6-Party Talks AWESOME so far

Pyongyang, DPRK- Holy s#!* this country knows how to throw a party! Throw in six of them, and as far as I'm concerned, they can make as many nuclear-tipped ICBMs as they'd like.

Say what you want about Big Kim- the guy knows how to par-TAE!

S#!*, son, we're only on party number TWO! I used to think that North Korea was the scariest regime in the world.

No. NO!

It may be the BADDEST, but man, do these mofos know how to git DOWN!

He died...

...doing what he did best.

I'm shocked

J-Lo didn't earn it?

Ehhh...

Does this make anyone else a little nervous?

Surely the coolest airliner ever

Five years ago today, a Concorde crashed in France, an incident which directly lead to the plane's retirement in 2003.

What a shame.

Howard Dean...

...has done a lot of reckless things. (But I DON'T count "the scream" as being one of them- I think that was an admirable display of passion that was abused by Dean's detractors.)

However, his recent comments on abortion are some of the most enlightened and hopeful remarks I've heard from the Democratic Party in a long time.

This is a Party that can win elections.

Nicely done.

Darsa Vada

That's one of the most amusing ads I've ever seen.

Found it here.

Windows "Vista"

It's official: the next version of Windows, which has been referred to as "Longhorn" for the past few years, is going to be called "Windows Vista".

Hm. I think I like it. I guess. Since Windows 95 came out, OS names have been more and more marketing-oriented (i.e. Windows XP- eXPerience- and Mac OS X Tiger- roar), and less technical (Windows 3.1), which makes sense, given their growth into broader, less technical markets.

Will Vista clear things up for Windows users? We'll see.

Tags*: microsoft Windows longhorn vista

* I'll be writing about tags shortly.

Subway searches

The NYPD is going to be conducting random searches of people who bring packages onto NYC subways, trains, and buses. This is certainly a controversial thing to do, but I will give them the benefit of the doubt at the outset and see how this policy is carried out. The devil, of course, is in the details.

I've got to believe that the primary motive behind these searches is one of deterrence. The odds that random searches are going to "catch" anything seem slim. The nebulous threat of a potential search, however, may help convince someone not to do something. Then again, I don't think the people we should be worried about are easily discouraged or intimidated. Nor are they stupid.

So we'll see. There's a likelihood that we'll see stories about people being unfairly singled out, claims of harassment, etc. I believe strongly in our civil rights and believe that, in general, it's better to let guilty people go free as opposed to incarcerating innocents. You can extend that analogy to terrorism as you see fit.

But I also think that there's a balance, and that as citizens, we do owe our government a certain level of trust before we shout back and protest. The police are here to protect us. I will relinquish some of my freedom to them if they really believe it's worthwhile, and I reserve the right to call "bullshit" if and when I feel like my trust has been abused.

John Roberts is the least of our problems

The fate of the Supreme Court was sealed (more or less) on November 4. Barring a nomination like Karl Rove, I don't think the Democrats can or should expend dramatic energy to block it.

The real problem here is that Democrats truly believe that they represent the views of a significant majority of people in this country, yet have completely failed to convert that representation into political power.

Obstructionist reactions to the Administration's decisions are not the way to remedy this. There will be, of course, certain emergency situations where Democrats need to dig in and fight like hell to prevent something truly nasty from happening. But by and large, the Administration has earned the ability to make these kinds of conservative decisions. Unless you think that the Republicans' control of Congress and the White House was gained by illegitimate means (and I'm completely open to arguments along those lines), there are consequences to them being in power that cannot be denied.

And most people, party aside, don't look kindly on politicians who spend a lot of time blocking things from happening, or arguing about procedure. The recent furor over the filibuster resulted in lower poll numbers for Democrats and Republicans alike, because at the end of the day, people want to see their representatives do what they were elected to do.

The Democratic Party needs to accept this. They currently have limited power and need to use it very carefully. Roberts should be questioned, scrutinized, and certainly voted against by those who don't agree that he should be on the Court. But the fact that those votes will likely do nothing to stop his approval should also be accepted, and no further political capital should be spent on trying to block him. No filibuster or excessive blocking shenanigans, please.

