.. women in dresses wearing pink buttons proclaiming "Women for McCain/Palin". A few of them brought their husbands who were sporting buttons saying things such as "Sportsman for McCain/Palin" and "NOBama".

step 1: logo'ed zombies

As soon as the last member of their group came in, they prayed. In their prayer they begged that God "deliver the country from the evil socialists" and even prayed that "Obama find God".

step 2: praying zombies

One of the women proclaimed that her whole Bible study group was going to vote early. One of the men piped up and said he was going to ask people to vote early after church one Sunday. The next person lamented that their whole office was voting for Obama. The McCain/Palin supporters called that person's co-workers "sinners" and said that they "needed Jesus".

step 3: burn them witches voters, worked in Salem didn't it.

They talked a little more about how Obama would destroy our country with "free health care" and "gay marriages". The feared his daughters would probably play loud rap music in the White House while world leaders were staying. They feared that Muslim would become our official religion. One of them even feared that "the Muslim language would be taught in schools."

step 4: oh rofl - rap music is devil music, burn those daughters NOW [they also might be lesbian] and get married to each other in the white house - NOOOOOOO, they could also be witches as well....

.. "Obama is part of a sleeper cell and he will use our own nuclear weapons against us."

step 6: aha free xrays for american's !

but on the way out the door one of the republican men told [the human author] "you are a disgrace to white people if you vote for that [other] man."

Step 7: Hitler (if he was alive today) would vote for John McCain and Sarah Palin.

So what have we learned ? Well keep out of Florida and America.

* Bananas in the Falklands is monkey in exile in London Zoo, England and not that author.

I have to tell you, the scariest thing I've ever heard from a congregant is, "I'm on your side."  If you ever want to send me back to the drawing board to scrap every idea I have, say that statement to me.  If people are on "my side" I have to think, "Are you sure we're on Jesus' side?"  I don't want to lose sight of Jesus so much that I spend all my time trying to obliterate the "enemies" in our midst.  If I'm inspiring that desire in others, then we have a problem.

This doesn't just happen in Churches though - any time you have a ideological division the temptation to whip up the crowd into a frenzy against the "enemy" is great.  I'm watching this happen to the increasingly desperate McCain campaign.  At some point in the past few weeks Senator McCain's campaign decided to use the tactic of fear, uncertainty, and doubt against Senator Obama (mostly they used "fear").  It got vibrant responses from the crowd, but it appears they underestimated the power of stoking the flames of fear in a crowd already awash in rumor.  As the crowds got increasingly furious, Senator McCain himself felt the need to step back and tell his supporters that fear isn't the way forward.  In response, his supporters booed.  It appears the firestorm might be beyond containment.

I learned something about Senator McCain in the last several days.  In a moment of desperation he chose a dangerous tactic to use, this is a truth that needs to be spoken.  Yet, I also saw that he is someone who is aware of the world enough to see how, in his passion to win, he was fanning flame of destruction.  I saw someone who was willing to be burned by the very flames he helped light because his campaign had gone on to the path of destruction.  Maybe he backed off to save his own name, but at least he showed the wisdom to try.

In this episode, however, Senator McCain learned a terrible lesson.  Once you unleash the spirit of fear, you become a after-thought to your "supporters."  You no longer matter, all that matters is devouring the "enemy," and if you have to be consumed for that to happen, it won't bother the mob one bit.

In the Church, the Spirit works to wake the mob to it's own sin - so that seeds of Christian charity can take root.  Forgiveness and grace can prevail in the Church because Jesus works to make it so.  In politics, we have no such assurance - and, as the mob begins to burn it's own candidate, be sure to say a prayer that grace and truth might yet prevail.

Now we have reports from outside Canada that say we have the most sound banking system in the world.  We're number 1 - the U.S. if 40th and Great Britain is 44th.  Another report says that Canada is not likely to have recession yet these two "leaders" are running around saying "we've got to plan, we've got to plan" for the coming recession.  Maybe they know something that we don't.  Just maybe they know their policies will create a recession.

Now, I'm not all that thrilled with Stephen Harper either but he is not to blame for the current world crisis like the other leaders would like you to believe.  None of the above is not a viable option so we go with the least likely to screw up badly.

On one hand, Stéphane Dion says that the government should not interfere with the banks and on the other hand he would go after the banks to ensure they pass on the full interest rate reduction.  I've not heard Jack's response yet but I can only imagine.

I can only hope that the universe will unfold as it should.

In my opinion a client needs to do both. Both overlap but are essentially different. We need BDD to focus on understanding key concepts that will ultimately result in a design. BDD helps clarify the requirements in terms of understanding behaviour. If its not specified anywhere then we have to hunt. TDD also helps to clarify requirements from the Test perspective.

