...more recent posts
Andrew Tyndall tirelessly tracks network news broadcasts, publishing a weekly newsletter, The Tyndall Report, with an exhaustive breakdown of minutes of coverage given to all major stories. Plus some quick analysis. Especially interesting now, I think.
Last one for now. Just something to remember:
"I believe demolishing Hussein's military power and liberating Iraq would be a cakewalk."
Dick Cheney, "Meet the Press", March 16, 2003
Can anyone find a definitive link establishing the validity of this quote? (I'm sure it's accurate, I just want a link.) I'm looking too. I'll report back any findings.
[update: I believe this quote is not accurate. Discussion inside.]
I have no time for this today. Lots of work to do. But I hope to say something soon about the phrase "weapons of mass destruction" and, to a lesser extent, the term "terrorism." These two terms are very dangerous because they are much in use right now, and yet they both appear to have no meaning.
If I was editor of this website I'd assign Bruno with the linguistic backgrounder on these terms - both their use and misuse - and Frank with the (L.R.J influenced) piece on the danger of words with no meanings. Of course I wield no such power, so you'll have to suffer through my no doubt inferior take on these matters.
As soon as I get a few moments.
Sounds like the beginning of the end for Rumsfeld.
I was wondering when this story would hit. I think this is the "real" reason for the war. I've tried to make this argument in private and it's been, ummm, not well received. And while this article certain doesn't settle any questions, I'm glad to see it getting some air.
Effectively, the normal standards of economics have not applied to the US, because of the international role of the dollar. Some $3 trillion (£1,880 billion) are in circulation around the world helping the US to run virtually permanent trade deficits. Two-thirds of world trade is dollar-denominated. Two-thirds of central banks' official foreign exchange reserves are also dollar-denominated.Iraq is the only major oil exporter to clear their sales in Euros. Iran is reportedly "contemplating" a switch. There is a much longer paper about this subject. I'll dig up the link.
Dollarisation of the oil markets is one of the key drivers for this, alongside, in recent years, the performance of the US economy. The majority of countries that require oil imports require dollars to pay for their fuel. Oil exporters similarly hold, as their currency reserve, billions in the currency in which they are paid. Investing these petrodollars straight back into the US economy is possible at zero currency risk.
So the US can carry on printing money - effectively IOUs - to fund tax cuts, increased military spending, and consumer spending on imports without fear of inflation or that these loans will be called in. As keeper of the global currency there is always the last-ditch resort to devaluation, which forces other countries' exporters to pay for US economic distress. It's probably the nearest thing to a 'free lunch' in global economics.
Gary Hart has started a weblog. He's running Movable Type, and comments and trackback are on. Whoa. Is it really him?
To further this undertaking, I am starting a blog here on www.garyhartnews.com. The Internet is clearly the most important new medium to help increase people's involvement in a "primary of ideas." It's an amazing tool for people to share ideas, talk about their concerns and their dreams, and debate the many important policy ideas that will affect our country's future.
The Williamsburg bridge is closed in both directions. Lots of helicopters in the air. This is one block from my apartment. Not sure what is happening.
Richard Perle has resigned.
Interesting Reuters piece: A retired Yugoslavian army officer who claims to have helped construct Saddam's underground bunkers, says they can withstand a 20 kiloton blast.
Fazlic said underground concrete fortresses were built by the former Yugoslav military in the cities of Baghdad, Mosul, Kirkuk, Basra and Nassiriya after Iraqi officials toured similar facilities in former Yugoslavia.
"We also built the so-called "zero," "P" and "C" types of bunkers which were smaller and meant for the military, communications centers and so on but can also resist heavy bombardment and longer isolation," he said.
Fazlic said he took part in the building of more than a dozen underground bunkers in former Yugoslavia which was then led by late President Josip Broz Tito, who had warm relations with Saddam Hussein.
"We built all of these facilities in Iraq because they liked what they saw here," Fazlic said, citing a large bunker dug into a mountain near the southern Bosnian town of Konjic that was meant for the former Yugoslav government in case of war.
NJ Governor James E. McGreevey and Sid Caspersen, New Jersey's director of the office of counter-terrorism, indicated in a press conference that if the U.S. moves to code red citizens will be required to stay inside their houses.
This according to the Courier Post Online.
