Busy, busy, busy...

Sorry... I've been trying to get something completed for year end. I failed. :-(

(Viking: I'm not ignoring your comment! I just haven't had the time to really think about it. Sorry.)

We've also done a couple of day-trips, to New York City (to see the store windows) and Washington DC (to see the Capitol Building and the Botanical Garden). Over a thousand photos from both days, about 3 of which will be good. But I'll publish a few in a day or so.

Tonight I get a chance to wear something really cute, instead of either androgynous or work gear.

Later, Gator! :-)

Carolyn Ann

The Typing/Wordprocessing Monkeys

I just read a bit of a blog that has the old saw about a thousand monkeys being given an infinite amount of time. They'll eventually produce Shakespeare. Or Keats. Or Tim LaHaye.

No they won't.

If you give an infinite number of monkeys their typewriters, there's a small chance that one of them will type out Shakespeare's entire collection. There's a greater chance that some number of them will type out bits of Shakespeare. These can be combined, along with the one or two who type out entire plays, into the desired Riverside Collection. But you'll have to wait until they've finished... Which is when? Never, actually - the time they have is infinite.

There's an infinitesimal chance that all of the oxygen molecules in the room will gather in one corner. If you consider infinity as your time line, there's going to be a chance that this will happen for a miniscule moment, and also for an infinite amount of time. Either way, you're not feeling too well.

Because that miniscule chance never occurs.

The basic problem being that an infinite amount of time cannot equal a moment. A moment can seem like an infinity, but it's not - there is a beginning, a middle (it's irrelevant how brief that bit is) and an end. It's finite. Infinite, as the religious often tell us, has no beginning and no end. Does it have a middle? That's a theological question I'll leave for another day. :-)

So how are the oxygen molecules similar to the monkeys? It's reusing the argument that "over an infinite period of time, what can theoretically occur, will occur". So, if you give one monkey a typewriter and an infinite amount of time, it should also produce the entire Shakespearean opus. In fact, the monkey should produce endless variations on them.

Similarly, if we consider one oxygen molecule, it could potentially spend its entire "life" in the corner of a room. Erm... Let's assume that a plant in the room produced that oxygen molecule. it took in a molecule of carbon dioxide, did its magic and one molecule of oxygen was produced. That molecule was quickly (instantly?) shunted to the top right corner as perceived from the door of the room. Well, it would have to be instantly - otherwise we couldn't say it had spent its entire "life" in that corner.

Let's be lax. We'll saw that the time spent getting to the corner has the same precision we use to define "corner". So it could be a moment, or a moment or two. But over an infinite long time, the oxygen molecule can be seen in the top right corner as you walk into the room.

So one oxygen molecule can prove that over infinite time, it can be said to be spatially restricted relative to other relative points in space. Oops. We can't say that, can we? Because that assumes that all dimensions are fixed. It also assumes that the molecules making up that corner are static. But they're not - in summer, the materials expand a little. In winter, they contract a bit. They change dimensions. Relative to each other. And to the oxygen molecule.

So let's try something. If we define "the corner" as an absolute measurement, with a high degree of flexibility for exact placement we, erm, just destroyed our own argument. But it's the only way we can make the argument lose enough to work. In other words, we don't have an argument and need to construct special cases to prove it might.

Why stick with a thousand monkeys, anyway? Why not specify a million? Or ten? It's the same loose definition, the same special case. A thousand monkeys typing over an infinite number of years is the same as an infinite number of monkeys typing over an infinite number of years. And why restrict our monkeys to writing plays and sonnets? Why not give a thousand monkeys paint brushes and paints? One of them will eventually produce the Mona Lisa. One might even replicate a Jackson Pollock.

Let's say we give the monkeys typewriters that produce different notes when the keys are hit. That monkey has a typewriter that produces a C, that one a C#, yet another a middle F, and so on. While we have them laboring away producing Shakespeare, is there any reason to assume that they can't also manage the tune to "Surfin' USA"? How about a nice rendition of Eine Kleine Nachtmusik?

We can assume that within an infinite batch of monkeys, there's going to be one that will do nothing but type out Shakespeare. And one that will produce all of Shakespeare's works, but always one typewriter key off. So where Old Bill wrote "e", this monkey typed "r". Another one would type "w". And another would be arbitrary but always one key off. (And that's ignoring the rows of keys above and below the "e"!)

How about that being the same monkeys who are typing Shakespeare? Over an infinite period, there's no reason to assume that any number of arbitrary events could happen, simultaneously. There's absolutely no reason to assume that these events couldn't happen for an infinite period of time, either.

Oops.

If we're measuring over an infinite period of time, and the event or events occur over an infinite period of time, are we willing to wait an infinite period of time before the event(s) occur? That's the equivalent of "it won't happen, but it might".

The simple fact is that what could happen won't if the odds are against it happening.

What about the sentiment behind the quote? It's stupid. It basically says that Shakespeare didn't think about his craft. If we accept that, but say "well, it's going to be a copy because Shakespeare wrote it first!" all we're saying is that we've got a copy machine that can't produce copies within a period of time. But what of the classics that future authors will produce? Will the monkeys produce one of those? Yes. There's no reason to assume one won't. Does that mean that the person who writes it, or the group that constructs it, have nothing to contribute. Basically - yes. Therefore, Shakespeare had nothing to contribute. Not even Mozart or Michelangelo.

We can also assume that the wit who came up with the little bit of nonsense about "x monkeys over infinity" also contributed nothing. But they did manage to help nonsense become accepted for logic. So they did make a contribution, just not an especially meaningful one. Which means - they proved their own point wrong.

Just like the case where all the oxygen molecules congregate in a corner, leaving you a little unwell (assuming they don't spend an infinite amount of time in that corner, which they might - because over an infinite period of time, all things are apparently possible...). If it's possible, it must happen at some point... Right?

Nope.

The oxygen molecules can't simultaneously hold a union meeting for a moment, and for an infinite amount of time. An infinite number of monkeys can't produce Shakespeare, but they might be able to produce a workable copy. Assuming we can recognize it from the dross they otherwise produce.

It's a stupid saying. I basically wrote this while waiting for the Mrs to take a shower. (She's now waiting for me...) I didn't actually think about the saying; I just decided to write a refutation of it. Because, to me, it's the same lazy logic that leads to religion. It's the same laziness that leads people to denying equal rights to gays, and to denying the obviousness of evolution. And to the transgender community insisting on things that are patently idiotic. ("Cis", for instance.)

Carolyn Ann

Capitalism = art

There are times when I am glad we both earned a small fortune. We spent it. Mostly on art.

So now we have some beautiful things to appreciate.

Whoever said capitalism is bad? :-)

Carolyn Ann

PS This is a momentary respite.

Moments I remember

As I just said (the blog format doesn't help, here), when I heard the Boomtown Rats' "I Don't Like Mondays".

James Taylor at that concert hall under Madison Square Garden. I started a chant "Jimmy-T, JimmyT!" It was taken up by a few folk... :-)

Jimmy T at the Beacon.

Motorhead. I couldn't hear for 3 days,

Wishbone Ash in Nottingham. Best concert - ever.

Hearing Art Garfunkel sing "Like a bridge over troubled water".

Watching Turandot in an off-Broadway theater.

Mostly? I'll never forget Art Garfunkel.

Carolyn Ann

Erm, yeah, I guess a title should go here

...the whole day down...

After a really nice afternoon, a fantastically fast drive in the wife's car (she didn't know it could take corners that fast. Truth be told... I wasn't that certain it could...), a voluminous Chinese dinner and lots and lots and lots of dessert (I made a significant contribution to the lemon and ginger cheesecake), ...

How does 12 miles in 9 minutes sound? Good, right? :-)

I've forgotten why I was writing this post. I'm sloshed. Oh yeah.

We had a great afternoon, and coming home, we decided to decorate the tree. The toy train table not being ready. (I made a big error in measurement. I marked the piece of wood, and worked to those marks. Which didn't take into account that I later turned that same piece of wood, erm, yeah, nice it is nice weather!, yeah, erm, upside down.

So what should have been cut forty seven inches from the right was actually cut to be forty seven inches from the left. Oops. :-) <- (Hideously embarrassed smiley).

Anyway, we were busy decorating the tree. For my aspirations to glamour, I did manage, erm, a pair of cute, and more importantly, warm slipper socks. :-) We forgot to switch the heater for that room, and it was a little nippy in there. (Central air? Where? Not here... Unfortunately. :-(

During the tree decorating I realized that we're not very "mass market" in our decor choices.

In fact, because our tree is so much smaller (and this is going to come across as obnoxious, and hideously snobbish), we decided to include only the "good" ornaments.

I wanted to put lights up, but as neither could remember where they were - we settled for some atrociously finicky garlands. The tree looks wonderful. And it doesn't require electricity. A good thing - there isn't much in that room!

What was I writing about?

Carolyn Ann

The Rats

I realized I'd changed "allegiance" from the rockers to the punks when a thoroughly decent chap - he'd be called a gentleman in most other eras - told me that the Hell's Angels over at the bar were looking for him.

I don't know why. I didn't particularly care. He was my buddy. [Added: Oh, dear. I do seem to have learned some Americanisms.]

I told him I was with him.

He looked at me. I repeated what I'd said. He replied "Fuck..." I quietly said to myself, "yeah, we probably are." One of those Angels was upset another person I knew.

[Added: Why do you think I hate those who tell me they're "behind" me? I usually have to call upon the services of the Hubble Telescope to spot those characters.]

