Electric cars, people! Electric cars!

Let's start with an interesting article in the NYT:

High Rice Cost Creating Fears of Asia Unrest

What's really interesting is how they carefully manage to avoid mentioning the word "ethanol" anywhere in that article. The closest they come is this, pretty much:

Many rice farmers are turning to more lucrative cash crops, reducing the amount of land devoted to the grain.

The "lucrative cash crops" are those which can be converted into ethanol. They don't say that. But I read another article today which does, in Time magazine, of all places. It's the cover story. Worth reading, or at least looking at (I only read about 3/4 of it).

In short, biofuels need so much vegetable matter to produce that their use is driving up food prices worldwide, as agribusiness shifts towards those crops instead of food-only crops. One unpleasant side effect of this is that it raises the value of food crops, which leads to clearcutting of rainforests, draining of wetlands, etc. There are also some countries which take a more direct route and simply burn down their rain forests to grow palm trees instead. Palm oil is apparently big money these days, in that it's used in a lot of different food products, and can be converted to ethanol. It's estimated that fully 20% of total carbon emissions now are a direct result of ethanol production. In other words, what was supposed to help reduce the level of greenhouse gases in the atmostphere is actually making the problem a lot worse, and it's causing people to starve to boot. From that standpoint, we'd be better off burning pure gasoline.

As for the other big side effect: Formerly, world hunger was being slowly but surely reduced. No more.

By the way, all the major presidential candidates in the United Staes are totally gung-ho about ethanol. Part of the problem there is Iowa, which is not only home to the first big primary race in the country, but which has also developed such a substantial ethanol production infrastructure that it is now a net importer of corn. Iowa, importing corn. Unbelievable. Needless to say, ethanol is the new god in Iowa, and heaven forbid that any presidential hopeful should fail to toe the line on that issue. Something like over 50,000 jobs in the state depend on its production, which means Iowa would be screwed if the ethanol idea went away.

I shouldn't pick solely on Iowa, though. It's not like they're the only corn-producing, ethanol-producing state in the nation. They're just the best at it.

Electric cars, people. Electric cars.

</rant>

[Props to Wily at DWS forums for the NYT link.]

The All-Private Internet

Here's an excellent op-ed pertaining to fair use, hi-definition video media, and so forth:

Down With the High-Def DVD Copy Police

In particular, I wanted to comment on one thing that the author just mentions in passing:

Remember, there's no public space on the Internet. Every Web page, no matter how "public" or "user-generated," is privately owned. This means that every Web page can be attacked by the lawyer-bots, or yanked by fearful owners and ISPs.

The main reason for this problem is that the internet doesn't work the way it's supposed to. What I mean is that, in the early days, any computer that was hooked up to the network could use that network in any way, limited only by its own bandwidth and hardware capabilities. It could, for instance, run its own web server software, so the owner of that computer could post his own webpage that he owned, in its entirity.

However, when the internet started to become popular, that wide-open access began to be restricted. These days, when an average Joe signs up for some type of internet service, he is specifically not allowed to host his own website on his own computer. I've tested this myself, and have found that port 80, the port typically used for the HTTP protocol, is only one-way on my Roadrunner connection (I know, I know--http requires two-way communication to work, but believe me, I have tried setting up a test webpage on my computer, and it can't be accessed from anywhere, so that port is being restricted somehow). This is fairly standard nowadays, and the usual reason given for it is that the ISPs have bandwidth concerns, due to most of them standardizing on assymetrical connections--i.e., less upstream bandwidth than downstream, which could cause problems if someone hosts a website that generates a lot of traffic.

However, this argument is suspect. Take the instance of DSL, which is fairly common. Yes, DSL is typically assymetrical. But DSL also features one line per customer. When you have a DSL connection, you are not sharing it with anyone. So what difference does it make if you use all of your upstream bandwidth? Are they concerned that so many of their subscribers will do that that they will have other problems further up the pipeline? I suppose that is possible, but how do they know how many of their subscribers are likely to host popular webservers?