If the nation escalates to "red alert," which is the highest in the color-coded readiness against terror, you will be assumed by authorities to be the enemy if you so much as venture outside your home, the state's anti-terror czar says.In addition, Supreme Court Justice Anthony Scalia recently said, in public, that the government has room to scale back individual rights during wartime without violating the Constitution. "The Constitution just sets minimums," Scalia said. "Most of the rights that you enjoy go way beyond what the Constitution requires."
Supposedly Tom Brokaw will have a 'blogs and war' segment in first half of NBC nightly news this evening.
I'm dedicated to not watching the world so closely today.
Especially the super scary stuff about North Korea cutting off contact with the U.S. and U.N., and also threatening to nuke Japan if the Japanese go ahead with their planned launch of a spy satellite this week.
Iraq continues to put up resistence. Sean-Paul at the agonist is reporting (unsourced) that CENTCOM (U.S. central command) is reporting that the Iraqis mounted a counter offensive on U.S. armored divisions south of Baghdad. This attack was - again, of course, supposedly - quickly repelled. But still, that's some crazy shit to try.
Possibly they are emboldened by the destruction of 2 M1/A1 Abrams main battle tanks. This is a much bigger deal then the number (2) would indicate. In fact, it's the first time this tank has ever been destroyed by enemy fire. The Israelis went through something similar this passed year when 2 of their "invincible" tanks were destroyed in the West Bank. Two tanks (out of hundreds) doesn't matter, but psychologically it's got to hurt. We didn't think they had weapons that could do it - and quite obviously they do. Some speculate the Russian connection, but I don't think there is any evidence at this point.
Still no word from Basra, but I'll be surprised if the British don't go in, in force, sometime today.
I'm completely stealing this idea from someone I won't name, but I think it's worth throwing out there. Probably I'm getting it a little wrong, but here goes.
First, assume the U.S. knows that Saudi Arabia is going to fall (sooner or later, but probably sooner.)
Assume that the war in Iraq is largely to secure enough oil in preparation for this eventuality.
The idea is that we take Baghdad and the oil fields in the north. We pump this oil out through Turkey.
And we let Iran take the south and those oil fields. Maybe we pretend to protest at this, maybe not. But the point is, we will use Iran as a buffer between our northern occupation, and the scary fundamentalist regime that will have sprung up in Saudi Arabia.
I find this to be a very compelling theory.
Still no real news. The story, at the moment, seems to be Basra. Is there an "uprising?" There are rumors, but not much more. You can be sure that reporters will be rushed in if we do secure the city, so that clearly hasn't happened yet. Either we go in soon, or there will be a humanitarian disaster, as the million plus residents have been without electricity and water since Sunday. That is very bad, and it would appear that time is essentially up. We have to move on Basra immediately.
But without an uprising from inside the city British forces tasked with capturing the city will either lose a lot of men, or inflict huge casualties on the civilian population they are supposedly liberating, or both. But they can't just stand outside the city and watch a million people die.
And Basra was supposed to be easy. The first photo op of the war. Gulp.
The other story is the 4th Infantry Division. My understanding (I'm just getting up to speed on the all the military nomenclature) is that this is the group that would have come through Turkey, but since they weren't allowed they sailed through the Suez on their way around to Kuwait. (I understand they are not on the ships, just their mechanized equipment - they'll be dropped where ever the machinery is unloaded.)
There are 3 U.S. divisions closing in on Baghdad. One from the West of the Euphrates, one just east of the Euphrates, and one along the Tigris. But these soldiers have been fighting for many days and need a rest. Also, they need to be resupplied. The 4th (and maybe more) is apparently necessary to shore up these troops before the big fight can begin.
Supposedly it will be at least Saturday or Sunday before the 4th can join the fight coming up from Kuwait. But there are two other wild cards:
- the many unconfirmed reports of Turkish troops coming over the boarder are actually misidentified U.S. troops. Somehow we cut a deal with the Turkish military and they are letting the 4th through against the expressed wishes of the government.
- the ships with the 4th's gear have secretly landed at Al Aqabah on the Red Sea in Jordan instead of sailing all the way around the peninsula to Kuwait. From here they will cross Jordan and materialize out of the western Iraqi desert to join the fight on Baghdad. This would be Gen. Frank's wild card surprise move.
