Bob Stepno describes the difference between blogs and RSS.#

Q: Why bother with an RSS aggregator if you can read the same content through the browser? Why have the same wine in two bottles?

A: Wine is the wrong metaphor. Wine improves with age. News is more like fish. RSS syndication is a matter of getting the freshest news.

Matt May got back from a vacation:#

More importantly, I didn't touch a keyboard. (In fact, the keyboard I do use most commonly was on vacation in Cupertino, where it got a shiny new LCD and bezel, so it wouldn't have been of much use to me anyway.) I didn't get hammered by MyDoom hourly, didn't join in on the navel-gazing surrounding Dean's seeming collapse after New Hampshire, and I didn't read six dozen blogs and their related links every day. It was pretty neat, and highly recommended.

Dan Wood on the dating aspect of Orkut.#

One caveat: There are still "dating" aspects to the service, which you can use if you are so inclined. But don't make the same mistake I did, which was to stumble upon the personal profile of people I've known for years from a business and computer sense, to find out what their turn-ons and contents of their bedroom are. Yuck! I'm scarred for life!

Blogumentary discusses an interesting aspect of Orkster.#

You know what though? It's fun. Lori and I wondered whether Dean Blogger-in-Chief Mathew Gross was gay or straight. Tall, cute, shaved head, earring, and Lori wasn't picking up any "straight guy vibes" when we interviewed him. Well whaddya know, he's married! Straight as the day is long. God Bless America, and good night.

Danah's friend Jesse comments on the difference between a blog and a journal.#

Soon enough, some of these "bloggers" started writing more and more interesting commentary, writing more and linking less. Other "bloggers," liking what they saw, would link to that interesting piece of commentary, and all of a sudden, what were traditionally (I use that term incredibly liberally) linkers were actually becoming the content providers themselves. The format remained the same, however -- generally a long page of content, listed by date, and mostly shorter, bite-sized pieces of content -- the web given the MTV treatment.

Soon, the content became the primary focus and the links slipped away, though the feel is still distinct from the journal, in my mind. The journal has been, and always will be, a personal account of the journaler's life. The blog can be written personally as well, and from a very personal point-of-view, but it will definitely be written about a particular item of public consciousness (even if that population that is actively interested in a particular story is very small).

AS18907458907 writes about anonymous writers and praises them.#

And in this one respect, perhaps, lies some nobility in anonymous writing. Unlike some talented writers who have turned blogging into high-profile gigs, how can an anonymous writer ever capitalize on any success? Benjamin Franklin, a longtime writer himself, calls his anonymous brethren "a bunch of misguided souls who don't understand that the whole point of writing is self-promotion."

Commentary: I find this whole criticism of anonymity bizarre. Anonymous writers are no less accountable than any other form of writer. If I don't like what Atrios (a popular anonymous blogger mentioned in the original piece) says, I can respond and I can attack Atrios. The only thing I can't do is scare his children, or try to lose him his job. (The latter, I've heard, is common retaliation for Internet enemies.) There's no reason why folks like Atrios should have to put their jobs and families on the line to share their thoughts. Salon should be cheering for the increasing popularity of anonymity, as it only helps thoughtful debate — it does nothing to hurt it.

NI3 on a Y2K-ish bug in EMC software.#

This entire incident was missed by the media in the storage industry. How can EMC miss a bug like this given the experiences of Y2K? This seriously calls into question quality control within EMC's software development organization. If EMC aspires to be a serious software company, issues like this can't be missed. This is a serious set back for their software aspirations.

Stirling Newberry studies the evolution of the election process in America.#

An election is an elevation. The systems of elections in the US mirrors the way that power is controlled: an election is a test, a simulation, of power.

The elections of 1789, if they were held in some remote country, would not qualify as "democratic", since they reflect no moment of mandate, no particular submission of the government to a moment of popular will. Legislatures chose electors, who were manipulated by Hamilton - the first fixer to Washington's first citizen - to vote in the correct manner to produce the correct results. But these elections were a reflection of how power worked: in that day and age, the army was built of regiments. Regiments were funded by individual wealthy men - Washington had financed an army in the French and Indian wars, and again in the Revolutionary War. Hence, the will of those who could fund and gather war making apparatus, and capital formation, in the world of the commerical north, were the government, since, if push came to shove, they would have to raise the army that would defend it.