For cable subscribers like myself, the ISPs' complaint seems more legitimate, since multiple users in the same area do share one local connection, and one user monopolizing that for long periods could cause problems. However, I must say that, at certain times in the past, I've been a pretty heavy user of Bittorrent, having torrents seeding (i.e. uploading) for literally dozens of hours at a stretch, and presumably using up most of the upstream bandwidth for a good part of that time. I never once caught any heat for it. Part of that is probably due to the fact that I set my Bittorrent client to only use a percentage of the total bandwidth, in order to avoid choking off my own connection, and also because I tend to gravitate towards letting the torrents run in the middle of the night, or during the workday, when fewer residential customers are likely to be online (and when Azureus's habitual CPU-hogging is less likely to irritate me). But still, that's some fairly heavy bandwidth usage there, and nobody seemed to mind. And yet, I am prohibited from running one puny little webserver on my own computer. Why?

I have an uncle who got around this by running a webserver on his PC using port 81 instead of port 80. I should say, though, that he cleared this with his ISP beforehand. And it's just a family website, when he wants to share some photographs or whatever with friends and relatives. Using port 81 for http entails a slight modification to a URL:

http://www.blogger.com:81
This would get you to the Blogger server on port 81 (although it probably won't work, since I imagine Blogger doesn't have its servers set up to respond on that port...and you might also run into firewall problems, depending on your situation).

I would not recommend that you try this with your own server, at least not without clearing it with your ISP first. This is not just a matter of having port 80 blocked--you may be contractually prohibited from using your internet service to run a web server (in fact, the contract probably just says "server" rather than "web server").

Why? What do they care, anyway? I guess the point I have been trying to arrive at is my suspicion that they don't care so much about the bandwidth as about preventing people from owning their own chunks of the internet. Remember that almost all ISPs in the United States today are owned by giant media corporations--essentially, they are your competitors. They want people viewing (and purchasing) their content, not yours. They don't earn any ad revenue from someone viewing your website.

While this concern for money is understandable (corporations are required to do what they can to make as much money as they can, and manipulating the legal landscape has long been considered an acceptable way of pursuing that goal), there is a more serious effect of these restrictions, namely what I quoted above: the net effect of it all is that the entire internet is private property. And courts have already ruled that there is no such thing as free speech on private property.

Apple working on a Finder redesign

I read this with a fair amount of trepidation, as well as anticipation:

Revised Desktop, Finder highlight Leopard additions

In particular, this kind of worries me:

OS X 10.5’s new Finder features a new sidebar reminiscent of the Source list in iTunes. The sidebar is organized by Devices, Shared, Places and Search headers; a clickable triangle next to each header lets you close the section if you’re not using it.

The problem with this is that the sidebar is one feature in the OS 10.3 and 10.4 Finders that has been basically perfect just the way it is. Something that's nearly perfect should probably not be redesigned to the extent that they are talking about. Another problem is that, if they are moving towards an iTunes-like look for it, that means smaller stuff to click on. This is one of my most persistant annoyances with modern operating systems, especially the Mac: getting the damn mouse all the way across the screen to click precisely on some dumb teensy little thing is a lot harder than it was when a Mac's screen was only 512 pixels across. I sincerely hope there will be an option to continue to use the sidebar the way it currently is, rather than Apple's typical style of deleting the old functionality entirely to make way for new stuff that hasn't really been thought through all that well (Spotlight, anyone?).

Then there's this:

More significantly, the redesigned Desktop in Leopard introduces Stacks—a collection of folders that reside in the desktop. Apple sees Stacks as a way to clean up Desktop clutter. Files are collected in the Stacks for rapid access; click on the Stacks icon and the Dock and the files and folders fan out or appear in a grid. Clicking on one of those icons instantly launches the relevant app. You create Stacks by dragging any item or group of items to the Dock.

As part of Stacks, the redesigned Desktop will also feature a dedicated Downloads folder. Files downloaded via Web browsers and e-mail clients will automatically get routed to that destination—the Downloads icon in the Dock bounces when a new item arrives—with the most recent download appearing on top.