Without any functionality built we should be in a position to verify that the target platform works and at least meets the non funcitonal requirements. This is generally a missed opportunity and generally done too late or not at all in a project. Why bother? Because during the project duration some essential components will change and we have to verify the impact. Think upgrading to a new version of Java or JBoss that can have a significant impact on how an application will perform. Deploying into different environments usually involves different individuals and organisations, think: development, integration, functional test, performance test, staging, production.

Each environment has a different configuration and we need to constantly verify that these have first been setup correctly and second that they remain setup correctly. This focus emphasizes the need for TDD to ensure that we have no surprises and more importantly risk reduction.

What stops us changing essential components is not the amount of work for the developer but rather the long testing cycles, not just functional also non-functional. In order to bring the length of a test cycle down we need to implement TDD that can be executed automatically avoiding manual intervention.

To conclude, testing, or let us call if verification, must begin from day 1 and the execution of tests needs to be as invasive as possible producing rapid feedback.

Pretty slick, but fortunately I'm no nut.

Applying Ocham's razor reveals all for what it truly is: a screw up of unheard of scope and magnitude by the last three or four generations (go back as far as you need to lose the collective memory of the Panics of '67, '28, '07, 1872, etc.) "solved" (heh) as always by the very same people responsible (this time "Hank Paulson" and his merry band of "Krony Kapitalists" a.k.a. the Pigmen) who might take the opportunity to juice this in their favor.

That is IF the bomb doesn't go off in their face.

--
"What if the Fed., Inc. lowered the interest rate to zero, and nobody cared?" -Paco Bell

You probably saw the news today that the Senate passed their version of the bailout bill. It was expected to pass and did so by a wide margin - 74 to 25. It also appears that many members of the house are changing their mind since they had many constituents call in Monday and Tuesday after the vote and following stock market tumble. Come on people! Do not be so short sighted. A single day in the stock market means nothing. Committing $700 billion to a financial rescue package is going to have serious consequences: increased government power, allowing the financial institutions that behaved so badly to continue, and increasing our deficit - the money has to come from somewhere and you know how much government hates trimming their wasteful programs.

The Bush administration has used fear and little evidence to scare congress and the citizens into an expensive project with no exit plan. Sound familiar?

We need to keep the pressure on the house. They are the only thing standing in the way of this bill turning into law. Let's take care of our current problems today instead of having our grandchildren pay for them down the road. Let's keep government power in check. Call your congressperson and give them a piece of your mind!

So yes its a drm post, but why should Cisco and evil chair throwing Microsoft get a mention ? well easy for things you get for free* like film trailers Microsoft and Cisco want to charge you Microsoft users for them.

Why ? well Seinfeild and co dont come cheap and there concept of pollution contains some outrageous terms.

Here's the problem - the internet is not tv, nor is it radio, yes those things can be be sent via it but not all of us use the internet to watch crap tv and corporate sounds. if pollution means that you have pay to watch youtube what would be your response ?

Beware for when you next upgrade windows - unless you pay for video and sound every time Microsoft (Steve Balmer,Bill Gates, and Seinfeld) consider you evil.

As to cisco I am not surprised to see them here. Cisco are evil and just a brand name i suggest that there's more to life than cisco routers and stuff, so don't buy cisco after all when the counterfeiters can steal designs, boxes [all made in china] and ship them to cisco resellers who don't know there counterfeited then perhaps they should do something else first

Pollution is an ambiguous term, i could argue that any Microsoft os causes more more pollution problems than they solve. To remove problem - just remove Microsoft workstations for the internet - problem solved.

The internet is not tv, or is it a platform to promote only one awful corporate singer who forget to wear panties while getting out of car [adjust your google settings], it is a means communication that both tv and radio fail to understand and wish to make there own.  Beware of the nazis, shaved or otherwise.

* paid for via an internet connection.

Muy curioso, ríete de conspiranoias y el politiqueo. Supongo que en este caso sólo se trata de ganar posiciones en --otra vez-- Google.

País, interesante blogocosa, impecable ética, curiosa forma de ganar credibilidad y/o visitas.

Pero no responderé, que ya se sabe que en la blogocosa algunos se creen con el derecho de acusar de cualquier burrada a los demás, pero si contestas educadamente --como hizo Arcos-- muy dolidos dirán lo acostumbrado. [*]

Que alguien avise cuando retorne a la blogocosa --si alguna vez estuvieron--: el sentido común, la honestidad intelectual, la ética, la lógica y el fair play (basta con un par).

Nota mental: microblogging no necesariamente implica microcerebro.