The fight didn't happen. It was close for awhile. But I sat with my mate, even though I knew the consequences could have some repercussions. Later, someone connected with that gang did lay in a small beating for me. A "special", if you like. I knew enough to not fight back (too strenuously), and I walked hobbled away with a few bruises and a pair broken glasses.

It sort of reminded me of when I first heard of this "punk" thing. I was at school, and a quasi-punk was being played on the radio, and on Top of the Pops. I wanted more, not this sanitized crap I was hearing. A particular moment stands out: we were leaving "Assembly" (enforced religious observance and school announcements of what we could not do) and one of the "cool" kids shouted to Kay (real names will be disguised as real names) that he had seen her dancing last Saturday. "Where?" I wondered. Not being one of the cool kids, and Kay being the preoccupation of most of the males in that year of the school. "You trying bouncing in a tight skirt and high heels!" she laughed. Even though I have, these days, some slight trouble recalling yesterday, this memory is seared into me. It will always be yesterday. Oh! The anguish! The despair! I wanted to be in that position! To explain to the guy why I wasn't bouncing... But I didn't. Really. I felt like throwing up.

I was destitute. Desperate. My heart knew no depths, only those it was traversing. (Can you feel the teenage melodrama?)

I wanted to wear the heels, and be unable to dance. And yet I love dancing. I love girls. I wanted to look like a girl. I wanted, desperately, desperately, to be a girl. I'd fantasize about it. I wanted to grow up, hang washing on a line, have a white wedding. The lot. I contented myself with trying to be a guy.

I'd hold one of my Mom's dresses up to me, and fantasize. The hippies held no promise. They were a bunch of tossers, people for whom love and kindness took the place of the real world. Suspended from school, I decided to toss it all out of the window. It was quite a deliberate decision. I did know I was hurting myself - but I wasn't going to play by "their" rules. I had discovered punk.

I wagged it from school with Nige and Dumbo. We went over to Nige's house, and watched TV all afternoon. One of us was nominated to Go Back To School, and cover the others. In our youthful innocence, we figured that three would be noticed but that two missing and one lying his head off, wouldn't be. Yeah, we had grand plans in those days. The problem with this particular plan was that Nige decided to set the clock on the cooker [stove] (the only one available) back 15 minutes. I'd walk into Math 15 minutes late, flustered.

The only problem with Nige's plan: I checked the classroom.

Upon climbing the gate into the school (don't ask me why they closed the gate 10 yards, literally, from the eternally ungated entrance, but they did) I crept under the windows of the metalwork and woodwork shops. I was in full sight of Nige and Dumbo, but I didn't care. I did my best commando impression. I saw the Math Teacher, teaching. Not taking "roll call" - aka attendance. I bailed.

Climbing back over the gate, the two women chatting beside it doing their level best to pretend I was an ignorable apparition, I walked back over to Nige's. The two of them were in stitches! They were laughing so hard they could hardly breathe.

So we sat, and watched Bay City Rollers videos for an hour. What a waste that was! The Tartan Heroes were crap! Junk! Ridicule ready! And oh, did we pour on the ridicule.

Anyway, fast forward past a few more adventures.

I hated school. It seemed like a waste of time - all those dictates. All those idiotic pronouncements I was forced to listen to. The teacher, positioned to make sure I was singing some fucked up hymn about joy and happiness. My Dad was fucking dying. My Granddad died a hideous death. And they want to tell me about happy times in heaven? Fuck 'em.

(My Dad survived, my Granddad, well, he had no chance.)

And then, out of nowhere came this single that was selling in quantities no one could ignore. This group the "Boomtown Rats" were singing about a a girl in some place we only saw on TV: California. She'd decided to be a sniper, and kill a bunch of people because she "didn't like Mondays".

I didn't. But it never seemed to be a reason to kill. She didn't have an overloaded silicon chip - she simply decided to kill. Heinous. Murder others because you don't like something? That's fucked up.

But the song resonated with me. I was applying for apprenticeships, my teachers were imploring me to go to A-levels, and I wasn't interested in much of anything. I knew one thing: I wanted to get away from the hypocrisy. (At that time, in what is surely a moment of delight for my critics, I was starting to get involved in politics.)

I decided to learn how to learn how to ride a motorbike. I did. But I couldn't buy one - I needed my Dad to cosign, and no way was he going to do that. One afternoon, I fair flew down a coarse-way, only to come across a member of the Bluely Attired Brigade. A thoroughly ticked off member of the aforementioned Brigade. He gave me an option - a score against me, or walk the damn bike back up the hill. It was a long walk.

This recount beats even my record my rambling.

Let me jump back from 1983 to 1979. The Boomtown Rats. I bought the single, helping propel it to #1. (That's No. 1 to the British. Or has the Internet made the "#" ubiquitous? I'll heartily admit to confusion upon this issue!) And "the girl". Kay.

I never saw her again. I did, once, happen upon another heartthrob, in far too local bar. I suggested that we could get rob a bank. Seriously. :-) <-Quite embarrassed smiley. She was not amused. I wasn't that serious. I had spotted the hole in the local NatWest's security. And I knew a fence or two. Or three. And I did know where to get sticks that go bang. But I was simply trying to be "dangerous". I ended up being an idiot. A role I continue to play with alacrity.

She never did go out with me.

Kay I never heard of again. The damsel in the bar? Well, she did see in me a dress. A long and green off the shoulder number, with a split underskirt, it was gorgeous. It flowed beautifully. (Nudge, nudge. Wink, wink.) More about that some other time. :-)

Where was I? I feel like the doddering old fool regaling his exploits in the back seat of a Lancaster Bomber. Except I've only been in a Lancaster at Air Shows, and I wore the dress... Ahem, let's move along. :-) )

The Rats. Oddly, this time I picked the title before I wrote the piece. I had a vague hope it would keep my on track. Sorry. :-) I will get to the point. If I can figure out what it is, that is.

:-D

Hearing "I Don't lLike Mondays" was an awaking. I'd listen to Led Zeppelin, but they were speaking for someone else. I'd listen to other groups, but no musician captured what I felt like The Boomtown Rats. It was imperfect, but it was good. It was raw. And then came Blondie. The Queen of New York City's subculture, she was nirvana. Big tits, great hair, fantastic figure. I was a lesbian in disguise! Well, no I wasn't. I was a small town kid with a poster of her on my wall.

I hated that town. Still do.

I got out of it as fast as my rapidly developing psychological conditions allowed.

And then I heard the Sex Pistols.

Talk about Nirvana. They don't have a fuckin' clue.

Now I can listen to Nirvana and the Sex Pistols, and know that neither is true. Johnny Rotten sells butter fer fuks sake.

Hearing the Rats, and Geldof, singing about Brenda Ann Spencer (by now I knew who they were singing about), it strucka 15 year old's chord. A 15 year old who looked for permission to rebel. A man, someone growing into a man who wasn't him. But he was willing to make the best he could.

Looking back, one of the reasons I liked the song was because I felt I was sacrifi... That's a load of crap. I know it. You know it. The idiot who suggests that is an idiot. [erm, sic?]

When I tossed myself off a sixty foot cliff, this was the song I was thinking of. I climbed a tree to make it more certain. Ruined a rather nice linen jacket. I had to stop what we call the "dichotomy" somehow. Had to. I went home and made a cup of tea.

Which will not be my epitaph. But it would make rather a nice one, don't you think? "He went home and had a nice cup of tea" Not too bad. But a Pity. I drink coffee. :-)

Carolyn Ann

Ayn Rand, redux... Reduced. Sorry. :-)

As you might know, this is Christmas. The season of unbridled commercialism. The time of year that retailers pin their entire profits for the past 12 months on. And, as a result, the moment when bankers start to either salivate or get hernias.

Why? Because bankers fund the rest of the year. They lend money to retail businesses, who pay their employees and vendors on those borrowings. In the hope that a grand old Christmas will pay for the borrowing, the interest and the various other fees and a lot more besides. Worked for years. And then along came Ayn Rand. Accompanied, more importantly, by her cohorts: Alan Greenspan and, more ominously, those who read her work and didn't think about it. They're often called "Republicans".

A synopsis of Ms Rand: we have a playground full of children. Children, as we know, don't know any better. They bully. They tease. They harass. And they continue to be children. Give a child an option between healthy vegetables and French (aka Freedom) Fries and the child will inevitably choose chips. French/Freedom Fries to the Yanks among the audience. Especially if they've been dipped in sugared water first. Like MickeyD's allegedly have been.

Now imagine that playground full of rules. The socialists have rules like "you can't hurt someone", but they're a little vague about what "hurt" is. So the lazy playground supervisors all get together and pronounce that those rules are to be done away with! From now on, children will be free to be children.

But, they quickly realize, there's a problem: what if Brenda brings a gun to school, and blows away all the other kids? She's not legally responsible - she's a kid - and they might be. They tossed out all the rules, after all. So they come up with a solution: each child has to look out for his or her best interest! And be polite. We don't want anarchy, after all...

It is, clearly, not in the child's best interest to shoot every person on the playground.

Ten Points if you spot the problem. A few more if you can articulate it.

That, in a nutshell, is Ms Rand's position on government interference.

May I point you to this?

Xmas Eve shopping...

I just popped over to the liquor store and... Wow! That's a lot of people!

