| Thursday, September 4, 2003 |
09:42 - Here's what I've been doing wrong
http://www.pcworld.com/howto/article/0,aid,111652,00.asp
|
(top) |
So that's my problem. I just don't have the patience to use Windows.
'Cause here, via J Greely, is an in-depth PC World article on how to reinstall Windows without losing your data.
It's six pages long.
Six pages.
Before you begin, gather your Windows and application CD-ROMs. Back up your data files (just to be safe), and then clear two days off your calendar. If everything goes smoothly, you can reinstall Windows in a few hours. But you have to assume something will go wrong: You may not be able to find a necessary CD, or data won't be where you thought it was, or something will simply refuse to work.
...
If your restore CD is reformat-only, back up your data files to a network or a removable medium before reinstalling Windows. If you use Windows 98 or Me, back up C:\My Documents, plus the folders inside C:\Windows discussed in the 98/Me section below. If you have Windows 2000 or XP, back up C:\Documents and Settings. Also back up any other folders in which you store your data files.
...
Once you're back in Windows, reinstall your graphics card driver. If you have Windows set up for more than one user, you'll also have to re-create each account. Select Start, Settings, Control Panel, Users to do so. It's important that the user names match those in the old installation. If you're not sure, open Windows Explorer and navigate to C:\oldstuff\profiles. There you'll find a folder for each registered user name (see FIGURE 2). Don't worry about passwords. Log off and log back on as each user. When you're done, log off and back on one more time, but instead of choosing a user name and a password, press Esc to enter Windows without being a specific user.
...
Select Start, Programs, Accessories, Command Prompt. Type cd "\documents and settings" and press Enter. Then type xcopy administrator\*.* administrator.computername /s /h /r /c, replacing computername with the last part of that folder's name (after "Administrator.") in Documents and Settings. Now press Enter, and when you're asked about overwriting files or folders, press a for All.
...
Now you've got Windows going, but not much else. You may have to reinstall your printer, sound card, and so on. Luckily, if a driver for the gadget came on your Windows or vendor restore CD, it was probably reinstalled automatically.
...
You've probably guessed that the final step is deleting the c:\oldstuff folder--and the Administrator folder in Windows 2000. Make this the very last step, however. Wait a couple of days, weeks, or even months until you're confident that all of your needed files are accessible.
Christ, Linux is less painful than this.
I suppose it would be just baiting fate to point out how this whole ordeal would be accomplished under Mac OS X:
"Archive & Install".
Which takes about an hour.
"Clear two days off your calendar", huh? I guess my experience isn't so unusual after all.
|
| Wednesday, September 3, 2003 |
01:05 - By their slurs shall ye know them
http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,7158078%255E13780,00.html
|
(top) |
Depp:
"I was ecstatic they re-named 'French Fries' as 'Freedom Fries'. Grown men and women in positions of power in the US government showing themselves as idiots," he told Stern.
Now which men and women in positions of power might you be talking about, you smirking little weasel? Which proverbial they have earned your incoherent ire?
Oh, that's right. Bush and Rice and Ashcroft and Rumsfeld, who jointly passed the Imperial Decree that all subjectscitizens of the US must henceforth refer to "French fries" as "freedom fries" on pain of exile to the gulags. Right?
He clearly doesn't have even the beginnings of understanding of how American society and government work, so perhaps his moving to France is the right answer for him. And for us. It'll raise the moral quotient of both countries.
Dammit, I'm running out of movies I can watch and enjoy whose stars haven't gone on record as card-carrying members of the Rectal-Cranial Inversion Brigade.
|
|
17:29 - I'm okay, really
|
(top) |
I just got word from the VW dealer that on top of my O2 sensor being fixed (which is what the solidly-on Check Engine light is always about, always, though for some reason they always have to act like it's some big mystery, and for some reason nobody has invented an O2 sensor that has a lifetime longer than your average set of tires), the catalytic converter is also fizzled and must be replaced. Fortunately, replacing the catalytic converter is covered under the drivetrain/exhaust warranty.
Unfortunately, not only do they not have a catalytic converter in stock-- neither does any of the supply warehouses in the region. LA, Reno, Seattle... all out.
You can't get a catalytic converter for a Jetta if you live in the western United States. For, apparently, as much as six months.
No! No! Calm down! That's a worst-case scenario! the guy told me. It could be as little as a day or two! We just don't know yet.
Fine. Let's have a call back tomorrow to see what the news is. I fully expect he'll tell me that they've got one on back-order, and it'll arrive in about two weeks. Long enough to completely stall the household's mobility and progress on construction, but not long enough to qualify as "an unreasonable period of time" sufficient for me to demand a loaner off the lot. Murphy's Law works that way.
