Cheney and the Agnew strategy

I have a vague memory that Nixon once said that Agnew was his primary defense against impeachment. When Ford replaced Agnew Nixon was a goner.

Molly Ivins isn't interested in impeaching Bush. For one thing:

WorkingForChange-Wreckage of the Bush administration

...I believe Dick Cheney is seriously off the rails, apparently deeply paranoid -- let's not put him in charge....

Saying Cheney is insane is the kind of thing we bloggers do. Molly Ivins is a veteran journalist; about as veteran as one can be these days. I doubt she tossed that line off without some thought, and some background evidence.

Cheney is too old to develop paranoid schizophrenia. He has, however, had several episodes of cardiac bypass, and he's not a young man. It's conceivable that he could have developed an organic brain syndrome with paranoid features -- partly due to his age, partly due to preexisting temperament, and partly due to the cumulative neurotrauma of several stints on bypass.

So it's an interesting question. Is Cheney truly fundamentally impaired, perhaps more severely than Reagan was by his early Alzheimer's Disease? Is anyone else saying this?

Hmmm. I wonder there's any legal maneuver one could use to expose a disabling condition in the VP ...

Exxon is pro-CO2

Exxon has been spending too much time at the tailpipe: New Ads Funded by Big Oil Portray Global Warming Science as Smear Campaign Against Carbon Dioxide.

Maybe Exxon is just trying to help out depressed cartoonists. The Onion should be able to smack this one out of the park.

My Lai, without the heroes

I'd read of this before, but now the official story is emerging. US troops murdered about 15 Iraqis, including a 3 yo child, in a crazed revenge for the unrelated death of a marine. My Lai in other words, but so far we don't have the equivalent of the American heroes that protected some of the Vietnamese villagers.

War crime.

Wicked. Friedman humbled.

Tom Tomorrow excerpts a set of Tom Friedman quotes on Iraq. Ouch. He's turned so many corners he's lapped himself. It's a good thing he's got a healthy ego ...

Galloway on Rumsfeld

Joe Galloway, a senior and respected military correspondent rips into Rumsfeld and his lackeys. It's a good rant from a very military perspective, but I particularly appreciated his "PS":

Defense Tech: Galloway Goes for the Throat

PS: those [tens of thousands of soldiers in fixed garrisons in germany who could not deploy] were called VII Corps in the Persian Gulf War. they deployed. they formed the armored spear that penetrated kuwait and broke the republican guard. the garrisons were guarded, while they were gone, by the german army and police. they would have been so guarded in OIF too had we tried a bit of diplomacy instead of bitch-slapping Old Europe as your boss did at a crucial moment.

We haven't called enough attention to Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld's macho pissing on the Europeans prior to the invasion of Iraq. It was completely pointless. Even if the Bushies were going to ignore the Europeans, there were plenty of ways to do that calmly and without burning bridges. It was a leading indicator of the massive incompetence that lay ahead. I remember the sinking feeling I got when they did that. That's when I realized that however strong the case might have been to invade Iraq (turns out it was a faked case), Bush et al were the wrong team to do it.

The history of invasion by immigrants

Orcinus has assembled a 100 year history of American immigration scares. It's a good reference and a guide to what we can expect from the right wing.

It doesn't change my opinion on immigration though. I'm reserving judgment until I see more data on how it affects low wage earners. For now I think we ought to look at what Canada has done to get a big economic boost out of immigration. Canadian immigrants are not taking low wage jobs, they are selected for entrepreneurial behaviors and they create jobs at all wage ranges.

Java on the server, AJAX on the client

I'd blogged earlier about how Netscape and Sun fought to the death over a way to rich web clients, while Microsoft stole the prize.

Today the battle has been rejoined. Google has released their Java based (server) AJAX Framework. The Slashdot reviews are basically favorable.

Wow. We could have done a LOT with this 6 years ago. Today's independent small development shops now have some very powerful tools, tools that may deliver the vision that Sun and Netscape destroyed. Microsoft cannot be happy today.

Google does so do lock-in. Fool.

The Economist needs a CPU upgrade. They're not only channelling the Wall Street Journal's moronic editorial pages, they're completely mangling the most important concept of modern business -- lock-in:

Information technology | Is Google the new Microsoft? | Economist.com

... Try to avoid using Microsoft's software for a day, particularly if you work in an office, and you will have difficulty; but surviving a day without Google is relatively easy. It has strong competitors in all the markets in which it operates: search, online advertising, mapping, software services, and so on. Large firms such as Yahoo!, which previously farmed searches out to Google, have switched to other technologies. Google's market share in search has fallen from a high of around 80% to around 50% today. Perhaps the clearest evidence that Google's continued dominance is not inevitable is the fate of AltaVista, the former top dog in internet search. Who remembers it today?

Without a proprietary lock-in to protect its dominant position, Google will have to work hard to stay on top.

Anyone try changing an email address lately? Move one's blog from blogger? Switch from Gmail? Google is far more open than Yahoo! or AOL (they support POP transfers from the mailbox), but it's not like you can move a 1 GB image repository from Picasa to Flickr in a keystroke. Data ownership is a far bigger lock-in than mere software UI. Just ask any corporation running SAP.