Zillions of them. Literally. It seemed to be a 2 hour wait to pay for the booze. (It was closer to a few minutes.) You'd think Armageddon was coming tomorrow. I know some, the more lunatic fringes of the Evangelical Christians, are hoping it will. (Anyone seen a red heifer? No, neither have I. I guess that's tough tiddlywinks for fans of the Revelation. Better luck, next year!) :-)

The Mrs had me stop by the supermarket - same deal. Lots of folk, stocking up on this, that and the other. I think some of them were tempted to dump the screaming kids on the nearest shelf. Slap a price sticker on it, and that's that! :-) Milk was running out, as were DVD's. I think a lot of people will be getting something other than "District 9" - there seemed to be plenty of those left. (I didn't see it, so I've no idea if it's any good.)

It's interesting how people just don't pay attention. Listening to the radio, I heard about lots of collisions in the Phillie area; I saw two within about a mile. One person nearly got me in the parking lot - she just backed out of the space. Never mind that the lot was busier than Piccadilly Circus! I was glad I'd opted for the car, all things considered.

Right, back to work building toy train tables! :-)

Carolyn Ann

America will get a workable health care system!

So we'll finally get a workable health care system! Yippee!

The Republicans, as expected, didn't vote for it. Not even Olympia Snow. Mind you, the Republicans had one strategy in mind: complain about the Democrats not agreeing to include their ideas in the whole thing. Not that they had any ideas. They also had one goal: block the thing. Keep the status quo. So while the employment landscape in America changes, the Republicans wanted to stay with the 1950's and 1980's. Even though health care costs eventually crippled GM, Ford and destroyed Bethlehem Steel. In fact, health care was on its way to crippling the US economy.

The GOP was so intent on obstreperous obstruction they even delayed the vote on a critical defense bill!

So now the reconciliation process happens. The House version and the Senate versions need to matched up, and then voted on and the result sent to President Obama. I think he'll sign it. Don't you? :-)

Carolyn Ann

Hindering myself

"Oh, this won't take long", thought I. I was a bit wrong on that...

I'm building a stand for a toy train set, complete with Dept 56 buildings. It should have been finished yesterday, but that will happen later today. The biggest problem? No workshop. All of my tools are locked up in the shed, and I don't really have a way of getting them from there to here. If the ground wasn't covered in snow, perhaps. But lugging 100lb's or more of woodworking tool across reasonably deep snow is not exactly something I'm keen on doing!

Still, the design of the piece is simple. And a screw up with a critical measurement didn't help matters! I'm using 2" hard insulation as a base - but I worked the depth of the table for 1½" insulation. Somewhere along the way I measured the wrong bit of hard insulation! Actually, what happened was that I wasn't paying attention. I didn't think about the piece I was measuring, and as I was thinking in nominal sizes, I just kept doing that. Nominal sizing is where 1" is actually ¾", 2" is 1½" and so on.

(Nominal wood sizing is the actual dimension of the wood. For some reason, lumber is sold in nominal sizes, not stated sizes.)

Still, the thing is happening. It's a bit rough and ready - the back legs will be 2x4's and a 2x3. The front legs have a bit of a shape to them, but nothing fancy. The main thing is to get the table top made - the legs I can change, next year. Same thing with the electrics. They're going to be pieced together with whatever I have found lying about, and over the next year I'll redo them to something a little sturdier.

The basic goal is to have something we can use every year. Light(ish)-weight, but sturdy enough. It's all going to be painted - the Mrs got some paint to match the wallpaper - and hopefully you won't actually "see" the table. The front legs are recessed, to further that illusion.

So today I have a lot to accomplish! I have one section to start, and build. Let's see: I've ripped some pieces to build up the sides to the proper dimension; I've got the fascia (very simple and pre-shaped!). I've got one side section to build, and I'd like to have a small piece going around the back of the tree. That can wait for next week. Or next year. Whichever is the most convenient! I've got one base prep'd, but I need to cut the next one and get it done. I've got the fasteners (tee-nuts; they bed into the wood, more on that anon), and I had to spend about a couple of hours looking for some wood putty. I can only find one grit of sandpaper, and the only tools I have available are two saws (a chop-saw that has its own interpretation of right angles, and 45°, and a barely-adequate, small, table-saw), a small finishing plane and an angle. I guess all my other tools are in the shed! I also have access to some home building tools (hammers, etc), and a decent quantity of my mechanics' tools (wrenches, etc). They're real handy... And I think I have all the electrical bits I need. What I don't know is how much toy train track I have, or where the rest of it might be.

And I've got about 8 hours. Should be do-able. :-)

Carolyn Ann

Zoe Brain and a little kerfuffle with etiquette.

Update, correction and apology:

Ms Brain and Mr Gold misconstrued each other. This ended up putting Ms Brain in an untenable position, reputation wise. Ms Brain compounded this by not being absolutely upfront about the misapprehension. Her response made it seem that she was either mocking Mr Gold, and, or, totally ignoring the problem. Some did take advantage of this opportunity to mock Mr Gold.

I didn't help my understanding of what had transpired by being careless, myself. I made an assertion that Ms Brain hadn't included her emails, when she clearly had. My checking of my assertion was not just far too quick, it was far too arbitrary as well.

When I realized that Mr Gold had not given his permission, albeit some permission was granted and then forgotten about, I felt quite betrayed. It wasn't what I expected of someone like Ms Brain. As I mentioned in a comment on her blog, she has earned my respect by being far more considered and serious in her writing about gender than most (just about all?) of the bloggers who allegedly do the same.

There's a larger issue involved, one of trust. Ms Brain probably didn't realize it was such an important aspect of her work. Not just in her discussions with Ron Gold, but also in her reporting those discussions to her readers. Ms Brain, in her reporting, passed the divide between being a blogger and being a reporter. She's been close to it for a long time, occasionally crossing it. But nothing she has written prior to this has been so fraught with both the potential for misunderstanding, and the regard for ethics such an interview demands. She must hold herself to the same high standard that professional journalists have to adhere to whenever she conducts such an interview.

Overall, the whole thing was clearly full of misunderstandings and confusions, which ultimately led to Ms Brain unintentionally mishandling it.

I unreservedly apologize to Ms Brain.

Carolyn Ann

===

I am leaving the post up, because I will not hide the fact that in writing it, I made a mistake.

===

Zoe Brain has been involved in a dialogue with one Mr Ron Gold. He of the Bilerco Project fame... Fiasco.

She chose to publish his emails. Apparently without informing him that she was going to do that.

He complained.

I presume she apologized, because his next post included

I'm a bit confused. You said no more of my emails online, but sent me a comment from somebody who's obviously seen my latest email.. Or were you just explaining why no more?

...

Can I offer you a hug?

Yeah, well. He can offer her as many hugs as he likes. The simple fact is: Ms Brain has not publicly apologized for publishing what he Mr Gold thought were private emails.

Ms Brain is a widely read, and thoroughly recommended transgender/intersex blogger. She's even got some awards.

She doesn't understand that as such, she is held to the same standards as a professional journalist. Even if she doesn't acknowledge that, personal ethics and manners should have indicated she had crossed "the line".

Personally, when I have used someone's work in my own writing, except for fair use rules, I have requested permission. (Fair use rules allow me to criticize others. They also allows others to criticize me.) I called one blogger - I forget who, sorry - on her almost verbatim quoting of Helen Boyd. While she launched into a ridiculous attack on Ms Boyd! I'm sorry - if you need others to do your writing for you, perhaps you need to pick a new hobby?

I have requested permission three times that I can recall. I needed that permission - my usage of the original material fell far outside the bounds of "fair use". I once submitted my text prior to publication; I felt it was the right thing to do. The owner of the original work I was commenting on was not at liberty to suggest changes, but she could have denied permission to use the work, and I would have no blog post. I felt it was fair. One person I got permission from, I later apologized to. I used her work in a post that went dreadfully wrong. My commentary, and apology, must have been awful - she never responded.

I once used a sentence from an email someone sent me, an insulting and very offensive email, against them. I did not name the blogger. She knows who she is. Her friends probably do, as well. That's not my concern. They were not my words to publish. They belong to her, and I sincerely hope she kept a record. Because I did!

A personal email, unless it is explicitly marked for publication is a personal email. The words belong to the writer - not the recipient. The discussion has a dual ownership. Ms Brain is at perfect liberty to summarize Mr Gold's statements. It would be polite to note that they are the result of a personal correspondence; and she should, considering the public nature of her blog, disclose to Mr Gold that she will be highlighting the discussion in a series of posts.

What does it say about a correspondent when they publish your own words against you? Notwithstanding the inane comments "Nicole" made, Mr Gold had an expectation of privacy. It doesn't matter if Ms Brain thought about doing the blog post later (something I doubt very much), or that she found his views heinous, reprehensible, or whatever. She published private correspondence. What was particularly galling was that she commented on it, too!

If she's in the habit of engaging others under false pretense, can we trust her words? She's not the tough interviewer; she's the person obtaining information under a banner of trust. She acted unethically. She wrote to Mr Gold, he responded and she published his emails for all to see! It matters not if she takes them down - Google now has them in its cache. If she writes to anyone else in the future - will they know they are dealing with someone incapable of keeping a private communication, private? Someone who applies her expectations and fails to inform of her intention to publish not just her incomplete refutation, but their entire communication? Or at least their side of it. I noticed that Ms Brain did not publish her emails to Mr Gold. [Correction: Ms Brain did publish some of her emails. I was careless in failing to see that. My apologies to Ms Brain.] What is an interview when only part of it is verbatim, and we have to assume her questions? Was she leading? Was she fair? What was she?

