After Apache Purchase, Gulf Threatened by a Massive URL Spill

NEW ORLEANS—Barely 24 hours after both market analysts and the technology industry were shocked by the announcement of a $7 billion merger between BP and the Apache Software Foundation, executives from both organizations are scrambling to explain a new contamination of the Gulf ecosystem, apparently by URLs, HTML tags, and other basic building blocks of the World Wide Web.

TAMU Professor of Oceanography John Kessler was the first to discover the bizarre contamination, posting to his blog this morning: “We were tracking a swarm of electric eels, when suddenly the entire population began rhythmically reversing polarity. Our underwater cameras revealed that they had accidentally strayed between two widely separated <blink> tags. Then a school of luminescent blowfish wandered into a CSS field and began changing size and colors. When several dolphins suddenly lined up and swam across the ocean floor, we knew we had a marquee on our hands.”

Web 2.0 researchers began arriving to aid marine scientists in shoreline Gulf territory by late evening, but aid efforts were halted when they discovered that AT&T coverage was nonexistent and none of their iPhones worked. Unable to tweet for emotional support and 75 miles from the nearest Starbucks, the best minds of the new media industry reverted to a state of nature, requiring environmental support groups to abandon brown pelicans in order to instruct them in the finer points of human survival. “It was really quite pathetic,” said Eve Lundstrom, a World Wildlife Fund volunteer from Minnesota. “After they were cut off from Facebook, they started questioning whether anything they did mattered if they couldn’t update their status. We found them trying to make lattes from seawater, and covering themselves in oil to resolve something they called ‘AntennaGate.’ When several of them stripped naked and swam straight out into the Gulf, we knew we had a real problem. The one we saved said they were looking for something called a fail whale.”

Sally Khudairi, Apache vice president of marketing, held a rapidly-called press conference on shore, within sight of a rapidly forming cluster of floating unmatched <div> tags. “Yes, we had begun integrating our technology into the reclamation efforts as of several weeks ago, and the servers we are using have worked perfectly for fifteen years. But for some reason, at the moment the Foundation signed the deal and entered into partnership with BP, all of our infrastructure suddenly began glitching. It was almost as if some sort of retroactive incompetence had been inflicted on the program code—which, of course, is impossible.

“Frankly, we have no idea how it is even possible for binary data to contaminate seawater as it has. But BP has promised that they will have a complete answer and solution to the problem in the next two weeks.”

Today’s announcement overshadowed continuing confusion stemming from the merger, about which both parties have been tight-lipped. The Apache Software Foundation gives away its software for free, and is generally believed to be financed by donations, so it is not known how they acquired the money for the all-cash deal, or how much they have left in reserve. BP issued this statement on an IRC channel in Finland early this morning: “We were as surprised as anyone when Apache approached us, and were unsure about the seriousness of their offer. But when they unzipped those dufflebags, and started piling bricks of cash and sacks of Krugerrands on the conference table, we stopped asking questions.”

Reaction to the announcement was highly negative, especially from the programming community which has contributed their time pro bono to Apache for years. “I’ve been living on nothing but off-brand Red Bull and 7-11 microwave burritos for nine years,” said one Linux programmer who identified himself only as Mar|<us. “It’s my code they’re using to work around an IE 6 bug with transitional XHTML 1.0, and what thanks have I gotten? A free pizza at the tweetup, and a LinkedIn blurb which hasn’t done shit for me in this economy.”

Apache has said nothing about the deal or why they made it, excepting a 4:42 AM EDT tweet from fundraising executive Serge Knystautas, which read in full: “‘Bout time you learned who really owns the web. Keep the Caymans transfers coming, boys. And fuck you, Stallman.” No further information has surfaced since, although speculation by Crunchgear blaming Apple and Steve Jobs personally for Apache’s apparent takeover of the Internet has been linked to by 14,482 blogs.

It is also unknown why the BP-Apache deal has apparently been subjected to a blackout moratorium on both Google’s and Yahoo’s search engines, both of which only show a single AP clipping posted on a Chinese language edition of the Epoch Times. A highly placed source within Google commented, in a quavering voice, “Man. You do not want to know what they threatened us with.”