In any case Microsoft's lock-in was never Word (really), it was .doc. That's an immensely important difference.

How can The Economist miss something as fundamental as this?

There's a lot more to this topic than I can discuss in a few moments, but here's an exercise for the reader. Describe how the following items relate to lock-in and how a manufacturer can obsolete a product they seem not to control ... (hint. Stop making the stylus.)

1. Apple's new magnetic power cord attachment.
2. Any proprietary battery for any device.
3. Any charger for a device.
4. Any patented connector. (Think iPod connector.)
5. Any stylus or any other non-generic consummable that gets lost or broken.

For extra credit note that Apple's lock-in is not merely the FairPlay DRM, it's that nothing but an iPod can sync with iTunes.

Update 5/17: Hey, is the Guardian reading my blog?

... Received wisdom says there's no lock-in on the web, with rival search engines just a click away. But if you develop a Google search habit, and Google has your email and address book, calendar, news feeds, bookmarks (in Notebook), back-up files (in Gdrive, soon) and other data (in Base), and if it handles your voice calls, organises your photos and so on, then you're going to find it increasingly tedious to switch. That's the idea.

Seriously, Jack Schofield must have written this independently of me, but it is noteworthy that The Guardian has pipped The Economist. And not for the first time. Jack has a blog btw, which I've added to my bloglines list.

The power of Google and Wikipedia

I recalled that an evolutionary biologist of some sort had once used an exotic word from architecture to describe something in biology. What was the word?

I cheated. My wife remembered Stephen Jay Gould's name, but nothing about the term -- though I'd have found his name easily enough on Google.

A Google search on him suggested Wikipedia. Wikipedia had the term:

Stephen Jay Gould - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:

...use of the architectural word 'spandrel' in an evolutionary context, using it to mean a feature of an organism that exists as a necessary consequence of other features and not built piece by piece by natural selection...

Of course it's easy to then research spandrel. This must all seem mundane to young-uns, but it's still miraculous to me.

Manipulating memory by photo display - unexpected results

An experiment I began a year ago has had some unexpected results:

Gordon's Notes: Happiness is a selective memory - manipulating memory for good and for profit

My approach to creating a selectively-false and happy set of memories is a large collection of family photos that cycle across our array of computer displays. These leverage the principle of selective reinforcement of memory -- given two proximate events, unbalanced reinforcement of one will decrease retrieval of the second. It as though as one memory grows it usurps the foundation of its "neighbor" memories. In this experiment the happy photos selectively blur away all other events.

Truth is fundamentally overrated in our current universe.

It turns out there's a reason humans don't look at old photo albums all that often. I have now thousands of family related images spanning about 100 years that cycle, at various times, on up to 5 displays. I find that images that are older than about 1-2 years, which is roughly the memory range that I live in, are often unsettling. For the children, 6 months is about the limit.

Even edited for happy events, the pictures show beloved pets that are gone, loved ones that are gone, friendships that have sundered, children that are now different (too quickly), our younger prettier selves.. It all it is a richness of living that we cannot truly contain, we are not "made" to remember...

It feels all too much like a source of wisdom, and I have a considerable fear of wisdom (the price seems always high). It seems to enforce a perspective I otherwise lack, and changes my thinking ...

And yet I am addicted to it. I will likely add tens of thousands of additional legacy images over the next few years ...

Unexpected results indeed!

Screening for berry aneurysms -- genomics

My PubMed RSS, embedded in Bloglines, continues to work beautifully.

Today's harvest from a month of fishing included 19 articles on Berry aneurysms. Much of the new activity is in identifying genes that predispose to forming berry aneurysms. As well as furthering the understanding of the disorder, it suggests that we may one day be able to identify persons at risk for subarachnoid hemorrhage and thus screen them by MRI. Whether this will add anything to our current screening criteria (two first degree relatives with SAH or BA) remains to be seen.

Biology of aging: telomeres predict your age

Fascinating: FuturePundit: Telomeres Wear Down Quicker In Men Than Women. It will be interesting to apply these techniques to different breeds of dog (age at different rates) and to identify slow aging humans. It will also be interesting to study middle-aged animals over a period of 1-2 years. I think we'll find that telomere erosion occurs in "bursts" rather than as a continuous process. The old saw about "he aged 10 years in a night" will turn out to be somewhat true. Then we'll study the mechanism of "aging bursts" and identify interventions.

Open source Java and a classic strategic blunder

Sun, a company with 3.98 extremities in the grave, finally makes an interesting move. They claim they'll open up Java, giving away one of their gems (Java is still important on servers).

Chief Says Sun Plans to Offer Open-Source Version of Java - New York Times

One of his first appearances since taking the helm of the struggling company three weeks ago, the executive, Jonathan Schwartz, told a gathering of software developers here that Sun viewed open-source software as a major part of its turnaround strategy...