“This is a really simple way to keep your desktop clean,” said Brian Croll, Apple’s senior director of OS X product marketing. “[What] we were trying to do [was] make sure you really kept a very elegant, clean desktop. Because I think when you look at most pep’s desktops, there are files littered all over. So we’re giving a way to make it easy to keep your desktop clean.”

Excuse me, but what the hell business is it of Apple's if I keep my desktop clean or not? I find it incredibly useful to have icons cluttered around in certain places in my desktop, places that tend to not be occupied by windows of other applications. I also really, really like the ability to drag any image onto the desktop to automatically save a copy of it there. In my opinion, this is one of the greatest features of the Mac. I sincerley hope they don't mess it up.

On the other hand, it's been said for a long time now, by an awful lot of people, that the Finder was in serious need of attention. I just hope it's the right kind of attention.

whine x3, or The Dawn of a New English

Yawn:

Text messages harm written language: report

The most relevant quote:

"Text messaging, with its use of phonetic spelling and little or no punctuation, seems to pose a threat to traditional conventions in writing.

The report laments that, in many cases, candidates seemed "unduly reliant on short sentences, simple tenses and a limited vocabulary."

The whining of traditional grammarians is endlessly tiresome. Read that quote again, and note the quite correct use of the word "conventions." That is what "correct" written English actually is, a set of conventions set down in stone about 400 years ago. Many of these conventions were arbitrary attempts to make the English language bear a stronger resemblance to Latin, which I guess was considered a good idea at the time--if you wonder where such bullshit rules like the prohibition on dangling prepositions comes from, it's from that sort of thinking. The primary impetus was more practical, though: Someone realized that things would be a lot easier for everyone if we all spelled our words the same way.

However, all good intentions aside, languages change over time. This is an unavoidable fact. Whenever a particular language develops a standardized written form, that process of change slows down substantially--by my guess, probably to a rate of one tenth the "natural" rate for unwritten languages. My source for this supposition is John McWhorter's excellent book, "The Power of Babel" (which I think should be required reading for all grammarians, and which is also the single book I find myself recommending more than any other book). Languages which don't possess a written form typically evolve at a much faster rate--in fact, what seems to happen is that the language changes at the maximum rate which allows the oldest and youngest generations of people currently living to communicate with each other. This was discovered when European explorers would carefully document the language of a particular native people, then come back a mere 100 years later only to discover that the language had changed beyond recognition.

Any codified written language that's formally drilled into the heads of young people will obviously slow down this process, but the process continues nonetheless. Pick up one of the works of William Shakespeare, and try to understand it. You probably can't very well, because, in spite of the fact that Shakespeare is credited with basically inventing Modern English, he did it 400 years ago. The language of that time has gradually slipped into obscurity, and is almost unintelligble to large portions of the population. Words common in 1600 have disappeared from the language, others have changed their meanings due to semantic shift, grammatical conventions were simplified over the course of the 20th century in order to accomodate a massive influx of immigrants from non-English-speaking countries, and so on.

In fact, it's a testiment to the efficacy of standardized written language that we can understand Shakespeare at all, and I think the loss of this ability to understand hundreds of years of literary traditions, as well as the prospect of having people 100 years from now not be able to understand us, is what gives rise to cries of alarm over text messaging. McWhorter suggests that Shakespearean English is basically a "foreign" language to most modern English speakers--a suggestion that Shakespeare scholars would no doubt revile, but which is essentially correct. While I acknowledge that it is regrettable that most people can't understand a great work like The Tempest without substantial annotation, it is a fact, nonetheless. It is not a failure of our educational system, it is simply how languages work over time. Most Shakespeare, these days, may as well be published in two-column format, kind of like a new translation of "Beowulf" that I saw a few years ago: one column for the original, and one column that people can actually read.

Why does this happen? Well, it all seems to fall on teenagers.

