Archive:


Things Fall Apart

In this space back in 2003, I wrote about the future of Pakistan:

[Gen. Pervez] Musharraf is another of these two-bit thugs keeping himself at the trough at the expense of his people. But, we feel, we can’t let his government fall, or else he’ll be replaced by radical Islamists — there’s no doubt they’d win if a fair election were held in Pakistan today. So, we do whatever it takes — including letting the cream of al-Qaeda off scot free — to prop him up; and in doing so, we create more radical Islamists out of ordinary Pakistanis who feel the Islamists are the only way available towards a better life; which makes supporting Musharraf more essential; which breeds more Islamists, and so on.

The key fact in that kind of a system is that it can’t last forever; eventually things will boil over in Pakistan — the people will get fed up and toss Musharraf out. The real question is, who will be writing the plans for what happens when that day comes?

Looks like we may be about to find out…

The government of Gen. Pervez Musharraf, the Pakistani president, making no concessions a day after seizing emergency powers, rounded up leading opposition figures and said Sunday that parliamentary elections could be delayed for as long as a year.

Security forces were reported to have detained about 500 opposition party figures, lawyers and human rights advocates on Sunday, and about a dozen privately owned television news stations remained off the air. International broadcasters, including the BBC and CNN, were also cut off.

The crackdown, announced late Saturday night after General Musharraf suspended the Constitution, was clearly aimed at preventing public demonstrations that political parties and lawyers were organizing for Monday.

In case you needed reminding, Pakistan is estimated to have between 25 and 50 nuclear weapons


I Think It Needs a Rewrite, Bob

From the Unfortunately Phrased Ad Copy Department comes this gem:

More Flexible Screwing!

Because the last thing you want your screwing to be is less flexible.


George W. Bush: All Hat and No Cattle

Seen on WashingtonPost.com today, a news flash from the Department of the Obvious:

Bush inconsistent? DUH

"Bush has not matched his words with action"! Oh my god! President Bush has never substituted macho talk for real action.  Never!

Except when he said we would do "whatever it takes" to rebuild New Orleans, of course. (He didn’t.)

And the time he responded to reports of insurgents attacking our troops in Iraq by taunting them to "bring them on", without taking the steps that would be needed to protect our troops from more attacks. (They did.)

Can’t forget the time he said that if they ever found out who blew Valerie Plame’s CIA cover, he’d make sure that person was "taken care of", either. (They weren’t.)

Oh, and when he declared "mission accomplished" in Iraq. (It wasn’t.)

Or the All Time Greatest Of Them All: when he swore, five years ago, that he would bring in Osama bin Laden "dead or alive". (He hasn’t.)

And those are just the ones I can think of off the top of my head.

George W. Bush has raised ineffective blustering to a kind of perverse art form. Why should we be surprised that he’s blustering about Darfur, too?


Fun With Spam: How Would You Know? Edition, Part II

The "insulting spam" trend appears to be picking up steam…

Spam Gets Insulting


A Simple Test

Did you know that it’s "Islamofascist Awareness Week"? No? Well, that can only mean one thing: that you are a sane and well adjusted person. Shame on you!

On his blog, Matt Yglesias has been considering whether "Islamofascism" is even a valid term — whether it describes something real, or just a confection of free-floating anxieties lurking in the minds of the wingnut fringe. I think this is a pretty easy question to answer. Whenever you hear someone use the word "Islamofascism", just ask yourself this question:

In the last five years, how often has this person been right about anything?

In 99% of cases your answer will be "never", which ought to tell you everything you need to know about the validity of the concept of "Islamofascism".

Myself, I use the word as a time-saver; if I hear someone use it, I know that I can safely disregard anything else they say from that point forward. Saves a lot of energy.


Your Tax Dollars at Work?

Seen on wmata.com (the Web site for Washington’s Metro system) today:

wmata-lolwut.png

Click image for full-size version

They’re running Google ads on the Metro site.

The Metro site that is paid for with tax dollars.

Are you even allowed to run ads on a government site?

Look, guys. I know that you’re hurting for cash. But this is just tacky. 

UPDATE (Oct. 24, 2007): In the comments, Sandy quite rightly points out that WMATA has a long and storied history of whoring out every square inch of physical space it controls to raise revenue (including wrapping the trains themselves in ads), so it probably shouldn’t come as a surprise that they’re whoring out the Web site too.


Why I Built A New Computer

To play Team Fortress 2, natch.

Watch this and you’ll understand:

That’s not some pre-rendered demo movie; it’s actual footage from the game. The whole thing looks like you’re playing a Pixar movie.

Yes, I’m a dork. Discuss.


Time to Get Gutsy!

