Shimon Rura's "frassle" system treats comments, trackbacks, and aggregators all the same.#

Jessica Baumgart writes about the importance of having information that you looked at on Monday being the same on Friday.#

One of the points I'm going to make when I talk to the journalism students tonight is how information on the Internet disappears. If you have something on a CD-ROM, barring any technical problems or damage to the CD, when you use it on Monday, what you read will still be there and be the same on Friday. There is no guarantee that information on the Internet will remain static like that. And I'm not just talking about sites like Wikipedia, either. (For those of you who don't know about wikis, they're Web sites that allow anyone to edit them and repost the content. Wikipedia functions on the idea that having many people add to an encyclopedia is a good way to pool and share knowledge. The problem, as you can imagine, is that anyone can rewrite or erase any of the entries. Also, the writers don't necessarily have to have any credentials or do any research to add an entry. We all know how easy it is to confuse names and dates and such.) For many, the static nature of information may not be that important. It could be more important for people doing homework assignments or people in professions, like journalism and librarianship, where checking sources and being able to return to information is important.

Chris Bertram quotes Ophelia Benson quoting Michael Ruse:#

People like Dawkins, and the Creationists for that matter, make a mistake about the purposes of science and religion. Science tries to tell us about the physical world and how it works. Religion aims at giving a meaning to the world and to our place in it. Science asks immediate questions. Religion asks ultimate questions. There is no conflict here, except when people mistakenly think that questions from one domain demand answers from the other. Science and religion, evolution and Christianity, need not conflict, but only if each knows its place in human affairs — and stays within these boundaries.

Both of them are not sure whether this is really true or not.

Ryan Overbey says to remember two things, this is one: "djs is right: "Religion is bunk, but possibly useful bunk."

That's the message of Leo Strauss.

Jorrit Wiersma switches to using Tinderbox. His new design looks goood.#

Dean Esmay writes about the "comet theory" of life on Earth. I don't like that theory because it doesn't saying anything about where THAT life came from.#

James Moore wonders about media... that's The Media.#

Maybe media is the cancer on the planet--not energy-squandering, population-exploding human society--but rather the noosphere that I usually champion so enthusiastically. Like a more fluid, seamless and insidious version of the "machines" in the Matrix, media is finally solidifying its penetration of our individual and collective consciousness. Media's heavier-than air influence is flowing across the planet, creating a blanket of comforting falsehood as it suffocates our true dreams.

Alex Halavais writes about homophobia and hate.#

The idea of "homophobia" always sat badly with me. It simply didn't ring completely true. When an arachnophobe sees a spider, the last thing he wants to do is beat up on it. "Homophobia" seemed a poor term for what I've seen as hate and ignorance. It further provided an escape: "I'm not a bad guy/gal really, I'm just afflicted with homophobia." (I've heard people say this as a mark of pride.) Nonetheless, from purely personal experience, there may be something to this.

I think it's important to understand the roots of such a feeling. In many ways, I prefer the company of gay men—I mean here in a non-sexual way. Not to paint everyone with the same brush, but many of those who have come out have undergone an ordeal that has made them more interesting people, and so I gravitate to them in the same way as I feel an affinity for those who have experienced living abroad, who have had avoided sheltered childhoods, or who have otherwise experienced life more acutely.

The Black Saint is funnier than any blog ever. Ever.#

"I like what (Sen. Kerry) stands for -- kicking Bush's sorry ass," Darby said. "John Edwards is a little too young. I mean, he's 50 and looks 30. When should we be concerned? When do we start looking for the portrait in the attic or the virgins whose life force he's draining? Maybe he's a robot like Data on Star Trek, but then even he started looking a little old in the last few movies. Hmmm, now why would a robot age? Anyway, where was I? Oh, (Howard) Dean's a crazy man. (Wesley) Clark's just, I don't know, there's something there I don't like... oh yeah, Andrew Ridgley supported him. I liked Wham! but I'm not sure how I feel about Ridgley's stance on the capital gains tax."

I can't wait until they make a movie out of Gov. Dean's failed campaign. I'm already working on a tentative script.

Sebastian Holsclaw links to Bruce Bartlett who writes about Pro-Market vs. Pro-Business.#

Bartlett makes a very important point: pro-market is not pro-business. More precisely current big businesses don't have an incentive to encourage free markets. They would prefer that governments lock out their competitors to guarantee their own continuing profits. That isn't conservative economic policy. That is economic pandering.

