August 29, 2005

You want me to go where?

[ed - This is the first contribution by Mare McHenry. You can find more of her writings here. In this piece she delves into the topic of women in the military. Enjoy. - lck]

You want me to go where?

There's one really compelling argument for me not to join the Army. I
don't want to get deployed - well, that and the fact the any drill
Sgt. who might have the misfortune to have to train me would have a
stroke when I painted my M-16 pink, plastered Hello Kitty stickers on
the barrell and started knitting a cozy to keep the dirt off it.

Saying women in the military should not be deployed to battle zones is
pretty unpopular among feminist's (I think they might revoke my
membership card after reading this-I hope i get to keep the toaster).
I don't think women belong in combat. Not because they can't do the
job. Not because our country can't handle female battle casualties.
Not because they should be considered any less brave than their male
couterparts.

They should not be deployed for a few simple reasons. It doesn't make
financial sense to our military budget. Why are we paying women jump
pay when there is absolutely no chance that they will ever parachute
into a battle? Why are they issued equipment that they will never use?
Why does the army use it's resources to give women specialized combat
training when it is likely they will never have a chance to utilize
it? Also just silly things like this: The last thing that the women of
the 101st Airborne did before getting on a plane to deploy was go into
the ladies and take a pregnancy test. What? You'll trust them with a
weapon but you won't trust them not to get knocked up?

I've talked to a lot of soldiers who have been deployed to both
Afghanistan and Iraq. Male and Female. They all say that it is a
distraction. There are plenty of blogs coming out of Iraq and
Afghanistan to know that there is an awful lot of hanky panky going
on. Anytime you put 150,000 American soldiers in a foreign country
where they can't drink or socialize with the locals your going to have
some issues. Hell, there are internet boards devoted soley to porn
provided by female soldiers in Iraq (in uniform). That's having an
awful lot of time on your hands isn't it? I looked at one picture and
thought to myself. Where does she get the time for the bikini tan line
and the french manicure. Now true...she's just one soldier. But there
were at least another dozen I saw on that board alone. And no...I will
not give you the address. If you have time to give yourself a French
manicure in a combat zone you shouldn't be there, plain and simple. In
fact it's an insult to what I would call the real women who are trying
to do their jobs and earn respect. Frenchy makes the rest of those
women look bad.

Taking these kinds of incidents a little further, they also serve to
magnify the stratification between genders in theatre. When loved ones
at home see images of female soldiers relaxing next to the pool in a
bikini they might get a little pissed when their son or husband writes
home about day after day of patrols and close calls with IED's.
Granted there are also men relaxing by those pools. From what I gather
they are R&R facilities. But of course what out MSM chooses to publish
are the pics of the hot girls in the bikini's. I'm not saying this
characterization is fair. But if you want to play by the big boy rules
and be in a combat zone then there is some sucking up to be done. You
should also not run and cry to your CO if someone is talking to your
chest instead of your face, put's up a poster on a scantily clad
Pamela Anderson, or calls you Honey. They are men, not robots. If you
don't like how they treat women...fine, don't date them. But from what
I've seen men in the military bend over backwards to ensure that there
is not even the slightest implication of favoritism or treating women
differently in their unit. They're too afraid, and that is a
distraction from the mission as well.

Which brings me to another excellent point. The women who volunteer
and serve our country deserve just as much respect and opportunity as
the men. Unfortunately the system of promotion and subsequent pay
upgrade is flawed. You don't get promoted without experience. And
being deployed gives you a lot more experience and thus better
promotion. I know it's an unpopular concept, but the Army needs to
consider some sort of separate but equal promotion system, so that
women can move up the ranks based on their experience and knowledge,
not on whether or not they've spent time in Afghanistan, Iraq or
Bosnia. Perhaps this means closing certain jobs within the military to
women. Again not too popular an idea. But I think the DOD needs to
take a closer look at what particular jobs women are better at than
men and funnel them that way.

I know that the military is a microcosm of our nation. But it
shouldn't be the grand social experiment that it currently is. Not
when peoples lives are at stake. You want to join an elite combat
unit? Fine, but you have to pass the exact same standards as the men.
Personally, even at my most fit there is no way I could've carried a
220 lb man more than a couple of feet. And I'm not sure I would want
to have to rely on someone who may or may not be able to do the job
being put in the position of having to save someone I loved. That
concept doesn't make me a June Cleaver clone or a Phyllis Schafly
cheerleader. I'm merely trying to point out that we talking about
flesh and blood, not numbers and statistics. We need to give everyone
the absolute best chance they can get of coming home safe and whole.