My money is on the second possibility, but it's still going to be many days before we have enough strength around Baghdad to start the fight. I say Friday at the earliest (with the surprise Jordan route,) or Sunday at the very earliest if they do go all the way around. And it could even be longer. It's a long way around that penninsula (Here's a general map of the region; here's one of Jordan.)
So we wait. Watch what the British do in Basra. And continue our psy ops in an effort to get Iraqi generals to turn on Saddam. This is really our only plan, as far as I can see. Try to draw some RG divisions out into the open where we can crush them, showing our massive fire power - while working back channels to try and get someone inside to off Sadam. Maybe keep this up for a week? Two weeks?
Only when it is clear that Sadam will not be taken out from inside do we launch the assualt on Baghdad. I guess at that point we'll find out if they are going to use chemical or biological or radialogical weapons. If they do then I have no idea what will happen. If they stay conventional, then we go in and slug it out. Most likely amazingly bloody. Huge Iraqi casualties - many tens to hundreds of thousands. Thousands of U.S. and British casualties.
But eventually we will take the city. And then the really hard part starts: keeping the country together. Ugh. Enough for now.
The Agonist keeps going after a bandwidth crunch yesterday afternoon. Supposedly had 90,000 hits yesterday, but no explanation of what that means (raw server requests? page loads? unique visitors?) There was a mention of him in the NYT today that I haven't seen yet, so I'll assume that number is going way up today. Maybe in the Wall St. Journal as well? He is doing a great job, but at a certain point his model will break down.
Jorn is in the comments, and I saw at least one posting with advice on reducing bandwidth. I couldn't agree more. The page is freakin' huge (over 120k!) I think he should get rid of the graphics and put all the side links on a secondary 'links' page, and reduce the length of the page to just the last three posts. That would get the page size down to around 12k.
Instead, he's going with mirrors (i.e., duplicating the site onto other servers and encouraging people to hit the mirrors instead of the main site.) But this won't work because the reason people are reading him is for up to the minute (second) news, and the mirrors are lagging in time. So what's the point?
In any case, this is the most important blog story ever, I think, and I hope he is able to stay up under the load.
Remarkable lack of information coming from the battle field. That's the only story for the last 12 hours.
Where can I watch oil and gold prices? Any links?
If you've got the war info monkey on your back, and debka just isn't doing it for you (where are the updates? Come on! It's not like we expect it to be true...) you can take a stab at this - at first glance - even less credible source from Russia: aeronautics.ru. That front page doesn't really get you into it. Start here for the 03/23/03 update - especially if you're reading this in anything like war time real time.
Most of their reports seem to rely on "intercepted U.S. military comunications". This seems unlikely to me given the theoretical ease of use of high quality encryption. I'm sure the military is using such non trivial encryption. Still, this page would seem to be some sort of explanation about how these military intercepts are possible - and thus, by inference, how they might have information not available otherwise.
Yeah, OK, I'll take what I can get.
I can't really analyze this information. It doesn't seem obviously wrong like so much encryption industry marketing. But I can't really tell. This part, for instance, "sounds" potentially correct to me, in the sense that this is usually how codes actually are cracked:
However, security afforded by frequency-hopping methods is very dependant on the strict adherence to protocols for operating such radios. The US troops and other operators of frequency-hopping radio sets frequently disregard these protocols. An example would be an artillery unit passing digital traffic in the frequency-hopping mode, which would enable an unauthorized listener to determine the frequency-hopping algorithm and eavesdrop on the transmission.Anyway, like I say, more junk for the junkie.
So far the US was unable to destroy the air defense networks in central Iraq. As before, the Iraqis continue to covertly use their radars and SAM launchers on a limited bases while employing a huge number of decoys designed to imitate radars.This plays into the top unconfirmed story I've been following. Are there Russian technicians on the ground in Baghdad (sorry for the possibly non-direct wapo link) training the Iraqi's in the use of GPS jamming equipment? And maybe more?
Pure speculation. But what else do we have?
I've mentioned AKMA, the highest profile theologian blogger, a few times before. Here's an interesting email exchange between him and Stewart Butterfield. Stewart is part of Ludicorp which is creating The Game Neverending, a massive multiplayer online role playing game (MMORPG.) He is looking for AKMA's advise on how religion should work in their virtual world.
Anti-war march thread. I'll post in the comments here if I can get a signal on my mobile. Others should feel free to do the same.