[*] De hecho ya recibí el correspondiente lloriqueo, "muy dolido" por mi "desagradable respuesta" y con bastante de chantaje emocional pero carente de argumentos. ¿Disculpas por acusarnos repetidamente de tramposos, fraudulentos o de intentar perjudicarle? Por supuesto que no, "era sólo un comentario en Twitter".

Along comes another sales rep from Vendor B. He, too, is aware of the rumored new product from Vendor A. In fact, he and his colleagues have been briefed about the new developments at Vendor A more than many of the people at Vendor A. He brings you some "secret" documents that purportedly claim to debunk the new product. The new information looks damning. What do you do?

Welcome to the real world of competition. The tactic illustrated above is called Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt or FUD. FUD is a commonly used tool to slow or stop a competitor from closing a sale. But it is not limited in its use to new products. It is also used in 'combat' situations where a sales opportunity is being hard fought by everyone. Sales rep throw FUD documents to instill a sense of fear in the would-be buyer.

The old adage that no one gets fired from buying IBM does not always work anymore.

These days competitors will try to stop a sale simply by debunking the competitor's claims about their product. Consider you are buying the latest solution from Vendor A. But reps from Vendor B show you that the offering from Vendor A is flawed. What do you do with this information? If you want to keep your job, you would do well to investigate further. The additional time to investigate will slow down the sales process. It may even give you time to launch a new counter-offer, perhaps a new solution of your own.

Sales reps are hoping the FEAR of failure will create UNCERTAINTY in your decision-making process. At best, they hope this will create DOUBT, which will result in either totally throwing out the proposal from Vendor A. At worst, it will slow down the sales process long enough for the competition to make their own counter offer. Is it ethical? In reality it is bad marketing practice and bad business practice. That said, it is a often used sales strategy or tactic. 

Not all FUD is true. But then again, not all FUD is false either. The best option is to investigate the claims from both camps. Ask around from consultants, experts and your peers. Perform due diligence. Remember, the diligent one keeps his job and becomes the hero. And everybody loves a hero.

Check-out the formal and more detailed definition on the following sites:
Wikipedia: Fear, Uncertainty and doubt
Whatis.com: What is FUD?

Today I received an e-mail regarding the bailout from John McCain. Here is an excerpt:

If we do nothing, many businesses may fail. Sonic Corporation, a drive-in restaurant chain based in Oklahoma, learned on Thursday that one of its lenders, GE Capital, had stopped extending new loans to the chain's franchisees. That will block plans to rebuild restaurants, add equipment and open new locations. 

When financing dries up, students can't get loans. In Wisconsin, more than 100 Milwaukee Area Technical College students couldn't access private loans to fund their education. Fortunately the school was able to come up with emergency loans, but this temporary arrangement cannot continue. Markets need to work so that people can get financial help and students can be educated.

What pathetic fear mongering! And baseless too! Take the first example, Sonic. Supposing that Sonic does actually want to expand at this point in time (seems like a wise time to put expansion plans on hold), all McCain has said is that ONE of it's lenders has stopped extending loans. How is that bad? Perhaps GE is overextended and wants to ensure it is adequately capitalized. That is a good thing. Lack of adequate capitalization is what got us into this mess in the first place.

Now take the second example. First of all, John McCain doesn't give a rats ass about this issue - he's just using it because he knows the people who may vote for him do care. The student loan industry has been a mess for at least 6 months now. Funny that the issue should pop up now, since McCain needs support of the common man to bailout Wall Street. McCain also fails to mention that tuitions, which have risen much faster than inflation and wages over the last 8 years, will fall as a result of higher borrowing costs - otherwise the school will not have enough students who can afford to attend.

It isn't.

I'm saying this as ever, as a new user to the system, and as a Mac OS X and Linux user too. I'll wager many of those proponents of the 'Vista sucks' message are either those who need/want to drive up visitor numbers/advertising revenue and those willing to read that message to confirm a half baked belief that will vindicate them as right. But this isn't about what is right or wrong, just the facts. Just the facts Jack.

I purchased an Acer Aspire M1640 the other week as I had decided that I needed to have Vista to develop sidebar gadgets as part of my work. Also the Dell was getting somewhat long in the tooth. So I bought my first new PC ever. I bought it pre-built as it worked out cheaper, quite a lot cheaper. £279 bought a Core 2 Duo E4700 system (2.6GHz), 2GB RAM, 250GB HD, Vista Home Premium license, DVD+/-RW, etc. A good solid middle of the road base unit.

 
The Vista desktop definitely isn't lipstick on a pig!