The goal of the Democratic Party, in my opinion, should be to simplify and solidify their message so that they can GROW. Growth is key. Simple math dictates that the party needs to expand. The results of the 2004 election illustrate the following:

Our voting system is not perfect and still needs massive reform. No one should have to wait for hours on line to vote. Democrats should do everything they can to support voting reform, but any gains made in this arena should be viewed as a bonus- let's face it, this is not going to be easy.

Most importantly, however, we saw that the Democratic "base" is not strong enough to take on Republicans. The first four years of the Bush Administration represented pretty much the worst case scenario for Democrats and liberals- their economic policy, environmental policy, domestic policy, and foreign policy were just shockingly one-sided.

Yet, with the stakes so high and the base more motivated than ever, Democrats were still unable to capture the Presidency or either of the two houses of Congress. That was a shock.

The base is not enough. Growth is key.

Nobody who voted for George W. Bush in 2004 is going to consider voting Democrat in 2006 or 2008 because of the Democrats' obstruction of Bush's Supreme Court nominees. No Bush voter is going to switch sides to a party that has offered little substance other than opposition- desperate opposition, no less.

The Democratic Party needs to focus intensely on the issues that they feel they have in common with the broader electorate, and become in the public's eye a party of strength and purpose.

On a related note, I hate Karl Rove. Oooooooh, that motherfucker makes my skin crawl. He should be investigated and fired if he's found guilty of a crime. But my hatred of Karl Rove- and any political trickery that might be revealed by investigating him- is not going to help recruit voters to the Democratic Party. Rove hunting is a worthwhile thing for the Special Counsel to do, but it's a distraction for a party that needs to focus on building ideas, not trying to tear people down.

John Roberts is basically in the same boat. We don't have to like him, and we can oppose him, but we're much more credible if we accept our losses and keep our eyes on the ball, which is building the Democratic Party into an organization that can produce as many voters as it claims to represent.

John Roberts

So Bush's pick for the Supreme Court is John Roberts. The first thing that comes to mind with this is that Matt Drudge is utterly and completely full of shit.

A few weeks ago, he was headlining with news that his sources had confirmed that Rehnquist was going to resign. WRONG. Today, as soon as it became clear that Bush was going to make his announcement tonight, Drudge plastered Edith Clement's photo across his site and made it very clear that he believed 100% that she was the pick.

WRONG.

I have a certain fascination with the Drudge Report. I go there regularly and check it most often in times of breaking news, because Drudge has very low standards for what he's willing to report, which means that he's always one step "ahead" of the "respectable" media and is willing to post stuff before anyone else would- never mind the fact that he's wrong quite a bit.

Bottom line is, his site's got a high entertainment value.

And he is utterly and completely full of shit.

Anyway, from the very little that I've heard, it seems like Roberts is a good pick for the court. He's a judge who's conservative enough to appease Bush's base but not so far out there that Democrats are going to be able to cry bloody murder. As a liberal person, I'm disappointed to see a conservative being appointed to the court. But, being that Bush is the president and the majority of people in this country are conservative, I think this choice was pretty well thought out. He got what he wanted without blatantly offending the dissenting party.

IP

The Electronic Frontier Foundation is an organization dedicated to protecting users' rights in the digital world. In its own words:

"The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) was created to defend our rights to think, speak, and share our ideas, thoughts, and needs using new technologies, such as the Internet and the World Wide Web."

Perhaps most importantly:

"EFF is the first to identify threats to our basic rights online and to advocate on behalf of free expression in the digital age."

These are the people who are on the front lines of the battle to prevent the government from mandating the broadcast flag and other such pro-business, anti-consumer legislation.

Their core thesis: new technology has always been threatening to content-providing enterprises, but courts have traditionally favored the rights of technology to exist, and- ironically- content providers have always been better off in the end as a result.

The entertainment distribution industries have consistently resisted adapting to new technology. Instead of embracing new methods of distributing their products, they try to make it illegal for new technologies to disrupt their existing business models.

The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) and the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) have not behaved as forward-thinking advocates of bringing their content to consumers. Rather, they come across as stubborn defenders of the position that their business models are fundamentally threatened by technology, and that their audience is comprised of thieves.

