Millville Car Show 2011

Gone fishin'?, a photo by Carolyn Ann Grant on Flickr. ("So that's where my..." :-) )

 Some of my photos from the Millville Car Show are now up. :-)

It's a wonderful, annual, event with lots and lots and lots of really cool cars.

I took over 400 photographs at the show. Most pictures were rubbish; one of these days I'll actually figure out how to take pictures at a car show!

One of my favorite iPhoto moments was when I saw this:

I couldn't have planned it better! :-)

Anyway, I thoroughly enjoyed the show. Lots of cool cars, great weather, oldies and goodies playing and a carnival atmosphere. I'm looking forward to next year! :-)

Carolyn Ann

PS The pictures are a little mixed up. I don't know why. Sorry. :-(

Cats? Where? Oh, they're inside already!

It's raining. The first game of the post-season has been postponed (Let's Go YANKEES! :-D ) and two cats were shouting through the sidelight to get in. So I opened the door. Which might explain why half a dozen cats were across the hall before I even realized one was in.

I poked my head outside, "Spot, come on in you silly girl!" My head got wet, but Spot was already enjoying contents of the dry food bowl. Copper headed for the bed and Jeremy demanded milk.

The Mrs has gone to bed and I've barricaded myself into the living room. (I closed the door.) I might emerge in the morning... :-)

(Update: I've just heard a "COPPER!" from the upper chamber. My guess is Copper just shoved his nose into the wife's face. It's his way of saying "Hi!"...)

Carolyn Ann

Apple, Adobe: Pissing contest. Apple wins.

TL;DR: Apple and Adobe have a pissing contest. Apple wins. End of story. :-)

Adobe has decided to, if you'll excuse my language, piss into the wind and uphill at the same time. It's not just any wind they're pointing their collective plonker at. It's a hurricane-strength breeze. It's called "Apple". :-)

Here's the thing: no matter how you slice or dice it, Adobe is hated and Apple is loved. It's pretty simple. Really, it is. :-)

(Oh, I should mention what it's all about: Apple and Adobe are making "important" announcements at the same time. Guess who's going to need the larger hall.)

Adobe is fighting for relevance in the wrong space and Apple is leaving Adobe feeling like the spurned beau. It's not even fair! What's Adobe going to do - stop making their products hideous? (Have you seen the interface to Photoshop Elements? "Hideous" is one of its better qualities.)

Steve Jobs hates Flash; Adobe seems to think it needs to maintain its relevance. (Isn't the Wii enough?) Adobe wants to conquer the world, but needs to hire its army. Apple doesn't want to conquer the world. They're quite happy leaving such foolish games to Microsoft. Instead, they simply conquer the world.

It reminds me of when Microsoft's boss, wotsisname, presented a tablet computer to the world. A good few weeks before Steve Jobs gifted ( ;-) ) us the iPad. At the time I mentioned how horrible it must be, to come second when you've announced first. Adobe is in an even worse position: they just look stupid. Steal Apple's thunder? Do five year olds really run that company? Even if they booked their hall first, the moment Apple announced, someone should have said "we just lost that one", and not even bothered trying to define the skirmish that had been lost. (They couldn't, anyway.)

Someone, please, send to a note to Adobe: Apple won the pissing contest you didn't even know you were playing. You know what's really embarrassing for Adobe? Apple didn't even reach for its fly.

Carolyn Ann

I could be reasonably unreasonable if I wanted...

There's an interesting discussion going on over on Natasha's blog. (Yes, that Natasha.)

Here's the tl;dr: a California college decided to include gender expression on its list of things not to discriminate on. (I wonder if there's a list of things they do discriminate on? :-) )

The usual suspects waded in and the usual suspects, both of them, have reservations about "gender expression" being included. And then the discussion devolved into a harping about the meaning of discrimination. A nutshell: it did not include "you shouldn't discriminate against someone because of something about them that you don't like." So if someone, to use an example in the discussion, decides that they want to be known by a different name each day - well, of course reasonableness would come to the fore. Sounds like the basis for a decent art project; "call me something different each day. I want to challenge the nature of identity..."

Mind you, the problem might be that America actually has the concept of "real names" (or whatever the heck it's called!) The UK doesn't. In Britain, for instance, I could take out an ad for each day of the week and say "today, the person formally known as "X" is now "Y"", or whatever the wording might be.

Over on Natasha's blog, that bit was apparently rather time-consuming and silly. What does it matter what I call myself? It would be reasonable for me to tell my professors beforehand, but I'm not sure it's anyone's business if I want to reduce my identity to a set of meaningless nomenclatures or not. If I choose to do so, I can. It would be, on the other hand, unreasonable of me to expect everyone to remember my daily name change. Hence, it would be a very interesting art project. :-)

Getting to the really interesting bit: the natter about discrimination. There's the usual "you can't regulate me!" nonsense going on; ensuring equal treatment for all seems to bring such sentiments out. It's difficult to argue against such nonsense. Mostly because it's a change of subject: it's changed from the equality of others to someone being outraged that they're being told how to think.

If I were inclined to do anything but jeer from the sidelines, I'd argue that discrimination in any form is bigotry. I'd say "of what business is it yours, how another lives?" As long as you don't hurt anyone, who cares how you live?

When you argue about the nature of discrimination, you've missed the point about it. When you need a dictionary to define it, you've not just missed the point - you've demanded a guide book. And when you admit you're not sure about some class of people, or when you demand the right (that no one has removed) to be a bigot, all you're doing is admitting that you're a small minded fool.

The world has plenty of those.

Carolyn Ann

The moral quandary of idiots

Does the Constitution protect Americans from being hunted and killed by America?

Anwar al-Awlaki probably hoped so. Unfortunately for him - he probably never read the document, being so against it and all - it doesn't say very much on the topic of "you can't kill someone who's actively seeking to kill lots of folk". If my recollection is accurate, it doesn't say anything about that at all.

Terrorism isn't mentioned in the Constitution. Mostly because it hadn't been invented when the document was written. (So much for originalism, hmm?) Assassination existed, but terror? The deliberate targeting of civilian (or unarmed) populations with the intention of influencing political decisions and outcomes? That requires a sophistication of understanding that didn't come about for another hundred years or so. And no, you can't say the groundwork, the precursors, are the same.

I can't help but think that the argument that the Obama Administration should not have targeted Mr al-Awlaki because he was American is facetious. It's also an interesting reversal: the people who are arguing that are often, it seems to me, the same ones who are arguing that his being American also argue against the "Americanism" of the right. They don't get it both ways, no matter how they try. (And Mr al-Awlaki, if he could, would note that it's a moot point because he's dead, killed by an American.)

No one gets it both ways. Arguing that Mr al-Awlaki should have been captured is a perfect example of utilitarian argument; some are ready to sacrifice some unknown number of soldiers to capture one terrorist and put him on trial (where? It's a practical question.) The other side, arguing that he deserved to die simply because he was a terrorist forgets that the hallmark of a civilized society is that "an eye for an eye" isn't justice. Should Mr al-Awlaki have been incarcerated in that living hell of Colorado's Supermax? Arguably, yes. Would it have been practical to have mounted an operation and sought that? Apparently the experts thought not.

We're not a utilitarian society. America is, if anything, a deeply pragmatic and practical society. Messrs Obama and Panetta were right in deciding to kill Anwar al-Awlaki. Given a fair trial, which America would have provided, the man would have been convicted of treason. (I think only the disingenuous and idiotic would argue that the man was not treasonous.) So we're saved the circus of a trial; that's not a reason to avoid a trial. What justifies the execution of Mr al-Awlaki is that he declared war upon his own nation. The Constitution isn't a suicide compact. He brought the attention of the United States upon himself. He paid the well-deserved consequences. I see no moral quandary in the man's death.

Carolyn Ann

And another one gone!

Some might miss him, but the United States certainly didn't... :-)

Ah, there's some discussion about his rights and what-not, but I can't say I have any sympathy with such idle chatter. The man is a proven terrorist, going against his nation. He's a traitor and a terrorist - did he really deserve a trial that would have him put to death, anyway?

Good riddance to the man and all like him.

Carolyn Ann

I really shouldn't write this...

Wow. That was quite the hangover!

As they say, I woke up feeling so bad I figured it must be Saturday. Popped some Excedrin; perhaps I could be coherent by mid-morning? ... Nope. Midday? Came and went with me snoring. One-ish? Yay! I was finally coming to... That was some effort, I think I'll zzzzzz. I finally, finally, came to about quarter an hour ago.

Jeez. It used to be that I could have a really good time until the wee hours and head off to work on the 6:30 or 7:05 train. But that was, what, oh, over 20 years ago! I hate getting older; notwithstanding the whole "body" thing, it means I can't do things I used to. Like having a good time with my mates and surviving the day after. A good (fried) breakfast would solve most of the problems. Now?

Mind you, I don't drink like I used to, either! In those days I could, and did, put away a gallon (good British pints at 20oz a time...) of Guinness just about each and every night. Now I have a six-pack of Brooklyn Lager and Dogfish Head 60-Minute IPA, a couple of really good Single Malt's and I'm good to go. To sleep. To be fair, when we got home, I did stay up and watch "Battle: Los Angeles"; and I consumed a couple of pints of ESB. Really good beer and a really good action/war movie. (It has these weird things like "a plot" and that actually hangs together and "dialog that makes sense". Strange, huh?)

Ah well. I need another cup of Java Juice. I made it strong this morning... Er, afternoon. I don't think I want to know what I wrote last night; this mornings' contribution was about on a par with this one (i.e. "you really shouldn't write that"...) Jeez, my head. It's got frickin' church bells rattling out an incoherent tune inside.

