Christian philosophy spread through propaganda and subliminal trickery, not a science as its brainwashed followers would have us believe.
Followed by numerous addenda from concerned readers writing in with further supporting proof of the Mac's inherent evil: The Apple I's initial $666.66 MSRP, for one. The BSD "Daemon" mascot, for another ("child-indoctrinatingly-cute", as the site puts it). The fact that Richard Dawkins used a Mac to simulate evolutionary behavior in "biomorphs" in his book-- little cyclical figures which (gasp!) happened to form into a swastika at one point. "This of course begs the question: if it took a created machine running created software to make these squiggles, how then does that refute Creation?"
It's impossible to argue with someone this far gone.
Naturally, all this is placed in opposition to the good ol' wholesome, Christian, mainstream Microsoft Windows. And you know, that alone is plenty to convince me to stay the hell away from it, if I'd be sharing a platform with these cultists.
After all, as Bart Simpson put it, all the best bands are affiliated with Satan.
Anyway-- all mockery-n-shockery aside, this article is a perfect illustration of why I've found religion to be so detestable. See, it's not that every Christian is this much of an idiot. It's that so many Christians will listen to this guy and think he makes sense. They themselves might be enlightened, educated, critical-thinking contributors to society... but they don't find any repugnancy in sharing a faith with people this moronic.
This is what I hate so much about arguing with Creationists, too: it's so damn unsatisfying to argue with them. They've got this smug, self-assured attitude that's just impossible to assail with logic. See, they're not just pretty sure they're going to go on to a better place after they die and cross the Barrier of Communication Back to Those Who Must Get By on Faith; they know they will. I mean, how satisfying can it be to look a religious person in the eye and say, "One day you'll die, and then you'll find out that there is no Heaven, there is no Hell-- you're just dead. And boy, you'll feel silly then!"
About the only consolation we have is that we're not talking like such complete brainwashed pieces of lung-cheese:
ADDENDUM: It has been brought to my attention that the Darwin OS mentioned above now has a cartoon mascot (no doubt to influence children) named Hexley (pictured above) -- a platypus dressed as a devil who performs occult magic, i.e. hexes. They're not doing a very good job keeping their ties to the forces of darkness a secret, are they?
(Never mind that Hexley was the name of Charles Darwin's assistant.)
This OS -- and its Darwin offspring -- extensively use what are called "daemons" (which is how Pagans write "demon" -- they are notoriously poor spellers: magick, vampyre, etc.) which is a program that hides in the background, doing things without the user's notice.
See, this guy is a "teacher of Divinity and Theobiology" at a Christian academic institution-- presumably an accredited one, where kids can spend four years listening to exactly this kind of thing and go on to lead lives where they think this sort of "thought" represents actual contribution to human knowledge. They won't have any idea what it means to think like a scientist, to consider reality in their calculations, to do what benefits humans rather than their own path to Heaven as judged by people two thousand years ago in a desert halfway around the world.
You know what I call an article like this? Desperation. It's becoming clearer and clearer to the Religious Reich that the world is passing them by and has no need of their dogma, and so they're getting more and more bitter in their grasping for scraps of reassurance that they're right after all.
And you know what? I'm feeling less and less of a need to be charitable toward them. All through college I tried to keep a very open mind toward religion. It was at that time that I went from being atheist to being agnostic-- as I've mentioned before, it's by definition the only way a scientific-minded person can legitimately view the world. I've accepted the benefite of religion in helping people make sense of the world, give themselves hope, find the goodness in their hearts to help their communities and families, et cetera.
But you know, after 9/11 (and Falwell's and Robertson's denouncements of gays and the ACLU and abortionists for causing it), the current situation in Israel, and articles like this one, I'm afraid I'm going to have to return to espousing some of my old ideals.
Religion is a disease. It makes people into complete blathering idiots-- again, because they are willing to accept the words of fellow blathering idiots like the author of this article. They don't decry him, and thereby become complicit in his idiocy-- just as the Arab nations who refuse to condemn Palestinian suicide bombing become complicit in the cult of death that fuels it. It's all the same ridiculous, medieval bullshit, spouted over and over by the same ridiculous, medieval losers clinging to their millennia-old books and refusing to accept that they may, just may, have strayed off into the weeds at some point in their impressionable youth.
If I had a kid, and he had a choice between playing with Pokémon and going to a cult brainwashing seminar every Sunday, I know which one I would wish upon him.
And now we have a nice delineation for the coalition of The Enemy: Christianity and Microsoft, revealed as partners in their quest to rule the minds of the masses.
Just remember whose interests you're serving when you use that Windows machine.
And if there's anybody here reading this who is coming from the perspective of believing the stuff in this guy's article (yeah, that's real likely), I beg you to consider that maybe, just maybe, there isn't some massive conspiracy to strip you of the religion that defines your life and to instill your children with Satanic beliefs. Maybe it's you who's the brainwashed freak.
|
|
18:20 - S0Xx0rz
|
(top) |
I've said it before: there are few joys to compare with that of putting on brand-new socks.
Ever since junior high, I've worn the same kind of socks: those Crew-length ones you get at JCPenney. These socks have been continuously available for at least fifteen years, and I like them purely because the seams are on top of the toes, not right against your toe-tips. I hate that kind of seam. The JCPenney socks are the only ones that have it the way I like it. They're tube socks, so they gradually shape themselves to your feet; the seam says which side is the top, but after two or three wearings, the left and right tribes of socks have irretrievably separated into their warring factions, never again to be reintegrated into the Pure Sock Society-- forever separate but equal.
They haven't remained unchanged, though. These socks have always come in packages of six pairs; way back when, all six pairs had a different-colored stripe around the top. (A previous model had two stripes or even three-- how very 80s, now that I think about it.) I'd get a package of socks, and it would have a red pair, a navy pair, a dark brown pair, an aquamarine pair, a blue pair, and a yellow pair.
I think. It's been a long time. See, about six years ago, right about when I went off to college, they reduced the number of colors. A package of six pairs now had only three colors: red, navy, and brown. There were two pairs of each. This wasa major blow to me. Beforehand, it was easy: I had a single pair of each color; getting ready for school in the morning, I had only to find two socks with the same color stripe and I was on the road to sock-town. (Never mind that I usually had two packages' worth of socks, so there were actually potentially two of each side of each color.)
But now, the susceptibility to drawing socks of the same side and the same color was that much worse. In a sock population of two packages, there were now four pairs of each color-- meaning that I could sit there in the morning pulling socks out of the clean-clothes basket for minutes on end until I'd found five of the same color; only then would I be guaranteed to have a matched pair.
(To say nothing of the fact that I usually could tell which two socks happened to go together; they have the same "look" about them. So it often took even longer to get them sorted out into their proper registered couples.)
Well, now we seem to have reached a major cosmic change: the JCPenney Crew Socks, while seemingly unchanged in construction from their longtime configuration, now no longer have the colored stripe at all. They're just white. Pure, boring white. Not 80s-zany or 90s-neat; just... naughties-white.
At first I was furious. How dare they! I'd known this day would probably come-- the socks with the colored stripes were getting stuck further and further into the corners of the section in JCPenney, and the plain-white ones were encroaching on their territory. But I was determined to hang on. Well, the last time I'd been in there was about a year ago... and today, as it came time to refresh my sock supply, the conquest was complete.
I mourn.
But there arises new hope. See, now that there is no color to match, there is no need to paw through as many socks to find a matching pair. No more Balkanization of sock society. Granted, I now have to fish out thirteen socks from the basket before I can be sure I have a pair-- but it's from a much bigger, much less restrictive source. All socks are now fair game.
Could this be the dawning of a bright new era? As I take the first blinking steps into the glaring light, it's hard for me to tell. But I'm willing to see what's beyond, to explore the possibilities with a glad and open mind.
I told you-- I like putting on new socks.
|
|
17:56 - Hey, Adil's back...
http://muslimpundit.blogspot.com/
|
(top) |
The last few days have seen a lot of activity over at MuslimPundit.com, and it's all really good stuff: eyewitness accounts of what's going on in Jenin, historical perspective on Israel's various conflicts and their transformations in the public mind, links to new worth-reading blogs, and (as always) a whole lot of good reassurance that not all Muslims are insane.
|
|
17:52 - Al
|
(top) |
The things I wake up with stuck in my brain in the wee hours...
|
| Saturday, April 20, 2002 |
00:54 - Moto's losing friends...
http://www.osopinion.com/perl/story/17368.html
|
(top) |
Check out this article on osopinion.com.
The author, a self-described PPC enthusiast specializing in Altivec, paints a pretty grim picture of what life will be like in Motorola-land before too much longer. It feels like a rather biased article with a bone to pick, but it's also got a lot of (unfortunately) well-reasoned arguments and historical context to back them up. It's certainly educational, if nothing else.
Once again I reiterate, I hope to Jebus that Apple has a non-Motorola contingency plan in hand right bloody now.
|
|
00:50 - God, I'm dense.
|
(top) |
Just saw The Sixth Sense tonight.
I guess I just have certain periods of extreme denseness that come upon me without warning-- and tonight I suppose conditions were perfect for my density to pass critical. After spending all day driving to Fremont and back, to In-N-Out and back, then to In-N-Out again (to give them a piece of my mind for forgetting to put the goddamed pickles on my burger for the third consecutive time and see if maybe they could sell me a whole jar of their pickles so I could keep it in the fridge to use whenever I get burgers that they forget to put pickles on-- and no, they couldn't) and back, and then to the video store to get the movie and to look in vain for The Game which they didn't seem to have any copies of, and then to the store to get more lemon juice after finding that Lance had thrown out my lemon-juice-and-cherry-syrup-and-club-soda drink that I'd put in the fridge for the duration of the ten-minute trip to the video store... yeah. I wasn't at my sharpest.
So when the Big Cool Secret Twist in The Sixth Sense comes, about three minutes before the end of the film, where the whole audience is supposed to sit there gape-mouthed and then smack their foreheads and go Aaaahh! Durr! I'm so STUPID! Of COURSE! ... I just sat squinting at the screen and wondering why it was ending so confusingly.
I didn't "get it" until Zjonni explicitly explained it to me over the credits.
And then on the DVD bonus features, they had whole commentary bits on how the directors put in all the little clues and things for you to follow, and all the places where they thought the gag was so obvious that they were sure the whole audience would immediately pick up on it and the whole rest of the movie would be given away. They seemed almost embarrassed over how easy they thought it was to "get it" even before the movie was half over.
God, I feel like such an idiot.
|
| Friday, April 19, 2002 |
17:34 - Apple's CPU Prospects
http://denbeste.nu/ubb-cgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=000886
|
(top) |
There's a well-worth-reading and in-depth discussion over at USS Clueless' discussion boards where the members are pondering the possibilities for Apple in a post-Motorola world.
The sad probability, as Cap'n den Beste pointed out a couple of days ago, is that Motorola is heading straight for the toilet. That means Apple will be left high and dry without a CPU maker. What do they do? There are a lot of possibilities, ranging from going Intel (which would destroy them as a differentiated computer maker and eliminate compatibility with any existing applications) to using IBM's current POWER4 (their supercomputer chip) or G3 (effectively the G4 without Altivec). The latter choice sounds like fun, but they would definitely need a middle-ground chip somewhere between the two in functionality and price.
I dunno, though. Pretty much all the viable options are discussed in the thread, very capably too-- and I don't see much sunshine. As the Captain puts it, "every answer leads to disaster."
Maybe someone will pull something heretofore unknown out of his ass. It's happened before. But Apple had better have been working on a contingency plan, and have at least one good one in place right now. The Motorola road is losing lanes and getting more and more full of potholes and tar cracks, and sooner or later it'll turn to gravel and wander off into the desert. And we're running out of intersections where we can turn off.
|
|
15:55 - But... but... we were just kidding! Yeah!
http://www.cnn.com/2002/BUSINESS/asia/04/19/sanfran.abercrombie.reut/index.html
|
(top) |
Carney said the popular youth clothing maker had believed the shirts might appeal to Asian-American consumers, and was surprised by the hostile reception they received.
"The thought was that everyone would love them, especially the Asian community. We thought they were cheeky, irreverent and funny and everyone would love them. But that has not been the case."
This, boys and girls, is why most companies use focus groups. And don't ignore what they say.
|
|
13:57 - Picard to Opps, come in please...
|
(top) |
HEY EVERYBODY:
"Oops"-- you know, the thing you say when you drop something or break something or accidentally forward spam to somebody in your address book-- is spelled "Oops", not "Opps"!
What is so difficult to understand? Double consonants do not mean a longer VOWEL sound. "Opps" rhymes with "cops". "Oops" rhymes with "loops"-- c'mon, pick up that box of Froot Loops that I know is on your table and peer real careful-like at the words and sound them out. I swear, I've seen people write to me saying things like "Opppppppps" when what they really mean is "Ooooooops". How can this be possible? What goes through these people's minds?
It's like that show "Ahhhhh! Real Monsters". You know, I'm sure you meant "Aaaaaah!"... because "Ahhhhh" is a sigh of pleasure.
Though that does lend an interesting sense to that title.
|
|
13:53 - Hey, this "hype" thing might actually work!
http://www.mxinternet.net/articles/jaguar/041802.php
|
(top) |
Mark Weaver of XFactor wonders why Apple is taking the decidedly un-Apple-like angle of pre-announcing a sneak peek at the next OS X release for WWDC 2002. Un-Apple-like, of course, because Apple traditionally announces new products at the same time that it unveils them; they seldom tell everyone beforehand that they will be showing something off, or even say anything that might potentially fuel the rumor mill.
Well, the times they are a-changin', it seems. Apple may finally have realized that rumors will be rumors, whether they try to pretend they have anything waiting in the wings or not; and if they say something, the added mindshare that it might get, the elevated level of excitement surrounding the actual launch, would offset any credibility loss they might suffer from people getting their hopes up over groundless rumors that they take as gospel.
What Weaver seems to have forgotten to mention is the pre-show hype that Apple put up on their website prior to the early January unveiling of the new iMac. Each day there was a new tantalizing slogan: "Beyond the rumor sites. Way beyond." "Full Speed Ahead: Lust Factor Ten." Definitely not the stuff we'd come to expect from Apple, but apparently it was the beginning of a new phase of audacity in marketing, an aggressiveness in pushing PR that goes along nicely with the "outreach" effort they've been pursuing with the retails stores and the whole "5 down, 95 to go" strategy.
And now there's word that they're just about to start turning up the heat on the Mac OS X ad machine; maybe that's set to coincide with the release of 10.2, or 10.5 or whatever it's going to be called. They'll be flooding the airwaves and the billboards, now that those spots have seen the back of the retreating Windows XP ad blitz. It's time to press the offensive now, make up all that lost ground, and get the name into everybody's sights. If a few rumor sites get kooky ideas, hey, let 'em-- at least this way people will have somewhat more realistic ideas of what's coming, and maybe they won't be so disappointed when Apple doesn't come out with quad-core G5s and gigabit wireless FireWire and personal transporters and so on.
It's about flippin' time, says I.
|
|
13:26 - Haw!
http://joyoftech.com/joyoftech/index.html
|
(top) |
Nice commentary on the times. Very well done.
You know, this is the tone that comic strips about the Internet took back in about 1995, when only a few people in the audience would have any idea what it they were talking about-- but those people were reduced to hysterics. For Doonesbury to mention "hard drives" or for Dilbert to dig at propeller-beanie-wearing bearded UNIX gurus was the height of hilarity. When User Friendly debuted, we thought the Apocalypse was nigh; when The Simpsons tackled topics like Homer starting up an Internet company that didn't really seem to do anything (but got bought out by Bill Gates anyway), or even the stumbling earlier attempts (that felt like those clueless 1995 comics all over again) where Snake steals money from people's bank accounts by putting floppy disks into their iMacs and then running away saying "Yoink dot adios, backslash losers!"-- it was clear that the mainstream had its new lexicon.
Now we've got blogs to make fun of, and most of the world doesn't know what they are. Prior to about December 15, I didn't know what they were either-- I'd never heard the term before. But then Lileks mentioned a few blogs that he read regularly, I checked them out-- and within a week I was blogging myself, posting like six times a day. Then at least three friends started blogging within the next two weeks. And now, four months later, the word "blog" is on the verge of reaching the print comics pages of hometown newspapers.
The print and mainstream media have approached blogging like wolves cornering a porcupine. They know that blogs are a potential threat, but they have no idea how to go about addressing that threat-- so some ridicule bloggers, some vilify them, some poke gentle fun, and some few actually run guest columns by bloggers in a gesture of symbiotic brotherhood. The bloggers have yet to really decide how they feel about it, too-- they swarm with great glee around high-profile morons like Ted Rall and Alex Beam, they rally behind Blogland heads of state like Lileks and Reynolds and Sullivan, and they trash the mainstream media probably more than it deserves to be trashed. The balance and symbiosis that will eventually emerge will probably look nothing like what we have today, and everybody knows it. We just can't predict what will end up happening.
So, "Blog" is today about where "Website" was in 1995. Where will it be in 2009? And what will be the new "Blog"?
|
|
10:53 - Virtual Parks-- Best Use of QTVR Yet
http://www.virtualparks.org/
|
(top) |
An enterprising photographer has decided to make QuickTime VR panoramas of just about the entire national park system of the western US and Canada. It's-- well, here's what it said in the QuickTime Newsletter that pointed me toward the site:
“Now that humanity completely dominates and influences the natural environment, my vision is to use QuickTime as an artform in the 2000s to help preserve what precious little wilderness is still left.”
So says Erik Goetze, publisher of Virtual Parks, a website with hundreds of incredibly photographed, large-scale QuickTime VR panoramas of North American wilderness.
Let Erik take you from ghost towns to lighthouses, from fields of wildflowers bursting with life, to the eerie, desolate landscape of California’s Mono Lake. Explore the John Muir Trail, or witness the first sunset of the new millennium off Point Lobos at California’s Big Sur.
Browse panoramas by geography, visual theme, best-of-site, or by alphabetic index.
It's a really nice site-- very smoothly navigable, fast, and very full of some of the best VR content I've ever seen. Give it a look, if you have any interest in the outdoors. And I hope you do. You don't have to be freakishly obsessive about it like I am (I spent the drive in this morning looking at every panorama and mentally adding different kinds of trees and different road systems and deleting buildings and imagining the Valley of Hearts' Delight-- as Silicon Valley was once known-- having developed in any number of different possbible ways), but I suspect that just about anybody will find something to like.
|
|
09:47 - Macs are Slow as Hell
http://www.wired.com/news/mac/0,2125,51926,00.html
|
(top) |
Ah, this is refreshing. It's time for a good ol' "Why are Macs so slow?" article in a major tech magazine. It's been a long time since I saw one of these-- and one with this kind of candor is actually rather refreshing.
But I'm glad that it takes a real problem-solving approach to the issue and realizes that it's only certain things that are slow-- not just some woeful lack in the fundamentals of the hardware. What Wired is discussing here does not refute things like three-digit Quake frame rates or the G4's trouncing of top-end P4s in RC5 tests.
The slowness is all in the UI layer-- it's all OS X's fault. Granted, 10.1 is a huge improvement over 10.0.x in this regard-- it makes it usable rather than painful. But it's still not zippy or done-before-you-blink like Windows is.
That's right-- I use Windows machines at work every day, and everything I do on them-- opening a web browser, loading a page, bringing up the system clock, switching apps, opening accessories like Paint-- it's done before I've taken my finger off the mouse button. And this is on two-year-old 400MHz Franken-boxes, let alone brand-new P4-based workstations.
Kris constantly reassures me, when I raise these complaints, that the issue is exactly as Wired concludes: Mac OS X is very, very young. Their priorities are getting it out into the mainstream, making it compatible with hardware and building an application base, and making it just fast enough for it to be usable. And it is.
This is because the entire OS is written in object-oriented code-- C++, Objective-C, Java. OO is easy to maintain and allows for quick and efficient development of code, but it's slow. Procedural languages like C are faster, and as the code for the various parts of the OS stabilizes and matures, the engineers rewrite parts of it in C for the speed boost. And C, in turn, is really fast to write and slow to execute compared to assembly language-- so when the C code stabilizes, they optimize things further by rewriting critical parts of it in assembly.
This takes time. Lots of time. And the perceived speed improvements in Windows over the years have been as much due to these kinds of optimizations, occurring over the course of the last ten years, as to advancing hardware. IE has become a native kernel process, as one "minor" example-- the reason why IE launches instantly, while Netscape takes a few seconds to launch on Windows.
So OS X has a long way to go down this road, and I'm rather impressed that they were able to get such a candid confirmation of exactly that from an Apple spokeswoman.
The culprit, it turns out, isn't the new iMac's hardware, but its operating system, which Apple focused on getting to market first and bringing up to speed later. In order to let OS X support as many existing software applications as possible, "Apple supported a number of legacy technologies designed to ease their transition to the new operating system," said Nathalie Welch, the company's public relations manager for hardware.
As a result, Welch said, "We are merely at the beginning of the performance opportunities in Mac OS X."
You can bet that performance is still very high on the list of priorities. The 10.1.4 release which just appeared speeds up indexed filesystem searches by many hundreds of percent-- it would seem that a lot of OO code has been optimized in there. And they're not done yet. Not by a long shot.
It'll be a few years yet before OS X grows up. But when it does, just stay out of its way...
|
| Thursday, April 18, 2002 |
11:16 - At least some things never change.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/020417/168/1etlk.html
|
(top) |
I don't have a URL for this-- it was on NPR, and I haven't been able to find it on the web news yet. But...
You know how there's that standoff at the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem, with Israeli tanks in Manger Square and Palestinian militia holed up inside?
Apparently, a group of Japanese tourists went inside and started taking pictures.
Nobody had informed them that there was a war going on.
UPDATE: Some kind readers have furnished me with the URL.
|
|
09:41 - Al Qaeda's getting desperate...
http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/04/18/italy.milan/index.html
|
(top) |
Looks like just an accident... after all, the pilot radioed in an SOS beforehand.