When asked for comment at her press conference, Khudairi answered, “Klaatu barada nikto. Qapla’!”

At press time, reports are arriving from Austin that a viscous oily substance has begun leaking from the Ethernet ports on cable modems in homes and businesses throughout the city. Unconfirmed witnesses say that some wireless routers have begun spraying this substance in fine droplets in a 200-meter radius from the base station. Details are not available, but the phenomenon appears to be spreading outward to other cities in a drunken salesman pattern. Comcast issued a statement saying they were looking into the matter, but that this had absolutely nothing to do with BitTorrent throttling.

I Write Like is insane

Hat tip to Brian Greenberg for this one: plug in a block of text into the I Write Like website, and it’ll tell you which great authors you emulate.

I happen to do a bunch of different writing, so I plugged in various writing samples.

For example, a chapter of the novel I’m working on: David Foster Wallace. Okay, nice start—one of the best writers in recent history, IMO. Of course, he was also horrifically manic depressive and hung himself in his garage a while back, so presumably the comparison only goes so far.1

For Macworld, TidBITS, or blog postings: Cory Doctorow. Call me a bit surprised by this one. It was no surprise that Brian writes like a guy who wrote Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom. But I think Doctorow’s prose is a lot more colorful than my nonfiction work tends to be, and certainly a lot more opinionated than my editors let me get away with.

So then I plugged in a swath of my nonfiction book, and the result was:

James frakking Joyce.

You’re kidding me, right?

1Plus, I don’t use footnotes.

Thinking the Unthinkable: Instant coffee

I’m not spending enough time at home in the mornings—well, early afternoons—to justify making a pot of coffee, but that morning jolt is still needed. Running low on Starbucks VIA which I got as a freebie giveaway, and IMO it’s way too expensive to pay for. So I’m soliciting suggestions on a decent instant coffee.

Criteria: must have similar caffeine to brewed. (Okay to suggest using 150-200% of recommended dosage per liquid ounce.) Must not taste like ass. What got me thinking about this was a buddy giving me Folger’s a few weeks ago—it tasted Almost Entirely Unlike Coffee, but that didn’t make it bad.

Suggestions?

NPR: So close and yet so far

I have simple rules for managing my list of podcasts—which, if you’re interested, you can peruse yourself in the White Noise section of the sidebar.

1. Subscribe to anything which sounds remotely interesting. In the last three days, I’ve downloaded nearly 40 hours of audio—this doesn’t include anything I’ve actually listened to in that time, so the number is probably closer to 50.

2. Ruthlessly skip any podcast which in fact is not interesting.

3. Run a series of insanely complicated AppleScripts which delete some podcasts after they’re a few days old, save other podcasts until I get to them, and subject most of them to manual review.

There is pretty much one cardinal rule: a podcast should be a single story, rather than a concatenation of a bunch of different stories which all get mucked together. So, fer’instance, the CBC science show Quirks and Quarks is available both as an hour-long show, or as each story in a separate file. I go with the latter. (Second best option: enhanced podcasts which bookmark each story in a show.)

NPR does not like breaking up its shows—if you want to subscribe to Fresh Air or Talk of the Nation, you’re going to get it in hour-long chunks. But if you sign up for the NPR programmer interface, you can use their API to get individual stories.

The sole exceptions: the single damn shows for which this would be most useful, Morning Edition and All Things Considered.

Of course, you can download individual stories—just go to the NPR website, or subscribe to these shows’ RSS feeds, and all of the stories show up one after the other. Just click on the title, and download the file. This saves as an MP3 file. Which, in iTunes, looks like this.

The thing is, waaaaaaay back in 2002, I had an AppleScript which would parse the NPR feed, let me pick the stories I wanted, and then save them to prettier filenames. So I could at least see what the hell I was deleting without actually listening to them, which is the fate of most of my podcasts. And I don’t doubt I could do it again.

The question: why the hell do I have to? The information is there, so it’s not a licensing issue. It’s just that geeks are allowed to get access to this stuff with a little elbow grease, but everyone else can’t.

NPR, get with the program. This is seriously silly.