Please don't think for a second that the women who serve our country
deserve anything less than our utmost respect for their dedication.
Sgt. Leigh Ann Hester was awarded a Silver Star awarded for bravery
under fire this year. There is no doubt that there are may brave women
out there who can do this job. To date 47 women have given their lives
in Iraq in defense of our nation. 313 women have been wounded
seriously enough to require evacuation. Yet the official DOD policy is
that women are not permitted in combat. The army specifically gets
aroud this rule by allowing women in support units attached to
battalions. It is time to revisit this policy. The current situation
in Iraq exists because the military cannot get enough recruits to fill
critical positions. So they are filled with female soldiers. The line
between a combat zone and the rear is small and blurry.

© Mare McHenry

Posted by lck at 08:21 PM | Comments (1)

August 18, 2005

Chindia

Business Week is out with a double monographic issue on the rising role of both China and India (shunted to Chindia). The following article is a fraction of the whole report. What is new (this time) is BW goes as far as forecasting scenarios we normally read about at the very end of the Bible, in the Book of Apocalypse. The article, and more so the whole double issue, is a very interesting reading.

BW online is a complex website littered with advertising and with little regard for compatibility with several minor browsers. That is why we are not linking the issue. However, the report is accessible from their home page, rights on the piece belong to the magazine.

(A Russo-Chinese joint military operation is in progress between Vladivostok and the Jiaodong peninsula. This type of relationship may have been overlooked as well as the future role of Russia in the region)

A New World Economy
The balance of power will shift to the East as China and India evolve

It may not top the must-see list of many tourists. But to appreciate Shanghai's ambitious view of its future, there is no better place than the Urban Planning Exhibition Hall, a glass-and-metal structure across from People's Square. The highlight is a scale model bigger than a basketball court of the entire metropolis -- every skyscraper, house, lane, factory, dock, and patch of green space -- in the year 2020.

There are white plastic showpiece towers designed by architects such as I.M. Pei and Sir Norman Foster. There are immense new industrial parks for autos and petrochemicals, along with new subway lines, airport runways, ribbons of expressway, and an elaborate riverfront development, site of the 2010 World Expo. Nine futuristic planned communities for 800,000 residents each, with generous parks, retail districts, man-made lakes, and nearby college campuses, rise in the suburbs. The message is clear. Shanghai already is looking well past its industrial age to its expected emergence as a global mecca of knowledge workers. "In an information economy, it is very important to have urban space with a better natural and social environment," explains Architectural Society of Shanghai President Zheng Shiling, a key city adviser.

It is easy to dismiss such dreams as bubble-economy hubris -- until you take into account the audacious goals Shanghai already has achieved. Since 1990, when the city still seemed caught in a socialist time warp, Shanghai has erected enough high-rises to fill Manhattan. The once-rundown Pudong district boasts a space-age skyline, some of the world's biggest industrial zones, dozens of research centers, and a bullet train. This is the story of China, where an extraordinary ability to mobilize workers and capital has tripled per capita income in a generation, and has eased 300 million out of poverty. Leaders now are frenetically laying the groundwork for decades of new growth.

INVALUABLE ROLE

Now hop a plane to India. It is hard to tell this is the world's other emerging superpower. Jolting sights of extreme poverty abound even in the business capitals. A lack of subways and a dearth of expressways result in nightmarish traffic.
But visit the office towers and research and development centers sprouting everywhere, and you see the miracle. Here, Indians are playing invaluable roles in the global innovation chain. Motorola, (MOT) Hewlett-Packard (HPQ), Cisco Systems (CSCO), and other tech giants now rely on their Indian teams to devise software platforms and dazzling multimedia features for next-generation devices. Google (GOOG) principal scientist Krishna Bharat is setting up a Bangalore lab complete with colorful furniture, exercise balls, and a Yamaha organ -- like Google's Mountain View (Calif.) headquarters -- to work on core search-engine technology. Indian engineering houses use 3-D computer simulations to tweak designs of everything from car engines and forklifts to aircraft wings for such clients as General Motors Corp. (GM) and Boeing Co (BA). Financial and market-research experts at outfits like B2K, OfficeTiger, and Iris crunch the latest disclosures of blue-chip companies for Wall Street. By 2010 such outsourcing work is expected to quadruple, to $56 billion a year.