These are some complex and distracting times. The television assault is mind numbing. The repitition of certain phrases and images wears you down. But it's important to keep trying to think critically. Having to write about it helps.
If you've been following along here you know I got some, uh, negative feedback. I'm surprised this hadn't happened before. Probably the best response is no response ("don't feed the trolls") but of course I appreciate the supportive comments even while hoping they don't egg on our new friend. I'd perfer him to be one of those friends you don't ever have to spend any time with.
As I said before, I'm sure my position is infuriating to many. But my feeling is that I am not actually in opposition to these people. I mean, even though they think I am. For instance, I believe Sadam is a bad guy. I believe the world will be a better place with him removed from power. I would myself, under certain conditions, participate in a military action.
So what's the beef? I think the problem is that the excitement of war narrows people's focus. The barrage of television coverage allows some to forget that this situation is embedded inside a larger global situation, and the consequences of our actions in Iraq will travel far beyond that country. Do we want Sadam gone? Of course. Will we do anything to get that result? I, for one, don't think so.
Consider (and I don't mean to make light of the situation): If an asteroid struck the earth killing all life, that would remove Sadam from power. But obviously people don't want that to happen. I make this extreme case on purpose, just to establish that we wouldn't do just anything to accomplish our goals. Some courses of action are too costly. While the present situation is much more complex then my extreme example, I think that this present campaign is also too costly. My point with the asteroid is just to show that calculating costs like this is necessary. The gung ho "whatever it takes" attitude is obviously wrong in some cases, and so the debate should be going on as to whether this is one of those cases.
The cost is the destruction of the global framework of cooperation among countries that has been represented by the UN. In other words, the cost is the destruction of fraternity among the people of the world. The cost is the isolation of the U.S. from the concerns of all mankind.
I consider myself a patriot. But maybe there should be a new term? I don't know. I know I differ from many who call themselves patriots, and I think I know the difference. Some so called patriots would place the interests of the United States above the interest of all foreign individuals and nations. This made sense at a certain point in the past. But today, with the U.S.'s overwhelming military and economic power, we have a new responsibility. Perhaps a responsibility that no other nation has ever had to shoulder. The responsibility to look out for the interests, not just of ourselves, but of the whole world.
This will take great sacrifice. And great complexity of thought. But we are strong enough to do it. Unfortunately, our present government doesn't seem to have much interest in this. Isolationists to begin with, I think they were so scared (either personally or politically) by 9/11 that they vowed to protect this country "at all costs." But again, some people need to continue to think critically, and point out that some costs are indeed too high. Especially when your country is the undisputed leader of the world, and as such cannot morally think only of ourselves.
I think we should immediately stop this war. Our leaders should step down or be impeached. (I don't really care if they are prosecuted for war crimes, but probably they could be.) And then a new government should be elected, and we should begin the long difficult process of rebuilding our global alliances. Rebuilding the work in progress that is/was international law.
And then we should return - as a unified world - to the question of dangerous rouge regimes everywhere. We should attack these problems diplomatically, and where that doesn't work, with a global force sanctioned through international law. Is this road more difficult then "going it alone"? Yes. Much. But that is no argument against doing it.
Let's be strong.
I'm off to the protest. Maybe I'll see you there.
If you want to know what the big media news guys (CNN, MSNBC, etc...) are reporting without actually watching them, you can tune into The Agonist.
Hopefully his wife won't kill him.
[update: Here's the Monday 3.24 link - I'll keep this at the top of the left hand column from now on.]
[update: Here's the Sunday 3/23 link]
[update: Here's the Saturday 3/22 link]
Quick low bandwidth Iraq headlines at a glance from the BBC. No links. No analysis. No fluff.
[Update: the BBC is changing the link every day. Here it is for Friday 3/21/03.]
[double update - updated link fixed - thanks Tom!]
I posted this some time ago, but I'll mention it again: a blog from baghdad.
Debka is breaking news that nobody else has. This makes it hard to confirm, but in my opinion they have a very good track record. That doesn't mean that I trust them.
Apparently the invasion has started. Not with a massive bombing campaign, but with a lightning blitz of heavy armor rolling north from Kuwait towards the southern oil fields (which they claim have been surrounded for a month by U.S. special forces.)