Lessons in passive-aggressive behavior

This just happened.

[SCENE: outside at Starbucks. All tables taken by one person, plenty of seats.]

Me: Do you mind if I sit here?

Man in TD shirt: [waves at chair]

Me:: Do you mind if I smoke?

TD: No, that I can’t take. [starts to get up]

Me: No! Don’t get up, I’ll just sit somewhere else.

[TD man carries his chair to where four empty chairs are already located, and sits next to the only other guy smoking.]

I just don’t get it.

Finder Desktop automation demo

Something I’ve been working on, on and off, for a long time: various automation scripts to engineer GTD principles using the Finder Desktop. I wrote this up for TidBITS a while back, but I’m still tinkering with new ideas.

Anyway, here’s what I’m currently using. Posting this here because right now, none of these automations are usable by anyone but me — you have to have my quirks to put them to good use. But I’m thinking of wrapping these up as a software package, if I hear back that there’s any interest.

iPad Killer

(inspired by an offhand tweet by Lex Friedman)

I can’t seem to follow actual facts.
An Android touchpad will allow more hacks.
But an iPad might be what I require:
Multitouching just like Steve desires.

iPad killer, people say.
Ta ta ta ta ta ta ta ta ta ta tap better.
None none none none, none none none today.

You download an ebook, you can’t even finish it.
You’re talking a lot, but your Skype app isn’t running.
When I have nothing to say, the camera’s gone.
Buy something once, why buy it again?

iPad killer, people say.
Fla fla fla fla, fla fla fla fla fla Flash hater.
None none none none, none none none today.

This line’s in French, even though
GPads ship with Esperanto.
Can’t settle for an iPad when
Klingon’s an add-on in Cyanogen… hooray!
Ghuy’ cha’, ghuy’ cha’, ghuy’ cha’, ghuy’ cha’, ghuy’ cha’, ghuy’ cha’.
I’m insane because I can’t decide
Which fictional device to buy.

iPad killer, people say.
Ma ma ma ma, ma ma ma ma ma March waiter.
None none none none, none none none today.

Amateur Hour at CES

Lots of things going surprisingly wrong here on Day 0 of CES. No separate lines for pre-registered and onsite press registration. The Press/Blogger lounge has free coffee, but no wifi — so not much blogging going on. Folks there said it was “still being set up”, but seeing as how the Venetian just asks for a registration code to use their existing network, it’s not clear how much setup is really necessary.

Amusingly, I’m writing this from a free (albeit slow) wifi hotspot elsewhere in the hotel.

The CEA Visions magazine says we should all flock to social.cesweb.org to network with the other 110,000 people here — and that page has the 2010 version of a Geocities “under construction” page. They’re “working around the clock for a beta release.” Beta? The show goes live tomorrow, guys, and a bunch of us are already here.

No complaints — already the press is getting free stuff, and Toshiba came through again with a nifty ballistic nylon shoulderbag. I just sort of figure that CES would have the kinks ironed out by now; seeing them drop a few minor balls is surprising.

625 WPM with iReadFast

Playing around with iReadFast, which I wrote up today for Macworld. It uses RSVP—showing words sequentially in one spot—so your eye doesn’t have to travel in order to read.

Fastest speed I can comprehend after about an hour of training is 625 WPM, and I’m wondering if I’ll go faster if I stick with it. But notably, when you blow the words up to three inches high, it’s damned easy to sit back and read.

Here’s what it looks like.

In defense of advising whores and drug dealers

The elephant in the room on the recent ACORN scandal: providing tax advice to prostitutes is a necessary social service.

No surprise at the many people who are shocked–shocked–by a social service agency working with illegal professions. “Heaven forfend,” they must think, before they call their accountants to find out how best to minimize their taxes, with a socially appropriate wink and nod whenever they cross the line from avoidance to evasion. “Truly shocking,” they think, as they drive their SUVs at 80 MPH. “What is this world coming to?”, as they count out a cash under-the-table payment to their domestic help, which is parceled out to subcontractors making subminimum wage.