So I'm awake and now need to work on the coherence bit. Stay tuned folks; it will happen. Eventually...

Carolyn Ann

Spinning worlds

Often, when I have an idea that will take some time to implement, I'll write it down and file it away. If the idea is still appealing in a few years, I'll do it. Or not. :-)

Some other times I'm not so careful. Like last night...

We celebrated Rosh'Hashanah. Our host was waiting for the moment to share a very nice Single Malt with me. Along with a fairly generous quantity of beer, I was ready to be the next Ernest Hemingway. But soberer...

I don't think Mr Hemingway's reputation is any danger. My head is, however. I have one hell of a hangover. I'm now going back to bed. Can someone please stop the world? It's spinning in too many directions.

Carolyn Ann

It was but awhile ago

"So you found me!", I told him.
"Yeah, we did," he replied.
"Damn! All these years. Mind, I am getting tired." I told them both. I passed the cat's post, and petted its latest inhabitant. "You know, this was Cuzzie's post, it's why I never fixed it up. She was special to the wife and the wife was special to me. So I left her post as I built it. Now, there's no shortage of inhabitants!" I tickled the latest one under the chin. She purred. Such a soft purr; all gentle and sweet. The wife would have liked her purr.
"I'm sorry, I don't understand" the man said. Quick he was. Okay, wasn't. So I looked at the girl with him and said "He's quick. Who is he? Your boss? You partner?" She smiled. "Ah, your partner" I said.
"What do you mean 'all these years'?" he asked.
"Exactly what I said, sunshine" I told him.
He looked confused.
"Tea?"
"No"
"Yes, we'd love some tea!" she told me.
I put the kettle on. Served me well, that kettle. Lots of years service and it's never needed even an element. Do they still have elements in kettles, I wonder? Do they still have kettles might be a more pertinent question! I guess not; I've not seen one in a store for quite some time.
"It's British tea, so it's a bit strong" I told the man, as I winked at the girl.
"When did your wife die, Mr..." She wasn't sure of my name. I'm guessing, but I think she's thinking  the name on the email ain't mine. He's not so swift. "Grant", he offered, helpfully.
"Oh, some time ago." I decided to be unhelpful on that; it's not as if they don't have the records.
"You never remarried?" My, she was quite a one!
"Nope, never had reason to. She were my sweetheart, and she were only one for me!" Still is, after all these years. Awhile back I read some blatherskite who said our first loves were a flash in the pan of an infinite life; he was speaking from being a youngster. I'll tell you straight: when she's the one, she's the one. You never forget her. I visit her grave; it's why I've never moved from here, hate it as I do. Every holiday, rain or shine; I long for her kiss, her touch. I'll never have it again, and I was cursed. So I do what I can. I keep her pictures on the walls, touch up the paint and bury the cats. She loved cats she did.
I poured the tea into cups that were probably quite valuable, in this day and age. Nice porcelain cups; I did myself a mug. Sly like that, I am. The policewoman frowned at me; I offered her a mug: "Would you prefer a mug of tea?" I asked. "Thank you" she said, giving me the cup back. A china mug! Fancy that! I poured her a mug of tea. Nice mugs they are; they have artistic cats on them, all primary colors and elongated features. The Mrs never really liked them, but I've had my tea and coffee in them just about every morning since 1990. A lot of mornings, I can tell you.
"Can we sit and visit?" she asked. The cop was clearly confused, but he let his partner take the lead.
"You may, that would be nice" Having visitors isn't something I'm used to. I got the feeling that if I'd said "I'd rather you didn't", she'd have taken her leave. And heard of me from someone else; cops are like that.
"You have a strange accent?" she asked. "Sheffield, or thereabouts" I told her. "England?" Where else?" That explains the tea, then. I could hear his thoughts; they were big unwieldy gears, ill-oiled and poorly machined. "I like a cup of tea every now and then" I told them, "Coffee is my morning beverage" I added, helpfully.
"Mr Grant, you were... " he hesitated.
"Yes?"
"Your fingerprints were discovered at the scene of a crime!" he bluttered out.
"Were they, now? And what scene, and what crime, were they found at?" I did wonder. "Your fingerprints came up when the computer matched a crime scene from 2176!" He was astonished, I could tell.
"Ah..." I said.
I looked at her and asked "How'd you know to ask about the Mrs?"
He was in a hurry: "Your fingerprints came up in a training exercise, but a trainee [he 'surreptitiously' indicated the girl] researched you and discovered that you would have been 212, two hundred and twelve years old! in 2176!"
Hmm. Now I had a problem. That was 88 years ago.
What had happened? Nothing came to mind.
"You're asking me about something that happened how many years ago?" I tried to look petulant; I fear I was not successful. "How old are you, Mr ... Grant?" "Of course I'm Mr Grant!" I snapped. She didn't look like a waitress who'd been undeservedly snapped at. She had a curious look; as if she was figuring it all out.
"Okay, okay. I'm entitled. I think! Fuck and your god knows, I've paid my dues. I'm still a citizen and I'll not be long for this world if this gets out. So I'll tell you. I'll make you accomplices to my secret, such as it is." He was salivating. "Oh stop salivating you idiot!" I told him. "Can you get someone smarter?" I asked her. She shook her head, very slightly. And smiled. It reminded me of the wife. If I'm not mistaken, she's... Well, I won't go there. It's far too painful.

"How old are you?" she asked again. "Wrong question, dear. More tea?" I poured myself a fresh cup and petted the cat. "When were you born?" She was quick. "Nine twenty one spring morn." I told her. "Ah..." Sly, she was. If I were younger, I'd ask her for a drink, a game of pool, no one plays pool any more. "So, eighty eight years ago, you were..?"
"In Paris, but I did still come to New Jersey. Care to tell me where you're digging?" I ignored him.
"What about in June of that year?"
"It's a long time ago", I told her.
"You could ask your Pilot?" She'd done that and had come up with nothing; everyone is hooked up the infernal machines! You're not supposed to get them until you're 13, but folks go to Thailand and places like that and their newborns have them "installed". The cops can check them anytime; better than cameras they are. No one could track me, though, because I don't have one of those horrible machines. They hook them up to your brain and... I shudder to think. "I don't have one"
"We know" She was starting to sound sinister.
I gazed at her. She was pretty; her job would give her creases and cracks in time, and she'd be devastating in a few years. I was going to let her in. Him? He could go swing on the lamppost outside of One Police Plaza; it was as antique as I was, and it stayed silent - something I'd never figured out how to do.
"Mr Grant?"
My, she was persistent. "Sorry, I dozed off. The problems of age!" I cheerfully informed her.
"Mr Grant, we have you at..."
"No need to say anything, dear. You're in my house, and I qualified for citizenship well before that blasted Christian Revolution. The first amendment is still in place, so you can't do me on that - despite your wish!"
"So is the second and fifth" he said. Goodness me, he was ungracious.
"More tea? You seem a bit uptight", I told him.
She interjected: "You're..."
"My dear, I witnessed a traffic accident in 2076. That was the last time I had any contact with the police!" She sat there. Processing what I'd just told her. "I was out riding my Ducati motorcycle, before those freedom-loving right wingers banned motorcycles and fun, and I saw a man hit a traffic sign. He was drunk, something you will never be because your sort banned booze!  My wife died in 2034 and I, well, I..." I started to cry. "I continued living. Today is my birthday. I celebrate by petting my cats and remembering her! I ..." I gasped, as I do when I remember her.
" I don't think you need to know any more than what is in your records."
"I'm so sorry, Mr Grant" She was gracious, at least.
"There's nothing in our records, about you, sir" Finally, he was remembering his manners.
"Of course there isn't! Nobody ever bothered typing in the old property records; if they had, someone would have noticed this house hasn't changed hands in centuries!" I was angry now. I shouldn't have been angry at them; he was stupid and she was simply doing her job.
"We have a record of you being at a crime scene and when the computer did a fingerprint match, it threw up your immigration records. But they were over two hundred and fifty years old! We didn't believe them, so we tried again. We checked the old records and your voter registration - it was over two hundred years old!"
"Son, I don't know what to tell you. The last time someone took my fingerprints was in 1990. You haven't told me the crime scene and it was a long time ago!"
She piped up: a murder in a Kansas City ice cream parlor; I'd been there when the poor bugger had been shot. It was during the Christian Revolution; those folk did love their Bible and Guns. One of them loved the sound of money, too. That was why my fingerprints were at the scene; I'd been buying an ice cream cone, an old fart buying an ice cream. Then some punks had come in, waving their shotguns, demanding we all get down. After it was done, I'd given my statement, but never my proper name - everyone thought I was a recent missionary or something. I pleaded Mormonism; they're a helpfully oblique bunch; always have been. Those men were long gone, and deservedly before their time, if you catch my drift.
"Sir, I don't know if we can protect you!" Now he was getting it.
"I ain't looking for protection, son. Don't you have a call to make?" They always have a call to make; every move is tracked and recorded, shared. But they always have a call to make. He looked at me; I gestured for him to leave the room. I motioned to the girl, sit, stay where you are. There was that something about her...
"You've got secret..." I told her.

Carolyn Ann

(First, and probably only, draft...)

The Pizza Adventure...

That was quite an eventful pizza fetching!

We decided to have a pizza, from our favorite pizza place, for dinner. I figured some brews would go well with that. :-) So I went to fetch our dinner and my beverages...