But no, no... I'm cool. Everything will be fine.
I know I've been on a bit of a tear today. I know it looks like this has been one of the most off-pissing days of my life. And I suppose it's had the potential to be one.
But I'm calm. I'm in my happy place. Oddly enough, I don't feel anywhere near as angry as I must sound.
Honest.
|
|
16:31 - He just likes to see us squirm
|
(top) |
Okay, call me stupid.
...Okay, now that you're done doing that...
Please explain to me the following: Why in God's green Hell does Microsoft need to put pop-up ads in its Windows Update mechanism?!
Seriously! I go to try to update my desktop PC, to get it all ship-shape in light of SoBig and Blaster and friends (even though it's behind a NAT and therefore ostensibly "safe"), and I get this:
Not only is it a popup ad (which-- and I think this is hilarious-- every browser in the world, except for MSIE, has built-in features to block; even AOLNetscape in its final throes put in a pop-up blocker... and yet Microsoft, instead of adding that now-elementary feature, provides helpful tips on how to prevent pop-up ads, such as "contact the administrators for the Web site and ask them to remove the pop-up ads from the site, or prevent them from opening on your machine"); but it's a pop-up ad advertising a crappy third-party fix for the very virus/worm I'm trying to patch for, using a title bar banner of COMPUTER SECURITY ALERT - YOUR PC IS INFECTED!
Does Microsoft not even vet these pop-up ads for hideous glaring inappropriateness? Or to imagine what goes through the head of the average Windows user upon seeing a screen like this? Do they even consider--
Wait. What am I saying?
So anyway-- I close that window (which, incidentally, had been a pop-under), and immediately up pops this:
Goodie! Microsoft tacitly endorses not only Registry-smearing virus-fixing Trojans, but illegal MP3-and-pr0n-piracy sites too! Hey! While you're downloading your security patches, why not peruse some more of these fine Microsoft strategic partners! XXXHOTBABESXXX.com! BURN DVDS TO CD! HERBAL VIAGRA STR8 2 UR D00R!
And lest you think I'm being alarmist-- a new window just popped up, totally of its own accord, some ten minutes after I'd closed the earlier ads, for a sleazy matchmaking website. Just because the Windows Update window was still open. So not only does Windows Update have onLoads, pop-ups, pop-unders, and onCloses, it has timed-release ads. Just like any of the most awful porn sites you've ever been inundated with.
Does Microsoft's operating budget really not permit them to provide the critical Windows Update infrastructure without bombarding the user with cheesy, invasive, and often quite offensive ads? They're not doing that badly down on Wall Street, are they? Surely they can spring for a company subsidy on this most crucial of all centralized services...?
Yes, I know. Now I'm just being silly.
Now, I ask you, and I do so very slowly and distinctly:
Is it any bleeding wonder in the absolute slightest that nobody ever uses Windows Update to patch their bleeding systems?
If Microsoft wants to encourage its users to be more proactive in patching the holes it keeps drilling through its software, I have an excellent suggestion as to how they might start.
Oh, and...
Pardon my ignorance, but-- Set Program Access and Defaults? What the hell kind of intuitive menu option name is that? What, was Define Runtimes Parameter and Set Access Group of Leval taken already? How can any company that even pretends to have its hand in good user-interface design practices come up with a name like this for the function of specifying which applications are used for common Internet-related tasks?
And of course, what's the window called that it brings up? Add/Remove Programs. When what you're doing is clicking little radio buttons.
Jeezum crow, Bill. Were you mistreated by a human being in a previous life, and that's why you're taking it out on us now?
UPDATE: Funky.
On several people's advice, I ran Ad-Aware 6.0 on the machine, and it found a number of cookies from doubleclick.net and such sites. I let it clean them out for me, and the pop-up ads went away.
Now, before yez let loose with the congenial smiles and half-lidded eyes and conspiratorial side-glances, I think I can say that I had good reason to believe that Windows Update incorporated the ads on its own. First of all, whenever I've used this machine to browse to any other site on the Internet, I've never gotten pop-up windows. CNN, everybody on my blogroll, somethingawful, all the crucial stuff-- nary an ad to be seen. All was sweetness and light. But the minute I reach for the Windows Update button-- whoops! Up pop the ads.