Call me crazy, but I think that few of the prostitutes on the corner of 13th and H NW feel like they’re on their chosen career track. Freakonomics documented that drug dealers make McDonald’s-level wages, and live at home with their mothers. If you make your living in the black market or gray economy, it’s pretty damned unlikely that you measure your income in integer multiples of the poverty line.

Unfortunately, that conflicts with the American class war–the middle class versus the poor, protecting the status quo benefits of wealthy. The red states, seemingly forgetting that it’s their own who are most likely to be impoverished, want to see the inner city poor (coincidentally black and Hispanic) vanish entirely from social services if they break any of society’s rules. Join the standard economy, don’t use illegal drugs (unfortunately, Vicodin prescriptions are hard to come by for this group), and don’t transgress against the law.

Behavioral economics doesn’t bear them out. Sure, some people are criminals because they choose to be; some percentage of humanity is sociopathic. But the majority of low income criminals turn to that path because it’s their best option–which is to say, seeing as how this route includes low wages, and the risk of prison and violent death, it’s most likely their only perceived option.

You want to get people off of this track? Most people can’t do it on their own; you need social services to provide support. And one way to get people into that system is to have a clear hook: come to ACORN for tax and financial advice, and while you’re here, get networked into a community that can help you change things you really shouldn’t be doing.

The preferred alternative of the clucking chickens appears to be “lock them all up and throw away the key.” Yeah, that strategy has worked very well. It’s nearly impossible to buy drugs or pay for sex these days, since we started locking up more people than any other wealthy democracy.

I, too, was sickened by the ACORN videos–because what I saw was the shutting off of social services for the most needful, sacrificed at the altar of middle-class white outrage. I have little doubt that among the 400,000 families whom ACORN claims as their constituency were many people whose income was supplemented–or drained–by illegal activities, and who had no other source of advice. When you ask for social services, you’re looking for two things: help with negotiating the bureaucratic maze, and planning in order to get as close to right with society as possible.

That route is now closed; if you’re forced into prostitution, thievery, or drug trafficking (perhaps for your own habit), forget trying to get help if you want to stop. The self-styled straight and narrow community won’t let you.

What I also see are community-trained, low-income social workers, whom are now unemployed. Perhaps the advice they gave was substantially similar to what they said to the genuinely needy who came through their doors; are we to believe that they were supposed to throw them out? That is considered just treatment for a 17-year-old turning tricks in order to eat? They did their jobs, and if they did them poorly, I don’t believe that there are enough Ivy League MSWs lining up to be paid $9 an hour to work with society’s outcasts.

You can only call what happened a social offense–or a firing offense–if you have a better alternative. The loud and outraged offer none. I’m used to rank hypocrisy from this group, but I’d like to think that it was once considered shameful to be so blatantly inhumane. Apparently, no longer.

The History of the Next Three Years

We all know how the health care debate is likely to end, so let’s cut the crap and save us all some trouble.

1) The public option, if not quite dead, is in critical and declining condition. It exists solely to serve three political purposes: as a sop to the progressive base, as a chew toy for the radical right, and as a bargaining chip to be backed off slowly by Democratic leaders, like a puppy facing a radioactive bone.

Sure, with few exceptions, the Democratic leadership is making the right noises about being behind the policy; this is only the kabuki until they sorrowfully announce that they don’t have the votes or the support to pass it. This is how you can tell they’re not serious about it: they let it be the radical option. If President Obama were serious about backing this policy, his strategy–now impossible–would have been to leave single-payer on the table. Let that option, which he never supported, draw the slings and arrows of the right, and the public option becomes the moderate alternative.

To miss this calculation, you have to either believe that the president is politically naïve, or that he did not mind if the public option became a sacrificial lamb. I don’t believe that Obama is naïve.

2) The most likely result is tepid compromise. The Democrats are too incoherent to pick a position and pass it. The Republicans are too weak to block the bill entirely, and have developed a heads-we-win, tails-you-lose strategy: with health care reform or without it, their demagoguery for 2010 is already well mapped. They, too, are just proceeding with their 22-month kabuki play.

