Friday, March 11, 2005

Search Engine Optimization Trash Talk



Click here for AmazonThere is one segment of eBusiness marketing that is both technically challenging and ultra-competitive. As you may have guessed from the title of this post, it's search-engine optimization. SEO is the art and science of moving certain search results up while pushing everyone else down.

SEO can mean the difference between a successful and a failing business. High search-engine rankings can mean exposure and, interestingly, less exposure for your competition.

For legacy businesses (e.g., a dental practice), SEO isn't quite so make-or-break a proposition. But it can still determine who will grow and who will wilt on the vine.

My two brothers-in-law are in dental practice with their father (yes, coincidentally, he's also my father-in-law). All are excellent dentists and my father-in-law, Tudy, served on the State Dental Board for over a decade, if memory serves. As an aside, Tudy was an excellent athlete in his younger days, having played baseball at the University of Cincinnati (he was Sandy Koufax's battery-mate) and lettered for Ohio's state championship swimming team. In any event, the family is active in the community (e.g., Big Brothers) and well-known for being among the area's finest dentists.

So, Marc, the oldest of the two brothers comes to me in a tizzy one day. He's searching for "City Dentist" on Google (city being our locale) and "City Cosmetic Dentist" and coming up with nothing, "We must be the one-hundredth search result."

Since this is one of my areas of specialty, I tell him I can take care of it for him. After all, I spent several years munching sushi with P&G's leading e-business geniuses (guys like Ted McConnell and Terry McFadden) who had some visionary ideas in this space. I've added a bunch of proprietary tools to the repertoire and can now legitimately claim some proven expertise in SEO.

Within a few weeks, the In-laws are the #2 result on "City Dentist" and #1 on "City Cosmetic Dentist". Marc starts trash-talking his competitor (we'll call him, "Wedge"). Wedge is one of these good looking guys who swung a gig on one of the TV network's makeover shows. Wedge knows what he's doing and has therefore rented out space on some of the dental link-farms to drive up his ranking.

Of course, Marc being Marc, he has to talk trash to Wedge:

"Wedge, when we get done with you, your dental practice will be nothing but a rumor."
"Wedge, your search ranking is buried deeper than Jimmy Hoffa."
"It's okay, Wedge... seeing as you're #103, I know you try harder."
"Wedge, you still a dentist in town? Cuz I can't seem to find you in Google anymore."


In all seriousness, SEO is an arduous, no-nonsense game. Real money and livelihoods ride on these rankings. If you do engage someone to handle SEO for you, make sure they can point to some real and current search results so you can judge for yourself. Just like any other business, there are those who know what they're doing and there are those who simply claim they know. The difference will be visible at places like Google.

Wednesday, March 09, 2005

Voices of Reason



Click here for AmazonSen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT) on CNN: "So, at some point we've got to stop criticizing each other and sit at the table and work out this problem … Every year we wait to come up with a solution to the Social Security problem [it] costs our children and grandchildren and great grandchildren $600 billion more." It's a pity more Democrats haven't aligned themselves with this centrist voice of reason. Well, perhaps it's not a pity, for as long as the Michael Moore-led, Left Bank wing of the party dominates, they'll continue to lose elections.

Dan Rather, in the LA Times, "I've learned to trust the audience," explaining his removal from the anchor job at CBS News amid its abysmal ratings slide. When the audience disappears, so must Dan.

Benjamin Blatt reveals that New York Times reporter Chris Hedges may be positioning himself as Jayson Blair's successor. Regarding Hedges' claimed presence at the Battle of Khafji during Operation Desert Storm, Blatt calls out Hedges, "Your version of the events in Khafji doesn’t appear to correspond with objective reality. It makes me wonder about the content of the rest of your book." It looks like another proud milestone for the Gray Lady.
 

Tuesday, March 08, 2005

Gun ban utopia sees an increase in violent crime



Click here for AmazonI couldn't help but insert some snide remarks on this interesting news (my comments in bold) from a newspaper in California.

In a pattern that's repeated itself in Canada and Australia, violent crime has continued to go up in Great Britain despite a complete ban on handguns, most rifles and many shotguns. The broad ban that went into effect in 1997 was trumpeted by the British government as a cure for violent crime. The cure has proven to be much worse than the disease.

Crime rates in England have skyrocketed since the ban was enacted... the violent crime rate has risen 69 percent since 1996, with robbery rising 45 percent and murders rising 54 percent. This is even more alarming when you consider that from 1993 to 1997 armed robberies had fallen by 50 percent. Recent information released by the British Home Office shows that trend is continuing.

Reports released in October 2004 indicate that during the second quarter of 2004, violent crime rose 11 percent; violence against persons rose 14 percent.

The British experience is further proof that gun bans don't reduce crime and, in fact, may increase it. The gun ban creates ready victims for criminals, denying law-abiding people the opportunity to defend themselves.

Is it really that difficult for the Toby Hoovers of the world to understand? Criminals, by definition, don't obey laws. Therefore, laws designed to restrict access to firearms will remove them only from the hands of the law-abiding. It's not exactly neurosurgery.

In contrast, the number of privately owned guns in the United States rises by about 5 million a year, according to the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. The number of guns owned by Americans is at an all-time high, fast approaching 300 million.

That's only one for every man, woman and child in the country. We must do better... and we can do better!

Meanwhile the FBI reports that in 2003 the nation's violent crime rate declined for the 12th straight year to a 27-year low. The FBI's figures are based on crimes reported to police. By comparison, the U.S. Department of Justice reported in September that, according to its annual national crime victim survey, violent crime reached a 30-year low in 2003.

Let's see if I've got this straight: crime keeps dropping in the relaxed environs of the United States while in restrictive countries like the U.K. and Australia, violent crime (especially  gun crime) is exploding. I wonder if any lessons can be gleaned from these statistics? Let me ruminate on that for a while. Talk amongst yourselves: topic - did the fall of Rome really end the 'Age of Enlightenment'?

Right-to-Carry states fared better than the rest of the country in 2003. On the whole, their total violent crime, murder and robbery rates were 6 percent, 2 percent and 23 percent lower respectively than the states and the District of Columbia where carrying a firearm for protection against criminals is prohibited or severely restricted.

