Noise filter

Add to /private/etc/hosts on OSX:

64.233.169.99	memeorandum.com
64.233.169.99	www.memeorandum.com
64.233.169.99	drudgereport.com
64.233.169.99	www.drudgereport.com
64.233.169.99	popurls.com
64.233.169.99	www.popurls.com
64.233.169.99	originalsignal.com
64.233.169.99 www.originalsignal.com
64.233.169.99	www.digg.com
64.233.169.99	digg.com

Why Mozilla sticks with Gecko over WebKit

arstechnica.com: Why Mozilla is committed to Gecko as WebKit popularity grows:

From a technical perspective, Gecko is now very solid and no longer lags behind WebKit. A testament to the rate at which Gecko has been improving is its newfound viability in the mobile space, where it was practically considered a nonstarter not too long ago. Mozilla clearly has the resources, developer expertise, and community support to take Gecko anywhere that WebKit can go.

It’s also worth noting that some of Gecko’s unique and seemingly idiosyncratic features are becoming useful to third-party adopters. There are a growing number of applications being built on top of the Mozilla platform that leverage XUL with impressive results.

BTW – Songbird is pretty darn cool and I can’t wait to see it reach 1.0.

Social Media/Software Links for Today

NYTimes: Brave New World of Digital Intimacy: About social networks and software and how we are using them to connect with one another.

Mind Hacks: The distant sound of well-armed sociologists – Reflections on the above mentioned NYTimes story.

wordle.net – generates graphical ‘word clouds’ from the text provided.

Reflections of a Newsosaur: Newspaper sales fall record $3B in 6 mos.

NPR.org: An Uneasy America: ‘Why We Hate Us’:

The Reality Club: A coversation On “Is Google Making Us Stoopid”.

J-School: Philly.com’s Convention Coverage and the Ethic of the Link

J-School: The Future of Journalism

Annenberg’s FactCheck.org: is doing a great job fact checking our candidates. Anyone listening?

SciAm.com: The Political Brain – Brain-imaging study shows political predilections are a product of unconscious confirmation bias. How we see reality is biased towards our own currently held beliefs.

Music Links for Today: Alice Cooper, Weezer, Oscar the Grouch, and What Makes Metalheads and Classical Fans the Same?

In the largest such study ever taken, research carried out by Professor Adrian North of Heriot-Watt University has identified the personality types behind fans of different genres.

Take aways: Indie music fans are pricks. Metal and Classical music fans are very, very similar.

theherald.co.uk: Why heavy metal and classical fans make sweet music together

BBC: Music tastes link to personality

Wired: Study: Country Fans Work Hard, Metal Fans Are Gentle

O’Reilly Radar: I Am Trying To Believe (that Rock Stars aren’t Dead):

When it comes to income, I don’t think there will be another Rolling Stones any more than I think there will be another Microsoft. Reznor’s creative partner Rob Sheridan hints at the same thing in his amazing piece on the state of the music business written last year. He does a masterful job of parsing all the deck chair rearranging going on in the industry today but what he is unable to do is offer a meaningful business model to replace it.

Everyone is fishing for the answer (see item #1) but more and more I think it’s just not there. After all “sell records” was not some complex business model come down from on high. I can’t help but think that if there was an equally effective replacement someone would have thought of it by now.

That’s not to say I don’t think new and better music distribution and monetization models won’t be invented, I just don’t think they will capture and concentrate as much value as the one that is dying before our eyes did. I suspect the balance between linear (touring) and leverage (selling stuff while you sit at home) has simply and irrevocably shifted toward the linear.

Weezer: “How To Play Troublemaker (8/21 video – hootenanny lesson)”

Weezer: “Keep Fishing” (Emma loves this!)

Wired: Metallica: Master of YouTube? – Metallica opens a spot on YouTube to highlight fan cover videos. Nice move and nod to the fans.

YouTube: Alice Cooper: Elected:

YouTube: Classic Sesame Street – James Taylor sings to Oscar:

Thoughts on the Republican Convention

I don’t talk about my poltical views as much as I used to here on my blog. There are a few reasons for that, more than likely dealing with burnout after the 2004 election and the fact that I know that my co-workers read this (hi folks!) now. So it feels… a little weird.

But still, I can’t keep quiet when I see something so infuriating take place.

Our two-party political conversation is little more than marketing pitches for two different corporations. Corporations whose goal is not to gain money, but to gain influence and an opportunity to be written into history via public service.