3) A compromise is not going to be good policy. Anything which passes will be sniped at relentlessly by Republicans and conservative Democrats. If $N are required to fund whatever plan passes, expect $N/2 to be allocated, with further reductions intended by those who would prefer reform to fail. If mandates are placed on individuals and businesses as part of the plan, presume that numerous loopholes will be carved out by the lobbyists, driving more people into the underfunded public support network. Our political system is rigged to produce either sweeping change or incrementalism; large doses of incrementalism are the worst of both worlds.

4) The safety net will continue to fray. The negative trend lines on health care delivery and coverage have been consistent, through Republican and Democratic administrations, recoveries and recessions. This will not be stemmed with a bilgewater reform bill, offering “universal” coverage with high deductibles, high co-pays, and unaffordable premiums in the absence of sufficient federal funding. The status quo will be maintained: those who cannot afford coverage now will do their best to avoid incurring medical expenses, even if they’re under a putative universal coverage plan. Instead, they’ll be driven into the system by the same factors which do so now: when their pain and suffering becomes unendurable. Such a system will neither realize public health benefits, nor long-term cost savings, nor systemic promotion of the general welfare.

5) The entitled classes will continue to be reminded of their victimhood. Meanwhile, those who pay for private coverage, and who mistakenly believe that their economic positions are secure, will be treated to unending news reports about the welfare queens enjoying their free health care, while they continue to face the problems they have now: rising health care costs, private rationing of care, and increases in personal insecurity. Presumably, the worst abuses of today’s system will be ended, but a system designed to maximize private profit will continue to screw the middle class–or at least, that is how they will perceive it. What will change is that they’ll now have a population of newly-entitled poor upon which to vent their wrath.

This leads to several nearly unavoidable results:

1) The Democrats lose in 2010. The progressive engine which supported Obama in 2008 is feeling rather put-upon; without a change in perception, don’t expect to see quite so many people going door-to-door next time around. These losses will be stemmed solely by the continued implosion of the Republican party; with no standard-bearer aside from inchoate fear and rage–the spirit of September 12th, indeed–the Democrats remain the only game in town for the rational, no matter how disappointing they may be.

2) The systemic problems in the system go unaddressed. Americans continue to be deeply unhealthy and chronically unhappy as compared to our peers, while rejecting any evidence presented to us that this is our state of affairs. Our media are saturated with happy talk about Wall Street and celebrity piffle; in that portion of America which still remains engaged by political discussion, private interests dominate the grounds for discussion and set the terms of debate.

3) Eventually, the reckoning comes. Today, you only hear talk of armed insurrection on the right, in opposition to the perceived socialism of Obama’s centrist policies. The left, by and large, is content with their usual relegation, sticking with the best they can get out of the Democrats. This might be a viable short-term solution, provided we are actually on our way out of the Great Recession. Historically, however, systemic lack of improvement, and unequal economic distribution, serves only to radicalize politics on both the right and the left; our polity would not be well served by a leftist movement as radicalized as what is now considered normal on the other side. Yet that is the natural outcome.

Unfortunately, there are real natural and demographic forces which are coming to a head. The AARP brigade of 2019 just saw the destruction or diminution of their savings; they’re scared, they’re large, they’re organized, and they’re losing their power to earn. Every indication is that we will do the bare minimum to prevent climate change in the hope that a deus ex machina technology will someday save us. We’re embroiled in two wars, still, which show little chance of providing us long-term security in return for our expenditure, while we continue to largely ignore the hotbeds which will dominate the headlines of the next generation.

Simply put, there are numerous precarious tipping points in our immediate future, and the American people have been trained for 30 years to do nothing so much as cling desperately to the status quo, attempting to stay abreast of the incoming tide. We have faced political cataclysms in that time, but we have done little to nothing to prepare for the next one–unless we are so lucky that it should be identical to what we have already faced.

And even so, it is clear that the calcification of our political debate is such that repeating the past is just as likely to derail us. The groundwork has been laid for exactly that path to self-destruction.

As I see it, there is one clear path out of this, and one way in which the American people can be mobilized into resilience. The rest of this is addressed to Barack Obama, and those of his supporters who wish the same:

Mr. President, it’s about time you started doing your goddamn job.