You mean the brilliant Eric Fingerhut was wrong when he said, "the presence of a gun is actually likely to escalate violence"? And the omniscient Toby Hoover completely flubbed her prediction that, "we will have more shootings, more accidents"? My whole world is crumbling! How could those <spoonerism> two shining wits </spoonerism> possibly be wrong?

On average in Right-to-Carry states the total violent crime, murder, robbery and aggravated assault rates were lower by 27 percent, 32 percent, 45 percent and 20 percent respectively.

Maybe it's just a coincidence!!

As usual, most of the states with the lowest violent crime rates are those with the least gun control, including those in the Rocky Mountain region, and Maine, New Hampshire and Ver-mont in the Northeast. The District of Columbia and Maryland, which have gun bans and other severe restrictions on gun purchase and ownership, retained their regrettable distinctions as having the highest murder and robbery rates.

Makes you want to just go out and buy yet another handgun, doesn't it?


Lake County Record: 'Gun ban' utopia sees an increase in violent crime
 

Grimes Sets Off a Firestorm



Click here for AmazonThe eloquent Richard Grimes, of Dr. Dobbs Journal fame, recently set off a firestorm in the software development corner of the blogosphere. Having written a .NET column for three years, he'd come to the end of the line. His reasoning? Read the whole thing, but here's his summary.

...Microsoft's current operating systems, XP and Windows 2003, do not depend on .NET; and with XP, .NET is an optional component. The next version of Windows, codenamed Longhorn, was released as a technical preview at the 2003 PDC, and it looked as if the operating system would have .NET's tendrils throughout. However, a lot has changed since then.

...I have a very cynical opinion of .NET. The framework has a lot of promise, but I think Microsoft was far too ambitious releasing far too many assemblies much too quickly. As a result design suffered [and]... we are stuck with the library we have...

[.NET is] intended for users to develop applications, but not for Microsoft to create operating systems or the revenue generating products that they base their profits on...


In other words, Grimes posits that .NET is a sort of "development-lite" environment that carries a heavy run-time penalty (which, surprisingly, doesn't even come with the operating environment).

Dan Fernandez, Microsoft's Visual C# Product Manager, responded to Grimes' criticisms in his own blog entry. But I found the most compelling remarks in the comments on Fernandez' blog, not the blog post itself. Here's one that resonated with me, as a commercial software developer:

# .NET Distribution should not be a developer burden 3/7/2005 6:29 AM Mark Munz

The fact that Microsoft has NOT pushed .NET frameworks onto Windows machines lends to the lack of credibility in Microsoft's claim that .NET is the future... client side deployment of the .NET framework is crucial. Not every app is going to be server-based... Putting the burden of redistributing the .NET framework on the application developers is unprofessional for an OS company. And fear of taking some flack for including the .NET framework in a SP has got to be the lamest excuse I have ever heard...

So smaller developers are left telling their customers -- yes, our application is 1MB, but you have to download a 25MB framework first. That's right, you have to download and install a component that is 25 times the size of our application in order to use our application. The result, we -- the smaller developers -- are the ones who look unprofessional...

The truth is that it is mainly Microsoft's own fault that .NET is not more widely used today.


Another heavy-duty software blogger, Mark Lucovsky, weighed in with some meaty remarks on the nature of shipping software.

Consider the .NET framework for a second. Suppose you wrote something innocent like a screen saver, written in C# based on the .NET framework. How would you as an ISV "ship your software"? You can't. Not unless you sign up to ship Microsoft's software as well. You see, the .NET Framework isn't widely deployed. It is present on a small fraction of machines in the world. Microsoft built the software, tested it, released it to manufacturing. They "shipped it", but it will take years for it to be deployed widely enough for you, the ISV to be able to take advantage of it. If you want to use .NET, you need to ship Microsoft's software for them. Isn't this an odd state of affairs? Microsoft is supposed to be the one that "knows how to ship software", but you are the one doing all the heavy lifting. You are the one that has to ship their software the last mile, install it on end user machines, ensure their machines still work after you perform this platform level surgery.


Exactly. Well put.

One of my current popular downloads (over 1.2 million copies downloaded) weighs in at under 700K and doesn't come burdened with a ginormous runtime.

.NET done right would utilize a lean, on-demand framework that could be loaded as needed, right off the network if available. In the meantime, I can't use .NET for client-side apps for the reasons specified above.
 

Monday, March 07, 2005

Fisking the Big Ten on the Hartzell Affair



Click here for AmazonUpdated, scroll down to the bottom for Big Ten contact info.

Last Friday, the 4th, the Big Ten released an official statement on the Hartzell affair. Just to refresh your memory, University of Northern Iowa Athletic Director Rick Hartzell and Southern Illinois Trustee Ed Hightower officiated the crucial Indiana/Wisconsin game.

With an NCAA bid hanging in the balance for the bubble team (IU), Hartzell and Hightower laid the proverbial officiating egg. In other words, many of the calls appeared (to me at least) very, very odd. ESPN's announcers present at the game noted the poor calls and Doug Gottlieb, an analyst back at the studio, also made mention of the low quality of the officiating. He called into question the reasoning of the Big Ten in having two officials affiliated with or employed by bubble teams refereeing another bubble team's game. After all, a slot in the NCAA tournament is worth, quite literally, a fortune.

Let's put it in even simpler terms: when Kentucky fans complain that IU got hosed, you know something's going on.

So anyhow, a day after we unleashed a mini-blogswarm on the NCAA, the Big Ten Conference released its Offical Statement" on the matter.

Personally, I think the Big Ten exhibited all the sound judgment of Anna Nicole Smith at a Tijuana pharmacy. But let's just Fisk their statement properly, shall we? My comments are in bold.

The Big Ten has communicated its extreme disappointment and concern to ESPN's management relative to statements made by Mr. Doug Gottlieb at the halftime of Thursday's Purdue at Illinois basketball game on ESPN2.

Specifically Mr. Gottlieb called into question the integrity of Mr. Rick Hartzell, an official in Tuesday's Indiana at Wisconsin basketball game, telecast by ESPN.

