Silent Trees Falling

Moving to Tumblr

2009-09-24T11:38:00.002-04:00

I'm going to give Tumblr a try as a blogging platform. I like it's easy ability to clip articles, add pictures, quotes, etc. Also appealing are the strong support for mobile blogging through their iPhone app and twitter integration. Using twitter, I find I enjoy being able to post short bits and pictures online, but sometimes I want more than 140 characters. We'll see how Tumblr works out.

http://drcraig.tumblr.com

Cloud vs. Distributed

2009-01-28T01:55:00.002-05:00

We hear a lot about "cloud computing" these days, with some people saying it's the wave of the future, and others, notably guys like Stallman, saying that it's "worse than stupidity." I've run across two essays warning of the some of the pitfalls of the cloud idea, Khoi Vinh's cautious "A Cloud and a Prayer" and Jason Scott's profanity laden diatribe "Fuck the Cloud".

But cloud is not the only hyped-name idea floating around. You also hear a lot about "distributed" things. In particular, distributed version control systems have rushed on the scene in the forms of Git, Mercurial, et al. Beyond version control, though, you don't hear much about the distributed idea, but I think it's a bigger deal than the cloud.

Distributed systems bridge the gap between the open, adaptable web and closed p2p systems that were popular not too long ago. When it comes to DVCS, there is no server to maintain, everyone maintains their own copy. One can be the canonical branch, but it's functionally no different than any other branch. But distributed can be much more, and even much simpler than that. I think the real power of distributed systems is when you don't even need a webserver any more to have a web service. Obviously you'd need communication with the outside world, but the server may not need to be as all-encompassing as it once was.

An early example of this is Google Gears, and the newly launched beta of offline Gmail and Google Reader. Gears acts as a miniature private webserver whose job is to stay synchronized with the Gmail server, but the application itself runs locally. I think this kind of thing has the potential to be huge. One of the beautiful and powerful aspects of the web is the simplicity and the cross-platform-ness of developing websites. They can be as simple as raw HTML, or they can take advantage of one of a myriad of frameworks to do incredibly powerful things. But the weakness is that you always have to rely on a server. But what if you could host a website from your own desktop? These days you can, but you couldn't serve much traffic because of bandwidth issues. But what if the users downloaded the Gears app for your site and instead of requesting a page, you request just the data they need? This seems like the natural evolution of AJAX.

Another aspect of distributed systems is that you may only need a server to update changes, but at all other times simply use a local copy. Take, for example, the new Python documentation written in a framework called Sphinx. Sphinx takes raw source files written in reStructured Text and builds them into an HTML website or a LaTeX file for publication. Mostly it's focused on the HTML, and it produces a very nice result. So, you can download all the Python documentation, build it, and then use it locally just as if it was on the web. You can even search it easily, because at build time it indexes the document and creates a Javascript search tool. It behaves exactly the same when opened locally as it does when you view it over the web.

So, imagine that this kind of thing took off in other types of site. A news site could use this idea. You simply download the articles instead of the site itself. But how is that any different than an RSS feed? In some ways, not much, but what it allows the site publisher to keep control of the look and feel of the site, rather than give it up entirely to a separate reader app. For example, the NY Times website could look exactly the same, but when you hit refresh, instead of loading the new homepage, it updates the articles and the layout order of the page already stored locally. Or Wikipedia could become like this. You could download all of Wikipedia and run the server locally. In the background, it updates itself with new changes and articles. I wonder how much space it would take to download all of Wikipedia, or at least all of the text? Probably a lot, but who cares? Storage space is cheap and only getting cheaper. Serving it locally gains you several things 1) speed, 2) the ability to break away from the network and still be functional, and 3) it reduces significantly the burden on the hoster.

These kinds of distributed systems seem more empowering than the cloud, which is all about making your fast and powerful computers no more than dumb terminals, and leaving you at the mercy of the provider of the service. True distributed systems give you the data and the application, meaning you're not beholden to anyone to use it locally. If Wikipedia were to vanish tomorrow, you'd still have your last snapshot of it, rather than being left wondering where to turn to.

Inaugural Hats?

2009-01-20T15:40:00.003-05:00

Was it just me, or were there a lot of people rocking sweet hats at the swearing in? In addition to an unusual number of cowboy hats, it seemed like there were more fedoras than I had seen since the last Humphrey Bogart impersonators convention.

A New Dawn

2009-01-20T15:39:00.002-05:00

As E.K. Franks used to say, "It's a great day to be alive!"

Question

2008-12-21T11:40:00.002-05:00

Once you're inside airport security, why does TSA feel the need to blare through the PA on and on about what you can't bring through the checkpoint?

Heritage Hall defeats Chandler 37-7 to win Class 2A state title

2008-12-15T15:07:00.002-05:00

Well done, gentlemen, well done.

Unacceptable

2008-12-12T11:28:00.002-05:00

Apparently NASA Administrator Michael Griffin is obstructing efforts by President-elect Obama's transition team to look into details about Griffin's pet project, the troubled Constellation program. From ANN, after Griffin had ordered his subordinates to not say anything critical of Constellation and to not give any alternative options, Obama's transition team was flabbergasted.

"Mike, I don’t understand what the problem is. We are just trying to look under the hood," Garver reportedly said.

"If you are looking under the hood, then you are calling me a liar," Griffin replied. "Because it means you don't trust what I say is under the hood."

From a leader at any level, whether a small manager or head of a major bureaucracy, that is unacceptable. Griffin should be fired immediately. Not just when Obama takes office; Bush should fire him now. Of course that's not going to happen because Bush isn't very fond of transparency, but if you can't handle an honest inspection of your work, you do not deserve to be doing it.

Deep Thought

2008-12-12T11:21:00.003-05:00

One of the main justifications given for bailing out the auto industry instead of letting them go through Chapter 11 is that bankruptcy would kill their sales because no one would want to buy a car from a company in Chapter 11. But would anyone want to buy a car from a company that had to get a special bailout to avoid bankruptcy? Does anyone right now want to buy a car from companies that could fail by the end of the year? We're trying to retain confidence in the Big Three? Who are we kidding? That train sailed long ago.

Charger Pride!

2008-12-12T00:21:00.003-05:00

Been way too long since I've posted, but it's time to get back to the blog. (Yes, I know that's exactly what I said in my last blog post, dated October 2007). Anyway, I had been out of the loop on Oklahoma high school football this fall, but Dad called last Friday to report that my alma mater team will be playing again for the Class 2A state championship, 10 years and one day from the first, and so far only golden ball for the Heritage Hall Chargers.

Thanks to the magic of the Instaweb, I just watched a number of highlight clips of this season on YouTube (btw, nice work to the guys putting that together). After watching about half the season of clips, I am just stunned. These guys are amazing. They haven't just won games, they have obliterated opponents. Wow. My hat is off. Now keep up the hard work, the focus, and the dedication. There's nothing like the sweet taste of victory on the football fields of Oklahoma.

Go Chargers!

Attorney General Confirmation Hearing

2007-10-19T10:20:00.000-04:00

It's been a long time since I posted here, but I'd like to get back in the habit. I'll start with the nomination of Michael Mukasey for Attorney General. I woke up this morning to NPR's story about the confirmation hearings and am flabbergasted that this man is almost assured confirmation. So, I wrote all of the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee as well as Arlen Spector this email (though I stupidly wrote it in a text editor without spell check, so they may think I'm an ignorant wretch) :

Reading about and listening to clips of the Attorney General confirmation hearing left me very disappointed with nominee Michael Mukasey. I ask that you vote against his confirmation.

Mr. Mukasey offered evasive non-answers to questions that should be fundamental to his job. As top law enforcement officer of our nation, it should be unquestioned that everyone in our country is under the rule of law and that the president does not have the authority to break the law. Mr. Mukasey wavered, citing the constitution, presumably for the dubious "unitary executive" powers granted nowhere in the document. Perhaps he forgot the 14th amendment, which clearly states that all citizens, president included, are equal under the law. If he does not understand that, he does not deserve to be the Attorney General.

Mr. Mukasey also offered unacceptable answers to questions about torture. After refusing to discuss the definition of torture, he then relied on that unstated definition to address its constitutionality. This kind of circular reasoning is absurd and should be rejected. As Attorney General, it is his duty to provide sound legal guidance to the Administration. If he cannot do so on such as simple, clear-cut issue as torture, he does not deserve to be the Attorney General.

I do not understand the assumption that Mr. Mukasey will be confirmed. If the last 7 years have taught us anything, it is that you cannot give the Bush Administration the benefit of the doubt. They have abused that privilege too many times. It is not enough to aggressively question a nominee, express disappointment for his answers, and then vote for him anyway. Given the history of this Administration's cabinet members, it should be his burden to prove his worth as a nominee.

Is it too much to ask anymore for the nominee to be the chief law enforcement officer to categorically believe in the rule of law, that the president cannot break the law, and that torture is abhorrent? Is that setting the bar too high? It should make for an extremely simple, repeatable talking point. "If you send us a nominee who does not believe in the rule of law or disavow torture, we will not confirm them." Can it possibly get any simpler than that?

Please do no let this president continue to run roughshod over the Congress and the Constitution again and again. Stand up and demand that this nation return to the rule of law, starting with its Attorney General.

Transportation Security

2007-03-26T18:44:00.000-04:00

The Transportation Security Administration is apparently admitting they are incompetent. At my home airport, Hanscom Field (KBED), we are required by the TSA to have security identification badges to walk out on the ramp to our planes that weigh less than the average car. To get a badge we had to submit ID, fill out a form, give full finger and hand prints, and submit to a background check and interview. But apparently after all of that, they still don't know who any of us are, and are now demanding that everyone previously issued a badge resubmit two forms of photo ID. On short notice, too.

On top of that, they will soon be instituting spot checks of bags and persons for "stuff you're not supposed to take out there," as I was told by a TSA officer. So now I have to get wanded down and have my flight bag rummaged through in order to make sure I can't hijack myself in a Cessna.

This is getting out of hand. The government is wasting countless dollars creating bureaucratic paperstorms, assuming every pilot is a menace, and making airports like prisons. It's enough to make me consider taking my flying business elsewhere. I would feel terrible for the flight schools and clubs at Hanscom, but I don't want to be a prisoner at my own airport. I'm not ready to leave Hanscom yet, but TSA should be aware that they risk smothering the very places they are charged to protect with their heavy-handed and wasteful policies.

Busniness Jargon

2007-03-12T09:16:00.000-04:00

In this morning's Propwash, there is an article about the new Orbital Express spacecraft soon to be launched. It's a demonstrator of new technology that will allow servicing of satellites in orbit. But you'd never know that from the quote from the Boeing Advanced Systems president, George Meullner.

"Orbital Express is a revolutionary system that will offer customers with appropriately configured on-orbit assets new options to enhance the operation of their systems," said George Muellner, president of Boeing Advanced Systems. "This demonstration mission is the first step toward developing an operational system that can service satellites and support other space operations. Orbital Express continues our success in delivering solutions that shape new markets through the integration of people, innovation and technology."

What a long winded way to say "we can repair satellites in orbit".

Lawmaker Roommates

2007-01-18T00:56:00.000-05:00

This has to be one of the most amusing articles I've ever read in the NYT. Four big time Democratic lawmakers sharing a dive of an apartment, but having a good time doing it. If I ever become a senator, that's how I want to live. Sounds a lot like the old apartment on Cherry St, minus the big parties.

Absolutely classic is the last paragraph:

The roommates then repaired to couches to watch Florida-Ohio State and to stuff their faces with Sichuan beef and kung pao chicken. Mr. Durbin began talking about meetings he had last month with the presidents of Bolivia and Ecuador on a Congressional delegation to Latin America. Then he and Mr. Schumer started arguing about Mr. Schumer’s refusal to make his bed.

More thoughts on Office 2007

2007-01-17T23:59:00.000-05:00

Just finished reading David Pogue's review of Office 2007 in the New York Times. Covered mostly the same points I did in my earlier post, but there were a few things I didn't know. I hadn't really paid attention to the installation size, which apparently was shrunk big time. The new .docx format is apparently also compact and easier to recover from failures. Score a few more points for MS. I also like the new Calibri font that replaced Times New Roman as the default. It's clean and elegant, though very Mac.

I learned elsewhere why they removed the ability to add custom toolbars. It supposedly was a major customer service headache. People would have custom toolbars in their workplaces and such, and when the toolbars failed, they would call tech support. When someone is pissed that their program isn't working, it can be really hard to convince them that it's not MS's fault, whoever wrote those macros (which can be extremely brittle) needs to fix it. Frustrating for me, but hard to argue with the reasoning from a business standpoint.

A few other gripes for removals that don't seem to be related to bloat that were really useful. It seems that you can't navigate around cells in the new Excel by using the arrow keys. Not sure why they would remove that feature. Also, you can't seem to Ctrl-Shft-arrow to highlight whole words at a time in Word. I used that all the time.

One point Pogue made that is more important that we might think is the change in format. He points out that Microsoft hadn't changed the .doc format in 10 years. Over that time, it has become the de facto standard for just about everything, even though it's a closed, proprietary format. The only thing that comes close is .pdf, and that's for finished documents only. If you type a document in Word, just about anyone else using whatever version of Word can open it. Not so anymore. Do we need to worry more about these formats changing without notice? What happens when years from now and .doc is long dead, no one can open them? All of this seems to point in favor of an open format, whether it's opening up .doc, or it's something like the Open Document Format, which I haven't had any experience with. It'd be ironic if by making this change to improve the format, Microsoft unintentionally made us all reconsider whether we can afford to have them define the document standard.

So still mixed opinion. I have to say that the Inquirer got it right when they titled their pre-release review of the new Word:
Word update will mess with your head

Obama '08!

2007-01-17T00:00:00.000-05:00

Sen. Barack Obama has filed to start an exploratory committee for seeking the presidency. This almost assures that he will be running. I sure hope he does. He's the only potential candidate I personally could get very excited about. He's smart and eloquent, sharp and charismatic, and soundly progressive. He is also post-60's, which is more important than generally given credit for. This country has been stuck in that era for too long. Every politician since LBJ has been tied to that divisive era. Obama carries none of that baggage, and it shows in his poll ratings. Too many people hate Hillary because she was a 60's hippie liberal feminist. It's too bad for her, but it's time to move on from that era. Obama is also on the right side of the war, having opposed it from the beginning. That may sound hypocritical coming from me, who like Hillary, also supported the war initially, but it doesn't change the fact that it matters. He can certainly use that to counter the accusations of being a lightweight. Then again, for any George W. Bush-loving Republican to accuse anyone else of being a lightweight is absurd on its face.

Time to bring back smarts and eloquence to the White House, not to mention progressive American values and, hey, maybe even a renewed respect for the Constitution. Go Obama!

Extreme early prediction: I call an Obama/Richardson ticket, even though Richardson is an old Clinton hand. He's like the anti-Cheney, from the West, major foreign affairs experience, strong diplomat, but not an authoritarian.

Microsoft Office 2007

2007-01-16T21:50:00.000-05:00

Just got Office 2007 at work yesterday. I didn't realize they were going to change it so much. In a lot of ways, it's like learning a whole new set of programs. It is much better looking now. MS is trying to catch up with Apple in that sense. They did do a fine job choosing fonts, which is nice. Menus are animated well. Functions are not as buried in drop down menus that have to be drilled down through layer upon layer. Desktop search, especially in Outlook is awesome. The old search was terrible, and took forever.

So a lot of things were done well. That said, I'm still nervous about it, for a couple reasons. First, I don't know where anything is any more. Despite the bad layout before, at least over time you got to know it. That will come again in time with this layout, it's just frustrating for a while. More importantly is the second reason: questionable backward compatibility. First off, there is a new file format for Word docs, called ".docx". But everyone else still uses the old ".doc", so I have to save as the old format so I don't break things. It's also been changed enough that macros that I use extensively, and are used on shared files by people with Office 2K and 2K3, don't work in some cases. That is a major productivity loss that can't be remedied until everyone migrates to the new version and someone sucks it up to re-write the macros. That will be fun.