I am not assigning blame, here, because I don't see anything wrong or shameful about the process. Each new generation of young people develops linguistic conventions to suit its own needs, and one of those needs is the need to create something new. Another need, even more important, is to be able to communicate about the world the way it is now, rather than the way it was 20 or 100 or 500 years ago. When a written language exists, the process of adaptation is slowed down, but it can never really be stopped. The existence of text messaging, where the traditional means of writing has been replaced with a method only capable of sending information in a rather crude format, has introduced an additional need--since most young people use text messages far more than traditional methods of written communication, they have obviously had to adapt, to simplify the language to be useable with the new medium. [see footnote] Furthermore, the conventions developed for efficient text-messaging appear to be creeping into the speech patterns of at least some people (quote from that article, "So dedicated is she to the art of the text message that Tirosh apparently unwittingly uses abbreviations such as BTW (by the way), TTYL (talk to you later) and LOL (laughing out loud) in her normal speech"--I have to wonder, how is "BTW" pronounced???).

What is unfortunate is that older people seem to view this as a bad thing. What the younger generation of today is accomplishing, in a simply massive and incredible act of collaboration, is a complete revisioning of the English language, practically from the ground up. What they are doing is inventing a new language--it's a monumental achievement, which they should be proud of (note the dangling preposition there, heh heh heh--I'm such a radical). One primary concern, which I would certainly consider legitimate, is that they maintain the ability to communicate with us older people, in our more traditional, more convoluted, harder-to-spell, less efficient version of English. However, there is ample evidence to suggest that this will not turn out to be a problem, at least not for a long time. Children of immigrants are all typically bilingual, speaking their parents' language at home, and the language of their new culture outside. The youngest generations of English speakers are currently involved in a very similar situation, plus they have the same mental capacities as immigrant children, so there's nothing to suggest that they won't continue to be able to communicate with us at will. (More difficult will be communicating with them when they don't want to be understood.)

Another legitimate concern is that what we currently consider to be "English" might fragment into several different, new languages. I am not certain where the boundaries would fall (although McWhorter quite clearly demonstrates how, in the real world, there aren't any actual boundaries between languages), but one could suggest that the new languages would be, roughly, "US", "UK", "Oz", and "India" (sorry, Canada, but I've been to your country, and you guys speak the same language that we do in the US, with almost no differences at all). How an international form of English would survive when the original native form no longer exists is an interesting question--would English turn into something akin to Latin 1000 years ago? On the other hand, in order for that sort of linguistic speciation to occur, there would need to be barriers to communication between the different populations of speakers (or texters, in this case), and I just don't see that happening. If anything, the differences between those four countries are already being ironed out, and not just in the youngest generations--these days, I usually can't even tell just from a person's writing style what country she is from. Once and a while, I will notice a spelling like "colour" or use of a word like "knickers" and that will offer a clue, but that really doesn't seem to happen very often. In short, I am not worried about fragmentation, since I already see the opposite happening.

On the whole, everyone needs to relax about this. We are very fortunate to be living at such a time, because the English language doesn't enter a whole new era very often. By the estimations of most scholars, it's only happened three times before. The divisions seem somewhat artificial to me, but the way I learned it, English has existed in three distinct forms up to now: 1) Old English, which first developed when the Saxons invaded England, pushing the native Celtic-language-speaking peoples to the west (hi Wales!). This was the language of Beowulf, a form that existed roughly up until the Norman conquest of England in 1066. 2) Middle English, the form which evolved in the centuries after that invasion, when a massive influx of French words filtered into the language. England had also been settled by quite a lot of Norse "invaders" by this time, too, plus there were the Celtic peoples still living in the north and west, and the eventual conquest of Wales. This era was when Chaucer came up with The Canterbury Tales (although it should be stated that, when Chaucer was alive, the mixture of English and French was still only beginning, meaning that Chaucer's vernacular English wouldn't have contained as many French-origin words as later works). This is also the time when English lost a lot of its old Germanic inflections. Written works from this period are recognizably English to our eyes, yet are totally unintelligible to our ears (at least, to my midwestern American ears). 3) What is somewhat unfortunately named "Modern English" came into being a few centuries after Chaucer, thanks largely to William Shakespeare and the Elizabethans. Formal, codified grammar and spelling were not introduced until after Shakespeare (which is another reason we find him hard to understand). We should probably change the names of "Middle English" and "Modern English" to "Chaucerian English" and "Shakespearean English", respectively, as a way of acknowledging that the language as a whole is still evolving, has not reached a final "modern" form, and will always be changing, whether we like it or not. Each of these great changes in the language was due to substantial, identifiable influences, such as the movement of the Saxons to the British Isles, the mixing together of Saxon, Norman, Norse and Celtic peoples during the middle period, and the emergence of England as a cultural and political powerhouse during and after the Elizabethan period (not to mention the internal and colonial upheavals which occured in the centuries afterward). Today, the corresonding influence is, as has been stated, a new and ubiquitous communication technology that's mostly incompatible with the old "Modern" English.