I really don't care if Ms Brain had the expectation of publishing his words. It's clear Mr Gold did not know she would. I don't care if she apologized to Mr Gold, she needs to hold herself to the standard to which she clearly aspires (being taken seriously) and apologize publicly for a simple faux pas. But the important question is: can we, Ms Brain's readers, trust her? If her correspondents can't - can we? I left a comment on Ms Brain's blog - I noted her credibility was the only thing at stake. Because it is.

Carolyn Ann

Fire Victor Mendez

As I mentioned in the previous post, Victor Mendez should be fired.

This is not a political stance. I don't advocate those - I'm not American. This is different. This is a man in charge of road safety who favors highway contractors. At the expense of motorcyclists. He sides with the contractor, and motorcyclists die. Ain't he grand?

Fire the man. Send a message: we value the lives of motorists and motorcyclists over the convenience of road work contractors.

Carolyn Ann

Kill the motorcyclist! (And a few motorists for extra points)

A fascinating article about safety at federally-financed roadworks in today's New York Times. (Warning, it's 7 pages long!)

Out on the road, in quite a few states, I do notice differences in how roadworks are handled. Even as I try to avoid highways. New Jersey has a good system, and there doesn't seem to be much leeway for the contractor. Actually, I've noticed it's improved over the years. The roadworks people seem to try different things, and figure out what works, and what doesn't. I get the feeling they work with the cops.

The Delaware River Bridge Authority is another good roadworks place. They're doing extensive work on the Delaware side of the bridge, but it's well sign posted - okay, the approaches could be better - and the police presence is best described as "heavy". A low speed limit (35MPH) irks drivers, but keeps everyone safer with the often strange lane changes.

New York City seems to have developed a better roadworks safety program. I think they had to. New York was, as the Volkswagen ad said, named twice and paved once. Many decades ago. Within the city, the notification is variable; if it's extensive, you know about it while you're in the next borough. If it's local, you know about it at the next light. The problem is within the definition of "local".

Long Island has a good system - if you're alive after the roadworks, their notification system worked. If it didn't, it's your fault for speeding or driving recklessly.

Philadelphia has a good system. If you're in traffic, you're not in danger. The travel time across Philly could make Angeleno's anxious. Lest theirs attain Philadelphia inner-city highway velocities. I once watched a lawn grow, waiting to get into I-76.

All in all, I dread the two things roadworks bring: confusion on the roads. And edge-traps. Edge traps kill motorcyclists. An "edge-trap" is the ridge between the new and old asphalt, usually about 2 or 3 inches high. Oklahoma has a lot. So does New Mexico and Nevada. I noticed a lot in the Midlands of the UK the last time I was there; particularly around Manchester.

We need a set of safety rules that make sense for motorists. And we need Victor Mendez fired.

Carolyn Ann

Fuck 'em while they're down!

Never mind kick 'em: do them in. Kicking them is for wusses and pansies.

The FBI has decided to get into the act of protecting the people who own bad mortgages. These days, that would be the big guns. Not of Wall St - they won't touch a mortgage with a 100 foot barge pole, these days. I mean the anonymous entities that deal through banks, brokers and lawyers, never revealing who they really are.

They're going after people selling their own property. In a market where people need money. Few things make mad, but this does.

Fucking pricks.

Carolyn Ann

When Everything Changed, Gail Collins

The esteemed New York Times columnist Gail Collins has written what will surely be the definitive history of the women's movement from 1960 to now. Tracing the changes in attitudes towards women, and the critical role women played in the civil rights campaigns, she shows just how massive these changes are.

She shows how white women were suppressed, but black women were oppressed. And suppressed - by black men! It highlights just how different the two battles were. She also has an interview with that doyen of "tradition", Phyllis Schlafly - a much reviled and hated figure. If the transgender community has issues with Germaine Greer and Julie Bindel - they'd have apoplexies with Mrs Schlafly.

What I found interesting was how her story dovetailed with my own experiences. I started working (full time) in 1980, in a male-dominated trade. There was one woman in the industry, and she was known of throughout the land. Even now, in computers, there aren't as many women as perhaps there should be. (I remember being criticized, in the early '90's, because I mentored some young women who were starting out in the tech field.) Heck, in my travels over the last couple of years I sometimes think I've entered a time-warp. Ozzie and Harriet still live on, in attitudes at least. But back in 1980, women were just starting to make inroads into male-dominated jobs, in Britain. It was still a period when you, the guy, was expected to drive, and pay. (I was glad I had a well-paying job!) Treating women as equals was still pretty rare, especially in the towns and cities of northern England.

Feminism was alive and well. And it was vibrant - demands were not unreasonable, although some of the arguments had a tinge of lunacy to them. Arguing that men, by definition, raped women was one of the more memorable bits of lunacy I remember. I notice that some of these arguments are resurfacing, albeit in modified forms.

In 1980, Britain had its first woman Prime Minister. I despised her, as did many others not in the Home Counties or London. I recall reading Polly Toynbee, she's still writing for The Guardian, wondering if she vote Maggie Thatcher in for a 3rd term - because she was a woman. Considering Mrs Thatcher's contribution to the advancement of women's rights - the same as Phyllis Shlafly's and Sarah Palin's: less than nothing - this was astounding. I remember sitting a van, reading this bit of nonsense 3 times before I finally comprehended the sheer inanity and lunacy of it. Despite Mrs Thatcher's efforts, women did make advances. By the end of the 1980's people were regarding them as individuals in their own right. Quite a sea change after thousands upon thousands of years of subservience.

Stephanie Watson once criticized me for introducing the idea that transwomen have a difference experience than women; Ms Watson was ridiculing my suggestion that girls have radically different experiences, as they grow into women. Even a quick read of Ms Collins' wonderful tome highlights those differences. Transwomen don't often have to balance children and careers as many modern women do. (For instance.) The simple fact is: women do have enormously different experiences, growing up. The whole experience of girlhood, forever denied to the transwoman, is but a flavor of the differences.

The reason this is important is because transwomen are making serious attempts to latch onto the feminist movement. Or at least what's left of it. Some feminists are willing, eager, to accept them. Many are not. Ms Collins, while she correctly ignores the (non-existent) trans community, shows us where the commonalities might be, and where there are substantive, even adversarial, differences.

Overall, this is a definitive history of the women's movement. It's a sorely needed volume - far too many women think the gains their grandmothers achieved are permanent, and that feminism isn't needed anymore. They are woefully wrong.

While women earn less, are subjected to intrusive demands on their personal medical and life decisions, and continue to be treated as second class citizens, feminism is needed. With the rise of the religious right, and this whole "traditional values" thing, the women of today need to be ever watchful that the rights, hard won rights, they enjoy are not subverted. Feminism will forever be needed. And Ms Collins ably demonstrates why.

Carolyn Ann

Winter solstice...

So it's Winter Solstice.

All the Wiccans are celebrating. They're dancing nude in the snow.

Which might explain why there aren't that many of them. :-)

Carolyn Ann

Taking the X out of Xmas

A local church has a sign "Keep the Christ in Christmas". It's a bit sad, really. The sentiment and the sign. The vicar definitely should go get himself a new sign.

But who's undermining Christmas? Is it those evil atheists? Those horrible agnostics? The Wiccans? Who?

Here's a guess... It's all those Christians who are out shopping for Christmas presents instead of being all puritanical. They're the ones turning Christmas into a commercial holiday. It's also the stores, trying to make money.

It's also the idiots turning the whole thing into a quasi-religious/political function for their own purposes.

That's who is taking the Christ out of Christmas.

Carolyn Ann

Christmastime?

So it's Christmas. When we're supposed to celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ, two thousand nine hundred years ago. Who was probably born in the spring, anywhere from 8 BCE to 2 AD.

A bright star lit the way for the 3 wise men. Who would have to have Einstein and Galileo levels of knowledge. And a clock. A mechanical clock. And a sextant. And some maps. None of which were particularly good, or even existent, at the time. They were from "the east", which basically means "over there, but a long way away". We can assume they weren't within a few hundred miles - you didn't need a star to guide you over that distance. But you do need celestial navigation if you're crossing a desert. Which wasn't available back then. Even a nomad would need some assistance to travel far, following a star. It moves in the sky, you see. If they literally followed the star, they'd be back home in time for supper. If they followed a westerly direction (they were from the east; they'd have to head west), they'd have to know something about celestial geometry to figure out which town the young 'un was in. That would be a tad difficult in the centuries before telescopes.

(As a kid in Sunday School, I wondered why they felt compelled to bring presents. Not that I minded receiving them!)

Speaking of that star - it's impossible to determine how it came to be. Each year we're treated to new theories. A supernova? No evidence. Two planets in conjunction? That does happen, but for "x" number of days? Not likely. One of the brighter stars showing up in the "right" place? Not much evidence of that, either. Besides, if that was the case - the entire premise of the Earth being the center of the universe goes out the window. Sort of undermines the entire premise of religion, really.

Jesus was born in a manger. In Bethlehem. Because families had to go to where they were from. Which meant where Dad was from. In order to be counted and taxed. Which doesn't explain why he's Joseph of Nazareth. And considering the logistics of taxing folk, back then, it's likely the census never took place. There's also some confusion about who ordered the thing. And when. Why would everyone have to go back from whence they came? Was there a contemporary Glenn Beck? (It's the sort of thing he'd urge.)