I can only liken the situation with Windows Vista to that of when Windows 95 came along and replaced Windows 3.1/11 for Workgroups. For the first time in history 95 worked somewhat different to how Windows had up until that point (centered around the MS-DOS Executive/Program Manager) and suddenly that was out and a more Mac/Amiga alike desktop came along with the desktop being fundamentally very similar. Windows 95 also made the 386 history and it really did deserve a Pentium machine with 8MB of RAM -- this was quite a big thing in 1995 when a 486 with 4MB was more common.

 
Flip3D is a gimmick and Compiz has it roundly beat but it's pretty.

Vista, particularly the Windows Explorer has changed quite dramatically from the Explorer that has evolved from 95 through to XP/2003; and some people are very resistant to change. I work on websites that have a few customers who sadly are not very forgiving of any change, even when it's for the better.

The start menu goes a bit further than XP did and one thing that got me right away was the lack of the Run command by default. It's easily added back but then you start using that instant search facility (much better in location/immediate use than Apple's Spotlight but this in part related to the horrible Dock concept, IMHO.)

Searching for a file based on a meta-tag

You then realise not only can you tap in Word and enter to run Word, but us old school types who have found it easier to do Start + Run and tap in winword and enter will find that works as well.

 
Instant search also finds applications by filename, not just shortcut name!

It even takes parameters. So instant search is search as well as the run command combined.

The start menu also no longer folds out to reveal forever expanding menus that head to the right of the screen. It all works in place. Again takes time to get used to but it is better, but then I like the new KDE 4 Kicker menu! Some don't.

In terms of speed, so far no problems at all. It boots quicker (and I have loaded up most of what I need) and the applications open quicker. Word 2007 took an age for example (compared to 97-2003) on my P4 Dell with XP but on this it's open in seconds. Certainly I have better hardware now, but even so, the oft mentioned bloat does not appear to be causing problems at all.

 
Adding tags to files is a breeze

I will be continuing my observations but what certainly is clear is that particularly in the SP1 era, Vista is actually a great improvement over the slightly anaemic looking XP in comparison. It seems better thought out and has broken away from those conventions first established in Windows 95. This is a good thing.

 
Windows Explorer gets a needed update for a world hooked on data and lots of it. It's very nice and better than Mac OS X's Finder.

I've never hated the Mac OS X interface but I have never adored or loved it, mostly because I cannot stand the Dock which is an awful way of managing windows but with Vista it felt very much like what I already knew but with good improvements. In many respects it has a lot of the things that I like about KDE 4.1 about it.

Tune in for more :)

Motto: Shit happens you gotta roll with it man!

Meanwhile, a linux backer aka fud ms-style linux advocate told the internet that Solaris and other Unix like OS are dying. No he's wrong because the fact that I have beastie running on a Sun hardware and yes that pwns any linux server out there.

The main point here is something that I cannot figure out. If Solaris is doing so poorly, then why the heck would the Linux Foundation lead, Mr. Zemlin, focus on beating an already dead horse? The Linux Foundation must not have enough to do, otherwise they would actually get something done, and we on the desktop end would see some progress. I view the Linux Foundation as I do the U.N. ... A nice idea, but it just doesn't seem to get much done.

My advice: stop worrying about the (nearly) dead competition, and begin to target the thriving competition that we face.

Unfortunately, he took the time to blast Canonical.

Ask me where the contrubtions lie, and I wouldn't have the slightest idea.  All I know is that Canonical has barely been around for 4 years, and only employs around 100 folks around the world.  It's amazing how petty and simply silly some people can be.  It must be asked, what does this man have to gain from slamming people on his own side?  In my mind, he only serves to divide the community.  Unfortunately, he decided to pick on the company that sponsors Ubuntu, the most popular Linux distribution in the world.

Yeah, smart move... Never try to intentionally tick off 1) one of the major innovators in open source and 2) 8 million users.  Even the numbers used in the presentation were misleading.

Oh by the way, he (Kroah) failed to mention that he worked for a "competing" company, Novell.  With this in mind, I have blasted OpenSUSE off my laptop, and am moving back to Ubuntu.

You can read a nice summary of his talk here.

It's just sad, and really... pathetic.

I think this is great news for Windows, because as systems grow, especially online offerings, effective system management depends on efficiency. Ultimately, this means automating as many maintenance functions as possible. With Linux and other *nix platforms, this has never been a problem, but the Windows CLI has been fading into obscurity for many years now. The DOS shell sat right on top of the kernel, but beginning with NT, the ‘command prompt’ became just another application that had to operate through various other layers, such as the oppressive NT HAL, diminishing its power. Moreover, the range of CLI utilities remained unimpressive. Thankfully, products such as MKS Toolkit, Cygwin and Sourceforge’s UnxUtils have helped to fill that gap.