Read the transcript (below): Mr. Gottlieb simply stated that there was the appearance of a conflict of interest. He neither impugned Hartzell's integrity nor called Hartzell names. He simply stated the obvious - an Athletic Director with a bubble team should in no way, shape or form be officiating another bubble team's game. It just looks bad. Period.

In addition Mr. Gottlieb questioned the professionalism of Big Ten Associate Commissioner Rich Falk relative to the administration of the Big Ten's men's basketball officiating program.

Again, read the transcript. Gottlieb questioned Falk's judgment. It is as accurate to say Gottlieb impugned Falk's professionalism than it is to say Gottlieb also closed Sportscenter that night by singing an aria from Puccini . Or is Falk, unbeknownst to us, some sort of higher being -- an officating deity, as it were -- who is beyond being questioned? Last time I checked, Falk was a human being, just as fallible as you and I. And therefore his judgment, especially in a matter such as this, can be questioned.

Neither statement should have been made, and in our view these statements represent an example of irresponsible sports `reporting'.

Both statements could and should have been made. Or does the Big Ten advocate stifling free speech, burning the U.S. Constitution and, with it, the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights? I, for one, will not sit here while you bad-mouth the United States of America! (...everyone hum now .... hmmm hmmm hmmm hmm...)

It is unfortunate that Mr. Gottlieb, whose own reputation for honest dealings has been called into question in the past, has been placed in the position by ESPN to pass judgment on a well-regarded, veteran official working a Big Ten basketball game, and a Big Ten associate commissioner who has rendered valuable service to the Conference and college basketball for decades.

Ewww, nice cheap shot on Gottlieb. And a beautiful changeup that disregards the fact that both announcers at the game criticized some of the calls and that Gottlieb was not the only reporter questioning this odd situation. This sort of practice is bogus, plain and simple. Anyone with half a brain could recognize that putting a combo-A.D.-and-referee in such a position is as sound an idea as having MC Hammer manage your investments.

The Big Ten Conference considers this matter concluded and will have no further comment.

It's over when we say it's over. Next time try answering the questions raised: will the Big Ten (and for that matter, the NCAA) address this practice? Why would Rich Falk make such an officiating assigment? Surely there was an officiating team available whose members weren't employed by a University in contention for a bubble spot? Or did the other officiating squads call in sick?

You know, I think I see another blogswarm on the horizon.


TRANSCRIPT OF DOUG GOTTLIEB'S COMMENTS DURING HALFTIME OF ESPN2'S COVERAGE OF THE PURDUE-ILLINOIS GAME MARCH 3, 2005:

"As we take you back to Tuesday night Indiana-Wisconsin it's obvious that there may not be a real clear cut, a clear cut bad call made on this particular play.

But if you watch it there is the appearance that maybe there is a conflict of interest. You know, Indiana trailed by one and it looked like Wilkinson fouls on the play...Mike Wilkinson fouls on the play. Mike Davis obviously went nuts but Rick Hartzell was the official who was in position.

And that conflict of interest or at least the appearance of the conflict of interest is apparent because Rick Hartzell is the athletic director at Northern Iowa. Now if he's the AD for a bubble team, why is he officiating a game involving another bubble team in a game that could cost Mike Davis his job, and could definitely cost Indiana a chance to play in the NCAA Tournament?

I'm not saying there is a clear cut conflict of interest, but there is at least that appearance. And it lends the question, why is Rich Falk assigning him to a game in the Big Ten? He's the conference officials commissioner, and why is he assigning him to this game, and why wasn't a switch made at the last second so that there's never that appearance? When it was obviously at least to Steve Lavin, who was calling the game as the color man for ESPN. He said it was a bad call. I agree. It was a totally blown missed call. But now there the appearance of the conflict of interest because there's no call made and because he's the AD at Northern Iowa."



Big Ten Conference Statement

Update: Here's some contact information, which I believe is up-to-date. Please contact, politely, any of the parties below to ask them the salient questions. The non-statement they released is, in my opinion, completely insufficient in dealing with this issue.

Commissioner, James E. Delany (Email)
Associate Commissioner, Rich Falk (Email)
Director of Communications, Scott Chipman (Email)
Associate Director of Communications, Robin Jentes (Email)
Assistant Director of Communications, Jeff Smith (Email)

Big Ten Conference
1500 West Higgins Road
Park Ridge, IL 60068-6300
(847) 696-1010

Fax numbers: Comm. (847) 696-1110


For those of you bloggers out there, email me a link to your blog entry on this topic and I'll be glad to link to it. Anyone else, if you can get an answer out of the Big Ten, please email it to me and I'll be happy to post a summary.

Another Story Buried



Click here for AmazonThe invaluable Arthur Chrenkoff notes the following story that's been buried by the mainstream media.

In the first substantial shift of public opinion in the Muslim world since the beginning of the United States' global war on terrorism, more people in the world's largest Muslim country now favor American efforts against terrorism than oppose them.

This is just one of many dramatic findings of a new nationwide poll in Indonesia conducted February 1-6, 2005, and just translated and released...

Key Findings of the Poll:

- For the first time ever in a major Muslim nation, more people favor US-led efforts to fight terrorism than oppose them (40% to 36%). Importantly, those who oppose US efforts against terrorism have declined by half, from 72% in 2003 to just 36% today.

- For the first time ever in a Muslim nation since 9/11, support for Osama Bin Laden has dropped significantly (58% favorable to just 23%).

- 65% of Indonesians now are more favorable to the United States because of the American response to the tsunami, with the highest percentage among people under 30.

- Indeed, 71% of the people who express confidence in Bin Laden are now more favorable to the United States because of American aid to tsunami victims.


Arthur Chrenkoff - World Media Buries Another Story
 

Sunday, March 06, 2005

10 Things I've Done You Probably Haven't



Click here for Amazonin recognition of Cowboy Bob's post, here are ten things I've done that most others probably haven't. Check out Cowboy Bob's post if you really want to feel inadequate. And feel free to add your own...

