Airliners.net

I regularly check in with airliners.net to satisfy my airplane fetish. They've got an incredible database of airplane photos (tagged and searchable), a database of model-specific airplane technical information, and forums. Ahh, the forums. Check this one out as an example.

The Internet of Things

That's author Bruce Sterling's phrase for a future in which the virtual and real converge. IT conversations is carrying a presentation that Sterling gave at this year's Emerging Technology Conference, and it's fascinating. Sterling's discussion of technology, the future, and the role of language is really worth listening to.

Holiday cheer

Imagine how much different things would be in this country- how much better- if we had gone through the past five years of history with a president the whole country loved. (More or less.)

Partisanship is extreme these days, and I think both sides have been disgraceful in the process of leading our country. Our president, unfortunately, has set this tone, and manages it hyperactively.

It's sad to be in this position this Fourth of July, since we're living through a patch of history that carries more weight than most, and which is being handled badly by the people we entrust to guide us.

But ultimately, I have faith that we'll pull through. There is too much that is unique about America to allow it to fail due to the traditional faults and weaknesses that have always plagued governments. Recovery is possible...

Intel+1

Just over a year ago, Apple announced that it was going to transition the Macintosh from PowerPC processors to Intel processors. Macworld has a couple of articles on the state of the transition one year out.

The transition is going really well- probably as well, or better, than most people would have imagined as a best case scenario a year ago.

A fundamental reason for the success of the transition lies in the design of Mac OS X. The low level guts of the operating system are relatively processor agnostic, and Apple had been enforcing that neutrality (and maintaining an Intel version internally) for years. On top of its core, most of OS X's system and application services function at a relatively high level of abstraction from the hardware that runs beneath them. This means that significant changes under the hood are less likely to have serious consequences for the software that runs on top. And application recompiles to account for the new architecture are relatively straightforward.

An interesting side effect of this abstraction comes in the form of performance penalties. There's no doubt that, subjectively speaking, Mac OS X and most of the programs that run on it have always felt a little slower than Windows. There is a lot of controversy over what specifically causes this phenomenon (and whether it exists at all). But I think that Mac OS X's fundamental design, in which much of the system and application services are running at higher levels of abstraction from the nuts and bolts of the OS kernel, trades off a bit of performance in exchange for added flexibility and development convenience.

I think this tradeoff is well worth it.

In addition to having an operating system that was designed to handle a transition of this sort, Apple has managed the process quite well. In fact, the technical merits of the OS actually belong under this category, since the entire OS strategy was designed to provide this level of flexibility. From the moment the processor transition was announced, Apple has provided excellent tools to enable developers to port their code, and has over-delivered on their timing commitments for releasing the Intel machines.

The application transition strategy- Universal Binaries, which by design work on both PowerPC and Intel processors- is working well. In most cases, developers and users don't have to deal with Intel and PowerPC versions of programs- there's just one version, which works on both. This has the benefit of hiding the transition complexity from people who don't need to worry about it, while at the same time ensuring that developers continue to release software that is compatible with PowerPC systems. PowerPC users (myself included, for the time being) don't feel abandoned.

It's too bad that Adobe Creative Suite, and Microsoft Office, aren't Universal Binaries yet, and likely won't be until some point well into 2007. But at least those programs run (albeit with a speed penalty), thanks to the Rosetta binary translation layer in the Intel version of Mac OS X. This compatibility escape hatch, while not a permanent solution, is another example of good planning and execution on Apple's behalf.

Stepping back from the transition itself, it's interesting to look at a few other issues that we now have the ability to gauge. After about a decade of theoretical debate, it seems pretty clear that Intel processors are fundamentally better suited for desktop computing than PowerPC processors. This is an oversimplification, of course, but the bottom line is that the Intel Macs (running native software) are simply faster than PowerPC Macs- sometimes dramatically so. Of course, we're comparing the very latest, dual-core Intel processors to PowerPC chips that are at this point getting long in the tooth, but still- Intel seems faster.