And supposedly deputy prime minister Tareq Aziz has defected and is in U.S. hands. And Vice President Taha Yassin Ramadan has not been seen in Baghdad for three days, and is suspected of having defected as well.
"[B]ut if I were a betting man, I'd wager that kottke.org and I will be around for a 50th anniversary post. Stay tuned!"
Of course I'm not a lawyer, so it may be stupid to analyze something like this. But even to my untrained eye this looks like a complete sham. So I'm going to give it a go.
Here is the 9 step argument from U.K. Attorney General Lord Goldsmith, laying out the case for why an invasion of Iraq is legal under international law. Note that Lord Goldsmith was saying thought to believe as late as yesterday Wednesday March 12 that an invasion without a second (second to 1441) security council resolution would be illegal.
You've got to keep your eye on the ball here. To me the interesting thing is that, while he mentions resolution 1441 in 5 of the 9 points of his argument, a close reading reveals that 1441 plays no real role in the argument itself. Strange. Why mention it so much then?
The main point is number 8: "Thus, the authority to use force under resolution 678 has revived and so continues today." The problem here is with the '[t]hus'. One would think this 'thus' refers to, and builds upon, the previous point which is that Iraq is in material breach of 1441. Unfortunately this doesn't follow, even according to his argument.
Look closely at the very careful wording of point number 7: "It is plain that Iraq has failed so to comply and therefore Iraq was at the time of resolution 1441 and continues to be in material breach." Note that the material breach he is refering to cannot be of 1441, because he says that Iraq is already in material breach "at the time of resolution 1441."
What he means is that Iraq is in material breach of 687 and this is what revives the use of force granted in 678, thus making the war legal. But then why all this talk of 1441?
Try this: read the argument again, but throw out points 4, 5, 6, and 9 and add the following phrase to the end of 7: "of resolution 687."
I think this shorter version is actually his argument, and it may well be correct. I don't know. But I can see linguistically, and logically, that it sure doesn't depend on 1441 in any way. So this begs the question (again,) why put in so much about it?
Well, to distract us of course. Both from the fact that 1441 doesn't authorize force (even if Iraq is in material breach,) and also from the fact that Bush and Blair both held up material breach of 1441 as being the reason for military action. So as not to confuse the public they are trying to fool, he has to make it sound like a breach of 1441 is the reason for war (thus the tricky 'thus' in 8 which would seem to refer to 1441 in point 7, but doesn't really) while still make a legally sound case for war (which would have to hinge on a resolution that actually authorizes force - like 678.)
I'll leave aside the fact that the rather bald factual assertion implicit in number 7 - that Iraq has not eliminated its weapons of mass destruction - is nowhere backed up with any facts. It's merely given as "plain." Uh huh. Isn't this precisely what the UN inspectors were trying to ascertain?
I'm searching for, and would love to find, actual knowledgeable commentary on this obviously technical matter. Pointers welcome.
Fun bits from the Daily Koss coverage of the California Democratic Party's annual conference:
But then Edwards spoke in support of the Iraq war and all hell broke loose. The entire convention hall resonated in boos, the crowd chanting "no war! No war!" It was an amazing sight, and Edwards seemed a bit taken aback. Jerome thought it looked like '68. Edwards recovered with a line about Ashcroft, but the damage was done. The 20 or so brave souls waving Edwards signs were suddenly radioactive.And on the Dean speech:
But the most amazing part was the finale, with a fiery Dean pounding the podium:Note, of course, that CDP crowds probably don't track with the viewpoints of a majority of voters. Even democratic voters. Still.I want my country back!When Dean uttered this last line, the whole place went nuts. Utter pandemonium....
I don't want to listen to fundamentalist preachers anymore!
From the undisclosed location department: OK, I admit it, we snuck out of town last night. We're holed up at the secret Long Island headquarters. Be heading back in a few hours. Also, sort of pleasantly, my cell phone doesn't work here. But email is firing and jabber is on.
Kevin Sites is a CNN reporter on the ground in the Iraq region. He's been contributing blog like reports which have been posted intermittently on boing boing. But now he has his own page where he is audblogging (a service which allows you to post audio to your blog from any phone) from his satellite phone.
I can't find the link now, but I read yesterday that the U.S. military has warned the press that any satellite phone connections they sense from the battlefield will be immediately targeted. Yikes! I better find the link because that sounds a little hard to believe. But anyway, my point is that I don't know how well he'll do once the war (officially) starts. I don't think this is going to let him break any real information. But it's a pretty exciting read (and listen) right now.