You were elected to be transformational: in your person, and in your policies. You give the impression–to all but the lunatic few–of deep intelligence, erudite thought, sound judgment, and slow emotion. You command the nation’s attention. You are probably among the most skilled orators we’ve produced in 100 years. You have a photogenic family, even a cute dog.

These are the historic ingredients of American trust.

What have you done with these talents to date? You have enacted huge plans and sweeping changes–nearly all of them purely reactive to the failures of the past. Your bailout and stimulus intend to restore the financial status quo; your industrial policies seek to prop up a failing economic sector; your health care plan–well, beyond rhetoric, it’s pretty damned unclear just what you expect your health care plan to do, since no one knows what bouillabaisse will emerge from Congress. It was good, however, to see you resume your role as chef.

You seek bipartisan discussion between parties which are having none of it. You preach moderation to the immoderate. You claim to seek a new way of governance, and you are losing to the old rules.

Your goals are laudable; someday, I may even find them convincing. But these cannot work without the clarion call, the unified banner, the New Deal. Your New Deal, whatever that turns out to be, and whatever you choose to call it.

The people will forgive you your inevitable stumbles if they know in which direction you intend to march. Your opponents will snipe at you no less vociferously if you fail to provide a clear destination, and no more effectively when you do. The sole thing which can destroy you–and by extension, us, since your opposition has no vision beyond amassing the power they have lost–is incoherence.

You, Mr. President, have less excuse to be incoherent than anyone we’ve elected in a very long time.

You clearly know the rules: you began to follow them with your speech to Congress. Set the agenda. Absorb those enemies with whom you can reconcile, and crush those with whom you can’t. State your policy, articulate your plan, and then use every ounce of skill you can muster to sell it to America and her elected representatives.

In one word: lead.

This is not accomplished by turning over the details of your vision to the pack of squabbling game hens which is your party. They are looking for leadership, and manifestly unable to generate it themselves.

You can consider your job well-accomplished when it can be said–as it cannot be said today–that the average American knows your goals and your nonnegotiable principles. The progressives will return to you, and will fight for you, if you give them a vision. If you are willing to fail. If your compromises do not come in early negotiations, but in late politicking, and with clear benefits in return for what is traded.

At a time when your enemies are legion, loud, weak, and unfocused, the American center will join you when the path is clear, when their friends and neighbors in your political base are activated, and the cause is just. These are not the emotions you are invoking today; your actions are not living up to the seeds of greatness which you planted last year, and which we idealists are still waiting to sprout. Health care is only the beginning; this requires clear vision on foreign policy, our long-term economic strategy, America’s role in the world, and our dedication to human rights at home and abroad. Your job is to create of these a cohesive whole.

You have given many fine speeches, which form the nucleus; what history and the country require of you now is synthesis.

A vision so articulated may have legislative setbacks, and will be subjected to the laboratory of results. Greatness is not measured by such increments; it is instead amassed by audacity of purpose as expressed in the collective will of the people. The people whom you lead, Mr. President.

You have shown that you have no excess of timidity, and the willingness to take bold steps. What a shame it will be if you squander these talents without defining the agenda. You have two choices: be inspirational, or be a mediocrity. It is still early; there is time yet for you to choose.

We are waiting.

Covering CFP09

I’m covering CFP 2009 for TidBITS this week. My first article went live yesterday morning; part one of my coverage should be up shortly.

If you want to follow the conference yourself, follow the links from the CFP site to the live (and archived) video coverage. It’s well worth checking out the Twitter stream; not only does it contain plenty of live comments from the conference, but the live stream is being displayed on stage and is becoming part of the conversation here. I’ll have more to say about that later — it’s an extremely interesting dynamic.

It is damned hard to attend the sessions, network in the hallways, and still find the time to write articles (and participate in that live Twitstream). There’s at least four hours of conference video, filmed in another room, that I want to watch later. It’s the proverbial drink from the proverbial firehose here.

An open letter to Frank Luntz

Dear Frank,

Yes, people are mean in politics. Reality does suck.

Granted, politics have been mean, and reality has sucked, for a long time. But you’re one of the people to blame for the modern way in which it sucks, the one in which we can rebrand “torture” — and by “rebrand”, of course, I mean marketing, and not the actual red hot irons. Which you would probably call “interrogative probes.”