Ubuntu 7.10 released

Today’s the day: the latest version of the terrific Ubuntu Linux operating system, Ubuntu 7.10 (codename "Gutsy Gibbon") has hit the streets. If you prefer KDE to GNOME, Kubuntu 7.10 is out now too.

What’s new in Gutsy? Take the tour and find out.

If you’re tired of dealing with the headache that is Windows, you owe it to yourself to give Ubuntu a try. You can test drive it without installing anything — the download includes a version that you can run entirely off a CD. And of course, being Linux, it’s free (in both senses of the word).

So what are you waiting for? Get to downloading!


How to Recognize the Future Before It Lands On You

Today is the day: users who bought Radiohead’s new album direct from the band online are now able to download it.

Predictably, the music industry is freaking out because Radiohead has completely disintermediated them: 

You can’t make a TV show by yourself. Certainly not a movie. Not that anyone can see. But you can make a record all by your lonesome, it doesn’t cost that much. And you can say exactly what you want, you don’t need to clean it up for Wal-Mart. And, you can distribute it yourself online. That’s what Radiohead is doing.

I would just like to take this moment to say…

I called it!

I predicted this not one, not two, but seven years ago:

You probably don’t know who Sarah Lentz is.  That’s OK; neither did I, until recently.  And then while clicking through MP3.com one day, I found her page.  A quick perusal gave me the 411; vocalist and pianist, struggling indie artist, known for striking, deep voice, plays clubs in New York City. Intrigued, I took a listen to one of her songs, "Disintegrate". A few minutes later, I was downloading all of her songs, and they got my attention enough to lead me to order her CD. In the space of a couple of days, I’d gone from not knowing who Sarah Lentz was to being a huge fan.

This is what should terrify the record companies.  Because every Sarah Lentz I discover on my own leads me one step away from their paradigm, in which I need a big corporation to lead me by the hand to the approved artists I should like, and one step closer to declaring independence and disintermediating them once and for all…

The [music] industry provided us with a safe place in the analog cyberspace of gramophones and 8-track tape players to meet new artists that we could be reasonably certain we would enjoy. In exchange for providing that space, however, they extorted a dramatic toll from artists and listeners. Now they are terrified that they might be losing the traditional revenue stream that community has provided them. What they should be worried about is what will happen if one day the Napster users discover MP3.com and decide they don’t need that safe space at all. Then the Sarah Lentzes of the world will finally get paid what they deserve, music will finally cost about what it should, and the only people who will weep when the community closes its doors for the last time are the newly unemployed A&R men.

(Emphasis added)

The only difference between the scenario I painted and Radiohead’s move is that they contracted with someone other than the now-defunct MP3.com to handle the back-end fulfillment. If those radio execs had taken my words to heart, they could have worked out a way to be that back-end fulfillment provider themselves, and keep a portion of the transaction instead of what they will get from Radiohead now — nothing.

Of course, I’m too humble to say that reading Just Well Mixed every day will make you a prescient forecaster, enable you to see the big changes in the world coming before everybody else does.

Oh wait! No I’m not.

I called it!

You’re welcome.


You Know Your Band Is Popular When…

Seen on my Facebook home page this morning:

Top Music in Washington DC according to Facebook

Coldplay is their own genre now?


“He Should Have an AK”

When I noted that this year is the 60th birthday of the AK-47 assault rifle, I included lots of links to sources testifying to that weapon’s quality and reliability — especially when compared to the weapon U.S. soldiers have carried since the Vietnam era, the M-16 rifle. Here’s another one.

I was reading a thread on Phillip Carter’s excellent site Intel Dump today and found a link to an interview that shows just how low the M-16 is still rated compared to the AK-47, even after decades of improvements. It’s a PBS interview that includes some talk with one of the original designers of the M-16, a fellow named Jim Sullivan. Sullivan compares the improvements that have been made to the AK family over the years to those made to the M-16, and when asked by interviewer Paul Solman which one he would rather have his son carry into battle in Iraq, Sullivan is pretty blunt:

JIM SULLIVAN: He should have an AK.

PAUL SOLMAN: Really?

JIM SULLIVAN: Yes.

It’s a sad statement about our military procurement system when we can always find the money for the latest mega-budget project with no clear rationale for existing, but when it comes to providing the  basics for the grunts on the ground — rifles that don’t jam, body armor that stops today’s bullets, vehicles that shield their crew from injury — we can’t seem to make it happen.



This Has Been Another Installment of “You Should Have Listened To Me The First Time I Told You”

Two and a half years ago, I made some suggestions as to how Palm Inc. could improve its flagging fortunes, including this one:

The Personal Smartphone is currently completely AWOL from the PalmOne lineup. What do you do if you are enamored with the Treo, but you can’t shell out $500 for a cellphone? Right now, you go give your business to someone else, which doesn’t do PalmOne any good. So a cut-down Treo would be quite important.