So, still undecided how I ultimately feel about it. Anyone else try it yet?

Why you should learn to drive a manual early in life

2006-11-22T01:46:00.000-05:00

Continuing on the James Bond theme, here's an perfect example of how embarrassing it can be when you don't have a particular skill that was once ubiquitous. Daniel Craig the actor couldn't drive the Aston Martin DBS.

A look inside the new Bond car, which is based on the current DB9, reveals upholstery in a soft dark suedelike material, quilted in a diamond pattern; the instruments and shifter gleam from every carefully machined corner and curve. That shifter reportedly presented a challenge for Daniel Craig, the new actor playing Bond. Reports from the set were that filming shut down for several days while Mr. Craig learned to drive a manual transmission.

Parents, teach your kids how to drive a stick! (As well as other modes of transportation: bikes, swimming, motorcycles, trucks, etc.)

Casino Royale

2006-11-17T00:10:00.000-05:00

Big weekend, with the release of Casino Royale, the new 007 movie staring my namesake, Daniel Craig. I'm split about how I feel about it. It's pretty cool being named after James Bond, but it's hard not to be a little selfish with your own name. But hey, at least I'm not named after Michael Bolton, like the guy in office space :)

But this (below) is too cool not to pass on. Some nice photoshop work by my buddy/coworker Ryan. Except that I actually am that ripped. Haha.

Making the Switch

2006-11-16T23:34:00.000-05:00

After many months of contemplating and one returned order, I'm now a Mac person for good. Last night night, I picked up a new MacBook.

So far, I'm thrilled with it. It's sexy and quiet (unlike the mini that I bought earlier and ended up returning because it sounded like a jet engine). Even though I only had the mini a couple days, it was enough to get me hooked on OS X Tiger. It really is a thing of beauty. I was intimidated by Macs for a long time, but the more time I've spent in the business of user interfaces, the more I've come to appreciate the elegance and the detail put into the UI. There are a lot of good ideas in the UI that are transferable to the avionics world.

A couple of surprises so far: I'm very impressed with the quality of the speakers. Usually laptop speakers entirely suck, but these are pretty good. Obviously don't fill out the low end, but from mid-range up, they sound great. I also found what could be the coolest text editor, in the form of TextMate. I'm just using the trial for now, and really most of the text editor use I have is at work. Anyone know of an equivalently awesome editor for Windows?

While I love the UI in general, I do have a couple gripes. There's the standard one about the lack of a two buttons on the touchpad. Having to press Ctrl seems a little odd to get to the right click stuff. Although, they did do the two-finger scrolling right. I also wish the home and end keys worked like they do in Windows, where you can press Ctrl-Home to go to the beginning of the line or Ctrl-End to go to the end of the line. I saw on a forum where a mac snob asked contemptuously, "who uses that feature anyway?" I do! But, all in all, it's awesome.

Wrong About Rumsfeld

2006-11-08T23:44:00.000-05:00

Looks like my post-election predicting has gotten off to a poor start, as Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld resigned today. Perhaps President Bush is sensitive to public opinion after all? Or maybe he didn't want to go through the ordeal of having his embattled Defense Secretary hauled up before the committees and held accountable for the disaster than has become Iraq.

I still don't trust any of the president's words about working with Democrats, though I suppose he'll have to whether he likes it or not. Maybe he knows what's coming and is trying to ingratiate himself with the public as a bipartisan champion before the investigations begin.

One more post-election thought...

2006-11-08T01:06:00.000-05:00

If I were Bush and the GOP for the next couple years, I would be doing my best to do what the Democrats should have been doing for the last six: split the opposition. A lot of the new Democrats are conservative on social issues, so the president, and possibly the Senate if they retain control, should be pressing wedge issues against the Democrats that are not an issue for the GOP. This will likely take form in gay marriage, which is the most explosive, but could come along in other vehicles such as the estate tax and gun control.

Democrats would be wise to focus on what unifies them and splits the GOP. Specifically, economic and corruption issues. Democrats should investigate every possible aspect of Republican corruption, along with less black and white issues like excessive earmarking and the lobbyist scandals. Democrats should push hard to balance the budget and get in good with the financial markets. Force the distinction between responsible free markets and corrupt business using insider government contacts to win favors and restrain competition.

They should also focus on defense. Investigations into corruption and mishandling of the Iraq war would be good topics. Hearings on how the GOP sold out our troops to enrich their cronies. Other legislation could be to require open and transparent defense contracts, or specifically high-profile appropriations for purchasing body armor for the troops. Perhaps and even more dramatic move could be to pass legislation for increasing the size of the armed forces, something that Bush has resisted. These kinds of actions could put the rest the notion that Democrats are the sissy party and replace it with the notion that the Democrats are the party of responsibility in the face of Republican free-for-all.

Bedtime Election Notes

2006-11-08T00:34:00.000-05:00

As of 12:27 AM EST, the news outlets have called the House for the Democrats, but the Senate is still up for grabs. I'm amazed at the late resurgence of Jim Web, who has about a 2000 vote lead with 99% of the precincts reporting. If George Allen loses, then what remained of his possibility of a run for the White House is done. All the better, he is an odd character, a son of privilege who doesn't come across as very talented and has an all-too-creepy love for the confederacy. To me, he was the next possible George W. Bush to come along. Without him, the other possibles, McCain, Romney, Frist, at least are articulate.

I'm also excited to see Jon Tester coming out with a solid lead, even though there are still a lot of votes to count. It's cliche now, but the future of the Democratic Party is in guys like him. The next Democratic presidential contender won't come from out there, but maybe in '12 or '16. I'm still hoping for Obama to run in '08. I also think Deval Patrick, the newly elected governor here in Massachusetts, has huge potential to become a national Democratic star. He'll need to prove himself in office first, but he certainly has the prerequisites and it's his for the taking.

CNN Results
NYTimes Results

Other thoughts:

The next two years will be a period of stalemate in terms of laws passed. But don't be surprised if Bush pushes some conservative base pleasing bills that make the Democratic congress reject them. Think a reverse of the Defense of Marriage Act, where Congress passed the law and Clinton felt compelled to sign. I bet Bush pushes, at least as talking points if not as bills, all the issues that will stir up the base, forcing the Democrats to come out against them, so that their statements get used in the next election cycle.

But, the big thing the Democrats will have is the subpoena power. Finally, we can hold some investigations into the utterly corrupt dealings of the Republican-led government. I'm not really sure what will come out, but I bet there are some nasty, embarrassing things coming out of the GOP under oath.

Some are saying that Rumsfeld will go, but I doubt it. Bush doesn't care about congress and he's not running for reelection. The Democrats should and will rake Rumsfeld over the coals, but I would put money on Bush standing by him. Bush doesn't value competence, he values loyalty. Plus, if he were removed, he'd have to go through a confirmation process that would rightly be pretty rough.

What will really be interesting is to see how Bush handles subpoenas. Given the administration's attitudes toward executive power, I wouldn't be surprised to see some legal battles over government power, likely in the form of the administration refusing to obey the subpoena. Likely this will be due to some national security justification.

Late Update:
I sure hope that there isn't another recount fiasco in Virginia like the 2000 election in Florida.

Trading Security Futures on Tradesports?

2006-10-04T00:15:00.000-04:00

Question for you financial dudes, does anyone trade futures contracts on specific companies' stock prices on Tradesports? I see there are contracts there for the major indices, but what about a specific company? I wonder if betting on a stock price through something like Tradesports might be a simpler way to day trade on a small scale. Just put out a contract for some company's stock to be at some price by the end of the week, but you could bet smaller amounts of money on it than if you were actually buying a real share or derivative. Would this work, or is there a reason why it wouldn't be feasible?

(I suppose one reason could be the new law banning internet gambling. It would be interesting legally if you created a predictive market that focused exclusively on securities that were traded in the standard markets. Would it still be possible to demonize such a market as illegal gambling when there is a perfectly legal and economically necessary market that does exactly the same thing?)

The Torture Act of 2006

2006-09-29T01:25:00.000-04:00

Today is a sad day for the republic. President Bush continues to push the country toward tyranny and the rubber-stamp Republican Congress complied, passing the "Detainee Treatment Act." While not as expansive as he had originally hoped for, it gives the President broad leeway to strip the rights guaranteed by the Constitution of anyone he deems to be an enemy. It institutionalizes torture, and flatly denies the judiciary the power of review that it has had since John Marshall. We will be the first civilized country that executes people without showing them the evidence against them and using evidence obtained through torture.

Bush claims he needs this power to fight this unprecedented war against any enemy who threatens us like never before. Forget the fact that the nation does not face an existential threat as it has in the past. Forget the fact that torture does not produce actionable intelligence but only what the torturer wants to hear. If there ever were a ticking time-bomb, "Jack Bauer" scenario that called for extreme measures, the president always had the power to pardon someone who chose to break the law to save innocent lives. Instead, this president wants to institutionalize torture and the revocation of rights. The right to commit cruel and inhumane treatment at the president's discretion will now be codified in law. We should all be ashamed.

At this point, the rule of law in the United States is a joke. Instead, this president has nothing but contempt for any rule other than his "gut". He is backed up by authoritarian Republicans who have learned nothing from our nations struggles with with fascism and communism, other than than a sick admiration for their tactics and policies. They have sold their souls to the devil and are taking the rest of us along with them. Unless a Democratic Congress is elected this fall, our only hope is in the Supreme Court. Let's pray that there are still a few judges who believe in the Constitution.

In particular, John McCain sold out in a grand way on this issue. His initial tough stand was admirable, but apparently he chose to sacrifice his principles in order to maintain peace with the party powers who could give him the nomination in 2008. I liked McCain and thought he had what it takes to bring the GOP back from the abyss of authoritarianism. But they may be too far gone, and the only way to get elected with that party seems to be to pander to religious fanatics, corrupt swindlers, and those who think 1984 is a good example of how government should work. I used to think I could vote for McCain, but now I am not so sure. I wonder if the GOP is so rotten to the core that it cannot be saved.

President Clinton on Fox News

2006-09-28T00:40:00.000-04:00

Last night I watched the now-infamous interview with President Clinton on Fox New Sunday with Chris Wallace. Watching him smack Wallace and the right-wing media around was such a relief. It's about time a Democrat took conservatives to task for attempting to re-write history. The problem is that the only person so far to do this effectively can't be elected again. But perhaps Mr. Clinton's opening salvo will prompt other, more timid Democrats to finally pick up the fight.

Watching the interview reconfirmed my belief that Bill Clinton was one of the best presidents we've had since FDR. He led the country brilliantly, bringing a pragmatic, problem-solving style to governing. He believed that when done right, government could be a powerful force for good, but that it also had its limits. He appointed talented people to office. He balanced the budget. He believed in helping the poor. He believed in rule of law. When he traveled the world, he was greeted by cheering crowds. He was one of the smartest presidents we have ever had.

He presided over a prosperous time and, for better or worse, fate handed him no major national crises to respond to. Instead, he was hounded from the day he took office by those whose rabid, irrational hatred of him persists to this day. He had his flaws, but deserved nothing close to the national farce that was his impeachment. Yet despite all of that, he left the nation better than when found it. We can only hope that, after this disastrous administration, our country can again elect people of the caliber of Bill Clinton.

John Yoo's Vision of the U.S. Under the Unitary Executive

2006-09-17T03:37:00.000-04:00

Scanning the newspaper before hitting the sack, I'm absolutely flabbergasted by John Yoo's op-ed in the New York Times this morning. I cannot believe that someone who has read the same Constitution as I have, can come to the the conculsions that he makes. Bush's critics "seem to believe that the Constitution created a system of judicial or congressional supremacy"? The Constitution is quite specific about the powers granted to the Congress, including the legislative, budget-making, and war-making powers that he specifically claims as presidential.

His interpretation of history is also astounding. He writes that the limits placed on executive power in the 1970's "occurred largely because we had no serious national security threats to United States soil, but plenty of paranoia in the wake of Richard Nixon's use of national security agencies to spy on political opponents." The Soviet Union, their tens of thousands of nuclear missles capable of flatting the nation a hundred times over, did not consitute a "serious national security threat"? But, by contrast, al Qaeda is? As for Nixon, the paranoia existed precisely because of his illegal conduct. Professor Yoo seems to believe, like many of the unitary executives, that Nixon did not actually do anything wrong. How someone can hold that view is beyond me.

In a way, though, his writing is refreshingly clear. Most Bush Administration propaganda is so filled with doublespeak, hollow language, and marketing hype that it is never clear what the true intetions are. Here, Yoo distinctly lists the controversial and illegal actions the president has taken; re-classifying declassified material, detaining prisoners without charge, "sidestepping laws that invade his executive authority", and preparing to execute prisoners without thier being told why.

Of all of the ideologies coming out of the Republican party, this Unitary Executive theory is by far the most poisonous to our Republic. And those who espouse it show every intention of claiming as much power as possible, to the point that representative democracy devloves into a dictatorship of the one person "elected by and accountable to the nation as a whole." Despite low poll numbers, many Republicans are still drinking th Bush koolaid, but clearly there are a few who balk at unrestrained executive power, such as Sens. McCain, Graham, and Warner. If the Democrats cannot run on this issue, then they have no hope. And if no one, from either party, can or will resist this, then our way of government and our heritage is in serious jeopardy.

Push-back Against Bush's Tribunal Plan

2006-09-08T09:17:00.000-04:00

It was quite a change of course, yesterday, when President Bush suddenly announced that the prisoners held in the secret prisons, whose existence he has to date been denied, now need to be tried in military tribunals as soon as possible. To do so, the president proposes a new set of tribunals, much like the ones struck down by the Supreme Court in the Hamdan decision. With just two months before an election where Republicans risk losing one or both houses of Congress, it was a pretty brazen attempt to deflect attention from all the incompetencies of the Administration and to paint anyone who supports any kind of rule of law as a coward. David Sanger of the New York Times wrote a great piece analyzing the political strategy of the move, which seems as much a power play by the executive against the legislature as it does a play by the GOP against the Democrats.

I was concerned initially that it might work. Yesterday, on the BBC World Service, someone I had never heard of from "Democrats Abroad" gave a wishy-washy response to Bush's play, saying that Democrats weren't against the legislation, but they were. Can't anyone take a stand here on fundamental rule of law?!! Fortunately, someone is, or rather at least three Republican senators are; John McCain, John Warner, and Lindsey Graham. Thus it was a pleasant surprise this morning to open up nytimes.com to see three prominent headlines reading:

Perhaps this time the gambitto marginalize the Democrats won't work because there are still enough good Americans in the GOP and in the military who do not want to marginalize the Constitution. The most succinct rebuttal to Bush's plan, which disallows the accused from seeing classified evidence used to convict and possibly execute them, came from Senator Lindsey Graham, quoted in the article.

"It would be unacceptable, legally, in my opinion, to give someone the death penalty in a trial where they never heard the evidence against them," said Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who has played a key role in the drafting of alternative legislation as a member of the Armed Services Committee and a military judge. " 'Trust us, you're guilty, we're going to execute you, but we can't tell you why'? That's not going to pass muster; that's not necessary."

Also,

Brig, Gen. James C. Walker, the top uniformed lawyer for the Marines, said that no civilized country should deny a defendant the right to see the evidence against him and that the United States "should not be the first."

Amen.

Tanglewood

2006-08-22T00:08:00.000-04:00

This last weekend, I managed to escape work and the city to head for the hills, or rather the Berkshires. I spent the weekend with my friend Stacy at Tanglewood, the summer home of the Boston Symphony Orchestra.