Ever since, the evolution of elections in the US, has mirrored how power was created, channelled and controlled.

Curt Siffert on other voters: "They're too stupid, they shouldn't be allowed to vote!" Or: "What? Democracy doesn't mean 'I Win'?"#

And the other one is that I did witness tonight how this damn "Iowa Bump" had such a huge difference for Kerry in all these states. I mean, that bump is huge. Depressingly huge. I didn't realize that such a large percentage of the primary-voting population were sheep. And that's really it, sheep. Where did all these Kerry supporters come from overnight? He was in the toilet four weeks ago. Dean's policies didn't change. Kerry's policies didn't change. Sure, some of Kerry's supporters were from "undecided" folks, but only a portion of them. The others were switchers. Dean didn't become a worse candidate all of a sudden or anything. The only thing they are responding to is the media. They read that Kerry won somewhere, so they switch their vote. As if they get a prize for picking the winner. It's treating a vote as a lottery. You don't get a prize for picking the winner. Your responsibility is to vote your damn preference. I don't get it.

Chip Gibbons on why it is ridiculous for women to be able to exhort their babies' fathers.#

In a free society, if there is no contract of support between consenting parties, there can be no obligation to pay support; not for the father and certianly not for the billions of others on the planet that did not have sex with the woman. To document an agreement to have a child between a man and woman, all that is necessary is a contract of support. Whether it's a marriage or some other form of written contract doesn't matter.

If a man is not willing to support his own child, he won't sign such a contract and that's all the woman needs to know about him. She needs to move on to a man who is willing to provide support, if in fact that is what she wants. Why do women want to have children by men who can't or don't want to support them anyway? If the care of her infant is her primary concern, she would get a contract of support from a willing party.

Oliver Willis presents a message from the Lieberman campaign.#

"There have been some reports that Joe Lieberman plans to drop out of the presidential race. Nothing could be further from the truth. As I speak, one billion voters are going to the polls to vote for Joe Lieberman and Allah smiles on them. Already John Kerry, John Edwards and Howard Dean are about to concede to Joe Lieberman. They fear his mighty jowls and wavering voice, they bow at the feet of his mainstream, moderate positions.

Kevin Aylward explains how Congressman and Senators answer letters. How depressing.#

The idea behind the CMS systems was that upon entering office the representative would procure an electronic list of the 300,000 or so constituents in your district, or if you were lucky get the previous representative's database. Staff member could add new constituents; merge records of duplicates, etc. Every inbound letter and call is tracked by a lookup search for the constituent's name. Once the record is found the contact history with that constituent is available for viewing and action.

Inbound letters and calls are 'issue coded'. For example, if you write a letter to your representative in which you urge the member to support gun control legislation, the staff members who open and read the mail enter a record of the correspondence and select a gun control issue code. If you address multiple topics you get multiple codes.

The staffer at that point has the option of creating a response (which as I recall they usually do) by picking one or more items from a list of issue talking points.

MNOT on presidential candidates and astrosuck.#

I'm so sick of watching presidential candidates confidently telling news anchors that they're doing well in the race, and explaining how well their ideas are going across.

Where are the ideas? Instead of telling me why I should vote for them, the current crop's strategy seems to be to convince me that everybody else is voting for them.

In advertising, this is known as singing the brief; rather than doing the hard work of convincing me that a product is appealing (for example), the ad just says "this product is appealing."

Alex Tabarrok links to Valdis Krebs on book buying models.#

This is a must read. Or at least look at the picture.

The Black Saint writes about Howard Dean's strategy.#

Gov. Dean blames the media for his fall because that's what everyone does and rivals whom he says torpedoed his candidacy using every desperate tactic they knew, like pointing out dumb things he'd said. But there were other problems — lavish spending early in the race (perhaps the solid gold statue of Gov. Dean with his foot pressing down on Pres. Bush's bloodied head was a bit premature), difficulty transferring his cult-like support into votes, and a candidate who sometimes talked without thinking of the political consequences or whether he was sober at the time.