It's also interesting to see how joining the "mainstream" has helped Apple, as opposed to hurting it. The Intel-based Macs are, from a basic hardware perspective, nearly identical to traditional PCs. This is the culmination in a trend of convergence that has been happening for years, and many have been concerned that this sort of convergence would eliminate the Mac's uniqueness and dampen its capabilities.

To the contrary, Intel Macs are more capable than ever. The intense competition between Intel and AMD means that we'll be seeing much more rapid innovation from Intel than we had been accustomed to seeing in the niche PowerPC platform. And Windows support will in all likelihood bring new users to the Mac, and will bring Macs into places they've never been before.

There may be some downside to this. Do game developers have a strong incentive to dedicate significant development resources to creating Mac versions of their games, when the Windows versions would run, unaltered, on any Mac that can run Windows? (I'm asking you, Jason.) What about other Windows developers who might have been considering a Mac release, or dual-platform vendors who can just barely justify the expense of creating an OS X version- will they continue to dedicate resources to Mac development?

I certainly hope so, and I'm optimistic. And like many Mac aficionados, I'm looking forward to Apple's Worldwide Developers Conference this August, where we'll finally get to see a preview of what's coming in Mac OS X 10.5. This is going to be a big release for Apple- more than ever, people are paying attention to the Mac. Microsoft is gearing up to release Windows Vista in the same timeframe, which will up the ante further. The Intel transition opens up some interesting possibilities with regard to Mac vs. Windows competition, now that they can theoretically play with each other as equals on the same machine.

I suspect we'll see a number of new capabilities in 10.5 that are designed to compete with Vista on a feature list perspective. I think we'll probably see some user interface design evolution, designed to make Vista seem a bit outdated even before it's released. It's quite possible that we'll see dramatic new levels of Windows compatibility. Of course, if history is a guide, the biggest "wow" will probably come in the form of something no one has really considered yet.

For the past year, Apple has been successfully re-engineering the Mac platform to enhance its abilities to be a Mac and to enable it to compete with traditional PCs in ways previously not possible. In the coming year, I hope we'll see a big push to leverage this transition in ways that raise the bar for everyone.

Along those lines, I think Apple needs to make a couple of commitments in areas where the Mac has potential vulnerabilities. First, Apple should designate a "quality czar" (I'm sure they could come up with a clever job title) whose job is to ensure that all of Apple's hardware products are ruggedly designed, thoroughly reliable, and free of absurd QA problems. This person needs to get up on stage with Steve Jobs at hardware introductions and talk for five minutes about how impressive a particular machine's testing phase was, perform some audience-pleasing durability demos... and lose his or her job if Apple's hardware QA does not improve.

Second, Apple needs to advance the issue of software security. At this moment in time, Mac OS X is far more secure for the average user than Windows, but this advantage will evaporate if Apple doesn't take a leadership role in continuing to promote security internally, and to open itself to the security community and invite participation. A "security panel" comprised of internal and external experts, researchers, and hackers, whose goal is to make OS X as secure as possible, would be an effective way to show everyone that Apple is commited to ongoing security on the Mac.

Apple's already got a slick, public face for design and features; it needs to do the same for quality and security.

Finally, for those who are looking for something to read over the holiday weekend (those who are Mac geeks, that is), I highly recommend Amit Singh's Mac OS X Internals: A Systems Approach (also available as an e-book). This is an incredibly detailed look into Mac OS X's core architecture, and if you're interested in low-level OS design and/or Mac OS X on a technical level, this book provides 1680 pages of geek food. You won't find iPhoto tips and tricks in this book; it's all about Mach threads, IPC, design diagrams, and code samples.

Have a safe and happy Fourth of July.

I was robbed by two men

Thanks to Scott Jacobson for bringing this phenomenon to my attention.

Wow

Nolan, who is one of my coworkers, introduced me to the TED Conference today, which is very cool. How the hell have I missed this?

Check out some of the presentations that were given by interesting people at this year's conference, including Al Gore and David Pogue.

But the most fascinating presentation of all- both in terms of content and style- was given by Hans Rosling, a public health expert who co-founded Gapminder, which is worth checking out.

