FireFox is a great browser. I've been using it as my primary browser for years but recently I have strayed a little. I installed Chrome on my laptop at work and I have used Arora and Rekonq at home. I haven't installed Chrome on my home computer simply because the 64-bit builds have been lagging behind the 32-bit builds and I don't have any 32-bit systems at home right now. I will once I get done rebuilding a couple of laptops that I have laying around but that's a project for another post. Yet, while I think all of these other browsers have their own unique advantages, I continue to use FireFox as my main browser -- Why?
Quick Detour
Interestingly, all of these "other" browsers are Webkit based browsers. While none of these browsers are ready to be my primary browser, I have been impressed by each of them. Arora and Rekonq look nice on my KDE desktops (work, home, everywhere). While I don't get hung-up on the need to use only QT/KDE apps, I do think it's nice for a program to integrate itself well with the broader desktop. Open-desktop technologies have made this better than it was in years past, but we've got a long ways to do before the experience is everything I want to see. Let's face it. Desktop integration is nice and is increasingly important as both KDE and Gnome really move forward on integrating their various applications. Rekonq integrates itself with Konqueror's bookmarks which is extra nice.
Google's pet-browser, Chrome shows real promise but is a little wonky. It's stable but the desktop integration is not up-to-par. For some reason it refuses to accept my chosen GTK theme. This is true even when I tell it to use my GTK theme. I have nothing against GTK (as long as I don't have to program against it) but I do want my GTK apps to use the same GTK theme. Chrome also refuses to use my KDE icons, which is probably directly connected to my earlier problem. In contrast, other GTK apps like GVim are quite happy to use the correct GTK theme and icon-set. Chrome is the only GTK app that behaves this way. The Linux desktop established open-desktop standards for a reason. Chrome should use them too. But, thematic concerns aside, the browser works well and it is fast. (Chrome is much faster than either Arora or Rekonq from this end-user's informal, experienced based testing)
. . .
Now that we've completed our little detour, we come back to the original point I want to make -- Why do I continue to use FireFox? There are several reasons. For starters, I do not want to try and maintain multiple sets of bookmarks, password files, etc. Doing so would be a pain and not something I want to do. If I switch to another browser, I want to be sure that it is ready to become my primary browser before I import my settings. Switching to Chrome is almost too easy, it will import everything. Moving to Arora or Rekonq would require an investment of some time to move passwords and what not over to the new browser.
More importantly, I use multiple computers and I like to mirror most of my work-settings (browser, bash, R, python, etc.) across all my computers, without needing to manually change each little setting. I developed a rync based system (alias, links) that lets me keep my various systems in-sync with one another and FireFox is already part of this system. Changing to another browser would require me to integrate it into this system. Obviously, this isn't hard, but it does slow me down enough that I consider my options before switching things up too much.
Another important consideration is the future. If I switch browsers and set everything up to work on multiple systems, I don't want to read a blog post next week about the project being canceled due to lack of developer interest. This is highly unlikely in the case of Chrome, but who knows about Arora or Rekonq? If Rekonq becomes part of KDE this becomes less an issue, but right now they are relatively small and immature teams. Do these projects really have legs?
But, I'm a geek and problems like that can be (and often are) overcome with a little bash-fu and geeky stubbornness.
Lately, the real reason I've stayed loyal to FireFox is because of Vimperator. Several weeks ago (OK, over a month ago) I installed Vimperator onto FireFox and I am absolutely hooked. It feels as though I opened up Vim and hit:
:source /usr/bing/firefox
It's cool like that. I have more screen room, FireFox is imminently easier to use and I've been able to remove a few duplicate extensions and get what I want via Vimperator. After adding a few extensions onto Vimp, I am more than happy. There's even a Vim extension to provide syntax highlighting for the .vimperatorrc file.
If I switch to Chrome or Arora, I would have to give up on Vimperator, which is fine, but I would also have to return to a world where I am expected to use a mouse to interact with my browser. Right now, the only browser flexible enough to act like Vim is FireFox. The others just aren't able to do this.
Ironically, Vimperator does not store it's settings in ~/.mozilla, so I have had to update my rsync system to include ~/.vimperator/ and ~/.vimperatorrc but this is a small price to pay for Vim goodness. And, I don't have to export/import my passwords, log-in cookies, etc. into a new browser which is also nice, but Vimperator is the real thing keeping me loyal to FireFox.
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Friday, November 20, 2009
R Editor
Apology - This turned into a rather long post but I am happy to say that it is NOT a rant. In contrast, it is actually rather constructive. While I have written this for K/Ubuntu, it is relevant to other Linux distros.
A couple of days ago, there was an interesting discussion on the REvolution Computing blog, where David discusses installing and using ESS as a front-end for R. His discussion of ESS got me to thinking about R's default user interface on Linux (and other operating systems) and how accessible they made R to new users. While the default R interface on Windows and OS X are light years from offering the kind of accessibility and ease-of-use offered by SPSS or other graphical tools, they do make it easier for new users to know where to start on their journey into the land of single-letter Googling.
On Windows and OS X, the default interface for R is a Graphical User Interface (GUI). The screen-shots I have seen of the R interface on OS X look very nice. (Please note that this screen shot is very dated, v 2.6.2, and may not represent the current tool very well)
I have used the Windows interface and while it is not as sophisticated as the interface provided by OS X, it is adequate. (This screen shot is of more current vintage, which really just highlights the gap in the two tools.)
In contrast to both, the default Linux interface is straight-up command-line heaven (or hell, depending on your point of view). I rather like the spartan, CLI interface provided by R, but many others do not. The most important reason I think the current default option is a problem is that many new users have a hard time locating R in the menu, because it's not there. Imagine a new users' surprise. After downloading and installing R, which is a fairly hefty download, the user is unable to find an icon or link to start the program.
This isn't exactly newbie-friendly. In fact, I will admit that I spend several minutes looking for a menu entry before figuring out that there wasn't one. And I figured this out by looking at the contents of the core package and realizing that there was no R.desktop file installed but there was a program called R in /usr/bin.
David's post on the REvolution Computing blog discusses ESS as a front-end for R. I have used ESS in the past and it is a very good way to interact with R. Unfortunately, I had some problems with ESS and EMACS in general which eventually led me to abandoning it, but for many experienced users this is an excellent choice. In fact, it is obvious that many of the users on the R-users mailing list use ESS exclusively or nearly exclusively.
Lately, I have been using the new Vim-R-plugin2 for . . . Vim. It is similar to ESS in many ways but uses screen to connect Vim to R. I have been using screen at work for other reasons and the integration between Vim, R, and screen makes my life much easier. As a nice added bonus for Ubuntu users, the plugin works just as well with byobu.
While editor extensions such as Vim-R-plugin2 and ESS are great options for experienced users, these tools do not provide an adequate interface for new users. There are many reasons for this.
Inevitably, someone will point out that while Python is installed by default on Ubuntu, IDLE is not and therefore Python does not have, by default, a menu entry in the menu. Hopefully everyone will read this far before writing a response in the comments. :-) To me the difference between Python and R is simple. The people looking for Python are going to have at least some technical skills, otherwise they will never hear about python and don't need to interact with it. In contrast, non-programmers do learn about R and want to try it out. In the past year, I have seen articles about R in the NY Times and other mainstream publications. While R is unlikely to ever achieve an installation base similar to FireFox, it is an increasingly popular tool. More importantly, many of the people expressing interest in it are not programmers or Linux users with lots of Command-Line-Fu.
What is needed is a sane front-end for new users that will help ease them into R. I am not saying that R needs an interface like SPSS or PSPP. I would be more than satisfied by something similar to what is provided for Windows or OS X users (perferably more like the OS X interface). At the very least a new user should be able to install R and find it/run it from their menu! Fortunately, there are several front-ends to R.
Tools such as JGR or Rattle are not currently in the Ubuntu repositories, which makes using them as the default interface difficult to say the least. They can be installed via CRAN, but that's not the first thing that a new user is going to want to do.
Kate and Gedit include syntax highlighting for R and can embed a terminal in the editor but, new users will not find this easily and it does not address the need for a menu entry.
We have narrowed the list to tkStartGUI and RCMDR. tkStartGUI is actually installed by default, although it's rarely used. If you are already running R, it's easy to get it running, if you want to. Simply enter these two commands into an existing R session:
library(tcltk)
tkStartGUI()
This should start the simplest graphical interface you have ever seen. While it's not pretty (tcl/tk), it is functional AND odds are good that if you are reading this long-ass post, you already have it installed! You will quickly notice that this interface is actually less useful than the basic interface provided on Windows.
While Rcmdr is not installed by default, it is easy to install:
sudo apt-get install r-cran-rcmdr
On my machine, installation of Rcmdr required me to install 22 megabytes of additional R extensions. Most users can spare 22 megabytes, or more and this is a much smaller download/installation than RKward on a Ubuntu system. But, much like tkStartGUI, Rcmdr does not come with a .desktop file and can not be located from within the K/Ubuntu menu. Starting Rcmdr, from within R is easy:
library(Rcmdr)
Rcmdr()
This should present you with a nice easily used GUI for R. While it's not as nice as the OS X interface, it is an ugly (tcl/tk) but capable interface for R.
<<>>
It is possible to set up a default Ubuntu installation to include a menu entry for either tkStartGUI or Rcmdr. Given that tkStartGUI is already installed by default this seems like a good place to start. And, logically, Rcmdr should have a .desktop file when installed, although I don't think it should be installed by default, although setting it to recommended might be a good idea (it may be already, I have to look).
These two proposals would help new users find R and get started and bring a certain degree of parity to the different platforms served by R. As an added bonus, setting things up this way would have practically no affect on users who are already satisfied with the command-line approach. Most would never even notice the additional entry in their menus and it wouldn't hurt them if they did.
Comments?
A couple of days ago, there was an interesting discussion on the REvolution Computing blog, where David discusses installing and using ESS as a front-end for R. His discussion of ESS got me to thinking about R's default user interface on Linux (and other operating systems) and how accessible they made R to new users. While the default R interface on Windows and OS X are light years from offering the kind of accessibility and ease-of-use offered by SPSS or other graphical tools, they do make it easier for new users to know where to start on their journey into the land of single-letter Googling.
On Windows and OS X, the default interface for R is a Graphical User Interface (GUI). The screen-shots I have seen of the R interface on OS X look very nice. (Please note that this screen shot is very dated, v 2.6.2, and may not represent the current tool very well)
I have used the Windows interface and while it is not as sophisticated as the interface provided by OS X, it is adequate. (This screen shot is of more current vintage, which really just highlights the gap in the two tools.)
In contrast to both, the default Linux interface is straight-up command-line heaven (or hell, depending on your point of view). I rather like the spartan, CLI interface provided by R, but many others do not. The most important reason I think the current default option is a problem is that many new users have a hard time locating R in the menu, because it's not there. Imagine a new users' surprise. After downloading and installing R, which is a fairly hefty download, the user is unable to find an icon or link to start the program.
This isn't exactly newbie-friendly. In fact, I will admit that I spend several minutes looking for a menu entry before figuring out that there wasn't one. And I figured this out by looking at the contents of the core package and realizing that there was no R.desktop file installed but there was a program called R in /usr/bin.
David's post on the REvolution Computing blog discusses ESS as a front-end for R. I have used ESS in the past and it is a very good way to interact with R. Unfortunately, I had some problems with ESS and EMACS in general which eventually led me to abandoning it, but for many experienced users this is an excellent choice. In fact, it is obvious that many of the users on the R-users mailing list use ESS exclusively or nearly exclusively.
Lately, I have been using the new Vim-R-plugin2 for . . . Vim. It is similar to ESS in many ways but uses screen to connect Vim to R. I have been using screen at work for other reasons and the integration between Vim, R, and screen makes my life much easier. As a nice added bonus for Ubuntu users, the plugin works just as well with byobu.
While editor extensions such as Vim-R-plugin2 and ESS are great options for experienced users, these tools do not provide an adequate interface for new users. There are many reasons for this.
- Learning curve -- Don't pretend there isn't a learning curve.
- Not installed by default when you install R.
- Neither tool provides a menu entry to start R.
Inevitably, someone will point out that while Python is installed by default on Ubuntu, IDLE is not and therefore Python does not have, by default, a menu entry in the menu. Hopefully everyone will read this far before writing a response in the comments. :-) To me the difference between Python and R is simple. The people looking for Python are going to have at least some technical skills, otherwise they will never hear about python and don't need to interact with it. In contrast, non-programmers do learn about R and want to try it out. In the past year, I have seen articles about R in the NY Times and other mainstream publications. While R is unlikely to ever achieve an installation base similar to FireFox, it is an increasingly popular tool. More importantly, many of the people expressing interest in it are not programmers or Linux users with lots of Command-Line-Fu.
What is needed is a sane front-end for new users that will help ease them into R. I am not saying that R needs an interface like SPSS or PSPP. I would be more than satisfied by something similar to what is provided for Windows or OS X users (perferably more like the OS X interface). At the very least a new user should be able to install R and find it/run it from their menu! Fortunately, there are several front-ends to R.
- tkStartGUI
- RCmdr
- Rkward
- JGR
- Cantor
- Rattle
- Kate/Gedit (The default text editors on K/Ubuntu)
- Others - There are several others.
Tools such as JGR or Rattle are not currently in the Ubuntu repositories, which makes using them as the default interface difficult to say the least. They can be installed via CRAN, but that's not the first thing that a new user is going to want to do.
Kate and Gedit include syntax highlighting for R and can embed a terminal in the editor but, new users will not find this easily and it does not address the need for a menu entry.
We have narrowed the list to tkStartGUI and RCMDR. tkStartGUI is actually installed by default, although it's rarely used. If you are already running R, it's easy to get it running, if you want to. Simply enter these two commands into an existing R session:
library(tcltk)
tkStartGUI()
This should start the simplest graphical interface you have ever seen. While it's not pretty (tcl/tk), it is functional AND odds are good that if you are reading this long-ass post, you already have it installed! You will quickly notice that this interface is actually less useful than the basic interface provided on Windows.