And besides, if this was a terrorist attack, it's a pretty bloody stupid one.
|
|
09:31 - Oh, God.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/134438173_passport18.html
|
(top) |
According to this, the government is considering using Microsoft Passport as a means of central personal identification.
<WORST-CASE SCENARIO MODE> How long before the government requires that every adult in the country sign up for a Passport account? How long before Passport gets hacked-- possibly by unfriendly foreign nationals who now have more to gain than simply people's credit-card numbers? Now they would have the census database of the entire US?
How many catastrophic and embarrassing mistakes does the government have to make with implementing Microsoft software before they deem it "too great a risk"? Remember when that Navy destroyer went out with an experimental machine running Windows NT manning the helm-- and it crashed? And they had to tow the ship back into port?
Isn't it a little bit sickening that the government's "Chief Technology Officer" is considering adopting the very technology that IT departments all over the country-- including the one at my company-- refuse to let inside the building because of its demonstrated insecurity and its network intrusiveness?
Okay, in this case I'm all for the government dragging its feet.
|
| Wednesday, April 17, 2002 |
01:16 - Hey, keep up the good work, guys!
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,51899,00.html
|
(top) |
Remember a couple of months ago when Microsoft announced to the world that they would abruptly stop pursuing "more features" as their primary development goal, and instead focus on "more security"? How they would place security above all other priorities? How they would rework all their corporate action policies to take security very very very seriously indeed, thereby to address the long-standing, well-supported, and unwavering public perception that Microsoft software is about as secure as a cat on vacuuming day?
Well, gee, guess what: there's another egregious IE security hole. And it's easily exploited, requiring the user to do nothing more complex than press the Back button.
And Microsoft refuses to acknowledge that it's a problem.
"Originally, I was only able to produce the same result when the user pressed the refresh button," Sandblad said in an e-mail. "I contacted Microsoft about it in November and they confirmed the problem. On Feb. 28, I received mail from them saying that they didn't think the problem was serious enough to fix."
"Later, I e-mailed Microsoft with additional information, describing how it was possible to trigger the same flaw with the back button. A couple of days later I received a mail explaining that they might fix the problem in a future service pack. I told them that I was planning to go public with the vulnerability but that I could wait if they could convince me that they were going to fix the issue in reasonable time. They didn't respond at all."
...
"Why the hell did they put a back button into the browser toolbar if they didn't want me to use it?" Martin Montez, a stockbroker, wondered. "I'm one of the few people in the world who actually reads the manuals and there's no warning anywhere that using the back button could compromise your system."
Microsoft's spokesman said that the company "remains vigilant in our commitment to keeping users information safe and will be addressing this issue in an upcoming release."
Yeah. Of course we believe you. After all, what reason could you have to lie?
What I'm waiting for is the Big One-- the security flaw that results in a huge amount of lost national-security data, bank customer information, or critical government files. Something that will get the Big Boys so seriously pissed-off at Microsoft that they will smush them into the dirt like a big, indolent cockroach.
I'm almost sad to see that they're abandoning .NET so early-- because it was our best hope to date of seeing that happen.
|
|
17:14 - Microcosms
|
(top) |
In our weekly meeting today, our group leader was talking about a discussion he had been having with the VP of Engineering. The topic was product quality, which I mention only for context. There's been a fair amount of disagreement around here among the developers, Marketing, Customer Ops, and the executive staff as to where our company's weaknesses are and how we can best tackle them. Some say perceived quality is our biggest Achilles' heel, others think it's about product functionality and diversification and placement. Our boss told the VP that "I don't see that there's much consensus that quality is where we should be investing right now."
The VP replied, "I'm not looking for consensus. Sometimes you just have to be a leader, and convince everybody that this is where we need to be going-- not to just wait until everybody agrees on something."
It's relevant in business, and it's just as relevant in international politics.
|
|
14:51 - What you say!
|
(top) |
An NPR commentary on the recent revelations by the Mexican council of Catholic bishops that there had indeed been a history of sexual abuse by priests said that up till now, priests who had problems with sexual misconduct had been "reassigned to other parts of the country."
...Where, presumably, they don't have children.
|
|
13:38 - No point in wasting time...
http://instapundit.blogspot.com/?/2002_04_14_instapundit_archive.html#85014332
|
(top) |
I'm getting less and less patient with people who urge patience-- about taking care of business in Iraq and other such places. Like the WAMM (as mentioned in Lileks' bleat today) and the other peace-activist groups who think we should just wait, negotiate, and dispose of all our military weapons. "Weapons kill and injure people, pollute and destroy the environment, fuel hatred, divert funds better spent on domestic needs, devastate families and communities, and create a false sense of security." Uh, yeah, and your point is what?
Let's have some WAMM member's daughter get blown up in a coffee shop, or have their headquarters get firebombed and grafitti'ed, and we'll see how evil and unnecessary they think weapons are.
But what gets me is this idea that we should solve these problems by waiting and thinking. As though that's helped any in the past 6,000 years. As many have noted lately, the longer we wait and do nothing, the closer Iraq gets to having nuclear weapons and citywide-deployable anthrax. But that's okay, as long as we don't provoke them, right?
Uh huh. Tell that to Lower Manhattan.
These are the same people-- or people with the same attitude-- as the ones who "appeased" Hitler, and who let the Microsoft antitrust case drag on for five years while their monopoly grew more and more unbreakable-- to the point where even if the case had turned out to rule against Microsoft, any punitive action they could take would be utterly meaningless. (Oh wait-- the courts did rule against Microsoft? Why, so help me, I never even noticed! How could I have overlooked all the damage Microsoft suffered as punishment?)
I can only assume that when the government drags its feet on some issue like this, it's because they're taking their time to ponder and think and make sure everybody will be happy. They're weighing all the options, building a case, gathering the troops, and making sure they have complete justification for everything they plan to do. Government action is often slowed down so much by negotiation and politics that they're brought to a complete standstill, while the issues they're arguing over trundle on by.
Presumably there's a reason why they do this. Presumably they legitimately fear a backlash if they were to act rashly.
But I have to ask this: When was the last time the government ever suffered under accusations that it was acting too quickly and boldly?
In the case of Iraq, scuttlebutt at InstaPundit is that we're waiting only as long as it takes us to rebuild our weapons supply:
We still have a lot of bombs to build before we take out Iraq.
At the end of last year, people noticed that we had greatly diminished our stockpiles of smart bombs and non-nuclear cruise missles in Afghanistan. I recall (but do not have a citation) that the general guestimate was Sept/Oct of this year to build enough ordinance to drop on Saddam.
In the mean time, the US is playing the Israel/Palestinian game to make the rest of the Arab world go nuts. The US supports Israel, plays with Arafat, and hopes to rope a bunch of dopes into our sights when the bombs start dropping. Until we have the bombs we need to end this quickly, we're going to do what it takes to keep the Middle East and the numerous maniacs that inhabit it looking like the evil idiots that they are.
Once we have enough bombs, we'll know who to drop them on and this will come to an end.
Well, we'll find out soon enough whether that's the case.
WAMM opposed the war in Afghanistan, before it began-- presumably because it was to involve weapons. Now, naturally, they oppose any action against the Palestinian suicide bombers, because that would obviously make us "executioners" (and dynamite belts don't count as "weapons" because they're not military, I assume).
Yeah, if I were bin Laden, and I saw that a hated oppressor nation had people in it who talked like this, I'd attack it too.
|
|
13:13 - Not quite a conspiracy theory, but...
http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript_secretgov.html
|
(top) |
Another nugget of joy from David Newberry-- a transcript from a recent PBS show about the Freedom of Information Act, atomic testing, Watergate, and the Bush administration's behavior since 9/11 with regards to putting all government accountability on a need-to-know basis.
Give it a read. It's worthwhile stuff.
It also has worrisome little bits like the following:
President BUSH (FROM TAPE): Yeah. I – uh – heh – yes. There needs to be balance when it comes to freedom of information laws. There are some things that when I discuss in the privacy of the Oval Office – or national security matters – that should just not be in the national arena. I'll give you one area, though, where I'm very cautious and that's about e-mailing. I used to be an avid e-mailer. And I e-mailed to my daughters or e-mailed to my father. And I don't want those e-mails to be in the public domain. So I don't e-mail any more. Out of concern for freedom of information laws, but also concern for my privacy. And, uh, but we'll cooperate with the press unless we think it's a matter of national security or something that's entirely private.
Indeed. So in other words, the President doesn't trust the security or privacy of e-mail enough to use it. Which tells us, I suppose, even if we'd previously dismissed Carnivore and Echelon as harmless anti-terrorism tools that only the paranoid feared, that we should have legitimate cause to avoid e-mail? That if even the President can't guarantee his own e-mail privacy, we certainly can't assume that our own privacy is any better guaranteed? The fact that his worries stem from his e-mails being a lot more likely to contain matters of national security interest than yours or mine is not really at issue, nor is the fact that the people he's trying to protect his e-mails from are the General Public rather than malicious hackers. The principle is the same, and the message is the same.
It's called "eating your own dogfood" in the software industry: Visibly use your own product, or else nobody will have faith in it. Why should people use Windows 2000 when Hotmail runs on Suns and FreeBSD? Likewise, if the government is avoiding e-mail because of privacy concerns, that should freak us out.
Once the war is over, I hope we step back and take a good long look at the things that the government has done lately to seal off its accountability from the scrutiny of the public. And we need to keep Ashcroft on the run-- we need a few more black eyes for him, like the one he was just handed by the Supreme Court over the child-porn case, to show that he has no public mandate to keep us all in the dark and under thought control.
It's still 1974, and we still don't need no education.
|
|
11:25 - If you can't beat 'em...
http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/top_news_item.cfm?NewsID=4522
|
(top) |
Well, this was certainly an unexpected twist.
A British firm called Coderus has just announced a development API toolkit called MacDX. This product's lofty goals are nothing less than an implementation of DirectX for the Mac.
They claim that this has the potential to cut porting turnaround time on DirectX games from months to days. Which in turn would pretty much eliminate any of the economic commitment barriers preventing game developers from releasing Mac versions, which until now have had to be developed for OpenGL and GameSprockets/OS X HID.
I'm still not sure how I feel about this-- the gut reaction is naturally "Feh! More stooping to the lowest common denominator! More crawling on the floor for scraps from Microsoft's table!"
But then, the more I think about it, this is probably going to turn out to be a very significant benefit-- and almost without drawbacks, in fact. Considering that this article is an exclusive pre-story before a much longer one in the upcoming MacWorld issue, it seems many people are hailing it as such.
And with good reason, I would venture. Okay: Idealism is one thing. Native Mac applications have their set of philosophical standards, their UI guidelines, their Cocoa frameworks and their open-source spirit. We can revel with pride in those. But games... well, it's been a long, long time since games had any visual or operational bearing on the platforms they ran on. The line between PC and console games is blurring more and more with each passing day. (Think back to 1993-- and imagine a TV ad for a game, like Doom for instance, that is being released simultaneously for PC and the currently popular consoles. Wow! Freak show! Remember what happened when they tried? Remember that so-awful-it-caused-permanent-brain-damage port of Wing Commander for the SNES?) UI issues are a thing of the past; every game now has its own interface and its own set of controls, and there's no dependence on Windows control methods or even any understanding of how Windows works. Port a game to the Mac and it looks almost exactly the same as on the PC. So where's the "purity" argument?
There really isn't one. The only complaint I would have is about users having to install this implementation of DirectX in order to play games developed with it. But apparently that's not going to be necessary:
A developer-level solution, MacDX furnishes an application with DirectX- interfaces and functionality, so the product runs as it would on a Windows PC. Thomas explains: “The MacDX interface provides a development path to the Mac OS platform, which gets the most out of your existing development investment with minimum development-time required.”
So this isn't going to be like a "DirectX emulator" or a Classic compatibility box. It's something for the developers themselves to use, and end-users would see nothing but the usual game installation. And it would just work.
If this works as well as Coderus claims, it could well open the floodgates. After all, how many people do I know who say with wistfulness and considered thought, "Gee, I'd like to buy a Mac-- except there are so few games available for it"? A lot. The perceived lack of a game library is a very big part of what's keep people off the Mac right now.
Why didn't anybody see this coming? Was it that off-the-wall an idea? Did people just not think it was possible to port DirectX to another platform?
And if this was possible, what about DirectX on Linux? Huh? Huh?
|
| Tuesday, April 16, 2002 |
20:43 - Hey, maybe there's hope after all...
http://www.denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2002/04/FirstAmendment.shtml
|
(top) |
I had planned to sit out on the topic of today's decision by the Supreme Court to overturn the earlier law that bans any depictions of children in sexual situations, whether there were children involved in creating those depictions or not. I figured that surely someone else (probably someone further east who got home and started blogging earlier than I do) would weigh in, and more efficiently than I could in any case.
Well, surprise surprise-- Steven den Beste leaps to the podium:
No-one I know defends anyone who gets off on child porn. Neither do I. But that's not the issue involved. The point is that this particular kind of material can be produced without children being harmed. Given that, the Court just decided that Congress could not ban it.
The government's argument, which the Court rejected, was that the existence of this kind of material was a danger to children anyway because it might induce those who viewed it to go out and molest real children. But as soon as you accept that argument, you've opened the flood gates. Does that mean you should be able to ban racist hate speech because someone who hears it might later go out on a lynching expedition? Or ban books about jewel thieves because those who read them might become thieves? Indeed, for almost any kind of expression, popular or unpopular, can't you produce a plausible reason why letting it be expressed might cause someone to commit a crime of some kind?
Oyez.
This decision gave Ashcroft a nice black eye, too. He'd been winning every battle he stepped into ever since 9/11, getting all kinds of measures put into place that never would have flown prior to the attacks. He's been cruising for some come-uppance, and this is just the kind of smackdown that he deserves. The Supreme Court has shown itself to have a more thorough understanding of the First Amendment than he does, and they believe in it more strongly.
I'm also glad to see a Supreme Court ruling go in a positive direction-- because it means you don't have to read those words that set my teeth so neatly on edge: The counsel for the prosecution said that they were disappointed with the verdict, but that they would appeal. This was the Supreme Court, bub. No appeals for you.
And good luck trying to slip something like this into our coffee again, unless you're willing to wait until the whole Supreme Court is staffed by right-wing control freaks appointed by some despotic lunatic who thinks he's acting For Our Own Good.
|
|
11:52 - Little do they know...
|
(top) |
I love this.
Lately, on the way out to lunch or randomly where I happen to be in the office, I'm doing my usual vaulting-off-handrails and leaping-in-the-air stuff. (David says I must burn 6,000 calories a day just being me.) And people who walk by look back with bemusement and say,
"You've had a bit too much sugar today!"
Uh huh. I haven't had sugar now for six weeks.
|
| Monday, April 15, 2002 |
23:06 - Oh. ...Right.
|
(top) |
I had something I needed to mail out to somebody today; I was thinking, on the way in to work this morning, that I would swing by the post office over lunch, get a mailer envelope, and send it on its merry way and be back at work before my test run had completed.
But then I realized-- oh yeah.
Never mind.
I'll do it tomorrow.
|
|
22:47 - More about Selfishness and Religion
http://www.denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2002/04/Beliefanddogma.shtml
|
(top) |
As has happened an eerie number of times lately, Steven den Beste and I have independently arrived at very similar topics to write about. In this case, it's about the role of selfishness in religion.
He has a correspondent who writes:
Anyway, when I did teach morality - and even in the other subjects, since morality came up all the time - I always got very tired of the constant student refrain, "Why should we (fill in the blank)? Why be honest? Why wait until marriage? Why be pro-life? Why care about the poor?
And then one day, I shot back another question in response to theirs:
Why not?
As den Beste immediately points, out, this is a shift of the burden of proof-- and I would like to note that such a shift is epidemic to religious thought. You will always run across such reasoning in creationism-vs-evolution debates, for example. And the reason is that shifting the burden of proof onto the nonbeliever is the biggest logical weapon that believers have in these kinds of debates. "You have to prove that God doesn't exist," they say. And because it is scientifically impossible to do this, the Babel Fish argument notwithstanding, they will claim victory.
The crux is that religions tend to have axioms of ineffability. These axioms are what render any scientific reasoning useless. "You can't use things like dinosaur bones or radiocarbon dating or cosmology to say anything definitive about the nature of the universe, because God could have made everything look however He wanted to." It's impossible to argue against this. We can't know anything for certain about anything beyond "I think, therefore I am"; based on that foundation, any postulate that requires absolute certainty is by its nature one-sided. Science is based on theories that continually change; religious dogma, as den Beste points out, is based on stated truths that even science cannot assail on its own terms. The two sides use different rules.
I'm agnostic; by definition, that's pretty much the only thing a scientist can be, as I learned through long, sleepless discussions in darkened libraries with friends in college. In science, we can't be sure of anything, let alone the existence or nonexistence of an omnipotent force in the Universe that can choose to obscure itself at will (or indeed to manipulate the perceptions of the humans who try to contemplate His nature). Science is about proceeding based upon the facts we have been able to prove; nothing is assumed to be true unless we can prove it. This is the opposite approach from the dogmatic one, or even from the atheistic one: both dogmatists and atheists know the truth about God. Scientists know that knowing about the patently unknowable is impossible, and so agnosticism is the best anyone can do.
Anyway... after discussing these kinds of issues for a while, den Beste turns to the idea of selfishness. His tack on it is not the same as mine from yesterday (that religious belief tends to be based fundamentally on selfishness), but I believe it's related: he says, using the correspondent's letter as a prime example, that selfishness is taken to be an axiomatic evil in Christianty. If anything you do is selfish in nature, you are acting counter to the will of God and you must change your lifestyle.
And ever since, it's become my handiest moral decision-making tool, for myself and to share. Try it. Think of your most pressing current moral dilemma or even spiritual growth issues and apply that question. And see if the only answers you come up with don't make you feel like the biggest snake in the grass ever, and move you a couple of feet closer to doing the right thing.
Why not give more to the poor?
Why not tell the truth?
Why not address your children with a little more patience?
Why not apologize?
Why not go to Mass this morning?
Why not pray tonight?
Honestly - aren't the answers coming into your head along the lines of, Because I want more stuff. Because I'll be embarrassed. Because I don't want to make the effort. Because it will wound my pride. Because I don't feel like it. Because I'd rather watch television. Because I'm afraid of what I'll lose.
Sheesh. Can I feel any more selfish? Can I be any more convinced of my need for God's grace to overcome these stupid reasons not to act out of love?
Funny-- these aren't the reasons I think of when I ask myself "Why not" do these things. My responses are about social responsibility, discretion, social grace, being right, and knowing from my own scientific experience that praying and going to Mass aren't going to make my life (or anyone else's around me) better-- not when I can be doing things for other people based on my own motivations, rather than based on the assumption that if I can't come up with a good reason not to do something, I must do it. There are some things that don't need to be rationalized. Why not go attend the pro-Israel rally in San Francisco today? Because while it's a nice idea, my time is better spent elsewhere, and will provide more of a benefit in the long run. This isn't selfishness, even if we accept that selfishness isn't inherently evil. It's just practicality.
But that's still avoiding the issue that I wanted to return to before closing. Selfishness, I believe, is seen as such a hideous crime in religious eyes specifically because so many people's religious thoughts are founded on their own selfish desires to get to Heaven. They may know subconsciously that that's exactly what it's all about-- and oh, the guilt they feel. Hence their need to decry it all the more in other people, when it's manifested in secular guises. It's the same reason why we saw the 9/11 hijackers in strip bars, using cell phones and wearing expensive sneakers-- the symbolic rejection of such temptation is the whole basis of their spiritual cleansing. When Muslims, Mormons, and the Amish take field trips in their youth to Las Vegas, there to revel in the hedonism of it all and then virtuously reject it-- they're illustrating exactly this phenomenon. Denial of a human instinct on one front so they can have it in a more "pure" form elsewhere.
Don't be selfish in secular matters, say the Christians, and you can safely be selfish about going to Heaven.
Be chaste and ascetic and embrace death, say the Muslims, and you get endless sex and debauchery in Paradise.
It's a double standard, yes. And that's part of what I find so repugnant about organized religion: it's designed very carefully to manipulate these basic human urges-- calling people to deny them so they can be rewarded later by indulgence of those same urges.
I prefer not to be manipulated, thanks. I like to think I can decide what's right and wrong on my own, and act according to the rewards I expect to get directly from those actions. And that, right there, is what makes me a secularist.
...Anyway, on another note. I was sort of hoping nobody would catch me omitting the bit about how there are female teenagers blowing themselves up in the West Bank as well as young men; so what's their motivation? Surely it isn't those 72 membraneous virgins, is it? Nah, I kinda doubt it. But rather than completely puncturing my argument, I think it's more likely just an example of there being a spectrum of motivation for the suicide bombers. Some honestly believe in the 72 virgins and all that. Some don't really believe it, but they're idealistic and desperate enough to blow themselves up anyway. And some are simply miserable and want a way out, one for which they will be remembered.
Which is still serving one's self-interest, come to think of it.
|
| Sunday, April 14, 2002 |
03:26 - Hee hee.
|
(top) |
Chris and I were sitting, panting, at a table outside the squash court at the 24 Hour Fitness, like we often do on late weekend nights. It had been an exhausting game-- I'd just begun to play nasty, like he does all the time, and finally gave him a run for his money and actually made him fight for once.
As we sat, we could see a sidelong view of the TV behind the check-in counter, where the night attendants were watching... something. I knew they had an Xbox attached to it (I'd seen them playing Halo on it before), but this time we were far enough away from it-- across the lobby, and looking at the screen almost edge-on-- that I couldn't tell for sure whether it was a movie they were watching, or some game with lots of talking heads.
The faces looked chiseled, somehow; the heads moved in a staccato way that looked like they had been animated rather than filmed. It was a guy and a woman, talking under eerie bluish light in a techno-sort of office-type place. I thought for sure it was a game; maybe that James Bond thing or something.
We talked aimlessly for several minutes; then I looked over at the TV and noticed that the same two people were still talking.