Hans Gosling is a genius, and Al Gore is almost laugh-out loud funny (and, of course, extremely relevant). Every ounce of power denied to people like them is wasted.

It's here

T-shirt design by Mike.

Don't get cocky

I can't believe this is real.

Digital Rights Management

John Gruber has an interesting piece about the paradoxical demands of music distributors who want to control access to copyrighted content, while at the same time want DRM'd content to be interoperable between devices.

DRM is inherently non-interoperable- at least, so long as it's controlled by companies like Apple and Microsoft who have incentives to create proprietary forms of DRM for reasons of licensing royalties and marketshare.

DRM and Internet-era copyright law are critical issues that need to be addressed in a thorough and open manner, in which the needs of content distributors and consumers are carefully balanced.

I think the idea of creating an open, standards-based DRM format, which would provide the ability for distributors to create controlled content that could at the same time be interoperable, is interesting. I did a quick search and found Sun's Open Media Commons project, which looks at first glance like an attempt to do just that.

Interesting...

Most die-hard techies are mortally opposed to any form of DRM, but I think it's reasonable for distributors to be allowed to take certain steps to make it difficult for people to steal content. The devil is in the details- balancing "fair use" with copy protection.

I think this balance is achievable, and an open, flexible DRM model would be a good first step toward finding it.

Agony

So my wife's iBook is starting to go on the fritz, and you know what that means...  Time for me to get a new computer (and give her my current laptop)!  This was her suggestion, for the record- I offered to get her a new laptop and hold on to mine for now.

I love my wife.

Problem is, I'm really not sure what to get.  Part of me wants a MacBook- I love the form-factor. It's what I'd get, if only I had a guarantee that Final Cut Studio would be officially supported.  I rely on that stuff and I don't feel comfortable buying a computer that can't officially run it.  Plus, without a dedicated graphics card, I would be afraid I'd be missing out on any cool OS updates or features in programs like Motion (which requires a graphics card).

So that leaves me in MacBook Pro land.  I like the 15" form factor much better than the 17", but the 17" is the only model that has a dual-layer DVD burner (for now), and also the only MBP model that has the MacBook's double-tap to right-click functionality (for now).  I'd like to have both of those.  They're not deal-breakers, but the fact that they're absent on the 15" model seems to indicate that a refresh of the 15" is likely to add them at some point soon.

Plus, the new "Core 2 Duo" processors (Merom), which are 64-bit and supposedly much faster than the Core Duos, are coming out within a few months.  Those will almost certainly make their way into the MacBook Pro- hopefully ASAP after Intel announces them.

So the dilemma: a fully-loaded 15" MacBook Pro seems to be the ideal machine for me.  And, once again, here I am in that classic "just a few more months until something much better comes out" scenario.

If a Merom-powered 15" MBP comes out in the next few months, it'll surely be a far more powerful machine that the current (and quite nice) Core Duo MacBook Pro.

If not...  Then I'll probably go for the Core Duo MacBook Pro, and by doing so, prompt Apple to announce the imminent arrivial of the Merom MBPs for everyone else.

Bliss

You know you're in for a treat (if you're me, that is) when you happen upon a new article by John Siracusa that discusses the Mac OS X kernel.

Charles Krauthammer on Palestinians

While I don't really agree with his take on Munich, I do think Krauthammer raises some interesting points in this piece about recent events in Gaza.

Apple's quality control REALLY SUCKS

Chalk up another hardware quality issue with Apple stuff.

Quality control is a major problem for Apple- most of their products are so good in theory, and yet end up falling short on the execution.

I've written about this before.

Just this morning, I was approached by a coworker who was looking for advice about what kind of laptop to purchase. Quality issues aside, I would recommend a Mac laptop over anything else in a heartbeat (barring unusual user requirements)- but frankly, the QC issue makes it increasingly difficult to confidently recommend a Mac.

How (and where) iPods are made

Here's an interesting and depressing glimpse into the iPod's manufacturing process.

Jensen Harris and the new Microsoft Office user interface

Microsoft Office is probably the most ubiquitous piece of software in the world. For most people who use their computers for work, at least one Office app is probably open at any given time. Over the years, Office has grown increasingly complex and feature heavy- bloated, according to many people.