He gained respect among the Washington crowd by raising more than $40 million last year, a Democratic record. Thousands of people, many who had never donated to a political campaign, were inspired to contribute to Dean's anti-Iraq war, anti-Washington, anti-ever reclaiming the White House candidacy.

Bob asks: "As a matter of common sense and self-defense, [we] will act against such emerging threats before they are fully formed." Bush or Palpatine?#

Gary Santoro posts funny John Kerry comics.#

Richard Tallent on boobs and television.#

I was not offended so much by the "nudity" (hey, we all have 'em) as by the "presentation," which was forced, purposeless, and tasteless. Working theory: Janet is so desparate to take attention to her album (and her branch of the family tree) that she's willing to go through such antics, and Timberlake is just trying to get some attention after ex-gf Spears had her own faux-sexual moment (surprisingly more appropriate by comparison) during a mass-audience event. But, unlike NYPD Blue and the VS fashion shows of yesteryear, this wasn't avant garde, it was just wanton.

Tony Pierce warns us of the future... it's a scary place.#

the clouds are beautiful today. the sun in shining. the air is crisp. the girls are wearing cute little scarves and ugg boots. their flowers are wilting in their button holes their dreams havent been crushed yet like mine have, their boyfriends havent been found out yet and their daddys still pay for their miatas.

but one day they will look in the mirror and see what i just saw (pictured): the cold hard truth.

Tracy Adams posts pictures of the armed guards of Guatemala. Interesting stuff.#

The biggest concern about the people here in Guatemala is the security. According to the Guatemalans I talked with, the regular police force is unreliable. You call, but they do not necessarily come in an emergency. As a result, people then take security in their own hands. The tourist department runs their own security department to keep the tourist attractions safe. On the way hiking up the volcano, we passed 3 stations with 2 security guards each. Private businesses hire their own security guards. Some carry huge rifles - it is not uncommon to see a security guard standing with a huge rifle in a grocery store or even McDonald's.

Nova Spivack links to Daniel Klem's work that reveals over 1 billion birds are killed yearly by glass buildings.#

"Glass is ubiquitous and it's indiscriminate, killing the fit and the unfit," said Klem, a Muhlenberg College ornithologist who estimates that collisions with glass kill up to 1 billion birds a year in the United States alone.

"Buildings that we have created to be aesthetically pleasing are slaughtering birds."

Although cell phone towers, oil spills and power lines raise the ire of conservation groups, those hazards pale in comparison to glass, Klem said. He estimates that only habitat destruction kills more birds.

Michael Williams writes about bastard vegetarians and anti-tv-ites.#

The only people more holier-than-thou than vegetarians are people who don't watch TV. I don't watch a lot of TV myself, but isn't it irritating to try talking with someone who is constantly reminding you that they "don't waste time with that stuff" and "don't even own a TV"?

The reason vegetarians and anti-TV-ites are so annoying is because they take pleasure in rubbing our faces in their rejection of the very fabric of our shared society.

What's the number one social activity? Eating. And it's difficult for omnivores to enjoy a meal with a proud vegetarian because their food requirements severely limit everyone else's choices.

This is why I feel like an asshole.

• No meat. (Vegetarian.)
• No animal products. (Vegan.)
• No TV. (Crazy.)
• No Drugs, Alcohol, or Smoking. (Straight-edge.)

Result: 100% Asshole.

Metafilter reminds me that I live in a dream world.#

Police dog suspended for potential racism. It seems that for some time now, Dolpho, a police dog in Pennsylvania, has been singling out black children, which, in the eyes of officials is clearly a sign of racism, and they are calling for an end to his active duty -- not to mention an end to his life.

Richard links to a great comic blurb.#

Believe it or not, some women can tell the difference between "Y'know, I'm kinda bored, kinda lonely and kinda drunk but wouldn't mind fucking you" and "Wow, I think you're an amazing person and would love to get to know you better" (even if the former is often disguised as the latter).