On top of which, this machine is my personal test rig; it's behind a NAT, and I certainly don't use it for everyday surfing-- and I absolutely don't go recklessly installing Bonzi Buddies and pornographic weather applets and other prime candidates for populating the agarose dish that is my hard drive. I've been using and maintaining Windows machines in lab and support environments for some eight years now, and I like to think I have some understanding of responsible surfing habits. I've seen lots of weeeeeird crap in my time. But this was a new one on me.
|
|
13:57 - Remember when comics were funny?
http://freefall.purrsia.com/ff900/fv00845.gif
|
(top) |
God dammit, can we have just one strip that dares to break free of the Comic Artists' International Anti-US Union party line?!
I mean, yes, sure, humor is great for catharsis. We were all glad when we found we could laugh again after 9/11. But is there some great unspoken law, some You Must Never Speak of the Snares rule, that prevents any pop humorists on the planet (aside from Chris Muir) from acknowledging the scale and the importance of the war we're fighting? Let alone to stop spreading memes to a credulous and self-conscious public that, if the war should fail, are going to be the single largest cause for that failure?
They call it self-loathing, the desire among high-minded pundits to see the West fail so they can quote Denethor's death-pyre ravings and look all cool with their arms outstretched and a wall of flame leaping up behind them. But you know what? I call it treachery. I call it treason. And I'm beginning to think that as the 9/11 anniversary approaches with nary an acknowledgment on the major TV networks, it's going to take something even bigger and more gruesome than the events of that day to even get us back to the clarity we had two years ago. Much bigger. We're desensitized and cynical now, you see. Leads to wry, defeatist irony in place of the grim resolve we once had to put our foot down, ignore or silence our critics, and do some good in this world. But it's not real to us any longer. It's all a big fucking joke.
All that violence on television, I'll bet. Especially during September of 2001.
|
|
13:36 - Che and Che Alike
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=8056_Indonesian_VP-_US_is_Terrorist_Ki
|
(top) |
Somehow or other, this LGF thread turned into a back-and-forthing about Che Guevara. Itinerant limpet "View from Ireland" made happy noises about how many kids buy Che t-shirts because the guy looked soooo coool, and hey, he was an inspiring revolutionary! And for kids to grow up without knowing who he is reflects poorly on their school district.
To review:
Lessee here... Looking in my history books from College... Ah, here it is. Che Guevara: Argentinian of Irish descent... Trained as a doctor... Murdered hundreds of Cubans that wanted someone other than Castro to be in power... Murdered a couple hundred more in the La Paz Massacre... Extreme left-wing radical... One of the "spriritual founders" of the Shining Path which has killed more than 40,000 people... He was fond of tying people up, blindfolding them and then popping a cap in the backs of their heads while their wives and children were forced to watch... Executed by the Bolivian government on 48 proven counts of capital murder... Just the kind of guy that deserves to have his face on a t-shirt. Him and Bob Berdella.
And more:
OCTOBER 18, 1965: A CIA Intelligence Memorandum discusses what analysts perceive as Che Guevara’s fall from power within the Cuban government beginning in 1964. It states that at the end of 1963, Guevara’s plan of "rapid industrialization and centralization during the first years of the Revolution brought the economy to its lowest point since Castro came to power." "Guevara’s outlook, which approximated present -day Chinese--rather than Soviet--economic practice, was behind the controversy." In July 1964, "two important cabinet appointments signaled the power struggle over internal economic policy which culminated in Guevara’s elimination." Another conflict was that Guevara wanted to export the Cuban Revolution to different parts of Latin America and Africa, while "other Cuban leaders began to devote most of their attention to the internal problems of the Revolution." In December, 1964, Guevara departed on a three-month trip to the United States, Africa, and China. When he returned, according to the CIA report, his economic and foreign policies were in disfavor and he left to start revolutionary struggles in other parts of the world. (CIA Intelligence Memorandum, "The Fall of Che Guevara and the Changing Face of the Cuban Revolution," 10/18/65)
And VFI's response?
Che certainly was responsible for the executions of many following the revolution. A dirty job that Castro gave him. About 500 were killed.
Shining Path are Maoist. If anyone inherited the mantle of Che in Peru it was Tupac Amaru.
He was executed by the Bolivians (alongside the CIA) but not on any 'proven' counts of murder. In fact they denied executing him for a long time.
He was erudite, led a successful revolution, inspired countless numbers, never gave up, and happened to be drop dead gorgeous to boot. I don't think it's any mystery why he's a hardy perennial.
Of course. Never giving up. And being charismatic. What fine reasons to admire a guy, regardless of what it was he never gave up doing.
But I was a good boy. I kept from throttling the Canadians who proudly wore t-shirts with his image when I was up in Toronto.
