Andrew Vogel

Our World: Welcome to Palestine

2007-02-02T21:51:00Z

In the world of international diplomacy few issues receive more wall-to-wall support than the notion that it is essential to establish a Palestinian state. Leaders worldwide are so busy speaking of how essential it is for a State of Palestine to be founded that none of them seems to have noticed that it already exists. link By CAROLINE GLICK

Free 18-week Online AJAX Course

2007-02-02T21:41:00Z

If you think AJAX is a type of clothes detergent, this post is not for you. If you know AJAX is a web technology that stands for Asynchronous Java And XML then this post IS for you.

Thank you miCRoSCoPiC^eaRthLinG for writing (link) about this free 18-week online AJAX course, and because I'm excited about it and considering taking it I wanted to let other people know about it as well.

He writes..

Boston based Sang Shin, who’s a technology architect, consultant, and evangelist at SUN Microsystems offers a free 18-week online course on AJAX.
The course commences on 18th of February, 2007 and covers some hot new topics such as the opensource javascript toolkit named Dojo, the NO-JavaScript AJAX Framework called ZK, DynaFaces - the thin application layer that renders AJAX capabilities to JSF, and Phobos - the lightweight, scripting-friendly, web application environment running on the Java platform.

More information on the course is available on his site, but if you are interested in joining, it is very simple. "Literally anyone can sign-up for it by simply sending a blank mail to ajaxworkshop-subscribe@yahoogroups.com. There’s no eligibility criteria as such. However, it is assumed that you’ve got some prior programming experience with the common web programming/scripting languages such as JavaScript / PHP as well as core Java itself. The course will continue on a weekly basis till June 11th, 2007."

The Electric Aluminum Box Car Thing

2007-01-14T03:52:00Z

Warning: This is a complaint.

So Ford is releasing a new automobile soon. It will be called the Ford Airstream and will feature an electric engine with a fuel cell that kicks in to recharge the battery whenever it drops below 40% charge. While at home you will be able to plug it in and because of the combination of fuel cell + battery, it will have amazingly good mileage and be much more economical than any gasoline driven car.

Ok, no complaint yet, so what is the complaint about?

Here's pictures of the thing. And here is a photo:

Now, I thought this was a great idea. The car technology sounded wonderful and I might have had to consider it despite the company, but then you look at it, and my stomach decides to be nauseated. If I am buying a car I do not want a ridiculous looking "futuristic" car that looks beat ugly. I want a normal car. I don't want to be identified as, "oh, he has one of those futuristic hybrid cars that look like crap", but identified as, "oh, he has a car that looks nice".

Maybe someday if some company got a hint and started producing hybrids like Honda did with the Hybrid Honda Civic that looks exactly the same as a normal Honda Civic, maybe then I would buy one of their cars.

Another Star Trek Movie?

2007-01-13T13:44:00Z

Slashdot posted a new discussion today linking to an article from scifi.com on a Star Trek XI movie rumor. The movie apparently is set in the early years of Kirk and Spock, while they were still training at Starfleet Academy. Personally I didn't like any of the early episodes of Kirk. He was brazen, rude, and arrogant. If they remain true to the storyline I would not want to see the movie. I also am quite disappointed that they don't make a movie for another series. Why a 11th movie of the original Star Trek? There are only 4 movies for Star Trek:TNG, no movies for Voyager or DS9! There is plenty of opportunity to make a great DS9 or Voyager movie, and they wouldn't have to use antiquated characters in time periods that are much closer to today using technology we can already beat.

Nevertheless, Slashdot had a few quotes that were interesting about Star Trek. I would have to give a double thumbs up to the second comment that was marked insightful.

(Score:5, Interesting)

by melchoir55 (218842) on Saturday January 13, @02:10AM (#17587848)

To me, half of the fun with Star Trek was watching technology develop. From Enterprise NCC-1701 to Enterprise D, to the Defiant and on to Enterprise E and Voyager. The fun for me was watching what the writers did with new starships and how new technology was being implemented. It is the progression of the Star Trek universe that I took pleasure in, at least as much as I took pleasure in the interactions between characters. This is why enterprise was uninteresting to me. I knew where the federation was going to be in a few hundred years, so watching Scott Backula fly around in a starship that a 24th century shuttlecraft could tear apart in combat seemed like a waste of time.