Let’s not forget that the CLI is useful for far more than executing OS-related functions. In my experience, all the best software applications offer a CLI interface. I implement systems that help IT managers manage the activities of their staffs, including helpdesk and other customer issue management suites, source code control and software media distribution centers, and project/programme management repositories. I always look for software that provides a Unix release, even if the target platform is Windows. Why? Unix-based applications almost always include a CLI which is almost always ported to the Windows release if one exists. Not only is the CLI of great use to me from a user’s and administrator’s perspective, but I know that the existence of a CLI usually indicates that the software has tested more thoroughly. If an application has been designed well, then the CLI functions call the same underlying subroutines as their GUI counterparts – this allows the vendor to easily write (and more importantly, to execute) scripts for regression and load testing. Nightly smoke tests of new builds are possible without the maintenance of complex GUI-based test harnesses. Don’t misread me – the GUI must be tested, just not to the same extent as when the GUI is the only interface available.

Where's the FUD? For years, Windows zealots have denounced Linux for being arcane, hard-to-use, and backward. Heavy reliance on the CLI for administration was cited as a failure to progress (through obstinacy, ignorance or both). Now, it appears that Microsoft is admitting that a powerful shell is indeed useful, forcing its fanboys to dine on crow tartare.

The return of a powerful shell is a step in the right direction for Windows! Is this really due to Linux? I wouldn’t be surprised.

Cheers!
-Brandon

The bottom line is: Debian is far more secure than RHEL and Fedora, not due to technical reasons but for their development model. When Debian's openssl was compromised, they immediately issued a warning, told their users what to do, whilst Red Hat and Fedora were obscure, pointless and corporate-minded.

Dude, you are forgetting that it's entirely possible that the Debian's openssl security bug could have been the patient zero, and actual compromise of Red Hat's server could have been happened starting from a stolen passkey. Also, you are forgetting that, being Red Hat a corporate with some billions cash (of course, they have so much money because it's plenty of stupid people like me that pay them for their services) they were forced to work closely with law enforcement agencies such an intrusion could occur, and when FBI reaches the crime scene they are not primarily interested in sending an e-mail message on the mailing lists to tell them "ehy, we are here to save the day!".

1. Apple is "bad".
2. Newsweek is a credible source for Apple commentary.

The former is nothing less than Paul has always thought, despite his claims of being unbiased, etc., even as he calls those who support Apple names every chance he gets. The latter, however, is especially telling, since of course Newsweek was little more than an Apple tool until now.

As Paul himself explains it:

Now that Apple fanatic Steven Levy is gone, apparently Newsweek can tell it like it is about Apple.

So if you support Apple, you're a "fanatic" (there goes Paul's name-calling again). If not, then you're just telling it like it is. Gotcha, Paul. Thanks for the tip.

I've learned something about the way Paul works. Notice that this article is not on the Windows Supersite home page, but rather Paul's blog. Paul thinks he's safer (and less vulnerable to attack) when he puts his more egregious comments there instead of the Supersite proper. He's wrong, of course, since they're part of the same site, but Paula will take what he can get in terms of "shelter" from those calling him on his crap.

Paul's record of ignoring (or rewriting) Microsoft's history is quite clear, yet he imagines an Apple currently running as Microsoft used to. His post, and the Newsweek piece he linked to, provide nothing to support the theory that Apple is bad. Apple's popular. The iPod and iTunes command their market. Big deal. This is already known and there is nothing wrong with commanding your market.

Microsoft's sins were in abusing their position (you know, like threatening to displace competitors from markets), not in being popular. Google's Eric Schmidt summed it up nicely just recently: “Microsoft has a history of favouring its own applications and I can give you 500,000 pages of court testimony, document web blogs and so forth and so on about that”.

Aside from popularity, the articles here have nothing to say about Apple being "bad". Apparently, it's supposed to just be understood.

For example, Paul says:

It's about Apple. Apple becoming a much more dominant player. Apple exercising its market power and getting some push back from companies that don't like being abused and customers who don't like being treated like they don't matter.

Paul and others do not like Apple becoming a big player. It threatens their livelihood. Otherwise there's no clue given as to why it's "bad".

Regarding Apple "exercising its market power" to abuse companies, where are the examples? Adobe? Is it because their pathetic Flash player has been left to rot on the Mac so Apple doesn't want it on their iPhone? Most other mobile phones don't allow it either (no, Flash Lite is not the same). The record labels? You know, the ones who are all but colluding against iTunes by providing their music DRM-free everywhere else? Other music stores? Like Amazon and eMusic, whose music is 100% compatible with the iPod?

Apple is in fact still being treated like a second-class citizen by most of the major players, something Paul champions, since he's quick to remind us of Apple's 3.5% global market share. Just look at Google's new Chrome browser, which won't be available on the Mac for several months. Yet this is the company Paul says is abusing its power? Please. 