It's unlikely to save Sun, but at least a part of their legacy might live on. Sun is following the path of the 1970s computer hardware companies that once ringed the twin cities -- shrinking and becoming a "services" company.

The story reminds me of one of the great strategic blunders of the 1990s. Netscape and Sun fought bitterly over who'd deliver "thicker client" capabilities to the browser. Netscape had an Ajax-like vision of JavaScript (no relation to Java) and enhanced markup with session management (not sure whether they had the asynchronous model though). Sun wanted everything, including the browser to run in a Java Runtime Engine. Actually, they wanted the browser to go away.

Meanwhile Microsoft, in one of Gates' most brilliant and ruthless moves, blew away all of its old software strategy and embraced, extended, and corrupted both the browser and Java. Gates is an evil force for computer geeks like me, but there's no denying his strategic brilliance. Nobody could shoot their own horse like Gates in his prime.

Sun destroyed Java on the Windows desktop with an unending series of tiny updates -- each of which destroyed a generation of installed software. Sometimes there were unmarked incompatible versions!

Sun delivered a second fatal shot when instead of building a cache solution for applets they persisted in a ridiculous vision of ubiquitous high speed computing. Applets should always be instantly available. Oh, and forget version control.

In the meantime, Microsoft sprinted while Netscape and Sun fought like psychotic wolverines.

Sun and Netscape destroyed one another. A classic lesson in strategic incompetence. Bottom line -- never forget that the 'enemy of my enemy is my friend'. It's better to take half of a trillion dollar market than nothing at all ...

100 years: likelihood of human survival

Pharyngula writes:

Pharyngula: The Seed Crystal Ball:

Our Seed Overlords have submitted yet another question to their blogulous oracle, i.e., us: Will the "human" race be around in 100 years?

I don't think it's a particularly good question, I'm afraid. The answer is simply "yes". If the question were about prairie chickens, cheetahs, or chimpanzees, it would be a more challenging question, but with a population of 6.5 billion of us, I don't think there's much doubt. We'll be here. The only question is what state we and the world will be in. I'll speculate a bit on possible outcomes.

To which someone responds (comments):

... 100 years is now a very LONG time. In terms of the accelerating rates of change in our de facto environment (which is technological and increasingly virtual) it's probably equivalent to 30,000 years of pre-10K BCE living.

I can't imagine any ecosystem catastrophe that would wipe out humans. So the options are:

1. Wild tech: Gray-Goo nano disaster, some weird vaccum energy thingie, etc. I'd put these all down as unlikely.

2. Engineered plague: A pimply 15 yo in southern China is upset by social rejection and engineers a virus using his home biotech kit that wipes out humanity. I'd put this at 20% when you consider all the folks that might try this.

3. AI: If we ever did produce a sentient AI, and if it turned out that 'intelligence' scaled to an IQ of, say, 100,000, then all bets are off on everything. I'd put that down as a 40% probability over a course of 100 years.

Since we have to survive both 2 and 3 to make the 100 year mark I'd say:

.8 * .6 = .48 or less than a 50% survival probability.

PS. The Fermi Paradox (aka the great silence) is not comforting here.

The surveillance society: Us and Them

The surveillanace society. It's about "us" and "them". Arkin says this well.

Early Warning by William M. Arkin - washingtonpost.com

... The government's position is that if you are "innocent," you have nothing to hide. It is a new version of 'you are either with us or against us.' Massive monitoring is of course meant to find terrorists; I completely believe that this is not some 1960's enemies list politically motivated effort. But these post 9/11 programs signal a new and different problem.

People of Middle Eastern and South Asian descent and Muslims are potential terrorists, machine selected as "of interest."

Throw in there callers and travelers to Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, recipients of wire transfers, purchasers of fertilizer, flight school attendees. These are the new guilty until proven innocent.

Innocent means of course mostly white, mostly Christian Americans who accept that the government knows best and that the national security state is only after the bad guys and would never apply its new found capacities in any illegitimate way.

The government and its new seamless surveillance culture are build ing a digital dividing line, even in our own society. The assumption is one of an enemy in our midst.

The government's failure to provide for domestic tranquility and basic security in our homes is rewarded by more power for the government; "innocent" Americans are increasingly primed and frightened to accept that greater government surveillance is required by the realities of infiltration, ceding even more power. It is as much a way of thinking as it is a way of life...

I wired cash to my sister in Canada a few months ago. I was electonically interrogated to match me and my transaction to an identify database entry. For all I know that alone added me to a watch list - at least added a few points to my Threat Score. This is how it goes now. Everything you do now, you can justifiably ask yourself -- will this put me on The List?

Just being Muslim may take you halfway to The List. Supporting Greenpeace might add some points too. Who you know, who your family knows ...

Being a white evangelical right wing Bush supporter will tend to keep you off The List.

Anyone remember the internment of the Japanese-Americans? That was about 63 years ago; I have a rather good book at home that was self-published by a child caught up in that despicable American mistake. I wonder if one of the forty remaining journalists in America might be troubled to interview a survivors of that time...

There's an election coming. How you vote will matter, again (sigh).