"I sure hope that's a movie, because it'd be a boring-ass game."
And Chris replied, chortling, "Yeah-- must be an Xbox game."
Yay, their artistic vision is realized.
|
|
03:00 - Oh yeah--
http://www.lileks.com/bleats/
|
(top) |
While you're here, go read today's Bleat. It's about that photo down below. And it's good.
Well, good is sort of a relative term in this context. But it does help with the perspective-type stuff.
|
|
01:17 - Sage Words From Amongst Jollity...
http://www.capnwacky.com/fourth/patriotcard1.html
|
(top) |
From Cap'n Wacky's Unfortunate 4th of July Cards:
This card has it all, really: a grim joke about murdering your children, frightening cartoon characters, and (just in case you couldn't picture it on your own) a drawing of a boy blowing up. To anyone who complains that our society has become too desensitized to violence in recent times because images in TV and movies, I urge you to take a close look at the exploding boy in this vintage postcard and ask you to never raise the argument again.
Good point, there.
I think the only difference is just that there's so much more media out there now that's too easy a target for people desperately wanting to blame the things that kids do on something. With evidence like this, it's easy to conclude that earlier decades were just as uncivilized and desensitized as we are today-- and perhaps more so, because of the macabre sense of humor that haunted us throughout the years following Poe and Twain.
Remember, this is a 4th of July greeting card.
|
|
23:00 - Force Powers-- a delete option?
|
(top) |
That new Jedi Starfighter game, for Attack of the Clones, is now flooding the airwaves.
It's finally here.
With a sleek, aerodynamic design, state-of-the-art navigation system, and the most powerful engines in its class; the most-anticipated vehicle of the year is now available... with Force Powers.
First it was midichlorians. Then it was video games with Force-O-Meters to tell you when you could score critical hits and stuff. Now the Force is another name for nitrous.
By the time Episode 3 rolls around, we'll have Jedi Knights powering-up with the Force blasting all around them like Dragon Ball Z energy waves. "Forceu powah-uppu Very Jedi Wondaful! Level 100%!" And then they'll turn 30 feet tall and have seven-bladed lightsabers, or hey, maybe space mech battles too. Why the hell not?
The more Star Wars episodes we get, the more impossible it's going to be to watch all six in episodic order. How the devil can you go from Episode 1, with its "These credits are perfectly acceptable." "What, you think you some kind of Jedi or something? With you mind tricks?" to Episode IV, with its "These aren't the droids you're looking for"? It's not going to make any sense. The Force will go from being lots of big flashy lightning-bolt-looking things shooting out of everybody's fingertips into a Zen-like mystical fabric of being. Just how are we supposed to reconcile these two storylines? It would be one thing if it went progressively from one to the other; but it's bad in Episode 1, and getting worse in Episode 2. After Episode 3, the jolt going to 4 will be grinding the gears so hard the teeth will go pinging all over the engine compartment.
(Apologies to Lileks-- that bit was just too good not to reuse.)
I think it's safe to say we've lost any hope of Star Wars ever resembling what it once was.
|
|
21:27 - We're more alike than we think (or sound, or our best testing indicates)
|
(top) |
I've had this cynical anti-religious set of reasoning in my utility belt for a while now; it goes like this:
HIM: You should join my religion, because it is the One True Way to salvation.
ME: Okay, tell me: Why are you trying to get me to join?
HIM: Well, because only those souls who accept <SAVIOR> will receive eternal reward in Paradise.
ME: In other words, if you do what your religion says, and make sure other people do too, you get to go to Heaven.
HIM: Er, yes.
ME: So what you're saying is, the human motivation to which religion appeals is... selfishness?
This always makes people put their index fingers in the air and go "Uhhh..." and sputter and get all indignant. But honestly, it's really an ingenious little trick, as old as time: Disguise social conscience as self interest, and because people will always act in a way that serves their own interests, this way you get all the good things religion teaches-- charity, brotherhood, love, peace, kindness, etc.-- because the people practicing it are acting in their own interests. They aren't trying to better the community or build strong families or whatever. They're doing what will benefit them in the long term. They get to go to Heaven.
So when I run across the following, quoted by Ken Layne...
Khaled, a hotel worker, spoke in wonderment of a martyr's encounter at the gates of heaven as someone having their file checked: "There will be blessings for 70 of his family and friends. The 72 virgins are real -- their skin is so pale and beautiful that you can see the blood in their veins. If one of these virgins spits in the ocean, the seawater becomes sweet. The martyr is so special he does not feel the pain of being in the grave and all that his family has to do to cleanse his file thoroughly, is to repay his outstanding debts."
Surely, we ask, this view of the Koran should be seen as philosophical? As a parable? But no, there was a chorus of disagreement from a gathering of his friends in the teeming Jabalya refugee camp near Gaza City: "No. This is real . . . this is as it will be," said Khaled, as much for himself as on behalf of younger Palestinians who now talk endlessly of the benefits of death over life in a bombing campaign that has killed more than 200 Israelis in 18 months.
But Dr Rabah Mohanna, whose Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine has claimed its own share of the violence - including last year's assassination of a minister in the Israeli Government -- is confounded by youth's lunge for the grave: "Thousands of young men and women are ready to be blown up. It is a new phenomenon -- you have no idea how big it is."
...My first reaction, like (I believe) many other people's reactions, is along the lines of "Geez, these guys are really serious about building a Palestinian state, aren't they? They're so dedicated to their cause that they're willing to die for it. They're willing to see the cause succeed even if it means they can't be a part of it. God, I can't imagine believing so strongly in an ideal that I would go to that extreme, not in our culture. They must be so different from us, there's no way we can negotiate!"
And, well, I'd be wrong. Because the only thing that makes them different from us is the stories they believe.
Consider: You're a Palestinian teenager. Your life sucks. You live in a refugee camp. Instead of Digimon or N'Sync, your entertainment is the promise of 72 virgins awaiting you after death. There's no question that this is real; it's universally accepted as truth. So death is better than life-- that's all well and good. So let's all kill ourselves, right? Well, no-- there's a catch: you have to die as a martyr in order to get the 72 translucent virgins. Okay, so what's a martyr? Well, it's like a sports star. It's someone who dies a certain way: fighting in jihad. It's a role model, an example to follow. It's a "When I grow up..." figure.
Note that Israel isn't necessarily even part of this picture.
You're a teenager who wants the 72 virgins. Your overriding concern here is the virgins, not the jihad. The martyrdom is a means to an end. You're not thinking about a Palestinian state; you're just thinking "Hey, look-- a convenient cause which will qualify me as a martyr." And so you strap on a bomb and take out a Jerusalem coffee shop.
Mission accomplished.
When pressed, sure, they'll shout for the blood of the Jews to run in the streets. Of course they will-- incendiary rhetoric is easy to instill and amplify. People love to absorb stories to repeat, and they love to believe in a cause and shout out to the world about why it's right. We do exactly that in the Christian world; just look at a televangelist or two. But the motivation is still those 72 virgins. It's whatever will fulfill us personally, not the ideals of the rhetoric itself.
They're serving self-interest, not social conscience. Not the greater good. Not the Cause.
Whoever has been fomenting the recent fascination with the suicide fantasy among Palestinian firebrands is a genius: he knows exactly how to motivate people.
Just like Westerners, they're motivated by selfishness. It might look like piety and idealism, but deep down it's the same thing that drives people anywhere to do what they have justified to themselves as being "right".
Doesn't mean that we have to accept that it's right, though.
I've never been a religious person, because far too often I've seen exactly this kind of motivation at work, right here at home. Sure, religion is a fine way for many people to make sense of the world. I have no problem with that. But we'd better not be lying to ourselves when we think about why we're religious; because if we are, we're blinding ourselves to the mindset of other cultures-- particularly cultures that think nothing of making us infidels dead on their way to translucent-virgin-land.
|
|
20:10 - Where'd THAT come from?
|
(top) |
Bizarre little stab at Cisco on the Simpsons just now.
An e-mail from Marge travels through wires and conduits... to a room where wires go in and out of a dented, dilapidated metal box with "CISCO SYSTEMS" stenciled on it and flies buzzing around it, and a caretaker snoring in a chair nearby.
What was that all about?
|
|
19:29 - From the What Were They Thinking? Department...
http://www.candydirect.com/html/eng/243208-AA.shtml
|
(top) |
There's an ad campaign going on right now that I'm afraid I simply don't understand.
It's a candy from Topps called "Baby Bottle Pop". Apparently it's been around for a long time, but now all of a sudden they're advertising it during prime-time on Cartoon Network. And the way they're doing it... well, it just confuses me.
The kids in the commercials eating the candy (which is, not surprisingly, shaped like a baby bottle-- with what appears to be sort of a pacifier-dipping thing) are teenagers, hip skateboarder types. And yet as they eat it, they have the heads of babies. Computer-animated baby heads.
They're sitting on a park bench, eating their baby-bottle-shaped candy, with their goo-goo heads grinning at each other about how great their various flavors are. As soon as one of them runs out, his head reverts back to the 16-year-old actor's face, and the other baby-heads laugh at him.
Then, as the commercial ends, you get the candy's slogan: "Brings out the baby in you."
So tell me: Who thought this was a good idea?
Whose brilliant plan was it to sell candy by appealing to teenagers' desire to look like babies? What teens did they think would sit in parks, conspicuously holding and eating objects that look like baby bottles? Why did whoever-it-was think that this commercial would increase sales to anybody?
But then again, maybe it is working. At least, if you believe Topps' own page:
Baby Bottle Pops were launched in 1998, and have already become one of the top selling lollipop products in the U.S.. Kids love dunking the delicious candy nipple into the powdered candy for a burst of flavor. Sour Baby Bottle Pops were introduced in 1999 to add pucker power to the line.
I'll never understand marketing. Which is a good thing, now that I think about it.
|
|
16:41 - NVRAM Breakthrough
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/tech/news/1363062
|
(top) |
Man, do we ever take some things for granted in the computer world.
Like, for example, the inherent difference between RAM and hard-disk storage.
When you think about it, it seems a ridiculous couple of things to have to coexist in modern computers. And yet so many of the functions in computing-- in fact, almost all of them-- are dedicated to dealing with moving data from one to the other and back again.
Oddly enough, hard drive space and RAM size have not wildly diverged. Rather, they've stayed separated only by about one or two powers of ten. When 386-based PCs were all the rage, an 80MB hard drive and 2MB of RAM was quite a serviceable arrangement. A couple of years ago, 128MB of RAM and a 10GB hard drive were fairly normal. Today, you can expect to get a fairly high-end machine with 1GB of RAM and 80GB of disk space.
If you'd asked me in 1991 what our computers' respective storage sizes would be in 2002, I'd probably have said we would have 1GB RAM/512MB hard drives, or maybe 100GB hard drives powering machines with 16MB of RAM. I wouldn't have known which way it would go-- but I would never have guessed that the ratio of sizes would remain roughly the same.
With this in mind, doesn't it seem weird that our mass storage media are still so much fundamentally slower than our powered run-time memory?
Why do we have to educate new computer users about such concepts as:
- The computer has to "boot" each time you turn it on, so that it can copy the operating system from the disk into memory.
- When you run programs, the computer has to copy the programs from the disk into memory before they can do anything. When you quit programs, they are deleted from RAM, but remain on the disk.
- When you work on documents in applications, the data exists only in RAM, until you explicitly "save" it-- tell the program to copy it from RAM onto the disk.
- Each time you turn the computer off, everything in the RAM is deleted-- any data in documents you haven't saved, any programs that are running, the whole active copy of the operating system. This means that when you turn it back on, you have to wait while the computer boots, copying it all back into memory again.
Is it just me, or does this seem a little bit ridiculous?
We expect people who are brand-new to computers to accept these machinations as "just the way it is". We have to have training courses which spend their first couple of weeks explaining the difference between hard drives and RAM and why the two exist. Yet we have Palm devices that we can "turn off" and turn back on-- only to have exactly the same data on the screen as was there when we turned it off; and we have Macs that can "sleep", use almost no power, and come back up to exactly where they were before. (Although Macs will still lose all their RAM contents if you unplug them-- and Wintel PCs have "sleep" too, but it isn't anywhere near as efficient or fast.) So why can't computers just... be like Palms?
Well, if this new NVRAM development is for real and viable, we may have just that in our future.
Imagine-- you boot your computer once, and that's the last time you'll do it unless the computer crashes or you have to upgrade the OS. Regular shutdowns, like at the end of the day, are like turning off a Palm or putting a Mac to sleep-- just touch a button and the screen goes dark and the fans spin down, but everything in memory is still right where you left it. Touch the same button again, and pop! There's all your data again, unharmed.
And booting the computer would take only ten seconds or so, because you don't have to copy anything from disk to memory. The operating system just runs from where it is-- the compiled bytecode exists on disk in a format that can be directly executed. The only thing the computer has to do during boot is to fire up the I/O systems and test the devices. Then it's ready to rock.
Want to run a program? No need to "load" it into memory anymore-- if it's stored on the computer, it's both permanently stored and ready to execute. Just open it and it's running.
Want to create a document, or edit some existing data? Just open the file-- it's right there in memory already. Make changes, and they're all instantly and permanently stored. No "saving" necessary.
Of course, this means that many applications' "Revert to Saved" functions would now have to be reworked-- right now, the function represents a cheap hack that simply discards whatever's in RAM and reloads the file from the disk. But if there's no discrepancy anymore between the file on disk and the file in memory-- there's only the one copy now-- the apps would have to consciously keep a copy of the file, in the form that it was in when you opened it, in a temporary memory location-- and "Revert" would throw out your current file and read in this backup copy. But then, this also opens up the door to any application having an arbitrary number of "undo" levels, rather than the binary nature of "what's on disk" and "what's in RAM".
Reportedly, this new NVRAM is both high-capacity and fast. It must be slower than existing RAM (there's more for it to do), but then it's definitely going to be faster than doing everything off disk (run an OS completely in swap space and you'll know how painful that can be). So that's two out of three: fast and spacious. If they can nail the third key factor-- cheap-- then we'll have a revolution on our hands that rivals the transistor.
|
|
15:39 - Pushing the UNIX Envelope
http://www.macnn.com/news.php?id=13676
|
(top) |
Reader David Newberry (whoah! I've never said something like that before-- does that mean this blog is growing up?) sends me this outstanding catch.
Apple's apparently starting to pull out the stops on its OS X ad campaign... including the UNIX prong of the attack. This ad, which I would assume appears in one of the more hard-core UNIX-geeky industry rags (somehow I doubt this is a Newsweek spread), specifically touts OS X as a UNIX-- at that, a UNIX with a real usable front-end and real usable software and real usable hardware compatibility. And the title of the ad just gives me warm fuzzies:
"Sends other UNIX boxes to /dev/null."
As some of the commentors have noted, there is no MSIE icon in the Dock-- instead, there's the Netscape "N". Though there are MS Office icons. So this Dock is carefully organized to send two messages: a) OS X is not a slave to Microsoft, at least, not any more-- see, we don't even bother with their browser; and b) Even so, OS X runs MS apps like Office.
And ther's the Terminal, front-and-center. Indeed, the screen has a Terminal window and a PowerPoint slide showing, and an iPod and a FireWire hard drive mounted.
In other words, UNIX nirvana.
I wonder what's next on the ad wagon...
|
|
14:05 - It's totally different! See, the name has changed
|
(top) |
It has not escaped my attention that the name of the store in the strip mall a few blocks up Aborn, in the same place where the Taco Bell is that I frequent, has changed recently from "Budget Cigarettes" to "Aborn Cigarettes".
The question that's easy to pose rhetorically, but that I'm not willing to find out the answer to even though it's also easy, is whether this is because of a change of management where the new owner decided a name change would be a good idea for its own sake... or if it's because somehow the concept of "Budget Cigarettes" just seemed so horribly squalid and despairing that even the owner was feeling suicidal about it?
|
| Saturday, April 13, 2002 |
01:00 - I WILL NOT DEFAME NEW ORLEANS... I WILL NOT DEFAME NEW ORLEANS...
http://www.cnn.com/2002/SHOWBIZ/TV/04/13/simpsons.rio.reut/index.html
|
(top) |
Geez, it seems the Simpsons producers keep getting into hot water over their obstinate refusal to keep all the envelope-pushing social satire of the show bound within the alternate-universe bubble of Springfield, USA.
First, many years ago, it was New Orleans into which the show ventured-- with the musical of A Streetcar Named Desire. You remember the words: "Long before the Superdome, where the Saints of football play / Was a city that the damned called home-- hear their hellish rondelé..."
An episode or two later, Bart's blackboard read "I WILL NOT DEFAME NEW ORLEANS". Whether this was pre-emptive or the result of an actual Cajun outcry ("I sue yo ass, Ah gar-ron-tee!"), I do not know. But now, after poking fun at Presidents, Knoxville, Washington D.C., and Australia, they appear to have stepped on the toes of Rio de Janeiro.
In the episode, bumbling family head Homer Simpson is robbed by street kids and kidnapped by an unlicensed taxi driver after his family ventures to Rio to find a missing orphan that daughter Lisa sponsored.
The family runs across rats and monkeys while looking for the orphan. When they find him, he has grown rich working on a television show and pays for Homer's release in gratitude for shoes Lisa had bought him to escape monkeys at the orphanage.
Rio tourism board president Jose Eduardo Guinle asked the board's legal team to look into what action could be taken.
"He understands it is a satire," tourism board spokesman Sergio Cavalcanti said at the time. "What really hurt was the idea of the monkeys, the image that Rio de Janeiro was a jungle. ... It's a completely unreal image of the city."
What makes one satire target lift his voice in shrill complaint, while all the rest take it in good humor? Is Brazil's tourism industry that low on confidence, that it thinks people will stop coming to Rio because of a Simpsons episode?
Ah well. I'm glad Brooks' apology was on the flippant side.
|
|
19:19 - I must blog this drink...
|
(top) |
I've discovered a drink that's delicious, healthy, rich in vitamins, and completely free of anything damaging or habit-forming. No caffeine, no calories, no sugar, no carbohydrates. And it looks awesome too.
1-2 fingers of lemon juice, then fill the glass with club soda. Add a generous splash of Da Vinci sugar-free cherry syrup-- or Torani if you don't mind having actual sugar in yours. Just put in enough to make it red, or more, depending on your taste for cherry syrup.
You can add a head by sprinkling on some Splenda or packet sugar.
I've had two glasses of this stuff already this afternoon, and I think it's going to become a staple for me. Yet another bad, nasty habit of mine. I just can't resist the siren song of lemon juice-- and this combines it with other stuff in such a way that it will fill my Atkins days with glee.
To life!
(What, you thought there was going to be alcohol involved or something?)
|
| Friday, April 12, 2002 |
17:15 - I'm sure it's just my imagination...
|
(top) |
Is it just me, or has there suddenly been a sharp increase in the number of @mac.com addresses seen roaming about the Net?
In my own correspondence, I've noticed that two or three people on each of the mailing lists I'm on, including a number of fan-artists, blog respondents, and random people mailing me for other reasons, have mac.com addreses. On examination of the headers on their messages, a large proportion of those-- almost all, in fact-- are using Mail on OS X.
It could be that my experience is atypical. (I wouldn't be surprised to find that I tend to magnetize people with Macs to write to me more than non-Mac-people do.) But something tells me it's not; somehow I suspect that Mail.app and OS X are reaching critical mass, the level of acceptance where (for those people in a position to use it) it's becoming the default, obvious choice-- like Hotmail or Outlook Express.
It's so good to see that occasionally it's not Microsoft software that does this.
|
|
10:55 - Calvin, eat your heart out...
|
(top) |
Fresh Air this morning had a discussion of the physiology of tears-- why we cry, how we cry, the psychological aspects of crying, etcetera. They received a caller named Jasmine, who said, and I quote:
"Hi-- I'm ten years old, and I'm currently watching my three-year-old brother. It doesn't seem like he cries any more or less than girls his age. So I was wondering, what is the anatomical difference between boys and girls when it comes to crying?"
Damn... ten years old? That kid's gonna be going places.
|
|
10:17 - Oh. How romantic.
http://www.redherring.com/insider/2002/0411/2270.html
|
(top) |
The big launch finally arrived. On November 14 at 12:01 a.m., Mr. Gates handed over the first Xbox to a dedicated gamer who had waited for hours at the Toys 'R' Us store in New York City's Times Square. Mr. Blackley and his new girlfriend, Vanessa Burnham, were at the scene. He introduced her to Mr. Gates.
"You know, Seamus, I think she could help you get your act together," Mr. Gates said.
"You think so?" Mr. Blackley asked. "Something has to."
"You ought to marry her," Mr. Gates said.
"You think so?" Mr. Blackley replied.
"Yeah, absolutely," Mr. Gates said. "Here's a ring."
"I'll give it a shot, OK, cool," Mr. Blackley said. He got down on one knee.
"Vanessa, will you marry me?"
She laughed, then answered, "Yes."
"Thank you," Mr. Blackley said.
He rose and they kissed. Everyone in the store applauded. Mr. Blackley put the ring on Ms. Burnham's finger. John Eyler, CEO of Toys 'R' Us, presented a stuffed animal to her. Mr. Gates had been briefed, but he had ad-libbed the part about Mr. Blackley getting his act together.
Oh, yes, honey, I want to tell our grandkids about how you proposed to me by having the richest tycoon in the world rehearse a ridiculous little off-the-cuff exchange at a public press event and give you a free ring paid for by the blood of all the companies he killed. At that, an exchange that makes it look like you'll do anything he says, like getting married on his offhand suggestion. "You think so?" You pathetic toady.
Great article. Five pages of behind-the-scenes action, the whole story of how the Xbox came to be. All Microsoft fans take note: It was not Billzor Gates and Steve "E-trip" Ballmer, hip 20-something geeks playing air-hockey in the steam room in the sub-basement of One Microsoft Way, who suddenly said to each other, "D3wd! We should like totally make a game console!" "Yeah! We'd be 3l33t!" No. Not hardly. Read this thing. It's all the brainchild of Seamus Blackley, a failed game developer with an ego to match Bill's own, who was desperate to rebuild his shattered self-image after a devastating failure on a game he was working on for Spielberg. He proposed the idea to the Microsoft execs, who hated the idea at first. They took a long time to warm to it. But Blackley kept at it, goat-skulled; he was going to get his own back, damn them all.