The liquor store is on a major local highway; it's two lanes with a 50 limit in each direction (a dual carriageway in the UK). As you go down a hill, there's a gas station on the right and a pub; just before them, there's a right turn. It's a jughandle; these things are a Jersey Special. To turn left from the road, you  take the right, and it guides you to a traffic light and that lets you go to the left. (Read the Wikipedia article if you're, undoubtably, confused... It explains it so much better than I did!) Immediately after the traffic light is a short stretch of road that has an unposted 35MPH speed limit, along with the aforementioned pub (across the road) and a pharmacy (chemists) with a strangely sharp turn-in to the parking lot. Oh, and a small residential street on the right, just after the gas station.

Got it? Good. Please explain it to me. I'm confused...

Anyway, there's a right off-ramp to the fast highway/dual carriageway. There's also a bit of a shoulder; just about everyone taking the off-ramp uses the shoulder when things are a bit busy. As you might expect at rush hour.

So I'm sitting in the car, awhile back from the aforementioned jughandle, listening to Jethro Tull, when I hear two Harley's approaching. I know the tone of Harley's, so I looked over my shoulder... Sure enough, a small Harley with a very tall dude was going down the shoulder. Followed by a really huge guy on a Harley that was only slightly larger than the first one. I'm not joking - this guy was enormous! So there they are, neither care nor sense, blatting down the shoulder to make a right turn.

You know the whole "loud pipes saves lives" thing? No? It's a fiction, propagated by some folk, that really loud exhaust pipes on a bike announces you're coming - saving the driver ("cager") from doing something stupid. Like turning into you as you drive down the shoulder. She missed him by an inch.

Let me put it this way: I'm trained in emergency care. I was reaching for my seatbelt, putting the car in "Park" and getting ready for some nasty visions. I was running the events through my mind, so I could make an accurate police report. And she missed him! I was so relieved. Getting hammered unmoving traffic is bad enough for a biker. Having to confess you clobbered in traffic that was waiting at a red light? That's just embarrassing!

Anyway, nothing happened. (My favorite emergency is the one that doesn't happen.) I stopped at the Home Depot, got the bracket for the wife's closet and headed in the direction of the pizza place. Now, the pizza place is across the road (to the left); it's in an old barn-like building that sits at a busy junction on the left, with a firehouse on the right. Traffic lights were recently installed there, because it was both very dangerous and on a Saturday morning it made Park Avenue South look benign. You could wait for weeks for that traffic to move! People had entire lives pass before they got to the junction! Empires came and went. You get the idea? :-)

There was something going on at the fire station; I don't know what - I think they were moving vehicles around or something. A large truck was parked just by the pizza place; the driver was probably in there, grabbing lunch or something. The traffic light is there. Someone was coming out of the pizza place, going to his car. I figured the best thing to do was "take it slow". So I put the indicator on at about the 4 second mark; normal indicating in Jersey is 2 or 3 seconds or not at all. Some even do it after - to let you know they switched lanes or cut you off or something. But, no. I was good. I controlled access, it's a bit of a wide road and it's not unheard of for people to try and zoom around you before it's safe (where do they think they are? Queens?). So I made sure no one could get around; the guy behind me was making me a trifle nervous; in that situation, I'm not inclined to let someone overtake on the inside! Anyway, the light turned red just as I was relinquishing my "block"; I moved as close to the center as I could, and came to a stop, allowing the guy I'd spotted leaving the pizza store leave the parking lot. Mr Impatient? The one behind me? He zoomed through the red light, coming to a stop in front of the junction the light controls... That junction has 4 red light cameras.

I got the pizza. With the wonderful aroma of pepperoni and mushroom, with extra cheese, in the car, beer collected (etc), I set off for home. It's a fairly straight run; a couple of lights and then nothing much for the next twenty or so miles. (I told you I was in a rural area!) Somewhere about ten... A deer magically appeared in front of me! When I say "magically", I mean "it wasn't there and then it was!" Like a very solid apparition. I leaped on the brakes, steered the car behind the critter and... Missed! By no more than a whisker. I don't know if the deer was scared, but my heart was pounding like billyo! Wow - that was close!

I don't know how I didn't see the thing at the side of the road. It was twilight and I should have seen it - but I didn't. And the next thing I know, I was looking at its flank!

The next few miles were taken very cautiously indeed! I can do without such adventures.

Carolyn Ann

High hopes for transgender kids

An interesting piece over on CNN about transgender kids.

I sure wish this sort of story, this sort of attention to the needs of transgender kids, had been around when I was a stripling! (For the pedants: I use the term deliberately.)

Oh well. Where I grew up, being perceived as queer, a homo, etcetera was bad enough. Jeez, if people knew how I thought of myself (desperately wishing I was a girl), my childhood would probably have had more bruises and scrapes. It's bad enough as an adult!

Children can be cruel; adults can be crueler - because they are supposed to know the difference! Still, it's nice to see understanding being developed; after that comes tolerance, and then - perhaps - acceptance. (I have high hopes! :-) )

Carolyn Ann

A frilly petticoat in Salt Lake City

I love this little slide show in the Guardian. It's about a Salt Lake City Undie Run. :-)

These two gents I particularly like. :-D (They're on slide 2.)

Their attire should annoy lots of uptight folk from the transsexual separatists (who have no sense of humor) to the pious imposers (who also have no sense of humor). Way to go, lads!

Carolyn Ann

Applaud a capitalist..?

Only the naive think capitalism is, or should be, fair. It's inherently unfair. It is, to be blunt, the law of the jungle or savannah applied to money. There's no "Darwinianism" or "evolution" tied to it; it's eat or be eaten. Rules and regulations level the playing field (that's why the big boys are trying to blunt the changes) and make it so others can't glibly con you out of your money. (I'm not talking about Bernie Madoff, either!)

So when a London-based trader, Alessio Rastani, said in a BBC interview, that he "dreams of another recession" and is making plans around that dream, people shouldn't be shocked by his honesty. Blunt honesty of that sort isn't often welcome, but it can be refreshing to hear.

He makes a point that is sort of understood by many: Goldman Sachs runs the world. I'm not sure I agree with him on that, but he's definitely on the right track! Europe's politicians have dithered, and continue to do so; they've done just about everything they can to ensure Greece fails and takes Spain, Portugal and Italy down when it does. Ireland might or might not be affected; David Cameron's Tories, sitting in their tissue paper palaces, proclaiming the pound immune to European woes are playing the role of the willful pauper. Or at least they're trying to ensure that everyone but they are paupers.

The markets are being brutally efficient in pointing out where attention is needed. Part of that is surely Goldman Sachs playing the odds, but a large part of it is also political dither. European politicians don't have the Tea Party idiocy to contend with (they do have Norway, but that's not a monumental blockage, like the Tea Party); they could act to shore up the Euro. They could, at this point reasonably, demand that Greek (and Irish) debt holders take a haircut (personally, I'd shave their heads; I'd be tempted to give some of them the same haircut Sweeney Todd is known for...) and they could realize that you can't have a single currency without a single monetary policy. It didn't work for America in the 1800's, and it doesn't work for Europe now.

The difference between Mr Rastani and Europe's leaders is that he is pessimistic and honest. They are uncertain and prone to self-delusion. Let's hope Mr Rastani is wrong, but we shouldn't condemn the man for his honesty - we should applaud him for it.

Carolyn Ann

Monday, Monday. Part 2. :-)

So that was Monday.

Let me see... I had my coffee. Did some work. I had a small (15 minute) mid-morning nap. Did some more work. Had a spot of lunch, watched CNN. Had a glass of lemonade (real lemonade. It said so on the packet of lemonade powder... :-) ) and did some more work. Folded the laundry. Fetched some milk from the store. Ignored the dishes (well, they were ignoring me!). Did some more work. I'll watch Mike Holmes in about 20 minutes and then I'll do some more work. That man can take a house apart in 15 minutes and then he spends the next 40 putting it back together. ;-) Not sure what's for dinner, but I think it's going to be quick (unlike last night's Yankees/Red Sox game).

Overall, quite a lot of work got done... :-)

I made a lot of progress on my project. And I mean a lot! More, much more, than I expected. So much so, I'm switching gears and working on my own projects tonight. I love days like this! :-D

Carolyn Ann

Monday, Monday

The cats are sleeping or watching the grass for prey; outside, it's quiet, I can hear insects chirping and the occasional bird. The to-do list is full and I'm at my desk, contemplating my day and my week, thinking of what I will accomplish. It's Monday morning...

Carolyn Ann

Bloodthirsty choices

Free will is choice. Is that all it is? That's all the naive would have us believe it is. They contend, and content themselves with, the idea of a supermarket's choice as free thought. They equate free will with us being agents acting within a framework. To some, choice is a framework; to others, it's an economic measure. Choice is not a destiny, an economic bastard; it is never a bloodthirsty description of limited election.

Free will isn't a framework. Life is not a framework. Life is.

We can choose how we respond to events, but we never get to choose that which we are, perhaps, obliged to respond to. A bloodthirsty metaphor is not a choice; it's a vampire movie; Isaiah Berlin's recalcitrant hedgehog had more options to consider.

The ability to choose in no way implies the capacity to do so; it implies nothing of the choices we are, perhaps, faced with. The five men on a railway line, or the fat boy? The life of the child, or the fate of a planet? The difference between you reading the comic or the dog getting shot. All question morality; bloody questions asking which is the lesser of two fates.

Free will is not just about choice; it is about thought and ideas and their consequence: philosophy. We can say free will is choice, but in doing so we remove the essential element of free will: free thought. A facade is not free; it is the illusion of free choice. Can I choose between being free to think as I want or not? My daily tasks can be dictated; if I were a slave, I'd have no choice in what I do - but none could remove my ability to think as I wish. In short, we do not get to choose the situation, but we get to choose our response.