I'll bet my teeth surfaces are flatter now, though.
|
| Tuesday, September 2, 2003 |
20:15 - Cleanup in aisle 221B
http://stream.qtv.apple.com/qtv/videoc/http/benn001/benn001_http_300_ref.mov
|
(top) |
This is bound to be of interest to some.
I'm told of a tale of Costco, when everyone was standing in the checkout lines waiting to pay for their heaps of goods; then, someone several registers down dropped a bottle of Worcestershire sauce. SMASH. And the smell wafted over the congregated throngs.
And to a man, they all abandoned their carts and scuttled off to the back of the store, to reappear laden with armloads of steaks.
(So now it's theorized that if a grocery store ever needs to kick its meat-counter sales up a notch, all they have to do is drop a bottle of Lea & Perrins somewhere near a recirculating vent. Bam!)
Well, this is apparently the way to do the same thing at a Home Depot.
Maybe it's just a music video. But the whole power-tool industry can probably be forgiven for cackling with glee over this.
14MB, but I know I can name people who will find it worthwhile-- or at least very silly.
|
|
17:50 - I hope al Qaeda's using Windows
http://www.ccianet.org/letters/dhs_030827.pdf
|
(top) |
The CEO of the Computer & Communications Industry Association sent a two-page letter to Tom Ridge, urging him not to entrust the operation of the Department of Homeland Security to Microsoft software.
These vulnerabilities and exploits are not new, and unfortunately were predictable. CCIA believes it is critical to maintain secure systems to protect homeland security, and so CCIA has asked the Department to reconsider its decision to promote Microsoft as the default software for DHS. Reliance on a company that distributes products known to have such serious vulnerabilities will not provide adequate security and stability to protect of our nation's most important computer systems.
Not that I imagine this will have any effect or anything; if one bureaucracy in charge of law enforcement and security (the FBI) has to be taken to school on how to use things like e-mail and Google, my hope that the DHS is more adept at using computers-- or stringent about secure usage practices and software deployments-- is pretty much nil.
Whatever it is Tom Ridge is doing at his post, it wouldn't surprise me a bit to learn that he does it by spending most days sitting hunched uncomfortably in front of a 14-inch monitor on a massive mahogany desk, little bifocals perched on the end of his nose, hunting-and-pecking his way wonderingly through e-mails that entreat him to assist the son of the late Mobutu Sese Seko to move $30 million into a bank account in the United States.
|
|
17:13 - Worst Microsoft Ad EVAR
|
(top) |
Chris spotted this one.
Is this not the most pathetic, self-defeating ad you've ever seen? Could it be any more of a tacit endorsement of UNIX (which they're refusing to claim to be superior to, now) or of FreeBSD or Linux (which everybody in the industry knows is effectively free UNIX)? Have they just sort of given up on the spin game?
Do they realize how, in context, that guy in the center looks like he's feeling cold and isolated and abandoned, as though he's steeling himself outside a conference room to go in and announce some sort of dreadful financial news? How his face conveys not confidence and satisfaction, but guilt, trepidation, and the sick feeling you get from knowing you've picked a loser just because it makes the bottom line look a little better for this quarter?
"Do more with less." Wow. What an awful, awful slogan. "Buy our operating system! Sure, you get less functionality and quality than UNIX, but if you roll up your sleeves and take a lot of deep breaths while standing out in the breezeway, you'd be amazed at the things you can wring out of it! Go the bare-bones route, and together we can tighten our belts and ride out this bleak and barren post-dot-com business landscape!"
Yeah, I know what they're trying to say. But clearly someone at their ad agency didn't spend a lot of time staring at this ad to see how it could be interpreted.
At least it's not their usual smarmy lying. At least this approaches the truthful.
Which is really sad.
UPDATE: Speaking of the WeHaveTheWayOut.com site... notice that cute little animation on the left, of the bedsheet rope being lowered out the window? Kris points out that it wriggles the wrong way-- the end of it jiggles before the rest of it moves, like a snake.
Know what I think happened? I'll bet some Flash guys originally animated the rope being pulled up into the window; and then Microsoft said, "Hey, no, we wanted it going the other way"; and the contractor said, "Yeah, but like, it's already done and paid for, and the animators already went to Vegas"; and Microsoft said, "Okay, well, just run it backwards, then. That's good enough."