The Black Saint writes about stupid fashion. Ugh.#

This kid "stars" in the sure-to-be-cancelled Tracy Morgan Show. Let's look at this boy and take him in. What stands out? Ah, yes, the two-different-shoes fashion statement. This is something kids do because they think it looks cool, and it's only ten years later that they look at photos and realize why their parents were imploring them not to go to out of the house dressed like that. Every child does it. When I was eleven or twelve, my big thing was the mismatched earrings, a stud in one ear and a large, garish, dangly one in the other.

So, I got my iBook back. Happy happy joy joy.#

Richard Tallent presents a brilliant timeline of mathematical education through the last few decades.#

Teaching Math In 1980: A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is $80 and his profit is $20. Your assignment: Underline th e number 20.

Teaching Math In 1990: By cutting down beautiful forest trees, the logger makes $20. What do you think of this way of making a living? Topic for class participation after answering the question: How did the forest birds and squirrels feel as the logger cut down the trees. (There are no wrong answers)

Richard of the House of Gwai Lo writes about the documentary, The Corporation.#

I can't really recommend this movie as much as I'd like to to people who are anti-capitalist or anti-globalization. You've already seen Michael Moore's films and read Naomi Klein's or Noam Chomsky's books. They appear in the film and say what they've already said. If you want to see Michael Walker of the Fraser Institute squirm—since he is the only person—then okay, to you that's probably worth the price of admission. No, instead, this movie is for those who are cynical of the environmental and anti-corporatist movement. The scenes involving Ray Anderson will be of particular interest. The environmental and anti-corporatist have an image problem primarily because, yes, the corporate anti-environmental agenda is the dominant one, but it's also because they have so-far failed to make the case that pursuing an environmental agenda is in the best interests of corporations, or, even better, that even being a large corporation is not in corporations' best interest. Dave Pollard believes that a case can be made that bigger is worse.

Richard links to Ian Bremmer's blog series on being a political scientist involved in the private sector.#

The idea behind Eurasia Group was to make political science—the study of politics—relevant to the markets. Our tag line is "defining the business of politics." That's really what we do. We try to explain how politics affect the markets.

In 1998, when I started the firm, you had to convince people why that mattered. Not everyone: Energy companies were investing billions of dollars in inherently unstable places, and they had been caught out too many times to ignore the impact of a sudden change of legislation or regime. But most people in the private sector didn't think about politics when they were making investments.

Richard Just A Playa links to Ray Cassin on the death of civilians in war and George Orwell's take.#

As the Melbourne philosopher Tony Coady has argued, if we condemn an Osama bin Laden or a Hambali because they prescribe the intentional killing of the innocent, then Harris and his political masters stand equally condemned. And if we try to get Harris and co. off the hook by arguing that the civilians slaughtered in Dresden and the other devastated German cities were not innocent because they were enemy civilians, we thereby excuse the bin Ladens of the world, too.

The notion that killing an innocent person - broadly defined as anyone not making a direct contribution to an enemy's war effort - is worse than killing an enemy combatant now strikes some people as naive, or even hypocritical. How, they ask, given the enormous destructive power of modern military technology, can such a distinction be taken seriously?

The relevant military theory was outlined recently be Colonel John A. Warden III, USAF in the book, "The Battlefield of the Future." (I have not read it yet though, it's bookmarked.)

My comment on this though: War is inherently immoral, so all morality breaks down and is illegitimate. There can be no just war and thus what you must ask is the degree of "justness" you want to sacrifice. In war, a country only has obligations to its own citizens (military and non-combatant,) not those in other states. So in this regard, "Justice in War" is being Good to your Friends, and Evil to your Enemies.

Richard the Ghengis Khan of Canada links to Jemina Lewis on neo-Snobbery and its good points.#

Both varieties of snobbery - traditional or inverted - have their perils, but on balance, I prefer the former. This is partly because I am middle class and would prefer not to be mocked for it. But it is also because traditional snobbery at least aspires towards some worthy goals: education, ambition, courtesy.

The problem with inverted snobbery is that it tends to celebrate the wrong kind of working-class culture: the non-working kind, in fact. It coos and swoons over street culture, with its edginess and lawlessness. Its heroes are never the hard-working swots who overcome adversity to become top neurologists or civil servants. They are gangsters, slackers, footballers or pop stars: people with limited use for either brains or manners.