When we reduce free will to simplistic notions involving pain and limitations, we remove that which is essential, that which is touted. We reduce what it means to be human. The reduction of free will to a simplistic set of choices is not free will; it's the construction of a facade. We do not get to choose cancer; we do get to choose between hypothetical pains. We do get to narrow our freewill until it becomes meaningless.

Free will is more than a set of anguished choices; it is much more than the promotion of pain as an ideal by which you may judge your life. Limited choices manipulate and describe horror, disallowing paths that may be open. Allowing only painful options isn't begging for the admission of free will; it's the denial it's in the room. Limited choices are the antithesis of freewill; the negation of it: choose among these distasteful analogies and metaphors and be forever happy that thou has been awarded the opportunity to do so? Fuck that.

I have free will. I think. I conclude. I reject bloodthirsty comparisons, pretending to be metaphors. Because my morality is not manipulative. My morality is not adjudicating or condescending. My morality is in and of itself; it has no need for cheap tricks, nor the tawdry sort. I have no need of those gimcracks. My life may be judged on its merits, not on its manipulations.

A man may be judged by his deeds. A man can be judged beyond those; he can be judged by his ideas and ideals. He can, and should, be judged by his morality and thoughts of freewill. He should be judged by a higher standard than "well, at least he gave bloodthirsty choices".

Carolyn Ann

Rick Perry enters debate about Italian neutrino

In a response to a party hack a concerned voter, Rick Perry waded into the controversy about the neutrino that traveled faster than the speed of light. He said "In America, we obey the law. I'm not saying that Italian's don't, but in America we make a point of obeying the law. If the law says you can't go faster than the speed of light, well, you can expect to be punished if you do just that!" When someone tried to clarify the issue, Mr Perry responded: "Look, I don't know about any science. As far as I can tell, in Texas we don't have no truck with any science. I know I don't! All that relativity and darwinism and stuff - we just have no need for it! I created jobs in Texas the old fashioned way: I poached the companies from California by promising no regulations, no minimum wages and no health insurance or other mandates. I never promised any science or common sense!" In closing, Mr Perry said "Ooh, look! Another debate! Goodie, I get to bash that Romney fella again!" and he wandered off to do just that.

Reporting to live, from nowhere near Rick Perry's campaign bus,

Carolyn Ann

Thank you, HP

I don't read "The Macalope" very often; the cheap snideness and frequent missing of an interesting point are just too off-putting. But, for some reason, I did read a little over half the column this morning. And it's full of cheap snark and a detour around a point so big it must have taken hours to get around.

The Macalope is writing of a ten-point slideshow over on eWeek (among other things) that discusses why Apple's forthcoming iPad 3 might be in trouble. To be fair, some of the points are valid, but the one he gets wrong is a whopper.

Are you ready for this? The Macalope’s not sure you’re ready for this. You might want to do some deep knee bends and some breathing exercises first so you don’t cramp up from all the laughing. 

OK, now? Here we go. 

That success has prompted some in the tablet community to speculate that better pricing against the iPad could be the ticket to success. 

Only Don Reisinger could try to spin a going-out-of-business firesale as a “success.” Bra-vo.
So, Android OEMs, all you’ve got to do to beat the iPad is lower prices! So low you go out of business! It’s easy!

The Macalope often touts the Apple party line; after all, the column is more a vanity piece for the Apple FanBoi than an actual critical (and sarcastic) examination of the marketplace. So this piece might receive a welcome; I don't know, I didn't check the comments. (Ah... I just did. Most of the comments were about Meg Whitman becoming CEO of HP (hur hur hur...); one comment was supportive of Macalope's iPad point.)

HP did, in fact, find the magic ingredient. The issue isn't the price of the device, it's the market placement of it. The iPad is positioned as lifestyle statement; when you buy the device, you're making a statement about yourself. At least that's what Apple wants you to do; so far, they've been very successful. But there are other markets; one is concerned about price, the other wants a device to hack.

HP managed to prove that there is a market for cheap and capable tablet computers. The Kindle and the Nook proved that people are willing to buy devices that might not be a full-featured as the iPad. The Nook, in particular, proved that Apple doesn't have a monopoly on "stylish".

One other point. The Macalope asserts that people won't buy a tablet because it has a half-inch bigger screen than the iPad. I think they will; for some that's going to be important. But more than that, the overall size of the device is still bag-friendly. You can tout it around without feeling like you're going to get a hernia.

Adding all of this together, the problem isn't, as The Macalope says, how quickly you can go out of business selling the things - the problem is how does HP, et alia, get the cost of production down so that a $99 retail price still makes a decent profit? That's a packaging and sourcing problem; it's easily solved as well. In the consumer market, Apple might be able to keep its tablets at a high price; after all, they charge a slight premium for their machines. (The reason why they do and can isn't the oft-touted one; but that's for a different post.) But if the price difference is a matter of magnitude, Apple will be forced to respond. (You've got to love capitalism! ;-) ) That's good for all consumers. (I thought the market was too stratified. The patent wars don't help, of course.) HP discovered that magic price point; I'd be surprised if Amazon and Barnes & Noble weren't deeply worried; they have products that are more expensive and less capable.

Personally, I think HP just did the marketplace, and the consumer, a big favor.

Carolyn Ann

Rick Perry's zenith? (Otherwise known as the "Bachmann Affect")

Rick Perry had, by many accounts, a fairly disastrous showing the other night. The Florida debate apparently had everyone piling onto him. His polling is now downward.

Michele Bachmann, after a roaring start, is having trouble raising money and is increasingly looking unelectable. She's not even appearing in some polls!

Has Rick Perry reached his zenith?

The Republicans have a basic problem: the candidates who can get the nomination are basically unelectable. It used to be that you could be extremist within your party, but moderate in the general election. Now, because of the endless coverage, once you go for the nomination, you're campaigning in the general election! Mr Obama's candidacy laid the groundwork for this, in the same way that George Bush Jr's candidacy was the last gasp of the Republican elite providing the conservative candidate.

With the coherence of opinion that characterizes modern Republicans, it's almost impossible for someone to become a de facto candidate; Ms Bachmann tried and miserably failed; Mitt Romney keeps hoping. (He may achieve that yet!) The fractious infighting that provides a training ground for the Democrats just doesn't exist on the right. Bill Clinton proved that in 1991, and Barack Obama proved it in 2007. (The pity is that Mr Obama seems to have put the lessons he learned behind him...)

One of the things Mitt Romney's campaign team seems to have realized, and Rick Perry's didn't even know was a factor, was that it's not as important to gain in the polls as it is to not lose in them. Mr Perry's campaign focused on defeating Mitt Romney; Michele Bachmann's sidelining was a happy side-affect. Mr Romney concentrated on three things: defeating Rick Perry, laying the ground for the general election and not losing ground in the polls.

Rick Perry now has an uphill battle. Once you start a downward slide, the money becomes increasingly harder to obtain; once you start running short of cash, you slow down in the polls. It's a circle. It's very difficult to break it, as both Hillary Clinton and John McCain found out. It's probably why Sarah Palin won't run; beyond the fact that it's just about "far too late" for her to enter the competition. Once people start to get a whiff of your vulnerability, you've got to respond. Mr Perry hasn't done that. What he's done is pretend he's still on top, that he doesn't have a problem. Oh, there are complaints about how he is or is not responsible for this or that; those are standard character assassinations and are fodder for the political machine. It's when you, the candidate, become the fodder that the problem starts. Mr Perry has now become a subject for the chattering classes. He might recover; he's certainly tenacious enough, and it's far too soon to count him as out.

In fighting for the nomination, Mr Perry made the same mistake Ms Bachmann made: they didn't realize they had to fight the general election as well as gain the Republican nomination. Ms Bachmann's campaign is all but over, but Rick Perry certainly has time to recover. The question is: will he? Or will he persist in fighting the wrong battle?

Carolyn Ann

Problem? What problem?

So I have an interesting quandary. I've got two sets of data that don't fit into the Drupal paradigm. But I still need to show this data on a website or two.

I have three choices:

1. Shoehorn the data into Drupal's very competent "content" system
2. Build a subsystem to accommodate the data
3. Look for a new content management system

The problem is that the data really doesn't fit into the way Drupal works, so shoehorning it in won't work. I could build a subsystem and then use Drupal's website tools to push it out to the browser. Considering the potential size of one dataset, that's either a really good idea, or the worst one I've had since the other night.

I could look for a new content management system (CMS); some provide the basic structures I need and don't have the demands Drupal imposes upon the datasets. On the other hand, I'd have to code up all the reports, unless I could find a usable report generator for that CMS. That's not a problem (I might be a bit rusty at such things, but it's like riding a bike: once you know how, you never forget. On the other hand, I hope it's not like learning a language: if you don't use it, you forget it. All the while thinking you can communicate in it...)