Oh, and Chris noticed that the rope doesn't descend all the way to the ground, which is out of sight below. So Microsoft and Unisys will help you start to escape, but they won't provide more than ten feet of bedsheet-- and then you've got that inconvenient plunge to your death to contend with.
|
| Sunday, August 31, 2003 |
01:37 - Zzzzz...
|
(top) |
Just got back from a very intense day of high-school-reunion-type-stuff. Met up with the old Carpe Diem Society at Lake Mendocino, and we all went out on a party boat owned by some friends of one of our number; we drove around the lake all afternoon, picking out spots to stop the boat and dive off to swim. When I got back to the car at 6:00, I found that it had been well over 100 degrees on the lake all day. (Miraculously, I don't seem to have become sunburned.) And it still felt refreshingly chilly when I was standing on the boat deck dripping from a dip in my non-swim-trunks.
It was a blast. And I love having less than 20% humidity.
Anyway, I'm pleasantly surprised that I was able to keep myself from falling asleep on the three-hour drive back home; it was an exhilarating day, but the glucose crash at the end was pretty cataclysmic. I'm going to sleep well tonight.
See you in about, oh, fourteen hours.
|
| Saturday, August 30, 2003 |
03:10 - Conservation of conservatism
|
(top) |
So I'm taking a brief break from my pounding out chapters in advance of my Tuesday 50% deadline to catch up on the newsgroups I follow (taking happy advantage of the new T1-- damn, but it's fun to not be fazed by 5000-line attachments anymore), and I found myself noticing something.
See, the group in question, and the demographic that I've been sidling around for the past six years or so, is one that's made up in large part of young, angst-filled, disillusioned guys of alternative sexuality who feel themselves to be alienated from the mass of humanity-- largely of their own volition. Whether in college dorms or their parents' basements, many of them have lived on some form of dole for the majority of their lives, and (like anybody would be) they don't feel terrifically self-confident or self-sufficient as a result. These are people who are so disgusted with the human race and its perceived vagaries, cruelties, inequities, and crimes against the planet, that they'd rather not even be human. (Don't even ask what I'm doing floating around such a group.)
So it's not as though I can really reasonably expect to find a whole lot of political balance there. And upon pulling up the chatty newsgroups, which I'd last read in mid-February, it was with a twinge that I realized I'd soon be scrolling my way through an inevitable morass of truly, truly dumb anti-war sloganeering.
As, indeed, it turned out to be. We had insightful sentiments from DJ-ish types like "Drop Beats Not Bombs", and speculation was batted about that the Bushies were planning to use nuclear weapons in Iraq, and someone had changed her signature to an FDR quote: "A conservative is a man who, having two perfectly good legs, has never taken a single step forward."
But before that was a startling thread from one person who was on the verge of tears for an entirely different reason: he was a Christian. And he felt totally alienated by the group he loved-- vilified and discriminated against by the very people to whom he'd attached himself largely because he'd thought they were all about tolerance and open-mindedness. He felt betrayed. He felt surrounded by scowling faces who saw no difference between him and Pat Robertson, between him and the KKK, between him and a Satan that the scowls didn't believe existed anyway. And he didn't know where he could turn next.
And I got to thinking. Let's see: since so many people start out as liberals, being idealistic and full of progressive, anti-capitalist, anti-McDonald's, anti-modernist causes to fight for from the safety of their prepaid tuitions, it follows that for anyone to become conservative later in life has to involve a conscious change in attitude, catalyzed by some series of personal events or shifting of interests. Remaining a liberal is the default state, and in the absence of some defining event to change one's attitude, one is likely to find a community of like-minded compatriots with which to experience one's twenties and thirties in the same relative comfort and idealistic certainty as one was used to.
So it follows, it seems to me, that a great many people who grow up proud to call themselves "liberals" have quite possibly never actually met a real, live conservative-- except maybe for their jingoistic fathers whom they remember as the guy who always told them to mow the lawn or stop dating hippies, or their square-jawed buzz-cut gym-and-civics teachers who always growled about commies. It's hard to grow up these days with a positive impression of conservatives-- and it's equally hard to grow up with a real first-hand understanding of what conservative politics are about.