1. Proposed to my wife at the stroke of midnight on New Year's Eve, a decision I've never regretted for a split-second
2. Watched the birth of my two daughters (first natural, second with epidural... both were very stressful for me... ;-)
3. Was fortunate enough to architect a best-selling software product, with plenty of brainpower supplied by Pete, Gerry, Cian Chambliss, Dave Delay, Terry Smith, and a host of others (product management provided by the inimitable Peter Mesnik)
4. Spent an unforgettable vacation with my wife and kids, watching a stunning sunset in Tortola and diving off a reef at Trunk Bay, St. John's
5. Got my nose broken and broke someone else's nose in the exact same instant going for a rebound in basketball (ouch!)
6. Ended a bizarre bar fight with one lucky punch
7. Got married, moved to a new city, and started a new job with an unfunded startup company... all within the period of thirty days
8. Jumped off a forty foot cliff at the quarries in Bloomington, Indiana featured in the movie Breaking Away (although it take many minutes to screw up enough courage to do so)
9. Took my two-year old daughter to the movie Beauty and the Beast without telling her what to expect... and watched her face light up with eyes as big as quarters when the movie started
10. Once emptied a 33-round magazine in less than 12 seconds using a baby Glock (G26)!
 

Saturday, March 05, 2005

Padilla, Civil Liberties, and the Left



Click here for AmazonJose Padilla, a convicted felon and former Chicago gangbanger, was arrested in May of 2002 at Chicago's O'Hare Airport. Padilla had been under surveillance for months, since he'd arrived at the U.S. Consulate in Pakistan asking for a replacement passport.

The State Department obliged but, intrigued, asked other agencies to investigate why a man named Padilla was hanging around in Karachi. Padilla (who also called himself 'Abdullah Al Muhajir') was then tracked by U.S. intelligence flying between Pakistan, Egypt and Switzerland. They also found that Padilla had met with senior al Qaeda leaders in Afghanistan and Pakistan. There, he'd trained with the enemy studying such advanced topics as wiring of explosive devices and researching dispersion of radiological material.

U.S. officials added that Padilla's planned acts of sabotage were independently described by Abu Zubaydah, the most senior al Qaeda figure captured by U.S. authorities.

Padilla could be held indefinitely as an enemy combatant without being charged until the U.S.-declared war against terrorism ends, according to John McGinnis, professor of constitutional law at Northwestern Law School in Chicago. As the Bush Administration has argued, enemy combatants, even if U.S. citizens, are no more subject to criminal law than were Wehrmacht troops on the beaches of Normandy on D-Day.

The history of 'enemy combatant' status lies in the tale of seven Nazi agents who came ashore in 1942. Their mission was simple: sabotage armament factories and railroads to the detriment of the American war effort. One soldier, a man named Haupt, was also a U.S. citizen.

The Nazis were quickly captured. President Roosevelt ordered them tried by military commission, but the detainees filed a petition of habeus corpus   to challenge their military detention using the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. Could the President arrest, detain, try and even execute such persons in the U.S. without involving the judiciary?

Unanimously, the Supreme Court ruled that indeed he could*:

...an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals...


In other words, saboteurs without uniforms were "enemy combatants" and therefore subject to military jurisdiction. Even Haupt, the U.S. citizen, could be so held. The Supreme Court noted:

...Citizens who... enter this country bent on hostile acts are enemy belligerents within the meaning of the Hague Convention and the law of war...


Despite the positions you've heard from pundits and TV's "judicial experts", the status of enemy combatant is not new. The U.S. Supreme Court has clearly delineated where combatant status begins and civilian law ends.

"If someone is a soldier, he is under the rules of war and needs to be treated as such," McGinnis adds. But "He [Padilla] is not necessarily a prisoner of war. He's an undeclared combatant, a saboteur ... aiming at civilian targets, and outside the protection of the Geneva Convention."

U.S. officials supplied evidence showing Padilla planned to harm U.S. interests and thereby transfered Padilla's case from the civilian to the military justice system. After receiving information from intelligence sources and recommendations from the Attorney General and Secretary of Defense, President Bush signed off on the decision to treat Padilla as an enemy combatant.

Hardly a system rife for abuse, the Padilla case has both legal and historical precedent leading all the way to the Supreme Court.

New Sisyphus: The U.K. and the U.S.: Civil Liberties in the Age of Terror

* Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1, 63 S.Ct. 51, 87 L.Ed. 7 (1942)
 

Friday, March 04, 2005

The China Syndrome



Click here for AmazonThe story you are about to hear is true. The names of those involved have not been changed, due to the fact that I... didn't need to.

My good friend Gerry, who is the Managing Partner of Mindstorm Technologies in Boston, relayed the following delightful eBay buying experience.

He's owned a Sony Vaio for years, a slick and light laptop that exudes "cool". It sat, for months at a time, plugged into the AC outlet in the living room of his fourth-floor condo in Boston. It faithfully served as his Internet surfing device and, from time to time, a backup Windows development system.

Leaving a laptop plugged in continuously, for long periods of time, is problematic because pretty soon the battery is destined to die. And sure enough, when he went to use the Vaio unwired a few weeks ago, the battery was deader than Francisco Franco's grandma.

Using eBay, he found an inexpensive replacement battery, which thankfully arrived within a few days. That's odd, he thought as he opened the box: there were no Sony logos. Only a series of inscrutable Chinese characters along with a slapdash mailing label.

Placing the battery into the Vaio should have been easy. But, for some reason, it didn't seem to want to fit into its pre-ordained space. In fact, it proved downright difficult. Exerting way too much force, Gerry finally shoe-horned it into place using the strength and experience gained from opening over one thousand Miller Lites. Finally, he snapped it into place. Lo and behold, it worked! Everything was back to normal... or... so he thought.

It was then off to dinner for Gerry. A couple of hours later, after a satisfying hiatus at the neighborhood sushi bar, he unlocked his door. And heard a loud POP. Thinking someone was in his apartment, his pulse rate quickened. He looked around for something with which to arm himself. A 9-iron perhaps?

Suddenly he smelled burning! He snuck a glance into the living room only to spot his laptop spouting a large flame, directly from the keyboard. He ran over to the computer, simultaneously searching his field of vision for something with which to douse the fire. Another loud CRRAACK rang out - and flaming dollops of plastic sprayed in an eight-foot radius, thankfully not directly in his face.