We saw two performances:

Saturday:
Dvorak's Violin Concerto in A minor, Opus 53, with Hilary Hahn playing the violin solo
Beethoven's Symphony No. 3 in E-flat, Opus 55, Eroica

Sunday:
All-Brahms
Piano Concerto No. 2 in B-flat, Opus 83, Peter Serkin playing the piano solo
Symphony No. 2 in D, Opus 73

Both performances were quite good. Hahn is an incredibly talented violinist. Both her motion and sound were crisp and exact. For her encore, she played a solo violin transcriptions of Schubert's Erlkonig, which was very impressive. We had seats under the Shed on Saturday night, which turned out quite fortunate because it rained fairly hard for most of the performance. Sunday began with rain, but by concert time, the skies cleared and we enjoyed the performance from the lawn.

The grounds at Tanglewood and the surrounding towns are absolutely beautiful as well. We visited downtown Lenox and West Stockbridge. I would have like to go to Stockbridge to see Arlo Guthrie's church (I presume the one of "Alice's Restaurant" fame), but I ran out of time. Maybe next time.

Some photos of the Tanglewood grounds.

View of the Shed from the east side of the lawn.

Footpaths through the woods

View from our spot on the lawn on Sunday, as both a photo...

... and as drawing.

On a side note, I've been wanting to start drawing more. I haven't drawn anything artsy since middle school, nor have I taken any art classes. For now, I'll just keep some sketches from when I have a random momemt and feel like drawing, some of which may make their way to the blog. I'd like to take a drawing class at some point, but that's one of many things of the list of stuff to do that I barely have time for. Maybe when work quiets down a little....

Constitution Upheld

2006-08-17T15:28:00.000-04:00

How wonderful it is to hear that there are at least some jurists left who believe in the rights and limits of the Constitution of the United States. Clearly, Judge Anna Diggs Taylor's decision will be appealed by the Administration and will quickly make its way to the Supreme Court. When this happens, it will be one of the most important cases in generations, determining whether our nation's heritage of rule of law and liberty will persevere or we take the path to authoritarianism.

Here's my favorite quote from the opinion, as posted on TPMmuckraker:

"The Government appears to argue here that, pursuant to the penumbra of Constitutional language in Article II, and particularly because the President is designated Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy, he has been granted the inherent power to violate not only the laws of the Congress but the First and Fourth Amendments of the Constitution, itself.

We must first note that the Office of the Chief Executive has itself been created, with its powers, by the Constitution. There are no hereditary Kings in America and no power not created by the Constitution. So all "inherent power" must derive from that Constitution."

Oshkosh Air Show

2006-08-06T23:14:00.000-04:00

As promised in the last post, I will write about the Oshkosh air show that I attended last weekend. For those of you who don't know, EAA, the Experimental Aircraft Association, has been holding an annual fly-in at Whittman Field (KOSH) in Oshkosh, Wisconsin for decades now. It has grown to be one of the biggest airshows in the world, and certainly the biggest focused on general aviation. Each year, some 2,500 aircraft fly to KOSH over the course of a week, and all the major industry players are there.

This was my third Oshkosh in a row, but unlike the last two, I didn't have to work the booth for my company. But an even bigger first is that it was the first time I had flown in and camped at the plane. A couple co-workers and I plus a friend rented a Piper Arrow for the weekend to make the trek. I didn't do much flying, given that I'm not instrument rated or checked out in the Arrow, but I did get a little in, and plenty of radio work. Most of the flights were uneventful, aside from the surprise snake on the plane (rubber, of course). One of our fuel stops on the way out was Clare Municipal Airport (48D) in Clare, Michigan. One of the most pleasant little airports I've even been to, with very friendly people, good gas prices, and a courtesy car. And they even serve you free milkshakes right after you land! I highly recommend stopping there if you are in the area.

After refueling, we made our way over Lake Michigan to KOSH. Once we made landfall, we started to notice other traffic headed the same way. By the time we got within 30 nm of Oshkosh, there were aircraft everywhere. The way they have it set up is that there is a holding pattern that circles one of the nearby lakes. Communication is all one way, and you acknowledge tower commands by rocking your wings. Due to the volume, they use all three runways at the same time. When we were on our base leg for 18R, there were people taking off on 27 right below us. And to make it even more exciting, they have multiple aircraft taking off and landing on the same runway. They mark colored dots on the runway as your target, so we were cleared for landing on the pink dot. Rob, our PIC at the time, made a spot-on landing, and we quickly pulled off on the grass to make room for the next arrival, and taxied to our campsite.

Once settled in, we caught up with our company, having a big steak and lobster party. From there we proceeded to The Bar (a simple name if I ever saw one) and the back to one of the company houses for more partying. Was a long night, but at least we got to crash on couches there. After recovering the next day, we began roaming the show. Saw the Eclipse tent, where they were giddy with having received their provisional Type Certificate, the first of the Very Light Jets to do so. They've still got a long way to go before they can really start shipping feature complete aircraft, but it's a nice milestone. And of course, got in the requisite amount of scouting work, checking out other companies' products, gathering info on what's been done, what new stuff people are doing, how they're doing it, etc. I like to look at the experimental market too, because they're the real innovation lab for GA. Without the certification constraints, it's pretty easy to implement new ideas on the technology that's available these days.

Other highlights of the show: saw Chuck Yeager give a talk, hung out with some A-10 pilots, got to meet Chuck's family (some of the nicest people in the world), learned from a conspiracy theory guy that if you take highly-compressed liquid mercury and spin it at high speed, it's mass drops by 90%, allowing for anti-gravity flight. (Seems like this would be easy to test, so why do these guys keep repeating this stuff, saying that it's all hidden technology? Ideas don't happen in a vacuum. A specific plane is easy to keep secret, but basic technology? No way, if it's been done, it will leak out and someone will be able to repeat it. Otherwise, it's just junk pseudo-science) Also had some amazing sushi, in Appleton, Wisconsin, of all places. And lastly, our tent nearly got flooded by a fast-moving squall line that rolled in at dawn on Sunday. If it weren't for Chuck's chamois cloths, we would have been done for. Nothing like starting your morning off by bailing out your tent with cloths as rainwater blown along by a 60 mile per hour wind pours through the zippers.

All in all, though, an amazing trip. As far as I'm concerned there's no other way to go to Oshkosh than to fly in. Now I just have to get instrument rated in time for next year....

Monsieur Chopin

2006-08-04T00:57:00.000-04:00

Again, many apologies for the nearly month-long absence from the blog. Eighty hour workweeks make it a little challenging to write. Here's the quick synopsis of the last month: lots of work, surprise trip to New York, more piano, Oshkosh airshow (see the follow-on post), and seeing Monsieur Chopin at the American Repertory Theater in Cambridge.

Chopin is one of my favorite composers for the piano (Beethoven and Schubert are the others), but I wouldn't have even heard about it if Sally, my piano teacher, hadn't mentioned it at a lesson the weeke before it ended. Monsieur Chopin is the second in a trilogy of one-man shows by Hershey Felder, the first being Gershwin Alone, and the third, I think, will be about Beethoven. The performance takes place as a piano lesson from Chopin to the audience in 1848, about a year before he died. Through the course of ther play, Chopin plays his own pieces, speaking and occasionally stopping, to illustrate his life story and the stories behind the songs themselves. It was absolutely magical. I highly recommend seeing it if it's in your area.

Utah: The National Parks

2006-07-08T21:07:00.000-04:00

Sorry for the long absence on the blog. Been pretty busy with work and the Fourth of July holiday. Anyway, just finished watching a show on PBS called Utah: The National Parks. It was absolutely captivating. Very simple show, just stunning high-definition footage of Utah's gorgeous national parks, all set to beautiful classical music. Mostly Tchaikovsky, but also Albioni, Rossini, Vivaldi, Chopin, and a few others. The narration was almost poetic in its description of the landscape.

Just further evidence supporting my friend Mike Flaim's assertion that PBS Digital is the best thing on television. I can't agree more.

The Challenge in Executing an Idea

2006-06-16T00:10:00.000-04:00

This morning I read Bruce Schneier's latest piece on Wired.com about a contest for who could come up the most frightening "movie-plot" terrorist attack concepts. People came up with no shortage of ideas, ranging from terrifying to outlandish. Some criticized him for publishing the
concepts, arguing that he was giving the terrorists ideas. His counter was intriguing, and seems to have implications beyond security. He retorted that ideas are cheap (as evidenced by all the entries), and that it's actually executing them that is the challenge. The difficulty in doing, whether because of obtaining funding, conducting training, and providing logistics all while maintaining operational security when intelligence services are doing their best to root them out, explains why we have not seen more terror attacks in the U.S. It's a pretty convincing argument and makes you wonder how many actual terrorist plot have failed or been foiled because of mistakes in execution.

This argument, that ideas are cheap and execution is costly, is much more broadly applicable than just security. In particular, it is very relevant to the arena of intellectual property. Our patent system is based on ideas alone, disregarding execution entirely. I could come up with some simple but novel idea, patent it, and then sit on the patent and avoid the cost of execution. Then, I wait for someone else to come along who wants to put up the investment to execute on that idea an license it to him for a fee or threaten a lawsuit. Even if he came up with the idea independently, I still own the patent. He does all the work making it into a marketable product, while I sit back and collect a royalty. Change this story slightly to where I buy up patents instead of come up with them myself, and you get the patent troll business model.

If you alter the focus of the patent regime to the execution instead of the idea, it begins to appear more reasonable. In many ways, it becomes more like copyright. The idea is ignored, it's the executed product that is copyrighted. I could write code that implements a standard algorithm. I copyright that code and I can sell it without fear that someone will simply copy my code and sell it too. They could put in the work of implementing that algorithm themselves and sell a competing product. But I have the advantage of being first to market, and they have to put up the investment, same as I did. You could even apply that thinking to physical devices. It's not the concept that is owned, but the physical design. While this would seem difficult to judge, it would basically be done the same way plagiarism is judged. And it would certainly be simpler than trying to figure out who is violating a vague and expansive patent, as many seem to be.

We all want to have the next great idea. But ideas are cheap, and when not implemented, ideas are worthless. It takes money, time, and effort to turn an idea into a viable product. The execution is where the real value lies.

Blind Obedience

2006-06-16T00:02:00.000-04:00

Let's hear it for Representative Tom Cole, of my home state of Oklahoma, for declaring his blind allegiance, right or wrong, to our Dear Leader and the flawless job he has done prosecuting the war in Iraq. From the New York Times;

Some Republicans mocked the Democrats for their divisions on Thursday. "Their real challenge is they have no common, unified position on their side of the aisle," said Representative Tom Cole, Republican of Oklahoma. "Whether we are right or wrong, we on our side of the aisle do have a unified position."

It's a wonder why we even bother electing representatives to Congress anymore. How about we just abolish Articles I and III of the Constitution? Bill of Rights while we're at it, too. Time to dust off the Divine Right of Kings!

Opting Out of Credit Card Offers

2006-06-07T13:13:00.000-04:00

Maybe a coup de grace for my junk mail? I've already killed most of my junk mail thanks to the USPS and the Direct Marketing Association. Now, from a post at Lifehacker, the Fair Credit Reporting Act requires the credit reporting agencies to provide people the opportunity to opt-out of receiving pre-approved credit card applications (or you can opt-in, but what dufus would want to do that??). Anyway, OptOutPrescreen.com provides the mechanism for opting out. Pretty cool, and nice to see a piece of legislation being directly useful.

Mobile Air Taxi Maintenance

2006-06-05T17:22:00.000-04:00

Earlier I posted about business opportunities in support of the coming air taxi industry. Talking to my boss Nick just now, the idea came of creating a mobile maintenance company. Here's the premise: one of the highly-touted features of air taxi transport is that Very Light Jets can fly into the many thousands of smaller, under-utilized airports scattered around the country. This will enabled people to fly point-to-point without having to go through busy hubs, hours from their staring points and destinations. But, since these are small airports already and the air taxi traffic will be irregular, there is no reason to expect that a qualified maintenance center will be at many of these airports. So what happens when a breakdown occurs? You call the mobile maintenance company. They would maintain a fleet of aircraft maintenance shops packed up in 18-wheelers, available on-call wherever needed. Somewhat like a AAA for light jets. That way, air taxi providers will be able to fly into and out of just about any airport they want and be confident that they will have the available maintenance support wherever they are.

Capital Ideas and Real Estate Futures Markets

2006-05-25T01:11:00.000-04:00

As you know if you read this blog, I post from time to time on the topic of economics. Not that I have much expertise in the subject beyond 14.01, 14.02, and a subscription to The Economist, but it intrigues me. In particular, markets (stock, bond, futures, predictive, etc) are fascinating.

On that particular topic, I just finished reading Capital Idea s by Peter L. Bernstein. It's an amazing book about the history of the people and ideas that formed the theoretical groundwork that the modern stock market and its derivative markets runs on.

I'm a big fan of Bernstein. He's a great storyteller and knows how to explain technical concepts to laymen with the right historical context to make it all make sense. One of his other books, Against The Gods, about the history of the concept of risk from modern times back to the ancient Greeks, is also outstanding. I highly recommend either book.

One of the topics covered in Capital Ideas is the method of using options and futures to hedge against risk. The book was written in 1992, before the current hedge fund boom, and most of the attention focuses on LOR's Portfolio Insurance that was popular in the 80's and demonized after the '87 crash. It's an intriguing concept that I'd like to learn more about.

Coincidentally, just the other day I also ran across on article in The Economist about the opening a futures market in Chicago tied to housing prices. It's not at all clear if your average homeowner can use such a market, but given the volatility of home prices, it's a cool idea. I wonder how many ways there might be to diversify your risk in owning a home. One idea that popped into my head was selling off "shares" in your home, keeping a controlling block of at least 51% of them yourself. The idea would be that you sell off part of your home and buy shares in other people's houses in other markets. That way, if a market in one location tanks, you're not exposed to all the risk.

I have no idea if such a scheme could actually work. A home is such a different asset than a stock that it's tough to know how to start. First of all, there are no dividends or profit being returned by owning a home. Instead, it's all the value you get out of living there, plus any upward change in price. You also have to figure out how mortgage payments get split up, who pays the taxes, etc. Who knows, but it sure would be nice to be able to diversify the biggest asset that most people every own. Any thoughts?

Publishing Leaks and the First Amendment

2006-05-22T09:56:00.000-04:00

According to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, journalists who published leaked information, such as stories about illegal government surveillance programs, can be prosecuted under "some statutes on the book which, if you read the language carefully, would seem to indicate that that is a possibility." Specifically which laws might these be? He does not say. One wonders if those laws themselves are classified. Likely they are espionage laws not intended to apply to journalists.

I wonder if the A.G. realizes how ridiculous he sounds when he says things like that because Congress passed the laws before "we have an obligation to enforce those laws. We have an obligation to ensure that our national security is protected." Just like those 750 other laws congress passed that the administration is enforcing just as congress intended.

Even if you accept his premise here, the argument is still bogus. If in fact there is no program to listen in on the phone calls of tens of millions of Americans, then what state secrets are being revealed by these leaks? At this point, though, I cannot believe any word that comes from the President or any of his Administration anymore. They have consistency lied about their illegal, immoral, and just plain stupid actions only until presented with incontrovertible evidence to the contrary. And even then, they don't right their wrongs, they take revenge.

More likely is that the true breadth of this surveillance program is bigger than any of us can possibly imagine. Destroying our liberty in order to protect it. This is how tyranny starts.

Update:

At least there are a few people who refuse to kowtow to Big Brother's all encompassing demand for secrecy (in this case, it's AT&T who is claiming the secrecy). Wired News is publishing all of the contents of a file submitted to the court by Mark Klein, the whistle-blower and ex-AT&T employee.

Peer-To-Peer Finance

2006-05-17T10:02:00.000-04:00

Just a quick parrot of a post from Slashdot this morning, about peer-to-peer finance. Haven't had much time to think about it, but it seems intriguing.