I mean, look at this story. It's all a huge, disgusting ego trip. Sure, the guy has an admirable quality to his ideals: video games that are art rather than entertainment (Sony) or toys (Nintendo). But dude, art doesn't sell. At least, not unless it's a part of something larger that does sell.
So when you have internal propaganda like this:
There were plenty of other moments when Mr. Blackley's flair for "morale building" activities got him into trouble. At one internal meeting, he showed an animation dubbed "Survival of the Fittest." It sported a couple of Microsoft's mascot characters at a shooting range. They fired weapons and eviscerated mascots like Sega's Sonic, Nintendo's Mario, and Sony's Crash Bandicoot. He was quoted in a newspaper as saying, "Playing video games is like masturbation; everyone does it but no one wants to admit it."
... Somebody's got to see this effort for what it is: the paranoid scheme of a megalomaniac with more ambition than sense, more talent than intellect. Oh, they all said I was mad... mad! They called me a no-talent hack! They all laughed! ...Well, who's laughing NOW? Haaah hah hah hah haaaaah!"
Granted, it's a perfect fit for Microsoft: inferior in every way that counts, they release their inadequacy-related stress by symbolically blowing up the symbols of the ones who are successful. Hey, look-- it's the David Gonterman of the technology industry! If they can't succeed, they just make it up in really crappy volume, mockery, and FUD. That's the American Way!
Look, I'm big enough to admit that there are many things that the Japanese do so much better than we do that we should not even try. Video games are clearly one of them. Sure, Nintendo and Sony may be big cutthroat corporations with hardly any more ethics than Microsoft. But at least they won on their own merits, by making products that people wanted and by appealing to people's imaginations. With the Xbox, Microsoft is being everything that everybody hates about America: big, dumb, megalomaniacal, ethically stunted, and yet backed by enough resources to shoulder aside the beloved incumbents purely because they think it's their manifest destiny to spread their influence into every corner of the technology market.
I kicked walls when Microsoft decided to move into the server market, bringing a decidedly inferior product to bear against far superior platforms that already served their purpose perfectly well. Windows has never been suited to servers. It's not even designed to be remotely-accessible, for God's sake. There's no useful command line. The distributed-client architecture of Windows client-server apps is a sick joke. Why did they get into this market? Because they could. Because there was money that other people were getting, that they decided they should have instead.
I shrieked to the heavens when Microsoft brought out WinCE devices, creating a monstrously crappy alternative to the already hugely popular Palm platform. WinCE has always suffered from Windows' flashier-is-obviously-better problems; even their ads tout WinCE as superior purely because its e-mail client has more colors. Can your palm do this? (moving loose fist up and down) Never mind which platform is more stable, more extensible, more flexible, or has about a thousand times as much software available for it. Why did Microsoft get into this market? Because they could. They saw someone else getting money hand over fist, and they wanted it instead.
As always, Microsoft will keep doggedly pouring money into these things, making new versions, supporting their initially bland sales figures, gradually patching up the products until they're passable in functionality. But by then, the marketing team will have done their job: convincing the public that the Microsoft product is the only viable choice, no matter how crappy it actually is. All that matters is convincing IT directors and CEOs and gamers that as long as something looks pretty, it must be better. They did it with Internet Explorer (IE3 was awful beyond belief and encouraged bad coding style and had a non-standard table specification, but hey-- it was free! So it's obviously the one we should all be coding for now!). They did it with AVI movies (gee, QuickTime invented the whole concept-- but we can't have that! It's not a Microsoft technology! So let 'em have their little "MPEG" standards. We'll use our own free crappy stuff, everybody will make AVIs because they can, and QuickTime will die!). They've done it with Windows and with WinCE. And now they're going to do the same thing with the Xbox.
Back in 1996, my concern with Microsoft was that they would splinter the Web by forcing everybody onto their inferior browser with its lack of adherence to standards and its poorly implemented feature set, and a great part of the flexibility and promise of the Web as envisioned in the HTTP and HTML specs would be lost forever. Given the garbaceous state of IE at the time, it seemed like a distinct possibility, and the appearance was that Microsoft was simply experimenting-- dabbling irresponsibly in a field where it was dangerous to do something half-assed, where their poorly implemented solutions would inadvertendly kill much that was good in the industry. I wrote many feverish e-mails to whatever addresses I could find at the Microsoft website, berating them saying, "If this is the best you can do, maybe you should stay out of the web browser market." After all, just a month or two before, when asked whether Microsoft would start up an Internet division, Bill Gates had snapped, "That would be like having an electricity division."
Well, as it turns out, my fears were exactly correct. The web now runs exclusively on IE. The coding idiocies that IE had encouraged are now accepted standards-- rendering tables without </TABLE> tags, displaying blank table cells as empty rather than blanked-out with the table border color, supporting BMP images inline, and worst of all, completely ignoring all HTTP headers-- such as Content-type, Content-length, and other such useful controls-- so that it can display Word documents inline even if you've explicitly set the Content-type to try to prevent it from doing that. We no longer have the ability to program web apps according to the flexible published specifications, all because Microsoft successfully pushed IE down everybody's throats.
And yet my reasoning behind this was completely wrong. This was no accident. Microsoft had intended all along for things to go exactly this way. IE3 was crappy on purpose-- or at least, they didn't sweat the details-- because all that mattered was market penetration. Just get it out there, and make sure it's free. Tout useless technologies lke COM+ and ActiveX. Sneer at browsers that don't display gargantuan BMP images inline. Just get it out there... and then worry about making the browser usable. And yes, IE is now a very good browser. It's very fast (well, hell, it's a kernel process now), it renders everything according to spec (because Microsoft took over the W3C and rewrote the spec to fit their rules), and it works with every page known to man. So is this success?
Is this the path to market that we should be encouraging? Isn't this a bit like allowing suicide-bombing to result in renewed negotiations for peace with more concessions given to the side of the bombers? The ends justify the means?
Personally, I do not like that prospect for the technology industry.
Is there any market into which Microsoft will not insert itself if it can be shown that there's money to be made? Obviously video game consoles are not so wildly off-the-beaten-path that they won't leap into the fray, pretending to be the underdog and appealing to the easily-impressed-by-surface-flash geek-wannabes who failed high school calculus but who pronounce SQL as "Sequel" and think they're hot bat shit, just like they did with WinNT/IIS and with WinCE. What's next? Digital TV devices? Oh wait, yeah. So... military equipment? Genetic therapy? Recombinant DNA and viral weapon research?
And of course we're going to keep on sucking up everything they give us, until every nightmare sci-fi scenario about a maniacal corporation that controls everything in the entire world, like in Resident Evil, has come true.
|
| Thursday, April 11, 2002 |
01:05 - Moment of Zen
|
(top) |
It's an old WB cartoon from the 1940s, with an aged couple sitting on a couch, poring over a photo album. The man says to his wife...
"Ahh, the good old days: the Gay Nineties!"
There's so much commentary that can be written about that line, in and out of context, that I'm instead going to go into vapor-lock and let you do the hard work.
Good night...
|
|
00:56 - Oh yeah, this...
|
(top) |
C'mon, tell us what you really think!
|
|
00:55 - Hey, this stuff could be fun...
|
(top) |
So we were eating lunch today at Armadillo Willy's, with big Texas burgers and peanut slaw and those really good fries they do. Our new guy, Johnny, was along with us for the ride-- we've been giving him a crash course in what it's like to be a part of our freaky social circle (and QA team)-- the stories that make up our collective lore, the people who make up our cast of characters, and the opinions that inform the running gag that we call life.
I picked up my tray, with the double cheeseburger with no bun. See, I've been eating Atkins-style lately, mostly because the rest of the household is doing it, and as everybody knows I spend most of my time flailing in the air having jumped off cliffs from which my friends have already hurled themselves. So, no bun for Brian. In the words of that Jack in the Box ad, "My hands were covered with meat and cheese!" And Johnny gave my plate such a look...
His order was immediately called, and he went up to get it. During the meanwhilst, I half-seriously hatched up a scheme with David under which I would quickly affect a religion where it was forbidden for me to eat bread. Atkiism, or something, where carbohydrates are kufr and only greasy meat can be considered kosher. When pressed for details, I'd glare into Johnny's eyes: "Hey, don't you oppress me, white boy!"
Unfortunately our attention spans shoved us onto something else before he even got back-- ketchup-bottle physics or Australian Rules Football or animation cels from a tiny low-resolution, low-quality QuickTime movie, where each cel has all the low-res blockiness and JPEG artifacts dutifully painted onto the acetate... and so the moment had passed.
So why am I watching Taxi and pretending to work on new server tools instead of getting something useful done?
Because I've got stupid thoughts from the middle of the day to dredge back up and commit to electrons, that's why.
You don't have to thank me.
|
|
00:24 - It's times like this that I wish I had my camera along...
|
(top) |
Now that we're on Daylight Savings Time, my drive home-- which takes me through downtown San Jose right about 7:20-- is the source of some of the best colors of the entire year.
Those who know me well know that I take a certain bizarre pleasure in the oddest of things. One of those is the drive home. It's relaxing, it's liberating, and it gives me a different movie to watch every time I do it. Tonight's feature gets three and a half stars.
Right after the DST switchover, the 7:00 hour is the sunset hour. This means that as I drive east through downtown, the sun is setting behind me-- it's already dipped behind the Santa Cruz Mountains enough that the freeway itself is in shadow, but the buildings of the skyline and the mountains behind them are still lit. And better yet, spring means the end of the smog season in the Bay Area-- it's now the era of clear air, high clouds, fog spilling through the cracks in the ridges of the Peninsula, and that golden quality to the light at sunset that reflects off all the downtown buildings' windows-- including the new one that's going up right next to the freeway. I don't know what it is, but it's turning out to be quite attractive-- tall (about 20 stories, which is tall for San Jose), symmetrical, clad in reflective glass except for the windowed stone-beige piers up the centers of the sides, and the westward-facing major wall sporting a gentle bulging curve that throws back the sunlight and strikes a pose like a building from the Presidio in a Star Trek future.
The best part of all this, though, is those eastern mountains. Tonight, as I passed through downtown, I noticed that the eastern ridge-- which got at least two dustings of snow this winter, luring me up into the Sierras for those two ski trips-- was still lit with that clear, golden sunset light. The cloud cover was wispy and high, lending some color to the landscape but not much obstruction to the light-- instead, the crest of the hills was wreathed with a series of what looked like that same kind of hill fog that constantly spills over into the Valley from over the western ridge, but that I'd never seen on the eastern one before. Depending on how poetic I'm trying to be, it looked either like a crown of thorns or a string of turds.
Above it, though, you could see the observatories. Those two or three bright white globes on Mt. Hamilton, the little specks of visible civilization that you can always see from down in the valley floor and dozens of miles away-- but today the light played on them in such a way that they leaped out from the cloud wreaths at their feet like a moon artificially inflated by being next to the horizon. They looked larger than life. They looked like the Spanish missions must have looked in the 1760s-- the only edifices of pure white to be seen for hundreds of miles, naturally attracting all the local tribes to come see them, to center their lives around them. The observatories seemed to be visible in as much detail as if I were standing in their parking lots, 3,000 feet up. With the sunlight glinting off them, with dim clouds behind them and drab fog below, they looked Olympian.
And then the sun went down all the way, foreground ridges obscured my view of the Hamilton crest, and I realized that my windshield was covered with spotty gunk from a recent rain spatter anyway-- so small good my camera would have done me.
Ah well. I saw it, at least.
|
|
19:47 - Ow ow ow.
|
(top) |
Aaaaahhhh. I finally got that splinter out of my fingertip that had been in there for two or three days.
The only protruding bit had broken off, and most of it remained below the surface of the skin; it was very very very small, but not so small that I could type without getting a twinge every time I brushed against it.
I couldn't figure out which way in it was embedded. No matter which direction I tried scraping it with my fingernail, it never seemed to want to move toward the surface or stick out a tiny bit of length that I could grab with a pair of tiny little tweezers or a micropipette or something. It just kept hurting.
I always sort of wonder whether if you never get a splinter out of your finger, if your skin will grow back over it and it will become a permanent part of your body-- or if the act of healing sort of pushes it out regardless of how deeply it's buried or what its orientation is. I've never found out the answer, and frankly I'm not keen to.
So finally, this afternoon, I managed to dig it out with a staple. I used the sharp end to grind away the skin surrounding it until all that was left was a raw sort of miniscule hole-- and no splinter in sight. I don't know where it went. All I know is that I can press on my fingertip again, and all I feel is the light burning sting of raw skin-- not the set-your-teeth-on-edge stabbing pinch of nerve endings under a needle-sharp pressure.
Why am I writing this here? Well, because it was the most rewarding accomplishment of the day.
C'mon. Compared to getting lionking.org back online yesterday, anything else in a context larger than my fingertip seems sort of inappropriate. Work-- bah. Server features-- they can wait.
I got that damn splinter out.
|
| Wednesday, April 10, 2002 |
21:38 - XBox Death Watch
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/04/10/1351245&mode=thread&tid=127
|
(top) |
The consensus seems to be forming across the Web: the Xbox is doomed.
Despite a brave face being put on lackluster sales by Microsoft's marketing machine, the numbers can't be denied: the Xbox is being outsold by the psOne. It's doing especially poorly in Japan and Europe, where they had hoped to make up for a weakish US start. They're taking a serious loss on the sale of each console, with an eye toward making up the cost on volume and firmware licensing agreements for developers-- and considering a) the low volume and b) the pathetic library of games, it would seem that the glowing green X-shaped tear in the top of the box is a gateway to Hell into which Microsoft is hurling bag after bag of large-denomination bills.
How sad does that make me? Hold on, I can't hear you-- too much loud music and carousing being done here. Someone just sprayed me with Silly String. The celebration party's a little too wild; I'll get back to you in a bit.
This Slashdot article has a lot of enlightening comments. (And a lot of insanely funny ones too-- one guy says "My kids think Gamecube is the cat's ass," to which another responds, "Help me out with the lingo here. Does this mean they like it, hate it, or just need a lesson in basic feline anatomy?") Among the less-raucous are tidbits like the one about how Microsoft plans to keep funding the Xbox sales push in order to keep the machines on store shelves for as much as five years, regardless of whether sales ever pick up. Hey, bring 'em on-- the more money we can make 'em lose, I'm all for it. Go nuts!
Other readers point out articles by Gord of the inimitable actsofgord.com: This one, where he speaks preemptively (in November) about the chances the Xbox might have against its entrenched competition in a real-world gamer's market-- and this one, in which he deconstructs the pricing schemes of the various companies and which ones subscribe to the "Sell the consoles at a loss and make it up on game licensing deals" scheme (hint: Microsoft is not the first to do it, but they're in the minority). The Gord hath spoken.
What you won't find among the Slashdot comments, however, is rhetoric from people who refuse to buy Xboxes on principle. You know, because it's Microsoft, regardless of how carefully they hide the MS logo in the Xbox ads. This is Slashdot we're talking about-- surely you'd expect that there would be at least some of the idealistic ranting. But there's none-- not a peep. I don't understand this. What has happened to these people's spirit? This is Slashdot, for Pete's sake. Open-source geeks. These people will fight a holy war over whether Linux or FreeBSD has the open-source license that's more likely to undermine and overthrow Microsoft's hegemony. These are people who will use StarOffice and KDE and GIMP and claim to their last dying breath that they have all the functionality of a Windows-using commercial-software sheep. And yet to judge by their comments, half these people bought Xboxes. What is wrong with this picture?
I was thoroughly convinced, along about November, that there would be throngs of Linux and open-source people out in front of Fry's at midnight on the day of the Xbox's launch, waving signs and passing out flyers and denouncing Microsoft's business practices-- just like they did at the Win95 launch and the Win98 launch. I was fully expecting to read all about it in the tech press the next day. But... I didn't. Why? Who knows? Who can understand the gamer's mind? The cynical side of me says "Sure, anybody can be idealistic when they're talking about office apps or Web servers-- but when it comes to Halo, all bets are off! W00o0ot! Go Xb0X!" And going by my experience with MMORPGs and the people who play them, I have a very hard time forcing that cynical side of me to shut up. I want to believe my friends have a little bit more integrity than that. I want to believe that the people I know and respect can resist the lure of bump-maps and battle-damaged cars and the gutted soulless husk of Bungie for the sake of a little solidarity in the face of a Microsoft marketing offensive explicitly designed to get under their defenses and win them over and make them start saying "Mmmmmicrosoft? Well... gee... I guess they're not all that bad..." as they bang away on their giant Xbox controllers.
No, it must be something else. Do these guys drop their facade of idealism in favor of sane pro-vs-con discussions whenever video game consoles are concerned-- because they're somehow not the same as desktop operating systems? Because the Microsoft that makes the Xbox is really not the same hated corporation that they've been fighting all their lives against-- they're an underdog now, so they deserve a fair shake and a chance to prove their worthiness in the market? Is that what's happening?
Unfortunately, I can't seem to convince myself that that's the case. My reasoning always seems to circle around to what my cynical side is telling me. Just wave some crack in the air, and the freedom-fighters will drop their keyboards and soak their chins with drool. If only the al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade were so easily won over.
I just got rid of my PS2 tonight-- I'd bought it on September 10th, so my heart was never really in it in the first place; I'd played Gran Turismo 3 for a few weeks, but as it turned out I haven't touched it in about four months. And truth be told, the only reason why I bought it in the first place was as a sort of preemptive strike-- to get a video game console into the house, so other members of my household would not feel tempted to fill that void by buying an Xbox for the house.
Now that such a move seems to be less and less likely, given the timbre of the headlines, I feel safe in unloading the PS2 to a friend. He wouldn't have been able to afford one on his own, and I was willing to pay to get the damn thing out of my room, so it worked out pretty well for all involved. And since the friend in question actually lives in the same house as me, the PS2 is moving to the big-screen TV downstairs, where it can be even more visible in its Xbox-displacing glory than it was before. I should have put it there in the first place.
And maybe it will elbow aside some sports from the TV. Believe it or not, I'd rather listen to video games all day than sports for ten minutes.
And in any case, it's not doing me any good up here. Time to send it back in to continue the good fight.
Meanwhile, I resume my quest to discover where the anti-Xbox solidarity has gone. Granted, people aren't buying Xboxes, but it's on the Xbox's merits (or lack thereof), not because of anti-Microsoft fervor. Hey, I'll take what I can get-- but I would love to see just one person refuse to buy an Xbox because they don't buy Microsoft products, even video game systems.
Is that too much to ask?
|
| Tuesday, April 9, 2002 |
00:53 - Elijah Would
http://rollingstone.com/mv_news/newsarticle.asp?nid=15574
|
(top) |
I've been meaning to post this for some time now; it came up while my server was offline, and it's been sitting open in a browser window on my desktop machine ever since then, rebuking me for not sending it on out into my freakish little corner of the world.
Okay, okay, little article-- you get your wish. I'm no match for your charms.
It's a Rolling Stone interview with Elijah Wood, with lots of fun insights into his character, his past, and his life on the Lord of the Rings set. This being Rolling Stone, frank language abounds. But that just helps make it all the more authentic. "Keepin' it reeeal", I believe is the official term.
Mostly, what one hears from those who shared his company in New Zealand are testaments to Wood's maturity. It is Wood who describes a rare exception to this - a night out in Wellington drinking vodka and cranberry juice that ended with Wood and fellow hobbit Dominic Monaghan climbing up a fountain statue that had been annoying Wood and pissing in it as Liv Tyler, cast as Arwen the elf princess, looked on and said (Wood does a high-pitched Tyler impression), "Guys, what are you doing? Did you just piss in the fountain?" He enjoys this story. "Funny though," he says. "Good memories."
Great little anecdotes. The article seems to spend an inordinate amount of time on what is clearly a lot less of a big deal than the interviewer seemed to think it must be-- Wood's lack of an emotionally close father-- but other than that, it's a whole lot of fun.
And the interviewer is clearly a fan, not just of Wood, but of the story.
Elijah Wood has the ring. There were other rings, used for different shots, but he has the ring he wore: the ring that was the ring. Jackson gave it to him in a wooden box as he left New Zealand at the end of filming. "It is the one ring," he says, "which is a pretty great thing to have."
He keeps the ring in his office. It's put away, out of sight.
I ask Wood whether he often takes it out and fondles it.
"No," he says. "I haven't taken it out in quite some time. I'd rather just keep it hidden away for now."
I don't know if TheOneRing.net counts as a blog, but if it does, it's certainly one of the best themed blogs I know. I can always count on it to turn up stuff like this.
|
|
00:33 - We have a new champion...
http://www.karelia.com/watson/
|
(top) |
Watson was updated to version 1.5 recently.
Yeah, big whoop, huh?
Actually, kinda, yeah. See, Watson is in my humblest of opinions one of the coolest pieces of software ever to grace the world. Why? Well, because it's-- well, let's count the things it is:
- Yahoo column-view navigator
- Movie showtimes finder, trailer viewer, theater locator, poster viewer, and ticket-buying conduit
- eBay auction manager
- FedEx/UPS/USPS/Airborne Express package tracker
- Currency converter
- Image search tool
- TV listings guide and search tool
- O'Reilly "Meerkat" news browser
- VersionTracker portal
- Arriving Flight tracker
- Recipe search tool
- ZIP code search tool
- Phone number search tool
...And several other things. More tool modules are being added all the time, accreting themselves into your Watson application like asteroids clattering together in space to form a moon.
Oh, and it's about 2MB.
This is about the most elegant thing I've ever seen. It's just a framework-- written in pure Cocoa-- for all kinds of web-enabled tools which suck in data from all sorts of online databases and format them in grids and detail drawers. The Movies tool, for example, lets you navigate through the Mac OS X-style column view by either theater or movie title (after entering your ZIP code); when you select a movie, the drawer at the bottom shows you movie details, the promo poster, and the trailer video which you can watch right inline. There's also a "Buy Tickets" link right there where applicable.