Now, a dozen tiny fires were burning -- along with the kindling, I mean laptop. Flames were erupting on his walls, polished hardwood floors, even on the granite countertop.

He quickly stamped the small fires out. But the laptop still burned... IT STILL BURNED! He quickly tamped it out with a hand-towel and surveyed the damage. Floors... not good. Walls... not good either. The smell was overwhelming. He opened the bay windows in the living room to get some fresh, albeit quite cold, air circulating. As he turned back to the laptop, holy sh*t, the flames had erupted again!

He swatted it over and over until it ceased burning. And then he realized it was still plugged in! Pulling the cord out of the wall, he breathed a sigh of relief. Finally, the fire was out. Other than the smell of burning plastic and various pockmarked surfaces, his condo had survived. He walked into the bathroom to use the facilities.

Moments later, after washing his hands, he exited the bathroom. For the love of... the laptop was on fire again! It was like the Exorcist, or maybe Nick Lachey on TV! It just kept coming back for more!

This time, the fire had engulfed the entire keyboard. The flames grew higher and higher. Gerry grabbed the laptop, extending his arms to keep the flames away, and ran to the window. He hurled the burning Vaio as far as he could. It arced from the condo, directly into a snow bank twenty feet away and four floors down. At last. The fire was out.

All he could think was, "thank goodness I wasn't actually using the laptop... on my lap... when it exploded."

Sony Vaio Laptop, fully loaded: $2730.
Cheap battery from eBay: $50.
Adrenaline-rush while battling flames in your condo: Priceless.
 

It's Hillary's World, We're Just Livin' in It



Click here for AmazonHere are latest updates on the '08 Hillary/Obama ticket, which I'm certain you've been awaiting with all the nail-biting anticipation of Tara Reid at the Oscars.

The IT Professionals Association of America is ticked at Hill:

Scott Kirwin, founder of the organization, states, “We are tired of Democrats pretending they care about the problems facing average Americans. Senator Clinton’s actions prove they clearly do not.”

The ITPAA based its award on Indian press reports of Sen. Clinton supporting outsourcing and assuring political and business leaders in India that the US would not attempt to save the jobs lost. “Outsourcing will continue,” Clinton said in Delhi on Feb 28, according to a report by the Asia Times... “Her statements got little press here but were splashed all over the Indian media,” Kirwin says. “Does she think we aren’t going to find out about it?” Kirwin says that the India media is the best source of information about outsourcing and what he terms “labor dumping” – using immigration policies to dampen wages.

Kirwin says the Senator’s position supporting outsourcing is nothing new. He noted that in March 2004 Clinton appeared on CNN’s Lou Dobbs show and criticized offshoring and the Bush administration support of the practice. Host of the program Lou Dobbs then pointed out that Clinton was closely allied with Tata Consultancy Services (TCS), an Indian offshoring giant which set up its US headquarters in upstate New York – an area Clinton represents...


John McCain doesn't believe Hill will ever be president:

...Sen. John McCain said Tuesday that he doubts Hillary Clinton can win enough votes nationwide to reclaim the White House in the next presidential race.

"I don't believe that Senator Clinton will be president of the United States," McCain told the Fox News Channel's "Hannity & Colmes." The Arizona Republican offered the prediction after clarifying his remarks last week on "Meet the Press," where he said Sen. Clinton would make "a good president..."


Joe Biden thinks Hill will be the Democratic nominee in '08, as reported by Newsday's Joseph Dolman:

Sen. Joseph Biden, a Delaware Democrat who may seek the nomination himself, sizing up Clinton last Sunday on "Meet the Press", "I think she is likely to be the nominee. She'd be the toughest person. And I think Hillary Clinton is able to be elected president of the United States."

...I mean, the Democrats know a thing or two about wretched judgment - from Al Gore's 2000 decision to run a populist campaign to John Kerry's 2004 decision to ignore the claptrap of the Swift-Boat veterans.

And yet, at a time when the party must broaden its clout among tradition-minded voters or languish in the shadows indefinitely, some Democrats are looking to perhaps the most polarizing woman in the nation as their savior?

...But for all her hard work and mainstream values, she will face the challenge of a lifetime trying to live down her activist background. Every excess of the 1960s will be her burden to carry once the GOP strategists finish with her...


And Bill Clinton thinks his wife would make an excellent president.

...Bill Clinton declared during a visit to Japan that his wife "would make an excellent president". While saying he did not know if she would run, he added: "If she did run and she was able to win, she'd make a very, very good president. I think now she's at least as good as I was."


I take that to mean that Hillary would sell even more critical defense technology to enemies of the US, accept even more cash donations from suspect sources, allow innocents to be massacred while mingling at the President's Cup golf tournament, and perhaps even commit adultery in the White House.

And those hoping for a repeat of Clinton's boom by electing Hillary are grasping at straws.

Here's a news flash: the Y2K and Internet booms were products of (a) an anomalous, time-based event; and (b) the genius of web inventor Tim Berners-Lee, respectively. Clinton just happened to be in office when these two tidal forces washed over the US economy. Take away those two events and Bill Clinton's economic legacy would be far, far different.

Electing Hillary president would be akin to giving a drunken teenage boy keys to the Porsche. Way more things can go wrong than can possibly go right.
 

Thursday, March 03, 2005

NCAA Blogswarm



Click here for AmazonHaving now seen the tape of the infamous IU/Wisconsin game, I'm really steamed. Despite an apparent conflict of interest, University of Northern Iowa Athletic Director Rick Hartzell and Southern Illinois Trustee Ed Hightower officiated the game. Many of the calls in the game, to put it mildly, stunk. Don't take my word for it, read what the Kentucky fans think (and they certainly have no love lost for IU).

Indiana, a bubble team, ended up losing the game on a series of (what seemed to me, at least) preposterous calls. Even ESPN's announcers mentioned the strange calls against IU. Just a coincidence? Perhaps, but here are the standings for Hartzell's and Hightower's two teams in the MVC, which also appear to be the very definitions of bubble teams:

Southern Illinois153-.833256.806
Wichita State1263.667198.704
Northern Iowa1174.611219.700


You may ask why two men -- whose schools have so much to gain by making the NCAA tournament -- are officiating a game involving another bubble team, the Indiana Hoosiers?