The realities of the business world are opaque to the high-school student, who sees only grimy air and ugly smokestacks next to a white-sand California beach. The rights of the landlord are ignored or seen as irrelevant by the tenant, whose friends and roommates are naturally on the opposite end of an adversarial relationship with what can only be a tall and dark-cloaked figure with a top hat and a greasy, curled moustache who darkens poor welfare recipients' doorways each month to demand exorbitant rent to support his own opulent playboy penthouse. The gun owner, casually visiting the range twice a month to brush up on his target practice, is inscrutable to someone who sees the government as being a more benign entity than his neighbors, or who would equate the killing of an animal for food with killing a human for sport. The moderate religious citizen, no matter how low-key or benign his faith, is automatically folded into an über-class of oppressors by kids opening their minds for the first time-- cataclysmically, like a ship floating through the last trammeled channels of a river delta before suddenly finding itself out at open sea with no boundaries in sight-- to the myriad possibilities of existentialism and atheism and Matrix scenarios; it's so attractive for such a wondering youth to think of the past two thousand years of human experience being a deluded mass fiction that even those who take just a passing part in such a delusion become synonymous with the great perpetrators of intellectual darkness in our species' history. Christianity is old and staid and established, and so it becomes evil. Likewise with so many other traditional hallmarks of conservatism-- gun rights, business-friendliness, acknowledgment of military necessity. Group enough of these memes together, and the college student or young adult can't help but equate "conservative" with a caricature so vile and objectionable that it's inconceivable to look at the underlying realities with clear eyes.
So it's with some disappointment that I still find myself floating through social groups full of people who, if they knew I was no longer comfortable with the "liberal" label myself, would suddenly view me with the same narrow-eyed suspicion as they would if told that I donned a white hood and burned crosses at night. But, naturally, I try to keep my mouth shut, for fear of losing friends. Even the most conscientious and centrist conservative viewpoint can seem callous or cruel to a dyed-in-the-wool liberal; how do you discuss landlords' rights with someone who lives in an unpleasant and overpriced apartment, or discuss the Second Amendment with someone who lives down the street from a kid who was killed at school by a classmate who brought his dad's .38 to campus?
I don't have the answer, obviously. If I did, we'd have the Grand Unified Theory of Politics and the way to universal bidirectional dialogue. But there's that unfortunate one-way tendency of politics to contend with, more's the pity. Lots more people spend their childhood reacting positively to the word "liberal" and with distaste toward "conservative" than the other way around. This leads to a profound imbalance in politics and demographics, one that's likely impossible to resolve.
Of course, there's always the contingency of anecdote: I could describe a conservative as "someone who would pull a gun in order to face down a racist", and surely it would short out a few synapses, particular on one of those ever-present people who seem to be absolutely fetishistic about guns, but who viscerally dread the idea of Americans legally allowed to own them. Just as it would ring hollow with someone quoting FDR or Marx for me to point out that American conservatives are the firmest believers in individual liberty, self-determination, and the innovation and technological and social progress that inevitably follows. Danger! Danger! Does not compute. Conservatives are against progress! Why do you think they call it Congress? Taglines don't lie!
But anecdotes can only go so far; there is, unfortunately, the reality that political schisms and prejudices can't be resolved with a well-placed tactical one-liner. The best I can do is to just hope that as these people grow up and find their place in the world, they'll come to realize why it is that half the American political system consists of people who occupy a school of thought that they reflexively think of as evil. Fifty Senators and 240-something Representatives, to say nothing of the highest elected officers and appointed Cabinet positions-- all evil. Never mind the lifetime of thought and philosophy that leads each such politician to such a platform; never mind how much time each one spends each day thinking about how to advance freedom and personal happiness throughout the country and the world, using the proven tools of capitalistic creation of wealth and individual liberty. These must be meaningless three-card-monte shells, pushed forward to hide an ever-present evil agenda and a black, black, corrupt heart.
I have no problem with people being genuinely in favor of those causes one normally associates with "liberal" thinking. Equality, environmental preservation, assistance to the down-at-heel, spiritual freedom, peace-- these are all fine goals. I believe in every one of them, and firmly. However, I also believe that the paths toward them that are so casually espoused by the Left-- equality enforced and over-enforced by fiat, environmental protection through barriers against business, welfare, abolishment of religion, pacifism-- are superficial and short-term semi-solutions that treat the symptoms rather than the causes. That's why I'm no longer comfortable with the term "liberal". I think there are better paths toward these admirable goals, but they're more subtle, or they involve intermediate steps that may seem counterproductive. To have peace, for instance, you can't just not fight; you have to take positive action toward lasting mutual good-will, which can involve things like the overthrow of tyranny-- in other words, war. To bring happiness to the downtrodden, you need to create wealth in the economy, not just dole out the wealth you already have in the hopes that the recipients will somehow be inspired to achievement (or at least become magically happy); and to create jobs, you've got to make your city a favorable place to run a business, not bleed dry anyone stupid enough to set up shop there. To protect the environment, you've got to let businesses become more efficient and less wasteful as a result of their own internal process development, which is in fact in their own interest.