Wiretapping vs. Futures Market

2006-05-12T16:59:00.000-04:00

There is some irony in the most recent revelation about warrantless NSA wiretapping of the phonecalls of tens of millions of Americans. Following 9/11, there was a flurry of ideas of how to improve the predictive capability of the intelligence community to help prevent the feared next wave of attacks. The programs we're hearing of today; the massive data-mining of communications, such as this new NSA program, the so-called Terrorist Surveillance Program, the MATRIX database, and probably others, all had their genesis in the Total Information Awareness project at DARPA. Headed up by Adm. John Poindexter, the program was intended to amass vast amounts of data and use sophisticated mining techniques to search for hints of terrorist activity. Operating on the assumption that the intelligence failures of 9/11 were due to insufficient information, their goal was to gather all information that exists. With perfect information, the world becomes deterministic. However, due to it's Orwellian overtones (and Poindexter's very creepy logo for the Information Awareness Office), the program was (supposedly) cancelled by congress.

Around the same time, a very different idea was proposed, called the Policy Analysis Market. The PAM was based on the idea that the intelligence failures were not due to lack of information, but to the inability to synthesis the information and analysis that already existed. The PAM was a prediction market, basically a futures market where traders bet on the outcomes of future events, as one can do on TradeSports.com. In the PAM, players, which could be anyone in the world who wanted to sign up, could buy and sell contracts for predictions of the future. The price of the contracts then indicates the aggregate belief of all the players of the probability of an outcome. But this program too, was cancelled after public and congressional outcry, because of aversion to the idea that people who bet on a terrorist attack could profit from the deaths of others.

But, as Bruce Schneier wrote in Wired, the TIA may have been cancelled, but it lives on in these programs we're hearing about now. There does not, however, appear to be any successor to the PAM. It's unfortunate and ironic that the administration chose to continue the TIA because it is almost assuredly to fail to be useful while trampling civil liberties, whereas the PAM would probably be much more accurate and have the side benefit of being constitutional. As Schneier says,

Finding terrorism plots is not a problem that lends itself to data mining. It's a needle-in-a-haystack problem, and throwing more hay on the pile doesn't make that problem any easier.

While it seems logical that more information is better and all information is best, reality is much different. Maybe if you were omniscient and had all information available in the universe, then it might actually be deterministic. But for mere mortals, it will always be a game of probability and signal detection. You will always have incomplete information and will always have a probability of both missed detection and false positives. In this case, more information can actually be worse, due to what Schneier refers do as the "base rate fallacy"

Let's look at some numbers. We'll be optimistic -- we'll assume the system has a one in 100 false-positive rate (99 percent accurate), and a one in 1,000 false-negative rate (99.9 percent accurate). Assume 1 trillion possible indicators to sift through: that's about 10 events -- e-mails, phone calls, purchases, web destinations, whatever -- per person in the United States per day. Also assume that 10 of them are actually terrorists plotting.

This unrealistically accurate system will generate 1 billion false alarms for every real terrorist plot it uncovers. Every day of every year, the police will have to investigate 27 million potential plots in order to find the one real terrorist plot per month. Raise that false-positive accuracy to an absurd 99.9999 percent and you're still chasing 2,750 false alarms per day -- but that will inevitably raise your false negatives, and you're going to miss some of those 10 real plots.

There is a high cost to false positives, in that it wastes investigators' time and also intrudes on innocent people's constitutional rights. Data mining can work in certain cases, but does not seem appropriate in uncovering terrorist activity. Predictive markets, on the other hand, are much more efficient at aggregating opinions of a large number of people. An arbitraty number of people can trade on a particular question and many may disagree, but the simple market price of the contract represents the probability of that event occurring according the the entire market. The more people in the market, the better.

When making predictions, even having more information is not always beneficial. A study by Daniel G. Goldstein and Gerd Gigerenzer found that, when inferring answers to uncertain questions, knowing a moderate amount of information led to more correct answers than knowing very little or very much information. George Freidman, of Stratfor.com, reached a similar conclusion about the U.S. intelligence community, writing

The American IC is much too big. It has
way too many resources. It is awash in information that is not
converted into intelligence that is delivered to its customers.
Huge organizations will lose information in the shuffle. The bigger they are, the more they lose.

One wonders if the vast intelligence apparatus should even exist at all. Instead, it could be split up and diversified into much smaller organizational groups of analysts linked by a prediction market to aggregate their findings. With all the information that's available openly on the internet, you could probably put together a very capable shop of analysts on a very small budget, at least for grand-scale, strategic intelligence. Of course you need other types of intelligence for other uses, in particular satellite and signals intel for the faster-paced tactical world. But for the big picture, you would probably get quite a bang for the buck by gathering up a small group of smart, educated, experienced, and motivated people, giving them an internet connection and subscriptions to all the information providers they want, and let them run with it.

The Benefits of a Quiet Workspace

2006-05-11T10:20:00.000-04:00

Being streetsweeping day today, I left for work early this morning. When I got in, most people hadn't arrived yet and it's a generally peaceful time. But today, the test engineer guys are reconfiguring the lab that is next door to my cube. While doing so, they had shut down all the computers, power supplies, and flight displays that are usually constantly running, with their cooling fans droning on at all hours of the day.

It's truly amazing how much noise those fans make and how much it actually affects you. I've noticed before that I can't sit in the lab for too long or else I'll get a headache from the noise. It's bearable from my cube, but still annoying. But this morning was pure workplace bliss. Too bad it can't last, and even now, most of it is back up and running, fans and all.

If we could figure out a way to silence the fan noise, I wonder how that would affect people's moods and productivity?

Ruby On Rails and MySQL

2006-05-11T09:48:00.000-04:00

So I started learning Ruby On Rails last week in preparation for developing OpenThinkTank.org. I must say, I'm quite impressed with this system so far. Ruby is a very simple language, and Rails is incredibly powerful, yet still simple to use. MySQL on the other hand, is much harder to learn. I can't seem to get the GUI working properly and the Rails book I'm using is all command prompt, so when something goes wrong, I have no idea what's happening. Anyone know of a good MySQL reference? I'm usually a fan of the O'Reilly books, so this one might be good.

Managing and Using MySQL, Second Ed.

Any thoughts?

Junk Snail Mail Followup Followup

2006-05-10T00:02:00.000-04:00

A report on my attempts to reduce junk mail, as described in previous posts. I finally did write to the Direct Marketing Association asking to be removed from their lists. While I didn't keep any records of my junk mail receipts before and after, I have definitely seen a significant reduction in the number of junk letters. Not a total reduction, but noticeable.

I blame the continuing flow on Citibank and AOPA (Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association). AOPA, I understand, but I wish I didn't get so many letters. Citi, I don't understand, because I already have a credit card with them. Why would I want to sign up with another?

It might be worth writing to both of them directly asking to be removed from their lists as well. I'll report back what happens.

In the mean time, if you want to reduce you junk mail, I highly recommend writing to DMA. Here's the address again:

MAIL PREFERENCE SERVICE
ATTN: DEPT 7488547
DIRECT MARKETING ASSOCIATION
PO BOX 282
Carmel NY 10512-0282

Imperial Executive

2006-05-09T23:20:00.000-04:00

Even though it was published over a week ago, I've been hearing more and more about Charlie Savage's story in the Boston Globe about how President Bush has issued over 700 signing statements, many of which he uses to quietly explain that he will disregard the law he is just signing. For some, he claims reasons of protecting national security, for others it seems he simply would rather not obey the law. He does not veto a law he does not agree with, he simply ignores it.

Twice has the president signed laws mandating an inspector general to investigate allegations of torture and other abuses in Iraq, yet he declares in his signing statements that the inspector cannot investigate such matters. He has claimed ultimate authority dealing with how prisoners are held, claimed authority for illegal search and seizure, even refused to provide congress information on basic government scientific research.

To justify these egregious actions, the president points to his "inherent authority" as commander-in-chief and head of the executive branch. The "Unitary Executive" theory holds that because the Constitution grants the president the authority for executing the laws, he has unlimited authority to decide what those laws should be and when to break them.

For their constitutional justification, they point the following clauses in Article II, Sections 2 and 3:

The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States,

he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed

Forget the fact that Congress is the sovereign body in the United States. I don't know what crack these lawyers who push this theory were smoking during their con law class, but they seemed to have missed reading the rest of the Constitution, in particular Article I, Section 8. In this section it grants Congress the power to:

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
....
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
....
To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

Further more, Article IV, Section 3

The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States;

It's tough to be any more clear than that. I honestly just cannot comprehend how anyone who truthfully took an oath to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution" can look themselves in the mirror. Even worse are those who excuse such authoritarian power grabs. This is how totalitarianism sprouts. That is what is so terrifying about them; not that a totalitarian army might march in and conquer a free country, but that a free country would willingly give itself over to those who disdain democracy, ignore the rule of law, and idolize secrecy.

Non-sketchy Real Estate Listings Follow Up

2006-05-01T15:19:00.000-04:00

Back in March, I posted about my desire for non-sketchy real estate listings and possible ways to improve apartment searching. Today I just ran across MyNewPlace.com, which does some cool searching and mapping of apartment listings. There's a blurb on CNet News about them.

OpenThinkTank.org

2006-04-24T10:01:00.000-04:00

The more I think about it, the more I'm really into this "open think tank" idea that I posted about little while ago. I ran across similar thinking in some comments on a Daily Kos posting about the need for more progressive think tanks. At least two other people are interested, so maybe I can get to know them and we can come up with something cool.

In the mean time, I've gotten started, slowly but surely. I purchased the URL openthinktank.org. There's nothing on it yet, but I'll be putting up a concept description, requirements, some sketches, and eventually the prototype and actual site. I've got a lot of thinking and design work to do before getting into the nitty gritty of it, so stay tuned.

In the mean time, though, there are some technical issues to attend to. I don't have any server space at the moment. Can anyone recommend a good provider? I'm thinking I will build the site with Ruby On Rails, so I'll need someone who runs Apache and MySQL. I imagine this is true for most server providers, but it's a requirement nonetheless.

Since I don't actually know Ruby, I'll have to learn. I'm going to start with some of the online tutorials. Rolling On Rails on O'Reilly seem pretty good. But I'm a sucker for old fashioned paper, and am looking at the following two books:

Programming Ruby: The Pragmatic Programmers' Guide, Second Edition

Agile Web Development with Rails : A Pragmatic Guide

Has anyone used these? Are they good? Or would you recommend something better?

Business Opportunities Supporting Air Taxi

2006-04-21T00:23:00.000-04:00

Kevin sent me an email the other day about a conference in Florida dealing with the up and coming very light jet and air taxi businesses. For those of you unfamiliar with it, a new class of aircraft called Very Light Jets are soon to hit the market and have the potential to revolutionize air travel. They are small, single pilot jets that can carry 6-8 people with a transcontinental range. They are very quiet and have short takeoff and landing distances. Most importantly, they are cheap and have low operating costs. The first of these to hit the market will be the Eclipse 500 (featuring Avidyne flight displays!) later this year, which is slated to retail in the $1.5 million range, as opposed to the tens of millions for a Gulfstream or Lear. Others soon to follow will be the Cessna Mustang, Diamond D-Jet, Spectrum, Honda Jet, and more.

While also aiming for the corporate jet market, these manufacturers expect to sell a large number of aircraft to air taxi services. Charter service has been around since the 60's, but with the lower operating costs, the new air taxi companies like DayJet hope to keep prices competitive with first class on major airlines. Because of the short field capabilities of the VLJs, they will also be able to fly into many of the thousands of under-utilized airports around the country, thus avoiding the congestion of the major hubs, offering point-to-point service, and bringing the customer closer to many of the suburban destinations they are going to.

I think it will be a successful business, but there are already a lot of players in the primary market. But like any boom, there are plenty of ways to make money in secondary and tertiary businesses related to the boom. During the gold rush, someone who owned a saloon and sold provisions to prospectors likely cleaned up, and with a lot less risk than those who worked the mines themselves.

Are there similarly opportunities in the air taxi industry? Once people land at these small airports, they will still need transportation to their ultimate destination, and they will not have the benefit of numerous large car rental outfits on-site as the bigger airports have. Perhaps there is room for an innovative car rental business akin to Zipcar. Or maybe in a smaller, sleeker version of an on-airport hotel that rents zipcars. A lot of the smaller airports are in various states of repair, so possibly if you had the capital, you could start buying up old airports, restoring them, and building the infrastructure to support an air taxi service (though I suspect people are already doing this).

I'm sure there a lot of other ideas that I'm not thinking of. If you have thoughts, post them to the comments and we'll discuss.

What ever happened to deterrence?

2006-04-18T12:25:00.000-04:00

With all this talk of bombing Iran, you wonder if nobody remembers the Cold War. Given that it lasted so long, it's hard to see how you could miss it. When the Soviets threatened us with nuclear holocaust, we guaranteed them the same. It was called Mutually Assured Destruction. But before that was Assured Destruction, which was the doctrine whereby if we were attacked at all, we assured the Soviets of nuclear annihilation. Given our overwhelming nuclear superiority over Iran, why can't we use that same strategy? Make it very clear: if Iran launches a nuclear weapon on the U.S. or any ally, or if a smuggled nuclear device is exploded on U.S. soil, Iran will be held accountable and the country will be flattened under a rain of nuclear weapons.

But in this debate, no one seems to want to talk about the strategy that won the Cold War. Instead, on one side, you have the right-wing hawks claiming we Iran can't be deterred and cannot be allowed to possess the bomb, so we should attack. On the left, you have people saying we shouldn't ever threaten anyone. But threatening a counterattack is perfectly reasonable and it even puts you in a better strategic position. It's much easier to defend militarily and to gain allies diplomatically if you are the defender instead of the aggressor. It's also much more likely that the American public will fully support, and maintain supporting, a counterattack than a pre-emptive attack. Granted, a counterattack implies that the initial attack has already occurred and thus a large number of people have already died, but that is the risk a free society must take. The illusion of absolute security is tempting, but ultimately unattainable. Better to deter your enemy as much as possible and destroy him if attacked.

Pressure on Rumsfeld to Resign

2006-04-14T16:25:00.000-04:00

With now six retired generals now calling for Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to resign, you have to wonder if his days are finally numbered. What strikes me is the type of arguments that his supporters are making. Effectively, they are punting trying to rebut claims that he has poorly prosecuted the war and instead have treated calls for him to resign as attacks on his character.

For example, a lot of liberals have hated Rumsfeld from the beginning because of "the way he carries himself" as commentator Dan Goure said on NPR last night in his defense of the secretary. Goure goes on to argue that we need someone who is confident, and almost arrogant in his confidence to win the war. We shouldn't let personal failures get in the way of fighting, and he cites Abraham Lincoln's retention of Gen. Ulysses S. Grant despite concerns by some about his drinking. In another defense of Rumsfeld, Chairman of the Joint chiefs Gen. Peter Pace said that no one should question Rumsfeld's patriotism or work ethic.

But that's not what the new round of generals are basing their arguments on. They cite his refusal to listen to military advice, especially on the number of forces to deploy to secure the country after the invasion. Not only refusing to listen to advice, but publicly humiliating those who did not toe the party line, as Gen. Eric Shinseki discovered when he testified in front of congress before the war. As Gen. Paul Eaton argues, Rumsfeld placed too much emphasis on technology at the expense of desperately needed manpower. The generals also take issue with the secretary's micromanaging of the war. Furthermore, Rumsfeld also refused to acknowledge the insurgency, both in its early days as well as when it was very clear the war was far from over. The secretary is also responsible for Abu Ghraib and the human and P.R. costs that have ensued from it. In particular, he refuted Gen. Pace on what a soldier should do if they encounter a case of torture. The general believed the soldier had the obligation to stop it. The secretary only wanted to the soldier to report it.