If they had any balls at all they would have gone with the idea of having Captain Riker commanding the Titan in a time when the federation is being systematically destroyed in a major war (ie, the feds are losing). To see the federation being destroyed and fighting for it's life by spiting out warships would have been interesting to me. Watching a film about how kirk and spock originally fell in love is not. I'll probably see 11, but only at a friends house where it's on and I don't have a choice.
--
---The problem with being better than everyone else is that most people tend to think you are pretentious.

[ Reply to This ]

Re:Against the spirit of Trek
(Score:5, Insightful)

by AKAImBatman (238306) * <akaimbatman.gmail@com> on Saturday January 13, @02:26AM (#17587976)
(http://www.intelligentblogger.com/ | Last Journal: Wednesday October 18, @12:06AM)

If they had any balls at all they would have gone with the idea of having Captain Riker commanding the Titan in a time when the federation is being systematically destroyed in a major war (ie, the feds are losing). To see the federation being destroyed and fighting for it's life by spiting out warships would have been interesting to me.

It would have also permanently killed the series. The good Star Trek has always been a platform for commentary about everything from the human condition to modern politics. Since I sincerely doubt that anyone today can identify with a "major war" (which would be something along the lines of a WWII scenario IN SPACE!), the commentary aspect of Star Trek would be completely lost. In addition, it would further destroy Roddenberry's vision of a better tomorrow.

The end result is that you'd get Yet Another Action Show(TM) that's all fluff and no substance.

Operating Systems

2007-01-06T16:33:00Z

Overview of Operating Systems

When you turn on your computer two things happen. Your motherboard first begins to work, powering up components and testing them. The instructions on what to do are built into the motherboard, and they are stored in what is called the BIOS (Basic Input/Output System). After identifying hardware, and other routines, your computer then reads instructions stored in the MBR (Master Boot Record) of your primary hard drive and will either begin interpreting/running a hard disk or bring up menu options -- usually for booting between hard drives or operating systems.

The operating system is the program that runs between your hardware (motherboard -- CPU, disk drives, cd-roms, graphics card, network card, etc.) and your software (Microsoft Office, Mozilla Firefox, Half-life 2, VIM :(, Gimp 2, etc.). The responsibility of the operating system determines what data/instrutions to send to your CPU (Central Processing Unit) located on your motherboard and when to run/access other hardware components. Breaking down the operating system tasks, here are some of the following mundane responsibilities:

Managing multiple users either using the computer one at a time, or simultaneously (multiusers)
Running two or more programs simultaneously such as Mozilla Firefox, Notepad, and Winamp (multitasking)
Running multiple tasks for a single program simultaneously (multithreading)
Figuring out how to distribute commands between two or more CPU's while not corrupting data or having it run out of order (multiprocessing)

Many operating systems exist today attempting to run these tasks in different (or similar ways) while improving on the others. If you have a mainframe (a very professional computer server built to never be turned off and never to fail) operating systems exist such as ones for the IBM zSeries, Unisys Clearpath IX. If you are running a server built for high reliability and advanced security/management options, leading contenders include Linux variants (for example Redhat, Debian, SUSE), Unix variants Solaris (my personal favorite), HPUX, and also BSD flavors including Mac OS X, and the strong late comer Microsoft Server 2003 (soon Longhorn - Vista). If you are a typical user running a PC at home, while most of these server companies offer a desktop version - only one company dominates, and that is Microsoft Windows XP.

The Problem with Operating Systems

If you are still with me at this point, you may start reflecting on what I said, and trying to figure out what is wrong with operating systems. You may start thinking about Mac OS X and consider it a problem that you cannot access all menu's from the keyboard alone, but then you realize some versions of Windows CE (for mobile phones) do not even use a keyboard. Or you may start thinking about the advantages of how Microsoft Windows looks as opposed to GNOME or KDE (on Linux variants), but then you realize that Linux often is installed with no graphics capability. Perhaps you consider Solaris with the Java Desktop System or CDE and how difficult it is to maintain their servers from Graphical User Interfaces (GUIs) when the tools are meant to only be used from command line -- but, then you realize openDOS has no GUIs at all. Maybe you are a security buff and you are considering security issues, or a resource buff and any operating system that uses more than 32 MB of Ram is unacceptable. In response to all these considerations, no, I am not referring to any of these issues but something much broader and restrictive of the progress and evolution of operating system growth.