Not that any of us who were your students at Penn are particularly surprised. You were a great prof, but part of that was the amazing way in which you equated oleaginous stances to academic merit. “I can argue any political point so convincingly,” you said, “that none of you will be able to tell what I really believe.”

And you can. You’ve made a career of it. If you could have done so while double-dipping from the left and the right, I’m sure you would have. Some of us remember that Perot predated Gingrich on your resumé.

So have fun in Hollywood. I’m sure you’ll get along fine with the “arch-liberals” there. They’ll invite you to parties to play the foil, and you’ll go so you can pretend to be their intellectual superior. It’ll work out great for all of you.

Just do me a favor, Frank. Once you’re there, and you’re getting rich from fiction that is supposed to be fiction? Please stay. I think you’ve done the political infrastructure enough damage already.

Best,
Jeff Porten
UPenn, COL ’90

Dying off the vine

Remember the days after 9/11, when most of us spent days furiously getting in touch with friends and family, consoling each other, and making sure everyone was alright? If you’re like most people, you look back and think, “Christ, that was tedious. I sure hope I don’t have to go through that much effort next time.”

At least, if you’re like most people, according to the developers of the Microsoft Vine social network:

Vine is a hyperlocal messaging and alert system intended to be used to share information during a crisis. Properly configured, it will gather local news and public safety announcements along with location information, reports and messages from friends–eventually even those posted to other services, like Facebook and Twitter–into a handy little dashboard. This being Microsoft (MSFT), that dashboard will be proprietary and require PCs running XP SP2 or Vista and 600 MB of hard disk space.

I’m entirely in favor of disseminating good information during a disaster. When it gets bad, common sense will let you down, and ignorance can be swiftly fatal. For example, in the event of a radiological attack, your best bet — depending on your distance from the epicenter — is to find a deep hole in the ground and stay there for a few days. But if you’re far enough away, and downwind from the attack, you should be running like hell instead.

Then, of course, you should factor in the likelihood that you’ll be running like hell down the same roads that a million other panicked citizens are using, all of you fearing death from invisible, intangible radiation poisoning. Depending on how many of your fellow citizens have guns, well, I’m thinking that should tip some folks into staying in their basements instead.

A good source of information would be crucial during this kind of emergency. And there’s your essential problem with alert networks like Vine. During normal times, no one pays attention to them. So your response is likely to have the bejesus scared out of you when they chirp up — at least until you’re desensitized to false alarms. (Which is exactly what happens with the Alert DC SMS network, and the memories many of us have from the old tests of the Emergency Broadcast System.) But no one likes to build a network and then never use it, so expect to see Vine regularly telling you about decidedly non-emergency issues, leading you to think of Vine as a broadcaster of trivia.

Meanwhile, what happens during an actual emergency? Well, if you’re using Vine, here are the necessary preconditions:

  1. You’ll stay relatively stationary with your Windows laptop, or entirely stationary in front of your Windows desktop.
  2. Of course, you’ll have reliable access to both the Internet and electricty.
  3. All federal, state, and local emergency planners will be diligent in updating their news broadcasts using the computer-readable metadata that Vine will rely on to aggregate your hyperlocal news.
  4. Did I mention that you’d be stationary and require Internet access and electricity? Because really, I could have stopped there.

Next time I’m caught in this kind of situation, I already know what alert service I’ll use: Twitter, the alert service I use daily. Why?

  1. It aggregates both official news sources, and crowdsourced information from people I collectively trust.
  2. It’ll work on pretty much any mobile device I happen to have on me; if there’s any cell service, I’ll be connected.
  3. It provides me with a simple way to broadcast information and become a member of the crowd — while, at the same time, running like hell as needs be.

Twitter’s not perfect — in the event of a national emergency, there’s no way it would scale. And it would sure be useful for it to mash up with Google Maps, GPS, and other technologies which could be lifesavers in an emergency. But in the meantime, it’ll do — and in fact, it clearly will be where people instinctively turn next time. Microsoft’s attempt to “compete” will serve only to create a cul-de-sac of people separated from the crowd, which would concern me if I weren’t convinced that Vine will be an utter failure.