These are not attacks on Rumsfeld's work ethic, his patriotism, or his personality. These are attacks on the decisions the secretary has made, his overall strategy and his tactics in leading the war, and the outcomes these have produced. Ultimately, it doesn't matter how much someone wants to win or how hard someone works. What matters are results. If his supporters cannot answer these charges with results (and more so than the president's Michael Brown-style "doing a fine job"), then maybe he should step down.

House For Sale at Lake Hiwassee in OK

2006-04-12T14:44:00.000-04:00

If anyone who reads this blog happens to be looking to buy a house in Oklahoma, my aunt and uncle are selling thiers on Lake Hiwassee, my old neighborhood. More info and photos are at their posting on LakeHouse.com. It's probably a longshot, but who knows who reads this thing.

Open Think Tanks

2006-04-06T00:00:00.000-04:00

Given the exploding readership and influence of political blogs out there, it is apparent that there are a lot of very capable, talented writers who are passionate on policy and political topics who do this just for the sheer interest in the subjects. Of course, many of the contributors are journalists and lots of the biggest blogs are staffed full-time, but I would guess that there are still lots of people who read and contribute smaller amounts who have otherwise unrelated employment.

At this point, though, most of the blogs seem to focus on up-to-the-minute news, fact checking, book reviews, and some shorter policy debates. Some posts can get lengthy, but there doesn't seem to be much in the way of position papers and studies like those put out by think tanks. Would it be possible to create an "open think tank" that uses the open source software development model? Maybe something like this: someone proposes a topic for the study and people can join up. The lead or the core of the group organizes the project and divide up the work, and people can contribute components, from doing research, data analysis, writing, graphics, editing, etc. Group members rely on each other to double check the contributions by each other.

I would set it up like Sourceforge, where there's a project webpage that contains info on the project, group members, maybe a blog or wiki for discussion and other communication. For the actual materials of the study, like raw data, analysis, or the actual text of the report, it's all managed through a version control system just like source code is. You can have various stages of release of your documents, alpha and beta drafts or something like that, and a final release (although if it follows the open source trend, nothing ever makes it out of beta).

Of course you'll never be able to match the speed of real think tanks because they're working full time and have more research resources available, but I bet it'd be surprising the number and quality of ideas that come from an open think tank. The people who contribute may be amateurs, but there are a lot of very well-educated and thoughtful amateurs out there who could create top quality studies. Who knows, maybe it could end up like Linux or Firefox and carve out a niche and give the established players a run for their money.

WTF?

2006-04-05T11:23:00.000-04:00

NYTimes.com's New Look

2006-04-04T13:25:00.000-04:00

Yesterday, The New York Times released their new website design. They've wided out the page, changed up the fonts, and reorganized it. Some of the other new features are still in development, such as the My Times section where you're supposed to be able to create your own personalized news and information page. The Times Topics page is pretty cool, serving as a reference index to people, things, events, etc. that are covered by the paper.

In general, I think it's a good thing that they wided out the pages, but the main page seems a little scattered. The "Inside NYTimes.com" bar stretching across in the middle is an abrupt interruption of the columns started above it, and then the columns below seem too compressed, especially given the new font.

Most of the text now uses the "Georgia Serif" font, which I think looks good for bolded headlines, but it hard to read when it's smaller and non-bolded. In particular, the font looks pixilated at the smaller size. The spacing of the letters is also somewhat awkward, and the words, especially with the smaller fonts, seem stretched slightly, making it harder to chunk the words visually. This is most apparent in the lower column area. For smaller text, I think it's much easier to read a sans-serif, or even the traditional Times New Roman.

My favorite page, actually, is the Today's Paper where the articles in the printed version are presented. The page is organized in basically one long column, and the articles are grouped by first page and then by section. Front page has headlines and summary sentences, while the remainder of the article links are just headlines. A small image of the front page is situated next to the front page articles. I find this page very easy to navigate, scan, and read. I wish the rest of the paper was laid out in a similarly simple fashion. Of course, this may all be moot due to RSS readers.

They also seem to be playing up the multimedia aspect of their news coverage. Personally, I don't know how much value that really adds. Most of the video segments seem like they would be just as good as written text, and you could read it about 2-4x faster. I have enjoyed the still slide shows they've had for some time now. I don't know how much value is added by having voice narration over just having that text as a caption, letting the reader examine the pictures at his own pace. Then again, I may just be an old fuddy-duddy and not understand all this newfangled, hip multimedia experience stuff.

Ding dong, DeLay is Gone!

2006-04-03T23:10:00.000-04:00

Delay Will Not Seek Re-election To Congress

It's been a long time coming, butthere's only so long that someone that flagrantly power-hungry can go without going down in a ball of burning trainwreck (to borrow a phrase from one of my co-workers).

Universal Digital Ports

2006-04-03T15:19:00.000-04:00

Had an idea the other day that could be a business opportunity: a "universal digital port". In the aviation electronics world, and probably in the electronics world more broadly, there are a lot different digital data protocols, like serial ports in RS-232, RS-422, RS-485, ARINC 429, ByteFlight, Ethernet, USB, parallel ports, game ports, etc. In aircraft cockpits, you have all these different devices using different formats and getting them to talk to each other is a pain. There are companies out there that make conversion devices (we call them "happy boxes" here at the office) but they are often very expensive, and specialized to for a particular device using a specific format.

Why not do the conversion in software? The device itself would be a generic embedded computer with an array of digital inputs and outputs whose voltages can be varied across the range found in the various data formats. The actual protocol, timing, voltages, etc and the conversion from one protocol to the other, is done in software that can be easily written and loaded to the device. You could even write the software in an extensible "plug-in" style and release an API so that people who buy your device can create their own protocols.

Using one common hardware configuration gives you pretty good economy of scale in production. Opening the API offloads a lot of the programming work, so you would just have to get the basic OS and the software framework going to have a viable product.

In a way, this is kind of similar to software radios, such as the open-source GNU Radio and the military's JTRS but applied to digital device-to-device communication instead of audible radio. Any thoughts? Kevin, is there already a VC-backed startup that's been doing this for the last three years?

Card Counting in Hold 'Em?

2006-03-27T14:08:00.000-05:00

My buddy Berk went to Mohegan Sun over the weekend and played their hybrid version of Texas Hold 'Em and blackjack. Hands are played like normal in hold 'em, but each player plays individually against the house kinda like blackjack. The house never folds, so you simply have to beat its hand. Only one deck is used. Players hands are face down, but no one stopped them from sharing some information about who had what. The betting is structured so that you ante to get your pocket cards. Then you either double your ante to see the flop or fold. At that point, you can raise or call for the turn and the river.

It does take some of the fun of bluffing and the other mind games out of it, but is there an opportunity to count here? Before you even have to bet for the flop, you know 12 of the 52 cards that the house cannot be holding. Anyone want to work some numbers out and take a trip to Mohegan to try it out?

Idea Markets

2006-03-26T22:33:00.000-05:00

Really cool article in the NYTimes about a company that created an internal market for ideas. Complete with stock ticker, employees come up with ideas whose shares can be traded on the market. Popular ideas have become products, often things that management never would have thought of.

NYTimes: Here's an Idea: Let Everyone Have Ideas

Are you a communist if you use a ThinkPad?

2006-03-24T01:11:00.000-05:00

State Department Is Criticized for Purchasing Chinese PC's

This xenophobia/protectionist thing is getting out of hand. What cave have all these people been in for the last few years? There are a TON of companies that do big, critical business in the US that are owned by people and countries from all around the world. It's called Globalization. It's been going on for quite some time now.

The irony of this specific instance is two-fold. First, as the article says, many of the Lenovo computers are assembled in North Carolina. And second, has no one been paying attention that the vast majority of computers and computer parts have been manufactured in Asia for decades now?

Why don't we just enact another Smoot-Hawley Act and be done with it?

Backing Up Belief

2006-03-22T01:26:00.000-05:00

It's time we start demanding people back up their beliefs with some evidence. I'm not talking about religious beliefs, which are impossible to prove, but statements about actual events and predictions for the future. It is easy to say you believe something will happen. But for all I know, you're just making something up unless you can back it up with some rationale.

There are two instances that come to mind in this. First, is an episode of "The Apprentice" that I saw a few weeks ago. The two teams were holding competing marking events for Sam's Club where the objective was to sign up more new Sam's Club members in one day than the other team. After it was all over and Trump had them all in the board room, he asked the each of the team leaders if they thought they won. Both said something to the effect of "I believe we won because we put in incredible effort and worked really hard. I'll be absolutely shocked if we lost." That rationale was absurd. You don't win by putting in effort, you win by signing up more members than the other team. It doesn't matter how hard you worked, but you damn well better know how many members you signed up. I realize that it's all scripted and edited to be dramatic on television, but it was still just stupid hearing these people puff themselves up about their beliefs when they should just come straight out with the relevant number and why they predict that the other team got fewer new members.

The second instance is a little more serious. In his press conference today, President Bush says this:

I am confident -- or I believe; I'm optimistic -- we'll succeed. If not, I'd pull our troops out. If I didn't believe we had a plan for victory, I wouldn't leave our people in harm's way....I can understand how Americans are worried about whether or not we can win. I think most Americans understand we need to win. But they're concerned about whether or not we can win. So one of the reasons I go around the country to Cleveland is to explain why I think we can win. And so I would say: Yes, I'm optimistic about being able to achieve a victory.

All we need to do is believe we have a plan for victory, not actually have one. We have to be confident, and optimistic. But the only way to build confidence and optimism is to see evidence that we can actually achieve the goals of "victory", which are never really defined anyway. Certainly there is the fog of war to account for and of course no prediction will be completely accurate, but shouldn't we base war decisions on a little stronger rationales than simply being optimistic?

If you went into a real business meeting to propose a plan, you'd get laughed out of the room if you didn't provide a convincing explanation of your goals, resource needs, schedule, risks, and rewards. Simply saying you're confident you can do it because you believe you have a plan just doesn't cut it. Shouldn't we demand the same kind of thoughtfulness on issues of war and peace?

Does Laissez-faire Actually Exist?

2006-03-22T00:57:00.000-05:00

Tom Freidmans's op-ed today about "Realism" in the alternative energy debate[$] contained this quote from a speech by Senator Richard Lugar at the Brookings Institute:

My message is that the balance of realism has passed from those who argue on behalf of oil and a laissez-faire energy policy that relies on market evolution, to those who recognize that in the absence of a major reorientation in the way we get our energy, life in America is going to be much more difficult in the coming decades. (Emphasis added)

But is it really true that energy policy is laissez-faire and relies on market evolution? Sure, oil is traded in open markets, but then again so is all energy, whatever the source. But I would hardly call our energy policy "laissez-faire". Just how many subsidies did the energy industry get in the Energy Act of 2005? Even then, no one ever factors in the cost in dollars or lives that we've spent over the last 60+ years in the Persian Gulf to maintain access to oil supplies. If the gulf had no oil, we'd ignore it just like we ignore Sub-Saharan Africa. And on top of that, there's no good way to measure the total cost to the commons of global warming, pollution, etc.

None of this should really be surprising, but it does make me question the validity of the laissez-faire concept. There are always costs that are subsidized, either directly or indirectly. These subsidies influence the outcome of a market choice that otherwise might be different. The market simply provides people a venue to decide what is the best deal for them. By doing so, they must weigh costs and benefits. In that sense, the government is part of the market, in that it is also a participant in the market. Leaders might decide that it costs more to secure oil than it's worth and that a better way to spend money is to invest in homegrown energy alternatives. What's so anti-capitalist about that? The government is trying to find the best deal, just like a good businessman should.

I'll go ahead and make the assertion that people who argue for "laissez-faire" are those that are favored by the current market and subsidies. By making the assumption that the current set of subsidies and valuations is the "natural" state of things, they can accuse someone who favors a different set to be anti-capitalist. It is shams like this that are holding back the evolution of our nation's energy policy.

HR Word of the Day: Onsite-Offsite

2006-03-22T00:54:00.000-05:00

I laugh every time I hear that word used: "We're going to have an onsite offsite to discuss it." Doesn't that just mean we'll have a long meeting? I guess you may have to assemble your stakeholders so that they can leverage their core competencies to synergize your value chain. Or you could just have a meeting.

Hedging on Democrats

2006-03-20T14:53:00.000-05:00

Quick post to assuage Thomas before getting back to work: I saw an interesting tidbit on NYTimes.com about how hedge funds have contributed a lot of money to Democrats. The survey does exclude donations to 527's, so it doesn't represent the full spectrum of political giving, but it's still interesting to see an relatively lightly regulated financial business donating to Democrats at a time when they are not in power anywhere and when you have people like Tom DeLay trying to squeeze out lobbying to anyone but his loyal Republicans.

In the comments of the article, people were speculating as to why they gave to Democrats. Social conscience? Questionable. Buying access and influence? For what purpose, Democrats don't have any power right now. Because the Democrats have become the party of fiscal responsibility? Maybe, but still doubtful. If I had to guess, I'd probably say that they're doing what they do well, hedging their bets against future events. They're also giving to Republicans, but, Tom DeLay's efforts aside, it never hurts to have friends on both sides of the aisle.

Mini-rant on Patents

2006-03-07T10:06:00.000-05:00

Brief mini-rant before I get back to work. I want to install an electronic gyro in an aircraft cockpit panel. That panel is offset by some number of degrees from the vertical when the airplane is sitting on the ground. I want to make sure that the horizon line is level at 0 degrees pitch when the airplane is sitting on the ground. Obvious solultion is to take the negative of the pitch angle measured while sitting on the ground and use that to offset the pitch displayed in flight. Takes about 10 seconds to come up with this idea, which is really just one line of subtraction. But I can't do it because it's patented. Someone patented a line of subraction. Now I have to do some hokey manual workaround that makes the system more difficult to use so that I don't use the obvious method. Isn't it great that our IP system encourages such innovation and advancement?

Non-sketchy Real Estate Listings

2006-03-06T13:03:00.000-05:00

So just for fun last night I was browsing Craigslist's apartment listings for Boston. I was reminded from back when we were looking for a new place how much I hate sketchy real estate agents. It's amazing how many posts contain no words of any descriptive value, and instead say things like "outstanding" and "blowout!" Some don't give you a location, and only say things like "five minute walk to MIT and five minute walk to Harvard." Right, only if you live near the Cambridgeport wormhole. But the new insidious trend seems to be tricking you into thinking there are pictures of the place. I only will click on a listing if it has a picture. Craigslist puts up a little "pic" next to the listing in the search results if there's an image associated with it. But a lot of them only have a graphic with the agency logo on it. They're tricking me into clicking on the listing by making me think they have a photo.

It's not at all clear to me how being deceptive is beneficial to a real estate agent, especially when they work on commission. By deceiving your potential customers, you piss them off and make them less likely to call you. If you are not descriptive of an apartment's features and don't give a location for that apartment, people are less likely to call you. And even if they do call you and you set up a showing and it's not what the people expect, you've just wasted your time with them that you could have spent on another customer.

In my opinion, online real estate listings are about at the same level of sketchiness as porn and penis enlargers. Is there a place for (or does it already exist) for community moderated listings? On every listing, you have a simple feedback option so that people who scan them can rate the postings by how informative they are. They could also report listings that don't have logos in the pictures section, don't have addresses, or are otherwise have misinformation. Then the poster can be requested to fix the posting. These ratings would be tracked for the poster, so that you could build up a recorded reputation for honest and informative listings. You would be rewarded by having your listing appear earlier in the search results. Conversely, if you build a reputation for dishonest listings, you get put at the bottom.