Can you imagine the local Glenn Beck? If Mary said she was bearing a child, and Joseph wasn't the father, he'd be telling us how to stone her. Considering that women were chattel back then, Joseph would probably be the first in line. With a really big rock. If she said she was with the child of God, the contemporary Dr James Dobson would probably have her crucified for heresy. (I heard that the Congressional GOP, at the urging of Sarah Palin, are going to launch a campaign to get it reinstated as a humane punishment.) Not much to support the story there.

What about those sheep, and the shepherds tending their flocks? Definitely not in the winter.

So, do we have any other evidence that this chap existed? Not really. He doesn't appear on the census or tax roles that was supposedly done. In fact, the census looks a little dubious, too. Perhaps it never happened?

Overall, the case for this Jesus is tenuous. At best. Like most things in religion, this whole person looks like a convenient invention. A believer would argue that "you need faith". As if that answers the question "what's the simplest explanation?" The simplest explanation is that Jesus is a composite. The even simpler answer is that he never existed.

Carolyn Ann

Snow Leopard...

I ventured out into the woods, this afternoon. I saw a snow leopard! He let me take his picture:

It appears he's a Mac user, too:

He later hid:

A couple more pictures of this magnificent and wild cat. :-)

Carolyn Ann

Phew

The sign over Auschwitz has been recovered.

Can you imagine the anxiety in the Polish police force? Well done to them.

Carolyn Ann

The Day After The Day Before Yesterday...

It stopped snowing. Which is bad news if you're a skier, and good news if you're a cat. Or a bird. (I put some birdseed out there for them.) We ended up with about 2 foot of the stuff!

The woods look like something out of a fairy tale, and we can see animal tracks through the woods. When a breeze happens by, it comes drifting down in sheets. Quite beautiful, indeed.

After breakfast I'll be going out and taking some more photographs. (And posting them.)

The cats managed - we have some shelters set up for them; nothing formal - they won't use "real" shelters! - but adequate. This morning I'll also be digging a place to put their food. They've been fed, obviously, (they got extra) but it's been a bit of a mess for them, and us.

And I've got to clear the driveway. That's why I have a snow-blower! :-)

Carolyn Ann

The Day After Tomorrow arrives? :-)

So the "powers that are interested in this sort of thing" are now wondering if the snowfall will break local records. That would be a little over 20" on December 27th, 1909.

It's pretty deep already, and it's showing no signs of stopping. Indeed, it's not supposed to stop until tomorrow morning! The Mrs was telling me Washington DC had a blizzard; we might get that, in a few hours. Oh joy.

We keep sweeping the snow off the outside cat food; Elvis is out there chowing down. A black cat getting covered in snow... Poor thing. They're welcome inside, but they won't come near the door. Checkers wanted out. She put one paw into the snow, turned and fled back upstairs! She's curled up on the bed, right now. Copper also wanted out. He looked quite disappointed when I opened the door for him.

It is beautiful out in the woods, though. :-)

Carolyn Ann

To Laurie

I guess not.

Carolyn

Hunkering down for the duration...

So we're due to get a moderately heavy snow, tomorrow. Judging by the hysteria, you'd think no one had ever seen snow. Or that it was the snowy bit of "Day After Tomorrow" (that would be Sunday...).

People have descended on the supermarkets and seem quite serious about stocking up. For weeks! I hate to think what Walmart is like; all of them probably have Million Shopper Checkout Lines. Mind you, I hate to think about Walmart. Damned and miserable, Walmart is.

The two weather forecasters have converged on a prediction; that's not so good. It usually means whatever they say will actually happen. And they're saying 8 to 12 inches. With some gusting. It'll be pretty around here!

Still, with this being New Jersey, the snow plows will be out and about early. Unlike New York City, politicians in the Garden State know that voters will remember poor snow removal. So even if we get 200 foot snow drifts, ala Day After Tomorrow, the roads will be clear-ish come Monday morning. New Jersey politicians seem to know that not even their party machines can keep them in power if the roads are not cleared! Personally, I think this snowfall is God's [sic] condemnation for voting in Chris Christie. He's yet another damnable homophobic Republican.

Still, from the way people are shopping, you'd think they'd be hunkered in their houses for weeks.

Carolyn Ann

Bernanke, and I changed my mind about Tom. Erm, Tim.

Ben Bernanke goes to the full Senate for his confirmation. Should be a shoo-in, but you know the Republicans and Joe Lieberman. Always getting their knickers in a twist about something.

Actually, Mr Bernanke was approved 16-7 by committee. I'm not sure who the 7 were, but may they reflect, deeply, upon their vote. And tell Sarah they're not going to do her bidding next time. How could anyone actually object to the man? He worked damned hard to save the economy, and his reward is... Questions about the power of Federal Reserve?

I guess Washington only just realized that the man who controls the money supply really is a power. Can you imagine? I guess the current crop of Republican politicians really are dumb.

The politicians are up in arms about the fact that the Federal Reserve, and the New York Federal Reserve (there's twelve, but NY and the Fed Chairman are the only ones with any real power) have any, erm, real power. They want to keep it for themselves.

What I'd like to know is how anyone missed the fact that the Fed was akin to a fourth branch of government? It's not like it's been a secret. He who controls the money, controls the world. For years everyone poured accolades on Ayn Rand's acolyte, Alan Greenspan, while he headed up the Federal Reserve, and no one realized that the Fed actually controlled the money supply? What were they paying attention to? The Disney Channel?

The Federal Reserve system is not the fourth branch of the government. But it might as well be!

I'm not sure if Ron Paul knows this. Can someone make sure he isn't told? It wouldn't do his ticker much good.

Carolyn Ann

PS Oh, yeah. I forgot Tom. Tim. Tim. Tim Geithner. I forgot him. He's doing a good job. Don't fire him.

Bankers looking to leave London?

So Mr Darlings' little Christmas present - an odious (50%!) tax on their earnings - is making a few bankers consider their options. Like "business or first class" to Singapore?

Singapore it is.

I wonder if the government there knows they're about to become a financial capital? Probably not. They're credited with being smart, but they're a government.

The Daily Beast has a money [sic] quote: “Viewed from abroad, London may well look now like a significantly less attractive place to build a business.” Yeah. That's about right.

Turns out that my supposition that Britain didn't have any real economy was pretty accurate. The City was propping up the entire nation! And now the Chancellor of the Exchequer wants to give a big "fuck you" "Thank You!" And a tax bill for 50% of any bonuses. Never mind - the first fifty thousand isn't taxed. Wow. What a relief. That'll make a difference.

To whom, I've no idea.

Carolyn Ann

PS Richard Murphy doesn't think it will make a difference. I hope he's right. But long term - I don't think he is.

Bread...

I keep forgetting to mention: I baked some bread! :-)

Well, I put the ingredients into a rectangular metal bowl and put that in the bread machine. It actually made the bread...

Unlike my Dad's bread. He kneads the dough and puts it in front of the fire to rise and all sorts of things like that. I'm not that skilled.

Still, I'm a little bit proud of reading the instructions correctly... Ahem. That doesn't quite come across as an accomplishment, does it? :-)

Carolyn Ann

Free, Chris Anderson

Chris Anderson, the Editor In Chief of Wired magazine and author of the "revolutionary bestseller 'The Long Tail'" (I never did get to reading it), set out to examine the, erm, well, ah let me see, hmm, yes, well, I guess you could say he wrote a paean to the "free" culture of the World Wide Web. I think it's supposed to be an examination of the culture, but it's more an uncritical look at how wonderful the world of "free" is.

Unfortunately he undermines his entire case by charging $26.99 for the book, and retaining the copyright. Personally. (Something all writers should do, by the way. Never, ever, let copyright slip into the grubby paws of the publisher.) I got the book out of the library, so I did at least get it at a cost that's "too cheap to meter". To invoke one of Mr Anderson's catch-phrases. I do pay for the privilege of the library; not being a local taxpayer, I have to fork out some quantity of dollars to use the facility. So while each book has little overall cost, there is a cost.

That's actually one of the issues I have with Mr Anderson's premise: if the individual cost of an item is astoundingly low, he calls it too cheap to meter. His example: In 1961 a transistor cost $10. A recent Intel chip now has two billion transistors and sells for $300 - a cost of 0.000015 cents per transistor. He says it's "too cheap to price". No it isn't - the aggregate cost for those transistors is $300. But each transistor is not too cheap to price - Mr Anderson just priced them. The cost is small, but in quantity it has a high price! If each transistor was too cheap to price, then any quantity of them should also be too cheap to price, but that's not the case: the chip costs $300. If Intel thinks each transistor is too cheap to price, they'll use some other metric. No matter what example he uses, Mr Anderson is consistent in his disdain for facts that don't quite fit his supposition.

Music, for instance. He alleges that piracy is not "the" problem for the record industry. China, he says, has bands that continually tour. Brazil, likewise. They make money. Lots of it. They do it through a combination of giving their recordings away and selling merchandise and concert tickets. (Or by getting corporate sponsors for the concerts.) He touts Radiohead's success in giving their music away, and he dismisses concerns about, well actually he pretty much ignores the concerns of copyright. He alleges that piracy isn't theft - because nothing was actually taken. It was copied, bit for bit. He further states that this doesn't reduce the value of the piece, but actually enhances it. He points to China to prove his point.

Which he fails to do in anything like a convincing manner.

If I release a song, and it's pirated, I may not lose the actual song - the tangible good - but I do lose the money I would have gained if it had been legitimately purchased. That's a taking, and considering it's illegal, it's a theft.