While Rcmdr is not installed by default, it is easy to install:
sudo apt-get install r-cran-rcmdr
On my machine, installation of Rcmdr required me to install 22 megabytes of additional R extensions. Most users can spare 22 megabytes, or more and this is a much smaller download/installation than RKward on a Ubuntu system. But, much like tkStartGUI, Rcmdr does not come with a .desktop file and can not be located from within the K/Ubuntu menu. Starting Rcmdr, from within R is easy:
library(Rcmdr)
Rcmdr()
This should present you with a nice easily used GUI for R. While it's not as nice as the OS X interface, it is an ugly (tcl/tk) but capable interface for R.
<<>>
It is possible to set up a default Ubuntu installation to include a menu entry for either tkStartGUI or Rcmdr. Given that tkStartGUI is already installed by default this seems like a good place to start. And, logically, Rcmdr should have a .desktop file when installed, although I don't think it should be installed by default, although setting it to recommended might be a good idea (it may be already, I have to look).
These two proposals would help new users find R and get started and bring a certain degree of parity to the different platforms served by R. As an added bonus, setting things up this way would have practically no affect on users who are already satisfied with the command-line approach. Most would never even notice the additional entry in their menus and it wouldn't hurt them if they did.
Comments?
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
REvolution Computing, Ubuntu 9.10, - An example of the strength of the community.
Earlier today, I wrote an post titled "REvolution Computing, Ubuntu 9.10 - A mishandled opportunity. This evening I received an email from David Smith from REvolution Computing. For some reason, Uncle Google wouldn't let him log in to make a comment, so he emailed me instead. He pointed out that my earlier statement included some outdated information. After reading his email and confirming everything in the email, I wrote this because I felt that David should be given the opportunity to respond to what I said, in his own words.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
from: David Smith
subject: Ubuntu 9.10 and REvolution R
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
My first reaction - It does.
I had not noticed this change, in part because I have had the REvolution Computing extension installed on one of my primary development machines so I could assess company's product. I'll write about that in a separate post in a week or two, but first I removed all of the REvolution Computing packages, so I could see the updated greeting for myself. A screen-shot seems appropriate.
I agree with David, the new language is an improvement and I was thrilled to learn that these changes were made because of the feedback received from the Ubuntu community. While I know there are some in the community who are uncomfortable with anything that smells like ad-ware, I think it is very important to highlight the fact that input from the community did affect the final product. This is one of the things that makes Free Software so incredible, users can have an important role in shaping the product.
This discussion further highlights the importance of developing some way for independent vendors, such as REvolution Computing to distribute software via Ubuntu in a manner that is acceptable to everyone. Everyone includes the independent vendor, Canonical AND the broader Ubuntu community. Clearly, this is going to be a delicate balancing act. Vendors like REvolution Computing want their products to be seen and used but many end-users of open-source software have a very low tolerance for anything that even resembles the ad-ware found on Windows. I think an intelligent App Center is the best way to balance the interests of both parties and I will watch to see how things develop during the Lucid Lynx cycle. Unfortunately, an intelligent App Center is easier said than done and will require substantial effort from Canonical to make it a reality (hopefully it can be a reality on Ubuntu AND Kubuntu).
I hope this discussion adds to the development of this collaboration in a meaningful way.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
from: David Smith
subject: Ubuntu 9.10 and REvolution R
I think you're looking at an old version of r-base-core. In a fresh 9.10 install, installing r-base-core and then running R shows only two lines added by REvolution:
david@ubuntu:~$ R
R version 2.9.2 (2009-08-24)
Copyright (C) 2009 The R Foundation for Statistical Computing
ISBN 3-900051-07-0
R is free software and comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY.
You are welcome to redistribute it under certain conditions.
Type 'license()' or 'licence()' for distribution details.
R is a collaborative project with many contributors.
Type 'contributors()' for more information and
'citation()' on how to cite R or R packages in publications.
REvolution R enhancements not installed. For improved
performance and other extensions: apt-get install revolution-r
>
We changed the text during the beta in response to comments (from you and others). That's why we do betas, after all. There are only two added lines, which were cleared by the R Core Group:
REvolution R enhancements not installed. For improved
performance and other extensions: apt-get install revolution-r
We announced the changes (and the reasons why it was done the way it was) before 9.10 was released on our blog:
The new Application Center option is an interesting one, thanks for bringing it up. It just wasn't an option that was on our radar at the time.
Hope this clears things up a bit,
# David Smith
My first reaction - It does.
I had not noticed this change, in part because I have had the REvolution Computing extension installed on one of my primary development machines so I could assess company's product. I'll write about that in a separate post in a week or two, but first I removed all of the REvolution Computing packages, so I could see the updated greeting for myself. A screen-shot seems appropriate.
I agree with David, the new language is an improvement and I was thrilled to learn that these changes were made because of the feedback received from the Ubuntu community. While I know there are some in the community who are uncomfortable with anything that smells like ad-ware, I think it is very important to highlight the fact that input from the community did affect the final product. This is one of the things that makes Free Software so incredible, users can have an important role in shaping the product.
This discussion further highlights the importance of developing some way for independent vendors, such as REvolution Computing to distribute software via Ubuntu in a manner that is acceptable to everyone. Everyone includes the independent vendor, Canonical AND the broader Ubuntu community. Clearly, this is going to be a delicate balancing act. Vendors like REvolution Computing want their products to be seen and used but many end-users of open-source software have a very low tolerance for anything that even resembles the ad-ware found on Windows. I think an intelligent App Center is the best way to balance the interests of both parties and I will watch to see how things develop during the Lucid Lynx cycle. Unfortunately, an intelligent App Center is easier said than done and will require substantial effort from Canonical to make it a reality (hopefully it can be a reality on Ubuntu AND Kubuntu).
I hope this discussion adds to the development of this collaboration in a meaningful way.
REvolution Computing, Ubuntu 9.10 - A mishandled opportunity
On Linux, R is a command line program. Whether or not this is a good thing or not is a separate issue. When R is started, a "greeting" is displayed before the R command prompt. Because it's only a few lines, it certainly doesn't delay start up and the message has traditionally been innocuous. However, users of Ubuntu 9.10 will notice an addition to the traditional R "greeting".
For readers unfamiliar with the greeting message in R, I assure you that everything below the line starting with 'citation()' is new. This has sparked a rather interesting discussion on the Ubuntu Forums - Link To Discussion.
As you can see from what I have written on the forum, I was immediately concerned but did not want to over-react. However, after hearing the various points of view that I have had access to, I have concluded that Canonical handled this poorly but I want to be very clear regarding where I feel there is a problem.
The section of the greeting regarding REvolution Computing's product is ad-ware. Not only is it ad-ware, the message is misleading. An inexperienced user could mistakenly read this and believe that their R installation is incomplete. Furthermore there is nothing in this message warning a user that part of the REvolution Computing system is proprietary. Although REvolution Computing has contributed several interesting extensions to the R community under an OSS license, the mkl extension is proprietary and would be installed by default if a user follows the recommendation of the new "greeting".
To sum up - I don't like the new greeting. I don't want to recreate the Ubuntu Forums discussion. I recommend you read the full discussion there.
Before closing this post, I do want to emphasize that I think REvolution Computing and Canonical are well within their rights to work together to offer this product to Ubuntu users. In fact, it makes good sense for these companies to work together to offer a modern, comprehensive statistics/BI solution to end-users. And I think it is perfectly OK for Canonical to help new users find the REvolution Computing extensions, but I don't think this should be done via the greeting in R.
The Karmic Koala introduced a new Application Center to Ubuntu. This replaced the Add/Remve Applications of past Ubuntu releases and will eventually also replace Synaptic on default installations. This application is intended to show case open source AND proprietary applications to Ubuntu users and I think that is 100% terrific. I LIKE options, provided the options come with full and reasonable disclosure. I think Canonical should develop a system so users installing R, PSPP, Gretl, etc. are able to easily find other potential solutions to their needs. This list should include REvolution Computing's product. Users should be able to easily see how popular these various programs are with other Ubuntu users. The license should also be obvious and not confusing. I think Open-Source and Proprietary are adequate. I don't think new users need to know the difference between the GPL, LGPL, Apache license, etc.
As you can see in the forum discussion, I did look on Launchpad and I found a bug report that is relevant to this discussion. You can find that bug report here. I hope that Canonical listens to the concerns of the community regarding this. Given the heated debate in the OSS community regarding technologies that fit into gray areas like Mono, this seems like a fight that Canonical and the community should work to resolve, rather than allow it to fester and turn into something like the Mono debate.
--andy
R version 2.9.2 (2009-08-24)
Copyright (C) 2009 The R Foundation for Statistical Computing
ISBN 3-900051-07-0
R is free software and comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY.
You are welcome to redistribute it under certain conditions.
Type 'license()' or 'licence()' for distribution details.
R is a collaborative project with many contributors.
Type 'contributors()' for more information and
'citation()' on how to cite R or R packages in publications.
This is REvolution R version 3.0.0:
the optimized distribution of R from REvolution Computing.
REvolution R enhancements Copyright (C) REvolution Computing, Inc.
Checking for REvolution MKL:
- REvolution R enhancements not installed.
For improved performance and other extensions: apt-get install revolution-rFor readers unfamiliar with the greeting message in R, I assure you that everything below the line starting with 'citation()' is new. This has sparked a rather interesting discussion on the Ubuntu Forums - Link To Discussion.
As you can see from what I have written on the forum, I was immediately concerned but did not want to over-react. However, after hearing the various points of view that I have had access to, I have concluded that Canonical handled this poorly but I want to be very clear regarding where I feel there is a problem.
The section of the greeting regarding REvolution Computing's product is ad-ware. Not only is it ad-ware, the message is misleading. An inexperienced user could mistakenly read this and believe that their R installation is incomplete. Furthermore there is nothing in this message warning a user that part of the REvolution Computing system is proprietary. Although REvolution Computing has contributed several interesting extensions to the R community under an OSS license, the mkl extension is proprietary and would be installed by default if a user follows the recommendation of the new "greeting".
To sum up - I don't like the new greeting. I don't want to recreate the Ubuntu Forums discussion. I recommend you read the full discussion there.
Before closing this post, I do want to emphasize that I think REvolution Computing and Canonical are well within their rights to work together to offer this product to Ubuntu users. In fact, it makes good sense for these companies to work together to offer a modern, comprehensive statistics/BI solution to end-users. And I think it is perfectly OK for Canonical to help new users find the REvolution Computing extensions, but I don't think this should be done via the greeting in R.
The Karmic Koala introduced a new Application Center to Ubuntu. This replaced the Add/Remve Applications of past Ubuntu releases and will eventually also replace Synaptic on default installations. This application is intended to show case open source AND proprietary applications to Ubuntu users and I think that is 100% terrific. I LIKE options, provided the options come with full and reasonable disclosure. I think Canonical should develop a system so users installing R, PSPP, Gretl, etc. are able to easily find other potential solutions to their needs. This list should include REvolution Computing's product. Users should be able to easily see how popular these various programs are with other Ubuntu users. The license should also be obvious and not confusing. I think Open-Source and Proprietary are adequate. I don't think new users need to know the difference between the GPL, LGPL, Apache license, etc.
As you can see in the forum discussion, I did look on Launchpad and I found a bug report that is relevant to this discussion. You can find that bug report here. I hope that Canonical listens to the concerns of the community regarding this. Given the heated debate in the OSS community regarding technologies that fit into gray areas like Mono, this seems like a fight that Canonical and the community should work to resolve, rather than allow it to fester and turn into something like the Mono debate.
--andy
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Habits - They are hard to change.
It's been a while since I wrote anything here. I got busy with work, riding, Karen, life, etc. It happens. But, I do want to write here too. I tend to spam my friends with long explanations of how I see the world and I think it would be better to put those things here rather than bombard my friends with my various mental musings. So, to get things kicked off to a good start I back-posted an email I sent to all of my friends and family about a recent accomplishment of mine - I have ridden OVER 1,000 miles this year on a bicycle.
Unintended side affect - I have nice looking legs.
:-)
Unintended side affect - I have nice looking legs.
:-)
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
"A journey of a thousand miles, begins with a single step."
-- ??????????????? (See Note #1)
Or in my case, a single push of the pedal. . . . .
--Andy
In the summer of 2008, the price of gasoline hit record highs. For a while, a single gallon of gasoline in upstate New York cost nearly $5.00. Commuting to work was suddenly taking a significant bite out of my take-home pay. In a moment of serendipity stubbornness I went out and bought a road bike. Without really doing much research on the matter, I decided that I would start commuting to and from work via bicycle. I figured I could pay for the thing by using the one-time George W. Bush kick-back and my gas savings. Thanks to the outrageous price at the pump, I easily broke even last fall. When it got too cold for me to ride, I discovered that I missed it greatly. I had grown rather fond of my commute along the Hudson River between Albany and Troy.
When the snow thawed and the sun peeked out for more than 3 hours a day (spring 2009), I pulled the bike out of the shed and dusted it off. I also bought a bike computer, so I could measure how far I had ridden. This was especially nice when Karen and I entered the 2009 Tour de Cure to raise money for diabetes. We rode 50 miles on that Spring Day, which was Karen's second long-ish ride on her bike. By this point-in-time, I was once again commuting to and from work 2-3 times a week on the back of my aluminum horsey. I went on a few long-ish rides, and I bought a mountain bike so I could bounce off of trees and rocks, but most of my miles were ridden somewhere between Albany and Troy. A month or so ago I realized I had ridden more miles than I realized.