Because of the TV Listings tool, I now no longer need to deal with my AT&T Broadband on-screen guide system-- because Watson's is much faster and provides a whole lot more flexibility. After inputting my ZIP code and selecting my cable provider (it knows about all the local ones), I get to check off my favorite channels, and watch all the listings at once, clicking on each one to see the same show details that I get on the cable system. It has a search function, too, so I can see the next n showings of Invader ZIM.
What else? Well, plenty. For one thing, the reason for the title of this post is that Watson-- well, let's just say that they've improved their icon. Oh, how they have improved it.
This is the "installer" folder. Look at it. I mean, just look at it. The bag with the globe in it is the icon. (You simply drag it from there to your Applications folder.) The newspaper next to it is the Readme file. Before you jump to conclusions, no, Finder windows don't have live raytracing and 3D shading now; the newspaper icon is artificially shaded to fit in with the "streetlight" background image. And no, when you click on the bag and drag, you don't lift the shiny blue sphere out of the bag and and into the light. But damn-- is that not the coolest installer-folder presentation you have ever seen?
Okay, maybe I'm just easily impressed.
No, that's not it. This program just kicks ass. I've just sent in my $30-- if ever a shareware program deserved registration, Watson is it.
This is what Sherlock should have been-- and what Sherlock probably would have been if Apple had sat down to redesign it from scratch using the Cocoa frameworks rather than simply porting the legacy Find utility.
2MB... damn. This is exactly what everybody's been hooting about with Cocoa all this time. This is going to become an indispensable part of my life, if I let it.
Incidentally-- Chris, a dyed-in-the-wool Linux guy, saw me playing with Watson today. After watching me scoot around in the Movies tool for a minute or two, he said, "Okay, you're having far too much fun with your Mac. You need to give it to me now."
Open web resources and interconnectivity. .NET, eat your heart out.
Now if you'll excuse me, Watson has pointed out a number of movies that I've been meaning to see which are on at this very moment.
|
|
18:15 - Well Done, Mr. Fortune Man
|
(top) |
I have a "fortune" database of all the Simpsons quotes for the first eight or nine seasons or so, compiled from the quote sections of the Episode Capsules at snpp.com. There are a lot of quotes-- like 5MB worth.
Each quote has a little credit line at the bottom, put there by whoever did the transcribing. If the quote is just a single line from one character, the credit line simply says (for instance), "Homer, 'Homer's Odyssey'", or if it's a dialogue, "-- 'Lisa's Date With Density'". But more often than not, and especially in the later episodes, the credit line includes an additional little witticism by the editor, for instance:
Homer: Donut? Lisa: No, thanks. Do you have any fruit? Homer: [offers some of the donut he's eating] This has purple stuff inside. Purple is a fruit. -- Mmm, purple, "Bart on the Road"
Often these little dabs of editorial wit are as amusing as the quote itself; just as frequently, though, they're just dumb. Regardless, they've attained their own life as an integral part of the process of quoting The Simpsons out of context.
Well, today I ran across what must be best quote credit line I've ever seen... the Perfect Tagline:
Bart: [sighs] I wasted five bucks on these. Lisa: Where'd you get five bucks? I want five bucks. Bart: Aw, I sold my soul to Milhouse? Lisa: [incredulous] What? How could you _do_ that? Your soul is the most valuable part of you. Bart: You believe in that junk? Lisa: Well, whether or not the soul is physically real, Bart, it's the symbol of everything fine inside us. Bart: [tsking sadly] Poor, gullible Lisa. I'll keep my crappy sponges, thanks. Lisa: Bart, your soul is the only part of you that lasts forever. For five dollars, Milhouse could own you for a zillion years! Bart: Well, if you think he got such a good deal, I'll sell you my conscience for $4.50. [Lisa starts to walk off] I'll throw in my sense of decency too. It's a Bart sales event! Everything about me must go! -- Great selection and rock-bottom prices, but where is the soul?, "Bart Sells His Soul"
Bee-autiful. A masterful turn of the pen. As it were.
Best... tagline... ever.
|
| Monday, April 8, 2002 |
22:52 - The Anti-Pickle Conspiracy
|
(top) |
I think I know what the problem is.
The world is conspiring to deny Brian pickles.
About a week ago, I posted about my travails at the local Togo's with a server who seemed incapable of understanding that I wished him to put a large, plural number of pickles on my hot pastrami sandwich. I finally got my pickles-- oh yes, Brian will not be denied-- but not before reminding the guy no fewer than three times of my wishes that he should not only fail to ignore the giant bin of fluorescent salty green vegetable discs, but should fail spectacularly to ignore it. This he failed to do-- er, he failed to fail, I guess. He ignored me entirely, until I all but shoved two fingers up his nose and directed his head forcefully into the pickle hopper.
So I was in In-N-Out Burger the other day, with David. (In-N-Out, I should mention, for the benefit of those who don't live in the Southwestern U.S., is a rather spookily good burger chain-- spotless, spacious, all white tile with little red palm trees, with french fries that are fresh whole potatoes five minutes before they arrive on your tray and huge burgers with actual tasty cheese and with tomatoes and onions so fresh you can taste that they're cold inside. Their menu is almost a parody, comprising "Hamburger, Cheeseburger, Milkshake, Sodas, and Fries" like some kind of theme-park concession stand. But they also have unlisted "code" items: Double-Double (2x meat, 2x cheese), 3x3 (same thing times 1.5), all the way up through 8x8 (a friend of mine once ate one, very unhappily toward the end); Animal Style (with grilled onions), Protein Style (no bun, just a big leaf of lettuce wrapped around the innards, for those whose diets-- like the Atkins-- forbid them to eat bread), and plenty more that only the insiders know, like grilled-cheese sandwiches and salads and burger configurations familiar only to the elect few. In-N-Out employs clean-cut, white-bread, erudite, happy, eager-to-please, giggly but chaste high-schoolers from the 50s, plus happy-looking Anglo-Saxon family men who look like they must drive Lexuses, for $10 an hour-- almost twice the minimum wage. Every In-N-Out that has ever opened in California, Nevada, and Arizona has instantly had a lunch line that happily stretches out the door, around the parking lot, and down the street-- people are that enamored with the food this place serves, and for so little money too. And their soda cups and burger wrappers have little Book of Mormon verse references printed on them, hidden down in the corners and on the insides of the bottom rims. Make of this what the hell you will.)
...Right, anyway. So I was in In-N-Out with David, and I had just finished relating to him the hapless tale of Togo's and the Pickle Bait-and-Switch. I then casually mentioned how the last couple of times I had gone through the In-N-Out drive-thru, to get Protein Style burgers for my Atkins-Dieting roommates, In-N-Out had gotten something wrong in the order each time. First, they forgot Zjonni's chocolate shake. And on the subsequent time, they neglected (hey, surprise) to put pickles into my burger. Yes, I'd asked for extra pickles. Yes, they'd repeated extra back to me, quite clearly.
Just as I finish telling him this tale of woe, our orders are called. I go and pick mine up. We sit back down; he's rolling with silent laughter, and he reflects on the cruel irony of a worldwide conspiracy that seeks to deny pickles to me, the person who would cheerfully support the pickle industry singlehandedly if need be. Ah, life. He tears into his burger. I tear into mine. Wait. I pause, startled. I look closer. I look at David.
"Guess what they forgot to put on mine?"
|
|
22:28 - Blog Drought
|
(top) |
Lately I've simply not felt very much like typing. I'm not sure why it is-- whether because world events just feel too large for me to pretend I understand them, or because everything I say seems unfailingly to offend someone whom I have no wish to offend, or because I have too much emotional energy wrapped up in getting my server back online, or because I have too much e-mail to answer and simply don't want to start because it's all the same stuff over and over again-- I don't know. But the upshot is that I can't blog even though I have tons of links to post, tons of opinion to write about, tons of stuff to accomplish.
I think my motivation gland has just shut down production temporarily. Or at least rerouted its efforts to other pursuits, like encoding QuickTime movies of Cartoon Network shorts and Samurai Jack episodes.
I know I owe a lot of stuff to a lot of people right now, but I'm afraid it's going to have to wait a little longer. There are some tangles in my life at the moment that I need to work up the energy to tackle with a comb.
|
| Sunday, April 7, 2002 |
18:08 - From The Register: Microsoft has had its "teeth kicked in" over the Xbox.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/54/24630.html
|
(top) |
Double aaaawwwww.
|
|
18:05 - Windows XP has inexplicably failed to take the computing world by storm...
http://www.theinquirer.net/07040205.htm
|
(top) |
Aaaaawwwww.
|
|
17:33 - Apple Tackles Chicken-and-Egg Implementation Conondrums (again)
http://www.apple.com/hotnews/articles/2002/04/hdtv/
|
(top) |
HDTV is having trouble taking off-- the sets are expensive, and there isn't much content, so people aren't buying the sets... but there isn't more content and the sets aren't coming down in price because there's so small an installed base. Chicken-and-egg.
But here's a testimonial about how Final Cut Pro is enabling the content providers to do all their stuff easily and cheaply, helping to defray the production costs and barriers to getting the material out onto the airwaves.
So that's HDTV; meanwhile, they're tackling BlueTooth with a hardware dongle implementation, which you can buy now. While the PC industry has been hemming and hawing for months about BlueTooth but not actually implementing it, Apple has taken the initiative.
This is exactly what happened with USB; PC makers included USB only sporadically, until the iMac made it a standard piece of equipment and opened the floodgates for peripherals which no longer had to worry about the installed base being too small.
So that's a couple more things we can add to the litany of "Areas where Apple is out ahead of the pack".
|
| Saturday, April 6, 2002 |
00:45 - Article of the Day (at the very least)
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/102gwtnf.asp
|
(top) |
There hasn't been much blogging today-- not here, not at USS Clueless, not elsewhere-- and I think it's because people have been busy reading and digesting this article: "Among the Bourgeoisophobes", by David Brooks of the Weekly Standard.
Go and read it. Join the crowd-- everybody's doin' it.
You'll find it's worth it. Why? Because it would seem, in two pages of concise analysis, to corral together all the cultural and intellectual sentiment that underlies anti-Americanism, anti-Israelism, communism, fascism, Islamofascism, and just about every other cause of war and struggle in the past couple of centuries. I don't think it's too aggrandizing to say that it's the Unified Field Theory that explains Hitler, Lenin, Hirohito, Marx, Saddam Hussein, and bin Laden. It can all be traced to the same cause and tied to the same motivation. It can all be encircled by one word: bourgeoisophobia.
Steven den Beste says he's going to have plenty to say about this article in the future. I can hardly wait.
|
| Friday, April 5, 2002 |
01:52 - Oh my God, they've killed Kenny!
http://www.knoxnews.com/kns/tv_and_radio/article/0,1406,KNS_357_1068623,00.html
|
(top) |
Yeah, I know-- real original title. But I couldn't think of anything more appropriate.
I'm actually kinda relieved at this. Some of the most recent ways they've used Kenny have been the most clever in South Park history-- but I agree, the gag has run its course. And since they're doing this as a response to the natural and unbidden evolution of the characters within their universe, it signals that Parker and Stone are still committed to keeping the show fresh and true to its roots. If they weren't, they'd keep doing Kenny jokes, only in a progressively more and more formulaic way.
Of course, the role he played after he died in South Park: Bigger, Longer, & Uncut was probably what I'd consider his definitive death. It's the perfect illustration of the emotion and humanity that lurks beneath the stark and overbearing satire of the show's confrontational premise. Kenny was a great bridge between those two aspects of the show, and I hope the new cast with Butters as a core character will find the same kind of groove.
Rest in peace, Kenny-- and enjoy those angels.
|
|
17:46 - Well, would you look at that...
http://www.apple.com/cinematools
|
(top) |
Aha... so this is why Apple bought Filmlogic last year: it's now Apple-ified, integrated with Final Cut Pro, and released as Cinema Tools-- the "last mile" part of digital-film editing, which is what digital video editing wants to be when it grows up.
Until now, if I'm very much mistaken, filmmakers shooting 35mm or 16mm film who wanted to digitally edit it had the option of converting it from the 24 frames-per-second of film to the 29.97 fps of NTSC or the 25 fps of PAL, edit it in Final Cut Pro, and then... well, print it to videotape or DVD. Which is nice, but it's not film. If you digitize your film in order to run it through the digital processor, you then had to either use expensive third-party or homegrown tools to print it back to film at 24 fps, or simply accept that digital editing was a commitment to video or DVD finals-- not an attractive prospect.
Well, now Apple has released Cinema Tools, and now there's no need to be constrained to a frame rate. You can work with material at whatever frame rate your equipment uses, then convert it to 24 fps for printing back to film, and interpolate back and forth at full HD resolution-- which if I'm right means that the last hurdle keeping people from going all-digital in the editing process has now been removed and democratized into the $1000 price target. And thus the conquest is complete. No more $80,000 Avid systems; no more massive studio-owned entrenchments. Now it's all available to anybody, and the most expensive single part of an editing rig is no longer the software-- it's the computer and the camera.
When one considers that Apple is supposed to be a home-computer company, the degree to which they're committed to delivering a revolution to the professional film industry is rather revealing. I guess the money that filmmakers and studios are flinging into Apple's coffers is encouraging enough that Steve realizes this market is poised to explode, even if it isn't what Joe iPod or Bob EverQuest find interesting in their daily computing lives.
I'll have to ask Paul what he thinks of this development...
|
|
16:39 - Any port in a storm...
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-000023881apr03.story
|
(top) |
Here's a very forthright and surprising LA Times article on homosexuality in Afghanistan, particularly in Kandahar.
It sounds like ancient Greece or something.
|
|
14:20 - Blame Canada
http://instapundit.blogspot.com/?/2002_03_31_instapundit_archive.html#75080993
|
(top) |
Canadians with whom I correspond look with disbelief at the SSSCA and mutter sympathetically about how glad they are that they don't live in the USA; whereas we in the USA look at Canada's proposed taxation on high-capacity digital media (CD-Rs, hard drives, etc) which would inflate the price of an iPod threefold on the argument that it defrays the cost of piracy, and mutter sympathetically about how glad we are that we don't live in Canada.
My point? We're sort of in the same boat. Neither side of the border has the moral high ground when it comes to stupid political moves, and we can each look at our own governments and cluck sadly with as much ease as we can cluck at the one across the way.
But take a look at this letter over at InstaPundit, reportedly one which represents succinctly the attitudes of a great many other letters from Canadian citizens who are downright ashamed at their country's post-9/11 actions.
We have a government that values tolerance, understanding and sensitivity over justice. They value multiculturalism and diversity over prosperity, patriotism and national pride.
Our Prime Minister and government left most Canadians ashamed in the wake of 9/11. Canadians once fought valiantly for the cause of freedom. Two generations have passed since then. Our current government has no such morality, no such courage. Our government's response to September's tragedy sullied the memory of those who sacrificed their very lives to provide the basis for freedom. They provided the basis for freedom, but could not ensure it. Freedom must be earned each day. Our government, and many foolish Canadians, balk at the price (like the rest of the world, we prefer to let you pay for it). Today's government - although not just Canada's in this case - would gladly devalue to meaningless the sacrifice of our veterans when threatened by something as mildly evil and threatening as the Durban conference, never mind something so morally unequivocal as the World Trade Center bombings or Israel's war against those who wish it annihilated.
Were I Prime Minister in September I would have been in New York the next day - serving coffee if need be - but doing something to help. Our Prime Minister waited weeks and lied by saying that Guiliani's office had told him not to come! Can you imagine the shame of being represented in such a way? You are our very generous neighbour, for which I am ever-thankful. If my neighbour's house burnt down tonight, I would be there immediately to offer whatever help I could. True, most days we barely exchange a nod. I have never had them in my home. But there are times where being a neighbour takes on a different meaning. Canada's response to 9/11 was the equivalent of me standing over the ashes of their home and saying "that'll teach you to play with matches". That you are so forgiving of such "friends" as Canada is one of the reasons American culture is so much sought after, and is one of the reasons it will prevail.
We have a government still trying a dozen years after the fall of the Berlin Wall to show that socialism works, and that government has the answers. We face an incredible tax burden due to a redistributive policy that, if not reversed, will see Canada become another Argentina in a generation. Our government is acutely averse to any policy that de-centralizes governmental power, or reduces their influence on the daily lives of people. They believe that charity does not start at home - it starts with the Prime Minister. Government largesse is doled out - in wildly disproportionate amounts to Quebec and other regions that continue to re-elect the ruling Liberals - with little regard for taxpayers and a belief that individuals cannot make a just society, only government can.
If the U.S. would accept Canadians as political refugee claimants you would have a long line at the border. Our country has ceased to be a representative democracy, and is suffering a slow death which the U.S. itself narrowly avoided. The takeover of our educational establishments decades ago has succeeded in destroying most of the characteristics of Canadian society that contributed to its early successes. The politically correct, tolerant-of-all-at-all-costs, multicultural, compassionate collective result is a country that no longer stands for anything. Nor are we against anything, except perhaps the U.S. Canada is a country that would be unable to define itself were there not an America. We cannot say what we are, or what we stand for, but whatever it is, it isn't what you stand for. Such is our anti-identity. What is going on up here is a people constructing a society whose goal is to avoid all that is right with yours.
I'm actually made vaguely uncomfortable by this-- I think it's the discomfort that someone feels who receives an award for work that was accomplished mostly by achievers who came before him, but for which he was only the most visible or recent figurehead. It's like having a PC user lavish praise on a Mac after reading my blog but never using a Mac himself-- it makes me go "Uh, well, y'know, let's not be jumping to conclusions here."
The fact is, I have a number of Canadian friends, most or all of whom are quite happy and proud to live where they do. They're rightly taken aback at the suggestion that they should emigrate in protest of their country's politics, just as I would be when things turn iffy around here. It's novel to get this perspective from actual Canadian citizens, because traditionally these kinds of sentiments have come from Americans-- Americans who consider Canada to be a funny little outrigger of a country, a place to go on vacation where there aren't many people in the tourist destinations, where we get to feel as though we're in a "foreign country lite" because of all the French and terms like "provincial parks" and all the ringing Highland surnames. We respect Canada as an equal when we really have to think about it, but for the majority of the time we belittle it. South Park: Bigger, Longer, & Uncut was widely enjoyed by Canadians all over, not least because it depicted Canadian influence kicking America's ass... but that whole framework of parody indicates our larger view of Canada, which is of a vaguely offbeat place just outside our range of interest where they talk funny and spell things funny and pretty much don't get in anyone's way. For all the attention Americans usually pay to Canadians, the latter really could be paper cutouts with beady little eyes and flapping heads. That's about as seriously as we take them.
I don't like this. I don't like belittling the people who should be some of our best allies, people who have a significant influence on world politics regardless of what Parker and Stone say about Celine Dion and the porn industry. I don't like hearing people talking about seeking political asylum on the other side of the border, even if it's people talking about themselves. If they're really serious about it, well, sure-- I would make a special effort to accommodate such a decision and its aftermath, as I'm sure those in Canada would do if I were the one moving.
But while this kind of idealism and admiration is encouraging and makes those of us who read it feel better about the things the USA stands for, I'm never that much at ease seeing someone dissing his own country in favor of the USA.
For countries to be strong allies, they need to be confident in themselves and their own ideals, rather than all trying to emulate some central swaggering idealogue. If America is in the Vin Diesel role in The Fast and the Furious, the guy everyone flocks around, the pugnacious and charismatic muscular sex machine that everyone aspires to be, the Tyler Durden to Canada's Jack-- then the gang is reduced to a cult of character. But if everybody in the gang is treated as an equal, each contributing the unique strength that he brings to bear, free of snide self-denigration and schizophrenia, then a lot more is bound to get accomplished.
I'm gratified to hear that so many Canadians are feeling ideologically closer to America these days, and I welcome their voices. But, hey, we're not right all the time either. And we need you too.
|
|
11:03 - 4/1 is just the kickoff...
http://www.somethingawful.com/truthmedia/lordoftherings/index.htm
|
(top) |
Okay-- go read this review of Lord of the Rings, the movie. Go on-- I need you to read if first, before you come back here and continue reading this post. In the words of Glenn Reynolds, I'll wait.
Okay. Now, depending on your intelligence and/or level of rabidity, you've either been made furious -- and fired off an indignant e-mail to the review's author-- or unearthed the real story. See, this "review" is part of "Truth Media", a new segment of SomethingAwful.com, whose not-very-well-hidden mission statement and index page reveals the scheme: specifically to entrap people with an overzealous sense of loyalty to a movie, band, whatever. Their goal is to bait people into flaming the authors of the reviews, so they can post the hate-mail gleefully on their site. And frankly they'd deserve it, too.
Most of the authors have not even seen the movies, heard the music CDs, or used the software reviewed; we simply leaf through various online reviews and summarize them while creating grevious typos, factual errors, and outright fallacies in an attempt to shatter the fragile little worlds of people who associate their entire personality and sense of being with a random form of capitalistic media. We plan on continuing to do this until America realizes that we're not defined by the music, movies, and products we buy... so basically, this section will go on for infinity or possibly longer.
Heaven help us if they do one on The Lion King. Or about Macs.
Seriously, it's a cool, novel idea. My only objection is that it's a bit too obvious. My reaction, while reading it, was "Y'know, for a parody of a review, this is very confused." After finishing it, I went directly to the links at the top which led to the TruthMedia home page-- because when I read something like this, something this obviously warped, I know there's more to the story. Most review organizations have their own predilections informing their analyses-- the CAP Reports, after all, have a certain slant that's pretty hard to ignore but makes sense within the context of their mission. (Well, sort of.) So the trouble with the Truth Media reviews is that even when loaded as a direct, independent URL, they're still surrounded by all the SomethingAwful links and flanked at the top and bottom by those rather obvious links to the page that defuses and debunks the whole scam. Seems to me that if they're serious, they should make an independent site for Truth Media, and go all-out with the hiding of the giveaway. Unless, of course, they're worried that even intelligent people will be unable to find it, and rather than sending entertaining flames, will come away with the impression that the site is simply very stupid. Somehow I get the feeling that SA really, secretly, deep down, has more respect for its readership-- and more desire to be treated as intelligent thereby-- than that. Hey, they're only human.