If I write a blog post, and someone takes it and uses more than a reasonable "fair use" quantity - I think that can be called egregious. I've done your writing for you! One California "blogger" did that to me, some time ago. She simply used my words as a lead, and linked to me. Some might not see the problem with that, I did. Her effort required no work on her part - she was free riding on my work, and the work of others. I gained nothing from her "effort"; she gained from mine.

Another example: recipes. If I produce a recipe, and lots of people like the results, some will (inevitably) post it on their blogs. If I produce a book of recipes, or a website of them, and someone posts them on their blog - that's not enhancing the value of my contribution. It's diminishing it in a fairly concrete manner. It's removing any value my collection of recipes has. I came up with the recipes, am I not entitled to some reward if people like them? Mr Anderson thinks yes, but I have to do additional work to realize that reward. According to him, I should give away the recipes in order to make money elsewhere. My response: why shouldn't I be rewarded for coming up with the recipes? Why do I need to become an expert in how to make money? Isn't being creative enough?

And yet another example: not that long ago, a blogger critiqued a blog post written by Helen Boyd. In that critique, she quoted about 90% of Ms Boyd's. That's not enhancing Ms Boyd's efforts, it's simply being too lazy to summarize; it was border-line plagiarism. What does Ms Boyd get out of it, except someone being critical of her? Lazily critical, I might add. The blogger didn't offer much in terms of refutation to Ms Boyd. She sort of said "I'm annoyed by this, but I don't know why and can't be bothered to figure it out." I guess plagiarism doesn't count in Mr Anderson's world, either. According to Mr Anderson, this sort of thing is, well, nonexistent. He ignores it. He seems to think that because he's both a publisher and a writer that he understands both sides of the "problem". He doesn't - he's too hung up on being a publisher. His confusion is that as both roles are "producers", they have the same value. They don't. He does start to examine this, but in the style of his magazine, once the going gets difficult, he skips to something else.

Mr Anderson gives us two basic business models for Internet gratis: freemium and advertising. He dresses these two up in 50 different ways, each, but they're basically the options.

I agree with Mr Anderson that the world is moving toward making intellectual property valueless, but I use the concept of "valueless" a bit differently to him. I think Andy Warhol got it right: his art told us that we value the illusions of wealth and fame. He predicted the uselessness of those "reality" shows. Mr Anderson celebrates them. Andy Warhol figured out that we can't get something from nothing. Mr Anderson seems to think you can nothing for something. Andy Warhol could see what Mr Anderson willfully ignores: that we really don't want to pay for things. We don't mind if someone else pays, but we don't want to pay. Walmart taken to an extreme. A place where the illusion of value is more important than itself. Mr Warhol got it right; Mr Anderson tries to justify popular actions.

Mr Anderson might point to China, he does, to prove that the genuine has more value than the knock-off. He seems to think that imitation is the sincerest accolade! He says as much. Plagiarism is fine by him. Except when it's not.

One thing I kept thinking of as I read this disquieting book, well two things: I had a strong sense of unease, and I kept thinking of those abstract paintings that are simple blocks of color. Sometimes I thought of solid blocks of color, other times I thought of those paintings that had slight variations within them. As criticisms of "Free", they're pretty powerful!

What do you get with a picture that is a simple block of color? You get a commentary on perception. Quite a profound commentary. What is color? What is light? What is this image? A block of color, or an internal frame, showing us what's around it? If there are slight variations (there will be, simply because light and you, the viewer, have variation) it's additional commentary. Mr Anderson attempts to fill the space with words, he dictates what that commentary is. Or at least tries to. He prizes the instant, and the useless copy.

As I write this, I find it quite difficult to pin down exactly what's wrong with Mr Anderson's arguments. Not because his ideas are coherent, and mesh together with ease. Or have a fundamental correctness to them. But because they don't. He's taken popular attitudes and tried to apply a rationale to them. An underpinning. But he fails. Mostly because his argument relies on the idea that if you're under 30 you "get it", and if you're over 30 you simply don't stand a chance. And should move aside, you dinosaur of the ownership world. Politically he's confusing the egalitarian communism of "gratis" with capitalism. No wonder I can't figure out what he means!

Overall, I do agree with him that "free", gratis, is the way to go. We do have to figure out how to make money indirectly. The real world of atoms, that Mr Anderson disparages with frequency, still demands payment for its goods. Mr Anderson does betray one thing: if intellectual effort is so meaningless that copies are to be celebrated, what, exactly, is the value, the meaning, of that effort? It's a question Mr Anderson studiously avoids. All while telling us he's confronting it head on.

It sounds depressingly familiar.

Carolyn Ann

Life, or what passes for such around here

It might have escaped your notice that I'm not writing much about my life, these days. That's because I don't have one. :-(

I noticed the bikes needed registering. Well, New Jersey told me. But right now I don't have the required funds, and what with New Jersey State Troopers being quite keen on things - a bicycle is the better option. So I've been riding a two-wheeled self-propelled contraption. When I can, which isn't that often.

I read a quote where someone said things always take longer than you think. They really do!

What else? I've spent two days trying to figure out why something wouldn't compile, then would compile and not run. The permissions were all wrong. And I forgot the Mac has two levels of permissions - the Unix (BSD) level, and the OS X level. Never the twain shall meet. So that was a bit frustrating. Still, I got it figured out. I turned the problem on its head, and suddenly remembered two things: Unix permissions are different to OS X permissions, and that I needed to fill out the Christmas cards. Which I did. They're off, so they should make it to Blighty on time. My family will keel over; not because they're from Carolyn (no one can read my writing, so that's a moot point), but because they're on time. Sort of. Perhaps. :-)

We've decided to get a tree. I've decided to run a model railway under it. The Mrs has decided to put our Department 56 buildings under it. Pictures will be taken. And posted. :-)

Brings back some memories. :-) Let's see... Half a bottle of beer left...

Our first really big tree was in our house in Brooklyn. I still miss the place! I don't miss the steps, but I do miss the architecture. It was beautiful. Anyway, the Mrs said we would be the half way point for the local caroling entourage. It was a large group! Getting ready, we bought this enormous tree - it was a smidgeon shy of 10 foot. I needed a step ladder to put the ribbon on the top of it! Two people, neither of whom are Christian, putting up a huge Christmas tree. And hosting the carolers. That works.

(They did sound impressive!)

The next year, we bought a slightly smaller tree. It was only 9 foot high. I did say slightly smaller. Anyway, we were at a mall, on Long Island I think, when I spotted a store selling train sets. The chain went out of business soon after, but it was a nice idea. And I ended up with the beginnings of a railroad empire.

We had the tree between the living and dining rooms - the two rooms opened up to each via double pocket doors. (Black walnut doors.) So I ran the tracks, a simple loop, under the tree. ... It didn't seem to be quite enough.

A Brooklyn-based model train store provided the answer... Lots of O-27 track! O-27, for those who don't know, is 3-rail Lionel track that can go to a 27" curve. An American Christmas staple. So I decided to start our American tradition: a train running under the tree. It was quite a sight when I'd finished! The tracks ran under the arts & crafts bookcase, and the art deco desk, across the living room floor and actually around the tree. It was a sight to behold! I don't think I took any pictures of it... Sorry. :-(

The next year, we decided to locate the tree into what we called the "music room". What a disaster! It was hopeless. I had nowhere to run my tracks, and we couldn't see the tree because the windows were old and leaky - and it was freezing down there, as a result.

So we moved the tree to the second floor. Which was a sort of bright idea, but turned out to be perfect for our kittens. One was afraid of the tree, one sat under it and the other climbed it.

For that year, we'd bought a 7' tree, intending to put it up every year. That was another bright idea. I built a stand, a big stand. Covered in felt and I forgot to include anywhere for the electrical outlets. (Hey! Whaddya want? I was still learning woodworking!) We decorated the tree. I laid out the track, an oval, and we placed the Dept 56 buildings around. And extracted the kittens. And extracted the kittens. And extracted a kitten. And then another. And so on.

I should explain those Dept 56 things. They're ceramic building replicas with little lights in them. Quite magical, and extremely fragile. Not to mention expensive. And for about 3 or 4 years, we went nuts for the things. We even researched places to buy them! They really are magical, though. :-)

After Christmas I found it was easier to push the tree out of the window, where it promptly got hung up on a peach tree planted by the previous owner. In 1961. And not too well pruned thereafter. She was a nice woman; I wonder what happened to her? She survived Auschwitz. I spent quite a long while chatting with her, once. What a privilege!

Anyway, it turned out that my "adequate" tree stand was a little, erm, heavy. So heavy I couldn't lift it. I took it apart, and somehow got it into the basement. The next year it took me most of an afternoon to reconstruct the thing. It was one of those "I'll fix it later in the spring", "the summer", "the fall", "before Christmas" projects. Never did get fixed.

So that year we bought an artificial tree. I still didn't have any way of routing the electrical wires, but undaunted and obviously lacking in the common sense department, I put the track down. It was a bit wobbly. Still, it sort of worked. As long as the cat didn't walk across the track. Reminds me of my slot car set. Not when I was kid - I didn't have one, then. I did by this time, and the cat loved it. She would chase the cars, and when she got tired, she'd sit and watch them. When they passed her, she'd whack them. It was great fun! :-)

Anyway, over the years we sort of managed the tree thing. And then we moved. We've had two trees here, I think. One that went up Christmas Eve and didn't get taken down until March (heck, one tree we had in Brooklyn didn't get taken down until June! It was the artificial one, and it was in the spare bedroom, so it just sort of got forgotten...)

This year - it's going to be different!