Yesterday while riding to work, my odometer tripped over one-thousand miles. To me, that's a big number. I'm really careful OCD about the tire pressure on the road bike, so this number is scary accurate. Among the more experienced riders who will receive this, I'm aware that 1000 miles is only 10 centuries - something that some of you hit by May. But for me this was pretty incredible. On my way to work today I paused for a moment when the odometer first read 1000 to look around. I was still in Albany, down along the Hudson River. The city recently repaved this section of the trail, an improvement that is hard for me to fully explain in a way that keeps this e-mail G-rated. But I will tell you that my padded tights seem to work much better now. It was a nice brisk fall morning and there were many walkers/runners sharing the trail with those of us on bicycle. Although I was running a little behind schedule and needed to get to work, I couldn't help but enjoy my surroundings. I also paused to enjoy the screams of the children I had run over earlier, but that's a discussion for a separate e-mail.
What does this all mean? For starters, I can happily report that I spent more money on padded tights this year and less money on gasoline. Priorities??? Parking is free at work, and since I've had to spend a fair amount of money on cycling gear to be comfortable/safe, I doubt I've saved much money. On the other hand, I am in phenomenal shape although I rarely "work-out" like I used to. When I get home, I usually eat dinner, hang out with friends, take a nap, etc. Thanks to my commute, I know I'll get plenty of exercise. There are also the obvious environmental benefits. I am a walking/talking/pedaling carbon-sink.
But, the real benefits of all this riding go far beyond any financial or environmental advantages. Today, I am more familiar with the back-streets of Albany, where riding a bike is a little less suicidal than State Street or Madison Avenue. I can also honestly say that I feel less stressed. If a day at work sucks, I can take it out on the ride home. It gives me a chance to process things and generally work-out any I have regarding my day at work. And finally, time moves a little more slowly on a bicycle. I get to really notice the weather and the seasons in a way that just isn't possible in a car. Since my top-sustainable speed is somewhere around 20 miles per hour, I can honestly say that I have to move slower too. In a world that is often dead-set on making us all multi-task a little more or move a little faster to accomplish more in a single day, it's REALLY nice to just slow down.
--andy
---- Notes -----
I really like this quote. It fits into so many situations ranging from moments of careful self-reflection to opportunities of cliche comedic bliss. Being a rather scholarly individual, I checked on Google to make sure I cited it appropriately. Most appear to cite Confucius while others think this was said by Lao-tzu. They're both dead, so I don't think they'll mind me appropriating the quotation.
-- ??????????????? (See Note #1)
Or in my case, a single push of the pedal. . . . .
--Andy
In the summer of 2008, the price of gasoline hit record highs. For a while, a single gallon of gasoline in upstate New York cost nearly $5.00. Commuting to work was suddenly taking a significant bite out of my take-home pay. In a moment of serendipity stubbornness I went out and bought a road bike. Without really doing much research on the matter, I decided that I would start commuting to and from work via bicycle. I figured I could pay for the thing by using the one-time George W. Bush kick-back and my gas savings. Thanks to the outrageous price at the pump, I easily broke even last fall. When it got too cold for me to ride, I discovered that I missed it greatly. I had grown rather fond of my commute along the Hudson River between Albany and Troy.
When the snow thawed and the sun peeked out for more than 3 hours a day (spring 2009), I pulled the bike out of the shed and dusted it off. I also bought a bike computer, so I could measure how far I had ridden. This was especially nice when Karen and I entered the 2009 Tour de Cure to raise money for diabetes. We rode 50 miles on that Spring Day, which was Karen's second long-ish ride on her bike. By this point-in-time, I was once again commuting to and from work 2-3 times a week on the back of my aluminum horsey. I went on a few long-ish rides, and I bought a mountain bike so I could bounce off of trees and rocks, but most of my miles were ridden somewhere between Albany and Troy. A month or so ago I realized I had ridden more miles than I realized.
Yesterday while riding to work, my odometer tripped over one-thousand miles. To me, that's a big number. I'm really careful OCD about the tire pressure on the road bike, so this number is scary accurate. Among the more experienced riders who will receive this, I'm aware that 1000 miles is only 10 centuries - something that some of you hit by May. But for me this was pretty incredible. On my way to work today I paused for a moment when the odometer first read 1000 to look around. I was still in Albany, down along the Hudson River. The city recently repaved this section of the trail, an improvement that is hard for me to fully explain in a way that keeps this e-mail G-rated. But I will tell you that my padded tights seem to work much better now. It was a nice brisk fall morning and there were many walkers/runners sharing the trail with those of us on bicycle. Although I was running a little behind schedule and needed to get to work, I couldn't help but enjoy my surroundings. I also paused to enjoy the screams of the children I had run over earlier, but that's a discussion for a separate e-mail.
What does this all mean? For starters, I can happily report that I spent more money on padded tights this year and less money on gasoline. Priorities??? Parking is free at work, and since I've had to spend a fair amount of money on cycling gear to be comfortable/safe, I doubt I've saved much money. On the other hand, I am in phenomenal shape although I rarely "work-out" like I used to. When I get home, I usually eat dinner, hang out with friends, take a nap, etc. Thanks to my commute, I know I'll get plenty of exercise. There are also the obvious environmental benefits. I am a walking/talking/pedaling carbon-sink.
But, the real benefits of all this riding go far beyond any financial or environmental advantages. Today, I am more familiar with the back-streets of Albany, where riding a bike is a little less suicidal than State Street or Madison Avenue. I can also honestly say that I feel less stressed. If a day at work sucks, I can take it out on the ride home. It gives me a chance to process things and generally work-out any I have regarding my day at work. And finally, time moves a little more slowly on a bicycle. I get to really notice the weather and the seasons in a way that just isn't possible in a car. Since my top-sustainable speed is somewhere around 20 miles per hour, I can honestly say that I have to move slower too. In a world that is often dead-set on making us all multi-task a little more or move a little faster to accomplish more in a single day, it's REALLY nice to just slow down.
--andy
---- Notes -----
I really like this quote. It fits into so many situations ranging from moments of careful self-reflection to opportunities of cliche comedic bliss. Being a rather scholarly individual, I checked on Google to make sure I cited it appropriately. Most appear to cite Confucius while others think this was said by Lao-tzu. They're both dead, so I don't think they'll mind me appropriating the quotation.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Cheat Sheets
Disclaimer: I like cheat sheets. Not only do I like to use them, I like to make them. (I'm weird like that.)
I find them especially useful for tools that I don't use very often, such as mdbtools. I use mdbtools just often enough that I know what I want to do, but I can't remember the command or extension. In the end, I have to re-read the man page. Well, my cheat sheet is a more structured, colorful version of the man page.
These are also useful for users transitioning from other tools although I will be the first to admit that the Vim cheat sheet might scare a new user away entirely. But it is useful for remembering little tricks and what not.
Of course, as cheat sheets, some things have been left out. This is especially true for Vim. AFAIK, there aren't any errors in these, but if they eat your newborn kittens, it's not my fault. You have been warned. But if you find a typo, let me know and I'll fix it.
Feel free to copy/print/reproduce/mangle these. I did put my Ubuntu Forums handle on them and if you're feeling generous/evil, you can credit/blame me for creating them.
Cheat Sheets:
I find them especially useful for tools that I don't use very often, such as mdbtools. I use mdbtools just often enough that I know what I want to do, but I can't remember the command or extension. In the end, I have to re-read the man page. Well, my cheat sheet is a more structured, colorful version of the man page.
These are also useful for users transitioning from other tools although I will be the first to admit that the Vim cheat sheet might scare a new user away entirely. But it is useful for remembering little tricks and what not.
Of course, as cheat sheets, some things have been left out. This is especially true for Vim. AFAIK, there aren't any errors in these, but if they eat your newborn kittens, it's not my fault. You have been warned. But if you find a typo, let me know and I'll fix it.
Feel free to copy/print/reproduce/mangle these. I did put my Ubuntu Forums handle on them and if you're feeling generous/evil, you can credit/blame me for creating them.
Cheat Sheets:
- mdbtools,
- psql (not postgres, just the interactive shell)
- screen
- Vim
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Cantor
Lately, I've been cross-posting quite a bit. This discussion is yet another example of that trend. Here's the Ubuntu Forums Link.
I just saw an interesting here about a new program called Cantor. It looks like KDE 4.4 (hopefully out in time for the next LTS) will include a KDE-based front-end for Sage, Maxima and R.
I thought Sage was a front-end too which doesn't make much sense to me, but assuming this announcement comes to fruition, this could be a useful tool.
I'm interested to see how the develop an interface that is flexible enough to handle multiple mathematics packages via a GUI. If it's nothing more than a glorified editor with pretty graphics output, it's not that interesting. If it's a genuine attempt to build a modular GUI to a diverse set of mathematics tools, thereby lowering the learning curve necessary to use them, this could be really really exciting.
I just saw an interesting here about a new program called Cantor. It looks like KDE 4.4 (hopefully out in time for the next LTS) will include a KDE-based front-end for Sage, Maxima and R.
I thought Sage was a front-end too which doesn't make much sense to me, but assuming this announcement comes to fruition, this could be a useful tool.
I'm interested to see how the develop an interface that is flexible enough to handle multiple mathematics packages via a GUI. If it's nothing more than a glorified editor with pretty graphics output, it's not that interesting. If it's a genuine attempt to build a modular GUI to a diverse set of mathematics tools, thereby lowering the learning curve necessary to use them, this could be really really exciting.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Really Cool R Graphic
Really cool R Graphic
Recently I needed to make a funky graphic-table combo in R. Here's the challenge - To combine a vertical bar chart and the data table in a single graphic.
As much as I like R, it's graphics systems are mind-bogglingly complex. You have the base graphics system PLUS Lattice, ggplot, iplot, etc. There are way too many graphics systems. I couldn't even figure out which one I should focus on learning.
When in doubt, turn to the appropriate forum. I posted some stuff on the R-Users mailing list and got a fantastic reply from a guy named Marc. View via Nabble.
I was able to take what he sent me, and learn from it. After playing around with it a little, I got the hang of it and I was able to adapt what he sent and use it for my project at work.
Below is the full version of what he sent me. There is further discussion about this here.
Enjoy!
#---------------------------------------------------------
# Create data
MyData <- matrix(c(57.1, 52.3, 13.5, 13.9, 7.9, 8.8, 5.4, 5.6, 16.1, 19.4), nrow = 2) # Note that by using '\n' in the text, the label will be plotted on # two lines. '\n' is a newline character colnames(MyData) <- c("0 occasions", "1-2 Occasions", "3-5 Occasions", "6-9 Occasions", "10 or more\nOccasions") rownames(MyData) <- c("Androscoggin", "Maine") > MyData
0 occasions 1-2 Occasions 3-5 Occasions 6-9 Occasions
Androscoggin 57.1 13.5 7.9 5.4
Maine 52.3 13.9 8.8 5.6
10 or more\nOccasions
Androscoggin 16.1
Maine 19.4
# Set graph margins to make room for labels
# See ?par
par(mar = c(5, 8, 4, 1))
# Set colors
MyCols <- c("black", "grey80") # Set label size MyCex = 0.75 # Set lines for table data MyLines <- 2:3 # do barplot, getting bar midpoints in 'mp' # See ?barplot mp <- barplot(MyData, beside = TRUE, ylim = c(0, 100), yaxt = "n", cex.names = MyCex, col = MyCols) # mp contains the following. The mean of each column # is the horizontal center of each pair of bars > mp
[,1] [,2] [,3] [,4] [,5]
[1,] 1.5 4.5 7.5 10.5 13.5
[2,] 2.5 5.5 8.5 11.5 14.5
# Put a box around it
box()
# Draw y axis tick marks and labels
axis(2, at = seq(0, 100, 10), las = 1)
# Draw values below plot
# Use the values of 'mp' from above.
# See ?mtext
mtext(side = 1, text = MyData,
at = rep(colMeans(mp), each = nrow(MyData)),
line = MyLines, cex = MyCex)
# Get min value for the x axis. See ?par 'usr'
min.x <- par("usr")[1]
# Draw categories using mtext
# See ?strwidth to get the length of the labels in
# user coordinates, which is then used for 'at'
# Setting 'adj = 0' left justifies the text
mtext(side = 1, line = MyLines, text = rownames(MyData),
at = min.x - max(strwidth(rownames(MyData), cex = MyCex)),
adj = 0, cex = MyCex)
# Draw the colored boxes
# Same here for strheight as with strwidth above
# Part of this is getting the vertical positioning to align with
# the text and the horizontal position at the beginning of the labels
# Note that we have to set 'xpd = TRUE' so that the points are drawn
# outside the plotting region. See ?par and 'xpd'
# We just need a single capital letter for strheight() to get the value
VertOff <- strheight("X", cex = MyCex) * c(6, 8)
HorizOff <- min.x - (0.85 * max(strwidth(rownames(MyData))))
points(rep(HorizOff, nrow(MyData)),
par("usr")[3] - VertOff, bg = MyCols, pch = 22,
xpd = TRUE, cex = MyCex)
# --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recently I needed to make a funky graphic-table combo in R. Here's the challenge - To combine a vertical bar chart and the data table in a single graphic.
As much as I like R, it's graphics systems are mind-bogglingly complex. You have the base graphics system PLUS Lattice, ggplot, iplot, etc. There are way too many graphics systems. I couldn't even figure out which one I should focus on learning.
When in doubt, turn to the appropriate forum. I posted some stuff on the R-Users mailing list and got a fantastic reply from a guy named Marc. View via Nabble.
I was able to take what he sent me, and learn from it. After playing around with it a little, I got the hang of it and I was able to adapt what he sent and use it for my project at work.
Below is the full version of what he sent me. There is further discussion about this here.
Enjoy!