Have you ever wondered why Microsoft Windows comes preinstalled on every new computer you buy? The one caveat being Mac's (using Mac OS X) occupy a niche of the computer market. Contrary to what you may previously have thought, there are many very able operating systems available -- so why is there no demand for them? There is need for them - as previously suggested some are much better at some tasks than others. Perhaps the most common reason given is that people get accustomed to how one operating system does things and they don't want to try something new. However, how many normal computer users have you seen try another operating system? Personally I have never seen that, although I have heard many success stories of grandma's being taught how to use Ubuntu (Linux derivative). I will not deny that it is difficult to learn new habits that go with a new operating system, but there is a greater problem than this.

The single greatest reason why there is little demand for operating systems other than Windows XP is that the software packages we use often are available only for Windows XP. We could install Ubuntu and run it for basic tasks such as internet usage and minesweeper. What happens if we require an important program such as BibleWorks or Logos or the Microsoft Office Suite (Excel, Word, Powerpoint)? It is true that there are alternatives to the Microsoft Suite, but software programs take just as long if not longer to learn than an operating system, and how does anyone have the time to learn how to use other programs not knowing the limitations of these programs or if they will even work with other people's programs! BibleWorks and Logos for instance have no counterpart on MacOS or Linux or Solaris; if you want to use these programs you must use Windows XP. Even if another operating system has better security, better user interface, better data management utilities (to prevent corrupt data) or just plain looks cooler.

If I could propose an analogy, suppose that iPod's had 99% of the music player market, and that the interface used to plug in accessories for the iPod (such as alarm clock, speaker system, auto-connectors in cars, FM transmitters) was hidden from anyone to see and patented. No new music players will ever break ground because they will not work with all these accessories that are already created. This scenario will stagnate the digital music player environment to the advancements of the iPod. Compare this to operating systems where all the software written for one is not available for others. Yes there are attempts to make comparable software on other operating systems - but why should you have to purchase two sets of software programs (or accessories) just in case you need to switch from one operating system to another (or music players). There is a lock-in to one operating system, and this stagnates growth greatly in all areas. Adding an addentum on the aforementioned Mac computers, I do not recommend them because not only do they enforce a lock-in to software, but also to hardware resulting in a larger problem than Microsoft WindowsXP if they ever held the majority of computer ownership.

Boiling down the problem into one sentence it goes like this: The problem with operating systems is that companies who make software choose one operating system to support and in doing so create a vendor lock-in. No longer is there an option on what we can use; now there is only one operating system that can meet our needs. It does not matter if one operating system creates a huge security risk (if a bug exists in one operating system, it now exists in the majority of user computer's); you must live with the risks. It does not matter if an operating system will only run on steep hardware requirements; you must buy a new computer or you will not be able to use the software packages you wish to run. It does not matter if you could install an operating system for free; yes an upgrade costs hundreds of dollars, but you must pay to run these unique software programs.

The Solution to the Operating System Lock-In

Complaining without offering solutions is not often very helpful so I will throw my two cents in on what the best solution would look like. If you are still following what I am writing at this point, and if you agree even a little bit, then maybe I could produce some new ideas, or sway your opinion. With popular opinion perhaps the right people will hear, and perhaps someday change will occur breaking us out of this operating system monopoly into a society of choice and security. As an addendum, this change would also result in decreased costs on all computers in America (we lose the Microsoft tax), and forced upgrades would take a great burden off the less fortunate in our country.

Solution #1: A non-profit organization, or a government organization creates requirements for American operating systems. These requirements would result in complete interoperability of software packages between operating systems. The benefit of this is that operating system lock-in would not be a factor anymore. The negative to this is that it would require such a vast rewriting of current operating systems that companies that produce these systems would mutiny together or end up going bankrupt trying to meet concessions. This also benefits choice in desktop environments (GUIs), but perhaps does not offer enough choice.