I'm going to build a railway line, and it will be populated by the Dept 56 buildings! It'll have a green felt base, and an easy way to plug the Dept 56 buildings in. There will be one loop, across the server and under the fire place; it's the other side I'm not so sure about. There's little room for a return loop. I'll figure it out. I have no doubt about that! Whether the Mrs likes it is quite another story. :-|

She'll love that she can see the buildings, and the train going around. That's what matters. :-)

Ah. Christmas. Despite being an atheist, it does hold some memories. It is a magical time. Even if it celebrates the birth of someone who was probably born in the spring, if, indeed, he ever existed! :-)

And this year - I'll wear something cute and practical when we decorate the tree. Word to wise: don't decorate a Christmas tree while wearing high heels and an evening gown. It doesn't quite work, know what I mean?

Carolyn Ann

What's "WWBT"?

Yesterday, I read a post by Monica Roberts in her blog "TransGriot" entitled "If you WWBT's Hate Trans People So Much..." It's an angry post, but I'm not sure who she's mad at, or why. I usually avoid reading Ms Roberts' tirades, but that headline caught my eye on "T-Central".

What, I wondered, are "WWBT's"? So I Googled the term. And then tried again...

Finally I saw it means "White Women Born Transsexual". ... Huh?

I'd call the labeling confused, but that would be understating the case. I know Ms Roberts has a tendency toward racism, a casual approach to the English language, and her apparent disdain for logic, but this one takes the prize. What the heck is a white woman born transsexual? And why is it important to note their race? Isn't it impossible to be born transsexual? Don't you have to undergo quite a lot of surgery and other treatments to be considered "transsexual"? If she has in mind a more casual definition, all I can do is point to her apparent disdain for logic. But beyond that - why would a transwoman hate trans people? I could understand some transwomen hating the transgendered community, or members of that community, but Ms Roberts doesn't seem to be discussing them. It's so nonsensical, it's impossible to make sense of, let alone refute! It is quite a lot of nonsense. Even for Ms Roberts.

A couple of other confusions from Ms Roberts' post: why does whomever she's mad at need Jesus? No one needs Jesus. And why is someone's Technorati rating so important?

Like I said, I'm not sure why Ms Roberts is mad at WWBT's, but she is quite mad at them.

Carolyn Ann

Mr Gold's piece served a purpose

It seems Ron Gold's little bit of vitriol has stirred quite a hornet's nest! Arguments are, apparently, raging back and forth on forums and a few people are getting rather anxious about it all. It sounds like one or two are losing "friends" over the issue as well! Not to mention the ridiculous accusations Ms D'Orsay was subjected to. Zoe Brain had an email conversation with Mr Gold, and we are treated to a "summary" of it.

Rebecca Juro wrote an impassioned post about moving on from the whole thing. Dr Jillian Weiss told us about transphobia within the gay community (go into a gay bar wearing a dress - you don't need telling about the outright hostility the gay community has for the transgendered!) in a series of posts. Brynn Craffey informs his readers he's against censorship, but he's glad the post has been removed. (He's clearly for certain types of censorship, wouldn't you say?) And Bruce Parker examines 3 lessons to take away from it all.

Like many of these things, this one will die down. It'll be brought up time and again, usually to prove some point or other. But it will, eventually, be relegated to the dustbin of history.

The simple fact is: the gay community doesn't like the trans community. Pretty much no one likes the trans community. I'm not sure why anyone would think the trans community would be welcome within the "umbrella" of the gay and lesbian community - those communities are as informed and aware of gender as the rest of the population! Why would anyone think the trans community would have that much in common with the gay community? Why would anyone think the gay community would welcome the trans community? They have just about nothing in common!

Anyway, Mr Gold's piece was a storm in a teacup. I'm not happy that the post was removed - The Bilerco Project was exceptionally quick to censor Mr Gold's unpopular post. (Where have I seen that sort of thing before? Oh, yeah...) The aftermath also proved that the trans community remains far too fond of shrill shrieking; accusing Ms D'Orsay of being a "traitor" is a little much!

Ms Brain's "conversation" with Mr Gold highlighted some of the more interesting issues. It demonstrated how even someone as allegedly informed as Mr Gold can maintain woefully wrong ideas about gender. (Although I'm not sure about the virtue of throwing an endless list of academic papers at anyone is exactly persuasive! Who does have "the stomach to go through them" all? Summaries are better.) Putting it altogether with the recent feminist mêlée, I'd say the TG community still has a lot of prejudice to overcome. Of course, it's extremely difficult to overcome anything if your arguments can't sustain themselves; perhaps the TG activist-bloggers might want to consider that?

Overall, I'd say Mr Gold's piece has actually served a purpose: it's made obvious the antipathy many in the gay community have toward the transgendered. Considering that shining a light on prejudice is always helpful, this is a good thing.

Carolyn Ann

The inarticulate list?

This blog post by Guy Kawasaki caught my attention: Mr Kawasaki loves it if you use lists in your blog post. Why?

- It makes it easier for him

- He doesn't have to read

- He can digest your point without effort

And in conclusion:

- He doesn't have to think

You do that for him.

To be fair, Mr Kawasaki does review about a eight zillion web sites a day, so he needs a quick and painless way of figuring out if your post is worth his effort. Put a list on it, and it just might be! How about that? You get the chance of being noticed by Mr Kawasaki. I can hardly wait.

Carolyn Ann

Graphviz...

It turns out there's a bit of software that can do "the big scary diagram"... It's called "Graphviz" and it even won an Apple Design Award in 2004. The bad news is... It doesn't work on Snow Leopard! But it's open source...

Sometime in the next few days I hope to get the thing to compile for Snow Leopard (probably using the MacPorts version [for the technically-inclined]), and then I'll publish the results. I will also, in my spare time, develop the data file I need - it's an easy, almost JSON-like, file format. That'll be published, too.

:-)

Carolyn Ann

The Tea Party Movement

Remember the Tea Parties of last summer? Hyped by Fox News and supposedly a grassroots uprising? Didn't they seem a little too astroturfed? Turns out they were.

Alex Brant-Zawadzki and Dawn Teo wrote a series of articles detailing the relationships between the various people and groups connected with those protests. It tells an interesting tale. But the relationships were described over a series of 8 articles, and as I was also trying to do some laundry, it all got a little difficult to keep straight. So I launched KeyNote, Apple's presentation program, and started with 17 initial boxes. It grew from there. Altogether, it took me about 4 or 5 hours.

I expect there's more than one error in there; it's all but impossible to edit your own work (which is why you should never do that!). If someone comes across an error, let me know? Thanks.

The key is:

Green is the money

Red is a commercial concern

Yellow an organization and

Blue is a person

If I noticed a name cropping up in more than one context, I put it in. If I know an organization to be right wing, and I thought it interesting or relevant - I put it in. If there was a connection to another organization I'd already listed, it went in. I then set about trying to minimize the cross-over lines. (Did a great job on that, didn't I?.. :-) ) As a result, some lines are actually missing! I didn't think they were particularly important, but I'm likely wrong; they're probably crucial. :-)

Still, it does show a different story to the one we were told.

What I can't figure out is where Rick Santelli fits into all of this. He must, somewhere. The actions taken by others look too coordinated to coincidental. Who does he know? I tend to think it's Eric Odom, but that's pure conjecture on my part.

I'm also wondering how this all relates to the known relationships over on the religious right. Now I've started it, I might just begin to research those relationships - they will be noted on the blogosphere, somewhere. (I recently read a book that described some of those relationships. I can't recall if any of the same names cropped up, beyond Newt Gingrich.) What this does show is how the wealthy and powerful wield their influence. It also puts an interesting light onto the whole Republican meltdown - who's behind that, I wonder? Is it really a meltdown of the Republican Party, or just an effort to control it?

Anyway, enjoy. And if that graph doesn't worry you - you're clearly not paying attention!

Carolyn Ann

Newsflash: President Obama upset some people

It might have escaped your attention, but President Barack Hussein Obama has upset some people. On the left.

I think it can be taken as said that he's thoroughly annoyed the right. He could stand in front of a blackboard and annoy them. (Please note: I said he could stand in front of the blackboard. I didn't say he had to write on it...) But the left? Who'da thunk it?

The left is wot got 'im elected an' all.

Well, yes they did. And no they didn't. Who cares?

You see, the principle problem is that he promised Eden, and we didn't get it in his day ... week ... month ... year in office. Heck - we might never get it!

Instead, we get enormous injections of capital into the stock markets and banks, we get a half-hearted effort at compromise on a number of issues, but mostly we get someone who puts 30,000 more troops into Afghanistan! Holy moly - what's the man thinking of? Doesn't he know we should leave Afghanistan? Abandon any search for the man ultimately responsible for 9-11? I mean, it's 8 years already! Already! And the previous Administration did such a "great" job of managing the war...

Everything is about "winning" and "managing" and other stupid positive-thinking ideas. You don't "manage" a war. You fight it. You can't win a war if you don't know what you're fighting for. The left wants to leave Afghanistan - the lessons of the '90's don't matter. The heroin doesn't matter. The right wants to "win", but they neatly offer no definition of what that means. Both sides bray like facile donkeys.

We need to fight to win in Afghanistan. America has no intention of staying there, but we will if we must. Osama bin Laden has stated, time and again, that he wants to take the war to America - again. He wants a nuke, he wants chemical weapons, he wants biological weapons. He intends to do us harm - and people think that because Mr bin Laden hasn't been caught - we shouldn't continue to fight in Afghanistan?

As Barney Frank so succinctly asked: on which planet do they spend most of their time?