Considering all of the options, I also have to recognize the old saw that "everything's a nail when all you have is a hammer". (Not to push a woodworking metaphor off the edge of a plank... [sorry... :-) ]. I'm also very inclined to take the Mrs' advice and use the most appropriate CMS for the task. Unfortunately I'm not entirely sure which is the most appropriate CMS! That means I'd have to download a few, do some coding and see if the basic system works in this-or-that system. Rolling my own CMS is absolutely out of the question; the world has more than its fair share of the durned things and why should I reinvent the wheel? I'm trying to use the wheel, not invent it! ;-)

(For some reason ("rolling my own...") I just got a memory of rolling my own cigs, years and years and years ago. Mmm... Unfiltered nicotine and other noxious chemicals. I'm so glad I quit smoking! (Almost 15 years ago.) )

It's all quite fascinating. When I did systems architecture (just over 10 years ago), the solutions were fairly limited, especially in the corporate "space" in which I worked. (I still remember the neural network salesman offering me a job in the middle of a sales meeting; he was trying to sell my group on his solution, and I kept asking questions. In the middle of one answer, he just came out and said "Would you like to work for us?" :-) I won an award for the work I did on neural networks.) Where was I? Oh yeah. The problem hasn't really changed: I need a request/response system that can accommodate a set of restrictions. The restrictions have changed a little over the years (no one discussed cloud computing back then, for instance), and the languages available for the solution have changed; PHP is still around, and Java is either fading, becoming irrelevant or taking a breather. Mind you, with the latest version, it might make a come-back. Ruby wasn't a viable option, and ColdFusion ruled quite a large part of the roost. Now, we have Ruby on Rails, a plethora of very competent PHP frameworks and CMS's, a veritable herd of Java frameworks, C#, Javascript, Eiffel, Python and Django and lots more I've run out of steam to mention.

It's almost enough to make me pine for the days of MS-DOS! At least if I write an application for the Mac I only have ObjectiveC. Mind you, I could also use Applescript or MacRuby... [Runs off into sunset, screaming.] :-)

Carolyn Ann

House Republicans discover their Inner Five Year Old

House Republicans dealt an embarrassing blow to their leadership yesterday. Not content with giving Barack Obama the political wedgie, the Tea Party Caucus has decided that the Speaker of the House needs a lesson in pettiness, idiocy, willful naivety and deliberate callousness. Despite being threatened with sanctions, and the loss of another vacation (who says Congress doesn't work! They must work very hard, considering how often they seem to need a vacation...), House Republicans stuck out their collective, and individual, tongues, shouted "nah-nah-nah" a few times and voted against a bill that would keep the government funded to the day after tomorrow (erm, mid-November).

The other night Bill Clinton said that voters had gotten exactly what they wanted; that the voters should accept some responsibility for the immaturity of the House various Republicans. I kind of agree; what I don't like is how all Americans are being punished for the radical reactionaries a few constituencies provided.

Democracy. It's a messy business. But I love it! :-)

Carolyn Ann

Capricious, arbitrary and unworthy

The 4th Amendment is quite a battleground; the latest skirmish comes from two Congressional Democrats who allege that the Justice Dept and the FBI mischaracterize the Patriot Act, applying a contorted reasoning to a plain bit of text.

Unfortunately, understandably but not helpfully, the Justice Dept has chosen to obfuscate rather than illuminate. The problem is a series of secret rulings that guide the application of the law. 

While I understand the need for secrecy, and the need for additional surveillance powers and I definitely see the need for clarity - especially for the investigators and any court cases that might result - what I don't understand is why there are secret rulings. The lawyers can argue that the need exists all they want - they can't dispel the odious smell of arbitrariness that now surrounds such investigations. 

Surely it's not beyond the ken of those who seek the secrecy to ensure that the rulings are given both a fair hearing and a chance to be contested, without being specific enough to reveal secrets. As it is, we're left with the already visible world of The Trial: you can contest your incarceration, but "we" won't show you, your legal team or the judge the evidence against you. That's a capricious and arbitrary standard, and one I think is unworthy of the United States.

Carolyn Ann

The Inept Machiavelli

Mr Assange is in the news - again. I swear the man has a fixation and a problem: if he's not mentioned by The Guardian, it's as if his relevancy goes on vacation. It seems he has yet to realize that his own actions are reducing him to ridiculousness and underscoring his actual irrelevancy. This time, the man has written an autobiography and then decided not to release it. He kept the £500,000 advance, however. The publisher decided to release the book anyway, which they did. The security surrounding the release sounds quite dramatic! (It was designed to stop Mr Assange being able to block the publication and distribution.)

Quite what Mr Assange as to offer the world, I have no idea. He's led a somewhat interesting life; if you're around a dinner table it might be fun to hear nuggets, but overall? I think the man too arrogant to have much to offer; proving his arrogance in a few tens of thousands words won't be any more enlightening, I suspect. How much do we need to know of this man's life? Judging solely from the description of the book, we're not going to be provided with insights; the unfortunate reader will be assailed by petty innuendo and a few tales of indiscretion. Apparently he feels he was so indiscreet that US authorities might be able to us this own words to get their paws on him. That would make his Swedish legal problems seem almost desirable.

If Mr Assange is engaged in his usual shenanigans, trying to garner attention, any attention, and subsequently benefit from an increase in sales, more than likely, he's certainly accomplished that. I might even grab a copy from the library; assuming they stock it. I might even take the time to read some of it.

For a man who managed to grab the world's attention, he's certainly fallen a long way. From savior of the people, warrior against secrecy and so on, he's now best portrayed as the world's most inept Machiavelli. Something that he, apparently, accomplishes in his indulgent self-portrait.

Carolyn Ann

Has anyone...

... seen my Ruby on Rails book? It's got a red cover and it's about, er, Ruby on Rails (the web development framework). I need to look something up.

If you see it, let me know? Thanks.

A zillion technical books in this house and the one I need is the one I can't find! Darn it!

Added: 12:15AM Found it! :-)
You can stop looking now...

Carolyn Ann

Megyn Kelly - a voice in the darkness of Fox?

A new hero for the transsexual separatists has emerged: Dr Keith Ablow.

Dr Ablow is newly famous for annoying Megyn Kelly, the Fox News host. Ms Kelly recently voiced her objections about Dr Ablow's discriminatory words in her daytime show. Well, Ms Kelly got into a bit of tiff with another famous transphobe and Friend to The Transsexual Separatists, Bill O'Reilly, about Dr Ablow's prejudicial remarks. Bill O'Reilly, who once compared transgender people to ewoks, didn't want anything to do with her objections.

All very typical, unfortunately.

Tip of the hat to Meg for the original link to ThinkProgress.

Carolyn Ann

Why is that important?

So I seem to have created quite a stir with my EPiServer piece. The one where I said EPiServer were a whiny bunch.

Oops?

Lots of views; even more, and more consistently spread through the day, than any spat I've had with those buffoonish transsexual separatists. :-)

What prompts this particular post is a comment made on another blog, MKSE.com; it's a Swedish site covering Drupal and EPiServer along with a few other CMS's. The comment, by Transa, says:

Talande att drupalförespråkaren var en transgender

Google translates that as:

Talking to drupal proponent was a transgender

I think they mean "The Drupal guy is a transgender". As I'm sure you expect, I replied:

What does that have to do with anything? 

I don't speak or read Swedish, but I'm not sure I need a translator to figure out what you're saying. So what if I'm transgendered?  

Your observation is quite offensive, and absolutely unnecessary.

This is something those odious and idiotic transsexual separatists do, as well: negate an argument because of whom is making it! Disparaging someone because of a trait is far too easy; oh, he's gay - of course he's going to argue we should treat him equally! Oh, he's a man in a dress, we can dispense with whatever his argument is because he's a man in a dress! Yeah, that works. If you're an idiot.

If you're merely offensive, on the other hand, pointing out that someone has a particular trait is important. Transa's observation is accurate and unnecessary; it's also offensive. It has nothing to do with my point about EPiServer. I'd make the same point if I identified as Fred and not Ginger. What I wear, how I identify is meaningless to my point that EPiServer screwed up.

On the other hand, I can't say I was surprised that my gender identification was mentioned.

Fortunately, it seems that everyone else in the discussion is an adult and thinks that what I am isn't important.

Progress (at least)

Gay rights took a huge step forward, in America at least, when the odious and misguided DADT policy ended early this morning. At 12:01, the military officially no longer cares if you're gay or straight. With increasing support for gay marriage, it looks like gay and lesbian Americans will, finally, be regarded as equal members of society.

Next step: achieving official and legal equality for transgender Americans.

Considering the obdurate and out-dated opposition from the transsexual separatists, that might take awhile.

Carolyn Ann

The Dragon: US 129

Last night I was fantasizing about taking the Ducati and doing the Tail of the Dragon. Again. :-)

318 curves in 11 miles of road? Bliss! (Especially if you go when the cops aren't around, which, apparently isn't very often.)

The curves often have curves and those switchbacks! Oh me oh my! They're a joy. Slip into second, lean, lean, lean a bit more, keeping the speed steady, keep your line, keep it... And... Pull that throttle back just before the apex... And zoooooom! :-D And then it's hard on the front brake, touching the back to keep her steady, make sure your line is good... And repeat as often as you like! :-)

I've "done" the Dragon a few times; it's one of those roads you really need to practice. A thoroughly dangerous road - stay off those painted lines, they're apparently lethal in the wet and not too good in the dry! - it's been reworked and now, at least, doesn't fight the rider. I have to confess that I've only rode the regraded Dragon.

There are roads in Europe I want to do; there's one in Romania I saw on Top Gear; and while I'd like to do that one in Bolivia (that's in Europe, isn't it? :-) ), I'd want a very good bike to do it on. A prepared Kawasaki KLR650 sounds about right! (An older one; the new ones look like they've got lots of plastic hanging from them.) Doing the Dragon on a Vespa was fun; I had to make sure I wasn't a rolling barrier, but that was the easy bit. Pulling the throttle back and having the bike respond "You're kidding, right?" was the more interesting bit.