Solution #2: Riding on the heels of the open source movement, a state sponsored open source group would create a framework that all operating system companies could build on. This framework would create a standard for all software, completely removing any interoperability concerns, and the open source model with government funding, would encourage openness of code and a level of security that is unparalleled today. While at this point I am uncertain in how complete this framework should be, a lesson from Linux might be appropriate. Linux, while referred to as an operating system, is actually nothing more than the brain of an operating system (also known as a kernel). GNU tools, especially from the FSF (Free Software Foundation) fill in the holes to make a complete operating system for users. If a framework was created that consisted of only a micro-kernel (small brain to organize how things work) and a set of guidelines on how the holes should be filled, a complete, secure, and productive computing environment could be introduced. Not only would this operating system be the most reliable and secure system ever seen before, it would also introduce a freedom of software and desktop environments that would result in a vibrant and interactive develop of computer software and user interfaces.

Eschatology of Culture

2007-01-05T12:02:00Z

From IRIB (self proclaimed - the voice of the Islamic Republic of Iran)

One week after the execution of former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, the United States together with western media and their affiliated currents through a smear campaign have sought to drag the region into a religious and sectarian violence in a desperate bid to cover up their failures and defeats. (http://english.irib.ir/news/print.asp?id=10290&titel=Top%20Stories)

Addressing worshipers in Tehran, Ahmad Khatami described the execution of Saddam Hussein as a pretext for the United States to sow discord among Muslims. He added: The US and Israeli media as well as their affiliated Arab news outlets are trying to portray the execution of Saddam as a source of difference between Shiites and Sunnis but Saddam also massacred hundreds of thousands of Sunnis; not only Saddam was not a Sunni but also he didn’t believe in any religion.
...
If the Iraqi government had not insisted the United States would not have allowed Saddam to be executed, although the US took political advantage of his execution and did not allow Saddam to disclose the US support for his crimes against humanity. (http://english.irib.ir/news/print.asp?id=10286&titel=Top%20Stories)

From BridgesForPeace.com, Excerpts from an article by Joel Rosenberg, joelrosenberg.blogspot.com, January 2, 2007

The Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB) Web site says the world is now in its “last days.” It claims that the Mahdi will first appear in Mecca, and then Medina. He will conquer all of Arabia, Syria, Iraq, destroy Israel, and then set up a “global government” based in Iraq, interestingly enough, not Iran. Such Islamic eschatology (end-time theology) is driving the Iranian regime and helps explains why Iran has no interest in helping the United States and European Union create peace in Iraq or the region, much less in ending its bid for nuclear weapons, the “Iraq Study Group Report” notwithstanding.
...
Too many Western analysts are missing the central importance of Shiite eschatology in Iranian foreign policy. They mistakenly believe that Iran’s current leadership can be somehow cajoled into making peace with the West. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I always find it interesting swapping back from Middle-Eastern News Sites and American ones. It is helpful from an anthropological perspective to understand what cultural views shape people's world views. While I don't really know how an Iranian family would think, it seems the next best thing is to read the same news that they do.

Since I just started this blog I should announce that I tend to follow and report on a lot of Middle East news stories. I am a Christian and have an interest in the Ancient Near East (mesopotamia area + surrounding geographic regions including Israel). I also have an interest in modern day Middle East and feel that any worldwide trauma will result from problems there.

Sugar, Sweetness, and UI's

2007-01-05T03:30:00Z

If you have not been following, there is a large undertaking currently to mass produce $100 laptops for developing nations that would perhaps be labeled "technologically deprived." This goal is under the label "One Laptop Per Child" or "The Children's Machine".

Excluding technical details, the laptop is meant to be a rugged, portable, open source tool. This allows for anyone who has one to develop their own programs and not be restricted to any single software package that will charge them fee's. It also has the ability to link to other laptops wirelessly which will hopefully allow for a web of internet access to expand wherever these laptops exist. Notable countries that have signed up include Libya, Egypt, Brazil, Costa Rica, and Argentina (more).

Recently the User Interface (UI) that will be used has been released. It is named "Sugar" and features an iconic view of programs with no text. This allows the laptop to be distributed in a variety of areas without worrying about languages. A sample of the UI can be found here.

The program has a large amount of criticism by people suggesting that the $100 could be used in better ways. As a reminder, this laptop is not going to poverty stricken areas but nations that are currently in the midst of development and could use the benefit these devices offer.