Conservatives need to keep this distinction in mind when analyzing government action in the economy. Just because a successful business wants certain types of government regulation does not mean that the measure in question is pro-market. It could very likely be merely pro-that-business. Ideologically conservatives believe that generally free markets lead to increased growth and innovation when compared with other systems. Businesses often try to pull a fast one on us by suggesting meddlesome pro-business measures which act to protect their profits. That doesn't fit the model.

Liberal = Steal for the Poor. Business Conservative = Stear for the Rich. Libertarian = Don't Steal.

Jessica Baumgart links to her RSS article. (PDF.) (I am mentioned... weeee.)#

This article will be the article for introductions to RSS in the future.

Peter Merholz writes about what companies can learn from the Oakland A's.#

What I found most valuable about this talk was DePodesta's revealing that at his first major league job, with the Cleveland Indians, he wasn't able to make change because the team was successful. Such an environment made innovation impossible, because people don't want to tinker with success. Even though a change could lead to remarkably more success, and stagnancy would likely lead to the competition surpassing you (which it did, a few years later, when Cleveland's far greater payroll performed worse than the A's.)

I think about this in the face of introducing thoughtful, robust, user experience processes and methods into organizations. One of the most annoying realities of a user experience professional's life is eBay, because it seems to flout everything we stand for. The Web's most popular 'pure play' sports a remarkably unwieldy and unattractive design. eBay is wary of changing it because, hey, we're making money, right? Yet I wonder about the untold billions more eBay could reap if it tightened up its experience. Yes, initially there would be a lot of grousing, and probably loss of revenue, as people adjusted to the status quo. But overtime, the site's ability for higher productivity on the part of its users would lead to greater activity, and more sales.

Lance Arthur writes about going from "fat" to cute.#

There are two secrets of the gym: One, no one cares about you. No one looks at you, particularly if you're not already fit and gorgeous. In that way, it's a broader reflection of life. Fat people roam among us but we tend to ignore them. I know, I've been there, and it was the way I preferred it. Don't look at me, just go about your business and I'll get out of your way. Yes, I know I'm in the way, I'm sorry, I'll do my best to become invisible.

At the gym, magnify this effect. And that's both good and bad. It's good because you can go work out and not worry about anyone else "looking at you." They won't, they're all looking at themselves. Gyms are walled with mirrors, and me, the fat guy, I can just look at my feet as I have been all along anyway (that way I avoid eye contact with anyone). They're all watching themselves bulge and flex. You're not in the picture, so if that's what you're worried about, get over it.

Aaron Swartz writes about third parties and better election methods.#

In America (and many other countries) elections work in a simplistic manner: Each person picks one candidate. The candidate picked the most wins.

This makes the fatal assumption that you can only like one candidate. This seems like a bizarre assumption, but there is one common case where it makes sense: when you have two candidates.

Unfortunately, we're sort of stuck with this voting system, so this mathematical fact (the voting system works only when there are two candidates) has turned into a political rule (we can only allow two candidates to run). But often, more than two candidates want to run, and voters don't mind having more choices. So the voting system gets in the way.

Julie Leung posts pictures of the beautiful island her family loves on.#

Jay Rosen covers Joe Trippi's talk at the Emerging Technology conference.#

O'Reilly Nation also knew, or thought it knew, that much more would be possible in the future, as the tools that had come into politics kept growing and the social momentum crept up. Here, Trippi was more like an Apple executive speaking to talented developers, who have to be convinced to keep developing a cause--a platform--that everyone knows may be lost. Other heads of big enterprises spoke: Wes Boyd of MoveOn.org, Scott Heiferman of MeetUp.com, David Sifry of Technorati, and Tim O'Reilly himself. Jeff Jarvis lifted the killer quote from O's welcome: "User contributions are critical to market dominance." If this becomes true in politics, what does politics become?

The interesting thing to me, a rookie at tech conferences, was that in the sphere I was visiting (without a laptop, which was very dumb) innovation by Net and other means was a normal condition. That's what the people at the conference are "about." Things were expected to change as new and powerful tools came within reach, or someone sprung them on the unsuspecting.