A simple example: the VCR. The MPAA vigorously opposed Sony's Betamax VCR when it was first released, claiming it would lead to rampant piracy and destroy the industry. Courts ruled that the VCR had a right to exist- that the industry's fears of piracy did not outweigh Sony's right to sell its technology. VCRs became extremely popular with consumers, which laid the groundwork for the massive home video (and DVD) market- which wouldn't have existed without the Betamax VCR (even though the Betamax VCR itself died a pretty quick death).

Another example: MP3 players. When Diamond Rio released the first MP3 player in the late 1990's, the RIAA went to court to block it, claiming it was nothing more than a vehicle for piracy. The RIAA's request for an injunction was denied, and the explosion in popularity of MP3 players has led to the development of the Internet as a legal, viable, and profitable means to sell music. (It is telling that it took Apple- a technology company- to force the music industry to take serious steps into the digital distribution game- it wasn't a music industry company that pioneered this avenue on its own.)

Digital distribution of all forms of entertainment is a logical progression and will happen eventually. The only thing standing in the way of it happening now is the fact that copyright holders are afraid to go digital, because the potential for piracy is greater in the digital realm than it was when each copyrighted work existed as a physical "thing" (tape, disc, etc.) that can't easily be stolen or copied.

Copyright holders do need protection for their work- if people cannot profit from creating intellectual property, then there will cease to be a truly competitive marketplace for it. But there is a balance between protection and a product that is fair to consumers. A good model for effective Digital Rights Management (DRM) technology once again comes from Apple- the iTunes Music Store. AppleÂ’s protection makes it difficult for users to give their music files away to other users, but it enables them to pretty much do whatever they want with their music on their own equipment- including burning DRM-free copies of songs onto CD.

Apple just sold their 500,000,000th copy protected song through iTunes- a validation of their consumer-friendly approach to DRM, I would say.

Balance is the critical issue. The rights of the copyright holder and the rights of the consumer must be weighed fairly. Consumers' rights- particularly their right not to be treated as assumed criminals- are important too. In complex situations, where copyright holders' and users' have competing claims- the tie should go to the user.

Copyright law and DRM issues will continue to evolve as digital distribution expands and companies try to put limits on technology to prevent piracy. Wendy Seltzer and Jason Schultz of the EEF gave a talk in March about the threats to innovation they're seeing. I highly recommend checking it out.

This is a very important debate that will have dramatic implications on how we consume information in the future. Do we want to be able to use information on our own terms, or on the terms of companies who want to give us the least possible amount of freedom?

I stand firmly on the side of the consumer- which, historically, has been the side that benefits everyone.

Intel vs. AMD

When I first got into computers, I dedicated a lot of bandwidth to knowing the different types of processors. 386, 386SX, 486DX, 486DX/2, yadda yadda, those were the days. It was complicated, but there was a logic to it. At some point, Intel decided they were going to really max out the ROI on the Pentium brand name, and while the past decade has seen amazing advances in processing power, things aren't as clear as they were when the name of the chip was a direct, technical indication of its family and characteristics.

This makes sense- processors became marketing tools, and hence needed marketable names. I stopped paying attention to the processor details at some point, and when I switched over to the Mac, I focused what little energy I had for such details on the PowerPC side of things.

All of this is just an attempt to set the stage for this article on drunkenblog, which is a really nice distillation of the state of the processor world on the x86 side of things. The article is ostensibly speculation about why Apple decided to partner with Intel over AMD, but it's much more than that.

My limited understanding of the x86 world had led me to believe that Intel had lost its position as chief innovator and was rapidly losing ground to AMD- very much like how Boeing has lost ground to Airbus. My takeaway from this article, however, is that while AMD has out-engineered Intel in some respects, it's not necessarily in a position conducive to growth.

Intel's in a much better position than I had thought.

Britt Blaser

At Dave Winer's OPML demo last week, I sat next to an interesting man who told me that he'd been a C-130 pilot in Vietnam.

Britt Blaser turns out to have a lot to say about a lot of things, but I particularly like his writing about the "war on terror".

Go Harry

Tonight at midnight Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince goes on sale. There is magic in the air. The Harry Potter phenomenon is real and amazing. The notion of a book for children packing so much financial and social power is a wonderful thing.