#---------------------------------------------------------
# Create data
MyData <- matrix(c(57.1, 52.3, 13.5, 13.9, 7.9, 8.8, 5.4, 5.6, 16.1, 19.4), nrow = 2) # Note that by using '\n' in the text, the label will be plotted on # two lines. '\n' is a newline character colnames(MyData) <- c("0 occasions", "1-2 Occasions", "3-5 Occasions", "6-9 Occasions", "10 or more\nOccasions") rownames(MyData) <- c("Androscoggin", "Maine") > MyData
0 occasions 1-2 Occasions 3-5 Occasions 6-9 Occasions
Androscoggin 57.1 13.5 7.9 5.4
Maine 52.3 13.9 8.8 5.6
10 or more\nOccasions
Androscoggin 16.1
Maine 19.4
# Set graph margins to make room for labels
# See ?par
par(mar = c(5, 8, 4, 1))
# Set colors
MyCols <- c("black", "grey80") # Set label size MyCex = 0.75 # Set lines for table data MyLines <- 2:3 # do barplot, getting bar midpoints in 'mp' # See ?barplot mp <- barplot(MyData, beside = TRUE, ylim = c(0, 100), yaxt = "n", cex.names = MyCex, col = MyCols) # mp contains the following. The mean of each column # is the horizontal center of each pair of bars > mp
[,1] [,2] [,3] [,4] [,5]
[1,] 1.5 4.5 7.5 10.5 13.5
[2,] 2.5 5.5 8.5 11.5 14.5
# Put a box around it
box()
# Draw y axis tick marks and labels
axis(2, at = seq(0, 100, 10), las = 1)
# Draw values below plot
# Use the values of 'mp' from above.
# See ?mtext
mtext(side = 1, text = MyData,
at = rep(colMeans(mp), each = nrow(MyData)),
line = MyLines, cex = MyCex)
# Get min value for the x axis. See ?par 'usr'
min.x <- par("usr")[1]
# Draw categories using mtext
# See ?strwidth to get the length of the labels in
# user coordinates, which is then used for 'at'
# Setting 'adj = 0' left justifies the text
mtext(side = 1, line = MyLines, text = rownames(MyData),
at = min.x - max(strwidth(rownames(MyData), cex = MyCex)),
adj = 0, cex = MyCex)
# Draw the colored boxes
# Same here for strheight as with strwidth above
# Part of this is getting the vertical positioning to align with
# the text and the horizontal position at the beginning of the labels
# Note that we have to set 'xpd = TRUE' so that the points are drawn
# outside the plotting region. See ?par and 'xpd'
# We just need a single capital letter for strheight() to get the value
VertOff <- strheight("X", cex = MyCex) * c(6, 8)
HorizOff <- min.x - (0.85 * max(strwidth(rownames(MyData))))
points(rep(HorizOff, nrow(MyData)),
par("usr")[3] - VertOff, bg = MyCols, pch = 22,
xpd = TRUE, cex = MyCex)
# --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Saturday, September 12, 2009
Gun control is a complicated issue. It is too often dumbed down into 10 irrelevant talking points that have nothing to do with the situation on the ground. Unfortunately, this is not unlike many other political discussions in our society. The talking points from the previous post are easy for people to understand (mis-interpret) and are used to convey a message that is largely at odds with reality. Let me be clear. I fully respect people's right and intellectual ability to look at a set of facts and come to a conclusion different than my own. What I do not respect is the accumulation of "facts" which are clearly cherry-picked and manipulated to present a facade, rather than the grounds for vigorous debate.
The data provided by my friend is irrelevant to a discussion based on reality. I will divide this discussion into two parts, because there were two different types of misinformation in the "facts" sent to me. Many of the facts concern disarming various minority groups by a repressive regime. The rest present a set of facts, that lack the broader historical/political/economic context. Information does not exist in a vacuum. It fits into a context. When we ignore the context, it becomes impossible to know whether or not the facts are useful.
Most of the facts are historical examples from other countries. These facts rely on things that happened years ago in countries most Americans know little about. They also focus on various repressive regimes taking guns away from minority groups which had been long repressed by the local majorities. This makes the parallel to today's politics irrelevant unless you are simultaneously arguing that the American government is planning on repressing us (gun-owners). The majority of legal gun-owners (I include myself in this group) in this country are white males. Have you looked at Congress lately? They are overwhelmingly both White and Male. I find it unlikely that a government composed of middle-class (read rich as hell) White men is intent of persecuting me, a White male. I would instead posit that this selection of facts has more to do with creating an atmosphere of fear/distrust than it does in providing reasonable grounds for discussion.
It is also interesting (amusing) that American History is completely ignored in these facts. Historical facts are more dangerous when everyone understands the broader context of the discussion. It's easier to have talking points that people don't understand, rather than talking points that people can actually challenge you on. It's a debating trick that I am personally quite fond of although it is a little under- handed. In this case I will try to apply some lessons from our own history to set the record straight(er).
The US government actively disarmed Native Americans during the 1800's. Why? Simple greed. We (Americans) intended to persecute these peoples so Americans (mostly White) could take their land/gold/buffalo. It's easier to beat-up on unarmed native populations. My favorite example here would be the massacre at Wounded Knee. If you aren't familiar with this tragedy, look it up. Similarly, slaves (again, a minority group), were prohibited from owning anything that could be easily used as a weapon. You don't humiliate a grown man for every day of his life and then give him a gun unless you are suicidal. These two American examples are similar in nature to many of the facts presented in the original email I am responding to. The people who are disarmed (or prevented from arming themselves in the first place) are a persecuted minority group. For example, the original facts referenced the tragedies which befell the Turkish Armenians, Ugandan Christians and Guatemalan Mayans. Comparing these tragedies with the situation faced by members of the NRA is both laughable and an insult to those who perished. I don't really see myself as a persecuted minority (and I have a Jewish last name). Rather than relying on sound-bites comparing Obama to Hitler, people need to accept that our government is unlikely to repress Americans in a manner similar to that faced by the Turkish Armenians or Native Americans.
Conveniently, there are other relevant facts from American History. Wyatt Earp, Doc Holiday, and several other Western Marshalls went down in pop- history because . . . . . . . . . wait for it . . . . . . . . . they unarmed
the Wild Wild West. You see, the Western Boom Towns had a problem. Every Tom, Dick, and Harry carried at least one gun. Carrying guns was clearly necessary in the vast expanses of country-side between these towns (we had not yet disarmed all of the Indians we were trying to repress), but in the Boom Towns these guns caused a lot of problems. The solution was to disarm, everyone, except the local law enforcement. In this example, the government (local) did not intend to repress anyone. The goal was to make the entire community safer. They couldn't close down all of the bars or prevent the cow-boys from getting rowdy, but they could make sure that people weren't shooting one another. Thus more people lived to carouse another day. This example seems especially apropos because of the problems we experience today. New York City, Washington
DC, etc. are all trying to respond to the problems inherent in having lots of guns in a community with lots of poverty, drinking, drug-abuse, etc.
Let's be clear about something. Americans ARE dieing and they are dieing because someone shot them with a gun. To pretend otherwise is ridiculous. It is equally true that suburban/rural Americans are not experiencing these problems. Life in South Central LA is very different from the lives of Americans going down to the mall in suburban America. I believe this divide is the fundamental source of the tension in this debate. Upper-class Americans (suburbia) and rural Americans are not dieing on a regular basis due to gun-fire. But urban areas like Albany, NY are experiencing these problems every single day. Albany alone has experienced multiple shooting fatalities this summer involving adults, children, men and women. No citizen is truly safe in the West End (ghetto) of Albany but citizens in Guilderland (suburb) are. Unfortunately, I see very little public discussion about this tension from the left or the right. An policy discussion that fails to address this tension is doomed to fail and the consequences are as immediate as they are tragic.
When the talking points rely heavily on historical examples where disarmament is followed by repression, there is an often unspoken rationale. These groups want to encourage people's distrust in our government. This is especially true when there is a Democrat in the White House. Fear mongering is always good for a quick sound-byte. Think about it. How many of these sorts of forwards and discussions did you see during the Bush Administration? Yet, Bush's policies of spying on Americans and creating loop-holes around Habeas Corpus actively infringed on our Constitutional Rights (although not Amendment 2). I don't remember any conservatives out in the streets beating their drums when this happened. The complaints now are classical political opportunism. The conservative machine is very savvy politically. It knows that gun-control is a hot-button issue for many Americans. Remember that tension I pointed out?) It's not in their best interest to fuel a real discussion. It's easier and better politically to get everyone . . . up in arms (sorry, I had to use the phrase) . . . over this stuff. The Obama administration has not once suggested about gun-control, but here we are sending having a discussion based on carefully selected points that have more to do with scaring people shitless than it does with providing information to empower individuals to participate in a policy discussion.
Now, let's look at some other quick facts. Yep. Washington DC and New York City both have some of the strictest gun-control rules in the nation. Interestingly, they have had different results. New York City today is actually much safer than it was in the 80's at the height of the Crack Epidemic. Additional police resources, gun-control and other measures have made it difficult for NYC gangs to get guns, which in turn limits how many idiots on the street are packing illegal heat. Ironically, our nation's capital has not been as successful. But, I find it interesting that L.A. was ignored. Here is a sprawling metropolis where buying a hand-gun may actually be as easy as buying an ice-cream cone. In L.A., gang-warfare, yes, warfare is a way of life. The Finger Lakes in upstate NY will never (I pray) experience gang-warfare. In L.A. it's a daily way of life. Arguing that guns aren't part of the problem in South Central L.A. isn't useful. Guns are part of the problem. Of course they aren't the entire problem, but cute sound-bytes like this:
"Guns, don't kill people, people kill people."
is an insulting thing to say when American citizens (just like you and I) are mowing each other down in a haze bullets. The pursuit of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness (property) is an empty dream when guns deprive you of that same life. Yet, I recently saw a guy on TV wearing a shirt that said guns aren't the problem (see above).
As a citizen of an urban area that struggles with gun violence on a regular basis (Albany, NY) I also recognize another important fact that must be recognized and acknowledged to find policies that will address the fundamental problem. The shooters and their victims are not NRA members. They are not hunters (with the rare, tragic exception). They are children, teens, and adults living in densely packed urban centers. Last time I checked, the NRA had not run a successful recruitment campaign here in down-town Albany, although there are many many gun-owners. The NRA isn't interested in these gun-owners because the guns are illegal and the owners really should not be owning or handling fire-arms. They are not responsible gun-owners and they are rarely model citizens. As with many other things, lumping everyone who shares a common trait into one big pile is rarely a good idea. Gun-owners are no different.
Returning to the "facts" from the email. . . . If we are going to have a discussion that includes examples from other countries that Americans may or may not really understand, I would also suggest Mexico and Colombia. Neither country has meaningful gun- control. It's easy to get a gun. Anyone can get one. Sadly, the end result has not been a utopia. In a manner than looks a lot like South Central LA, people are dying in droves from lead poisoning. I could also suggest that you look at German gun-control laws. These are considered some of the tightest laws in Europe. Here is an excerpt from the US State department website to Americans thinking about traveling to Germany:
CRIME: Violent crime is rare in Germany, but can occur, especially in larger cities or high-risk areas such as train stations. Most incidents of street crime consist of theft of unattended items and pick-pocketing.
This is what the same state department says about Switzerland, which has a very different out-look on gun-control.
CRIME: Switzerland has a low rate of violent crime. However, pick-pocketing and purse snatching do occur in the vicinity of train and bus stations, airports, and some public parks, especially during peak tourist periods (such as Summer and Christmas) and when conferences, shows, or exhibits are scheduled in major cities.
Do you see any similarities? When traveling in either country, tourists should be concerned about pick-pockets! Now, it should be noted that Germany does actually have a higher crime rate than Switzerland. Although most of that crime is concentrated in what was once the Soviet Bloc. If you compare Western Germany to Switzerland, you will discover that the statistics are very very similar. This highlights an important point. It is inappropriate to use examples from another country unless those examples are well understood.
Anti-gun-control activists often point to Switzerland's policies and (inappropriately) conclude that the low-crime is a result of these gun-control policies. To be blunt, that is a shallow fabrication. Equally shallow is an argument that access to guns inevitably leads to violence. Crime statistics MUST be assessed in a broader context. Switzerland is an overwhelmingly middle-class country. In fact, it has a larger middle class (as a proportion of the population) than we do. It also has a much stronger social safety net than our own - something Americans would call socialism. In discussing Switzerland's low crime rate, ignoring these two factors is truly disingenuous.
Equally disingenuous is my use of Mexico and Colombia as examples where gun- control is essentially nil, and yet violent crime is high. It's inappropriate because many of the guns on the street are paid for (lock, stock and all smoking barrels) by the American government/American tax-payers as part of our war on drugs. Yep. Those Colombian para-military death-squads use guns that are often paid for by Uncle Sam. Many of the other guns are purchased from American gun manufacturers, thus our economy actually profits from the insanity. But, here's the important lesson. These facts are essentially useless. Just like the naked numbers from Switzerland don't help us understand their meaning, my cherry-picked facts about Mexico and Colombia are misleading garbage. There are other things that contribute to the violence in those countries. Both countries are also comparatively poor and have small middle classes (among other issues). In fact, I would argue that violent crime statistics are more closely tied to the size of the middle class (this is an over-simplification, but fine for right now) than it is to any gun-control policy.
So here we are. I've wasted a bit of time writing this and you've wasted a little bit of time reading it. Americans are still shooting one another in the streets of LA and red-necks in Georgia are still talking trash about the low-
crime rate in Switzerland. The former is tragic while the latter is actually quite humorous. What has this taught us? Probably not much. In order to make REAL progress on an issue like gun-control or health care we need to talk to one another. We need to take these bullshit talking points (and the bullshitters who propagate them) and put them into time-out or possibly the bottom of the ocean (concrete shoes are nice). Once we do that, we can actually sit down as a nation and talk about the real issues here. A real solution will require us, as a nation, to balance the needs of urban population centers (like NYC, and Boom Towns like Dodge) with the needs and desires of suburbia and rural America. Yes, the Constitution must be respected, but so must we respect the lives of the people dieing in the violence that is consuming parts of the nation. But, we can't do that as long as we rely on shallow comparisons to a middle-class country better known for it's lederhosen than for it's gun-control laws.