Of course, there is the question of what to call the new lingo--I thought "Upspeak" was a really catchy and suitably short name for it, but when I looked it up on Wikipedia the other day, the term has apparently been assigned to something else already. Plus, "Upspeak" has too many letters to be a good term for texters. Perhaps just "UP". As in "speak UP". LOL

C U

-----

Footnote: One possible benefit of this simplification of English, assuming the new form can ever be adequately codified, is that it might alleviate the long-standing problem of English being too difficult for foreigners to easily learn. As the process of globalization continues, it's apparent that only a small number of languages will become global standards, spoken by everyone--my guess is that English, more than any other language, is best positioned to assume that role, thanks to the fact that it is already spoken or being learned by probably 1/3 of the world's population, whether natively or not, and that the process of paring down, trimming, and simplifiation necessary for it to assume its role as a proper lingua franca has been ongoing for more than 100 years already. Others that are positioned very well, by my estimation, would be Spanish, due to its very widespread use (and the fact that it's fairly easy for English speakers to learn), and possibly Mandarin. Mandarin is an interesting case, because it is mostly spoken by one gigantic single nation, rather than being spread around over multiple countries like English and Spanish. This means that standards of speaking in Mandarin are currently much more rigid than in the other two languages--this will have to change, if Mandarin is to assume a prominant role as an international language in the coming decades. As I said, English will have an advantage if it can be simplified and made easier to learn--this principle applies to Mandarin as well. On the other hand, the political influence of China in world affairs will probably have a positive impact on the spread of Mandarin--only this morning, for instance, I read in the newspaper a story of local schoolchildren being taught "Chinese" in school. This would have been unimaginable when I was that age.

---

Concluding note: I titled this article "whine x3", to mean "whine whine whine." Strictly speaking, "whine" should be spelled the way texters would spell it, but how is that? I admit, I don't know. The "h" and the "e" are apparently superfluous, being silent, but eliminating them gives "win", which is obviously wrong. An interesting problem, so I left it in the traditional spelling. (People in some places even add an additional letter: "whinge." I always found that odd, myself.)

Ignorance is Strength, Arbeit macht Frei, etc. etc.

I was reading Violent Acres this morning, and followed the link in that post to the New York Times Article, A Call for Manners in the World of Nasty Blogs. On the whole, it's only a moderately interesting article about how a bunch of whiners are banding together to establish voluntary codes of conduct among bloggers. I did read all the way to the end of this two-page article, though, and could not believe what I read in the very last paragraph:

Mr. O’Reilly said the guidelines were not about censorship. “That is one of the mistakes a lot of people make — believing that uncensored speech is the most free, when in fact, managed civil dialogue is actually the freer speech,” he said. “Free speech is enhanced by civility.”

Emphasis added.

My response: WHAT?!?!?!??!!?!?!?!!??! Just to be clear, the dumbfuck who said this is none other than Tim O’Reilly, the guy who came up with the term "Web 2.0", who ought to know goddamn well why the First Amendment uses the exact words "Freedom of Speech" and not "Freedom of Nice Speech." But, just to be clear, the reason is this: Sometimes, a person really needs to be called an asshole, a dumbshit or a fucking moron. Something that's clearly bullshit needs to be called "bullshit." Codes of conduct, hate speech rules, and other similar bullshit would not allow that to happen. Codes of conduct for bloggers would regulate speech. So how is regulated speech "freer" than actual free speech?

