Adam Fields (weblog)

This is an article about a Democrat who’s voting for Bush, on just one argument – the “War on Terror”. She thinks that Bush will find the terrorists and “bring them to justice” or something, and that Kerry just doesn’t have the chops to fight the war.

She says: ‘I will be one of the millions voting for Bush because I trust the president�s judgment on the war on terror more than Kerry�s. In this election, I am a single-issue voter. It is that simple. Even in the New York metropolis, there are more of us out there than he imagines.’

This makes no sense to me. The “War on Terror” has been an unmitigated disaster, and worldwide terrorism is up. There are lots of references out there. Here’s one. Who’s safer? I certainly don’t feel safer. I feel incredibly freaked out by the misguided vague “terror warnings” that our government has been putting out. Does a “general sense of Orange alert” really help anyone? Does unquestioned jailing of people who later turn out to be innocent really help anyone? Does the sacrifice of civil liberties for “security” really help anyone?

Okay, I’ll admit that there were fewer terrorist attacks in the US this year than there were in 2001. I don’t believe that it’s because of the steadfast policies of this administration. Unquestionably, this nation was led to war on false pretenses (whether or not ousting Saddam Hussein was a good idea “in general”), with a web of misinformation and, yes, let’s call them – lies. Lies lies lies. When people lie, I have this nasty habit of expecting them to lie again, and I believe that we’re less safe as a result.

Sorry, but… just sorry. I walked away from the towers collapsing, and it happened on their watch. I sat in shock, covered with a memory of the fine grey dust, as I found out that this man, who was supposed to lead us, sat for a while reading to a classroom of children after finding out that we had been attacked. I watched in awe as our attention was turned back to the bugaboo of the past, ignoring a cornered, cowering enemy in the mountains, and squandered the goodwill of the rest of the world. America is supposed to lead, and instead, we trample.

Sorry, Mr. Bush, you don’t speak for me.

Times Online – Sunday Times

Look, I’ll stay away from the debate about whether or not the man is sick or worried, or what. I don’t much care. It certainly can’t be answered without a medical examination (which he’s pushed until after the election) even if then. But that’s also not the point. The point is this. In side-by-side video comparisons, George W. Bush was eloquent, agressive, and coherent 10 years ago, and he is no longer.

Program Details for What’s happened to George W. Bush after 10 years

Direct link to the movie.

Using incredibly strong magnets to crush coins. Via boingboing.

Neato!

I totally need one of these. I find it nearly impossible to draw my eyes away from TVs in restaurants, bars, etc… It’s really distracting.

http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,65392-2,00.html

Dungeon Majesty is a show about 4 girls and a guy (DM) who play D&D, interspersed with renfair-like clips of them acting out what their characters do.

Heh.

http://www.dungeonmajesty.com/indexer.html

I suppose it’s too much to ask for the guy to come out and say “yes, I’m a tool”.

Ottawa Citizen – canada.com network

It has come to my attention recently that recent versions of Windows allow the use of a “software restriction policy” that only allows certain programs to run. Interesting!

It looks like it’s a bit of a pain in the ass to set up and maintain, but why has this not been more promoted?!?

Microsoft Windows XP: Using Software Restriction Policies to Protect Against Unauthorized Software

This is an interesting examination of some of the aspects of social networking services, using Plaxo as an example:

Roger Clarke’s ‘Little Black Books’

I see this as a pretty big and growing problem. Not only have we not adequately explored the consequences of using these services, or the aspects of society that they reveal (or cede control over), but we have pretty close to no legal precedent for how they interact with one another.

As my recent post on orkut touched on a bit, it looks like the problems associated with these services are not limited to they way they deal with your data, but also in the way that they interact among themselves, in relation to your data. Certain services, because of the terms they dictate, can act as sinkholes to corrupt the practices of other, “gentler” services if they ever interact.

I can’t think of an example yet where this has been a problem, but let’s watch out for this.