Today, Palm makes an announcement:

Palm Centro Brings Palm Ease of Use to Traditional Mobile Phone Users for $99.99, Exclusively from Sprint

New Compact Design Available in Two Colors

NEW YORK, Sep 27, 2007 (BUSINESS WIRE) — Designed for individuals and traditional mobile phone users looking for a better way to manage their professional and social lives, Palm, Inc. (Nasdaq:PALM) and Sprint (NYSE:S) today introduced the Palm(R) Centro(TM) smart device, at $99.99.

More details on the Centro are available, if you want them.

It’s always nice to see people taking my advice, though I think they’d have been much better off if they had done so two and a half years ago than they will be by doing so now. Palm Inc. is so far gone these days that it would take an act of God to make them relevant in the marketplace again.

Still, ten years ago you could have said the same thing about Apple (and people did), and look where they are now. So as long as Palm is solvent and doing smart things, you probably shouldn’t count them out completely. 



On Free Speech

I was a little disappointed this morning to open my newspaper and discover that Columbia University was coming under criticism for allowing Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to speak there.  Not because I thought they shouldn’t have allowed him to speak, but because I thought the "controversy" was just plain ridiculous.

Once upon a time, I ran a university lecture program myself. One of the questions I asked myself when I took that gig was whether there were people who simply shouldn’t be allowed to speak. The classical way this is phrased is "if it were 1938, would you have allowed Hitler to speak on your platform?"

My answer was: yes. Yes, I would have. Speech — even hateful and factually untrue speech — is never best countered by suppression; that only drives it underground and gives it a martyr’s mystique that it does not deserve. The best counter to hate speech is more speech; only by contending with the ideas of the hatemonger and overcoming them in the minds and hearts of the people can we ever truly drive them out.

That’s why I was so disappointed to see people like Abraham Foxman, the head of the Anti-Defamation League, calling for Columbia to refuse to let Ahmadinejad speak. Implicit in Foxman’s argument is the idea that the people are too weak-minded to see Ahmadinejad’s arguments for what they are; that we must be protected from them, or else they will inevitably overcome us.

When run properly, a platform is neutral; you do not endorse a person’s opinions simply by providing them a space in which to air them. The question which drives the choice of who to allow to speak from your platform should not be "do I agree with this person?" Rather, it should be "are this person’s ideas affecting the world we live in?" Given the central position that Iran currently occupies in our foreign policy discourse, it’s hard to see how Ahmadinejad fails that test.

In the end, the students and faculty of Columbia appear to have proven Foxman’s fears ungrounded; they met Ahmadinejad’s rhetoric head on, as free-thinking citizens of a free republic should. I applaud Columbia for showing Ahmadinejad and the world what free speech looks like — from all angles.


Only the Good Die Young

I miss Mitch Hedberg.

That is all.


The Cost of Waiting

On June 3, I wrote in this space about the tragedy of the "let’s wait for the Petraeus report!" approach:

The real reason for the delay, of course, is that it lets our “leaders” weasel out of making a tough decision for awhile, and hope that Events will somehow bail them out in the meantime.

I call this “pathetic” because (a) everyone knows what the conclusion will be in the end, delay or no, and (b) each day the decision is delayed, U.S. soldiers are dying for a cause that their leaders have already given up on.

Well, General Petraeus finally came before Congress last week, on September 10 and 11.

So how many soldiers died while our political class was twiddling its thumbs waiting for Petraeus? Here’s the complete list of confirmed U.S. military fatalities in Iraq for the period between June 4 and September 9 (courtesy of icasualties.org), with causes and dates of death: 

That’s 271 more soldiers who gave their lives while Washington waited for Petraeus. So if you were wondering what the cost in blood would be for punting this debate into the fall — now you know.


You Have to Wonder If He Sent Monica a Free Copy

… of his new book:

Giving, by Bill Clinton

“Dodos” Now On DVD

Flock of Dodos DVD

I’ve written before in this space about my friend Randy Olson’s excellent documentary on the battle between evolution and “intelligent design”, Flock of Dodos, which has been raved over by the New York Times, Variety, science blogger PZ Myers, and many others.

If you haven’t seen “Dodos” yet, good news! Thanks to the fine folks at New Video, it’s now available for purchase on DVD. You can buy it direct from New Video or from Amazon (where it’s a couple bucks cheaper) if you prefer.

So no more excuses! If you’re at all interested in this issue, buy this DVD. You’ll be glad you did.


It’s the End of the World As We Know It…

Some Mondays you just have to look at the headlines to know it’s gonna be a long week. 