This is really starting to bug me. Safari won't load google.com. I'm using version .64 although I believe it's always been this way. And, of course, it isn't really necessary because there is a google search bar built right into the browser. If I type my search there it will immediately load the results page from google. But I can't load the blank google front page and perform a search from there.
Hmmm. Since I know google has no javascript or other fancy weirdness on their page I'm inexorably drawn to the rather conspiratorial conclusion that Apple built it this way to force you to use the bulit in search field. Could this be true? Are they (either Apple, Google, or some combination) collecting search histories the way google does with the installable (on internet explorer) google bar? I mean, and not telling us?
I won't be happy if this turns out true. In fact I'll be very unhappy. And I'll switch immediately back to Camino. (I'm sure Cupertino is quaking at that threat.) But maybe there is a more reasonable explanation? Anyone?
Looks like there is water flowing on the surface of Mars. At least occasionally. Wow. We'll need some confirmation on this, but it sounds like they're pretty sure.
I hope we do a better job interacting with alien life then we're doing interacting with each other down here. Maybe we can learn something from the caution (and respect) that will be necessary. Even where we are just meeting an itinerant brackish water dwelling bacteria...
Frog Design and Motorolla have teamed up to produce some amazing wearable computing prototypes.
Yes please.
Well, his message is getting through. Salon has an introductory piece on the "there's enough bandwidth for everyone" utopian arguments of the oft mentioned David P. Reed. Still, the actual math is so hard - assuming you dig in deeper than the Salon article - that I doubt many people have much beyond a metaphorical understanding of what he's talking about.
Slashdot posted the story. Here's the +5 rated comments (the best comments.) They almost universally savage Reed (in the best/worst tradition of /. commenting.) The message here seems to be: "this guy doesn't know what he's talking about" which is sort of what I was scared of.
Still, while a close reading of all the objections is instructive, I do think most people misunderstand his point. No doubt Salon's intro isn't the best text to base a technical refutation on. Sure, we can't do what Reed says with today's radios. But Reed isn't claiming we can.
Part of what he's saying is that software defined radios are going to allow this sort of thing to happen. Assuming we can build (program) them. And assuming we can change the (soon to be) out of date broadcasting regulations that would disallow such devices. And the first step in changing such regulation is to have people believe that something better is possible.
So perhaps he's overly optimistic (as most /. comments complained) but I don't think he's wrong. Or at least not yet. Let's see how the software comes along over the next year. But a little optimism might well be warranted. I think getting the idea that something wildly better is possible into non technical people's heads will be for the better. And it sure won't hurt anything, since all these claims will have to be demonstrated eventually anyway. It's not like we're going to dismantle the FCC until there's some running code and working gear.
Is this thing on?
I downloaded fire in an attempt to experiment with jabber instant messaging. Of course I can't really do much experimenting because I don't know anyone else who uses jabber. Do you? IM me at jimbass@jabber.org and help me get up to speed.
Or, if you don't have it and you're slightly adventurous, download the jabber client (windows, linux, Mac.) Then you just connect to one of the many public servers with a name/password you've made up. If the name isn't recognized it will simply ask you if you want to make a new account. Nice. Simple. Free.
And then IM me.
Speaking from experience, it's best not to still be in the bar when the roll downs roll down. Continuing for another hour or so after this point is, of course, even less advised. Still, I guess the possibility of doing such a thing needs to be confirmed from time to time. So yes, if you're wondering, it is still possible. And still not that good of an idea.
What the heck is happening in Turkey?
Recep Tayyup Erdogan was banned from running for election last November although his Justice and Development Party won a landslide victory. That ban has expired and he will run for a seat in parliament on behalf of the southeastern Siirt Province in the provincial election Sunday, March 9. From there, he will jump straight into the prime minister?s seat as head of the ruling party.I haven't seen this anywhere but Debka, so confirmation is lacking. But they tend to be correct about such things, and often a day ahead of everyone else.
DEBKA-Net-Weekly?s Ankara sources quote prime minister Abdullah Gul as informing confidants that he has agreed to step down and serve as deputy prime minister and foreign minister in the Erdogan government. It is all settled between them.