This is going to be a quiet weekend for parents, I think, with the prevailing sound effect being the turning of pages.

Damn, that's impressive.

When he's right, he's right (no pun intended)

It continues to confound me that it takes Pat Buchanan to be consistently honest and open about the reasons why we're battling terrorism.

I wish more mainstream politicians could be as clear-headed and honest, instead of wrapping themselves blindly in the flag and painting every terrorist incident as a monumental clash of civilizations, with freedom-loving, God-chosen Americans on one side, and heathens on the other.

And my fellow liberals aren't getting it either when they blame conservatives for all of our foreign policy problems.

This is not to say that I think we should abandon Iraq at this point. Nor do I think that England should make any policy adjustments to cow-tow to whatever anti-Iraq sentiment people read into the recent bombings.

The biggest threat we face doesn't come from people who are naturally bred to hate freedom, and it doesn't come from conservatives in our country who'd rather shoot first and aim later- though serious harm comes from both.

COME ON, can't we all just screw our heads on straight and deal with these issues INTELLIGENTLY? Don't fuck with people, and they won't fuck with you. It's not QUITE that simple, but it's close.

Big Night

Tonight was a big night for a few reasons.

First of all, if you haven't seen the movie Big Night, I recommend that you check it out ASAP. It's a wonderful movie, and it deals with love and food (and love of food)- probably the two most important things in the world.

With love and food out of the way, now we can turn to technology. Tonight was a Big Night for technology.

First up, Mac geek housekeeping: Mac OS X 10.4.2 is out. I've been waiting for this for a while. This is a big update that addresses a slew of issues with the cool but issue-laden 10.4 (Tiger) release. It's been a long time coming and I suspect it's going to be pretty solid. Assuming there are no gotchas with 10.4.2, this is the version that really should have gone out the door as 10.4 in the first place.

Apple also released several updates for it's professional media software (Final Cut Pro, etc.).

Big Night for Apple people.

But the really interesting stuff happened in a small conference room at the offices of Ritchie Capital Management, where Dave Winer held court for a while.

For those who've heard of Dave, he needs no introduction. For those who haven't, I would describe him as the public face of many of the groundbreaking software concepts behind stuff like blogging, RSS, podcasting, and so forth. He's an outspoken guy who's contributed an enormous amount of time, energy, and money to developing communications concepts and tools to enable simple, powerful, and open information publishing.

Google him.

Dave gave a presentation where he demonstrated a new software tool he's developing that enables people to easily create outlines that adhere to the "OPML" format. OPML is an XML-based data format that makes it very easy to structure information. Essentially, it allows you to define information in a way that makes it act like a Lego piece, which can in turn be combined with an infinite amount of other OPML pieces to present information structures that represent utility larger than the sum of their parts.

Yadda yadda, on and on. The concepts that Dave talked about, and the sample authoring tool that he demoed, represent Big Ideas in the world of information, communication, and dare I say freedom. Tonight's little talk to a room full of eager geeks, bloggers, podcasters, programmers, venture capitalists, and former Apple CEOs (John Sculley was there) was very cool. I felt like I was witnessing something important, and I feel lucky to have been there.

OPML- and the community, concepts, and utility that it spawns- is going to move the world forward. THIS is the stuff going on behind the scenes, helping power the evolution of our society toward being the open, level, free, and informed environment most of us hope to live in.

I wasn't planning on doing this, but once the laptops came out- and most of them were PCs- I felt like I had to put my PowerBook on the table. And once the microphones and audio recorders came out, I slowly nodded my head, reached into my bag, and took out my iSight camera.

Why not?

I didn't move the camera around to capture any of the other people in the room, nor did I make any attempt to capture what Dave was showing on his computer (which was projected). I didn't want to make a big deal about my camera. But as I watched this intelligent, confident, and sometimes frustrated teddy bear go at it, I was really glad I was rolling. John Sculley makes an interesting suggestion to Dave, starting at around 16:30.

The file's 136 megs of H.264 QuickTime (QuickTime 7 is required for playback) and runs an hour and 22 minutes. If, by chance, bandwidth becomes an issue and my .mac account isn't able to keep up with demand, I would welcome any offers to mirror it.