When an organization is selling us something it is confronted with a certain marketing reality – “benefits sell, features tell”. That was drilled into me a long time ago as a telemarketer for Sears, later as a trainer and supervisor.

It is no different here.

So what were the benefits each convention were selling us?

Both conventions closed with inspiring calls to service, wrapped in the clothing of “change”. But before those last few minutes, there where three to four days of pitches to the party faithful and the rest of the country that informed us that they were the party we could relate to, that cared about us the most, and that the other choice wasn’t a choice at all.

It’s kinda like Mac versus Windows. Both offer us the same features in the end. They even run on the same hardware these days. But the benefits they sell us thru soft features like interface, branding, and look and feel divide users into two warring camps. Don’t ever tell someone in the Apple faithful that a PC can do just about the same things, or vice versa. People will fight for their chosen brand and avoid the reality that they have bought into a brand in the first place.

This time, in this election, there really are different ‘features’ each will offer us. But those issues aren’t being discussed in the public sphere loudly since they rouse so much passion – for example – women’s right to choose. Which one of these parties would deny everyone else.

When that convention goer says that “freedom of choice” is different than being “pro-choice” – that is a triumph of marketing.

And notice how one convention avoided talking about policy whatsoever? Understandable since it plans doosies like pushing along the elimination of company provided health plans.

Instead, both parties sold benefits, soft features, like the inspiring call to the future and bridging of the red-blue divide that is Obama/Biden and and the call to reinforce country and family that is McCain/Palin.

One party offered uplifting oratory and generalizations.

The other offered ‘us versus them’ with does of sarcasm. And within that, a hella-load of lies.

So many lies I almost got as angry as I did watching the Republican Convention of 1992.

So many lies it reminded me of a NYTimes article where a Bush aide that belittled the “reality-based community” (no that is not a quote from the Onion!).

A McCain staffer said “This election is not about issues,”.. “This election is about a composite view of what people take away from these candidates.”.

They mean it folks. The marketing and the packaging bare that out. They are marketing directly to a large population of Americans who are angry and afraid of the future since so many of the cornerstones that were relied on have been knocked away.

So it comes down to which party will America choose? The one that uses divisive marketing to divide us into warring camps, to cast blame, or the other which reminds us that we worship a mighty God in the blue states as well as the red, that there’s not a liberal America and a conservative America, there is the United States of America – that we’re in this together.

We shall see.

On the Big Ball of Mud

Brian Foote and Joseph Yoder, Department of Computer Science, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign: Big Ball of Mud:

In the end, software architecture is about how we distill experience into wisdom, and disseminate it. We think the patterns herein stand alongside other work regarding software architecture and evolution that we cited as we went along. Still, we do not consider these patterns to be anti-patterns. There are good reasons that good programmers build BIG BALLS OF MUD. It may well be that the economics of the software world are such that the market moves so fast that long term architectural ambitions are foolhardy, and that expedient, slash-and-burn, disposable programming is, in fact, a state-of-the-art strategy. The success of these approaches, in any case, is undeniable, and seals their pattern-hood.

People build BIG BALLS OF MUD because they work. In many domains, they are the only things that have been shown to work. Indeed, they work where loftier approaches have yet to demonstrate that they can compete.

It is not our purpose to condemn BIG BALLS OF MUD. Casual architecture is natural during the early stages of a system’s evolution. The reader must surely suspect, however, that our hope is that we can aspire to do better. By recognizing the forces and pressures that lead to architectural malaise, and how and when they might be confronted, we hope to set the stage for the emergence of truly durable artifacts that can put architects in dominant positions for years to come. The key is to ensure that the system, its programmers, and, indeed the entire organization, learn about the domain, and the architectural opportunities looming within it, as the system grows and matures.

Periods of moderate disorder are a part of the ebb and flow of software evolution. As a master chef tolerates a messy kitchen, developers must not be afraid to get a little mud on their shoes as they explore new territory for the first time. Architectural insight is not the product of master plans, but of hard won experience. The software architects of yesteryear had little choice other than to apply the lessons they learned in successive drafts of their systems, since RECONSTRUCTION was often the only practical means they had of supplanting a mediocre system with a better one. Objects, frameworks, components, and refactoring tools provide us with another alternative. Objects present a medium for expressing our architectural ideas at a level between coarse-grained applications and components and low level code. Refactoring tools and techniques finally give us the means to cultivate these artifacts as they evolve, and capture these insights.

Read the whole thing.