I'd also build in some fields so that the listing isn't entirely freestyle. Basics like number of bedrooms, number of bathrooms, appliances, parking, etc. Default for each of these would be "None" so it's in the interest of the poster to choose something. You could then get into some cool multi-parameter search. You could search for a three bedroom, greater than two bathrooms, dishwasher, laundry at least in building, at least one off-street parking spot, within 30 minute drive to X location, and within a Y distance to a T stop on the Red line. Distances and times would be calculated independently of the poster. They simply provide the address. Seems like something like this would save people looking for apartments a lot of time, and it would also help agents find apartments quicker for their customers. Unless of course it puts agents out of business, which may not be such a bad thing.

American Rhetoric

2006-03-01T23:54:00.000-05:00

Very cool website that CEJ pointed me to the other day. Holds a huge archive of speeches from throughout American history, in text and audio format.

American Rhetoric

Alternate Retirement Investments?

2006-03-01T23:38:00.000-05:00

Thomas pointed me to Blog Maverick, the blog of Mark Cuban, the semi-crazy but very successful owner of the Dallas Mavericks. He's got a lot of interesting commentary about the NBA and business, especially the theater business which he's into now. But one post caught my eye the most, where he claimed that the stock market is for suckers. Basically, his point was that the value of stocks has ceased to relate to the profitability of a company, and thus is no different than any other gambling arena. As such, the advantage goes to those who can meticulously research companies and buy significant portions of them. Everyone else, especially people who own mutual funds, are solely at the mercy of others. He even goes so far as to call the stock market at Ponzi scheme, and he makes a pretty good case for it.

What he didn't do is recommend an alternative investment strategy for those of us who can't afford to trade with the big dogs, but who cannot possibly expect any pension or Social Security to take care of us. So what other venues might there be for investing? Obviously there are all other kinds of assets, like real estate, precious metals, rare stamps, etc. You'd like to think that you should invest in things that provide added value through your investment. I think this is why the stock market had previously been a good choice because companies were supposed to take your investment in stock and turn that into new employees and equipment, who would go on to make new products with which to sell for a profit. This is a way to generate wealth in a non-zero sum way, right?

But Cuban seems to believe that it is all purely gambling, where there are equal numbers of winners and losers. Are there other assets that could provide growth? Or could you build a retirement investment strategy based entirely on gambling? I don't mean playing blackjack, but on things like online futures markets, or sports, or just basic futures markets? Maybe there's an opportunity to package non-traditional gambling into something like a mutual fund. What do you think?

Blog Roll Downloader

2006-02-28T00:58:00.000-05:00

I was thinking in the shower just now about some ideas Raudel and I were bantering about a few weeks back. One idea I've been mulling over is a program that would start with a Blogroll, like you have in your typical RSS reader. But then it would automatically download and save local copies of each webpage linked to in the feed. Then, you could be off-line, perhaps on an airplane, train, bus, or anywhere else without a steady internet connection and you could still read a large amount of content online.

How far you drill down the chain of links arbitrary, but obviously you're not going to save a copy of the entire internet. You could perhaps download all links from the feed, and then every webpage that was linked to by that page. Of course, using an ad blocker would greatly reduce the amount of excess downloads. Or you could simply set it to get the feed linked page and any link that contains words like "page 2" or "next page", so that you get the whole article.

Another permutation could be to do this on a server somewhere else, then zip up all the saved pages into one file, and then have it sent via email to your address. This way, if you were traveling and only had sporadic access to the internet, you could still download all your content for viewing later.

This also nicely fits into my obsession with independent archiving (which I will be writing more about in the near future). How can I trust the Man to always give me access to the information I need?

Is there anything like this right now? I think Joe Cheng's Onfolio does something like it. I'll have to download their trial version and check it out. Would anyone else find this kind of program useful?

Port Brouhaha

2006-02-23T22:15:00.000-05:00

If it weren't a little sad, this whole port management fuss would be on the verge of being bizarrely humorous. The amount of crazed hysteria, rumors, half-truths, and plain ol' falsehoods being spewed by everyone is getting out of hand. Listening to On Point today, one of my favorite talk radio shows, even this usually high minded and thoughtful show started to seem like something you would hear on conservative radio. Conspiracy theories, wild exaggerations, false accusations, and not-so-subtle racism seem to be in bountiful supply, even from listeners of NPR. As the crazy cab driver I had last night said, you'd think "they turned over our port security to a company owned by the Middle East." How could we possibly be turning our ports over to the much dreaded foreigner?

Let's try to pay attention to the facts of the issue. A British company called Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company previously held the leases to operate ports in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, Miami, Philadelphia, and New Orleans. A company owned by in large part by the city-state of Dubai, a part of the United Arab Emirates, has moved to acquire P&O. The company, Dubai Ports World, operates large port and shipping operations in countries world wide. Like all U.S. ports, security has been and would still be handled by the U.S. Coast Guard and the Customs Service. Both companies are multinationals, and thus employ people from all over the world. Most of P&O's workers in the U.S. port operations were Americans, and since this would be an acquisition, the same people would still be operating the ports. They would still be under the same regulations, audits, etc. that any other port operator is.

Despite the shock that foreigners could be buying our ports, compaines from China, Singapore, Europe, Japan, and Taiwan all operate ports facilities in the United States. And while the U.A.E. has a less than stellar human rights record, it has been a generally moderate and Western friendly outpost in the Persian Gulf. It has been attempting to position itself into something akin to Hong Kong, by becoming a shipping and financial hub.

Given these facts, it seems a little difficult to get worked up about foreigners taking over our security, since the American workers never had responsibility for the security in the first place. There certainly are plenty of serious flaws in our port security, but the company that runs them does not appear to be an issue. A lot of politicians, both Democrat and Republican alike, seem to see this as an opportunity to score some points by playing with scare tactics. Both have been shameless in the racist undertones of their comments. We don't want them to have anything to do with us. This seems especially odd coming from the Left, where before all they could talk about was how nice non-Americans are and how if we weren't so evil and mean to them, they would be nice to us. But try to do business with them and suddenly they go from nice non-Americans to treacherous foreigners.

There are also a lot of questions about why this was the deal was made in such secrecy. Far from any conspiracy, I believe it was done this way for two reasons. First, the Bush Administration seems to like secrecy for secrecy's sake and doesn't want to be bothered with other people's opinions. I don't think that's an effective way to run a free democracy, but it's also not necessarily malicious. Secondly, I think they felt compelled to reward a key American ally in the Middle East, but weren't creative enough to come up with a way to sell it so they just kept it secret instead. Karl Rove must have been out to lunch when this call was made, because they're being made to look very bad for untrue reasons. In a way, they're getting a taste of their own tactics. You might say the administration is being "Swift Ported". And while that can be slightly satisfying, it's still disheartening to see reasonable and thoughtful people get swept,intentionally or unintentionally, into a ridiculous frenzy while losing sight of reality.

Junk Snail Mail Followup

2006-02-22T00:40:00.000-05:00

I received some good feedback from the recent post on junk snail mail. Thomas had a very good point that the USPS makes money with third class mail and thus wouldn't really be interested in ending it. Very true.

I did get a reply from the USPS support when I inquired about this. Here's what they said:

Anyone who wants to reduce the amount of marketing mail they receive may write to the Direct Marketing Association Preference Service, which is independent of the Postal Service, and let them know they don’t want to receive marketing mail. Here’s the address:

MAIL PREFERENCE SERVICE
ATTN: DEPT 7488547
DIRECT MARKETING ASSOCIATION
PO BOX 282
Carmel NY 10512-0282

So there you have it. I plan on writing in the next couple days. Who knows if it will reduce my junk mail. I'll let you all know how it goes.

Junk Snail Mail Filter?

2006-02-17T16:24:00.000-05:00

Spam blockers seem to be doing a pretty good job these days. They still say that something like 2/3 or more of all email in the world is spam, but it seems like only occasionally (every few days or so) something slips through the filter. I wish I could say the same about snail mail.

There once was a time when receiving a letter was fun and exciting. Those days passed a long time ago along with brown wrapping paper and string. Now it seems like 2/3 or more of all the snail mail I receive is a credit card offers. Even from the same company that I already have a credit card with. I don't get it. If I could filter out all this junk mail, my life would be more relaxed. But how would we go about doing this?

Turns out there is something like it: mail forwarding. When you move and sign up for mail forwarding at the post office, they forward everything except third class mail (or I guess "Standard Mail (TM)" as they seem to be calling it now), the class that all the junk mail gets sent in. They should offer this as a straight up service. A "National Do Not Mail Thrid Class" list, if you will. If they're going to junk mail spam you, make them pay. I've sent a request to the Postal Service, and if you agree with me, you should too. It might take legislation to enact this, so maybe we should write our congressmen and women, too.

CNN's Nancy Grace

2006-02-16T02:06:00.000-05:00

Greetings from Seattle! I'm on the West Coast for a couple days attending an FAA conference on synthetic vision. After today's session, I went back to my hotel and hit the gym before going out to dinner with Kristin, an old Aero/Astro friend. It seems that I can't escape CNN whenever I'm in the gym, and this time someone on the treadmill tuned to Headline News for today's episode of Nancy Grace. After watching about 20 minutes of her show, I have to say that I would prefer to watch an hour of Lou Dobbs instead (and you know how I feel about Lou Dobbs).

Anyway, tonight's one and only story was the arrival in Massachusetts of Neil Entwistle, a man charged with the murder of his wife and family. I'm not versed in the details of the case, but I'll assume from the tenor of the discussion on Ms. Grace's show that there is strong evidence against him in the crime.

Two things greatly annoyed me about the coverage of his arrival. First, it was that this particular detail seemed pretty insignificant but was bathed in attention. They kept repeating footage of the aircraft carrying him landing at KBED, his being escorted off the plane and into a State Trooper's cruiser, and being driven off. The story could have been condensed to once sentence without any loss of detail. "Murder suspect Neil Entwistle, accused of killing his wife and family, was returned to Massachusetts to face homicide charges." That's it. That's all you need to say. You don't need to waste an entire television show on this one fact.

Instead, Ms. Grace kept asking her guests seemlingly pointless questions. "What jail is he being held at?" "What is the courthouse like he will be tried in?" But it was not the silly questions that were annoying, but her editorializing. For someone whose website on CNN.com describes her as having a background as a "former violent crimes prosecutor", she demonstrated a remarkable lack of understanding of American concepts of due process and constitutional rights. Even her guests had to remind her that people were entitled to representation while at trial. She spoke a lot about wanting him to get the death penalty, which does not exist in the Commonwealth, and talked at length about how the prosecutors should add as many creative charges to his indictment as possible so that he gets punished more. Call me an idealist, but I think people should be charged with the crimes they were accused of committing, not some trumped up other charges that exist only to extend the punishment. Later, she expressed shock that his defense attorneys, who are public defenders, were paid for by the state. How outrageous that this murderer should be represented in court. Surely she understood that fact when she was a prosecutor, or maybe she filed motions in all her cases attempting to remove the representation of her defendents.

It seemed to me that, if given the chance, Nancy Grace would espouse some kind of medieval street justice, not our time-honored constitutional principles of due process. Anyone she deems a criminal deserves no rights, no representation, and should be tortured and shot on sight. While I understand that many victims of crime would want to do just that to their attackers to acheive revenge, it is not a practical or legitimate means of carrying out justice. Instead of ranting about it, let the prosecutors, defense attorneys, and juries do their jobs. If the evidence is as compelling as Ms. Grace seems to believe it is, then they should have no trouble convicting him and sentencing him to life in prison.

Evangelicals Against Global Warming

2006-02-07T22:56:00.000-05:00

Here's a perfect example of my belief that moderates (presumably Democrats, but man our party sucks these days), can try to split the Republican Party. This one's on the issue of global warming. According the The New York Times, "86 Evangelical Leaders Join to Fight Climate Change". Between the environment, human rights, poverty, and heathcare, there should be plenty of room for Christians to be progressive and moderate. It's time for the rest of the moderates to meet them in the middle.

Cartoon Violence

2006-02-07T21:30:00.000-05:00

I never imagined that a handful of cartoons could result in mass riots, burning embassies, and death. But alas, this is what the world has come to. I find it difficult to have any sympathy for the offended Muslims demanding blood and attacking European embassies. Even in the days following 9/11, 3/11 and the London bombings, the West went to great lengths to try to reach out to moderate Muslims and tried to argue that the war on terror was not a war on Islam but a war against those who would pervert a great and peaceful religion. In the days after the publication of a few distateful and childish cartoons, the Muslim world is demanding blood and blaming the national governments for the actions of the privately owned newspapers.

Some have been trying to say that the newspapers shouldn't have published them because they were offensive or tasteless or to remind us of other subtle or not-so-subtle restrictions on speech, but that misses the point. The point is that the violent reaction is wildly overblown and will ultimately only makes Muslims look worse. If someone published equally offensive and foul cartoons or statements (as one Muslim group did, publishing a cartoon depicting Anne Frank in bed with Adolf Hitler), I hardly expect Europeans to be mobbing Arab embassies. It's exactly this kind of reaction that led the cartoonists to draw a bomber Muhammad in the first place.

They haven't seemed to realize it yet, but the Muslim world has a very bad P.R. problem on their hands (well illustrated by a Cox and Forkum cartoon). This recent bout of violence only serves to further the suspicion Europeans have against their own Muslim minorities and the Muslim world as a whole. Up to this point, many in Europe and liberal America argued that Islamic terrorism and violence was a reaction to legitimate grievances of a region of the world oppressed by the West. If only we were nicer, they would be nice. It will be much harder to hold this view, given the cartoon violence. Unless the Muslim leaders step in, get their people under control, and start doing some P.R. damage control, it will become untenable for many in the West to maintain the idea that Islam is a peaceful religion. God help us if some stupid cartoons are what ends up triggering the clash of civilizations.

Thoughts on the State of the Union Address

2006-01-31T22:51:00.000-05:00

Just a few thoughts on President Bush's State of the Union address:

I was pleased to hear the argument against isolationism, both in terms of the war on terror and in economic terms. It's sad that it took over two years for the president to be able to clearly explain the rationale for the war in Iraq, which I think he did quite well in an Oval Office speech a back in December.

The calls for civility and bipartisanship rang hollow to me. After the last five years in office, the president and the Republican party in general have consistently sidelined the Democrats. Tom DeLay and Jack Abramoff went to certainly unethical and in all likelihood illegal lengths to consolidate power. And Karl Rove, the political genius who wins at all cost, is still the top political advisor. So why the sudden effort at bipartisan comity? I can't help but think it's some kind of Rovian trick. I don't trust Rove and I don't trust that many people in the GOP leadership. If it were John McCain or Orrin Hatch or even Newt Gingrich, I would be more inclined to believe it.

My guess is that Rove is trying to drive home to the public that the Democrats don't want to participate in governing by feigning bipartisan spirit while ramming legislation down the Democrats throats. When the Democrats object and refuse to go along with the charade, then they're the ones acting partisan. The CBS commentators bought right in to this, saying how Bush had extended an olive branch and it was up to the Democrats to decide whether to take it.

I still think the best thing the Democrats could do is to pick some issues of their own, NOT the ones the President is focusing on, and make clearly thought out, detailed and very moderate proposals. Be the first to initiate the discussion. Try to win the center and win over moderate Republican politicians and voters. Most likely the proposals will fail, but at least they can build up a record over time of producing sound, moderate ideas that get sunk by the extreme conservatives in the Republican party. Such a strategy could help in the next few rounds of elections. At least it should certainly beat just being the party of "NO!". (See my comment on Cohen's blog for more on this topic.)

I was surprised that the President said we are "addicted to oil." That's not a statement one would have expected from a Republican president just a short time ago, when people like Vice President Cheney were saying that conservation is a virtue. Now, I don't know how much teeth the president's proposal will have, but it's certainly a step in the right direction. Whoever can come up with a good proposal for home-grown energy source, through better solar and wind technology as well as biomass as the president suggested, could come up with a winner. Farmers would be delighted if demand for crops skyrocketed because they became a fuel source. And we could tell the Middle East to screw off. We'd be helping address global warming. There's nothing to lose.