Jessica Seigel writes about the disconnect between women, their bras, and the lingerie industry.#

Freud once noted that men don't know what women really want, and that holds true in underthings. After all, 50 percent of lingerie is returned compared with 30 percent for other kinds of clothing, according to Marshal Cohen, senior analyst at the market research firm NPD Fashionworld. "Some guys haven't seen their wife's intimate clothing in quite a while," Mr. Cohen says. "The longer the relationship, the bigger the disconnect."

But don't blame men. They're responding to what lingerie companies are selling. In the last decade, manufacturers that once sold sturdy, supportive "foundations" reconceived lingerie as fashion, increasing their advertising while cutting back on basic fit and function (like linings under scratchy lace). Breasts ballooned. Bras shrank.

Representative Ron Paul writes about consistencies and the foolish ones.#

Following the Constitution — Arbitrarily, Of Course: Following the Constitution is a convenience shared by both liberals and conservatives — at times. Everyone takes the same oath of office, and most Members of Congress invoke the Constitution, at one time or another, to make some legislative point. The fact that the Constitution is used periodically to embarrass one's opponents, when convenient, requires that no one feel embarrassed by an inconsistent voting record. Believing that any consistency, not just a foolish one, is a philosophic hobgoblin gives many Members welcome reassurance. This allows limited-government conservatives to massively increase the size and scope of government, while ignoring the deficit. Liberals, who also preach their own form of limited government in the areas of civil liberties and militarism, have no problem with a flexible pragmatic approach to all government expenditures and intrusions. The net result is that the oath of office to abide by all the constitutional restraints on government power is rarely followed.

Halley Suitt writes about how Halley is different that Halley's Comment.#

If there's any justified fame to be found here on blogs, it should be a "fame of talent." If you write well and people value your writing, that should be the beginning and the end of it. That people want to see, study, talk with, flirt with, drink with, point at, dance with our real live blogger selves is something else entirely.

Emerson: Do you work and I shall know you.

The place I find interesting is where the two overlap and create disappointment -- where blogs and social networks create a false zone of "intimacy" -- making all parties feel they really "know" one another. Perhaps when we gather together in the real world, there's a sense that if we've played and chatted in Orkut or IRC, read the most personal details of a blogger's life and have had one another's email addresses in our address books for years, we should have equally intimate access to those same people in the lobby of the hotel. As many have written lately, social webs are just a lot more complicated than that and very hard to reduce into a flat software app, and as we stumble our way along, we'll have to watch social network software evolve and take on some of the complexity of real life relationships, or vanish from the scene.

Harry Brighouse write about Equal-Split Parenting.#

Why do women marry careerist men if they want to share the domestic and childrearing work equally? One obvious reason springs to mind: the pool of eligible non-careerist men is pretty small. A second might be that a high energy careerist attitude is very attractive for whatever reason, whereas a slacker's attitude is not. A third might be that both parties underestimate the importance that equal-split will play in their lives: both parties think that the woman will be happier putting up with doing the lion's share of the work than she actually will. Finally, at the time of marrying it is very hard to have palatable discussion about dividing up these responsibilities. Even if men say they are willing to go equal-split, things are often different when the kids come along, and, anyway, my guess is that men typically underestimate the amount of work child-rearing involves, so they don't know what they are committing to.

This article in the The Atlantic is about this sort of thing.

ScrappleFace: Alleged Kerry Intern Scandal Sparks Clinton Endorsement.#

(2004-02-12) -- A story on the Drudge Report, suggesting a scandal is about to break involving presidential candidate John F. Kerry and an intern, has inspired former President Bill Clinton to offer his eagerly-sought endorsement to the junior Senator from Massachusetts.

"Whether the Drudge story is true or not," said Mr. Clinton, "I finally see a candidate with whom I can identify. I was withholding my endorsement until I found a candidate who would resonate with mainstream Democrats the way I did. John F. Kerry is the man."

Ryan Overbey wonders if he's being "too hard" on religion.#

Sometimes people think I'm too hard on religion. Then I read stories like this, and then I realize I'm not being hard enough on it. We can't keep writing off fundies as not "real" Christians, as strange but harmless curiosities. They are among us, they have more children than we do, they vote, and they believe our nation should be operated on Biblical principles that somehow involve hating gay people, making sure raped women carry babies to term, and forcing everyone to study creationism in public schools.