Linda Kaplan Thaler of Fast Company writes on Abercrombie & Fitch's decision to stop producing its catalogue.#

Did A & F cave to the pressure of family value groups? Well, that pressure has never been greater or more organized. But in addition to main street uproars are the Wall Street downgrades by every major brokerage house. It seems, as one writer put it, the dirty little secret behind the racy catalog is lousy sales.

The naked truth behind the company is that sales have been declining for the past four years. Teens may want the logo-laced clothing, but as A & F continued to gamble and push the envelop with items like "Kiddy Thongs" awareness among parents who foot the bill and actions by organized groups such as the National Coalition for the Protection of Children & Families increased. The result: a case where sex does not sell.

Kasia writes about Polish courtesy.#

What I miss most about Poland and think about on regular basis? Common courtesy.

No one enters a store, house or a train until all those leaving have a chance to leave. I hate how in US people always push their way in.

On a train or a bus, a young person would never sit while an older one is standing (or a man when a woman is).

A pregnant woman or one with a small child is not only given the right of way, but also a first place in long lines in stores. During communism and food shortages, lines would last for hours (that's each person waiting for hours on end to buy something as basic as toilet paper) but this courtesy was still always observed.

The Alphaville Herald writes about the flaws of the ESRB game rating system.#

Jackie quotes Chris Rock: "My only job in life is to keep my daughter off the pole. If your daughter is a stripper, you [messed] up."#

Dan catches Peter Jackson's cameo in the Two Towers.#

Jane posts cute pictures of herself from Tahoe.#

are you the most beautiful girl in the world? I think you might be!
Posted by: jack at February 3, 2004 04:47 PM

it's kinda impossible not to comment on the "passed out pics". it prolly makes us men look bad (or at least predictable). nonetheless. you're beautiful. you look like you were having a blast. for those two things we're jealous. all of us.
Posted by: tim at February 3, 2004 07:20 PM

My name is Jay McCarthy, and I approve of these messages.

Notes from Ulro reveals that natural is politically unacceptable. How close to the truth this is. Please await in the future my write up of Leo Strauss.#

Stated baldly, the argument seems bizarre. I think at some level we all know that the sexual game is a cruel and unfair business, that physical appearance, social status and money do matter, that True Love is a matter of chance, a matter of two people who happen to find each other appealing in "shallow" ways also discovering that they appeal to each other in more complicated and subtle ways, and that they can therefore find lasting pleasure in each other's company. Sexuality is a matter of chance and Nature, and neither are fair or democratic. (Ask anyone with a congenital disease.) Nature doesn't care if we feel like we've been gutted with a chainsaw because Sally thinks we're losers or Johnny thinks we're too fat. In fact, Nature has plans to torment and kill every single one of us, or so I hear.

Dean Esmay links to Brian Micklethwait who posts an old and pretty photograph.#

Nova Spivack on life, the universe, and everything.#

In a conversation today with my friend Bram, a really smart cosmologist, I suggested that maybe the universe is just the output of a software error in a high dimensional program -- basically it's just a big bug! The owner of the computer could at any time detect the bug and simply reboot -- that will be the end of it for us! But Bram one-upped me by suggesting that instead the universe is a screensaver.

Brad Edmunds on why he (still) doesn't owe the military anything and militias.#

The only thing the military can do for our freedom is to repel an attack from an invader who, in occupying, would offer us a less free society than we have now. I mean, we must consider the possibility that an occupying force can increase our freedom, right? Isn't this Bush's point in Iraq? So, for our military to have been effective in protecting our freedom, the enemy must be (1) credible; (2) willing and prepared to attack; (3) likely to reduce our freedom if he wins; and (4) repelled by either the action, or the threat, of our military.

This circumstance has never obtained in our history, and probably never will.

[...]

What has made the US an uninviting target for 200 years is the oceans and our gun ownership. As Iraq and Afghanistan have proven in the last three years, making war halfway around the world is expensive, risky, and difficult even for the US, even today, even when attacking pathetically weaker opponents. Universal gun ownership means an occupying force can never succeed. To occupy, you have to step out of your planes and humvees and move on foot. The more the natives own guns and want to resist, the more ground area you have to occupy continuously. With a nation full of rifle-toting rednecks, a hostile foreign power can never succeed. To obliterate us, they would be forced to nuke us.