As for abusing their customers, that's even more laughable. Consumer Reports and every survey has shown Apple blows other tech companies out of the water in terms of customer satisfaction. Try another tack, Paul, you're sinking.

Paul's writings are full of flowery multi-part prose about Apple's products and services filled with misinformation or half-truths. As just one recent example, in Paul's four-part MobileMe "review" he claims you cannot export contacts in any significant way because you must do so one at a time. Nonsense. He points out that when you export as vCard the selected account is exported, but -- either through ignorance or deliberate suppression -- does not bother to mention that you can select them all and export one vCard with all the information.

I used the above method to export all my contacts and then import them into Windows Live contacts in about three minutes. And it only took that long because I milked it out and took a couple of breaks.

The above is just one example of what Paul obscures in his "reviews" of Apple products. But when others give positive reviews Paul just calls them names, as Steven Levy learned today, and as others have learned before him.

For an excellent rundown of other Microsoft faults Paul chooses to ignore, read this piece. [Though a single political paragraph taints the piece.]

Poisoning the well? Check:

Recently Friedman, in his influential New York Times column, has climbed aboard the green-energy bandwagon. The cynical view is that his embrace of max-PC alarums about global warming is Friedman's bid to make everyone forget he pounded the table in favor of an American invasion of Iraq.

Appeal to ridicule? Check:

But Friedman, Al Gore, James Hansen of NASA, and others present climate change as some kind of super-ultra emergency.

Lomborgian false dilemma? Check:

Global warming is a problem, one that must be managed via greenhouse-gas restrictions and a weaning away from fossil fuels. But in a world of poverty, disease, dictatorships, terrorism, nuclear proliferation, lack of girls' education, and more than 1 billion people without cleaning drinking water or electricity—climate change barely makes the Problem Top 10.

Tu quoque? Check:

Friedman counsels, "[P]ersonally lead as environmentally sustainable a life as you can" but himself lives in a 11,400-square-foot mansion, whose carbon footprint may be visible from orbit.

Argumentum ad ignorantiam? Check:

the knowledge necessary to create an affordable clean-energy economy does not yet exist.

His concluding paragraph is a doozy:

Friedman concludes Hot, Flat, and Crowded by proclaiming greenhouse damage could cause humanity to be "just one more endangered species." Better to consult history on this topic. Greenhouse gases are an air-pollution problem. Smog and acid rain, the two previous serious air-pollution problems, once were viewed as emergency threats. Then federal standards were imposed, and inventions and new business models were devised; now smog and acid rain are way down in the United States and declining in much of the rest of the world. And no international treaty governs smog or acid rain! Nations have adopted smog and acid-rain curbs because it is in their self-interest to do so. The same dynamic will take hold for climate change, not long after the United States finally imposes greenhouse-gas rules. Unquestionably the future is flat and crowded. Hot? Maybe not.

The amount of inanity packed into those sentences is astounding (bare assertion, ignoratio elenchi, biased sample, etc.). Breaking them out reveals just how absurd they are:

Better to consult history on this topic.

A seemingly reasonable proposition. After all, we have a wealth of paleontological and paleoclimatic data to help us put unchecked emissions growth into perspective in terms of impact on species. But that isn't the kind of "history" that Easterbrook is interested in at all. Rather, he bizarrely opts to compare the apple of climate change to the oranges of acid rain and smog, under the almost charmingly simplistic justification that they're all "air pollution":

Greenhouse gases are an air-pollution problem. Smog and acid rain, the two previous serious air-pollution problems, once were viewed as emergency threats.

The problems with such a comparison should be self-evident. First, did anyone credulously claim that either smog or acid rain would be as sweeping in severity or scope as climate change, let alone threats to humanity as a species? That certainly isn't my recollection, and a cursory survey of the literature likewise seems to fail to support that notion. But perhaps more relevantly, smog and acid rain are generally (although not entirely) treated as "local" pollution issues. A country that chooses to produce sulfate and particulate pollution does so (at least from its perspective) primarily at the expense of its "own" inhabitants and environment, providing incentive for individual nations to take action absent a global agreement. The well-mixed nature of greenhouse gases renders such a comparison moot from the start. Tellingly, Easterbrook ignores the more obvious and fitting corollary to the current situation, ozone depletion. Why? Then he couldn't proclaim that the emissions problem would solve itself without a binding global agreement:

Then federal standards were imposed, and inventions and new business models were devised; now smog and acid rain are way down in the United States and declining in much of the rest of the world. And no international treaty governs smog or acid rain! Nations have adopted smog and acid-rain curbs because it is in their self-interest to do so. The same dynamic will take hold for climate change, not long after the United States finally imposes greenhouse-gas rules.

