Small Towns That We Live And Die In
The Dean for America blog has an interesting note from Paul Begala and James Carville from K Street talking about K Street and Dean's appearance on it.#
The show, like Gov. Dean, is completely unscripted. Not to give the plot away, but James plays a political consultant/lobbyist who volunteers to prepare Gov. Dean for the Congressional Black Caucus debate. This thoroughly pisses-off his Republican wife, Mary Matalin. So he recruits Paul to help out.
[...]
Again, while we can't and won't endorse anyone in the primaries, both of us were impressed with Gov. Dean and his campaign. They took a big chance, and we think it pays off. Millions of people who never watch "Crossfire" or "Meet the Press" will see Gov. Dean on HBO Sunday night. They'll see an unvarnished, unscripted, plain-speaking guy who really wants to take the fight to President Bush. In a world in which too many politicians are seen as phonies, Gov. Dean comes across as the real thing. What you see is what you get.
We had fun, and hope Gov. Dean did. K Street is groundbreaking television--part fiction, part reality show, part documentary. We hope you like the show. We know you'll like how your candidate did.
Halley Suitt starts a new How To book, called "How To Ruin A Perfectly Good Salesforce in 10 Easy Steps."#
To be fair, I've had some terrific sales training, sales managers and worked in great sales organizations. Everything is going along just wonderfully in these hallowed halls of American business and then all of a sudden, they decide to make a few IMPROVEMENTS and that's when it all falls apart.
Evolution, through learning, not revolution by coercion. A similar problem occurs in computer software. Some says, "Hey let's rewrite this whole thing using what we learned!" but they forget what they learned a long the way by following what some OTHER person learned. It's always bad.
Raymond Chen reveals how simple it is to become a notary public. Very strange...#
Joe Beda stopped by my office, clutching a stack of documents he had just had notarized, and told me, "Raymond, you should become a notary public."
l3rendyn writes about "Seemingly Purposeless Technology."#
In past times, development of technologies occurred because there was a need for it. The wheel was invented as a solution to a problem that already existed. Weapons and utensils were made to enhance the lives of human beings and bring more ease of use. Not losing the trend, in the 21st century, the technology that is created solved the problem of slow data computations and allowed for more productivity. Computers and their associated technologies were an answer to a question long asked: How can we make ourselves better?
[I want to note that computers do not make us better. They make us faster. Of course, the GOAL was to make us better, so maybe that's what he meant.]
With that said, I now come to my point: It seems as if some technologies are invented not with that question in mind, but with another. What can we create to fill some future void? A perfect example of this would be FOAF (Friend Of A Friend). This implementation of XML (eXtensible Markup Language) is a definite example of an application developed to do nothing but wait for a use. Granted, one could argue that its purpose is fun, it seems as if people wouldn't create something with such extensive standards and wide spread documentation if it was just for fun. Every "fun" thing has some other side that is meant to suit a purpose. However, with FOAF, that seems to be lost to the naked eye.
Raymond, of Just a Gwai Lo, writes about once you've been quoted that is essentially the "Final Edition" of your post and you can't modify it anymore.#
Well, a lot of people don't think that way, which relieves me to no end. Besides, the odd spelling and grammatical correction, \as long as the essense of the idea is preserved, is okay.
Provided you're not pulling a Winer modifying you're posts is fine by me. Also, I really like Mark Pilgrim's revision system that lets you see what he changed about each post.
Via Just a Gwai Lo is an explanation of how "Letters to the Editor" get published by the New York Times, from the illusive "Editor."#
For readers who wonder how the process unfolds, this is an attempt to demystify things a bit. Every day at least 1,000 submissions, and often far more, pour in to the letters office by e-mail, fax or postal mail. We print an average of 15 letters a day. That means the competition is intense, to say the least. Many, many worthy letters never see print, and those that do cannot reflect all the topics of interest to readers.
What qualifies as a publishable letter to the editor? The answer is necessarily highly subjective. We are looking for a national (and often international) conversation about the issues of the day — big and not so big — as well as fresh, bright writing that stands out through its own charm. Timeliness is a must; brevity will improve your chances; stylishness and wit will win my heart.
Richard also cuts through the crud of Fred Kaplan.#
Fred Kaplan says that the military budget of the United States is higher than it's been since the Korean War. But does he compare the military budget to the federal government's budget as a whole, for both now and the during Korean War? No. Does he give us per capita numbers, for both this year and the Korean War? No. (Simple math suggests that—there being far more people today and a fairly equal amount of money being considered—the per capita numbers would dwarf those of today.) And does he express the military budget as a percentage of either GDP or GNP, for both this year and the Korean War? No.
At Matrix Essays is a discussion about how the Matrix is really a survival tool for the human race, a race that destroyed it's planet and living conditions.#
[A ME reader:] The planet is very old, the sky is dark, machines scour the surface for rebellious humans who have left the matrix. There are few if any raw materials left on the planet, there are many billions of humans who need nourishment, atmosphere, heat. With all these people looking for somewhere to live it makes more sense to keep them locked up in a pod where they can be tended to by willing machines who unquestioningly serve their every need while they live out their life in a utopian computer simulation, a perfect world in comparison to the desert of the real. By controlling their consumption of resources humans prevented their extinction perhaps many millennia previously.
[...]
[ME Editor:] Is the Matrix the ultimate high-density urban planning project? An efficient way to keep all the humans from using up too many resources, while replacing horizontal sprawl with the vertical housing units designed by the machines? And is it thus an advantage for humans to live like this, with the population in the future so high that this is the only sensible way to manage it?
This makes the most sense to me. One day after we've destroyed the planet we'll realize that we can't just jump into space ships and destroy the next planet. To protect our way of life we create a cadre of controlling robots that can survive the poisonous atmosphere to care for our now computerized culture.
Joi Ito quotes the most amazing thing I've seen all week.#
Aoccdrnig to rscheearch at an Elingsh uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, olny taht the frist and lsat ltteres are at the rghit pcleas. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae we do not raed ervey lteter by ilstef, but the wrod as a wlohe.
The brain is an amazing thing.