Even more exhilarating is the pace of innovation, as tech hubs like Bangalore spawn companies producing their own chip designs, software, and pharmaceuticals. "I find Bangalore to be one of the most exciting places in the world," says Dan Scheinman, Cisco Systems Inc.'s senior vice-president for corporate development. "It is Silicon Valley in 1999." Beyond Bangalore, Indian companies are showing a flair for producing high-quality goods and services at ridiculously low prices, from $50 air flights and crystal-clear 2 cents-a-minute cell-phone service to $2,200 cars and cardiac operations by top surgeons at a fraction of U.S. costs. Some analysts see the beginnings of hypercompetitive multinationals. "Once they learn to sell at Indian prices with world quality, they can compete anywhere," predicts University of Michigan management guru C.K. Prahalad. Adds A. T. Kearney high-tech consultant John Ciacchella: "I don't think U.S. companies realize India is building next-generation service companies."

SIMULTANEOUS TAKEOFFS

China and India. Rarely has the economic ascent of two still relatively poor nations been watched with such a mixture of awe, opportunism, and trepidation. The postwar era witnessed economic miracles in Japan and South Korea. But neither was populous enough to power worldwide growth or change the game in a complete spectrum of industries. China and India, by contrast, possess the weight and dynamism to transform the 21st-century global economy. The closest parallel to their emergence is the saga of 19th-century America, a huge continental economy with a young, driven workforce that grabbed the lead in agriculture, apparel, and the high technologies of the era, such as steam engines, the telegraph, and electric lights.

But in a way, even America's rise falls short in comparison to what's happening now. Never has the world seen the simultaneous, sustained takeoffs of two nations that together account for one-third of the planet's population. For the past two decades, China has been growing at an astounding 9.5% a year, and India by 6%. Given their young populations, high savings, and the sheer amount of catching up they still have to do, most economists figure China and India possess the fundamentals to keep growing in the 7%-to-8% range for decades.

Barring cataclysm, within three decades India should have vaulted over Germany as the world's third-biggest economy. By mid-century, China should have overtaken the U.S. as No. 1. By then, China and India could account for half of global output. Indeed, the troika of China, India, and the U.S. -- the only industrialized nation with significant population growth -- by most projections will dwarf every other economy.

What makes the two giants especially powerful is that they complement each other's strengths. An accelerating trend is that technical and managerial skills in both China and India are becoming more important than cheap assembly labor. China will stay dominant in mass manufacturing, and is one of the few nations building multibillion-dollar electronics and heavy industrial plants. India is a rising power in software, design, services, and precision industry. This raises a provocative question: What if the two nations merge into one giant "Chindia?" Rival political and economic ambitions make that unlikely. But if their industries truly collaborate, "they would take over the world tech industry," predicts Forrester Research Inc (FORR ). analyst Navi Radjou.

In a practical sense, the yin and yang of these immense workforces already are converging. True, annual trade between the two economies is just $14 billion. But thanks to the Internet and plunging telecom costs, multinationals are having their goods built in China with software and circuitry designed in India. As interactive design technology makes it easier to perfect virtual 3-D prototypes of everything from telecom routers to turbine generators on PCs, the distance between India's low-cost laboratories and China's low-cost factories shrinks by the month. Managers in the vanguard of globalization's new wave say the impact will be nothing less than explosive. "In a few years you'll see most companies unleashing this massive productivity surge," predicts Infosys Technologies (INFY ) CEO Nandan M. Nilekani.

To globalization's skeptics, however, what's good for Corporate America translates into layoffs and lower pay for workers. Little wonder the West is suffering from future shock. Each new Chinese corporate takeover bid or revelation of a major Indian outsourcing deal elicits howls of protest by U.S. politicians. Washington think tanks are publishing thick white papers charting China's rapid progress in microelectronics, nanotech, and aerospace -- and painting dark scenarios about what it means for America's global leadership.