This is so purely because Easterbrook assures us it is so. He offers no explanation for why emerging economies such as India and China would adopt emissions restrictions absent a globally-binding agreement that would offer incentives for their participation. They will assume the burden of regulation voluntarily despite potentially negative economic consequences and absent any immediate and significant benefits. By this rationale, all it would take to end the specter of thermonuclear war would be for the United States to scrap its own arsenal. Surely every other nation would voluntarily follow suit- it's in their own best interests after all!

Easterbrook finishes strangely by seemingly casting doubt that there will be future warming at all:

Unquestionably the future is flat and crowded. Hot? Maybe not.

I can only assume that this is a rhetorical flourish meant to further dismiss Friedman's book, rather than denial that we have already committed ourselves to further warming even if we stabilize emissions. However, given the quality of Easterbrook's arguments, I don't feel terribly safe in making the assumption.

Perhaps what bothers me the most about this review is the condescending tone. Easterbrook has a nasty little habit of calling the public scientifically illiterate while being if not illiterate, severely developmentally-challenged himself. This coupled with his unwarranted and baseless equation of the threat posed by and solution to climate change to previous "environmental emergencies" is simply too much. I'm not a fan of Thomas Friedman by any stretch of the imagination, but Easterbrook's criticisms are weak sauce.

[Edited to add:]

In perhaps his most galling "error", Easterbrook dismisses Dr. Heidi Cullen as "an anchorwoman for the Weather Channel". From Cullen's bio:

Before joining The Weather Channel, Dr. Cullen was a scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, CO. She received a bachelor's degree in engineering/operations research from Columbia University in New York City and went on to receive a doctorate in climatology and ocean-atmosphere dynamics at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University. Her dissertation focused on understanding the impacts and dynamics of the North Atlantic Oscillation, an important climate influence. As a post-doc, she received a NOAA Climate & Global Change Fellowship and spent two years working at the International Research Institute for Climate Prediction.

Easterbrook could learn a thing or two about climate change from that particular "anchorwoman".

Now then. Everyone loves to get blog comments. Everyone. It's a universal truth - if someone comments, they have probably read something you've created, which is a good thing. They don't necessarily have to like it, but they gave it a try.

However, on reading my blog comments the other day, I was hit in the face with this walloper:

dee August 26, 2008 at 9:19 am

See if ye listen tae the swedish originals of Basshunter from the album which is called “LOL” it actually opens up a new opinion for a lot of people, probably no you .

But aye , i like Basshunter, see when im tripping oot ma nut in the garage on a wednesday night , and basshunter come on , it makes ma whole body feel like im ejaculating.

So there.

Fair play - you like Basshunter. That's not for me to question. Go ahead, enjoy his music.

But to accuse me of being a single-minded un-hip old fanny is a wee bit prejudiced. You don't even know me Dee! Why would you even say that!

I decided the only way to prove to my dear reader that I was a flexible, hip, dynamic, youthful and downright interesting gent was to take up his challenge.

 

[caption id="attachment_121" align="aligncenter" width="655" caption="Epileptic fit, anyone?"][/caption]

That's right. Stillie left the house, went to HMV Clydebank and forked out his hard earned to line the pockets of the floppy haired vadge addict himself, Basshunter.  

Ok, ok, I couldn't get the LOLalbum quoted by Dee. But I'm guessing this album is pretty much the same bucket of turd that the other one is, possibly touched up for the UK market - Neddied up as they say in the business.

Note the photoshopped blue eyes of our protagonist, and the brightly coloured sticker exalting the virtues of this truly wonderful piece of composition.

We also find that the 2 CDs for £18 covering the artist's name suggests that the main selling point maybe the £2 discount you get when you buy it with a decent CD. Speaking of which...

[caption id="attachment_122" align="aligncenter" width="300" caption="You have got to be fucking kidding."][/caption]

[caption id="attachment_123" align="aligncenter" width="300" caption="Electronic tagging - for your security."][/caption]

[caption id="attachment_124" align="aligncenter" width="300" caption="Lime green disc - the true sign of class."][/caption]

[caption id="attachment_125" align="aligncenter" width="300" caption="You may not recognise Aylar Lie without a huge cock in her mouth."][/caption]

[caption id="attachment_127" align="aligncenter" width="300" caption="You may not recognise Aylar Lie with her breasts covered. "][/caption]

It was created by Bret Jacobson- a 28-year-old free market, anti-labor movement "communications specialist" who founded Maverick Strategies, LLC to spread the messages of like-minded organizations, i.e. anti-regulation front groups.

How many Degrees of Separation from Big Oil FUD?