The data provided by my friend is irrelevant to a discussion based on reality. I will divide this discussion into two parts, because there were two different types of misinformation in the "facts" sent to me. Many of the facts concern disarming various minority groups by a repressive regime. The rest present a set of facts, that lack the broader historical/political/economic context. Information does not exist in a vacuum. It fits into a context. When we ignore the context, it becomes impossible to know whether or not the facts are useful.
Most of the facts are historical examples from other countries. These facts rely on things that happened years ago in countries most Americans know little about. They also focus on various repressive regimes taking guns away from minority groups which had been long repressed by the local majorities. This makes the parallel to today's politics irrelevant unless you are simultaneously arguing that the American government is planning on repressing us (gun-owners). The majority of legal gun-owners (I include myself in this group) in this country are white males. Have you looked at Congress lately? They are overwhelmingly both White and Male. I find it unlikely that a government composed of middle-class (read rich as hell) White men is intent of persecuting me, a White male. I would instead posit that this selection of facts has more to do with creating an atmosphere of fear/distrust than it does in providing reasonable grounds for discussion.
It is also interesting (amusing) that American History is completely ignored in these facts. Historical facts are more dangerous when everyone understands the broader context of the discussion. It's easier to have talking points that people don't understand, rather than talking points that people can actually challenge you on. It's a debating trick that I am personally quite fond of although it is a little under- handed. In this case I will try to apply some lessons from our own history to set the record straight(er).
The US government actively disarmed Native Americans during the 1800's. Why? Simple greed. We (Americans) intended to persecute these peoples so Americans (mostly White) could take their land/gold/buffalo. It's easier to beat-up on unarmed native populations. My favorite example here would be the massacre at Wounded Knee. If you aren't familiar with this tragedy, look it up. Similarly, slaves (again, a minority group), were prohibited from owning anything that could be easily used as a weapon. You don't humiliate a grown man for every day of his life and then give him a gun unless you are suicidal. These two American examples are similar in nature to many of the facts presented in the original email I am responding to. The people who are disarmed (or prevented from arming themselves in the first place) are a persecuted minority group. For example, the original facts referenced the tragedies which befell the Turkish Armenians, Ugandan Christians and Guatemalan Mayans. Comparing these tragedies with the situation faced by members of the NRA is both laughable and an insult to those who perished. I don't really see myself as a persecuted minority (and I have a Jewish last name). Rather than relying on sound-bites comparing Obama to Hitler, people need to accept that our government is unlikely to repress Americans in a manner similar to that faced by the Turkish Armenians or Native Americans.
Conveniently, there are other relevant facts from American History. Wyatt Earp, Doc Holiday, and several other Western Marshalls went down in pop- history because . . . . . . . . . wait for it . . . . . . . . . they unarmed
the Wild Wild West. You see, the Western Boom Towns had a problem. Every Tom, Dick, and Harry carried at least one gun. Carrying guns was clearly necessary in the vast expanses of country-side between these towns (we had not yet disarmed all of the Indians we were trying to repress), but in the Boom Towns these guns caused a lot of problems. The solution was to disarm, everyone, except the local law enforcement. In this example, the government (local) did not intend to repress anyone. The goal was to make the entire community safer. They couldn't close down all of the bars or prevent the cow-boys from getting rowdy, but they could make sure that people weren't shooting one another. Thus more people lived to carouse another day. This example seems especially apropos because of the problems we experience today. New York City, Washington
DC, etc. are all trying to respond to the problems inherent in having lots of guns in a community with lots of poverty, drinking, drug-abuse, etc.
Let's be clear about something. Americans ARE dieing and they are dieing because someone shot them with a gun. To pretend otherwise is ridiculous. It is equally true that suburban/rural Americans are not experiencing these problems. Life in South Central LA is very different from the lives of Americans going down to the mall in suburban America. I believe this divide is the fundamental source of the tension in this debate. Upper-class Americans (suburbia) and rural Americans are not dieing on a regular basis due to gun-fire. But urban areas like Albany, NY are experiencing these problems every single day. Albany alone has experienced multiple shooting fatalities this summer involving adults, children, men and women. No citizen is truly safe in the West End (ghetto) of Albany but citizens in Guilderland (suburb) are. Unfortunately, I see very little public discussion about this tension from the left or the right. An policy discussion that fails to address this tension is doomed to fail and the consequences are as immediate as they are tragic.
When the talking points rely heavily on historical examples where disarmament is followed by repression, there is an often unspoken rationale. These groups want to encourage people's distrust in our government. This is especially true when there is a Democrat in the White House. Fear mongering is always good for a quick sound-byte. Think about it. How many of these sorts of forwards and discussions did you see during the Bush Administration? Yet, Bush's policies of spying on Americans and creating loop-holes around Habeas Corpus actively infringed on our Constitutional Rights (although not Amendment 2). I don't remember any conservatives out in the streets beating their drums when this happened. The complaints now are classical political opportunism. The conservative machine is very savvy politically. It knows that gun-control is a hot-button issue for many Americans. Remember that tension I pointed out?) It's not in their best interest to fuel a real discussion. It's easier and better politically to get everyone . . . up in arms (sorry, I had to use the phrase) . . . over this stuff. The Obama administration has not once suggested about gun-control, but here we are sending having a discussion based on carefully selected points that have more to do with scaring people shitless than it does with providing information to empower individuals to participate in a policy discussion.
Now, let's look at some other quick facts. Yep. Washington DC and New York City both have some of the strictest gun-control rules in the nation. Interestingly, they have had different results. New York City today is actually much safer than it was in the 80's at the height of the Crack Epidemic. Additional police resources, gun-control and other measures have made it difficult for NYC gangs to get guns, which in turn limits how many idiots on the street are packing illegal heat. Ironically, our nation's capital has not been as successful. But, I find it interesting that L.A. was ignored. Here is a sprawling metropolis where buying a hand-gun may actually be as easy as buying an ice-cream cone. In L.A., gang-warfare, yes, warfare is a way of life. The Finger Lakes in upstate NY will never (I pray) experience gang-warfare. In L.A. it's a daily way of life. Arguing that guns aren't part of the problem in South Central L.A. isn't useful. Guns are part of the problem. Of course they aren't the entire problem, but cute sound-bytes like this:
"Guns, don't kill people, people kill people."
is an insulting thing to say when American citizens (just like you and I) are mowing each other down in a haze bullets. The pursuit of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness (property) is an empty dream when guns deprive you of that same life. Yet, I recently saw a guy on TV wearing a shirt that said guns aren't the problem (see above).
As a citizen of an urban area that struggles with gun violence on a regular basis (Albany, NY) I also recognize another important fact that must be recognized and acknowledged to find policies that will address the fundamental problem. The shooters and their victims are not NRA members. They are not hunters (with the rare, tragic exception). They are children, teens, and adults living in densely packed urban centers. Last time I checked, the NRA had not run a successful recruitment campaign here in down-town Albany, although there are many many gun-owners. The NRA isn't interested in these gun-owners because the guns are illegal and the owners really should not be owning or handling fire-arms. They are not responsible gun-owners and they are rarely model citizens. As with many other things, lumping everyone who shares a common trait into one big pile is rarely a good idea. Gun-owners are no different.
Returning to the "facts" from the email. . . . If we are going to have a discussion that includes examples from other countries that Americans may or may not really understand, I would also suggest Mexico and Colombia. Neither country has meaningful gun- control. It's easy to get a gun. Anyone can get one. Sadly, the end result has not been a utopia. In a manner than looks a lot like South Central LA, people are dying in droves from lead poisoning. I could also suggest that you look at German gun-control laws. These are considered some of the tightest laws in Europe. Here is an excerpt from the US State department website to Americans thinking about traveling to Germany:
CRIME: Violent crime is rare in Germany, but can occur, especially in larger cities or high-risk areas such as train stations. Most incidents of street crime consist of theft of unattended items and pick-pocketing.
This is what the same state department says about Switzerland, which has a very different out-look on gun-control.
CRIME: Switzerland has a low rate of violent crime. However, pick-pocketing and purse snatching do occur in the vicinity of train and bus stations, airports, and some public parks, especially during peak tourist periods (such as Summer and Christmas) and when conferences, shows, or exhibits are scheduled in major cities.
Do you see any similarities? When traveling in either country, tourists should be concerned about pick-pockets! Now, it should be noted that Germany does actually have a higher crime rate than Switzerland. Although most of that crime is concentrated in what was once the Soviet Bloc. If you compare Western Germany to Switzerland, you will discover that the statistics are very very similar. This highlights an important point. It is inappropriate to use examples from another country unless those examples are well understood.
Anti-gun-control activists often point to Switzerland's policies and (inappropriately) conclude that the low-crime is a result of these gun-control policies. To be blunt, that is a shallow fabrication. Equally shallow is an argument that access to guns inevitably leads to violence. Crime statistics MUST be assessed in a broader context. Switzerland is an overwhelmingly middle-class country. In fact, it has a larger middle class (as a proportion of the population) than we do. It also has a much stronger social safety net than our own - something Americans would call socialism. In discussing Switzerland's low crime rate, ignoring these two factors is truly disingenuous.
Equally disingenuous is my use of Mexico and Colombia as examples where gun- control is essentially nil, and yet violent crime is high. It's inappropriate because many of the guns on the street are paid for (lock, stock and all smoking barrels) by the American government/American tax-payers as part of our war on drugs. Yep. Those Colombian para-military death-squads use guns that are often paid for by Uncle Sam. Many of the other guns are purchased from American gun manufacturers, thus our economy actually profits from the insanity. But, here's the important lesson. These facts are essentially useless. Just like the naked numbers from Switzerland don't help us understand their meaning, my cherry-picked facts about Mexico and Colombia are misleading garbage. There are other things that contribute to the violence in those countries. Both countries are also comparatively poor and have small middle classes (among other issues). In fact, I would argue that violent crime statistics are more closely tied to the size of the middle class (this is an over-simplification, but fine for right now) than it is to any gun-control policy.
So here we are. I've wasted a bit of time writing this and you've wasted a little bit of time reading it. Americans are still shooting one another in the streets of LA and red-necks in Georgia are still talking trash about the low-
crime rate in Switzerland. The former is tragic while the latter is actually quite humorous. What has this taught us? Probably not much. In order to make REAL progress on an issue like gun-control or health care we need to talk to one another. We need to take these bullshit talking points (and the bullshitters who propagate them) and put them into time-out or possibly the bottom of the ocean (concrete shoes are nice). Once we do that, we can actually sit down as a nation and talk about the real issues here. A real solution will require us, as a nation, to balance the needs of urban population centers (like NYC, and Boom Towns like Dodge) with the needs and desires of suburbia and rural America. Yes, the Constitution must be respected, but so must we respect the lives of the people dieing in the violence that is consuming parts of the nation. But, we can't do that as long as we rely on shallow comparisons to a middle-class country better known for it's lederhosen than for it's gun-control laws.
Gun Control?
I recently received an email from a friend full of "facts" to show why gun control is not necessary. I was surprised, and disappointed when I saw this.
First I will post what my friend sent me. The next post will be my reply. Note: While I did remove the formatting, I did not modify the content.
A Gun History
After reading the following historical facts, read the part about Switzerland twice.
A LITTLE GUN HISTORY
gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens. Take note my fellow Americans, before it's too late! The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them
of this history lesson. With guns, we are 'citizens.' Without them, we are 'subjects'. During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED!
Communist Doctrine says that they must DISARM the Population, before they can dominate them!
If you value your freedom, please spread this anti-gun control message to all of your friends.
The purpose of fighting is to win. There is no possible victory in defense. The sword is more important than the shield, and skill is more important than either. The final weapon is the brain. All else is supplemental.
SWITZERLAND ISSUES EVERY HOUSEHOLD A GUN! AND They Train every Adult that they issue a Rifle
SWITZERLAND HAS THE LOWEST GUN RELATED CRIME RATE OF ANY CIVILIZED COUNTRY IN THE WORLD!!!
IT'S A NO BRAINER! DON'T LET OUR GOVERNMENT WASTE MILLIONS OF OUR TAX DOLLARS IN AN EFFORT TO MAKE ALL LAW ABIDING CITIZENS AN EASY TARGET.
I'm a firm believer of the 2nd Amendment! If you are too, please forward. Just think how powerful our government is getting! They are out of Control! They think these other countries just didn't do it right.
We MUST keep our Constitution and especially the 1st and 2nd Amendments INTACT! Don't let them take it away from us!!! Learn from history.
FOOTNOTE: NYC & WASHINGTON, DC HAVE HAD STRICT GUN CONTROL LAWS FOR MANY YEARS. THEY ARE 2 OF THE HIGHEST CRIME RIDDEN CITIES IN AMERICA. ANY IDEA WHY
First I will post what my friend sent me. The next post will be my reply. Note: While I did remove the formatting, I did not modify the content.
A Gun History
After reading the following historical facts, read the part about Switzerland twice.
A LITTLE GUN HISTORY
- In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control.. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
- In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
- Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
- China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
- Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
- Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
- Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
- Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.
- It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own Government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year results are now in:
- Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent.
- Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent.
- Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!
- In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns!
- While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.
- There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort, and expense was expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns. The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it.
- You won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear politiciansdisseminating this information.
gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens. Take note my fellow Americans, before it's too late! The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them
of this history lesson. With guns, we are 'citizens.' Without them, we are 'subjects'. During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED!
Communist Doctrine says that they must DISARM the Population, before they can dominate them!
If you value your freedom, please spread this anti-gun control message to all of your friends.
The purpose of fighting is to win. There is no possible victory in defense. The sword is more important than the shield, and skill is more important than either. The final weapon is the brain. All else is supplemental.