We are also informed that Erdogan has meanwhile informed Washington that, a week after taking office, he will have completed the process for gaining a parliamentary majority to allow US troops to use Turkey as a launch pad into Iraq, overruling the March 1 defeat of that motion. This would mean that the second front, which was thrown in doubt by the first vote, can go into operation around mid-March or shortly after.
Talking Points and CalPundit are now against the war. Is there anyone not on the far right who is still for this thing?
Josh Marshall: "At this point, we truly have the worst case scenario on the international stage. And I think that those costs now outweigh the gains."
Kevin Drum: "I still believe strongly that we need a tough-minded long-term policy aimed at eradicating terrorism and modernizing the Arab world (among others) - and that this policy should include the use of force where necessary - but not this time. This is the gang that couldn't shoot straight."
I know you want more mesh network links. Admit it. Here's a simple, business oriented overview from Glen Fleishman. And here's a technical .pdf with details on why these networks might not scale so well. Again, this is over my head, but this doesn't seem like a show stopper. I have the impression we can just do some hand waving here and mumble some stuff about how faster microprocessors and much smarter software defined radios will make it all possible. (links via HTP)
I don't think I can really catch you up on the David McCusker story. He goes by Rys now. I envy his ability to switch names. And the choice is very nice. Short, and unique. How I long for such a name. Jim is short, but, well, you can see the problem.
Rys has seperated out his work/computer related blog from his personal blog. But he doesn't seem to post much anymore. I'm assuming this is because of the proximity of the beta release date for Chandler. I'm sure he's knee, if not neck, deep in intricate database optimization wizardry.
Still, when he surfaces, I hope he comes back to blogging. It's become quite a story, and it would be a loss if I couldn't follow along any more.
Good luck Rys, where ever you are.
The Lincoln Plawg (that's: Politics and law from a British perspective - hence Politics LAW BloG) is consistently the most sophisticated anti-war voice I've found. I could point to it every day, but I'll pick out this one just for the heck of it.
From here:
But no one put the basic point: that disobedience towards UN Security Council resolutions - in whatever fancy words you dress it up - is not, in international law, a justification for war [2]; therefore, the proposed invasion must be judged according to the general principles applicable to pre-emptive war; and, according to those principles, the invasion is illegal....to the end of the post is a great summary of what many feel, but few can express so well. I hope he digs deeper into this vein as he suggests.
Yes:
Japan's cellphone makers, pioneers of the camera-equipped handset, look set to intrude into digital camera makers' turf as a fierce battle for market share draws them toward photo-phones with million-pixel resolution.I think it's clear we can only carry around one device. It will be a phone. But also a PDA. And a camera (and/or video camera.) And a GPS. And an mp3 player. And a universal remote. Converge dammit, converge.
Well, I admit it. As much as I want to use Apple's new browser Safari, I've switched back to Chimera. Confusingly, Chimera is now called Camino. And there's a new version (.07 - really this time, not like on 3/5.) But before I could download that I find out the brand spanking new Safari v.64 (cripes, .62 hasn't even been officially released yet) supposedly has the improvement I'm looking for: open tabs in background.
I had been running the hypothetical v.62 with no problems (other than tabs not working the way I wanted.) Thanks to Chris for the hook up on that one. V.64 I found here: http://www.deepapple.com/downloads/?oid=705 . Shhhh! If you're brave, give it a shot. Probably requires 10.2.3 but don't quote me on that. If you're not so brave wait for me to report.
World of Ends: What the Internet Is and
How to Stop Mistaking It
for Something Else.
Doc Searls and David Weinberger hone their Cluetrain message, presenting
10 points anyone concerned with the internet should understand, and a bunch of links to all the important papers.
Blah, blah, blah, raging cow, blah, blah...
You know about this, right? (If not then you don't get around much, do you?) It's the latest in marketainment. Ragingcow.com is a Dr. Pepper advertising project disguised as a blog. They use Movable Type and everything. And they really really like Raging Cow, the super nifty new "milk like" fun drink!
Right. So anyway, the site I linked to - ragingcow.blogspot.com - is a parody put up by Kevin Marks' in the hopes of taking the number one spot on google away from Dr. Pepper. I'm not actually recommending you should visit that site (and if you do, get ready for some annoying background music) but I just wanted to link it a few times and throw my minor google strength against Dr. P.