It's a complex world out there, much more complex than it ever seemed when I was peering out the window of my college dorm. It's full of tradeoffs; but it's also managed to survive this long, and those mysterious and shadowy people over on the right who stand for what I always thought of as evil must actually sort of have a point-- because, after all, it's their "conservative" ideals that have kept this country on the amazingly successful track toward all those "liberal" goals, to which we're closer now than ever before in history.
It pains me to think that I'm what so many people whom I like to think of as friends and kindred spirits would think of as evil. But I'm comforted by the thought that there are as many people there whose ideas can and will change over time as there are people who are forever fixated on the worldview they developed from the comfort of a computer chair, disgusted with being unable to see the Golden Arches across the street because of the smog.
Those images are hard to shake, I know. But it's the starkness of what appears to be their truth that is most insidious about them: there is, indeed, more to the picture, and it can only be revealed with time.
|
| Friday, August 29, 2003 |
17:40 - Doesn't exactly trip off the tongue...
http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,95902,00.html
|
(top) |
But I thought they hated us! I thought they'd all posed grinning for photo-ops in April with the soldiers handing out M&Ms, and a month later took up AK-47s to drive out the despised invaders!
An Iraqi couple has named their 6-week-old baby boy George Bush (search) to show their appreciation for U.S. efforts to force Saddam Hussein (search) out of power.
"He saved us from Saddam and that's why we named our son after him," the baby's mother, Nadia Jergis Mohammed, told the Associated Press Television News. "It was George Bush who liberated us; without him it wouldn't have happened."
Baby Bush was born July 11 to Mohammed, 34, and her husband Abdul Kader Faris, 41. His full name is George Bush Abdul Kader Faris Abed El-Hussein.
If the couple had had twin boys, the father wanted to name the other baby Tony Blair (search), because he said both the U.S. and Britain liberated Iraq.
I wonder if anyone in Iraq is naming their daughter Janeane Garofalo?
Just wait, though. The real scoop, the meme that will stick, is this:
As the woman did the interview, little George Bush screamed in his crib.
How very cleverly worded. Someone break out the 24-pack of Pulitzers.
|
|
13:28 - ˇHa! ˇMás!
http://www.imao.us/archives/000958.html#000958
|
(top) |
Frank J. has a list of Fun Facts About Hamas. It's about time someone turned up the satire screws on those turds.
* Hamas is a big part of the "cycle of violence". They blow up innocent men, women, and children, and then Israel is like, "Hey, don't do that." And thus the cycle of violence continues.
And he even thinks Aquaman could kick their asses. That's saying something, for Frank.
|
|
11:41 - <bang> <bang> <bang>
|
(top) |
Do pardon the forehead marks on the table.
So in the ongoing battle against Microsoft's unbelievable lack of proactiveness in fixing that stupid JPEG/RDF/XML/IPTC header bug (wherein MSIE will go into a death spiral if it encounters a JPEG that contains an XMP packet with profile and path information, such as Adobe Photoshop writes), I've hit another snag.
For background:
The long-time Photoshop users said, effectively, "Well, duh, of course there's a difference between Save As and Save For Web". Obvious to you, of course, but based on the people who have been emailing me, saying "Oh, so that's what's wrong with my site!" plenty of folks are actually using the inappropriate save option for web purposes. That's a user behavior problem and I'm not sure what the best solution is for that. Adobe could add warning dialogs until they were blue in the face, but they'd still fall victim to [Frank's First Law of Documentation].
All available information suggests that XMP data is a documented, accepted extension to the jpeg standard. Without any evidence to the contrary, my perception is that Adobe has committed no crime, and the onus is on Microsoft to fix Windows IE's jpeg decoder. Hopefully someone read my bug report. Nobody from MS has contacted me.
In the meantime, what can web developers do to avoid the problem?
Well, first and most obvious, if you are creating static graphics, use Save For Web. And (hopefully you're already doing this) test your site on as many platforms as you can.
For more dynamic sites, such as snapclub.com, which accept jpeg file uploads from arbitrary third-parties, there is at least one solution; ImageMagick's "mogrify" command can be used to remove the metadata from the jpeg like so:
mogrify +profile iptc image.jpg
...Which I've been using for a month or two now. And it's worked great. Or so I'd thought.
See, I was sure I'd checked to make sure that this command didn't recompress the JPEG while it was stripping out the IPTC header. I was sure it left the image quality alone. But several artists have e-mailed me to let me know that no, this is not the case. The mogrify command does in fact recompress the JPEG, at some arbitrary level (probably the default 60). So all the many thousand images that people have been uploading in the past month have all been recompressed to some godawful level. And it's only now that they've got the better of their politeness and notified me of it.