SWITZERLAND ISSUES EVERY HOUSEHOLD A GUN! AND They Train every Adult that they issue a Rifle
SWITZERLAND HAS THE LOWEST GUN RELATED CRIME RATE OF ANY CIVILIZED COUNTRY IN THE WORLD!!!
IT'S A NO BRAINER! DON'T LET OUR GOVERNMENT WASTE MILLIONS OF OUR TAX DOLLARS IN AN EFFORT TO MAKE ALL LAW ABIDING CITIZENS AN EASY TARGET.
I'm a firm believer of the 2nd Amendment! If you are too, please forward. Just think how powerful our government is getting! They are out of Control! They think these other countries just didn't do it right.
We MUST keep our Constitution and especially the 1st and 2nd Amendments INTACT! Don't let them take it away from us!!! Learn from history.
FOOTNOTE: NYC & WASHINGTON, DC HAVE HAD STRICT GUN CONTROL LAWS FOR MANY YEARS. THEY ARE 2 OF THE HIGHEST CRIME RIDDEN CITIES IN AMERICA. ANY IDEA WHY
Friday, September 11, 2009
Yeah, I don't actually need this here, but I do need to put the image on the net, so that's what I've done.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Structure? Who needs it.
I've got more going on in my life than I can keep up with. Work, fun, Karen, etc. It all adds up. I do so much that it's hard to know what I want to write about here. Decisions will be made soon. In the meantime, here are some updates related to other posts written here.
- Ubuntu 9.04 is incredible. I am using it on my primary work laptop and both of the home desktop systems and a few other computers as well. It's terrific and 9.10 promises to be even better. I have a 75% operational MS Office installation working via Wine which gives me the degree of file compatibility that I need (Access files).
- In the end, I had to upgrade the bicycle. Although my very first "real" mountain bike was a Specialized Hard-Rock, the version I bought was just too damned heavy. It's funny. Somehow that bike felt top-heavy to me. Don't know why. Fortunately Plaine & Son, where I bought the bike, have a 100% Satisfaction Guarantee and they mean it absolutely. They let me trade up to a base-level Rock Hopper and I couldn't be happier. I've already ruined one rear wheel and I'm positive that more damage is sure to follow.
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Jaunty, Relased
After 6 months of hard work, the Ubuntu community is proud to release
Ubuntu 9.04, the Jaunty Jackalope. Silly names aside, this is release
continues to affirm the community's ability to release solid, cutting
edge software to the world for FREE. (as in speech AND $$)
A basic install requires only 1 CD and comes with more software than
anything ever produced by Apple of Microsoft. A single CD includes an
open-source office suite (compatible with MS Office), web-browser
(firefox) email client (compatible with Exchange 2003), multimedia
software, image software, and other goodies. For us geeks, it includes a
basic install of tools such as perl, python, xulrunner, etc.
In an economy that's diving faster than a submarine, it's nice to know
that some things are getting better every single day.
The first two links are official Ubuntu marketing stuff. The last link
goes to a site called phoronix that is well known for reviewing
open-source software and being brutally honest, warts and all. (Hey,
nothing's perfect.)
http://www.ubuntu.com/news/ubuntu-9.04-desktop
http://www.ubuntu.com/getubuntu/releasenotes/904overview
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=ubuntu_904_features
If anyone reading this would like a free CD, let me know. I'm going to place my
order this week.
Ubuntu 9.04, the Jaunty Jackalope. Silly names aside, this is release
continues to affirm the community's ability to release solid, cutting
edge software to the world for FREE. (as in speech AND $$)
A basic install requires only 1 CD and comes with more software than
anything ever produced by Apple of Microsoft. A single CD includes an
open-source office suite (compatible with MS Office), web-browser
(firefox) email client (compatible with Exchange 2003), multimedia
software, image software, and other goodies. For us geeks, it includes a
basic install of tools such as perl, python, xulrunner, etc.
In an economy that's diving faster than a submarine, it's nice to know
that some things are getting better every single day.
The first two links are official Ubuntu marketing stuff. The last link
goes to a site called phoronix that is well known for reviewing
open-source software and being brutally honest, warts and all. (Hey,
nothing's perfect.)
http://www.ubuntu.com/news/ubuntu-9.04-desktop
http://www.ubuntu.com/getubuntu/releasenotes/904overview
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=ubuntu_904_features
If anyone reading this would like a free CD, let me know. I'm going to place my
order this week.
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Everything is Temporary
In recent months, the government has "bailed out" a number of large financial institutions, such as AIG, who were "too big to fail". In spite of the great cost (and risk), I think the government made the only rational choice.
However, now that we have averted (at least temporarily) the imminent meltdown of the US economy, I think we should re-visit the idea of a company that is "too big to fail". It is ludicrous that the US, or any other nation, should be so dependent on any corporation of set of corporations. Companies such as AIG, GM, etc. should be broken up into small competitive companies that can survive in a global market place. As an added benefit, the failure of any one of these companies would not result in an imminent financial disaster.
Everything is temporary. Pax Romana ended. The British Empire crumbled away. America's time as the global supoer-power will one day come to an end. Rather than deny this fact we should prepare ourselves and the structure of our economy on the assumption that someday we may be #2. I do think it is entirely rational for the US to take effort to preseve it's position of global power, but preparing for a future where we may not be a lone super-power only seems prudent. I believe an important aspect of this preparation is to make sure the economy is adequately diversified to survive global competition in a world where we do not necessarily dictate the terms of the marketplace.
However, now that we have averted (at least temporarily) the imminent meltdown of the US economy, I think we should re-visit the idea of a company that is "too big to fail". It is ludicrous that the US, or any other nation, should be so dependent on any corporation of set of corporations. Companies such as AIG, GM, etc. should be broken up into small competitive companies that can survive in a global market place. As an added benefit, the failure of any one of these companies would not result in an imminent financial disaster.
Everything is temporary. Pax Romana ended. The British Empire crumbled away. America's time as the global supoer-power will one day come to an end. Rather than deny this fact we should prepare ourselves and the structure of our economy on the assumption that someday we may be #2. I do think it is entirely rational for the US to take effort to preseve it's position of global power, but preparing for a future where we may not be a lone super-power only seems prudent. I believe an important aspect of this preparation is to make sure the economy is adequately diversified to survive global competition in a world where we do not necessarily dictate the terms of the marketplace.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Friday, April 10, 2009
Synergy
I would like to introduce you to, Synergy. This incredible cross-platform application makes it EASY to use a single keyboard / mouse combination to control multiple computers. It even syncs the system clipboards, screensavers, etc. Today, more and more of us use more than one computer at a time. There have been hardware solutions to this challenge for years. Synergy is a software solution, eliminating the need for clunky switches and other hardware-hacks.
Right now I have two computers sitting on my desk at work. My "primary" machine uses Ubuntu. My secondary system is a Windows XP machine with SQL Server 2005. Ever since my neck-pain / headaches returned a couple of months ago, I have tried to improve the rather dismal ergonomics of my workstation. Running two laptops on a desk is hardly "ergonomic" but it does have it's uses. I have considered buying an external keyboard/mouse combo for work, but I didn't feel like playing the plug-it-in game. Synergy eliminates this dilemma. With this and a few other tweaks, it should be possible to really create something nifty.
Right now I have two computers sitting on my desk at work. My "primary" machine uses Ubuntu. My secondary system is a Windows XP machine with SQL Server 2005. Ever since my neck-pain / headaches returned a couple of months ago, I have tried to improve the rather dismal ergonomics of my workstation. Running two laptops on a desk is hardly "ergonomic" but it does have it's uses. I have considered buying an external keyboard/mouse combo for work, but I didn't feel like playing the plug-it-in game. Synergy eliminates this dilemma. With this and a few other tweaks, it should be possible to really create something nifty.
Saturday, April 4, 2009
First Ride
I took my new mountain bike out for a spin today. It was a damned cold day, but I wore plenty of layers and was fine. I thought I would ride out at a local state park called Thatcher State Park. Before I rode, I went in to their main office to ask what trails were OK for me to ride. Turns out that most of the trails at Thatcher are not "zoned" for multi-use, so I drove back to Albany and rode at the Pine Bush. It's a little flat, but the bike handled well and I had fun. Other than getting a little lost at one point, the ride worked out well.
I'm going to enjoy this whole mtn. biking thing. I can tell that already.
Tonight Karen and I are going to a friends's birthday party. Should be fun.
I'm going to enjoy this whole mtn. biking thing. I can tell that already.
Tonight Karen and I are going to a friends's birthday party. Should be fun.
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Data should tell a story
Data isn't useful because it's fun to look at. It's only useful, when it is used to tell a story. In turn, that story affects how people make decisions. Otherwise, it's just math.
http://www.intelligententerprise.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=196602724
http://www.intelligententerprise.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=196602724
Duh!
I rode my bike today for the first time in 2009. I crawled out of bed to the sound of Karen harassing the cat and the opportunity to pedal in a crisp 45 degree, foggy morning. I put on my riding clothes, mounted the bicycle and headed off for work.
I took my time, but it was a beautiful ride. A touch chilly in the beginning, but I was nice and toasty by the time I got to work 50 minutes later.
When I pulled into the office, I realized that somebody needs to beat me with the stupid stick. Yesterday, I left a clean change of clothes at the office. Unfortunately this stack of clothes does not include a belt (minor problem) or a pair of shoes (more significant problem).
So if you see a shoe-less guy walking down 4th Street in Troy holding up his khaki pants, it might just be me.
I took my time, but it was a beautiful ride. A touch chilly in the beginning, but I was nice and toasty by the time I got to work 50 minutes later.
When I pulled into the office, I realized that somebody needs to beat me with the stupid stick. Yesterday, I left a clean change of clothes at the office. Unfortunately this stack of clothes does not include a belt (minor problem) or a pair of shoes (more significant problem).
So if you see a shoe-less guy walking down 4th Street in Troy holding up his khaki pants, it might just be me.
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Why I Don't Care
The recent spat of the AIG bonuses serves as an excellent example for why I think tools like the Google Visualization Toolkit API are important. Here are the basic facts. AIG received something on the order of 170 billion dollars from the US government. That is A LOT of money. They then paid executives, including executives who helped cause the mess, 165 million dollars in bonuses.
In was, politically, stupid as hell. In the middle of a financial crisis, you don't reward failure. In fact, I don't understand why a company would ever reward failure, but that's not really the point.
My point is that this got BLOWN wAY oUt oF PrOpOrTiOn. Click on the convenient picture to get a graphical understanding of AIG's financial malfeasance. A mere 165 million is a laughably small proportion of 170 billion, although it doesn't look like it until you stick in all the zeros.
Bailout - 170, 000, 000, 000.00
Bonuses - 165, 000, 000.00
I'm not going to sit here and defend the logic of rewarding failure. It doesn't deserve the effort. But, the resulting hoopla has been equally outrageous. To help us all understand this, let's break this down into numbers we have all dealt with. If I give you 100 dollars because you are in financial trouble, I am not going to worry too much if you spend 10 cents on a piece of bubble gum at Wal-Mart. The bubble-gum isn't actually necessary and is probably not a good use of the money I lent you, but it is nearly the exact same ration as the bonuses paid by AIG. It is literally pennies on the dollar.
For the Precision Nazis - I rounded. It would be more accurate to say that it would be as if you spent 9.7 cents of the $100.
Data Presentation - The future is the web.
After watching a recent Hand Rosling video (this guy is incredible), I started thinking more and more about how we use data to inform our understanding of the world around us. Before reading any further, you gotta watch this first:
Hans Rosling Shows the Best Stats You've Ever Seen
There are two important things that I want to focus on in his presentation, and neither of them have to do with his actual message regarding our understanding of the "Third World".
Compare his presentation to a typical government report, written by a consulting company like the one I work for. Sure, we have graphics and data in our report; but it is not engaging like Mr. Rosling's presentation. In fact, our report can never be as captivating as Mr. Rosling's presentation because our work is always designed to be presented on paper. Paper is not a dynamic medium. We can show two dimensional graphics, but showing how relationships change over time would require the use of 3-D graphs, which tend to confuse most people. Rosling's presentation is incredible simply because you don't have to be a quant to get something out of it.
Fortunately, this software was deceloped in an open manner and is now being made available by Google for everyone to play with. The software is called gap minder. To play with a version similar to what Mr. Rosling was using follow this link. To learn more about the current underlying Google API, see this link.
Not that I need "Yet Another Project" but I really want to look at this some more. I am a real nut when it comes to data analysis. Typically I use tools like R, PSPP, etc. Although these tools are good, I have typically used them to present data in a traditional chart or graphic on a piece of paper. But, both of these tools (especially R) are much more flexible and could be used to prepare an analysis that is more dynamic. Plus, programs like R and PSPP provide a way to test hypotheses, which I presume the Google Presentation API does not. (I could be wrong about this, I haven't looked yet.)
I think technologies like this can be and SHOULD be used to engage the general public more in data-driven debates. Often these debates are dominated by a simplistic understanding of the numbers, driving the discussion in directions that are not always in our best interest. Numbers do not lie, people do. (In fact, people use creative numbers to lie.)
More thinking must be done. And, in a moment I will give you an example of how the public can be easily led astray by faulty numerical analysis.
Hans Rosling Shows the Best Stats You've Ever Seen
There are two important things that I want to focus on in his presentation, and neither of them have to do with his actual message regarding our understanding of the "Third World".
- The presentation is NOT boring.
- Because it uses dynamic graphics (video).
Compare his presentation to a typical government report, written by a consulting company like the one I work for. Sure, we have graphics and data in our report; but it is not engaging like Mr. Rosling's presentation. In fact, our report can never be as captivating as Mr. Rosling's presentation because our work is always designed to be presented on paper. Paper is not a dynamic medium. We can show two dimensional graphics, but showing how relationships change over time would require the use of 3-D graphs, which tend to confuse most people. Rosling's presentation is incredible simply because you don't have to be a quant to get something out of it.