For the next Windows version of Office, which will likely be released early next year, Microsoft decided to completely change the user interface in an attempt to make the programs' functionality easier to find. Menus and toolbar buttons as we know them are gone in Office 2007, replaced with a fairly dramatic new concept called the "ribbon".

Making such a big change to the interface of programs that are so widely used is a really big deal. While most people would probably be open to the idea that Office's traditional interface is not necessarily the most efficient design possible, many people are concerned that making such a dramatic change to a fundamental tool used by literally hundreds of millions of people- many if not most of whom are not computer experts- will result in mayhem.

I've been peripherally following the progress of the new Office UI online for the past several months, and last weekend I stumbled across Jensen Harris's blog. Jensen is one of the Microsoft developers who's responsible for designing the new Office UI, and he goes into incredible detail about the history of Office's UI, Microsoft's decision-making criteria for deciding to change it, and the various stages of the redesign process- which is still ongoing at the moment.

Jensen is a very good writer, and I was interested enough in the few posts I read when I found his blog that I went all the way back to the beginning and read the whole thing. If you're interested in software or any form of product design, I think you'll really enjoy this. Here's a post that I think demonstrates the nature of the blog pretty well. There's been a tremendous amount of research, study, experimentation, and thought put behind the new Office UI, and the blog details it in a very thorough and entertaining way.

Reading it has raised my level of awareness of computer UI in general, and my appreciation for the factors that go into its design. Jensen's blog, along with a large number of other blogs by Microsoft developers, really help to humanize Microsoft, and I commend them for it. I am extremely critical of Microsoft on many levels, and nothing Jensen or anyone else has written changes my attitude about Microsoft in general. But what these blogs are successful at doing is showing that real people, with real passion and talent, do exist at Microsoft, and that there is greatness beneath the heavy coat of mismanagement at the top that is struggling to break free.

The ultimate success or failure of Office 2007's new UI is still to be determined, but it's cool to see Microsoft taking real steps to evolve the basic tenets of software design. Not even Apple- a company that I applaud for its attention to design detail- has endeavored to attempt to rewrite the basic concepts behind menus and toolbars. (Speaking of which, there's been no public announcement about the fate of the next Mac version of Office's UI. I'm assuming it will be updated to resemble the new Windows version, but it will be interesting to see how the new UI translates to the Mac, which has a menu bar built directly into the operating system UI as a fundamental component).

I've been playing with the new UI in the beta 2 version of Office 2007 for a few days, and I think I like it. I haven't installed the beta on my primary work computer, so it's difficult to really give it the thorough kind of test that I would need in order to get a real feel for it. Most of my experience with it has been in quick and experimental jaunts, not actual usage. But it's definitely a thoroughly thought-through design, and it's definitely got potential. I think it's a big step in the right direction, and I have really enjoyed reading about its development.

Seetharaman Narayanan

I suspect most Photoshop users will appreciate this and this.

Rolling Stone is on to something

Was the 2004 Election Stolen?

According to this article by Robert F. Kennedy Jr.: yes.

Serious doubts about the validity of the 2004 election have been simmering ever since it occurred, and this article paints a very convincing picture of a massive, intentional, coordinated conspiracy on behalf of Republicans involved with the election to subvert the will of voters.

I have absolutely no doubt that if every legally eligible voter in 2004 had had their vote counted properly, John Kerry would have won. Just like Al Gore would have won under similar circumstances in 2000.

The implications behind this are about as profound as they get.

In my previous post, I said "The fact that Bush is so incompetent should have lead to his replacement in the 2004 election, and no one is more responsible for that loss than John Kerry and the weakened Democratic Party."

If it's true that Republicans stole the 2004 election due to demonstrable and widespread election fraud, all bets are off. The man who is running the country, his administration, and the corrupt power brokers behind the Republicans' control of the country have literally staged a coupe d'etat in this country. Literally- a coupe d'etat.

What are we going to do about it?

Peggy Noonan is on to something

In her latest column, she looks at the utter failure of our government to adequately represent "the people" and concludes that it may be time for a third party.