We live in a violent world. Mr Obama screwed up by offering even a meager end-date to American involvement in Afghanistan. Mr bin Laden doesn't define "victory" as the right does, he defines it in terms of innocents killed, grand terror accomplished. And the left doesn't get this? If it's any consolation, the right doesn't, either.

Mr Obama's Nobel Peace Prize might be aspirational, but it is deserved. He's changed how America approaches both war and peace. He recognizes that without the destruction of those who seek to destroy innocents, there can be no peace. It ain't pretty. But it is the world we live in.

Carolyn Ann

Bilerco wimps out

The Bilerco Project has an op-ed by Ronald Gold, a chap who has some, well, shall we say "interesting" views on gender.

184 responses as of 1:43AM, Friday December 11.

What I found interesting was that the Bilerco Project (no, I have no idea why it's called that) saw a need to put this disclaimer up:

Editors' Note: All posts published on Bilerico Project do not reflect the opinions of nor any endorsement by the Editorial Team. Many Bilerico readers and contributors have found Ronald Gold's op-ed offensive or needlessly coarse. The idea behind Bilerico Project is to encourage dialogue among different facets of the LGBT community that might normally never interact this intimately. We encourage all readers to continue responding to Mr. Gold in the same spirit his post was written - with positive intent while bluntly stating your own opinion and experiences.

It's a bit of a nonsense, really: Okay, girls, go for it! But remember to be polite!

What a load of crap. If you don't want to invite the controversial - don't. If you feel you must - don't add a stupid, disingenuous disclaimer.

What the hell? I've heard of stupid, and I've heard of Glenn Beck. But inviting the gender equivalent of Glenn Beck and then shouting that you did it all in the spirit of fairness? Bullshit. Pure and simple bullshit.

Mr Gold is woefully stupid; to call him the Glenn Beck or Sarah Palin of Gender would be a compliment I'm not willing to give. His attitude does, however, reflect what a lot of people think.

The editors over at Bilerco would have known what Mr Gold would say - if they didn't, they need to be fired, forthwith! So to add in the disclaimer makes them foolish.

"Oh, we have this new clown in town - he's a riot, don't ya know! You're going to love what he has to say, but don't let that stop you from throwing those canned tomatoes! Don't forget to take them out of the can, now!"

I'm not sure who's the idiot in all of this - Ron Gold or the editors of The Bilerco Project. Perhaps they all are?

Carolyn Ann

PS "Hat-tip" to Helen of "My Husband Betty". :-)

Obama's Nobel Speech

What can I say? A damn sight better than his West Point effort? For sure.

Actually, he accomplished something significant: he made himself a world leader.

I thought his speech was superb for one reason alone: he didn't try to please anyone. His West Point speech was a futile, and fruitless, effort to get the right behind his efforts. I think he's slowly coming to two realizations: he's the President. And he can piss people off quite thoroughly, but they'll still back him.

Big changes are finally arriving in America - we'll end up with a functional health care system, and we'll have a system that places the people above the power structure. Well, okay - The Ragged Trousered Philanthropist shouldn't be discarded just yet, but still...

I think one of the changes Mr Obama is bringing is a move away from the "be happy" stupid positive "thinking" (it's anything but) of The Shrub Years. The sort of thinking that said "if I wish it, it will come!" Pray for a job, and you'll get it. Pray for that fancy car, and it will be in your driveway! Pray for that house on the hill and you'll be able to afford it! It's God's Gift to you for worshiping him. Presumably. (How does something that doesn't exist impart gifts that you have to pay for?) And the British don't need to scoff - those fools exist in the UK, too.

But getting back to Mr Obama's speech - it was clear that he's the Reluctant Warrior, but will wage war, nevertheless. He could have been less equivocal about the Afghan war in his West Point speech - his hemming and hawing were a bit of a distraction. It's a war of necessity, but only if it doesn't cost too much. It's a war of necessity, but here's a deadline to win it. (Whatever happened to that sage advice - no plan survives contact with the enemy?) The left got all tied in knots about the continuation of a necessary war. The right didn't know what to be upset about, so they picked on anything they could.

Iraq was a mistake, but we're there. We need to maintain a presence simply to keep the peace, and to try and stop Iranian influence. Afghanistan attacked America. It harbored the Taliban. So what if the Taliban is no longer in power? They still managed to launch, or even inspire, attacks in Madrid and London - they are bent on destruction. They are deranged by the need to destroy, and need to be destroyed.

What's the alternative? A world where soft power is exercised at the wrong end of a gun?

There are some wars that need to be fought. Afghanistan is, most assuredly, one of them.

Carolyn Ann

Perhaps Mr Churchill's bust will return

A small business...

I was thinking of the similarities and differences between my first business venture, and my latest one. Not that long ago, I read a quote, something along the lines of "your first release won't kill, but it will try" - and I realized it's oh so true!

.. .. ..

What a load of sentimental claptrap.

Starting a business is one of the most exhilarating things you can do. If you don't pour yourself into it - forget it. If it doesn't become the reason for your living - forget it. In my case, the first release isn't going to kill me; no one even need call an ambulance. It's the second one that'll do its level best to do me in.

Mind you, I'm sweating this one.

I keep reading the advice of not-quite-interested sages: "It doesn't have to be perfect", "rapid iteration is the key", "fail fast" and so on. Yeah, right. Good advice if you're not the one putting your reputation on the line. Perfection might the enemy of good (it is), but if I release a product that is shoddy - will people come back? Not on your nelly.

You get one chance to make a first impression. If I release a product that's somewhat decent, but a bit rough around the edges - I might be praised by a venture capitalist, but I'll be scorned by my potential customers! I will note that there's a vast difference between not caring what people think of you, and annoying potential customers.

I'm trying to think of what comes next, but I'm not sure anything does.

Carolyn Ann

PS By the way: the first release does try to kill you. :-)

Bill, you might enjoy this...

Bill, I thought of you when I saw this. (It's a decent sized PDF, by the way!)

I'd love to build a data center like that!

Carolyn Ann

Gordon Brown: "Change to believe in. Not really."

Gordon Brown is fighting for the future of Labour as he knows it. Perhaps it's time for it die? Or at least go for a very, very, long walk.

Labour was invigorated by Tony Blair, who spotted the same thing as Bill Clinton: people wanted a middle of the road government. And then in one of those strange no-election power change-overs that Britain indulges in, an old style socialist got the reins. Oh, he played a new style socialist on the telly, but at heart Mr Brown shows all the signs of being a "screw the rich" kid of a socialist.

Somewhere about 1981 or 1982, I don't think it was as late as 1983, a union leader, I think it was a dock-worker's union leader, observed that it's really difficult to persuade anyone that a pay rise was warranted, when the workers owned second homes in Spain. Gordon Brown has a different problem. If he's elected (I would say "re-elected", but I can't remember if he's ever stood for election), he's promised to cut services, except for health, schools and cops. That covers most of the budget, anyway. Mr Brown has to persuade the voting populace that he can keep the economy on an even keel, and that screwing the rich is a good way of doing that.

What he really needs to do - cut spending in health, schools and the cops - won't ever be touched. Not even David Cameron is that stupid. Although Mr Cameron can be astonishingly stupid, I don't think he's quite stupid enough to promise cuts to the very things people care about.

What will end up cut will be the military - so Britain won't be in anything like a decent shape to respond to the new threats out there. (You can bet GCHQ (the British NSA) won't see budget cuts.) In fact, it's quite difficult to see where Mr Cameron or Mr Brown could cut the budget and have it mean anything. They could make the Queen pay a bit more, but that's meaningless. The only real option is more taxation. Labour will tax the rich more than the rest of the population, and the Conservatives will move the tax burden to the rest of the population, reducing the taxes on the rich. Which might seem like a good idea, but usually works out as a really bad idea. So while the rich might see an increased tax burden under Labour, the Conservatives will reduce their taxes to unreasonably light levels.

One thing is for sure: the NHS needs to be shrunk. It's huge! It's a drain on the economy. Never thought I'd ever think that! But I do. Even it says that it charges a little short of £2,000 per man, woman and child. It's going to consume £100B this year - and it's expected to be running a deficit by 2011. That's not a health system - that's a nightmare!

Public debt in Britain is running at about 57% of GDP. High, but not unreasonably so in the middle of a financial crisis. (Japan is currently running somewhere around 110% of GDP.) What Britain needs, more than anything, is not a tweaking of who gets taxed by how much - it needs a bottom-up review of its entire tax system. There's far too much reliance on secondary taxes and VAT. That VAT level of 17.5% is onerous - it's so high it can be classified as usurious. The taxes are unfairly distributed, and one-off taxes are used as patch work solutions to immediate problems.

But none of that matters to Gordon Brown. He has an election to win. And he's doing it the old-fashioned way: he's going to buy the votes he needs. His old, broken down, socialism is not the answer to Britain's fiscal issues. Neither is David Cameron's vague and unconvincing efforts at explaining how a cut is not actually a cut. (He seems to favor the old saw of "cutting waste". He uses modern language, though. No wonder he's vague and unconvincing.)

If Gordon Brown promised a complete review of Britain's tax system, and demonstrated how much each family would gain by such a thing, he might stand a chance. As it is, Mr Cameron is likely to get in, not because anyone actually likes the man, but simply because everyone dislikes Gordon Brown even more.

I just hope neither candidate points to their traditional stances and pledges "change". With President Obama we are starting to see massive changes. With Gordon Brown the only thing that's changing is his socks.

Carolyn Ann