Fortunately, this software was deceloped in an open manner and is now being made available by Google for everyone to play with. The software is called gap minder. To play with a version similar to what Mr. Rosling was using follow this link. To learn more about the current underlying Google API, see this link.
Not that I need "Yet Another Project" but I really want to look at this some more. I am a real nut when it comes to data analysis. Typically I use tools like R, PSPP, etc. Although these tools are good, I have typically used them to present data in a traditional chart or graphic on a piece of paper. But, both of these tools (especially R) are much more flexible and could be used to prepare an analysis that is more dynamic. Plus, programs like R and PSPP provide a way to test hypotheses, which I presume the Google Presentation API does not. (I could be wrong about this, I haven't looked yet.)
I think technologies like this can be and SHOULD be used to engage the general public more in data-driven debates. Often these debates are dominated by a simplistic understanding of the numbers, driving the discussion in directions that are not always in our best interest. Numbers do not lie, people do. (In fact, people use creative numbers to lie.)
More thinking must be done. And, in a moment I will give you an example of how the public can be easily led astray by faulty numerical analysis.
I am required to use Microsoft Access at work. I don't like it, but that's how life is. Unfortunately, OpenOffice.org does not provide file compatibility with Access .mdb files. This has been a real problem in my efforts to use Ubuntu as my primary desktop operating system at work (quietly).
When I'm in the office, it's not a problem. I have another computer with Access on it that works just find. But, when I'm on the road, it's not fun to carry two computers around, just to make sure I can open an Access file. To solve this problem, I started Googling. Most of the stuff on the Internet makes it clear that you can not use Access under Wine emulation. Fortunately for me, these resources are wrong. It can be done. In fact, I posted a long How-To on the Ubuntu Forums this morning. Here's a link.
When I'm in the office, it's not a problem. I have another computer with Access on it that works just find. But, when I'm on the road, it's not fun to carry two computers around, just to make sure I can open an Access file. To solve this problem, I started Googling. Most of the stuff on the Internet makes it clear that you can not use Access under Wine emulation. Fortunately for me, these resources are wrong. It can be done. In fact, I posted a long How-To on the Ubuntu Forums this morning. Here's a link.
Monday, March 30, 2009
Hardrock Sport Disc
This spring I have dealt with a "mid-life" crisis. I'm only 30, so I feel obligated to put the words mid-life into quotation marks hen referring to my current "crisis". When I was 18, I went rock climbing for the first time in my life. I went with the Outdoor Recreation Group at Georgia Tech. We went top-roping at Rock Town, Georgia. Over the next 12 years, I would spend most of my free time climbing or traveling to climb.
Let me be blunt. Climbing is one of the best things that ever happened to me.
When I moved to New York a few years ago, I started ice climbing as well. I also did a little skiing (XC & downhill) but mostly I climbed. I've led 5.10 trad in the Gunks and 'Daks and I've led W4 in the winter.
When I graduated from the SUNY MSW program, I started working with a consulting firm based in Troy. This job requires an obscene amount of travel. As a result, it is often difficult for me to get into the rock climbing gym to train. When I'm on the road, I am often in random small rural towns that don't have much in the way of rock climbing gyms. Equally difficult is the amount of time climbing takes. A day of climbing is . . . an entire day. (or most of it.) When I get in at 11:30 on Frida night from XXXXX, XX it is really hard to feel motivated to get up at 6:00 the following morning to go rock climbing all day.
I need a break from climbing. My climbing partners all feel like I've abandoned them, (Sorry guys.) but that's what I need to do for right now. I am going to take the spring and summer off from climbing. In the fall, I will re-evaluate my decisions.
In the meantime, I need something hair-raising to do. When I was in undergrad, I owned a tricked out little hard-rock mountain bike. That bike and I went everywhere together. My old ride was a nice little 17 inch red chomolly frame, no shocks. It's been a long time since Specialized sold a bike like that. I wanted to buy a bike with an aluminum frame, good components, and no front shocks, but I settled on an aluminium frame, OK components and a front shock. Oh well.
If this bike is 1/2 as dependable as my old ride, it will serve me well. I can't wait to get it.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
A little more Jaunty
I've been playing around with the latest version of Jaunty in Gnome rather than KDE. I like them both, although Gnome does feel a little more polished and professional. It should feel mature since it is based on the Gnome 2.x series, which is several years old and is currently at release 26. The KDE 4.x series is only at release number 2, but is maturing nicely.
I am glad to see more cooperation between the two projects. While there will always be differences (Linux = Choice), it is important for the two major desktops to fit together like pieces of a puzzle. For example, both are using dbus for IPC. FreeDesktop.org has done a good job encouraging and facilitating the development of common frameworks and sub-systems between the two desktops.
I am glad to see more cooperation between the two projects. While there will always be differences (Linux = Choice), it is important for the two major desktops to fit together like pieces of a puzzle. For example, both are using dbus for IPC. FreeDesktop.org has done a good job encouraging and facilitating the development of common frameworks and sub-systems between the two desktops.
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Linux @ Work
Back in August of 2008 (has it really been that long) I made an executive decision. I quietly took an old laptop at work and installed Ubuntu on it. Since then, I have used this old laptopn (Intel Centrino, 1GB RAM) as my primary system. It's not the fastest computer in the world and the "ancient" ATI card has caused me considerable grief, but I have succeeded.
Earlier in 2008, I tried to convert to Ubuntu at work and failed. I reinstalled Windows and took a few months to learn what I could to address the shortcomings of Linux and my understanding of it.
In the intervening months, I became the Network Administrator in the office. Among other duties, I was asked to maintain the office's supply of computers, including several old laptops. In August, I installed Ubuntu on one of these laptops. It's an old reliable Dell and with a quick memory upgrade, it was once again ready to be a road warrior.
Although I have successfully used Linux for my primary system, I have only been able to do so because I have a second system with Windows on it. I have used this "secondary" system for working on complex Word files and Access databases. I also installed SQL Server on it for projects that would have been too much effort to do in Access. Although I don't like their products, I do have to be able to work with them.
This set up worked acceptably well in the office, but was a real PITA when I was on the road. Recently I took a copy of Office 2003 and installed Word and Excel via Wine. I was impressed. Recently I have been working on getting Access to work as well. I Googled and I Googled but was unable to find any directions to installing Access on Linux.
My solution? Start experimenting. Although it's not the perfect solution, yet, I have succeeded. It is possible and I think it could work even better with more effort and attention. I'll write more later today.
Earlier in 2008, I tried to convert to Ubuntu at work and failed. I reinstalled Windows and took a few months to learn what I could to address the shortcomings of Linux and my understanding of it.
In the intervening months, I became the Network Administrator in the office. Among other duties, I was asked to maintain the office's supply of computers, including several old laptops. In August, I installed Ubuntu on one of these laptops. It's an old reliable Dell and with a quick memory upgrade, it was once again ready to be a road warrior.
Although I have successfully used Linux for my primary system, I have only been able to do so because I have a second system with Windows on it. I have used this "secondary" system for working on complex Word files and Access databases. I also installed SQL Server on it for projects that would have been too much effort to do in Access. Although I don't like their products, I do have to be able to work with them.
This set up worked acceptably well in the office, but was a real PITA when I was on the road. Recently I took a copy of Office 2003 and installed Word and Excel via Wine. I was impressed. Recently I have been working on getting Access to work as well. I Googled and I Googled but was unable to find any directions to installing Access on Linux.
My solution? Start experimenting. Although it's not the perfect solution, yet, I have succeeded. It is possible and I think it could work even better with more effort and attention. I'll write more later today.
New Focus
I haven't written anything here since October. Although it's only been a few months, the world is a very different place. Obama won the election. The economy drove off the cliff. More importantly, I turned 30.
I'm still trying to figure out what all of this means. I'm sure I'll write more about that in the coming month or so. Some of the things that seemed so important to me, only a few months ago, don't seem as important now. For example, my interest in climbing seems to be in decline. I have been thinking more and more about buying a mountain bike.
I have decided that I need to change the focus of this blog. In October, when I was writing here more regularly, I was caught up in the excitement of the election season. I wrote about it extensively. Although I suspect I will continue to write about politics, I am going to start focusing more attention on other things that interest me. Most importantly, I am going to spend more time writing about K/Ubuntu and my efforts to use it as my primary desktop operating system at home and at work.
Stay tuned. The fun has just begun.
I'm still trying to figure out what all of this means. I'm sure I'll write more about that in the coming month or so. Some of the things that seemed so important to me, only a few months ago, don't seem as important now. For example, my interest in climbing seems to be in decline. I have been thinking more and more about buying a mountain bike.
I have decided that I need to change the focus of this blog. In October, when I was writing here more regularly, I was caught up in the excitement of the election season. I wrote about it extensively. Although I suspect I will continue to write about politics, I am going to start focusing more attention on other things that interest me. Most importantly, I am going to spend more time writing about K/Ubuntu and my efforts to use it as my primary desktop operating system at home and at work.
Stay tuned. The fun has just begun.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Open Letter to McCain
Dear Senator McCain,
I have a real fear. I fear, that when you lose (and you will) that you will leave Obama a country that is impossible for him to govern. If anyone understands the consequences of cheap tricks, it should be you. Why are you running a campaign with the same people who smeared you in 2000? Why are you using their cheap tricks?
For a man who claims to be a maverick, known for reaching across the aisle, you have run the most despicable, partisan campaign since W. It is appropriate to question another candidate's credentials, policies, judgment, etc. But you sir have unleashed a dangerous tide by accusing Barack of being an anti-American terrorist. That's dangerous stuff.
Of course, FOX News is more than willing to continue to server their GOP masters. Day in and day out all they can talk about is Ayers. A man who is, in your words, a dried up terrorist. I think you called him irrelevant once too. But that was before you realized you had lost the election. I know you are disappointed but it is better to accept responsibility for the loss and move on than to pursue this childish vendetta.
I once respected you. I once saw you as a Republican who could lead the nation. That perception died months ago. Sir, I can see it in you face. You know this is all true. When the crowd chants "kill him" or "terrorist" the expression of pain on your face is plain to see for the whole world. You don't have a poker face sir.
I remember the Clinton years. Rush Limbaugh, New Gingrich and others filled America with hate. The Clintons were hardly perfect, but I remember 8 years of a raging hypocritical hatred that is not an appropriate avenue for political discourse in this nation. I fear that you have stoked the fires of these rabid anti-everything-but-themselves demagogues. They will wrap themselves in the colors and language of the flag and patriotism. They will spend years sniping at a leader who will try to make this country stronger and greater. I don't want to spend 8 years talking about something that happened years and years ago. I want to focus on the problems of today. You have set the trajectory for America's conservatives for years. The Sarah Palin choice is your fault. The rabid language is you fault. The wild fear and speculation on FOX News, and the ignorant individuals at your rallies are your fault.
Be a man. Own this tragic mistake and spend the next few days repairing the damage you did. Put your nation first sir. It deserves nothing less from you.
I have a real fear. I fear, that when you lose (and you will) that you will leave Obama a country that is impossible for him to govern. If anyone understands the consequences of cheap tricks, it should be you. Why are you running a campaign with the same people who smeared you in 2000? Why are you using their cheap tricks?
For a man who claims to be a maverick, known for reaching across the aisle, you have run the most despicable, partisan campaign since W. It is appropriate to question another candidate's credentials, policies, judgment, etc. But you sir have unleashed a dangerous tide by accusing Barack of being an anti-American terrorist. That's dangerous stuff.
Of course, FOX News is more than willing to continue to server their GOP masters. Day in and day out all they can talk about is Ayers. A man who is, in your words, a dried up terrorist. I think you called him irrelevant once too. But that was before you realized you had lost the election. I know you are disappointed but it is better to accept responsibility for the loss and move on than to pursue this childish vendetta.
I once respected you. I once saw you as a Republican who could lead the nation. That perception died months ago. Sir, I can see it in you face. You know this is all true. When the crowd chants "kill him" or "terrorist" the expression of pain on your face is plain to see for the whole world. You don't have a poker face sir.
I remember the Clinton years. Rush Limbaugh, New Gingrich and others filled America with hate. The Clintons were hardly perfect, but I remember 8 years of a raging hypocritical hatred that is not an appropriate avenue for political discourse in this nation. I fear that you have stoked the fires of these rabid anti-everything-but-themselves demagogues. They will wrap themselves in the colors and language of the flag and patriotism. They will spend years sniping at a leader who will try to make this country stronger and greater. I don't want to spend 8 years talking about something that happened years and years ago. I want to focus on the problems of today. You have set the trajectory for America's conservatives for years. The Sarah Palin choice is your fault. The rabid language is you fault. The wild fear and speculation on FOX News, and the ignorant individuals at your rallies are your fault.
Be a man. Own this tragic mistake and spend the next few days repairing the damage you did. Put your nation first sir. It deserves nothing less from you.
Friday, October 3, 2008
Pundits Depress Me
Last night I watched the VP Debate. In all honesty, it was more interesting than the Presidential Debate last week. Both candidates were engaged and on target.
But this morning, I got up and discovered that only two things happened last night.
1) Sarah Palin "exceeded expectations" because she managed to fill 90 seconds of air-time with hot air.
2) Joe Biden "exceeded expectations" by successfully only filling 90 seconds of air-time with hot air.
I listened to the discussion on MSNBC and I checked out FOX. So far, the only people who are actually discussing what the candidates actually said is NPR.
Therefore, if you would like to listen to an actual discussion about the merits of either candidate's positions, you are completely out of luck unless you tune in to NPR. Otherwise, you will hear nothing more than empty blow-hards announcing how their candidate "exceeded expectations".
Maybe I missed something, but I would rather EXPECT that a VP Candidate should have the capacity to discuss the major issues of the day for at least 90 seconds.
In case you missed the actual debate, here are some of the highlights from the somewhat skewed and biased opinion of . . . . me!