• TheChillingEffect was adopted around two weeks ago by The Institute for Liberty, a far right, anti-regulation think tank.
• The IFL was until recently headed by Jason F. Wright.
• Jason Wright is a former VP of Frontiers of Freedom, another anti-regulation think tank (boasting such alumni as Willie Soon, S. Fred Singer, Bob Ferguson, Chris Horner, etc.) which is/was an ExxonMobil/oil and tobacco-backed front group.

We can actually do a little better if we look at Big Tobacco directly:

• Bret Jacobson is also a co-founder of the Center for Union Facts.
• The Center for Union Facts is one of the legion of tobacco lobbyist (and all around class act) Rick Berman's front groups.

The IFL has also been involved in similar astroturfing on behalf of Pharma, and more openly lobbying against Net Neutrality and on behalf of the US defense industry.

Google Chrome já apresenta falha crítica - baboo (reparem no comentário do Minerbo)

Alguém esqueceu de avisar ao Aurélio que se trata de um software novo, revolucionário, ainda em versão beta, executando em Windows e que justamente por ser open source é possível depurá-lo de forma tão ágil.

Esqueci de mais alguma coisa?

Some times I encountered the situation, people wanted me to do my magic, but all they provided was a Windows. There are (at least) two escapes off of this -- use *nix in an emulator (like qemu or else) or boot it altogether from CD. I imagine there might be also the way to reuse the rumored Blue Pill approach to hijack the whole running Windows and xen it in, so we could use most of the available CPU time for the *nix. However, until now I didn't have the need to actually try that one out.

Despite system restrictions like being nailed down to boot from nowhere else but the predetermined C: hard drive and that one C: being scattered over the whole 250 GB disk, I also encountered the situation admins alarmed off the boss who in turn gave the directive to install nothing on the hard drive since that's the domain of the admin only. Point obviously is, the Windows-only admins I met so far tend to simply fear Free Software, so they often spread FUD amongst my colleagues and superiors. I remember that guy who charged the corp a lot because of all that Free Software infrastructure crap he had to remove from that other subsidiary office to get Windows up and running.

Well, bringing in a Laptop or Netbook regards to not to install anything on the box in question, but it too obviously makes clear you don't mind the directives, too. Alternatively, you could launch a Damn Small Linux or a Knoppix from within a qemu. Bring it in on a USB stick and probably noone will even notice. Plus, it literally follows the rule of not installing anything on the box.

However, there are still two common issues you might encounter: First of all, the box as is might be dimensioned just right to serve a Windows plus MS Office. -- The moment you load it with a bit more it'll crawl because of its sudden workload -- machine emulator, a Linux inside, even more a compressed one, being decompressed transparently.

The other point you might suffer from originates from the C: drive stretched across the whole disk size, paved with NTFS altogether: The Live-Linuxes I tried so far still have difficulties with writing to an NTFS [file system], therefore I prefer not to try to write there from within the emulated Linux to avoid to corrupt that file system by accident. In turn, you need some data exchange point -- a share of mass storage you can access from within Windows and Linux the like.

If you are lucky, there is a Windows file server not that much strapped down, so you can access it from Linux too. But some times that does not work because the admin did their homework right. Then, most often you'll find your luck by trying out to use any of the drives dedicated to act as data exchange points: like a USB stick. Alternatively, in the hard case, you might need to make use of a floppy disk. Real PITA, but what alternatives do you have then?
 

The situation I am confronted with currently is a box that is nailed down so I cannot boot from anywhere else but from C:. The NTFS on that C: drive stretches over the whole 80 GB of disk. Neither I dare to shrink that a bit to get space for a Linux nor do I have the chance the data already scattered around to get moved to somewhere else where it does not hurt. (That'd require admin rights for that box, which I don't have.) Also, I tried to put a gigabyte large continuous file into the NTFS so I could use it as an in-file partition. The Knoppix tool I used could not find a place where it could put such a file to. (I didn't mind yet to try smaller files like 750 MB or 500 only.) That leaves the chance for emulation (and the Blue Pill way) only.

Next issue is the low memory -- 768 MB gets the Windows crawl once I shoot up Damn Small Linux or Knoppix in the emulator. That suggests another escape: Set up a Linux box somewhere else, tunnel there, either by ssl -X to get individual applications to use or by something more sophisticated. Since I learned some people installed Windows XP on the Amazon EC2, I figure getting a Linux set up there might be quite a bit more easy. Anyways, there's the chance to do it the simple way by tunneling to my home box, so I'd like to try out that one first.
 

NB: There's also the andLinux project which claims to have ported the Linux kernel to Windows, so you can run it on Windows and a whole kUbuntu all around it. The screen shots I've seen so far look promising, but I doubt it's installable without admin rights, and I haven't found any documentation on their site contradicting this assumption.