Good question. I have the same question. And I think it's one worth asking the NCAA about. Here's some contact information. Be polite and ask them about their policy of referees affiliated with or employed by Division I schools refereeing the games of other schools in direct competition for lucrative NCAA Tournament slots.

I've also included a couple of PR contacts at the NCAA: they can be asked whether the NCAA has reviewed this incident and whether this practice will be prohibited in the future.

Mailbox: Send a message to Division I Basketball Officiating Mailbox

The National Collegiate Athletic Association
700 W. Washington Street
P.O. Box 6222
Indianapolis, Indiana 46206-6222
Phone: 317/917-6222   Fax: 317/917-6888

Email: Div. I Mens Basketball Officiating

Email: Erik Christianson, Director of Public and Media Relations

Email: Gail Dent, Associate Director of Public and Media Relations


If you have a blog, please post an article about this practice. As of this writing, there is no mainstream media coverage of this incident or the apparent conflict of interest of this type of practice. And that's just not right, given the huge dollars attached to making the NCAA Tournament.
 

The Future of Blogging



Click here to zoomThe future of blog-related technologies is not a topic on which I've seen much speculation. As a heavy blogger over, lo, these many (16) months, I present some nebulous thoughts as to blogging directions over the coming months and years.

Blogpresence - first, I'd like to introduce the concept of Blogpresence. That is, a public face for a blogger's identity. Even when you're asleep, you're blogpresence "speaks" for you - even if it's just to say you're unavailable. Blogpresence is roughly equivalent to the instant messaging concept of buddy status. Buddies can put up away messages, or indicate that they're around but busy, or active. Blogpresence will provide a much richer version of buddy status. Implicit with status will come a concept of user identity. Anonymous users will not see as much information as trusted friends. Trusted friends, of course, will get to see additional information about the blogger (contact info, email address, etc.). In other words, blogpresence will morph to fit the user's identity.

Blogmessaging - building upon the concept of blog comments, blogmessaging will incorporate IM and text message into a blog. A trusted friend who wants to get a hold of you will visit your blog and punch a message directly into a text-box on the blog. A routing system will determine how best to deliver the message: via text-messaging, IM, voice-call, email, etc. Anonymous users will get the same message delivered, but only via a low-priority mechanism (say, email).

Blogalog - Amazon and other aggressive Internet retailers will soon embrace the concept of blogalogs, catalogs published by bloggers. If I read a book or listen to a CD, a toolbar add-in in Firefox will let me instantly create a blog entry or sidebar panel for it: link, image, affilliate tie-in (so I get credit for the sale), etc. A blogalog toolbar will make it much easier to pitch merchandise from my blog.

VoxBlogoli - is a term coined, I believe, by Hugh Hewitt that means "voice of the bloggers". Hugh organizes blogswarms on specific topics: say, filibustering of Supreme Court appointments. But VoxBlogoli could be organized by any influential blogger around virtually any topic: a potential conflict-of-interest by NCAA referees, what bloggers thought of the Superbowl commercials, etc. Of special interest to marketers, VoxBlogoli takes the pulse of the blogosphere quickly and efficiently.

Blogflow - based upon a concept I described in August of '04, blogflow is a workflow concept in which the blogger's inbox and outbox are partially made public (at least to trusted users). More useful in intranet situations, blogflow provides ad hoc workflow capabilities and, more importantly, visibility into work-processes that today are completely invisible.

Any other thoughts on future directions? Comments appreciated.
 

Wednesday, March 02, 2005

Conflict of Interest



Click here for AmazonI'm an Indiana basketball fan having grown up in the era of Bob Knight. I happened to watch the IU - Wisconsin game last night and was shocked at the horrid officiating. Sure, it's easy to claim you get jobbed by the officials when the calls go against you. But what happens if the announcers notice it, too? And not just once or twice, but multiple times throughout the game. Is something more insidious at work?

Before I get to the conspiracy theory, I'll give you an example. AJ Ratliff is an Indiana freshman who took a runner in the lane during the second half and was literally pulverized. The ball went over the backboard... limbs slapping other limbs... and there was no call. On the other hand, Wisconsin's talented forward Dan Wilkinson, drove against Robert Vaden, lost control, and stumbled into him. The announcers thought it was a travel or an offensive foul. Nope. Foul on Vaden.

What's my point? Just some bad officiating? Check out this bizarre conflict of interest as noted on, of all places, a University of Kentucky message board.

Now I'm not a big conspiracy guy, but take a look at this quote from the Philadelphia Daily News:

N is for Northern Iowa, which might be the first tournament school whose athletic director is an active referee (Rick Hartzell). So he won't be working any NIU games in the tournament, just as another elite official, Ed Hightower, won't be working any Southern Illinois games, seeing as how he is on the school's Board of Trustees.


Both of the officials mentioned in this paragraph, Rick Hartzell and Ed Hightower, officiated last night's "must-win" Indiana-Wisconsin game. Both of their schools, Northern Iowa and So. Illinois, are bubble teams for at-large bids. Indiana is the definition of a bubble team. Can we say "conflict of interest"?

Below is a link to the Hartzell's bio.

UNI Athletic Director and Referee


Click here for AmazonThis is an obvious, and completely unacceptable, conflict-of-interest. Many hundreds of thousands of dollars are riding on an NCAA bid... and the AD of a bubble team gets to officiate another bubble team's game.

And even ESPN's announcers noted the off-kilter officiating decisions.

CatsPause: Conflict of Interest

Hearts and Minds



Click here for AmazonTaranto notes the following contrast. The odds that any position Ted Kennedy takes will be proven wrong are about the same as those that William Hung will continue his "singing career". It's hard to argue with a series of miscalculations when you can still garner free PR.