Once again, Thanks Dave.

Cool Longhorn stuff

Here's some encouraging news about Longhorn. These are the kinds of features that we need to take operating systems to the next level in terms of performance and self-maintanance.

Holy ship!

Please excuse the pun.

Prediction: Apple will license Mac OS X Server

I don't really like to make predictions, because a) I'm usually wrong, and b) a lot of people on the Internet make predictions and are wrong, and I don't want to be in their company.

But this one popped into my head last night, and I figured I'd share it here so that on the off-chance that I'm actually right, I will have "scored a big one". (Anyone want to volunteer to keep score?)

No one really knows what's going to happen once Apple begins to transition to Intel chips. Once Mac OS X works well on Intel, there will be nothing technical standing in the way of Apple either selling OS X to PC users or allowing certain PC manufacturers to sell systems preloaded with OS X.

I don't think Apple is going to sell OS X to PC users- at least, not in the short or medium term. Too much of what makes a Mac a Mac has to do with the styling of the hardware and the tight alignment of both its hardware and software. I also do not think that Apple is going to invite a company like Dell to sell "Mac" systems preconfigured with Mac OS X. While Apple would be able to dictate the system specifications in such a licensing arrangement (and as such more or less control the hardware/software aspect of things), I believe Apple wants to remain the only company that makes Macs.

However, Mac OS X Server is another story. OS X Server is basically Mac OS X with a bunch of server services and graphical management software bundled in. Server is a powerful OS that provides the server fabric for all types of Macintosh networks, as well as offering services for Windows and Unix clients. Since Mac OS X is essentially Unix, it's not unreasonable to compare it to a Linux server with a world-class interface.

Apple's been trying to gain inroads into the enterprise, and Mac OS X Server is the way to do it. IT departments who are frustrated with aging Windows servers and who today are considering switching to Linux would probably be even more tempted to go with OS X Server- particularly if OS X Server ran on standardized hardware.

In this scenario, I see Apple choosing a few "server partners"- say, Dell and HP- and allowing them to bundle Mac OS X Server on certain tightly controlled Intel-based server systems. There would be some type of hardware lock that would allow OS X to run on those specific machines, but not to be installed on other, non-blessed machines. Apple will not want OS X "getting out" and running on systems that it can't control.

This would allow IT departments to buy OS X servers from their existing server vendors. These servers will, essentially, continue to offer Windows clients the same services they had with Windows, but without the associated costs and headaches of administering Windows. And any company toying with the idea of purchasing some Intel-based Macs for end-users would be in a better position to do so with OS X Server running their network.

So here's my prediction, real simple: If and when Apple allows Mac OS X to be installed on non-Apple hardware, the first step will be Mac OS X Server running on equipment from industry leading server vendors.

Whoa there

Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer is a fascinating guy. He's the brains behind the company's strategy, which I take serious issue with. However, he's also pretty straightforward about admitting when things haven't gone well for Microsoft. And he's not afraid to come across as a raving maniac.

I respect his enthusiasm, if not his strategy.

Robert Scoble's got a video interview with Ballmer up on Microsoft's Channel 9 web site.

Channel 9 is a grassroots effort from within Microsoft to capture video interviews with key Microsoft employees and publish them in a public forum, primarily for the benefit of Microsoft's independent software developers. It's a great idea and provides an interesting insight into the company.

Ballmer's interview is worth watching. This guy is a piece of work. He comes across as, well, insane. His energy level is through the roof, recalling Chris Farley's motivational speaker character from SNL. I respect what he's saying, but man, this guy's adrenaline levels are humming.

Here's what I think is going on: Bill Gates cloned himself, and in the process mixed in some DNA from a high school football coach and the president of a college frat. When his creation proved unstoppable, Bill decided to hand over the reins of the company and slowly, quietly, back away.

London

I awoke this morning to news of the bombings in London. Godspeed to everyone involved.

Cell mates?

Judith Miller and Lil' Kim were both sentenced to jail today. Miller because she refused to name her source in a politically charged news issue. Kim because she lied to a grand jury about her involvement in a shootout.

Coincidence?