From his original article:

The founders knew it; and Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto knew it, saying, "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass."

Little Green Footballs links to Bernard Lewis on the eminent clash of civilizations.#

"The question people are asking is why they hate us. That's the wrong question," said Mr. Lewis on C-SPAN shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks. "In a sense, they've been hating us for centuries, and it's very natural that they should. You have this millennial rivalry between two world religions, and now, from their point of view, the wrong one seems to be winning."

He continued: "More generally ... you can't be rich, strong, successful and loved, particularly by those who are not rich, not strong and not successful. So the hatred is something almost axiomatic. The question which we should be asking is why do they neither fear nor respect us?"

Joi Ito has lunch with Seth Lloyd and they discuss money, energy, and happiness.#

Seth pointed out that if you are struggling to survive in a tough environment, eating fatty and sweet foods and conserving your energy are probably good things. When you have enough food, sitting around eating sweets on the couch suddenly becomes detrimental. Is there an equivalent to this with money? I believe that free markets and democracy are great things and are the foundation of civilization and progress. I believe that efficiency and greed play a big role in creating healthy economies. Having said that, I do not believe that just because we have free markets and democracies, that people will be happy or that we will have peace. My question is, at what point, if any, do you have too much money? At what point is greed pointless and destructive? Can countries and economies become addicted to economic growth or become financially obese?

Neoclassical economists tend to model human behavior with a simple formula where more money makes you happier and people will do everything they can to earn more. This is like saying that the more calories you take in the healthier you will be and that eating more makes the world a better place.

Some people will say that while you may "run out" of the happiness you can extract from money or calories, there are an infinite number of other appetites to be satiated, and as a result the vulgar masses will always crave more. Since their is not enough, they will destroy each other to get parts of the pie. The escape is the enlightenment of the wise, understanding that the aggregate appetite can not be fulfilled so you much be free from it--this enlightenment is achieved many ways, such as meditation which Joi mentions.

The problem is that not all can or will be enlightened... so how do you deal with the vulgar who seek to destroy themselves and the wise?

More on this later.

Dr. Frank has never been reviewed or mentioned in Rolling Stone... but he almost was.#

Yet, you can believe it or not, but for awhile there it was looking like Rolling Stone actually was going to print a review of Yesterday Rules. I mean, it was really going to happen. They confirmed they were going to run a review with a photo, and they even called our publicist to fact-check it (which impressed me-- I've never been fact-checked by a reviewer before.) In the back of my mind, I began imagining the wry, self-deprecating little phrase I would use when I linked to it. It was supposed to be in the issue with Howard Dean on the cover. But it wasn't. The reviews editor stopped returning our publicist's calls. We speculated, maybe a little desperately: there was maybe an outside chance that it had been bumped to the next issue. But no. The next issue came out. The review had been killed. And, thus endeth our hugely implausible Rolling Stone-covered career. I don't know why. I guess someone came to their senses just in time. These things happen in publishing. (Maybe if they had known how far down the charts Howard Dean was going to slip, they would have killed him, too. The cover story, I mean.)

Chip Gibbons on the REAL problem with marriage and who a better Defense of Marriage Act could be framed.#

The use of force, coercion and subsidies in the area of marriage does nothing to strengthen any marriage; it only creates an incentive for people to get married for the sake of being socially acceptable, not because they love each other and are committed to each other. Think about couples that get married because one partner wants citizenship, or because one partner wants the other partner's money. The same thing occurs when the government offers special benefits for marriage; people marry to get the benefits.

It is government social engineering with regard to heterosexual marriage that has weakened the bond, not homosexuals. The government needs to get out of the marriage business altogether and treat it like any other contract between two (or more) consenting adults.