In a slightly creepy way, one of the things I really like about The Dragon is the "Tree of Shame". There's a lot of hurt, and even the occasional death, marked on that tree. (Get motorcyclists together and sooner or later the conversation does turn to crashing.) When I stayed in the motel, my room was right at the tree - open the door, and there's this bright, colorful and macabre display; it was quite a juxtaposition and a definite wake-up call. All in all, that road is almost sexual! The bike, the road, the scenery, the challenge. I once described it, crudely perhaps, as having more curves than a woman. It's just as much fun, however... ;-)

(Misogynist? Me? ... Erm, nice weather we're having... :-) )

But, ah, those curves. Those curves...

Carolyn Ann

Tell it as it is? Who needs *that*?

I'm not partial to watching Wolf Blitzer, but last night I caught a bit of a headline on his show. Apparently someone has written a tell-all about how dysfunctional the White House is. And the author - I have no idea who and don't particularly care, either - is eager to provide the gory details. A more literate version of Topix, perhaps? It's all gossip; some of it might be important, most of it isn't. (Except to Fox News pundits. Fractious debate and disagreement among the far right? Never happen...  :-) )

If I had to guess, I'd say we're supposed to be outraged that Type-A personalities with strong opinions, backed by considerable knowledge and expertise in the subjects can't reach agreement and that sometimes those debates become arguments and sometimes they're a bit lively.

Now, I understand that politics (to a large extent) is gossip, purely and simply. Who's up, who's down, in or out or whatever. Who holds the reins, who's trying to take them and so on - it's all grist for that particular mill. What I don't understand is why someone might think that office politics are interesting. Sure, the debates around a particular issue might be interesting; it might, on occasion, be really helpful to know who said what to whom and what happened as a result. (The run up to that needless Iraq war, for instance, would be really fascinating. Bob Woodward tells us some of that, granted - but he still doesn't get to why we went to war. I suspect there's no actual reason.) All administrations are going to be contentious affairs; influencing the President isn't a task for someone who's laissez-faire about it all. Getting legislation through isn't a task for someone who stands back and lets it all hang and happen as it will. It's a big job, and it needs a lot of attention to detail. (On the other hand, there's always Karl Rove...) That sort of stuff will produce arguments; it will highlight the worst in people, and the best in them. The gossipmongers always concentrate on the worst; they have no time for the best.

I don't think I'll be reading that tell-all.

Carolyn Ann

Cranky cats (again)

I had a house of cranky cats, but as I tossed most of them outside, I now don't. :-)

It's lightly raining, a sort of heavy drizzle to a light rain. But the cats didn't want to go out in that; Jeremy wanted a bowl hooking up to a cow (he loves his milk, that lad does!), Oscar wanted another bowl of milk, Copper just wanted to sit in the most inconvenient place he could find and watch (what happened, usually me tripping over him), Max was doing her usual and Orange (who's three times her size) was trying his level best to stay out of her way. And LC was doing her usual "I'm not being defensive! I'm being really defensive!" routine; it involves lots of screeching, growling and general carrying on. From the safety of the breakfast room table or from behind the fire.

So I noted that the rain had mostly tapered off and tossed them all out. Checkers got to stay in - she's a good girl. Cuz is snoring (literally) on the bed (she had a hard night sleeping on the bed and needs to recover her energy) and Ebony is doing whatever it is that Ebony does. (He a bit of an off-the-wall dude.)

And the house is finally quiet. :-)

(I told the Mrs it was "Take Your Cat(s) (All of them) to Work Week". But she either forgot or didn't believe me because she's at work and they're still here...)

Carolyn Ann

Whenever

Of late, the hours I keep (in a small cage, on a pole in the living in the room) have changed. They used to be from whenever to whenever; these days, those hours are more like the hours I kept way back when; whenever to whenever being a lot shorter than whenever to whenever. Every now and then I find it useful to a break; I like to write about whatever on my blog.

An unexpected side-affect of my irregular hours is that what used to be late is now not and what was once early is now a tad too late. Nothing is ever punctual! I've gotten used to it all; communication happens whenever and I don't really need now, except when I need it now. Which isn't as often as you might think; every now and again is about as often as now is.

Breakfast, for instance, is often lunch, in which case I try to call it brunch. Dinner is a hurried affair and lunch often comes after that. Morning coffee is anytime and afternoon tea, or coffee, is then. Dawn and dusk are seen when they arrive, which is when they do. And then it's back for a few more hours and the odd "Aha!"

Carolyn Ann

Trust?

Added: Oh, never mind. I shouldn't respond to idle, petty gossiping.

Remember that latest unpleasantness? The one involving "SA-ET"? Yeah? She deleted the post and acknowledged she was wrong in her behavior. So my estimation of her went up a notch; she has some decency. That's nice to know. :-)

Which made it all the more disappointing to read her post "Snickers, Giggles, and Sotto Voce Remarks" It's a bit of rambling post (I don't recommend reading it), and in it she says:

"There will still be the Carolyn Anns, Roses, Sandeens, Brains, Seranos, etc."

I suppose I should be thankful she got my name right! There should be an apostrophe in "Ann's", but what the hey. SA-ET then goes on to really lay into Zoe Brain. Criticizing Zoe for whom she loves and her life, basically. I'm not sure, but I'd have to guess SA-ET doesn't have a bit of her work orbiting another planet; I think that makes Zoe a rocket scientist. According to SA-ET, that claim of Zoe's is something to be derogatory about. Nice. Take something someone is proud of, an achievement worth something - and be petty about it.


If this were politics, I'd not be so, well, bemused. But it isn't; it's an anonymous voice on the Internet trashing someone because she doesn't like someone's accomplishments and she can trash them. The chorus joined in, naturally. And while it's just the internet, I still feel that some ideas are worth debating.


She ends asking how those she criticizes will feel about their lives in 25 years. I pose that question back to her: how will she feel?


SA-ET complains about the "transgenders" snickering and giggling. As far as I can tell, she's the one snickering about someone's life and love; she's the one with the sotto voce, hoping none of those she names will notice.


In another, more current, post SA-ET says she's going to do more to control the conversations that happen on her blog.


Anyway, I'll answer her question: in 25 years I hope to say "I made a difference". :-) I'll also be able to say that I did make a difference to some people. I'll also be able to say that I've never wavered in considering everyone equal and worthy of respect (unless they prove otherwise). I'll never claim to be non-judgmental. (Just in case you were wondering... ;-) )


Will she be able to say anything like that?


Here's my reply to SA-ET, because I don't trust her not to delete my comment, never mind respond to it. :-)

My goodness you are selfish! You're attacking Zoe's *life*! Not her ideas, not her statements but her life. Does that mean anything to you? 

How would you like it if someone attacked *your* life, your claims? Do you have a piece of your work orbiting a distant planet? Zoe does. That, in my book, makes her a rocket scientist. How would you like it if someone came along and criticized not your ideas, but how you live and whom you love? Have the decency to at least attack her ideas, not her! 

Your last paragraph is quite the piece of work. You're criticizing others for things that are rife within your own community? You're asking others about how they'll feel toward the end of their lives? And yet you do not ask the same question of yourself, or provide an answer. How will you feel, in 25 years, when you're looking back and reciting all those names and meaningless insults? How will you feel about "SA-ET", hiding behind your internet handle while those you critique use their own names? Will you continue to feel brave? Will you say "I held myself to a high standard" or will you say "I held myself to as high a standard as I could manage"?  

And that would be "Carolyn Ann's" With an apostrophe. Because my name is "Carolyn Ann" and you're using it as a plural. As in implying there's more than one of me (I sure hope not! I'd be mighty confused...) 

Last question for now: Are you going to be like Suzan, and refuse your venue to one you criticize? Or are you made of sterner stuff?  

BTW, even though you may not comment much on others' blogs, you'll find my blog to be a free speech zone. As in: I don't censor; I delete spam, but people have criticized me quite sternly and I leave their comments up. Because I believe it's all worth preserving. I have no fear of the critic - do you?

That's actually what she'll find: I've never thought it fair to be opinionated and then deny others a chance to respond in equally robust terms. So I don't. :-) This blog is a free speech zone. Is SA-ET wants to respond, she may - without fear that I'll delete her comments. I might ignore them, but that's a different problem (one that relates to how much time I don't have, these days). 

I trust she won't, however. Because that would be one conversation she would have no control over.

SA-ET is a typical gossip; she likes to control the conversation and hates it when she's the conversation. C'est la vie.

A thought for SA-ET*:

Carolyn Ann

* There's a link, explicitly labeled for hot-linking. So I used it. :-)

Boehner promises to veto any effort by Obama to level playing field for Americans

John Boehner, House Speaker, promised today to veto any effort by the President to make the rich pay more in taxes. "It's not fair," He told reporters, "to make the fortunate pay more in taxes! Why should a hedge fund manager, who gets to pay 15% pay any more than his secretary, who has to pay 38%? If he has a good lobbyist, he could even get his tax bill down to 10 or even 9 percent!" He then started crying and, between sobs, said "it's not right that the wealthiest Americans have to pay for the socialist welfare for the poorest!"

Paul Ryan, conveniently standing nearby, said "When we Republicans said the Bush tax cuts were temporary, we meant they were permanent! We Republicans live in a  fantasyland of tax cuts paying for themselves even if they don't! You simply can't trust us to be honest about financial matters, or anything really." The last part was bit muffled as Eric Cantor's staffers had leaped on the man, presumably in an effort to keep him warm or as a surprise, I'm not sure which. Mr Cantor went on to say "We didn't inherit this crisis, but we did create it and have made every effort to make it worse!"