"Our military and the insurgents are fighting for the same thing--the hearts and minds of the people--and that is a battle we are not winning."--Ted Kennedy, Jan. 27


"Thousands of mostly black-clad Iraqis protested Tuesday outside a medical clinic where a suicide car bomber killed 125 people a day earlier, braving the threat of another attack as they waved clenched fists, condemned foreign fighters and chanted 'No to terrorism!' "--Associated Press, March 1


Interestingly, the text of Kennedy's infamous speech seems to have disappeared from his Web site; the above link is to the Yahoo cache. We guess it's a good sign that he no longer stands by the speech, but we'd think more highly of him if he actually owned up to his mistake.

Mary Jo Kopechne could not be reached for comment.


WSJ: Taranto's Best of the Web
 

Bitter and Inane is No Way to Go Through Life, Son



Click here for AmazonThe inane and bitter Richard Cohen spewed forth a few days ago and -- shockingly -- he wrote of the Democratic movement rustling through the Mideast:

...something momentous is stirring: democracy, freedom, independence. Something. Or, as an Arab acquaintance just e-mailed me from the region, "I can smell the winds of change in the air wherever I go." ...


A gracious and glowing concession to the Reaganesque moves of the administration? Of course not.

Given what's happening, it's understandable that many eyes have shifted to Washington with a new sense of appreciation. Could it be that the neocons were right and that the invasion of Iraq, the toppling of Hussein and the holding of elections will trigger a political chain reaction throughout the Arab world? It would be the Middle East equivalent of what happened in Eastern Europe when the Soviet Union finally sank to its knees, took one last breath and crumbled.

Maybe... some of us may be prematurely celebrating the changes in the Arab world, possibly mistaking them for what has happened in quite different places. No doubt... "something's coming" -- but, believe me, it may not be what we expect.


Ah, there's the Richard Cohen I know! He's back! Willing to spin any good news for the administration -- and, therefore, the United States -- into foreboding visions of disaster.

And not a mention of George W. Bush.

Yes, Richard Cohen's unblemished record of constipated analysis and failed prediction remains intact. Here's a gem from September, 2003, courtesy of American Thinker:

In diplomacy, in foreign affairs, in the waging of war and maybe in protecting America, he [Bush] has made mistake after mistake. Like Henry Ford II, he may never complain and he may never explain. But when you look back, there's still a wreck in the road.


Richard Cohen's predictions contain all the accuracy of Mizz Suzanne's Psychic Hotline, only without the snappy patter nor the Jamaican accent. I think it's high time someone graded Cohen on his litany of failures, although I'm pretty sure the pathetic number of online visits to his column would plainly indicate just how useless he is.

WaPo: The Inane and Bitter Richard Cohen
 

Tuesday, March 01, 2005

The Left's New Meme: Democracy in the Mideast? Just a coincidence!



Click here for AmazonHugh Hewitt, once again, lays down a startling riff that should be required reading by everyone who votes. Including the felons and dead guys who apparently cast gubernatorial ballots recently in Washington state.

What gets Hugh started? The Left's new meme, starting with Ed Kilgore at TalkingPointsMemo, that the democracy movement in the Middle East has, well, absolutely nothing to do with President Bush! It's all a coincidence! Here's Kilgore:

...[it] never crossed my mind that Bush's fans would credit him with for this positive event, as though his pro-democracy speeches exercise some sort of rhetorical enchantment... Barring any specific evidence (provided, say, by Lebanese pro-democracy leaders) that Bush had anything in particular to do with Syria's setbacks in Lebanon, I see no particular reason to high-five him for being in office when they happened.


Hugh's retort eviscerates Kilgore, who has sufficient chutzpah to attempt to discredit Reagan's remarkable handling of the Cold War...

Here's Lech Walesa on Reagan:

"When talking about Ronald Reagan, I have to be personal. We in Poland took him so personally. Why? Because we owe him our liberty. This can't be said often enough by people who lived under oppression for half a century, until communism fell in 1989."

As with the Poles, so with the Lebanese --they are putting their lives on the line to face down their oppressors. But American policy stands with them and encourages them, and pressures the dictators not to strike back, and threatens the tyrants if they do. The refusal to recognize that American policy does indeed have consequences is yet another exhibit in the huge array of arguments as to why Democrats cannot be trusted to run the nation's foreign policy --- they don't think it matters. Kilgore's dissmissiveness of presidential rhetoric --"as though his pro-democracy speeches exercise some sort of rhetorical enchantment"-- isn't just a misguided slam at W, it is an admission of awesome ignorance of the power of the American president to shape a world through words, a failure of imagination and an admission of an inexperience with foreign affairs that makes you question his commentary on literally everything...

If you don't understand the power of the presidency, then you and your candidates ought not to be trusted with it, for it will end up a replay of the Carter experiment with presidential "small ball," where resignation to events is the dominant theme, and America's enemies to set the tempo and most of the rules.

Democrats have spent more than 15 years trying to deny Reagan his role in bringing down the Soviets. I suppose they will be trying to minimize Bush's role in introducing democracy to the Arab world for an even longer period of time. Both efforts ask the public to set aside the facts they have witnessed and watch the Michael Moore movie over here, with post viewing commentary provided by Howard Dean. It didn't work with Reagan and it won't work with Bush...


Hugh Hewitt: Reconnecting the Dots
 

Appeasement Redux



Click here for AmazonIt's like a really bad horror movie where the mummy keeps getting back up, even though it's been shot, set afire, run over with a car, and pulverized with a wrecking ball. The Europeans, insistent on continuing down their path of self-destruction are willing to give the Mullahs yet another pass. Let's trade some airplanes for a promise not to build nukes!

Yes, the Mullahs are just the guys that you want to play patty-cake with, given their unceasing support for terrorists of all stripes (including Al Qaeda) and their prior promises to nuke Israel into molten rubble.

I certainly can't say I understand the administration's apparent willingness to embrace, even temporarily, a soft line on Iran. But it's always worth remembering that the US recently sold Israel $320 million worth of bombs, including 500 BLU-109 warheads, one-ton "bunker busters"that can penetrate five meters of reinforced concrete.

Trusting the Mullahs, the world's foremost sponsors of terror, is a phenomenally bad idea. It's kind of like inviting Dennis Rodman to house-sit over Spring Break. The only surprises you're going to get won't be good ones.