(If you really must know, it was the fan signs that tipped me over the edge. These people must be stopped.)
Ha ha ha ha har har ha ha ha....
Stop it, you're killing me:
The Recodable Locking Device, which uses microelectromechanical system (MEMS) technology so small that it takes a microscope to see it, is a series of tiny notched gears that move to the unlocked position only when the right code is entered. It's the first known mechanical hardware designed to keep unwanted guests from breaking codes and illegally entering computer and other secure systems.Still, and this is why I mention it, you should check out the incredibly cool picture here. That wheel is 300 microns in diameter, or "about the size of the period at the end of a sentence."
But the press release is just too much. I can't wait to read what Schneier writes about this in the next Cryptogram. One for the doghouse? Get this:
"Computer firewalls have always been dependent on software, which means they are 'soft' and subject to manipulations," says Larry Dalton, manager of Sandia's High Integrity Software Systems Engineering Department. "Our device is hardware and is extremely difficult to break into. You have one and only one chance in a million of picking exactly the right code compared to a one in 10,000 chance, with many additional chances, in most software firewalls. After one failed try, this new device mechanically shuts down and can't be reset and reopened except by the owner."Wow! Sounds, like, double super top secret secure! I get it now: software = soft, hardware = hard. LOL! Who writes this stuff?
How to monopolize the new network is a paper by David S. Isenberg on the future of telecommunications. Interesting if you're into this sort of thing. Giant fibre to the home monopoly vs. David P. Reed style wireless mesh network.
Toshiba shows off a fuel cell prototype they say will be commercialized next year.
Yes, this is exactly what it sounds like, and as I understand it this is really going to happen. We're talking very small volumes of fuel - like you could carry around a refill in something the size of a pen. Sure would be nice to break the recharging cycle.
Lots of noise in the press today speculating on a possible Apple on line music service. Here's a San Jose Mercury News article. Here's a potentially interesting anonymous comment from a December 2002 thread on slashdot.
I'm not exactly doubting it, but let's just wait and see what happens.
Go read Paul Ford's latest: lucky ducky.
Boing boing has extensive coverage of Larry Lessig's Spectrum Conference. Wow, there's so much enthusiasm (and real projects) it almost makes me forget about the difficulties I mentioned at the end of the last post.
Lots to wade through, but it's important stuff.
Interestingly, David Reed gave the keynote, and boing boing has a nice summary of his ideas amid the other coverage.
As Gibson said: the future is here, it's just not evenly distrubuted. In this case that's because it's all at this conference.
Yet another wireless mesh networking paper. Here's the executive summary. Here's the 3 point and above comments from slashdot.
Seems like even the geeks are still arguing the main point. Can bandwidth really increase as the number of nodes in a given area increases? This is (I think, with my limited math skills) what David P. Reed is claiming (maybe start looking here.) But it seems counterintuitive to most people, so I guess we're really going to need a large scale demonstration to prove the skeptics wrong.
But then there is a second level of problems. Even if it turns out this is possible, mathematically, it won't be as profitable for the entrenched players as the proprietary wires and spectrum model they are now operating under. So it may not be possible to change to a technically better system for purely economic reasons.
One scenario where I could imagine wireless mesh networks really taking off is after some sort of major disruption. Like if the telecoms all went bankrupt. Or some governmental entity shut the internet down. Or any of a couple even worse scenarios. But without the present imperfectly working system going away, I can't see people caring (or even understanding) enough to force this change.
But I can still hope. And maybe it can start, locally, not as a replacement to the internet but as a seperate layer that augments the current global net.
Holy cow! This asking for what I want thing is really working out. I mean, hypothetically, of course, because it's still just a rumor that Safari 0.62 even exists. So, hypothetically, thanks C.M.!
Now that I'm two for two I'm a little nervous. I better think before I ask for anything else. I mean, since it seems like I might get what I ask for.
Hmmm. Everything I touch turn to gold? No wait....
Here's another OS X bluetooth phone remote control program: Romeo 0.5. And this one is freeware (the one I mentioned a few days ago, Clicker, is $9.95 after your 30 click free trial expires.)
Well, since I got an email answer to my question yesterday (thanks Mark!) I might as well keep trying.
I know Safari v0.62 has been leaked, but I can't find it. If someone can send me some sort of clue it would be greatly appreciated.
C'mon. Please?