Mr Boehner, recovering his composure somewhat, then told the reporters "I will veto any bill the President sends to us that includes any effort at making things fair, or pays for any of our mistakes or does anything but sounds shrill and obscene!" When it was pointed out that only the President can veto bills, Mr Boehner against broke into tears; they were quite heartfelt and his sobbing brought Capitol Police to the scene. They arrested a dozen reporters for making the Speaker cry.

Reporting to you live, from somewhere in deepest, darkest New Jersey and nowhere near the Capital Building,

Carolyn Ann

Missing pages, and common sense

Apple is up 2.9%; it closed at $411.63. Netflix is down 7.4% - they closed at $143.75. Both have passionate customers, both have rolled out new products that broke existing models and departed from what their customers loved.

Steve Jobs said "Deal with it!" and his customers adored him for it. Reed Hastings, the boss of Netflix, changes how people are charged and for what - and people hated him for it. Last night the man decided that his batting average wasn't low enough. He compounded the error by announcing a corporate split. Which was the first Wall St and Main St had heard of it. (Perhaps he was slightly sloshed from an afternoon's barbecue? I can't think of any other rational reason. Can you?) Anyway, after losing about a million subscribers after his first moment of dimness, the man has given the over 24 million a new reason to hate him and Netflix. After all, nothing says "I love my customers" like talking down to them, ham-fisted apologies, uncertain and unwanted changes to their offerings, taking them granted and basically considering and treating them as so much of a cash machine. Who pays attention to the emotions and feelings of a cash machine?

Perhaps Netflix needs another CEO? I hear Carol Bartz is available; she did so well at Yahoo... Oh wait - Reed and Carol use the same playbook. It's the one with the all those missing pages.

Carolyn Ann

Mr Padilla, the appeal was successful - you're going away for a looooong time!

So Jose Padilla's sentence was, as pretty much everyone in the sane universe agreed, too short. He got 17 and a bit years for trying to be a terrorist. So now an Appeals Court has ruled that this is too short; they've sent it back for more years to be added.

He should get "tossed into the deep blue sea", "life without possibility of parole" or "until he's dead, buried and decayed". I don't mind - whichever is the shorter (I'm not totally heartless). Perhaps he can write to Richard Reid and get his impressions of life in a maximum security prison? "Quiet: it's a living hell" would be the reply. Which is about the right sentence for Mr Padilla.

Carolyn Ann

"It's not class warfare, it's math!"

And Mr Obama delivers yet another fightin' speech. This is becoming a (welcome, very welcome) habit. Leaving aside the plaintive sobs asking "Where have you been?!?", Mr Obama put forth some concrete proposals for reducing the US deficit. (Which, by the way, no one has convincingly put forth a reason for the urgency of such reductions.) His basic approach is "level the playing field"; not a bad start.

The simple mathematics are you could do away with just about all of government and you'd still have to raise taxes. Mostly because the House GOP has managed to set up a deflationary economic environment. One that might, because of uncertain political shenanigans, slip into another period of deep recession.

Personally, I think the arch-conservatives are still fuming about George The Senior's reneging on his "no new taxes" pledge. They seem to think that the world needs to be safe for Ayn Rand; newsflash to conservative Republicans, Tea Partiers and others who have a tentative grip on reality: Ayn Rand is dead. Her ideas should have died with her; so much vitriol, recrimination and pure emotional reaction isn't the foundation of a philosophy - it should be the end of one, however.

I was glad I caught the President's speech on CNN; I thought he was feisty, and he continued laying the groundwork to run against Congress in 2012. A nice turnabout; the Tea Party ran against him in 2010, and now they've over-reached and have approval ratings in the 13% area. I especially liked how Mr Obama turned the tables on Fox News and the conservative blogosphere: asking the wealthy to pay their fair share isn't class warfare and their arithmetic is faulty. (I gave up trying to balance Paul Ryan's budget proposal with reality. It was an impossible task.)

But mostly I was happy because the President seems to have cottoned onto one über-principle: soundbites matter. :-)

Carolyn Ann

EPiServer are a whiney bunch

Here's an interesting one... :-) ("One what?" I hear you ask... Hello? Anyone there? Hello? :-D )

NodeOne, a Swedish firm that specializes in Drupal, recently did a comparison between Drupal and their main competitor (among others), EPiServer. Well, it's not so much a comparison as a "Drupal is better" thing. It's a marketing piece; quite a good one at that.

The unfavorable comparison ticked off EPiServer. They ran, crying, to their lawyers. Who dashed off a cease-and-desist letter. NodeOne asked a leading marketing law firm to respond. EPiServer's Vice President of European Marketing responded in the comments. I responded. ;-)

My response:

Maria, while I have no doubt that your company does consider business ethics, it seems to have lost the thread, so to speak, about not being arrogant. As a result of that lawyer's letter, EPiServer looks both arrogant <i>and</i> defensive!  

Over here in the US, companies use their competitors brands against them all the time! (A frequently shown car ad, for instance, disparages Lexus a few times an hour. The ad gets to the very core of Lexus' marketing, including a-not-at-all-hidden insult about people who buy Lexus's cars.) It's up to Lexus to counter that <i>in their marketing</i>, not run to their lawyers to write letters whining about unfair treatment! In the tech field, I'm sure you recall Apple's "I'm a Mac" campaign? That disparaged Microsoft quite eagerly; the comparison wasn't at all vague and it was wasn't at all factual. The only option for Microsoft was to respond in the marketplace (they chose not to, but that's neither here nor there.) NodeOne's comparison wasn't anything like those campaigns.  

NodeOne didn't lie - they made a comparison. Understandably, the comparison favors them and Drupal. NodeOne didn't misuse your brand; EPiServer just didn't like the story they told of your products! What they did was perfectly reasonable, absolutely fair and quite good marketing. I especially like the fact that in responding as you did, EPiServer managed to place itself in a very difficult position; now, it can't even respond to NodeOne's comparison decently! It would look like you're whining - a lot. You have a right to protect your brand; you do not have a right to silence your competitors. EPiServer's response makes it look like you're trying to do exactly that. While it's not my job to tell you your's, perhaps EPiServer's managers might want to consider the marketplace the better place to respond to NodeOne, and forgo the lawyer's office when someone says things about you that you don't like?  

Regards,
Carolyn Ann

(Oops. I notice I didn't edit it was well as I should have! Sorry...)

EPiServer doesn't  have a basic argument; what they have is a pissy reaction. In trying to prevent further desultory comparison, they proved the weakness of their commercial and ethical positions. 

What EPiServer did was whiny. It was a bit stupid; the "optics" just don't work for EPiServer. NodeOne didn't disparage EPiServer's brand, they merely pointed out that NodeOne and Drupal were better. That's called marketing. 

Now, Drupal has its fair share of problems; most of them self-inflicted. But devious marketing and whiny lawyers aren't part of them. (Some marketing of Drupal would be an improvement, to be honest!) What I expect, in the near future, is more of this, more of EPiServer's, reaction. As open-source systems reach a technical competence and even a supremacy, the lesser, more arrogant and greedy, firms will respond as EPiServer did: they'll try to disparage not the argument but the person making it. (Why does that sounds familiar? Oh yeah...) It's a common tactic when you don't have an argument why your product or service is better; it's also a favored gambit among those who simply don't have an argument. I don't know EPiServer, but I do know Drupal and I'm somewhat familiar with NodeOne (Johan Falk, a chap who works there, does some great screencasts!) I now know EPiServer a tad better: they're a whiny lot. Their product probably sucks, too. ;-)

If Maria ever reads this, she'll perhaps know why EPiServer's cease-and-desist letter backfired. And perhaps other firms will realize that you can't fight open-source technologies with such moments of whimsy. As I say, we'll see more of that, I think, in the next few years. Even as information technologies changes the world, IT itself is changing. Firms like EPiServer had better get used to that idea - it's their future.

Carolyn Ann

Making pylons attractive?

In both Britain and America (and Canada and probably Australia and, I'd reckon, anywhere that has electrical power), there's a need to transmit that power from the generator to your toaster. That usually means overhead cables, hanging from pylons. Big, ugly things that march across the landscape; often resembling a gash, no one would ever say these beasts were attractive. (The one's Atlantic City Electric, our local utility, are installing would never be called "attractive".)

I've seen one effort to make these things attractive at the power station or transformer. An effort by the Italian architect Michele De Lucchi; his work on the upgrade to the Enel Terna power station is really quite something.  I've not seen much effort to make the actual pylons attractive; if they're not going to fade into the landscape, they should at least have some aesthetic value!

So I was quite happy to see Prospero, in The Economist, writing of a British competition to redesign the pylon. The shortlisted designs are really nice; my favorite is the Arup. But I have to agree with Prospero, the Choi + Shine design is especially nice, even if it didn't get shortlisted. :-)

Carolyn Ann

Solyndra - it's a complicated story

I've refrained from mentioning Solyndra because something just didn't "smell" right about the whole thing. I don't mean the lobbying, the donor's visits to the White House and all of that - there's no scandal in any of it, considering it's standard faire for both parties. (The GOP might want to be very careful in calling for a special prosecutor, as some Congressional Republicans have been heard doing. Once you appoint one, you don't really get to limit their scope and such a beast might notice that the Republicans have a thing or two going with donors...) And yeah, bets on new technologies sometimes don't pan out.

The whole thing seemed to have a complexity that most of the stories evaded; it's easy to say "Oh, they were selling for $3 what cost them $6 to make!" Having followed bits of the green energy field for a decade or more, I was very curious: how come China's panels were so cheap? I know they have pretty much cornered the market; German firms sells a lot of the machines used to make certain types of solar panels to Chinese firms. I also know China has a very loose industrial policy; it's also prone to offering cheap loans to nationally strategic firms and solar panel makers were deemed such awhile back.