Peggy Noonan's a good writer and is politically astute. She's also pretty solidly conservative, which is a good thing- the more well written, astute insight we can get from all across the political spectrum, the better.

But Peggy Noonan is grappling with the single most crucial problem our country is facing- the profound incompetence of our president and his party's inability to govern responsibly- and is drawing the wrong conclusions.

In August 2004, she stepped away from her column to dedicate her time to the re-election of George W. Bush and the maintenance of Republican governmental domination. A quote:

"Because I am a conservative I support the party that best represents conservative views, the Republican Party. Sometimes I get mad at it; often it disappoints me. It is imperfect, and not perfectible. But to a greater degree than in the past I feel an urge to help it. Since peace was wrenched off the tracks on 9/11, deep in my heart I have pulled for President Bush, Vice President Cheney, members of the current administration, and Republicans in the Senate and the House."

On November 4, 2004, she proclaimed "God bless our country" as her hopes were fulfilled.

A year later, when it had become clear even to conservatives that the Bush Administration was failing the country, she blamed the "elites". Quote: "[America is] Off the tracks and hurtling forward, toward an unknown destination." (I wrote about this column at the time.)

It's true that politicians from both parties have failed to exert leadership that resonates with the American people. It's true that the Democrats in particular have exhibited a shocking inability to mobilize and inform and inspire the electorate, and to defend the country from the serious damage the Republican controlled executive, legislative, and judicial branches are inflicting on our nation.

There's plenty of blame to go around, and I'm open to the idea of a third party. But this discussion cannot be had without illuminating the elephant in the room that Ms. Noonan is simply unwilling or unable to acknowledge.

George W. Bush is a terrible president. A strong leader up to our country's historic challenges would have been able to lead the country- both the "people" and our elected representatives- in a manner that united us (more or less), as opposed to letting everything spin so wildly out of control that we now do truly face a crisis of government.

A competent president would have capitalized on the passionate national spirit that all Americans felt after 9/11 and used that as the foundation for policies and actions that rivaled our challenges.

A competent president would have been able to navigate the political gauntlet thrown down by the extremists in his party. No one would argue that a Republican president is not entitled to govern with a Republican slant, but the hardcore appeasement to the hardcore right championed by people like Karl Rove- and blindly accepted by the president- does not constitute leadership.

A competent president would have been able to seriously address the fact that Big Oil's interests do not align with America's interests, and divorce himself of any potential conflict of interest inherent in his past, as well as the pasts of Dick Cheney and Condoleezza Rice. (Assuming those interests are truly in the past.) An administration beholden to Big Oil is fundamentally opposed to everyone else.

A competent president would be able to stand up at a press conference and answer questions in a lucid, forthright, and thoughtful manner, as opposed to stumbling through cheap cliches at best.

A competent president would stop at nothing to protect the American people- including possibly undertaking government actions that lead to serious dialogue about the balance between power and civil liberties- but would not outright lie to the American people about those actions(i.e. "Any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order.").

A competent president would surely have handled Hurricane Katrina differently.

In short, a competent president most likely would have headed off the most serious misgivings many of us have about the competence of the entire government.

Of course, the issue is complicated. The fact that Bush is so incompetent should have lead to his replacement in the 2004 election, and no one is more responsible for that loss than John Kerry and the weakened Democratic Party. Republicans can't really be blamed for voting for Bush in 2004 (though I wish many hadn't).

Impeachment is not a viable option right now. While I think George W. Bush's performance in office is a textbook example of why impeachment should exist, the political environment is not such where it would be helpful or possible for the nation to undertake such an action.

Acknowledgement is what we need. We need to acknowledge that our system is not fundamentally broken- it's the leadership at the top that has allowed it to seem so. Republicans need to free themselves to criticize the president and his disastrous policies, and return to a more mainstream Republican agenda, outside of the illusion that the president's far right agenda provides adequate cover for true national guidance.

Peggy Noonan is right that things seem seriously broken in Washington. We may well end up needing a third party to help mend things, but first we need to honestly address the root of the problem, and that is our disastrous president.