Marcus was baiting me into blogging this LotR review from the indignant "Hey! This is terrible!" angle, and for that I will someday make him pay. But meanwhile, I wish luck to SA, and I'll be checking back later to see who they do snare.
Oh, and look, more Photoshop Friday fun. I really need to remember to follow SA more regularly...
|
| Thursday, April 4, 2002 |
18:06 - Show Me the Way!
http://www.appleturns.com/scene/?id=3665
|
(top) |
AtAT has some of the choicest words today for how the "We Have the Way Out" brouhaha has ended:
Well, whaddaya know about that? In the middle of Day 3 of the "WE HAVE THE WAY OUT" UNIX vs. Windows Saga, Microsoft finally caught a break. To recap, Microsoft and Unisys launched an anti-UNIX site last week-- only word got out on Monday that they were running it on a UNIX server. So, early yesterday, they made a panicked switch to a Windows server to save face... soon after which, the site went completely non-functional, alternating between serving blank pages, "Directory Listing Denied" errors, and, most recently, a cryptic message to the effect that "no web site is configured at this address." One would think that if anyone could get a simple one-page site with a form submission running under Windows 2000 and IIS, it would be the company who wrote the frickin' software. Needless to say, the folks who hustled to launch the pro-UNIX "WE HAVE THE WAY IN" (running flawlessly on UNIX, natch) have probably been giggling nonstop for days.
But Microsoft has finally gotten its page up again after well over a solid day of downtime-- nice illustration of why businesses should switch from UNIX to Windows, guys; bravo-- which means the party's over (at least, until someone hacks the site). And now that the dust is clearing, it appears that the only high-level Microsoft exec to take the fall for the whole fracas was President and COO Rick Belluzzo, who "unexpectedly resigned" today amid a "restructuring," as reported by the Associated Press. (But of course we all know the real reason Belluzzo's walking; HE HAS THE WAY OUT.)
Oooooohhh. I call that "point, set, match".
|
|
12:31 - Hans Zimmer's a Mac Guy
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4386676,00.html
|
(top) |
Wow, yet another of those freakin' odd occurrences where multiple topics that I frequently write about come together. Here's a Guardian interview with Hans Zimmer, the composer to whom I have a site devoted (down currently, or else I'd link to it), talking about his interactions with technology and with Macs.
Why do you prefer Macs? With OS X they've now got Doug Wyatt, the guy who wrote OMS, working with them. They're taking music more seriously now. Steve Jobs seems to be running Apple as his hobby and he appears more interested in Pixar, so consequently he's perhaps more interested in visuals - but he may have figured out that music is a good market.
I can take my G4 Titanium laptop with a little Oxygen keyboard that fits in the same bag and I'm pretty much able to do a score anywhere.
Do you use OS X? I feel I can't go near it yet but they seem to be taking their time to really make it work well for musicians. It's changed quite dramatically and I have friends who are switching between OS X and their old system to get used to it. It's taken a long time to get this far but only four years back, everyone was saying Apple was dead and here they are, stronger than ever.
He also weighs in on the subject of file-sharing:
Where do you stand on file-sharing software? The Napster case was fought wrong. Shutting sites down is not the way to go. I earn my living from creating something people can easily rip off - so do the software companies - and there has to be some sort of moral obligation on the part of the user. There are only so many really brilliant people who can write that software. I'm scrupulous about buying all my software to support the companies. I like to meet the people who write the software as, ultimately, what we buy is their personality. These are good times for technology. Grand pianos have been around for 500 years: we've only just started with computers!
Indeed. It's telling that so many artists, particularly the ones who are confident about the quality of their work, seem to share exactly this attitude. They're not in it to get rich in the first place-- they started playing music for public consumption because they loved doing it. And for the good ones, that's why they still do it.
And when artists of this sort look at Napster and the current P2P apps, all they see is a way for people to expand their listening experience, to consume more media, to find new tastes and interests. They do see that it's a medium that's subject to abuse, but so are a lot of things that are potentially beneficial. Do we shut down freeways because people drive faster than they should? Do video-rental stores close shop because of people pirating videotapes? No. We punish the offenders, yes... but we don't make the rest of society suffer because of them.
Yes, I'm still mad that Beavis had to stop saying "fire".
But I'll be even madder if I have to stop saying "Transfer this album to my iPod."
|
| Wednesday, April 3, 2002 |
02:05 - No sweat, my friend.
http://www.denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2002/04/Lotsoftraffic.shtml
|
(top) |
Steven den Beste has just posted a large and rather self-conscious reflection upon the politics of reciprocative linking-- he mentions how the blogs to which he links are limited in number, because of the layout of his site. I was in that list until today:
In fact, recently I added two more to it, and because it was too long I had to decide to remove one. And it hurt. It really did. Picking someone to take out was hard, and it really came down to a random selection. (I hope he isn't mad at me for it.)
Mad? Hardly. I consider it unexpected gravy that I was ever on that rarefied list to begin with; I'm still sort of at a loss to imagine a) how he ran across my blog, and b) what led him to conclude that I was worth linking to. My content is mostly either tech-geek ramblings which never seem to shake free of the Apple/Mac topic pool, or bleary political drivel that brings little to bear that is not derived from the opinions of other, more capable writers. I think my biggest asset is volume.
But be that as it may, I'm more than pleased to have been on his link list for as long as I was. (I didn't want to mention it for fear of jinxing it.) Since I know all too well what it's like to try to keep a site tidy and fair, I'm all too glad to give up my slot to give someone else a shot at exposure. Surely they deserve it every bit as much.
Rock on!
|
|
01:50 - Getting there...
|
(top) |
Sorry about the lack of bloggage tonight-- I've actually got a few topics I want to cover, but they're going to have to wait until tomorrow.
I spent all evening tonight at the co-location site where my backup server is, the one currently running www.grotto11.com, copying its contents over onto a new 2u rack-mount server which will take over as the new primary server. I've got a couple of possibilities for where it will be hosted-- whether out of goodwill or by commercial hosting fees, or something of both, depends on how people feel over the next few days. But either way, I expect to have service restored by this weekend to Tuesday or so.
Just in case anybody cares, CVSup rules the world.
|
|
09:40 - Hey, this is good for a -- well, not laugh, exactly...
http://kinen.blogspot.com/2002_03_31_kinen_archive.html#11397094
|
(top) |
Cartoons in Egyptian and Iranian newspapers about Israel.
You know, they were pretty careful to avoid showing us the Nazis' actual anti-Semitic propaganda media during history class; we were mostly supposed to use our imaginations and focus on the consequences.
Well, if you've ever wondered what it looked like, wonder no more. And look at 'em all, internalize them-- not like it's easy to get 'em out of your brain-- because these are the images that the Arab world sees every day and thinks are as natural as Mickey Mouse is to us. This is the mindset that we have to dissolve at its core, and boy have we ever got our work cut out for us.
I think it's clear that what we've got on our hands is nothing less than the long-overdue and long-postponed reckoning for WWII, just as WWII was the reckoning for WWI. These things never do end, do they?
|
| Tuesday, April 2, 2002 |
14:46 - FUD dispersal
http://www.sundayherald.com/23324
|
(top) |
Okay, time to take apart a rather mean-spirited article piece by piece. This thing, by Iain S. Bruce of Scotland's Sunday Herald, reads like a bitter piece of techno-fascist doomsaying that preaches technological damnation for any people who suffers the aberrant and degenerate race of Macs to live unmolested.
One wonders what horrible Mac experience this fellow once had to live through. Did a Performa once beat him up on the playground? Did his wife run off with a Mac person? Or has he just lived through a horrific Windows troubleshooting experience, and thinks that if he should have to suffer, then dammit-- so should everyone else?
Read on, for smug rantings and screedish FUD. And for the original article too.
THE trouble with IT is that, like so many other good ideas in life, no sooner have you come up with a wizard field of invention and endeavour than people begin attempting to fix the same ludicrous rules, values and obsessions on to it that they seem determined to attach to every other aspect of life.
Take, if you will, the example of Apple Macintosh users, a body of men and women whose state of computing existence is all too often defined not by utility, but by the colour of their monitor casings. They have hijacked the information revolution and led it blindly down a route mapped out by superficiality and style.
That's right: according to this guy, Macs not only still come in translucent candy colors, but their machines are otherwise irrelevant. Nobody pays any attention to what they do or tries to compete with Apple's features and innovations. Nobody has adopted FireWire or AirPort, nobody has incorporated DVD burners, nobody has tried to make laptops small and power-stingy and attractive, and nobody has tried to develop movie-making software or MP3 organizers.
If we don't snuff Apple out of existence right now, they'll only steer us further down this dead-end road of freedom, connectivity, stability, attractiveness, fun, and capability. We can't have that, now can we? How will the IT people maintain power?
One can only hope the repellent new iMac, resembling a £1380 angle poise lamp with a particularly expansive backside, will bring them to their senses.
Not likely, Bucko. Some 40% of the new iMac sales at Amazon.com are going to PC converts, and all their feedback comments are about how great the new machine is. David Coursey has gone from PC zealot to Macophile on the iMac's strengths alone. Pundits on both sides of the divide have been praising the iMac's design as one of the best, most significant pieces of innovation ever to grace the computing world, and more of it is coming from the PC press than from the Mac side. Sounds to me like if buying a Mac represents taking leave of one's senses, we're on the verge of mass mania rather than the sterile calm of sanity.
For some years now, Apple has managed to divide the computing market with a strategy based on modern good looks blended with historical myth, and it is time the aberration was ended.
Yeah, the computer world would've been better off if Apple had never existed. Screw all this "innovation" crap-- Microsoft would have come up with AirPort, FireWire, ColorSync, DVD burners, iTunes, type and creator codes, and the GUI all by themselves. Macs are an aberration on our pure, pristine Celtic soil. Gas 'em. And erase 'em from the computing history books.
There are reasons that Apple owners still recite by rote to defend their choice of system, chief among which is the machine's famously intuitive interface. But while this was once a valid differentiating factor, the fact is all mainstream operating systems have now adopted the principles that made Macs so easy to use in the first place, rendering the point somewhat moot.
And that makes Macs an aberration, right? Hey, we all use electric power now, so Edison wasn't such a genius after all, was he?
Another defence, most often propounded by designers and their ilk, is that the Mac is better suited to creative pursuits. Again, this was true back in the day when Microsoft targeted the business market and Apple concentrated on multimedia applications, but as all major applications will increasingly run on all systems, unless they develop an aesthetic values chip pronto, these days are over.
Ah, another person who has never used iMovie, or has never compared the Photoshop experience on one platform to that on the other.
There is new ground to be explored in what technology can do for creativity. Oh yes, there's all kinds of progress yet to be made. And you know who's doing it? Quick hint: It's not Microsoft. It's not even Adobe. It's Apple, a company that has tooled its entire modern operating structure into building tools from the ground up which are designed to push the boundaries of what technology can do. Did FireWire just come about by accident? Who makes Final Cut Pro, the software that is democratizing the entire film industry? Who is opening doors to UNIX and Windows developers alike by providing open frameworks and free tools so that they can have the best and most flexible value in a desktop operating system that money can by? This ain't Windows XP I'm talking about here, just in case it was somehow unclear. If you enjoy how your menu options have all been arbitrarily rearranged behind the pustulent green Start button, and how Microsoft is doing everything in their power to limit the playback potential of MP3s and to side with the SSSCA backers to put policeware on your computer to make sure you're not copying your CDs onto your portable MP3 player, well, be my guest. But don't sneer at me because I'm not subject to those problems. I'm not as stupid as you think I am.
Apple's only significant difference, as far as we can tell, is that they have condensed the mouse to a single button. Why? Reducing the number of buttons to press might briefly benefit the weak and feeble minded, but in actual fact all that has achieved is to decrease the variety of muscle movements employed and thus increase, in this column's most humble opinion, the risk of repetitive strain injury (RSI).
Oh boy. Well done. Well done. Here's where we find just how well-informed Mr. Bruce (descended from royalty, perhaps? Sure talks like it) is about his chosen victim. "Condensed the mouse to a single button"? It's always been that way, Mr. Warrior Poet. It's not some new "innovation" designed to protect the "feeble-minded" from the horrors of multiple things to press. I've covered this before, but to say it as briefly as possible: The single mouse button is a concept based on studies which show that the vast majority of the computing public don't even know what the difference is between the left and right mouse buttons. People intrinsically understand how to open menus and look inside for their options; they do not make the implicit logical leap necessary to know that they can make objects do things by right-clicking to activate menus that change based on context. That metaphor is a luxury, one that can provide useful shortcuts to people who know it's there. But to those who open up the hard drive icon after months of doing nothing but click on the Word or IE icon and are startled to discover a window full of folders and files ("Whoah! What's all this stuff?" someone I was helping over the phone actually said), the mouse encompasses the following actions: Click, double-click, drag, release. The primary place to look for functions is in the menus. Oh, and the Mac OS fully supports multi-button wheely-mice if you want to plug one in.
And to posit that a single-mouse button makes the user more susceptible to RSI (oh look, he expanded the acronym for us-- that must mean he's learnéd) is pure speculative bullshit. That one statement right there should put this guy's words into a suspect light for even the most PC-centric reader.
(Besides, who's this "we"? The "royal we"? The Bruce clan have decreed that the single-button mouse causes RSI, and so the Crown orders all such aberrations stricken from the market. They'll ne'er take our freedom!)
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but if you have bought a Mac, then you've bought Betamax. Think of all the justifications for it that you want, but at the end of the day ownership of a fringe product means losing the benefits of ubiquity and adding to the expense, and is thus illogical.
Oh, now he's gone from kilted gauntlet-wristed warrior to Vulcan. It's all about logic now, like the logic of using Windows because of all the software that's available for it-- when for a given purpose there are 50 mediocre or downright crappy pieces of shareware, while for the Mac there are three or four excellent ones. Not to mention that on the Mac you'd be virtually free of ad-ware, spy-ware, and viruses. Sorry, but I don't mind paying a little extra (and it is a little extra) for those luxuries, plus those of hardware that's guaranteed to be inter-compatible, cutting-edge features like DVD burners and flat-panel screens and AirPort and gigabit Ethernet and FireWire all standard, and-- contrary to what you must think is popular opinion-- a vast community of some of the most helpful, knowledgeable, accommodating, and high-achieving people in the entire computer industry all too happy for you to join their ranks.
Besides, they still use Betamax in many high-end studios-- because it's still better than VHS. The "marginalization myth" doesn't get in the way of some people's ability to see what is the right tool for the job.
Diversity is good, of course, but pre-OSX, Apples only run one brand of operating system, the Mac OS. PCs will happily accommodate Linux, Unix, or any one of the Microsoft product range. You want to talk about monopolies? Talk to the Mac, man. The PC ain't listening.
<brrrinng> <brrrinng> Hello, Yellow Dog Linux? LinuxPPC? MkLinux? Yeah, I have it on good authority that you guys don't exist. <pause> This guy at the Sunday Herald. Yeah, I don't get it either. <pause> Uh-huh, that's what I thought too, but he says Apple has just recently condensed the mouse down to one button in order to increase your chances of RSI, so he must know what he's talking about.
Oh, and to say nothing of VirtualPC, and the fact that OS X is really two or three operating systems in one-- UNIX on the Darwin level, NeXTSTEP on the applications level, classic MacOS, and the whole new framework that makes them all sing and dance together. All this on hardware that's specifically designed for a particular OS in a "whole package" deal like the entire computer industry is moving toward (quick-- how many of your friends buy off-the-shelf Dells now instead of building PCs from individual components? I don't know about you, but around here it's a whole lot more than it used to be. Why? Support, compatibility, and a lack of hassle, perhaps? Fewer choices, but more peace of mind? A little extra money for the luxuries of ease-of-use?). Sorry, dumb argument, and one that the realities of the market are making self-evidently false.
Hate Microsoft? Tough, because the Redmond giant owns a percentage of Apple, and every pound spent on a Mac sees a few more pennies poured into the luxurious foundations of Gates's mansions.
If you really believe that the evil empire must be stopped, buy a PC and run Linux as your OS -- it's the only way you'll stop big Bill. Thinking different? Not thinking at all, more like.
There's this guy named Mitch that I really hate; he owns some Apple stock. Guess I'd better just go buy a PC, because my Pure Lifestyle Choice is tainted now.
This is rumbling dangerously close to the Righteous Fatalism mentality that Lileks wrote about some months ago-- the feeling that if we can only make some difference in a situation rather than achieving the absolute perfect ideal outcome, it isn't even worth trying. We shouldn't fight the war in Afghanistan because we wouldn't be sure to wipe out all terrorists in the world. We shouldn't picket against teaching creationism in public schools because evolution isn't "proven" and therefore is a potential target that we'd have to, y'know, defend and stuff. And we shouldn't buy Macs because if our sole purpose is to stick it to Bill, we're still filling his pockets.
Well, you know, that's not the reason I use a Mac. (Well, it's a reason, but not the reason.) I use a Mac because Apple has a vision of the computing world that's about ten years ahead of anybody else's, and always has been-- and by using a Mac I get to benefit from that vision and enjoy myself while I'm doing it. What's that you say? Apple is doomed because they're standing up for the rights of consumers to rip MP3s from their CDs and organize them with ID3 tags and burn them onto CDs and listen to them on portable players, and they'll lose that entire advantage once the SSSCA passes, which it will because Microsoft is helping sponsor it? Sorry, I can't hear you-- I've got my iPod turned up too loud.
Here's the scoop, folks: your computer is not a lifestyle statement. It's a bog-standard machine intended to fulfil an array of user-defined functions, and spending extra to distance yourself from 90% of the evolutionary pool sounds like muddle-headed foolishness to say the least.
The sooner we stop pretending it is anything other than that, the quicker we realise a computer has no value in itself and only in the things it does, the sooner we will get our heads around these things and start making them really work for us humans. So there.
So what you're saying is that the computer should be transparent, that it should enable you to accomplish things as an extension of your own mind without getting in your way? Funny, because that's what people have been saying all along that their Macs do better than PCs do. Who needs to think about MP3 files and bitrates and filenames and folders when we have the effortless organizational intuitiveness of iTunes? Who needs to save files to mysteriously hidden and buried folders when you can simply drag them from one application to another? Who wants to strain their eyes to meet the gaze of their 30-pound CRT, when they can have a flat-panel screen that slides into place no matter how they slouch?
Okay, look: Apple is a minority player in the computer world... if you only think in terms of sales numbers, market share, and what your office uses. But as Microsoft and Dell will be all to glad to admit, Apple is the mind that directs the future of the computer industry. Everyone looks to Steve Jobs for guidance. Everyone waits to see what Apple will bring out next. If Macs were so irrelevant, then why would translucent candy-colored casings still be the norm from Ethernet hubs to water coolers? Why would Microsoft have included Windows Movie Maker into Windows XP-- where it provides limited, half-implemented functionality on computers that mostly don't even have anything faster than USB for real-time video transfer to work? Why would the iPod be on every magazine cover and tech column's masthead, and pinned next to the drawing board of every product designer at every MP3-player company?
The Bruce here wants to see the visible underdog squished like a grape, excised from the computer landscape like the unclean infestation it is. It's only his obvious lack of research and knowledge that prevents him from seeing that without Apple, the tech market would lock up into a stagnant sink-hole with no direction, no accessibility, no insight, and nothing for him or any other computer user to look forward to. Sure, we'd have those invisible beige boxes letting us paw through web pages or trudge through our e-mail. But would we enjoy a moment of it? Or would a computer devolve into the equivalent of a high-resolution telephone, blearily ringing on a stuffy Sunday afternoon, summoning our resentful asses to come heed its needs?
I prefer for my computer to remain fun, your Highness. And as long as there remains breath in my body, you'll ne'er take away that freedom.
Computers are lifestyle choices, whether you like it or not-- just like cars are. They all get you to work in the morning; but some, Mr. Bruce, do it in more style.
|
|
12:01 - Where have all the scanners gone?
http://www.microtekusa.com/macosx.html
|
(top) |
I have a Great Mystery of the Universe to unravel.
My scanner is a Microtek ScanMaker 6400XL. It cost me $800, and I bought it specifically because it has a 12x17-inch scan area. I need that much scanning surface, because there's not a single piece of original material that I need to scan that is on paper smaller than 9x12 inches. I'm not doing OCR text scanning of documents on letter-sized paper. I'm doing scans of drawings and comic pages.
I suffered for many months with a letter-sized (8.5x11") scanner, doing two exposures for each image-- one of the left side, one of the right, then stitching them together in Photoshop. This never worked out perfectly, because inexplicably, the two halves never lined up properly-- it's like the sensor was moving at different speeds on the right and left sides of the image, so if you lined up one part of the picture, another part would go all crooked. It's enough to drive a sane man mad! Mad, I tell you!
So I knew I needed an A3-size scanner. You know, 12x17". After all, professionals need these scanners, right? All those people who do comic pages, which are drawn on 11x17-inch Bristol board? Sure, it goes without saying that they need large-format scanners, and that they don't spend all their time cursing at Photoshop as they futilely try to align all the parts of the various segments of the scan. No-- there must be a better way.
But lo-- it's true! There was a Mustek scanner in 12x17", for only a couple hundred dollars! I got one. And it worked. For a while. Then it stopped. That's when I learned why Mustek is a name whose very utterance summons roiling dark clouds among the likes of graphic designers the world over; they're cheap as hell, so people will buy them-- but they sport life expectancies in the single-digit months. I have an artist friend who buys Mustek A3 scanners in 3-packs, so she can have some hope of her scanning capabilities lasting out the year. The scanners themselves are impossibly cheap, and the software is garbage (when I was using Windows, if I ever scanned anything, I could then press Ctrl-Alt-Del to bring up the process list-- and the scanner driver icon would be in the process list's title bar instead of the Windows logo, meaning that the foul stink of an impending crash was wafting about my nostrils already). But that's what you pay your $300 for, right?