I didn't buy any of the budget cuts or tax cut talk. He said people didn't expect temporary tax cuts to end. Um, isn't that why they're called temporary? And I think we have to get the deficit under control. Balancing the budget and paying down the debt was one of Bill Clinton's greatest achievements and one that should have been celebrated and continued by the Republicans who used to talk about fiscal responsibility.

I think I agree with the president on the guest worker program. As much as we want to delude ourselves, our economy depends on illegal immigrants who build and maintain a huge number of our buildings and facilities. We can't and shouldn't seal off the border, but instead we should make it easy and legal for people to contribute to the economy.

It was striking how little the president said about God or faith. He only used the word "God" twice, saying "God-given dignity" and "God bless America". Faith-based groups were mentioned just once, in reference to helping reduce AIDS in the African-American community. Only brief mention was made to gay marriage in reference to judicial activism. Abortion was only mentioned by reporting it to be happening less than it did thirty years ago, with abstinence education being listed as a contributing reason. But other than that, the hard-core Christian bloc of the GOP got nothing. I can't say I'm surprised, though. I've believed since before the last election that the Republican Party has been using Christian conservatives for their votes and money, but have had no intention to actually given them any substantial policy programs in return. Can you name one piece of major legislation or executive action that has been a goal of the Christian Right? Other than pushing out sex education with abstinence education, I can't think of anything. Remember the big push for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage?

Overall, good speech, especially by Bush standards. I'm skeptical about how much effort will actually be put into a lot of the policy initiatives and I don't trust his words about bipartisanship but maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised. You never know what you'll get out of a president who doesn't have to run for office again, especially when he doesn't have an heir apparent.

Hamas, Legitimacy, and Democratic Peace Theory

2006-01-26T19:53:00.000-05:00

The big news today was that Hamas has won a majority of seats in the Palestinian legislative elections. Given that Hamas is a terrorist organization with its own militia, it has been interesting to see the world's response to their victory. We've placed so much value in free democratic elections that you have to wonder what happens "when the bad guys win". Many Bush-haters probably expected the president to try to quash the election, but in his news conference today, he expressed his unease that the Palestinians elected terrorists, but he also spoke highly of the fact that the Palestinians were able to hold a free and fair election.

As much havoc as Hamas has wreaked, I actually think that there is some benefit to come out of their election. First of all, it removes much of the corrupt old Fatah politicians who have never really accomplished anything. But more importantly, it places the people who actually have power in power. Hamas is widely admired among the Palestinians and they have been a force to be reckoned with. But since they were outside the government, they never had to be responsible for their actions. Before, if their forces attacked, it was an act of terrorism. Now, they are the government, and an attack is an act of war.

Stratfor's Morning Intelligence Report (sorry, it's subscription, can't link to it) alluded to this, saying that

it was in Hamas' interest to remain neck-and-neck with Fatah in the election: Its members realize that they need Fatah to remain the lead player in the PNA's dealings with the global community. With Hamas now in the lead, its heightened political legitimacy puts its ability to resist disarming at risk.

In the past, the Palestinian Authority could always claim that it could not control other militant groups when they attacked. Whether or not this was actually true is irrelevant; the point was that they had deniability. Now that the main militant group is in legitimate power, they can no longer use this excuse. The election has served to clarify the will of the Palestinian people, which may make the situation more straightforward. It might be easier to negotiate with a Hamas-led government because they have the power and the control of most of the militants. And if Hamas should choose confrontation, Israel should have no guilt fighting back because the freely elected Palestinian government is reflecting the will of the people.

All of this makes you think twice about democratic peace theory (the definition of which seems to be under dispute on Wikipedia). Basically, the hypothesis is that democracies don't fight each other. The reason is not clear, but they just haven't done so in history. I would venture to guess that it's because all the democracies have been either from the same political culture and are either separated by large distances (think USA, Australia, and now India) or grouped together while facing a larger enemy (think Europe in the Cold War). But when two peoples are starkly opposed to each other, a democratically elected government will reflect that hostility towards the other. There seems to be the assumption that wars are only because of conflicts between the elites. That often does happen, but it's not the only cause. Large demographic and societal clashes can lead entire peoples into conflict with each other.

So if democratic peace theory is not always true, what is one to do? Not much, just realize while that spreading democracy is generally a good thing, it will not always produce friendly governments. However, whether friendly or hostile, at least a democratically elected government can reasonably be expected to represent its people's will and thus is the legitimate party with which to negotiate or fight.

Time to break some kneecaps next time I'm in NYC

2006-01-16T23:38:00.000-05:00

After a fun weekend with the guys in NYC celebrating Thomas's birthday, I walked down from Cohen's apartment on 25th Street to find my car looking like this:

Some asshole crunched the side of my car as it was parked on the street. Damaged both doors on the driver's side as well as the fender. The jerk didn't even have the courtesy to leave a note. Haven't had it appraised yet, but it's definitely blowing through the deductable. Goddamn New Yorkers.

The "CSI" Effect

2006-01-16T22:54:00.000-05:00

Goe sent me this link today about the effect CBS's CSI is having on jurors. The article says that the show has influenced how jurors view evidence in court cases. In particular, they are demanding definitive forensic evidence, despite the fact that most cases don't have that luxury. This came on the heels of our conversation last night about the effect 24 has on people, convincing them that terrorist plots are always twenty-four hour ticking bombs where the terrorists' identities are always known and they use each other's names on the phone. My claim was that stories like 24 are what people use to justify torture (see my earlier post on this topic).

But when you think about it, haven't stories, whether on television, radio, books, or just poems passed down orally always done this? When people don't have first hand experience with something, they rely on what they hear in stories. Nothing unusual about that, there's no way anyone could have first hand knowledge of everything. It's just important to recognize that stories are just that, and are not always accurate representations of reality. Doesn't make them any less entertaining or relevant. I'm sure there are lots of examples through the ages. The first that came to mind was the story of the fall of Satan as told in John Milton's Paradise Lost. How many people actually believe his accounts of Heaven and Hell are spiritual truths, when in fact it's just a story?

New Books

2006-01-12T00:28:00.000-05:00

Just finished a few books and getting started on a fresh batch. The newly completed ones are:

The Sea by John Banville
Disenchanted Night by Wolfgang Schivelbusch

The Sea was interesting, kinda depressing, but the narrator's description of the loss of his wife was fascinating, especially to someone who's lost a loved one. Disenchanted Night was really cool, describing the social history of artificial light as it went from candles to gas lights to electric light during the nineteenth century.

This round:

One Bullet Away by Nathaniel Fick
Love in the Time of Cholera by Gabriel Garcia Marquez (Tony will be pleased with this one)
Mathematics and the Physical World by Morris Kline

Blogger Spellchecker Sucks

2006-01-12T00:24:00.000-05:00

When spell checking the GPS camera post, the spell checker didn't recognize the word "Google" "blog" or even "webpage". Are they using a dictionary from the 19th century? Shouldn't a website that hosts blogs be able to recognize their own name?

GPS Digital Cameras

2006-01-11T23:33:00.000-05:00

I was listening to the podcast of an episode of On Point in which they were talking about the "geospatial web" where information is tagged and distributed by information. There's been a lot talked and written about this topic, especially with all the great Google Maps mashups, Google Earth, and the competing Microsoft and Yahoo products.

I was talking to Raudel the other day, and he was thinking about improving his motorcyle road trip webpage by putting together an online photo album that geo-referenced images on Google Maps. He has to backfill the coordinates with his GPS track, though, because like most cameras, his doesn't have built in GPS. Wouldn't it be cool if they did? After all, cell phones have GPS, why not cameras? So far, the only one I can find is the Ricoh Caplio Pro G3 but even its GPS is an external card that plugs in. There are a lot of posts on blogs out there saying this same thing, so my guess is that it's just a matter of time, as development cycles do take a little time.

There are a couple drawbacks to GPS, in particular it will not always work inside buildings. But as long as it is continuously in contact with the GPS, even when it's "off", it could always just use its last known position.

What would be really cool is if the camera could also know which direction it was pointed. GPS can't tell you that, but if you could shrink a magnetometer enough to fit in a camera, you could get your magnetic heading. Unfortunately, the only ones I can find are at minimum 0.75" by 1.5". Perhaps an opportunity for MEMS manufacturers? But you also have to deal with magnetic interference, which in a compact device like a camera could be difficult.

Or, an alternative would be some variation on a direction finder. In the aviation world, there are old navigation devices called Automatic Direction Finders, or ADF. These point towards a non-directional beacon and give you your bearing to the station. In flight, they're not as useful as a VOR because of crosswinds. I've never used one before, and it's hard to find planes that have them anymore. But, using the principle of the ADF, you might be able to determine your heading.

If you tune in to just one station, you know your relative bearing to that station, i.e. it's 30 degrees to the left of straight ahead. If you know its position and your own position from GPS, then you can calculate the true bearing. Say, the station 270 degree (due West) of us. If the station is 30 degrees to the left of straight ahead, then we must be pointing at 300 degrees. Or, if you tune to two stations, you can skip the GPS and triangulate your position. Now, using aviation NDBs on the ground isn't really an option, but you could certainly use TV broadcast towers, cell phone towers, WiFi hotspots, or anything else that broadcasts from a fixed position. In fact, some cell phones triangulate position from nearby towers. Just add in relative bearing, and you've got yourself a heading.

Now, the next trick is to figure out the vertical angle. Perhaps a miniature accelerometer? Hard to think that would work for a device that would get moved and tossed about as much as a camera, but of course you usually try to hold the camera steady when taking a picture. It might just work...

Learning the Piano

2006-01-05T23:38:00.000-05:00

As part of my effort to expand my number of skills (already including bow hunting skills and computer hacking skills), I'm taking up the piano. I actually started a couple years ago in college, when I took 21M.051 and Devjit was teaching me some, but I never had the time to devote to it. But now that I'm a lame, single, working man, I have all the time in the world! To get started, I ordered a keyboard, the Casio PX-100 with CS-55 stand (shown left). It's got 88 weighted keys and a pretty simple set of features, which is all that I need. Should arrive soon. :)

My ultimate goal, many years or decades down the road, is to be able to play (or at least sight read) all of Chopin's nocturnes, Schubert's Impromptu in G Flat Major (which Kevin plays these days), and Beethoven's Sonata No. 8 in C Minor "Pathetique". It will probably take a long time to get to that point, but it will be fun. Oh, and if anyone knows of any good piano teachers in the Boston/Cambridge area, please let me know.

On the theme of music, Raudel pointed me to a really cool website, called The Sheet Music Archive, where they have a large collection of public domain sheet music available for download. Unfortunately you can only download 2 pieces per day, but they are selling their entire collection on CD-ROM for $20. I might have to order that, even though it's all probably out of my league at this point.

Glorifying Sophistication

2006-01-03T00:20:00.000-05:00

I think I read some article over the holidays referring to a "sophisticated device", probably related to the military, but I can't remember. It got me thinking, though, about how we tend to glorify sophistication in the things we engineer. Why do we equate "sophisticated" with "better", especially in harsh applications like warfare or safety critical applications like medicine or aviation?

It seems to me that in an environment where reliability, maintainability, and ease of use are paramount, "sophisticated" is bad. I would tend to prefer "dirt simple" as a positive adjective. Perhaps the obsession with sophisticated fanciness is what leads to bloated, expensive aircraft like the F-22. Contrast that with the A-10, one of the cheapest but most powerful and reliable warplanes ever made. Perhaps the best example, though, is the infamous AK-47 rifle, one of the most simple, reliable, easy to maintain, and thus ubiquitous weapons on the planet.

Of course, there are plenty of counter-examples where sophistication has its merits. Computer chips are the first thing to come to mind. But integrated circuits can also be seen to have simplified computing because they are cheap to mass produce, have no moving parts, and are easy to replace. Another example might be GPS, which uses Einstein's theory of relativity. However, GPS is also a system that has overall reduced the complexity to the user, by reducing the complexity of navigation, removing the need for ground-based systems, and proving more reliable than any other system.

Perhaps the metrics that we should use when evaluating the "goodness" of some technology, especially in critical applications, is "net simplicity". This metric would accumulate the simplicity or complexity of the entire life-cycle of technology, from manufacture, use, repair, replacement, and disposal. A new technology should have a net lower complexity than its predecessor, but the individual complexity distribution may shift. Take AM and FM radio as an example. FM is more complicated to understand and produce than AM, but when equipment mass produced, it is just as simple to build and maintain, and actually uses less power than AM. Or, in the case of software than analyzes some data, it may use more difficult or complicated algorithms in the back end, but to the end user it makes the data easier to understand. A good spreadsheet that takes a large table of data and plots it into an easy to interpret graph is a pretty basic example.

So, the conclusion from this rant is that sophistication is not a bad thing, but it should not be an end goal in and of itself. Instead, the goal should be net simplicity. The sooner we realize that, the better we can engineer things that will actually work reliably in the field instead of being finicky lab toys or expensive wastes of money.

Google Talk rocks the casbah

2006-01-01T17:58:00.000-05:00

Just used Google Talk's telephone feature for the first time. Absolutely amazing. Crystal clear audio, no feedback, extremely high quality sound. I'm very impressed. Unfortunately, everyone I know uses AIM, so more people need to add it to their instant messanger clients. However soon Google Talk will be able to communicate with AIM as part of a deal recently signed between Google and AOL. Not sure what the time frame on that is, but I'm looking forward to it.

Creationism Rejected in Pennsylvania Case

2005-12-21T19:22:00.000-05:00

Hurrah! A victory for rationalism and freedom of religion! A Pennsylvania federal judge ruled that mandating Intelligent Design be presented in high school biology classes is unconstitutional. More importantly, the judge saw through the mischaracterizations of science so often hawked by ID supporters and instead recognized that science is fundamentally a method of finding natural explanations to describe the world around us.

The New York Times article quotes the opinion:

"To be sure, Darwin's theory of evolution is imperfect," Judge Jones wrote. "However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions."

While I'm sure most fundamentalists will conclude that this opinion is just another instance of their oppression, one ID supporter quoted in the article explained what they truly need to do if they want ID to gain more acceptance.

"I think the big lesson is, let's go to work and really develop this theory and not try to win this in the court of public opinion," Dr. Dembski said. "The burden is on us to produce."

Exactly. We should not go about banning research into creationism because it conflicts with current theory. The Church tried that a while back with Galileo. But if they want to move beyond the supernatural speculation that is currently ID, then they need to formulate some hypotheses and demonstrate them conclusively. Otherwise, ID will remain creationism pretending to be science and the debate will remain a frustratingly meaningless sideshow.

Is a little uncertainty sometimes a good thing?

2005-12-14T23:56:00.000-05:00

I was reading today that Ben Bernake, the nominee for Chairman of the Federal Reserve, will be speaking at MIT's commencement this year. Mr. Bernake has a strong reputation for intelligence and for challenging conventional wisdom. In describing his economic philosophy, they quote him saying, "You want to release information that helps the market and the public achieve more accurate expectations of future policy and the future state of the economy."

If we're going to challenge conventional wisdom, how about we look at the idea that more information is better? Does maintaining a transparent monetary policy really help? In most policymaking cases, knowing more information is better because you can better discern the potential outcomes of the policy and, more importantly, judge the hidden agendas of stakeholders.

However, during his tenure as Fed Chair, Alan Greenspan was notorious for opacity. His speeches and congressional testimony were analyzed like Kremlinologists used to analyze the Soviet Union. While Mr. Greenspan kept people guessing, Mr. Bernake instead believes that clearer statements will allow people to make better predictions and have more confidence in the future.

But what happens when people get too confident in their predictions for the future? After all, a good prediction is still a prediction, and thus prone to be wrong on occasion. If people have too much confidence in their prediction, they can put themselves at risk of drastic loss if those predictions fail. Perhaps a little opacity keeps people on their toes and makes sure that they hedge their bets just to be safe?