Philip Greenspun on the world's last remaining tropical rain forest.#

The last tropical rainforest left will very likely be the one right here in central Panama for it supplies one thing that is undeniably critical for the operation of the Canal: rain. The heart of the 80 km-long Canal is a big lake, 26 meters above sea level. Every transit of a ship through the Canal requires that 52 million gallons of fresh water drain out of this lake into the Caribbean and Pacific. The water is replenished from surrounding rainforest. One thing that people in this part of the world have learned is that when you cut down all the trees it changes the local climate, generally cutting the amount of rain that falls.

Panama is one of the few places in the world where you don't need a hippie environmentalist to talk up the value of the rainforest. Here everyone knows what the rainforest is worth... $600 million per year in tolls.

RPGamer posts new Final Fantasy XII Screen Shots.#

Shimon Rura quotes something interesting but his blog software must be broken as a link is not given. Oh well!#

Kieran Healy lists The Five Standard Excuses for any Failed Government Project.#

1. There is a perfectly satisfactory explanation for everything but security prevents its disclosure. (The Anthony Blunt excuse.)

2. It has only gone wrong because of heavy cuts in staff and budget which have stretched supervisory resources beyond the limit.

3. It was a worthwhile experiment now abandoned, but not before it provided much valuable data and considerable employment. (The Concorde excuse.)

4. It occurred before certain important facts were known and could not happen again. (The Munich Agreement excuse.)

5. It was an unfortunate lapse by an individual now being dealt with under internal disciplinary procedures. (The Charge of the Light Brigade excuse.)

Ben Adida on the distinction between Beliefs and Tactics.#

I attended Monday's presentation by Darl McBride of SCO. You can even see me asking Darl a question about SCO going after end-users (I'm the guy with the EFF t-shirt at the bottom-center of the picture). For a few months, I've been asking myself whether SCO truly believes their own story, or whether they're simply using all legal and illegal means to "increase shareholder value." It's an interesting question to ask yourself in general when arguing with someone: is this person standing up for a certain principle they believe in, or just trying to win the fight and get the prize? Is this Beliefs, or is this Tactics?

I spent the couple of hours of the talk and Q&A session thinking about SCO's arguments, observing Darl's reactions to various comments, all to basically answer that one question. My conclusion: SCO doesn't believe its own story. SCO is using vague arguments about copyright law, "cyber-terrorism," and software buzzwords like "enterprise-ready" to extort the Linux community.

The Knowledge For Thirst posts a live beverage blog.#

This, I don't get it. I love mango, why does this suck so bad? I sense the presense of a dirt additive or something. Okay one more sip.

I would definitely throw up if I continued to drink this. I'm throwing it out. I estimate that I drank about 1 fl. Oz. On the nutrition information it says this is 1 serving, but I estimate there are about 300.

Tyler Cowen has four defences to the proposition that free trade can lead to "insufficient diversification."#

The theory of comparative advantage, and the theory of increasing returns, both predict that free trade brings specialization. Michigan and Tennessee produce automobiles, but Delaware does not. I have heard free trade critics suggest that regions end up especially vulnerable and overspecialized.

Yes in economics virtually everything is possible, once you recognize that Giffen goods and upward-sloping demand curves cannot be ruled out. But I am not so worried about free trade leading to excess specialization.

Tyler Cowen writes about an interesting side-effect of using Netflix.com.#

I find myself ordering more movies that I feel I "ought to watch," but won't necessarily enjoy. After all, the consequences of my decision lie further in the future. I find myself especially altruistic toward my wife, and what she wants to watch. I am more willing to order long movies. I could never bring myself to rent The Shawshank Redemption, which is compelling yet sappy and well over two hours long, but now I have seen it.

Netflix reminds me just the tiniest bit of democratic voting. I order films to feel good now about my ordering, and not necessarily to watch them. Overall Netflix has improved my movie viewing and induced me to experiment more.

Von finds fault in Andrew Sullivan's defense of gay marriage.#

Here's the problem with Andrew's argument: Unless you believe the Constitution to be a "living document" (and Andrew, it appears, does not), the Constitution does not guarantee "equal civil rights for all." Rather, the Constitution only guarantees certain civil rights. These are the civil rights that are specifically ennumerated in the Constitution. "Gay marriage" was not among them. (Racial equality was among them, however -- in the 13-15th Amendments -- which is why Andrew's reference to Brown v. The Board of Education is a red herring.)