Sarah Palin distrusts the entire East Coast.
Sarah Palin wants to expand the powers of the VP. She believes the ability to expand the authority of the VP can be found in the Constitution. Constitutional law experts are now looking through the lost Sea Scrolls for the missing pages of the Constitution that could support this legal position.
She and John McCain and mavericks, but I'm not sure why, since she didn't tell me.
Biden told me that McCain is not a maverick. I presume that he would extend this criticism to Palin, but he never actually said anything about her the entire time. This leads me to conclude that he is A) Afraid of her OR B) Afraid of the media's perception that he beat up a woman. It's 2008. Can we please move past these stereotypes? Please?
Palin believes that tax-cuts for the wealthy will help the American economy. She also manages to simultaneously believe that the government should get out of our lives, while bailing out Wall Street. This displays a remarkably adaptable capacity for compartmentalization, or she doesn't understand what I'm talking about. I really do not understand how anyone can be daft enough to continue running around calling for additional deregulation (she did this cleverly and obliquely), lower taxes (on the wealthy, though she did not say this), and lower government spending. Since the economy is tanking, this seems like a bad time to restrict federal spending. Besides, the $$$$$ we spend in Iraq dwarfs other federal expenditures, other than the proposed federal bail-out of wall street. Since she does not want to get out of Iraq, I am forced to conclude that her spending plan is going to cut the relatively inexpensive federal programs that actually do help people, while maintaining an expensive, disastrous war. Net impact on the national debt - it soars to unprecedented heights.
Biden says he and Obama want to get out of Iraq through a phased draw-down of American forces there. Sarah calls this the White Flag of surrender. Unfortunately, even with over 4,000 American Soldiers lying in coffins, we still can not debate the merits of this war without calling each other unpatriotic.
She did well. She did a good job of articulating the neo-con positions of the Bush Administration. It's almost as if she was able to channel Dick Cheney . .. . . while wearing lip-stick! Impressive. I wish Biden had attacked her more. John McCain was not in the room. He should have focused on his opponent, not the old guy she's running with.
But this morning, I got up and discovered that only two things happened last night.
1) Sarah Palin "exceeded expectations" because she managed to fill 90 seconds of air-time with hot air.
2) Joe Biden "exceeded expectations" by successfully only filling 90 seconds of air-time with hot air.
I listened to the discussion on MSNBC and I checked out FOX. So far, the only people who are actually discussing what the candidates actually said is NPR.
Therefore, if you would like to listen to an actual discussion about the merits of either candidate's positions, you are completely out of luck unless you tune in to NPR. Otherwise, you will hear nothing more than empty blow-hards announcing how their candidate "exceeded expectations".
Maybe I missed something, but I would rather EXPECT that a VP Candidate should have the capacity to discuss the major issues of the day for at least 90 seconds.
In case you missed the actual debate, here are some of the highlights from the somewhat skewed and biased opinion of . . . . me!
Sarah Palin distrusts the entire East Coast.
Sarah Palin wants to expand the powers of the VP. She believes the ability to expand the authority of the VP can be found in the Constitution. Constitutional law experts are now looking through the lost Sea Scrolls for the missing pages of the Constitution that could support this legal position.
She and John McCain and mavericks, but I'm not sure why, since she didn't tell me.
Biden told me that McCain is not a maverick. I presume that he would extend this criticism to Palin, but he never actually said anything about her the entire time. This leads me to conclude that he is A) Afraid of her OR B) Afraid of the media's perception that he beat up a woman. It's 2008. Can we please move past these stereotypes? Please?
Palin believes that tax-cuts for the wealthy will help the American economy. She also manages to simultaneously believe that the government should get out of our lives, while bailing out Wall Street. This displays a remarkably adaptable capacity for compartmentalization, or she doesn't understand what I'm talking about. I really do not understand how anyone can be daft enough to continue running around calling for additional deregulation (she did this cleverly and obliquely), lower taxes (on the wealthy, though she did not say this), and lower government spending. Since the economy is tanking, this seems like a bad time to restrict federal spending. Besides, the $$$$$ we spend in Iraq dwarfs other federal expenditures, other than the proposed federal bail-out of wall street. Since she does not want to get out of Iraq, I am forced to conclude that her spending plan is going to cut the relatively inexpensive federal programs that actually do help people, while maintaining an expensive, disastrous war. Net impact on the national debt - it soars to unprecedented heights.
Biden says he and Obama want to get out of Iraq through a phased draw-down of American forces there. Sarah calls this the White Flag of surrender. Unfortunately, even with over 4,000 American Soldiers lying in coffins, we still can not debate the merits of this war without calling each other unpatriotic.
She did well. She did a good job of articulating the neo-con positions of the Bush Administration. It's almost as if she was able to channel Dick Cheney . .. . . while wearing lip-stick! Impressive. I wish Biden had attacked her more. John McCain was not in the room. He should have focused on his opponent, not the old guy she's running with.
Thursday, September 4, 2008
Boo!
I donated to Barack's campaign again. It was only $25, but it helped get him to $10 million in the 24 hours after Palin's speech. Truthfully, it wasn't what she said that made me do it. I disagree with her, and I have some real problems with the idea of her becoming the VP, but her speech didn't prompt me to donate. I donated because of the crowd at the Republican convention.
When Obama spoke, the crowd cheered for his proposals. They cheered for his ideas. They cheered for his hope. When he criticized McCain the crowd cheered even louder, for Barack. When McCain criticizes his opponent, the Republican crowd boos. Loudly. Yeah. They boo. Is this the fourth grade or what?
I don't like the negative energy and I don't want that kind of energy in the White House for 4 more years. It's just a small thing, but I see the difference in the two campaigns and I think it is a microcosm for the more complex policy/personality differences in the campaigns.
I guess it comes from my years working with disabled teens . . . which is a lot like community building in many ways . . . . . because you have to help people work together, I taught those teens that it was OK to cheer for your team, but not OK to boo for the other team. It's un sportsman like. It's undignified. It's rude.
If they keep booing, I'll keep donating. . . . . to the Democrats.
When Obama spoke, the crowd cheered for his proposals. They cheered for his ideas. They cheered for his hope. When he criticized McCain the crowd cheered even louder, for Barack. When McCain criticizes his opponent, the Republican crowd boos. Loudly. Yeah. They boo. Is this the fourth grade or what?
I don't like the negative energy and I don't want that kind of energy in the White House for 4 more years. It's just a small thing, but I see the difference in the two campaigns and I think it is a microcosm for the more complex policy/personality differences in the campaigns.
I guess it comes from my years working with disabled teens . . . which is a lot like community building in many ways . . . . . because you have to help people work together, I taught those teens that it was OK to cheer for your team, but not OK to boo for the other team. It's un sportsman like. It's undignified. It's rude.
If they keep booing, I'll keep donating. . . . . to the Democrats.
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
Irony
Here's something to ponder.
McCain, and the Republican party are reflexively reminding voters about McCain's war record. Although I'm not convinced this experience indicates any leadership capacity on the part of the candidate, his time in confinement was undoubtedly one of the most important times (especially for him) in his life. Given the obvious fact that I have NEVER been held in confinement, beaten, or tortured, I can not relate to what this experience must mean to him but it's safe to assume it was a profoundly moving experience.
Now, here's the irony. McCain was held by the North Vietnamese government. As a pilot he had access to information which they believed (probably incorrectly) could help them defend themselves against attack from US forces. And, undoubtedly some of his captors enjoyed (shudder) torturing an American fly-boy.
Fast forward to the present day. American detainees (prisoners) at Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, and numerous undisclosed detention centers through-out the third world have been tortured. Using interrogation techniques developed by Communist regimes during the Cold War, we have beaten, attacked, waer-boarded, and humiliated our detainees. The pictures that I saw coming out of Abu Ghraib were less violent than the torture exprienced by Mr. McCain, but I dare say I would rather be beaten than humiliated both sexually and religiously. There is a real irony in a democracy using land on an island governed by a dictator who we despise to detain (illegally?) "enemy combatants".
The North Koreans wanted information to protect themselves. We torture(d?) detainees to obtain information to protect ourselves. The means differ, but the goals and the ends are scarily similar. Yet, John McCain's experience is simultaneously heroic and tragic , and how dare those bad men torture such a good man! Meanwhile the forces of American power torture those allegedly evil Muslims, and the Republican Party vociferously defends it's right to do so.
Abu Ghraib, Gitmo and other innovations of the Bush Administration were brought to us by many of the same neo-cons (or their proteges) which have joined the McCain campaign since he became the unofficial Republican nominee.
I disagree with torture. I especially disagree with torture when it is undertaken in the false name of liberty. Torture and liberty are not compatible. They are like oil and water. You just can't mix them. At least the North Vietnamese were consistent. Torture is (sadly) consistent with dictatorship. It fits. It's an instrument of power and control. One that doesn't fit well in a democracy like we claim to hold dear.
I don't want to give these neo-cons any more opportunities to besmirch the ideal of freedom for their own twisted goals. The McCain campaign needs to be stopped. I kinda think Palin may be the proverbial straw, but McCain has proven many times that he is tough in a fight.
But, I really do think we should start using this theme of torture against the Republican Party. If his torture was so bad (and it really really was that bad) what is he going to do to make sure that this practice is eliminated? Can we really trust him to eliminate it? I know he has stood up against it in the past but those efforts were largely ceremonial window-dressing thanks to W's signing statement (which is, in and of itself probably illegal, but that's another entry).
It just seems ironic for the Republican party, which has stood up for the right to torture detainees has used their nominee's experience as a victim of torture to highlight his experience and readiness to lead. McCain wants his experience with torture to be a campaign issue, and I'm willing to play along. That means he needs to convince me (unlikely) that he's going to jettison these neo-cons and make sure that American soldiers (or CIA, or FBI, or any other 3-letter agency) are not using the instruments of torture against others. If it was wrong to beat McCain (it was) it is wrong to beat our detainees today. And that is a conversation I don't think the Republican Party wants to have.
Note: I don't think McCain himself is directly responsible for these acts of torture. But, as a Senator, he is indirectly responsible for the behavior and composure of our troops. He has made some efforts to combat this, but it is an issue that should be incredibly uncomfortable for many of McCain's advisers, who have continuously defended W's right to torture detainees. I would also like to know if the "new" non-straight-talk-express John McCain still feels as strongly about this as the old John McCain who seemed like a much better Senator.
McCain, and the Republican party are reflexively reminding voters about McCain's war record. Although I'm not convinced this experience indicates any leadership capacity on the part of the candidate, his time in confinement was undoubtedly one of the most important times (especially for him) in his life. Given the obvious fact that I have NEVER been held in confinement, beaten, or tortured, I can not relate to what this experience must mean to him but it's safe to assume it was a profoundly moving experience.
Now, here's the irony. McCain was held by the North Vietnamese government. As a pilot he had access to information which they believed (probably incorrectly) could help them defend themselves against attack from US forces. And, undoubtedly some of his captors enjoyed (shudder) torturing an American fly-boy.
Fast forward to the present day. American detainees (prisoners) at Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, and numerous undisclosed detention centers through-out the third world have been tortured. Using interrogation techniques developed by Communist regimes during the Cold War, we have beaten, attacked, waer-boarded, and humiliated our detainees. The pictures that I saw coming out of Abu Ghraib were less violent than the torture exprienced by Mr. McCain, but I dare say I would rather be beaten than humiliated both sexually and religiously. There is a real irony in a democracy using land on an island governed by a dictator who we despise to detain (illegally?) "enemy combatants".
The North Koreans wanted information to protect themselves. We torture(d?) detainees to obtain information to protect ourselves. The means differ, but the goals and the ends are scarily similar. Yet, John McCain's experience is simultaneously heroic and tragic , and how dare those bad men torture such a good man! Meanwhile the forces of American power torture those allegedly evil Muslims, and the Republican Party vociferously defends it's right to do so.
Abu Ghraib, Gitmo and other innovations of the Bush Administration were brought to us by many of the same neo-cons (or their proteges) which have joined the McCain campaign since he became the unofficial Republican nominee.
I disagree with torture. I especially disagree with torture when it is undertaken in the false name of liberty. Torture and liberty are not compatible. They are like oil and water. You just can't mix them. At least the North Vietnamese were consistent. Torture is (sadly) consistent with dictatorship. It fits. It's an instrument of power and control. One that doesn't fit well in a democracy like we claim to hold dear.
I don't want to give these neo-cons any more opportunities to besmirch the ideal of freedom for their own twisted goals. The McCain campaign needs to be stopped. I kinda think Palin may be the proverbial straw, but McCain has proven many times that he is tough in a fight.
But, I really do think we should start using this theme of torture against the Republican Party. If his torture was so bad (and it really really was that bad) what is he going to do to make sure that this practice is eliminated? Can we really trust him to eliminate it? I know he has stood up against it in the past but those efforts were largely ceremonial window-dressing thanks to W's signing statement (which is, in and of itself probably illegal, but that's another entry).
It just seems ironic for the Republican party, which has stood up for the right to torture detainees has used their nominee's experience as a victim of torture to highlight his experience and readiness to lead. McCain wants his experience with torture to be a campaign issue, and I'm willing to play along. That means he needs to convince me (unlikely) that he's going to jettison these neo-cons and make sure that American soldiers (or CIA, or FBI, or any other 3-letter agency) are not using the instruments of torture against others. If it was wrong to beat McCain (it was) it is wrong to beat our detainees today. And that is a conversation I don't think the Republican Party wants to have.
Note: I don't think McCain himself is directly responsible for these acts of torture. But, as a Senator, he is indirectly responsible for the behavior and composure of our troops. He has made some efforts to combat this, but it is an issue that should be incredibly uncomfortable for many of McCain's advisers, who have continuously defended W's right to torture detainees. I would also like to know if the "new" non-straight-talk-express John McCain still feels as strongly about this as the old John McCain who seemed like a much better Senator.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)