Seen on the AOL.com home page this morning:

Terrible financial news

Poor AMD. By the time you get to their news story you’re too busy wallowing in despair to care about their new chip…


What Did You Expect, Exactly?

From the "duh" file:

One site that’s catching people off guard is Quechup: we’ve got a volley of complaints about them in the mailbox this weekend, and a quick Google reveals that others were caught out too.

The issue lies with their “check for friends” form: during signup you’re asked to enter your email address and password to see whether any of your friends are already on the service. Enter the password, however, and it will proceed to mail all your contacts without asking permission.

I don’t know why anybody would be surprised by this. You gave them the username and password to your e-mail account! You should be happy that all they did was use it to spam a few people, and not, say, e-mail a death threat to the President in your name.

I’m a little appalled that reputable sites like Facebook continue this practice of asking users to hand over the credentials to their e-mail accounts:

Facebook friend finder does the same thing

They are training an entire generation of users that it’s a good idea to hand out your passwords to random Web sites. News flash: it isn’t.  Do you really trust some random site enough to hand over the keys to your personal data to them?

Defenders of the legitimate sites that do this (like Facebook) will point to that little gray disclaimer at the bottom of the image above to assure us that everything is OK. Well guess what, Quechup has a disclaimer too: 

Quechup disclaimer

But you have to read the whole page to realize that the big red disclaimer doesn’t mean as much as you think it does. Check out this much larger screenshot of their give-us-your-email-password page to see what I mean. In smaller, less bold text, they actually kinda-sorta warn you of what they’re about to do, though in weasel-word language that obscures the truth:

Complete your account details below & we’ll check your contacts for matches on Quechup so you can choose who to invite to your Friends Network and invite non Quechup members to join you. By inviting contacts you confirm you have consent from them to send an invitation.

This makes it sound like you will have the option to send an invitation, not that Quechup will automatically send one for you. But they follow that immediately with this:

Quechup will not spam or sell addresses from your contacts.

… which probably put to rest the fears of the tiny minority of people who actually realized what they were agreeing to. 

So what? Well, if there’s one thing we know after more than a decade of building the Web, it’s that people don’t read Web pages. They just don’t. At best, they skim over them looking for the key points. That means that their big takeaway from these pages isn’t the tiny disclaimers, it’s that it’s OK to hand over your password to any site that promises you something shiny in return. And it’s not.

Look, once you’ve handed over your password to somebody, they can do whatever they want with your e-mail account, including reading your mail, sending messages in your name and selling your address to the highest bidder. The only guarantee that you have that they won’t do these things is their word – and the Quechup example shows how much that’s worth.

"But Facebook wouldn’t do that!" you say. How do you know? Have you read their privacy policy? Do you know if it contains any "gotcha" language like Quechup used?

Any reputable site that follows this practice should stop. I’m looking at you, Facebook. You’re training your users to do Bad Things, and other, less scrupulous people – people like Quechup – are taking advantage of that.


The Surge Is Working!!!

From the AP — US Lawmakers’ Plane Under Fire in Iraq:

A military cargo plane carrying three senators and a House member was forced to take evasive maneuvers and dispatch flares to avoid ground fire after taking off from Baghdad on Thursday night.

The lawmakers said their plane, a C-130, was under fire from three rocket-propelled grenades over the course of several minutes as they left for Amman, Jordan…

Sens. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., and James Inhofe, R-Okla., as well as Rep. Bud Cramer, D-Ala., were also on the plane…

Cramer and Martinez said they had just begun to relax about five or 10 minutes after the plane took off under darkness.

Crew members apparently communicated to the pilots as they saw the initial RPG fired from the ground, Cramer said. After the first burst, the pilots maneuvered aggressively and set off flares used for drawing incoming fire away from aircraft.

Once the flares lit up the sky, lawmakers said, two more RPGs were fired as the pilots continued maneuvering.

Baghdad sure sounds safe, huh?


All the News that’s Fit to Print

Seen today on the Huffington Post:

News Flash: Britney Spears is Dumb and an Exhibitionist

Glad they are covering the really important stories…


MyPHPDocs: A Review

Here’s a nice review of MyPHPDocs.com by Keith Casey.

You can basically treat this as a quick table of contents and have everything you need just a click away. After using it for a couple days, my manual was added to my Toolbar.

Thanks, Keith!


“Why Would There Be A Penguin in a Wheat Field? EVER?”

killface-4-prez.jpg

If you missed the premiere of Season 2 of Frisky Dingo on Adult Swim Sunday night, you missed out. The first season of Dingo was funny but uneven, but if the premiere is any indication, S2 promises to be a riot.

You can actually watch the entire episode online at AdultSwim.com for the next few days, so if you didn’t catch it on the air, what are you waiting for?