The Olympics

New York City did not win the race to host the 2012 Olympics. The only surprising aspect of this is that anyone could have been surprised.

Earlier this year, I spent some time in Paris and London, and was overwhelmed by the intense focus on the Olympic candidacy that was on display in both of those cities- particularly Paris. Those people wanted the Olympics in their city.

New York's attitude toward the bid seemed a lot less genuine and had no perceptible trace of grassroots support- some decals on the subways and a whole lot of political BS surrounding stadium building was all we saw.

The International Olympic Committee claimed that New York had the lowest level of popular support for the Olympics out of all of the candidate cities. This comes as no shock. I bet a large percentage of the New Yorkers crammed onto its crowded summer subways haven't even heard of the Olympics- much less passionately dream of hosting it.

I love New York, and I love the Olympics. I would have loved to see the two intersect in 2012. But did we really earn it? No way.

The real surprise was London's coup- I would have bet everything on Paris. As upset as certain New Yorkers may be today, we really have little claim to disappointment compared to the Parisians.

Firefox needs momentum

When Firefox 1.0 was released last November, it was accompanied by a massive wave of publicity that helped establish it as a Really Big Deal.

First and formost, it was a great web browser that brought a level of simplicity, security, elegance, and functionality to the table. It was fast and worked well. It was refreshing.

Second, it was a gleaming example of open source software at its best. It was a real product, actually shipping, and it appealed to virtually every type of computer user- not just the geeks who made it.

Finally, it was a direct assault on Microsoft. If Microsoft was content to let Internet Exporer snore and drool for years because it thought it could afford to neglect the browser market, fine- the open source community was taking matters into its own hands.

Firefox 1.0 was a Really Big Deal.

Eight months later, much of that Big Deal is fading. Firefox is still a great browser, and work continues on subsequent versions. It's market share has grown. But the excitement has receeded. Its mindshare momentum has stalled.

Microsoft has announced a new version of Internet Explorer that is surely a direct response to Firefox's threat. Only time will tell how good IE 7 will be, but Microsoft has been stirred into action and the response will gather mindshare.

From a software perspective, Firefox did well last year. From a phenomenon perspective, however, its lack of follow-through makes it seem like it has the makings of a one hit wonder. And if the name of the game is rebellion against Microsoft and its "old world" view of software, the phenomenon needs to keep on blazing.

Firefox 1.0 was "good enough" in most ways and "better than" in some- a great start. But we need fresh software that continues being "better than", and we need it soon. Apple's been very good about keeping mindshare up by continuing to release new versions of it software- its rapid-fire release schedule for OS X makes Microsoft's Windows stagnation seem even worse.

Firefox needs to relentlessly innovate and release new software- if it doesn't, it's going to fade back beneath the mass market crust it broke through last year.

Who Owns Culture?

This is an awesome public discussion that was held at the New York Public Library in April about intellectual property and copyright law. This is a great distillation of the issues we face as content goes digital and laws get revised to try to cope.

Thanks to drunkenblog for pointing this out.

Independence

Independence is the theme of the weekend, and I think that now is in fact a critical time on the continuum of independence. In this case, I'm talking about independence from corporate control of information distribution.

One of the Internet's most profound features is its ability to enable almost anyone to publish almost anything they want. Technological advances and bandwidth increases now made it almost trivial for individuals to write, record, shoot, and then distribute their own stuff.

At the same time, political and social changes continue to weaken the large corporate institutions that have historically held the keys to distribution. The record industry bungled electronic distribution of content and has put itself in an adversarial position against many artists. From an artist's perspective, why sign a contract with a major label that takes away most of their rights over their material when they no longer need the power of a label to distribute their music?

Digital filmmaking and online distribution mean that movies can be made for hundreds or thousands of dollars instead of tens of millions.

High profile witch hunts in the world of traditional journalism (Dan Rather and CBS, Newsweek and the Koran, Time and The New York Times with regard to the Valerie Plame incident) show that these big institutions are weakening- just when independent journalists (bloggers) are gaining power.

This Fourth of July, it's easy to look at our place in the world with concern. But there is a strong undercurrent of independence that is is gaining strength, and no doubt in my mind that it's continuing to give power to the people.

The Tom Cruise water squirt in face video

Here.