Blitzkrieg

Reading the transcript of a March 4, 2003 CNN debate about torture which is absolutely fascinating in retrospect. It opens with the question: “Following the capture of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the question has become whether the senior al Qaeda leader will reveal key information about the terrorist network. If he doesn’t, should he be tortured to make him tell what he knows?”

Of course, we know now that as of this interview, three days after KSM’s capture, he was probably already being tortured, based purely on the math of fitting 183 waterboardings into the remainder of March.

In favor of torture, under limited circumstances: Alan Dershowitz. Unequivocally opposed, Ken Roth of Human Rights Watch. “Moderating”: Wolf Blitzer.

Why is “moderating” in quotes? Because every one of his questions was actually more immoderate than the mostly-reasoned discussion of the interviewees:

BLITZER: Alan Dershowitz, a lot of our viewers will be surprised to hear that you think there are right times for torture. Is this one of those moments?

BLITZER: Alan, how do you know he doesn’t have that kind of ticking-bomb information right now?

BLITZER: Ken, under those kinds of rare, extreme circumstances, does Professor Dershowitz make a good point?

BLITZER: Well, let me interrupt, Ken. Let me ask you about a hypothetical case. There’s a terrorist attack. A lot of people have just been killed in New York. They capture one of the terrorists, who says, “Guess what, there’s another bomb out there, it is going to kill a lot more, but I’m not telling you where it is.”

BLITZER: Ken, let me just get back to that ticking time bomb scenario.

Go read the interview, and tell me that the man in that room most in favor of torture isn’t Wolf Blitzer.

KSM torture timeline

Something came to my notice over the weekend, in the category of “the dog isn’t barking.” Despite hearing a great deal of discussion on both sides of the so-called “debate” over American use of torture, I haven’t heard anyone raise this point:

We waterboarded Khalid Sheik Mohammed 183 times in March, 2003, according to the released memos.

No one seems to have correlated that with the date we captured Khalid Sheik Mohammed — which was March 1, 2003, in Pakistan.

In other words, we started torturing that unholy bastard pretty much the minute we laid hands on him. There were no “regular interrogation methods” for him. We went straight to the Torquemada techniques.

I don’t know about you, but there seems to be an unstated presumption that when the United States does engage in torture, it’s because we need information that we can’t get any other way. KSM shows that this is clearly false; with him, we didn’t try any other way.

In defense of baby shaking

At 11:07 AM today, CNET reported that Apple had approved the iPhone Baby Shaker application. Two hours and 18 minutes later, an update reported that the iPhone could no longer be used to simulate baby torture.

Specifically, the “game” was this:

The object of Baby Shaker is to stop the incessant crying of an infant pictured on screen by violently shaking the iPhone, at which point two red “x” marks appear over the baby’s eyes. “See how long you can endure his or her adorable cries before you just have to find a way to quiet the baby down!” reads the sales pitch for Baby Shaker.

Personally, I consider this behavior to be horrifying… on the part of Apple, that is. Because I believe that people should damn well be allowed to buy and sell this application.

Here’s the obvious argument against:

Jennipher Dickens, who founded a nonprofit organization in 2007 after her son Christopher was injured from being shaken by his father, brought the new application to our attention…. “As a mother of a child who was violently shaken at 7 weeks old, causing a severe brain injury, and the founder of a national organization for Shaken Baby Syndrome prevention, I don’t have to tell you how much this horrifies me!!!” she wrote in an e-mail.

The argument for:

If Ms. Dickens is trying to prevent shaken baby syndrome, then why is she preventing the distribution of an application that clearly demonstrates that shaking a baby can kill it?

I’ll go out on a limb and suggest that the kind of people who find this kind of thing amusing, and who share it with their amused friends, are exactly the same kind of chowderheads who, two weeks after becoming an unplanned parent, might inflict devastating injuries on their child through sheer ignorance.

Much better to ban a tasteless joke, and shut down any possibility of viral information-sharing. Just so long as no one is offended, which is the important thing.