The governing board of the International Atomic Energy Agency is in session this week in Vienna, and today it will review the latest batch of evidence concerning Iran's violations of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. These violations include:

• Refusal to allow the IAEA to inspect all areas of the Parchin military site near Tehran, which the U.S. suspects is involved in illicit nuclear research.

• Failure to disclose construction of a tunnel under the nuclear site of Isfahan.

• The unresolved question of how weapons-grade uranium was detected on Iranian centrifuges.

• A document describing technical assistance offers received from nuclear proliferator A.Q. Khan dating back to 1987.

Sounds bad. So what does the Administration intend to do?


WSJ: Carrots for the Mullahs - A surefire path to a nuclear Iran.
 

Monday, February 28, 2005

The U.S. can sit back and watch Europe implode



Click here for AmazonThe "great" Mark Steyn hits another fastball out of the park. No one is lobbing up hanging curves to the one-man global content provider, yet he is consistently pounding out longballs. And if I were a bit more worldly I'd use cricket, not baseball, analogies given Steyn's heritage.

For the time-hampered, here are the highlights. But, of course, try and read the whole thing.

A week ago, the conventional wisdom was that George W. Bush had seen the error of his unilateral cowboy ways and was setting off to Europe to mend fences with America's ''allies.''

I think not... at the end what's changed?

Will the United States sign on to Kyoto?

No.

Will the United States join the International Criminal Court?

No.

Will the United States agree to accept whatever deal the Anglo-Franco-German negotiators cook up with Iran?

No.

Even more remarkably, aside from sticking to his guns in the wider world, the president also found time to cast his eye upon Europe's internal affairs. As he told his audience in Brussels, in the first speech of his tour, ''We must reject anti-Semitism in all forms and we must condemn violence such as that seen in the Netherlands...''

...The ''violence in the Netherlands'' is a reference to Theo van Gogh, murdered by a Dutch Islamist for making a film critical of the Muslim treatment of women. Van Gogh's professional colleagues reacted to this assault on freedom of speech by canceling his movie from the Rotterdam Film Festival and scheduling some Islamist propaganda instead.

The president, in other words, understands that for Europe, unlike America, the war on terror is an internal affair, a matter of defusing large unassimilated radicalized Muslim immigrant populations...

...CIA analysts predict the collapse of the EU within 15 years. I'd say, as predictions of doom go, that's a little on the cautious side...

Europe's problems -- its unaffordable social programs, its deathbed demographics, its dependence on immigration numbers that no stable nation (not even America in the Ellis Island era) has ever successfully absorbed -- are all of Europe's making. By some projections, the EU's population will be 40 percent Muslim by 2025. Already, more people each week attend Friday prayers at British mosques than Sunday service at Christian churches -- and in a country where Anglican bishops have permanent seats in the national legislature...

...Until the shape of the new Europe begins to emerge, there's no point picking fights with the terminally ill. The old Europe is dying, and Mr. Bush did the diplomatic equivalent of the Oscar night lifetime-achievement tribute at which the current stars salute a once glamorous old-timer whose fading aura is no threat to them. The 21st century is being built elsewhere.


Mark Steyn, Chicago Sun-Times: U.S. can sit back and watch Europe implode
 

Good versus Evil



Click here for AmazonThe new Democratic chairman Howard Dean giving a speech in Kansas:

"This is a struggle of good and evil. And we're the good."


Oh. Interesting that he felt he needed to add that second sentence. Hugh Hewitt notes:

While political rhetoric can and indeed must become heated at times, the idea of tens of millions of Americans being "evil" is the sort of extreme, Michael Moore rhetoric which has taken the Democrats into the ditch and will keep them there. Will MSM follow up with the new DNC Chair and press him for details? Because Dean just labeled every Catholic Bishop and every major Evangelical figure "evil"...

...does Senator Clinton agree? Senator Schumer? Senator Reid? Minority Leader Pelosi? Shouldn't every Democrat in leadership be asked if those opposing them... are "evil?"


Methinks we won't be seeing those questions (a) asked by the MSM; or (b) answered by the usual suspects.
 

Iraq: All but Won



Click here for AmazonThe invaluable Jack Kelly of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette   nailed the mainstream media to the wall with his Sunday op-ed. His contention? The war in Iraq is all but won. He compares the situation to the battle of Iwo Jima: though the outcome was clear after five days, it took 35 days before the island could be declared secure.

Need proof? Well, when Hillary Clinton jumps on the bandwagon, you can be pretty sure the situation is safe. A politico with her experience wouldn't touch that kind of hot potato unless it was stuffed with green by John Huang (oops, did I say that out loud?). Hillary's remarks, including the fact that Iraq is functioning quite well, pretty much sums it up.

Blogger Austin Bay, a retired colonel in the Army reserve who served in Iraq last year, blames the public's disconnect on (surprise!) the MSM's unbalanced reporting. He notes that thousands of truckloads of material arrive in Iraq every day from Kuwait and Turkey and, once in a while, the insurgents get lucky and blow one up. That single flaming rig will dominate CNN's coverage for hours... without telling American viewers what's really occurring on the ground.

Lt. Col. Jim Stockmoe, chief intelligence officer for the First Infantry Division, roared with laughter as he recalled the increasing missteps of the resistance in Iraq in an interview earlier this month with British journalist Toby Harnden, writing for The Spectator.

"There were three brothers down in Baghdad who had a mortar tube and were firing into the Green Zone," Stockmoe said. "They were storing the mortar rounds in the car engine compartment and the rounds got overheated. Two of these clowns dropped them in the tube and they exploded, blowing their legs off."

The surviving brother sought refuge in a nearby house, but the occupants "beat the crap out of him and turned him over to the Iraqi police," Stockmoe told Harnden, "It was like the movie 'Dumb and Dumber.' " ...

...The number of insurgent attacks has fallen off significantly since the Fallujah offensive last November, and the attacks that are being made are less effective.

There are about 50-60 attacks a day on coalition forces, about half the pre-Fallujah level. Almost all are within the Sunni Triangle, and most are ineffective. "Most of these are ambush-style attacks that result in no casualties," noted StrategyPage...


Jack Kelly: All but won - The media can't see that Iraq is close to secure