So when I got my Mac, I also invested in a Microtek 6400XL. It's been a trusty workhorse-- nary a problem, beautiful fast scans, and it never destabilized a thing.
But only on Mac OS 9.
Microtek has taken a full year to release OS X-native drivers for their scanners; today, they finally have done so. But in the intervening months, I've had to make do with the horrific VueScan (which I've ranted about before), or rebooting into OS 9 if I want to use real working software. On top of which is the fact that OS X doesn't allow you to boot the system and then turn on your SCSI devices-- you have to have them powered up at boot time for the OS to load the shims for them. An annoyance that has forced many a reboot out of me. Slow, unpredictable scan results and lots of forced reboots-- boy, it doesn't get any better'n this, does it?
But look! Hallelujah! Today they've released the driver and the new version of ScanWizard Pro-- for OS X! Hip hip hooray! Well... okay, so right now only one scanner is supported, but they've posted a release schedule so I can see when my 6400XL will be supported! Hosanna! Ho-- er... wait. Um... no. There must be some mistake. My scanner . . . is not on the list.
A weepy call to Microtek confirmed that this list is not "complete", and that they will be adding more "older scanners" to it as time goes on. But... well, hell. My scanner is only 2 years old. Okay-- well, here's where it gets really surreal.
I figure, hey: SCSI is the way of the past anyway, right? Why don't I just get myself a new 12x17" scanner with FireWire or (failing that) USB? It'll be newer, so it'll be supported soon. And the interface will be faster and hot-pluggable. What have I got to lose?
I start looking through Microtek's product pages. I look at UMAX. I look at HP, Canon... anybody I can think of. And guess what? While all the consumer and prosumer scanners are USB or FireWire, the professional large-format scanners are all still SCSI. Why?
Oh, and Microtek's current equivalent of my 6400XL, the 9600XL, is up to $1400. Of course it's still SCSI.
What's happening here? Is the market for large-format scanners that stagnant? Is nobody buying these things? What I noticed in my travels, much to my horror, was that almost noboody is making large-format scanners anymore. At all. They just aren't to be found on the product pages. Oh, there are legal size scanners-- 8.5x14", for those extra-long lawyers' bills, presumably. (Or maybe all the smaller sheets are actually illegal.) But the 12x17" size I need? Nooooo. Nowhere to be found, except in a few obscure niches. HP has a $3000 one. Canon has a similarly godawful-priced one. Microtek has three, ranging in price from the $1400 9600XL to some in the $10K range... but again, they're all obstinately SCSI.
Which brings me around to the mystery of the universe that I mentioned. Why is this happening? Don't the scanner companies have a whole publishing and graphic design industry to support? We need these scanners. Where the hell are they going to come from? The scanner companies are making all their money nowadays with the ridiculously garbaceous (I'm laying claim to that word right now) $80 one-touch scanners that they bundle with new Dells and stack in supermarket checkout lines and fling out over Times Square as party favors on New Year's. The high-end scanners are getting second, or third or fourth, billing. To look at the product lineups, you'd think nobody wanted them at all.
But there has to still be demand!
My dreams of a FireWire large-format scanner that I can afford are evaporating. What makes it so galling is that the prospect for such a product used to be there-- large-format scanners used to be ubiquitous. Every business had one. The ISP where I worked had one. It was just another variation. But now... well, it's market forces that have brought about this change, so I can't argue, I guess. If they've seen sales fall so much that it's no longer in their interest to produce scanners for that market, then I guess I can only accept that. But I just can't understand how demand can be so slim. Doesn't every artist on the face of the planet need a scanner like the 9600XL?
Oh, and just watch: Someone will mail me to point out a $300 FireWire 12x17" scanner from Mustek. With native OS X support. And I'll buy one, and it will explode into flaming molten shards, rendering my room uninhabitable and costing me an eye and my right arm.
|
| Monday, April 1, 2002 |
02:38 - Yeah, it's a travesty, but...
http://www.dorktower.com/images/comics/DorkTower168.jpg
|
(top) |
Yeah, I know. The Lord of the Rings didn't win Best Picture, or even any of the Oscars that really counted. It's a horrible injustice, I can't believe it either, blah blah blah.
But I think what's happening is this: The Academy is waiting to see what the whole series is like before they go passing out the most coveted awards in film to a fantasy-genre entry. They want to see if Peter Jackson can keep it up.
Besides, it's not like Oscars are the only thing that makes a film memorable decades after the fact. After all, Star Wars sure didn't win anything, and yet it's the first film that most people think of when asked "Quick-- name a movie!"
We'll get our satisfaction. Oh yes... we most certainly will.
|
|
02:33 - Tartakovsky, Mako, Jack, and Steven
http://www.denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2002/04/SamuraiJack.shtml
|
(top) |
Earlier tonight, we were watching Conan the Barbarian on the big-screen TV downstairs. It's a lavishly designed movie, the Fellowship of the Ring of its day, and realized in a detail that the best of today's movies don't often match-- with consistency of style from the characters' costumes to the technology to the language and the lore. It has its drawbacks-- Arnie could barely speak coherent English at the time, not that it mattered much, and so many of his lines were indistinguishable from Stallone's boxing-ring squalls. But on the plus side, it had Mako.
Mako is the freaky witch-doctor-looking wizard in both Conan movies; he's the gravelly-voiced narrator who makes every line sound like he's holding back laughter at the world of the mortals. I'd wondered what had become of him-- he seemed to have vanished after Conan-- but as Steven den Beste points out in a welcome non-war-related post today (linked above), he has resurfaced in an even more fun role: the irresistible villain Aku in Samurai Jack.
I tell you, den Beste must have been reading my mind-- I was just gearing up for a post of my own about Samurai Jack and its artsy, lingering, self-assured lavishness. And I would have said almost exactly the same things, too, right down to his choice of favorite episode.
Genndy Tartakovsky is certainly among the very best animators alive today. His first series, Dexter's Laboratory, was a masterpiece. Now his second one, Samurai Jack, is even better and there couldn't be a greater contrast between the two.
It's classic cell animation, and it's being produced by Hanna-Barbera for the Cartoon Network. If you haven't been watching this series, you're missing something special.
(It should be noted, with some sadness, that the current season of Dexter episodes are quite awful-- largely because Genndy is off doing Jack, his new flame. The new Dexters are off-model, cliché, uninspired, and seem to borrow their stylistic direction as much from the H-B gunk of the 60s as from the 50s-retro Ren & Stimpy mode that continues to be popular among those who think the ability to emulate a 1952 Frigidaire ad is all it takes to be the next John Kricfalusi. Dexter isn't worth watching these days, more's the pity. But we certainly got a good run out of it.)
What Tartakovsky brings to Cartoon Network is an artistic sensibility-- one that has enabled the type of cartoon that has suddenly made the medium respectable again. See, there's this spectrum in cartoons:
Limited animation/Strong script ------------------------------ Lavish animation/weak writing
For far too long, cartoons have tried to live over on the right, on the assumption that cartoons could insult the viewers' intelligence, repeat plots and clichés ad nauseum, clone shows from each other, and provide a return on investment purely on the strength of animation that looks good. Hence Scooby-Doo, The Superfriends, and the whole crop of 60s and 70s Hanna-Barbera claptrap-- though, importantly, the animation in those shows was crap too, purely because of anemic budgets. If they'd had more money, they would have put it into animation quality, however, which is the crucial point; otherwise, the scripts would have been better to begin with. Animation costs lots of money, but good writing can be done on a shoestring if you have the right people.
Well, Tartakovsky is the right people. He understands that what the TV animation industry needs is stuff on the left end of the spectrum: limited animation, with writing that screams. And even more importantly, he brought this insight: Design the show to look good in limited animation. If the character design and the timing are done right, as they are in Dexter and The Powerpuff Girls and Samurai Jack, you can get away with inexpensive sprite animation with lots of repetition, localized body-part movements, and directorial techniques that in lesser hands would be considered "cheats": long slow pans, freeze-frames, repeated animation cycles, and background-less disembodied-head scenes. These things work in Tartakovsky cartoons, because the show is designed to take advantage of those techniques, to revel in them. The thick outlines and stark geometric designs work perfectly in the Flash-style animation where realistic human motion would never make sense.
All the most successful shows on Cartoon Network lately have been limited-animation. Space Ghost really kicked it off, and it's already become an archetypal icon: it made an art form out of recycled animation, because the writing was dead sharp, and a lot of the humor explicitly followed from the camp value of the animation's limits and repetition. (All my friends and I can do the Space Ghost power-band-arm-spin move-- a motion so intoxicating in its humor value as to have inspired this whole new revolution almost single-bandedly.) And now we have Adult Swim, Cartoon Network's collection of "cartoons for grown-up tastes", showing in the 10:00-1:00 block on weekend nights, comprising further subversive paeans to well-written limited animation such as Home Movies, Aqua Teen Hunger Force, Sealab 2021, and of course Space Ghost-- plus newly minted premieres of shows that operate on similar sensibilities. Home Movies is pretty grim to look at, but the writing is top-drawer-- and it lends a lovability to the art that never would have been possible if it had looked better in the first place.
A perfect example of this mindset at work: When Cartoon Planet, the whimsical Brak-song-heavy spinoff from Space Ghost, was being shot, they hired a professional bodybuilder-type dancer to don the Space Ghost costume and dance around for the commercial-break interstitials. Yes, it looked really good... but that was the problem. It looked too good. It was completely wrong for the atmosphere they were trying to create, the freedom and democracy of the new form of animation. So they got Andy Merrill, the voice of Brak and one of the chief writers, to squeeze his rather dumpy butt into the Space Ghost suit and prance around. It looked unutterably ridiculous... and it was perfect.
It's not just Cartoon Network, either; look at South Park for a perfect example of what can be done with genius writing (Trey Parker is my hero-- he and Tartakovsky no doubt admire each other, especially considering the South Park reference in The Powerpuff Girls; in the "Patches" eipsode: "Guys... he tripped me. Seriously.") and what has to be the most limited animation on the planet today. Some may disagree with me when I say this, but I think South Park is one of the most visionary shows of our time-- as much for its embrace of an insanely ascetic animation medium which has grown into its own self-defined art form as for its incisive, infuriating, uproarious, insightful, and above all human writing.
Now, this isn't to say that lavish animation is dead. Far from it. Traditional shows that exploit outstanding animation standards are better represented than ever, what with the WB-descended Batman Beyond and Justice League, and the more-than-surprisingly witty and edgy Baby Blues. These shows are great-looking, but they aren't stuck at the extreme right of that spectrum; they have the budget for both good art and awesome writing, and so they shine.
But limited animation is still the hero of the day. It's so liberating to the creators that Cartoon Network can afford to do custom-animated shows like JBVO (where Johnny Bravo, armed with a library of pre-animated moves, hosts a write-in cartoon request show) and the Friday night Cartoon Cartoon with a rotating "host", animated to introduce the new shows; not to mention all the outstanding, irresistible ad interstitials featuring the Superfriends and the Powerpuff Girls. All the focus is given to the writing; the genius is allowed to flourish. And then the animation is laid on top to give it life, but not much needs to be added.
We've come a long way since the dismal 60s, when Huckleberry Hound and Yogi Bear were the edgiest voices on TV animation. (Tellingly enough, they made their mark through being limited-animation as well.) But what we have now is the true realization of the Jay Ward dream, where animation is the zest that brings life to an already golden script, rather than a crutch that props up writing that barely deserves to be credited.
Eventually the wheel will turn away once again, and shows like the ones that Tartakovsky does so well will fall out of favor. But in the meantime, let's revel in the joys of what we have: The impossible size and foggy, Myst-like mythical worldbuilding of the first "Scotsman" episode. The bone-chilling threat of the Jack-killer robots with their Vietnamese-esque armor and their Episode 1-battle-droid-with-actual-menace voices. The three minutes of silence as Jack meditates his way into a new form of sensory awareness before he attacks the tower with the wishing well.
Mako must be having the time of his life.
|
|
16:48 - The Ugliest Computer Ever
http://www.g-news.ch/articles/nhp200nc/
|
(top) |
Oh, I love it. I just love it. Now, mind you, this isn't one of those cases that thinks it looks good, like those Intel/HP "concept PCs" that everyone's been guffawing at with such gusto for the past few months. No, this one's much more utilitarian, much less marketdroid-driven. It's... well, really, it's just a pile of goop with technology in it.
To be honest, I think it's really, really cool. I'm not saying I want one, mind you (and that's a good thing, considering the disclaimer at the bottom: "Due to the one-of-a-kind nature of the NHP200NC, reproduction is impossible and orders are thus futile"); but I do admire the forthright attitude of a guy who knows what he wants in a computer and enjoys having fun with the process of bringing it about.
It doesn't even count as an April Fool's joke, either, because the thing works and is real.
It's just something funny that happened to come to light on April Fool's.
|
|
12:59 - But at least the food's good...
|
(top) |
SCENE: INT. TOGO'S, LOCAL CHAIN BIG-SANDWICH SHOP
MANUEL: Can I help you?
ME: yes, I'd like a large hot pastrami on white, please.
MANUEL. <pause> Large?
ME: <nod> Large.
MANUEL: <slicing the bread> Would you like everything on that?
ME: Yeah. And lots of pickles.
MANUEL: <pauses, looks at the sandwich, then at me> ...Pickles?
ME: Yes. Lots of pickles.
MANUEL: <looks confused some more, back down at the sandwich> ...No pickles?
ME: No, lots of pickles.
MANUEL: <nods> Oh!
He lays down the mustard. He lays down the lettuce, the tomatoes, the pepperoncinis, and the onions. Then he picks up the sandwich to take it over to where the meat is.
ME: Uh... no, I said lots of pickles.
MANUEL: <turns around, looks uncertain> ...Pickles?
ME: Yes!
He then puts on a moderate number of pickles, shaking his head to himself, undoubtedly silently cursing my indecision and peremptory attitude.
I keep telling myself that half the population is by definition under 100 in IQ. But even so...
Oh, and I've noticed lately that places like Togo's, Burrito Real, and even chains like Jack in the Box have little cups next to the cash register for tips. You know, at first I figured, hey-- these guys work hard for minimum wage, standing at the counter for hours on end. (Having once worked for a summer in the Ukiah pear sheds, standing for twelve hours a day, 6AM to 6PM, holding down the trailing flap of the pear boxes as they went into the gluing-shut machine, for $4.50 an hour, I know what it's like.) But after careful consideration, look: tips are for service. Cashiers don't get tips, because the service they provide that can't be done by a computer amounts to seeing what I have on my tray and making sure I'm paying for everything on it and not trying to sneak something past.
I tip heavily when I'm eating where there's an attentive waiter, especially so when the waiter is funny and acts like he's enjoying his job. I think such a case deserves all the economic incentive it can get.
But I'm not going to reward gross incompetence just because there's a handy place to put that reward.
|
| Sunday, March 31, 2002 |
02:21 - It starts...
http://instapundit.blogspot.com/?/2002_03_31_instapundit_archive.html#75049556
|
(top) |
Well, the first of what are likely to be many surprising April 1st developments among the blogs has been sighted: "AOL/InstaPundit".
Now, as April Fool's pranks go, this one would be pretty lame, especially by Glenn's standards. (I'm usually pretty dense when it comes to these things; my picture often appears next to "gullible" in the dictionary. This one is obvious even to me.) But what makes this one cool is the Register article to which he links. It would seem that web journalists the world over are complicit in this little caper, and the result is merriment for all readers. What ho!
Hey, my server's going back up! Nah, April Fool's.
|
|
11:45 - You wouldn't like us when we're angry...
http://instapundit.blogspot.com/?/2002_03_31_instapundit_archive.html#75048378
|
(top) |
InstaPundit reports this article by Tom Friedman in the New York Times:
The reason the Palestinians have not adopted these alternatives is because they actually want to win their independence in blood and fire. All they can agree on as a community is what they want to destroy, not what they want to build. Have you ever heard Mr. Arafat talk about what sort of education system or economy he would prefer, what sort of constitution he wants? No, because Mr. Arafat is not interested in the content of a Palestinian state, only the contours.
Let's be very clear: Palestinians have adopted suicide bombing as a strategic choice, not out of desperation. This threatens all civilization because if suicide bombing is allowed to work in Israel, then, like hijacking and airplane bombing, it will be copied and will eventually lead to a bomber strapped with a nuclear device threatening entire nations. That is why the whole world must see this Palestinian suicide strategy defeated. . . .
The Palestinians are so blinded by their narcissistic rage that they have lost sight of the basic truth civilization is built on: the sacredness of every human life, starting with your own. If America, the only reality check left, doesn't use every ounce of energy to halt this madness and call it by its real name, then it will spread. The Devil is dancing in the Middle East, and he's dancing our way.
Yeah. See, the way things are going right now, whatever action we end up taking will be long overdue. Because what we should have done is that the instant it became clear that the Palestinian groups were willing to use suicide-bombing tactics, we should have thrown out any of our previous diplomacy and flattened them. Our policy should be: It doesn't matter who you are; if you adopt suicide-bombing terrorist tactics and target civilians, you immediately forfeit any claim to a valid diplomatic stance. Hamas and Islamic Jihad should have been taken out, just like the Taliban, months ago before the second or third suicide attack took place. Because by letting the attacks continue, and by continuing to try to work towards a negotiated peace, then you know what? It looks like the suicide-bombing strategy is working. That is absolutely the last thing the world needs.
And now the Palestinians are snarling in the US' general direction:
Brigadier General Sultan Abul Aynayn, the head of Arafat's Fatah movement in Lebanon, who has been accused by Lebanese officials of organizing and arming illegal groups, said in an interview in this coastal camp south of Tyre that ''if a hair of Arafat's head is hurt, the Israelis and the United States will be held responsible.'' . . .
Aynayn added: ''Only the Americans can stop this massacre. They can stop the massacre with one phone call. If there is harm to one hair of the head of Arafat, the United States should protect its interests all over the world. We are not like bin Laden, but we have our own style.''
Only the US can stop it, huh? You know what the US has been doing for the past thirty years? We've been desperately holding Israel back, pleading with them not to retaliate against the attacks that keep falling on them. Why did we do this? Because if we didn't, there would be immediate war in the Holy Land. Of the nuclear variety. The US is the only thing that has kept the Jericho II's from airbursting over Mecca. We didn't want to see that. We wanted to see peace in the Holy Land, and a stable and satisfied Palestinian state sharing Jerusalem. We considered Arafat's cause to be just as valid as Israel's, and we tried to treat both sides with enough delicacy as to make it clear that all we ever wanted was peace and harmony (and cheap oil). We've been patient beyond measure with Arafat, the PLO, the PA, and Fatah. And now, after dozens of Israelis have been killed and injured by suicide bombers over the past week, Fatah calls the house-arrest of Arafat a "massacre"-- and says the US had better make Israel stop or else they'd start copycatting bin Laden?
If that isn't dramatic proof of the success we've allowed suicide bombing to achieve, I don't know what is.
Hey Aynayn, I've got a better idea: You stop your massacres, or else the US will just let go of that leash and get itself uninvolved in this whole mess. That's what you wanted, isn't it? Or, wait-- wouldn't that mean the dream of a Palestinian future state would evaporate in a mushroom cloud?
Everybody's got this idea that the US is a Jewish-run superstate with an endless supply of goodwill and support to offer to Israel, which is why we're the Great Satan. I've always found this to be quite an impressive thing to think, especially considering how anti-Jewish this country has traditionally been, even today. Remember those Nixon/Billy Graham conversations, as reported in Newsweek:
GRAHAM: A lot of Jews are great friends of mine. They swarm around me and are friendly to me. Because they know that I am friendly to Israel and so forth. But they don't know how I really feel about what they are doing to this country. NIXON: You must never let them know.
Graham has apologized since then, just like Falwell has "apologized" for saying the ACLU and the pro-choice activists are responsible for 9/11, and like Dr. Laura Schlesinger has "apologized" for saying that gays are mentally ill and amoral monsters. (Really what these "apologies" ever amount to is "I'm sorry you were offended" or "I'm sorry I got caught".) And these, ladies and gentlemen, are the voices that run this country. We keep getting these Southern presidents with ties to televangelists and back-door dealings that in anyone's eyes would do more to discredit the idea that the US and Israel are bed-buddies than any public statement or educational video could ever do. And yet the Islamic street can't let go of the idea-- or won't accept that there's any reason at all to let go of it. As far as they're concerned, it's 100% true.
Well, we've tried being fair and even-handed. We've tried rebuking Israel and holding back their poison-tipped nuclear missiles while trying to placate the Palestinians. And all it got us was a flattened World Trade Center for our trouble. Can anyone explain why it would be in our interest to legitimize suicide terrorism still further by making Israel pull back, let Arafat go, and sit quietly at the bargaining table?
We still remember the Palestinians dancing in the streets on 9/11. Those of us (myself included) who had considered the Palestinian cause to be a justified one have had our minds turned more and more toward the idea that there's only one way out of the current situation: the spirit of militant Islam must be broken, just like we did with Japan. Our sympathy towards them has run out. And now, with each further suicide attack, we're more and more sure of what we have to do.
We were the greatest friends the Palestinians ever had. And now they get to see what we're like when we're betrayed.
|
| Saturday, March 30, 2002 |
23:03 - Token Post
|
(top) |
Wow-- I've posted almost exactly nothing today.
I guess there's a fair reason for that, which is that I spent the day with my mom and grandma up in Tiburon, which is the spiritual Kandahar of Marin County-- which, if George Bush is reading this blog (as I'm sure he is), is pronounced ma-RIN, not like Cheech.