If O'Reilly has an explanation for this, it doesn't appear in the article. However, my suspicion is that his argument rests on what is talked about in the earlier parts of the article, wherein various bloggers complain about how they were "assaulted" online by other bloggers. They were so "traumatized" by this that they were considering not blogging anymore. I guess that is what O'Reilly really has a problem with: people who allow themselves to be bullied into shutting up.

So, as usual, calls for restrictions on free speech are based in cowardice. To be perfectly clear: If someone gets called a bad name, or has his picture photoshopped into a bit of porn, or her head photoshopped into a picture of a noose, they have a choice. They can do what the other person is clearly trying to get them to do, namely stop talking, or they can continue talking. Why should the rest of us have to submit to a bunch of restrictive rules just because these people can't handle the attention they are getting? Is it written somewhere that freedom of speech is supposed to be easy?

One last thing: The article opens with the question, "Is it too late to bring civility to the Web?" The New York Times really ought to know better than to use a deceptive term like "civility" to describe what is essentially a fascist idea. Okay, I know, it's not the same as hauling people off to the ovens. But the ovens were only able to happen because of a lot of other, little things that made them feasible in the first place. For instance, what exactly is wrong with requiring people to clearly identify their religious/ethnic affiliation, especially since a lot of them do it voluntarily already? Surely it's a harmless requirement, right, to ask people to wear armbands? After all, Germans are a decent, civilized people, and it's hard to imagine how anything bad could come of it. And wouldn't it be a good idea to seperate certain groups from other groups? It would lead to a greater amount of civility in society at large, right?

You may claim that I'm engaging in the fallacy of equivocation here, not to mention a slippery slope argument, but I maintain that modern capitalistic societies have an innate tendency to slide towards fascism, or similar horrors, and that the best way to avoid that happening is to scrupulously avoid even minor trappings of it. Furthermore, just because millions of people aren't put to death doesn't mean it's not fascism, and doesn't mean it's an acceptable way of doing things.

Word.

Hypocrisy

Newt Gingrich Admits To Having Affair While Leading Clinton Probe

From the article,

In an interview with Focus on the Family founder James Dobson, Gingrich (R-Ga.) acknowledged his own personal infidelities during his time in Congress, but insisted he was not being hypocritical in pursuing Clinton for his indiscretions with former White House intern Monica Lewinsky.

Let's check the dictionary, shall we? From Dictionary.com, under "hypocrisy," it says the following:

a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess.

It also says, a little farther down,

The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.

Going back to the original article, Gingrich tries to weasle out of this by claiming his primary concern was that Clinton committed perjury before a federal judge. What is not said is that Gingrich didn't have to commit perjury before a federal judge, because nobody put him in that position. In other words, Clinton got asked and Gingrich didn't.

It needs to be said here that a fundamental difference in the way liberals and conservatives interpret those events rests in the question of how a person is expected to respond to intrusive questions. Those of us on the left have long felt that a person is entitled to lie in response to a question that nobody has any fucking business asking in the first place. Those on the right, Gingrich included, obviously disagree. It doesn't seem likely that this disagreement will ever be resolved.

To his credit, Gingrich does admit to feeling "not proud" of what he did, and, as I recall, his resignation in 1998 was a bit of a surprise, and the explanation he gave at the time was a bit inexplicable (at least to me). Perhaps his own personal misgivings over his behavior were a primary reason for his getting out when he did. Even earlier than that, when the Georgia state legislature moved the boundaries of Gingrich's congressional district after the 1990 Census, rendering him ineligible to run for reelection, he actually relocated in order to stay within his own Congressional district. That's not the action of a man who's likely to resign for trivial reasons.

I always thought Gingrich was kind of an interesting guy, sharp and quick, willing to think outside of the box, someone the left really could have used on our side. Of course, the reality was that he was on the opposite side, which made him quite a formidable political enemy.

I just hope he stays the hell out of the presidential race. Except, on the other hand, it would probably be a more interesting race for having him in the fray.