<bang> <bang> <bang>
It hardly bears pointing out that this is Microsoft's problem to fix, and that while this problem is increasingly widespread with the adoption of Photoshop 7 in web design houses, most Windows users don't even notice what happens (namely, that IE abruptly stops being able to open JPEG images, and spins endlessly upon opening pages, until you hard-kill the process or reboot), figure it's "some damn worm or something", and reboot. Certainly nobody's able to trace it back to some "poisoned" image that IE choked on way back during the person's surfing history. And needless to say, there's been a patch made available, but it's so low-key and so little has been made of it (or people are so distrustful of software patches and the Windows Update process) that nobody has apparently installed it.
So I, the web designer, get the blame from those people who do encounter the problem. And Microsoft gets off scot free. Like always.
And I have to write godawful workarounds on the server side to clean up after Microsoft's incompetence. And the tools I have to do that aren't a complete solution, and indeed can be worse than the original problem. So I'm stuck.
I guess I can still mogrify the thumbnails, so at least people won't have their browsers freeze up in the middle of loading a gallery page-- only when they should happen to open one of the offending images. JPEG quality on thumbnails isn't a big issue. And maybe this will be good enough.
God damn I hate those two words.
Thank you again, Microsoft. Hope you're enjoying your Freedom To Innovate™.
By the way... is it just me, or was Microsoft's current slogan written by Yoda? "Hmmm! Do Amazing Things You Can. With Windows XP, Yes!"
UPDATE: Chris Adams has been down this road before, and he has the answer: jpegtran, which is part of libjpeg (a package that ImageMagick has as an installation prerequisite anyway):
jpegtran -copy none -outfile nometa.jpg meta.jpg
And the resulting file has no meta-data and has not been recompressed. Yes!
So all I gotta do is jpegtran all my uploads, then copy the resulting files back over the source files, and all will be well...
|
| Thursday, August 28, 2003 |
16:21 - CUHMLHFWS Covert Ops
http://www.wired.com/news/infostructure/0,1377,60081,00.html
|
(top) |
Damien Del Russo forwards me this guffaw-inducing little gem from the first days of the SoBig storm:
After removing its predecessor MSBlaster, the new worm, which -- just to add to the confusion -- has been dubbed WORM_MSBLAST.D, Nachi and Welchia by various security and antivirus firms, then politely patches the machine against the vulnerability that MSBlaster exploited.
"My computer hasn't been right since it was infected last week," said Nadine Lovell, a Manhattan textile designer. "This afternoon it's working perfectly again."
A scan of Lovell's system confirmed her machine had indeed been infected with the new Blaster variant.
"Thank you, worm!" said Lovell.
Innovative, and amusing-- but somehow it doesn't comfort me that this, the computing equivalent of an entrepreneur innovating his way toward the American Dream, is a lot messier and uglier than Apple's solution, which is to trickle software updates to your machine in the background (if you request it to) and prompt you whenever there's an update ready to be applied. Clean. Centralized. Secure. Friendly.
Makes me feel like such a statist.
|
|
13:23 - Self-parody
http://www.al-shia.com/html/eng/books/miscelleneous/islamic-articles/14089803.html
|
(top) |
This kind of thing really shouldn't be this funny. I wish it weren't. But you know, sometimes the only way to keep from crying is to laugh, right?
Music creates vibration in the body and this is conveyed to all the parts of the body through the nervous system. As a result of it, indigestion occurs. Music affects the heart in such a way that the heartbeats becomes irregular. The blood pressure goes awry. All such ailments make a person permanently ill. Consequently, even the modern medical science, in spite of its astonishing progress, fails in such a situation. Sometimes, the music is so intense that the listener loses his sanity. He becomes dumb and various kinds of mental diseases occur. In places, where music is more prevalent, we find that there are more neurotic illnesses. It is for this reason that most of the mental hospitals are to be found in Europe and America.
Dr. Adlen writes against music, "Even though it seems pleasant, the effect of music is profound upon the nervous system. Specially, when the temperature is high, the ill-effect of music is more. This is the reason that ill-effects of music are more in the hot areas of Iran and Saudi Arabia. The American people are so disgusted with the bane of music that they have united to demand from the senate a permanent ban on music. It is a pity that the whole world perceives the evils of music yet is adopting it as entertainment."
The Islamic world will be reformed when they have their own equivalent of the Onion. One that they do intend as parody.
|
|
11:49 - Now that's a testimonial
http://www.smoking-monkey.com/Jesus.htm
|
(top) |
Sure does explain a lot of the world, don't it?
(Thanks to Capt. J.M. Heinrichs.)
|
|