Very cute little town; it's almost entirely tourist-ified. The little strand of restaurants where we got lunch looks like a theme park: all the storefronts are just slightly too small to look right. Many of the quaint little shops on the tree-lined shopping streets along the base of the Belvedere hill are actually converted houseboats that have been frozen at their piers between Tiburon and what was once Belvedere Island; the boats docked, and then someone came in with a bunch of dredged soil and filled it all in like quick-drying cement around Daffy Duck's feet while he stood there with a finger upraised and his mouth hanging open.
Then we walked for about three miles in what turned out to be very energy-rich sun, from Tiburon back to our cars at Blackie's Pasture. It was a beautiful walk, but it took all of an hour, and now I'm sunburned. I was so proud of myself for making it through these past two ski weekends without getting burned, and I thought I was home free-- and then, the very next weekend, what do I do? I go get sunburned right in my own backyard. Aarrrgh!
Ah well. It was worth it, I think. At least this reason for being scarce in bloggage is because of my actual life rather than because of stupid server issues.
|
| Friday, March 29, 2002 |
13:39 - Yes, it's another iMac "undressing party"-- but this time I really mean it!
http://macspeedzone.com/html/reviews/machines/desktop/towers/feb-02/outside.html
|
(top) |
I can't say it any better than the title on the article itself: Apple Sent Me A Pornographic Object d' Art Without A Plain Brown Wrapper!
Such was the sentiment offered by a 75-year-old grandmother upon seeing the, uh, rather lascivious way the iMac is packaged. You'd think they'd done it that way on purpose!
Ahh, package design-- such a rewarding job it must be. You've never heard of a "disgruntled packaging design worker" before, have you?
|
|
11:48 - Movie Magic
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/business/1321849
|
(top) |
You know how people always say "Macs are better for multimedia, video editing, DVD creation, blah blah blah", and how PC users will sort of wave their hands each time they hear it and go "Yeah, yeah, gimme a break-- a computer's a computer"? Or as the guy Lileks argued with a few days ago, "Who would want to do that?" Well, you know what? It isn't all just marketing bluster. It isn't just subjective PR by devoted Mac-heads trying to retain legitimacy. It's for real, guys.
Just this morning I finished my second major video project-- the distillation of the footage I took at Sierra-at-Tahoe during our ski vacation this past weekend. I incorporated some previous pieces from the trip we took three weeks earlier, and all told it came out to about 35 minutes of fully edited and (hopefully) watchable video, with music and sound effects and fades and titles and transitions.
I'd never worked with iMovie before I got my camcorder for my birthday (Lance, Drew, Dusty-- you guys rock!)-- well, except to do that stupid little "All Your Base" parody with Star Trek clips, which is definitely not what iMovie is primarily designed for. I'd always just sort of had it sitting there on my computer, languishing, gathering pixel dust. Movie-making just seemed to be sort of pointless-- too middle-American for me, or something. Too "trendy" rather than "geeky", like cell phones and pagers, as Chris puts it.
But now that I've tried it and seen how it all works, I understand.
The last time I spent any significant time with home videos was when my family's Sony Handycam traveled with us on every vacation, to every Little League game, to every band concert-- and because it was one of those rogue 8mm cameras, using those little tapes that wouldn't play directly in your VCR (unlike the rest of the world, who used giant shoulder-mounted VHS camcorders), I was pressed into service like the 13-year-old geek-who-wouldn't-be-left-out-of-any-technological-challenge I was. I took it upon myself to copy the 8mm tapes onto VHS so we could watch them, or alternately to set up the camcorder so it could be used for direct playback (when we got tired of making VHS copies, watching them once, and then having them sit in the cabinet forever).
Going back still further, the first time the Tiemanns did video at all was when I was ten, in 1986-- my parents rented a camcorder (hah!) to tape my birthday party. Why the Krabappel-esque "hah"? Weeeeell, because the "camcorder" consisted of a more-or-less full-sized VCR (and remember, this was back when VCRs would have a hard time fitting into 19-inch server racks) in a padded shoulder-bag, connected via RCA cables to the "camera" attachment-- it looked like a little hairdryer. It was really just a hand-grip, some controls, and a lens assembly; the video recording stuff was all handled in the giant box slung over your shoulder. Talk about state-of-the-art! We recorded our house, just pointless little shots of nothing in particular-- and I fondly remember how the phone rang while we were taping, and so later when we were playing it back, we heard the phone ring and someone jumped up to get it. Wooow! I guess the audio was really something-- or else it was just culture shock, like when the Roanoak Indians first saw the British settlers drawing portraits of them. It's evil, I tells ya! Eeeeevil!
And then we watched Flight of the Navigator and Pee-Wee's Playhouse.
Oh yeah, fast-forward. The Handycam, which we bought two or three years later, was an amazing leap forward in technology. Not only was it a single, hand-held unit-- but unlike those VHS cameras, it could be literally held up by one hand, rather than balanced on a shoulder. It had a big carrying case, but the camera could be concealed under a jacket (if you were skinny and the jacket had been stolen from Fat Albert). The hand-grip doubled as the container for the fist-sized battery, which slid into it and locked into place with a satisfying snick-- and then the hand-grip piece clicked onto the body of the camera. I loved that. I thought it was ingenious. And I dreamed of a day when the hand-grip piece would be all there was to the camera-- when camcorders would be that impossibly small.
Well, that day is here, with the advent of digital-video camcorders, their teeny-tiny little DV tapes, and their Tic-Tac-box-sized Li-ion batteries, their flip-out LCD panels, and the general miniaturization of pretty much everything. The Canon ZR20 that I have is sort of the bottom-end of consumer camcorders, but it's pretty sweet nonetheless-- it has more features than I can shake a stick at, takes very nice-looking video, and-- as I'm finding more and more each day-- lets me do more things than I had ever considered to be compelling.
See, with the Handycam, all the video went straight to tape. There was no "editing". There wasn't a really good way to do it, not with analog tapes. Unless you had a multiple-deck VCR with a high-precision manual jog, so you could stitch clips together while attempting to minimize those screenfuls of jagged snowy lines that marked every scene transition, it really wasn't possible to cut out footage you didn't want or add audio tracks or (unheard-of!) apply transitions or video effects. And even if you did have such equipment, you'd still be making second- and third-generation copies of the analog signal, degrading it and the tapes (both source and destination) at the same time. So we just sort of tried to edit while we taped-- only recording what we thought looked important at the time. And I'm sure it forced us to become better video photographers, but still it was pretty miserable. It just wasn't worth the hassle to try to do it the "right" way.
But today... well, everything's different in Digital Land. First of all, the signal doesn't degrade when you transfer it. It's digital. So you can import the video from the camera, edit it, print it back to camera, import it again, edit it more-- it doesn't lose any clarity. The tapes still eventually wear out, which is a shame (tape technology has come a long way, and tapes still hold butt-loads more data than any other medium, but they still do degrade after a certain amount of use). But that takes a lot of use before it happens, and in the meantime the picture is archival-clear, high-resolution, and devoid of all those stupid horizontal white streaks that always crackled across the screen on tapes shot on our Handycam. Remember those, Mom?
It gets better. It gets so much better. You record footage with wild abandon, because the battery lasts forever, the camera fits into an inner coat pocket, and it turns on in a snap. For crying-out-loud, I was taping all weekend while skiing-- holding my poles in one hand and keeping the camera pointed downhill with the other as I swooshed down Intermediate slopes with ice patches and moguls. If I'd tried that with the Handycam, I'd have lost my balance and smashed the camera open on a rock before we even got off the bunny hill. And each time you record a new clip-- this part I just love-- it marks the scene transition on the tape, along with the other digital information (like when it was recorded, under what conditions, etc.) ...so that when you import it into "your video editing program" (--okay, who are we kidding-- into iMovie), it automatically senses when each shot begins and creates a new clip in your palette. So after you've come home, rewound the tape, plugged in the FireWire cable (sorry, USB2.0, the industry's entrenched already-- nyah!), and pressed Import, your only remaining step is to wait until it's finished dumping the data into the computer. It's not just a single continuous data stream, it's what amounts to a self-contained DV file for each time you've pressed Record. And they're all there, ready for you to start dragging them into the timeline and making a movie.
You could just take all the clips, put them in order, and say you're done. You could. But why? It's such a simple matter to throw out clips you don't want, to split clips into smaller chunks so you can edit out pieces that don't "watch well", to put them in a different order-- and that's just for starters. Want to add an audio track? Grab an MP3 and drag it into the audio channel. Then slide the begin and end tabs so it matches up with the video, and use checkboxes to fade it in and/or out and adjust the relative volume. Pin it to the video at a certain point so it doesn't lose its position if you rearrange the video. Want to cross-fade two clips? Go to the list of Transitions, grab the Cross-Fade one, and drag it between the two clips and let it render for a few seconds. And that's it. Titles? Same deal-- select the format for how they'll appear, type in your text, and drag it into place.
Oh, and incidentally, Apple has provided about 1.3GB of music clips from FreePlay, public-domain music for all purposes that's been pre-cut into 15, 20, 30, 60, and 120-second clips (each fully realized with intros and endings, not just chopped to fit). There are genres like "Sports Extreme", "Washingtonian", "Acid Jazz", "Hard Rock", and "World Music"-- each volume with as many as dozens of really good themes. Apple has put it on everybody's iDisk so they can download the clips and put 'em into their iMovies. I did, and now my skiing video has an almost continuous soundtrack. Picking out the perfect music for a particular piece of video is one of the most sublime joys of the editing process-- especially the fact that when you drop it in, it simply blends the music with whatever audio track and sound effects are already there, whether in the other audio channel or embedded into the video itself. No need to worry about audio getting inadvertently lost or replaced-- it just works.
Then, when you're done, export it back to the camera (which it handles just about as seamlessly and unconfusingly as you could want) so you can hook it up to a TV and show your grandparents. Or export it to a QuickTime movie using any of the ~20 available codecs. (A 15-minute video using Sorensen 3 at Low quality, which is really very watchable, comes out to about 40MB.) Or export it as a pristine-quality DV file, suitable for taking into iDVD and burning onto a disc for your family.
It's not like this is just an evolutionary change in how home video works. This is such an astronomical leap in what the home user is able to do that the entire concept of video editing is all new to most people. (It certainly was to me.) My preconceptions made me think of wrestling with cables, pushing little buttons with split-second timing, guessing a lot, and hoping a lot. But it's nothing like that. It's more like making a picture in Painter: all the tedious crap like mixing colors, managing transparency, handling layers, and developing the brush tools you need is all done for you, so 100% of your time is spent in being artistic.
Now, let's compare this with Windows Movie Maker, or whatever other options are available on the PC. First off, WMM doesn't seem to allow you to export video back to the camera-- only to WMV format. It doesn't allow lossless editing-- if you make a change to a clip, it's permanent. You can't back it out and go back to the original media, like you can with iMovie. If you render a title or transition, there's no going back. Because Windows can't guarantee that you'll have FireWire, it bases its assumptions around USB-- which means everything is slow, clunky, redundant, and error-prone. (I doubt you can use the playback-control buttons in WMM to control the camera itself, like you can in iMovie.) It has a time line and a scrubber bar and a clip palette and a viewing window, just like iMovie-- but it's so obviously an bad attempt at checkbox-ism that those reviewers who have looked at it in any detail have dismissed it out of hand rather than bothering to describe it (see David Coursey's take on it at ZDNet for an example). It's enough to make the "Designed for Windows XP" badge on the ZR20 product page look just that much more like the shameless piece of meaningless Microsoft-sponsored propaganda that it is.
And further, take this account in the Houston Chronicle (it's where the link waaaay up at the top of this post goes):
Now allow me to reintroduce my neighbor, Dave (not his real name), whom you first met in my Sept. 22, 2000, column.
When my neighbor saw my iMovies, he immediately ordered a board and software that he said would let him do that on his PC. I told him he should get a Mac. A month ago I asked him how his moviemaking was coming. He looked properly chagrined as he said, "I haven't figured out how to make it work yet."
I lent him the new iMac for a few days and issued a challenge. Since he still, 18 months later, had not completed a single movie project on his Dell, I told him to try making a movie, an audio CD and a DVD on this iMac. And to make things interesting, I offered him no assistance or support -- I told him to look in Mac Help if he had questions.
Three days later I interviewed Dave.
On the first day, he unpacked the iMac, set it up in five minutes and burned two audio CDs with iTunes. He said he never needed to refer to Mac Help and that this whole project was "no problem whatsoever."
On the second day, he used iDVD to create a pair of slide shows using existing digital photos and burned his first DVD. I watched it later, and it didn't stink. In fact, most people would no doubt find it impressive. (I'm so jaded.)
On the third day, he borrowed my Canon ZR-25 camcorder and a tape of my son's last basketball game. I handed him the camera, manual and FireWire cable, and told him he was own his own.
By the end of the day he had imported raw footage into iMovie, edited it, added music and titles, then burned it onto a DVD with iDVD.
As I scribbled furiously, Dave's long-suffering wife added, "He swore less at the Mac than he does at his Dell."
Dave then said he had created more multimedia in three days with the iMac than he had in 18 months with his Dell. He only opened the Help file a couple of times. He concluded, "The hardest part was getting the iMac back in the box."
Before departing I asked if he'd consider a Mac next time. He replied: "Absolutely. In fact, if we hadn't wasted so much money trying to transform that Dell into a multimedia computer, I'd get one today."
And we're hearing more and more of these kinds of testimonials. All it takes is for someone to try it, and their preconceptions that "a computer is a computer" evaporate. I don't know what brainstorm it was in Steve Jobs' cranium several years ago to invest so heavily in making the Mac into the premier multimedia editing platform, back before such things had even been considered for the consumer market, but it's paid off mega-big-time. It's certainly saved the Mac from extinction-- it's kept Apple ahead of the pack.
And anybody who hears about video editing and says "Who would ever want to do that?" simply has not tried it. Or has not tried it on a Mac.
|
| Thursday, March 28, 2002 |
13:51 - The Debate Rages...
http://quasipundit.blogspot.com/?/2002_03_24_quasipundit_archive.html#11202183
|
(top) |
From QuasiPundit, on gay marriage:
The assertion that the State supports marriage through licensing and favourable tax treatment is counterfactual. The assertion that approving same-sex marriage has an adverse impact on traditional marriages is a non-sequitor -- how does it follow that straight people will stop getting married and having children and rasing them in good environments simply because gays and lesbians are allowed to marry and adopt? There's an unstated assumption that homosexuals can't have stable relationships and be good parents, though the assumption comes through very clearly in the argument.
Yeah, exactly. Besides, the arguments against gay marriage which don't fall into the "It's wrong becuz GAWD says so!" category invariably find themselves turning into bouts of petty haggling over money. "We can't have gay marriage because... well, because then corporations would have to pay more benefits to different kinds of couples! And more people would have tax breaks than before!" Yuh-huh, and guess what? We live in a rich-ass country, where it's taken for granted that corporations provide any benefits to anybody. Saying that taxation and health coverage payments are a good reason to disallow anybody but heterosexual men and women to marry is like saying that we shouldn't have air travel because it costs money to build airports. It's an important fundamental right, and to raise these whiny complaints about money is a really limp thing to do.
What it amounts to is that the person making the argument just "doesn't think it's right", and is trying to come up with something-- anything-- to bolster that gut feeling without having to quote Bible verses. Look, call a spade a spade, please. If you just have a personal problem with the concept of gay marriage, just say so. Don't try to disguise it by pretending you're all concerned about whether your State's corporations will have to extend their dental plans to cover a few measly single-digit percent more people.
It's when an indefensible argument is couched in terms that people just have to agree with or risk sounding like idiots or Luddites or criminals that I really get steamed. The SSSCA gets renamed to the "Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act" or something so that it'll trick people into thinking it's all about helping bring broadband into people's homes. Nothing wrong with that, right? Everybody likes bandwidth! Well, yes, but the contents of the act have nothing to do with broadband. Look at the text, and all it talks about is installing copy-protection on CDs and making it illegal for VCRs to play back recorded shows more than once. But the Senators will vote for it because they're being paid to, and the people won't know anything is amiss because the name of the act looks innocent. They won't know anything has happened until they start seeing MP3 players vanish from the market and CDDA logos vanish from the CDs they buy (which mysteriously won't play in their computers any more).
The same thing happened when the record labels used a stealth bill and lobbyist money to take away artists' rights to get the copyright back on their music after their market usefulness had expired, like with books, as the infamous Courtney Love article in Salon recalls:
Last November, a Congressional aide named Mitch Glazier, with the support of the RIAA, added a "technical amendment" to a bill that defined recorded music as "works for hire" under the 1978 Copyright Act.
He did this after all the hearings on the bill were over. By the time artists found out about the change, it was too late. The bill was on its way to the White House for the president's signature.
That subtle change in copyright law will add billions of dollars to record company bank accounts over the next few years -- billions of dollars that rightfully should have been paid to artists. A "work for hire" is now owned in perpetuity by the record company.
Under the 1978 Copyright Act, artists could reclaim the copyrights on their work after 35 years. If you wrote and recorded "Everybody Hurts," you at least got it back to as a family legacy after 35 years. But now, because of this corrupt little pisher, "Everybody Hurts" never gets returned to your family, and can now be sold to the highest bidder.
Over the years record companies have tried to put "work for hire" provisions in their contracts, and Mr. Glazier claims that the "work for hire" only "codified" a standard industry practice. But copyright laws didn't identify sound recordings as being eligible to be called "works for hire," so those contracts didn't mean anything. Until now.
Writing and recording "Hey Jude" is now the same thing as writing an English textbook, writing standardized tests, translating a novel from one language to another or making a map. These are the types of things addressed in the "work for hire" act. And writing a standardized test is a work for hire. Not making a record.
So an assistant substantially altered a major law when he only had the authority to make spelling corrections. That's not what I learned about how government works in my high school civics class.
Three months later, the RIAA hired Mr. Glazier to become its top lobbyist at a salary that was obviously much greater than the one he had as the spelling corrector guy.
...
By the way, which bill do you think the recording industry used for this amendment?
The Record Company Redefinition Act? No. The Music Copyright Act? No. The Work for Hire Authorship Act? No.
How about the Satellite Home Viewing Act of 1999?
Stealing our copyright reversions in the dead of night while no one was looking, and with no hearings held, is piracy.
"Satellite Home Viewing", huh? Sounds awfully damn familiar to me.
Okay, okay-- I know this topic has now officially strayed way the hell off its original course. But I think these are all different forks of the same serpentine tongue; the guys who like the status quo are trying to take away people's rights, or prevent them from getting new ones, and the only way to do that is to lie and cheat and keep everyone's attention misdirected for just long enough for the issue to become moot and the denial of rights to be a fait accompli.
Was it always like this? Has this country always had legislative and corporate forces banding together to take away innocent pleasures from the people? Prohibition comes to mind, but... I don't know. I have to conclude that the frequency with which this is happening today would horrify Jefferson and Franklin. It would make them leave their half-written founding documents on the table in the candlelit Philadelphia courthouse, stagger home trembling, and chug ether.
|
|
11:57 - Ahh, a kindred spirit.
http://www.suburbanjungle.com/comics/sj20020325.jpg
|
(top) |
Yeah, this was me as a high school senior. Boy, I'm glad I'm not the only one.
(Although I hope it's not the "track and field" part that he's cheering about. Hmm... now that I think about it, that probably is what he means. In which case, never mind.)
|
|
10:10 - Watch out, Pixar-- you're being outdone at your own game!
http://www.cgchannel.com/news.php?news_id=832
|
(top) |
It seems Apple and Pixar aren't the only ones who think the new iMac makes for an outstanding CG animation character-- and judging by the number of people jumping on the bandwagon, and the quality of the bandwagon they're jumping on, pretty soon it'll be more famous on the screen than its uncle Luxo.
Click Grafix, a Malaysian animation company with a soft spot for LightWave 3D, has done a really cute 1-minute spot called "iBeach", showing a bunch of happy iMacs playing Limbo on the beach. It's very silly, very fun, and very much worth the download.
Somehow I suspect this isn't the last such movie we'll be seeing featuring the iMac, either. (I'm starting to really hope that its production code name turns out to be "Luxo".)
|
| Wednesday, March 27, 2002 |
01:46 - Packaging Worship, Revisited
http://www.wired.com/news/photo/0,1860,51208,00.html
|
(top) |
Boy, Wired is Mac-happy these days. Just a couple of weeks ago I talked about their article on "unpacking parties" for new iMacs and other Apple equipment-- photo sessions by candlelight with groups of friends watching agog, and the glossy boxes being saved purely for sentimental value.
Well, here's another in the same vein: an original 1984 Macintosh box that just went for over $500 on eBay.
Look at those box graphics, incidentally. This is long before they started using the now-standard PR-photo-against-white glossy boxes; this is in their Apple ][ era when their box designs and user-manual graphics used this sparse, hand-drawn shorthand style. Kinda cool, and it wouldn't look completely alien even today-- but man, it's a blast from the past.
But the "Macintosh" font is exactly the same now as it always was... and I've always found that very comforting. Apple Garamond. Good ol' Apple Garamond.
|
|
01:30 - Your Honor, he wanted killin'.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/55/24470.html
|
(top) |
Okay-- there are always extenuating circumstances, there are always multiple sides to a story. There is always a case to be made for "The other guy's opinions and traditions are just as valid as your own" (so frequently heard regarding cultures like Iran and Talibanian Afghanistan, at least before September). But sometimes you just run across something wherein you realize that some vapor-brained waste of skin is just itching to be made an example of.
The computer whiz then asked the court to identify the plaintiff in the case. Ware explained that the United States was the plaintiff, and was represented by assistant U.S. attorney Ross Nadel. Heckenkamp said he wanted to subpoena Nadel's "client" to appear in court, and Ware asked him who, exactly, he wanted to bring into the courtroom.
When Heckenkamp replied, "The United States of America," Ware ordered him taken into custody.
"The comments that you are making to the court lead me to suspect that either you are playing games with the court, or you're experiencing a serious lack of judgment," said Ware. The judge added that he was no longer satisfied that Heckenkamp would make his future court appearances.
Heckenkamp had been free on $50,000 bail, and livin | | |