Putting two and two together, I had to conclude that China's solar panels are artificially priced.

Yes, Solyndra's panels were a risky technology and a bit of an investment bet. But the basic idea was sound, and I think they could have made money if Chinese panels were accurately priced. As it is, Congress rents itself out as a stooge for Chinese interests (I think this one was a freebie) and a Republican (oh, what the heck is his name?!?) argues that the US, and a California firm at that, shouldn't be trying out risky technologies!

The only remaining problem is: how do you prove that China subsidizes their green energy industry? That's a tough one. How about reading their announcements on the issue? :-)

Carolyn Ann

Told ya... :-)

So it seems the Palestinians are quit ticked off with Washington. Mr Obama has, unfortunately, added to those who are "quite disappointed" by his presidency.

As you may recall, the Palestinian Authority is trying to get a vote on statehood in the UN. Working (pretty much) with the 1967 borders, with East Jerusalem as the capital, they're really intent on becoming an actual state. But Israel is annoyed by all this, and as a result, so is America. Complicating it all is how the relationship with Israel is handled; basically, it's not entirely up to the Executive Branch - Congress weighs in, often, on matters of importance to Israel.

The net-net is that the Administration has managed to tie itself in knots (again) and Benjamin Netanyahu (prime minister) and Avigdor Lieberman (foreign minister) gleefully trot off to make another serious and international enemy. (Turkey being the latest.) Their isolationist and right-wing shenanigans were important to Washington, but didn't really embroil the Obama Administration in any really serious problems.

Until now.

The Administration has eagerly put itself between a rock and a hard place in its latest effort. If it supports Israel, it looks hypocritical to the Arab world. If it annoys Israel, they'll ensure that Congress gets involved and they'll both throw a hissy fit. Either way the Administration looks incompetent and amateurish.

I liked [sic...] Mr Netanyahu's statement about it all: 

"When the Palestinian Authority will abandon these futile and unilateral measures at the UN, it will find Israel to be a genuine partner for direct peace negotiations."

What Mr Obama and Hillary should do is what they won't do: ignore Israel, point out that Israel, under Mr Netanyahu's leadership is now more isolated and has more enemies than ever and that over the last 20 years and especially since Mr Netanyahu's latest election, have done absolutely nothing to foster or further peace talks, never mind peace. They've gone out of their way, in fact, to tweak Palestinian noses and then run the folds of Uncle Sam's cloak when that's been pointed out. The Obama Administration should be working with the Palestinian Authority to help it transition to full statehood. What's Israel going to do? Sanction America and embargo American aid? It would quite helpful if they did refuse American aid. It could go to the Palestinians.

Carolyn Ann

I love San Francisco

During those hot days of summer you leave the window open all the time. You're loathe to close it and not allow that imagined breath of cool air its entrance. Then the summer turns to fall and you're loathe to close that window because doing so will deny that fresh crisp air of autumn its chance. As fall continues, the air turning cooler you're still loathe to close the window; the harshness of winter is known and you want to smell that fresh crispness and feel its passing on your skin. And then comes the winter. The window is intermittently closed, just every now and then. When the sun is out, you open the window and relish the freshness, the crispness of the air. When it's dark and dank, you light the fire and try to keep that air cool and yourself warm. (That's almost impossible, of course. But it happens every so often, so you keep trying, hoping your learning will achieve it every time, and extend the experience.) As the winter deepens, the window is kept closed more often than open. You value your fireplace and its warmth. But, still, those crisp days after a snowfall are worth it. And then deep winter comes. And you look forward to the bluster and life of spring.

Carolyn Ann

Passion vs fact

I loved this, on the front page of the NY Times:

Representative Michele Bachmann has been known to let her passion for an issue overwhelm the facts, which is raising questions about her judgment and maturity.

She's not the only one. I can think of a few other people who have more passion than possession.

There's nothing wrong with being passionate about something, but it's better is you back up your passion with a few facts. Not just the ones you made up, either. Know what I mean? :-)

Carolyn Ann

European leaders stand in front of the spinners when the proverbial is tossed...

European central banks have, in coordination with the Fed, the Swiss, the Bank of England and the Bank of Japan decided to basically inject dollar reserves into the Euro. And the central banks will all act in concert. About time, frankly! Thanks to political dithering, the likes of which put American politicians to shame, Europe's leaders have led the Euro to the brink of disaster. That would provoke an observation of "that's not terribly good, old boy!"

Oy vey. At least the market-makers, en masse, can't really coordinate. For one they need to take advantage of their competitor's weaknesses and for another doing that would land a lot of them in jail. But mostly I don't think there's a money manager out there with the brass monkeys to do what George Soros did to the pound a few years back. (Black Wednesday, indeed...) And it would take too much money.

On the other hand we do have Europe's inane and insane leaders to consider. So far they've managed to grab certainty and stability and beat the living daylights out them. They've not grabbed defeat from the jaws of victory (that's their next act), but they've done a damn good job of ensuring that when the proverbial did hit the spinners - they were standing in front.

Oy vey. Oy vey indeed.

Carolyn Ann

Democracy as the least objectionable candidate?

I had a suspicion that the Democrats loss in New York wasn't the rebuke the GOP says it was. It seems I was right.

I've never liked the Democratic political machine in New York City; it's too powerful, collegial and, I think, prone to not just stupid decisions but basic corruption as well. Its nepotism is infamous, but that's only one part of its base corruption. The fact that the losing Mr Welprin was chosen because he wouldn't pose a challenge to the man who picked him, Joseph Crowley, more than adequately proves that corruption. As does the fact that this loss is not going to hurt Mr Crowley.

When the GOP provides an unelectable candidate, he or she is usually an off-putting firebrand of some sort. When the Dems do it, they provide wet rags. Either way, the results of the election can't be taken as signs of fundamental voter changes. Both parties have done their fair share of that, and the Republicans definitely look on course to provide an off-putting firebrand to pit against Mr Obama. (The dynamics are different for presidential competitions; in other words, Mr Obama's campaign should not assume they have the election in the bag no matter whom the GOP nominates.) The Democrats, however, can't seem to nominate candidates who stand a chance against unpopular opponents! (I present Connecticut as evidence.) Political machines are prevalent everywhere; it's a persistent problem for two-party systems. The GOP simply has a larger, more coherent, system of interlocking political machines. That's why the Tea Party is so disturbing to them - it upsets the status quo and reduces the power of the party big wigs. On the other hand, the Dems have localized political machines that would rather wage war on each other than act as anything that resembles a cohesive political party. Both systems are stupid and not exactly in the spirit of a democracy; they are, under the current political structures, inevitable, however. (It would take a fundamental change of law and a reconsideration of the ethics of power, by the powerful, to change this. There's hope, yet. It's just not in the Tea Party...) You could think of it all as "with friends like themselves, neither side is in no need of any enemies". And the voters end up voting for the least repugnant candidate. Not that either side actually cares what the average voter thinks.

The loss of NY9 isn't a harbinger of things to come for the Democrats. Unless they change from their awful habit of nominating unelectable candidates. And that's a lesson for both sides.

Carolyn Ann

Human nature is...

You know what the biggest problem all that populist "libertarianism" has? It's the assumption that people will make rational decisions, consider others (when required) and not do things that have a clearly negative impact upon others.

If you can't see the problem with that, perhaps you need to think a little more about human nature. :-)

Carolyn Ann

Yahoo, AOL and Microsoft want to become a cartel

There's an old saying that if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. So while that epigram has a few flaws, you can generally assume its accuracy. And it was the first thing I thought of when I read that AOL, Yahoo and Microsoft have banded together to compete against Google. And put some advertising companies out of business.

The particular species of duck that came to mind was the "cartel" type.

Here's the business plan: band together and produce a private exchange system. Advertisers can then bid in two places: Google and the YAM (Yahoo, AOL, Microsoft) system. A few secondary exchanges may be allowed to exist outside of the United States. Once the market is down to two main players, it's just a matter of settling into an acceptable ratio to divide the spoils. (Facebook can be, and should be, considered a separate market for this purpose.)

The appropriately named Peter Kafka got the scoop on this unsavory deal. He notes:

The three companies will share revenue on the ads, and supposedly they’ll pocket more than they would have if a third-party ad network sold their stuff. It’s up to each of the three companies to figure out how to convince their own sales teams to sell their competitors’ inventory.

I'd agree that the technology is the easy bit, but I think the problem he raises is also easily solved. Whether it will stick is another question.

The problem with this deal isn't so much the clubbing together - it's the fact that all three are major players in content provision. By trying to take on Google, these three are going to reduce a very competitive market, which always raises prices and lowers standards and service, for all advertisers. If you're running a blog or an online newspaper, for instance, or just have a website that carries advertising, your choices are going to be reduced, your leverage as a customer is going to be reduced. When you've only got two places to shop, how can you pit one advertising network against their competition? How can you leverage that competition to your own advantage when the market is rigged to the network's advantage?

We're not talking about small potatoes, either. We're talking about millions of dollars; Google's a $16B company, all of that based on advertising. That they can't seem to figure out how to be competitive against Google on their own is simply their own failing. That gives them no excuse to start being a cartel. The uncertainty of success is no barrier; all this deal does is allow the three companies the room to figure out how to close down small advertising business's.

This might help the cartel members, but it definitely does not help the market. I sincerely hope this effort fails.

Carolyn Ann