Should there be exceptions to a ban on torture?

2005-12-14T23:20:00.000-05:00

Charles Krauthammer wrote a controversial article in last week's The Weekly Standard arguing the case that torture should be permitted when a suspect possesses information on an imminent attack or is a high-level terrorist. Because he wants to make these exceptions, he opposes John McCain's proposed absolute ban on torture that passed the Senate by a wide margin but has been stubbornly opposed by President Bush.

Mr. Krauthammer, having no experience with torture like Senator McCain (nor, of course, do I) suffers from the same delusions that many Americans do: they've seen too many episodes of "24". Such scenarios can actually happen, and Mr. Krauthammer cites Israeli experience here, but on the whole are extraordinarily rare. What is much more common is a bunch of men get rounded up from a village in Iraq or Afghanistan, some of whom may be terrorists while others may have been in the wrong place at the wrong time. Those that are terrorists may know some sensitive information, but likely nothing on an imminent nuclear attack. The uncertainty of such common situations is the flaw in Mr. Krauthammer's scenario. It rests on the assurance that the person being tortured is absolutely known to be a terrorist and absolutely knows critical information. In a vague situation, it is better to have very clear ethical boundaries.

Mr. Krauthammer criticizes Senator McCain's stance that if a true ticking bomb situation ever actually occurs, then the President and intelligence officers should break the law to do what they have to do. If that's the rationale, he asks, why not codify it? The answer is that by codifying it, you institutionalize it, and once things are institutionalized, they tend to grow and spread. Instead of having it codified in law, the President should have to undergo an excruciating decision of whether to break the law and save innocent people or not. Making is such a tough decision will help guarantee that it is not done except in extreme situations. We do not need to go building the bureaucracy for torture in order to make it easier to make a difficult decision in the future.

Instrumentalism

2005-12-14T22:48:00.000-05:00

There was an interesting article by Jim Holt in Sunday's New York Times Magazine about science and it's ability to explain the world around us. At the end of the article, Holt refers to "a minority view" called instrumentalism. In this view, "scientific theories do not yield a true picture of a mind-independent reality; they are merely useful tools that enable us to predict our experience and have a measure of control over it." He then questions this view, quoting the famous scientist and writer Richard Dawkins; "do we accord for science's 'spectacular ability to make matter and energy jump through hoops on command' if not by assuming that the world, deep down, is more or less the way science tells us?"

I think this misses the point completely. Scientific theories are, by definition, explanations that have been demonstrated to predict behavior of the world within the scope of the assumptions of the theory. In short, theories are approximations of reality. But that shouldn't be a surprise to anyone who's taken high school physics. Do you really think a point mass exists? No. But it is a useful approximation of some objects that can lead to simple theories about how they move.

In fact, all of engineering is based on the premise that you make assumptions about the operating environment and use the appropriate theory to reasonably predict how the system will behave. Examples abound: air is not incompressible, but at low speeds it's close enough so we can use linearized aerodynamic equations to build very real airplanes; there is no such thing as a true voltage source, but it models a battery pretty well if you don't try to draw too much current.

A theory provides a means to understand some behavior using a testable, predictable structure. Who cares if the world is deep down the way the theory says it is so long as the theory provides a sufficient explanation for what we can observe in the world. But what happens when we observe things in the world that contradict what the theory is? Do we abandon science and just chalk it up to some intelligent designer? No. We look for a better explanation. That's what Einstein did when people realized Newtonian physics couldn't explain the world completely. But, we don't abandon Newtonian theory because for those of us who live in the slow moving world, it explains thing simply and reliably. What is important to understand about scientific theories is the assumptions and limitations that they possess. Only then can we know when to correctly apply a theory or where to aim future research.

On an end note, I would also like to renew my objection to using the phrase "science teaches us." Science does not teach us anything, people do. Science is a method, a procedure, a framework from which we can explore the world. It is not some mystical oracle or font of knowledge.

Stop whining! It's fiction!

2005-12-14T22:28:00.000-05:00

There was a segment on the BBC World Service last week about the new release of The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. The report talked some about C.S. Lewis, a Christian apologist, and his motivation for writing a Christian allegory in the Chronicles of Narnia series. While a lot of devout Christians are excited at the movie's release, there are some people who don't like the fact that a good story like this can have Christian meaning. One man interviewed on the segment said he had read the books as a child and loved them, but dismayed when he found out they had Christian undertones.

People who get so uptight at things like this need to listen to the tape of that BBC segment and realize how ridiculous they sound. Did a single word of the book change between when he loved the book and when he discovered its Christian meaning? No. And even then, religious and mythological themes are found across literature and for a good reason: they address fundamental issues to humanity.

In general, people need to stop taking things so literally. These offended atheists are of the same ilk as those who were up in arms over Harry Potter because wizardry is supposedly satanic. But do you think a lion leads an army or a witch can take over a land? It's called FICTION for God's sake! Stop wasting everyone's time with non-issues.

Reading Lists

2005-12-04T18:48:00.000-05:00

I've kept a list of all the books I've read in the past couple years, and I got around to putting them on Amazon's Listmania.

Innovative Head Football Coach of Texas Tech

2005-12-04T16:34:00.000-05:00

Great article in today's New York Times Magazine by Michael Lewis, author of Moneyball and Liar's Poker. In this article, Lewis follows the brilliant and somewhat eccentric head football coach at Texas Tech, Mike Leach. A law school graduate with no football experience, Leach worked his way up through the world of coaching and has brought great success to the Red Raider football program with players that other powerhouse schools ignored (one of whom is my old high school teammate Wes Welker, who was shunned by the big schools but went on to break several records while at Tech and now plays for the Miami Dolphins). Leach has achieved such success because he ignores conventional wisdom in favor of a fast-paced spread out passing game and a rigorous physical training program.

One humorous part of the article deals with Leach's recent fascination with pirates. While playing Texas A&M, he remarked on the "cadets", A&M students who have a quasi-military student organization that is famous for dressing in military uniforms at games.

"How come they get to pretend they are soldiers?" he asked. "The thing is, they aren't actually in the military. I ought to have Mike's Pirate School. The freshmen, all they get is the bandanna. When you're a senior, you get the sword and skull and crossbones. For homework, we'll work pirate maneuvers and stuff like that."

CRISIS IN (Insert Issue of the Moment)

2005-12-03T18:39:00.000-05:00

At the gym at work, the television receives one channel, CNN. I tend to avoid television news when I can because it is almost always sensationalized and the information delivery rate is extraordinarily low compared to written news and even radio. But, other people always turn the monitor on, so I have to live with it. Thank God for the iPod with music and NPR podcasts.

I tend to work out some time between 6 and 8 PM, so depending on what time I get there I see some combination of Wolf Blitzer's Situation Room and Lou Dobbs Tonight. Before getting to the main topic, let me express that Lou Dobbs is a sheer and utter asshole. I don't watch enough to really know which way he leans politically, but that is beside the point. Lou Dobbs is a rude and pompous jerk. After most stories he provides a little extra commentary, usually well indicated by his leaning to the side and wearing a jackass smirk on his face. He proceeds then to make fun of people covered in the preceding story. I'm sure he thinks he's being like Jon Stewart on The Daily Show, but he is neither funny nor does he expose hypocrisy like Stewart does. Instead he is simply mean.

Anyway, the point of this post is not to assail Lou Dobbs, but instead to express exhaustion at the use of the word "crisis." Or, I should say "CRISIS" as it's usually put on the screen. Every story on television news is a "CRISIS". There are crises in education, in immigration, with China, in Iraq, in the economy, in entertainment, in nursing. On both Thursday and Friday, nearly every story on Blitzer's Situation Room was a crisis. That's funny, when I read the newspaper that day, I didn't see any crises. When I look at CNN.com, I don't see all these crises. It's only on television that they have to have some crises.

Let's look at the definition of the word crisis for a moment. From Dictionary.com we see a couple definitions of the word crisis.

criÂ·sis P Pronunciation Key (krss)
n. pl. criÂ·ses (-sz)

1. A crucial or decisive point or situation; a turning point.
2. An unstable condition, as in political, social, or economic affairs, involving an impending abrupt or decisive change.
A sudden change in the course of a disease or fever, toward either improvement or deterioration.
An emotionally stressful event or traumatic change in a person's life.
A point in a story or drama when a conflict reaches its highest tension and must be resolved.

Obviously, the medical and literary definitions (2-4) are not as important to us as the broader definitions of 1a and 1b. Given these definitions, let's examine the crises in education and nursing that were covered on CNN last week.

First, the education crisis story was actually about the state of Minnesota's instituting new accountability mechanisms for teachers based on student test performance. A certainly reasonable story to air, especially since it is a controversial concept. But does Minnesota's move constitute a "crucial or decisive point" or an "unstable condition"? Hardly. Likewise, the crisis in nursing story was about the drop in the number of nurses in America despite increasing demand for their services. Again, perfectly reasonable story about a topic that should concern the public. But like the educational accountability story, hardly a crisis.

I wonder why "crisis" is so overused in television news, as is the word "tragedy". Do television news producers think that unless something is a crisis or a tragedy, viewers will lose interest? Perhaps. It seems like it is a demonstration of the terrible information transfer rates of television news. Reading a newspaper with that many crises would get overwhelming and seem absurd. But to keep a viewer's attention from wandering because they get bored, they have to use exagerated words to bring them back. Maybe news producers should take a cue from drama producers, who realized that viewers are in fact capable of following fast-paced, multiple-thread shows such as The West Wing and 24. I'd take that over old-fashioned television news anyday.

Patenting Methods Instead of Outcomes?

2005-12-03T16:50:00.000-05:00

Given the prevalence of patent issues in the world of technology these days, it's quite apparent that sooner or later the intellectual property system is in need of a major overhaul before innovation in this country grinds to a halt due to patent litigation. Here's a rough-draft proposal for a way to restructure patents and copyrights to make life easier for everyone.

First, the concept of patenting an outcome needs to be abandoned. I don't have any legal training about patent law, but from those patents I've read through work, it appears that a patent is generally structured to cover a device or method that produces a particular outcome. For the purposes of understanding the device or method in question, this makes sense, but from a patent coverage issue, it seems to have gotten out of hand. For example, if I were the Wright Brothers and I wanted to patent my idea for an airplane now, I would probably claim a patent on an "apparatus and method for achieving flight of a heavier-than-air device" or something to that effect. Not only is my design covered, but also any other design that achieves the same result. This does not seem reasonable. The purpose of patents in the first place was to encourage innovation. Most inventions solve pre-existing, well known problems through their outcome. Granting patents that covers any method of reaching that outcome serves to prevent someone else from creating an alternative method of solving the original problem and thus stifling innovation. Should I choose to issue no licenses on my patent of flying machines, the entire realm of aviation is held back to the rate at which I want it to develop. And if do want to license my patent, I can sit back and enjoy the royalties while others spend time and money investing in further development of my idea while I do nothing.

Instead, it should be the method that is protected, not the outcome. Someone should be able to come up with an alternative design for a flying machine, so long as it does not copy my design. The mechanism is patented, and any software involved is copyrighted. This is how publishing is (at least text publishing, multimedia is an entirely different animal). It would be absurd if an author were given the exclusive right to publish on a particular topic. Yet this is how the patent system works. In publishing, it is the author's words themselves which are copyrighted, not the idea. Another author may express the exact same ideas without fear of prosecution, so long as the work is not plagiarized. Mechanical and software inventions should be treated the same way. Patent disputes should be more like plagiarism disputes.

Patents serve to protect the owner's investment in development from someone else copying their design. But if someone else also invests the time and money to develop an alternative invention addressing the same problem, they should be free to do so. While the patent holder would not have a monopoly on the market for his device, the advantage would certainly go to the person who creates and markets their device first and so the incentive for innovation would remain.

There are, of course, downsides to this concept. In particular, evaluating whether a device copies another is not as straightforward as evaluating whether an author copied another's writing. But then again, patent disputes under the current regime are not straightforward either. Under the proposed system, though, inventors would be encouraged to seek ideas from other inventions, and so long as they conduct their development themselves, they can reasonably expect not to be infringing on another patent. They would still have to conduct a patent search to make sure that they are not copying a design, but they can freely design their own independent system without fear of infringing on another.

So this is a first crack at patent law reform ideas. I have no idea how to address multimedia intellectual property issues. I would probably favor as loose of rules as possible while still maintaining some protection for the upfront investment of the creators. Otherwise it would not be worth the effort to produce the work in the first place. But at the same time, the whole purpose of publishing is to spread the work to others, so overly restrictive copyright rules only serve to make it more difficult for this to happen. I suppose if there were an easy answer to this problem, it would have been thought of, and probably quickly copyrighted.

PowerPoint Presidency

2005-12-03T16:07:00.000-05:00

Finally, I'm getting around to writing an actual thought on the blog...

Two days ago, President Bush gave a "major" speech on the war in Iraq. Reaction to it seems to be mixed. In language, it seemed no different than any other speech on the war he has given. Others have said that it finally does hint at the fact that we are negotiating with the enemy (as we should be). But what is most striking is the National Strategy for Victory In Iraq document that accompanied the speech.

Paul Krugman assailed the document in his column in the New York Times yesterday. It's a pure PowerPoint document, filled with mindless buzzwords and little actual content. It's 38 pages of bullet points! No continuous line of thought lasts for more than about 5 or 6 sentences. Throughout the document are highlighted buzzwords like "increase", "political", "irresponsible", and "engage". Ultimately, the strategy comes down to "we will win because we have to." I also find it funny that the document has an "Executive Summary" at the beginning. Here's a smaller list of bullet points summarizing a slightly longer list of bullet points.

This "embarrassing" document, as Krugman called it, may have one of two origins, neither of which reflect well on the administration. First, it could be that this administration holds both the public and the media in such contempt that they feel that something as important as a national war strategy has to be dumbed down to this level. It isn't surprising, though, given the way they have treated the press and the rest of the "reality-based" community. This entire war effort, which did actually have reasonable strategic thinking around it, has from the beginning been dumbed down and packaged to appeal only to people's senses of fear. This administration has focused so much on the marketing and publicity that they have forgotten that you have to have a real and meaningful product that you are selling or else you are left with meaningless rhetoric.

An alternative explanation is that such information-less PowerPoint documents are actually what the President uses. This would not be surprising either. This is not unique to the president, rather it is ubiquitous across the business and military worlds. PowerPoint bullets have replaced clearly written narrative documents. In 2000, then-candidate Bush campaigned on a promise to bring a "C.E.O-style" presidency. Most people assumed that this would mean efficient and effective management that Harvard Business School graduates like Mr. Bush claim to provide to the companies that pay them enormous salaries. Instead, we've seen a classic example of managers who have no clue what happens under them, who ignore the advise of experienced professionals, and who reduce complicated subjects into color glossy handouts of a few bullet points.

If this kind of document is made with the public in mind, then I am insulted by this document. If it is written this way at the request of the president, then I am appalled that matters of war and peace are reduced to such mindless PowerPoint junk.

Need a new name for the blog

2005-12-03T16:05:00.000-05:00

Turns out someone else already is using the name "Digital Moleskine" so I need a new blog name. It's eerie how similar to his my blog is. We used the same template and even our summary blurbs are remarkably similar. I can assure him that this is pure coincidence. I'll change my stuff as soon as I can think of something different that's good.

Begin Digital Moleskine

2005-10-07T00:51:00.000-04:00

After a long absense at posting to the Interesting News Stories blog that Tony and I used to maintain, I've decided to get back in the blogging game. I intend to use this new blog the same way I have been using my little Moleskine book (hence the name): for recording random thoughts, ideas, essays, as well as new books, music, gadgets, websites, recipies, or design that happens to catch my attention. For now, I'll have to stick with the plain template, but I hope to improve the visual design of the site as it begins to fill with content.