Such alarmism is understandable. But the U.S. and other established powers will have to learn to make room for China and India. For in almost every dimension -- as consumer markets, investors, producers, and users of energy and commodities -- they will be 21st-century heavyweights. The growing economic might will carry into geopolitics as well. China and India are more assertively pressing their interests in the Middle East and Africa, and China's military will likely challenge U.S. dominance in the Pacific.

One implication is that the balance of power in many technologies will likely move from West to East. An obvious reason is that China and India graduate a combined half a million engineers and scientists a year, vs. 60,000 in the U.S. In life sciences, projects the McKinsey Global Institute, the total number of young researchers in both nations will rise by 35%, to 1.6 million by 2008. The U.S. supply will drop by 11%, to 760,000. As most Western scientists will tell you, China and India already are making important contributions in medicine and materials that will help everyone. Because these nations can throw more brains at technical problems at a fraction of the cost, their contributions to innovation will grow.

CONSUMERS RISING

American business isn't just shifting research work because Indian and Chinese brains are young, cheap, and plentiful. In many cases, these engineers combine skills -- mastery of the latest software tools, a knack for complex mathematical algorithms, and fluency in new multimedia technologies -- that often surpass those of their American counterparts. As Cisco's Scheinman puts it: "We came to India for the costs, we stayed for the quality, and we're now investing for the innovation."

A rising consumer class also will drive innovation. This year, China's passenger car market is expected to reach 3 million, No. 3 in the world. China already has the world's biggest base of cell-phone subscribers -- 350 million -- and that is expected to near 600 million by 2009. In two years, China should overtake the U.S. in homes connected to broadband. Less noticed is that India's consumer market is on the same explosive trajectory as China five years ago. Since 2000, the number of cellular subscribers has rocketed from 5.6 million to 55 million.

What's more, Chinese and Indian consumers and companies now demand the latest technologies and features. Studies show the attitudes and aspirations of today's young Chinese and Indians resemble those of Americans a few decades ago. Surveys of thousands of young adults in both nations by marketing firm Grey Global Group found they are overwhelmingly optimistic about the future, believe success is in their hands, and view products as status symbols. In China, it's fashionable for the upwardly mobile to switch high-end cell phones every three months, says Josh Li, managing director of Grey's Beijing office, because an old model suggests "you are not getting ahead and updated." That means these nations will be huge proving grounds for next-generation multimedia gizmos, networking equipment, and wireless Web services, and will play a greater role in setting global standards. In consumer electronics, "we will see China in a few years going from being a follower to a leader in defining consumer-electronics trends," predicts Philips Semiconductors (PHG ) Executive Vice-President Leon Husson.

For all the huge advantages they now enjoy, India and China cannot assume their role as new superpowers is assured. Today, China and India account for a mere 6% of global gross domestic product -- half that of Japan. They must keep growing rapidly just to provide jobs for tens of millions entering the workforce annually, and to keep many millions more from crashing back into poverty. Both nations must confront ecological degradation that's as obvious as the smog shrouding Shanghai and Bombay, and face real risks of social strife, war, and financial crisis.

Increasingly, such problems will be the world's problems. Also, with wages rising fast, especially in many skilled areas, the cheap labor edge won't last forever. Both nations will go through many boom and harrowing bust cycles. And neither country is yet producing companies like Samsung, Nokia (NOK), or Toyota (TM) that put it all together, developing, making, and marketing world-beating products.
Both countries, however, have survived earlier crises and possess immense untapped potential. In China, serious development only now is reaching the 800 million people in rural areas, where per capita annual income is just $354. In areas outside major cities, wages are as little as 45 cents an hour. "This is why China can have another 20 years of high-speed growth," contends Beijing University economist Hai Wen.

Very impressive. But India's long-term potential may be even higher. Due to its one-child policy, China's working-age population will peak at 1 billion in 2015 and then shrink steadily. China then will have to provide for a graying population that has limited retirement benefits. India has nearly 500 million people under age 19 and higher fertility rates. By mid-century, India is expected to have 1.6 billion people -- and 220 million more workers than China. That could be a source for instability, but a great advantage for growth if the government can provide education and opportunity for India's masses. New Delhi just now is pushing to open its power, telecom, commercial real estate and retail sectors to foreigners. These industries could lure big capital inflows. "The pace of institutional changes and industries being liberalized is phenomenal," says Chief Economist William T. Wilson of consultancy Keystone Business Intelligence India. "I believe India has a better model than China, and over time will surpass it in growth."

For its part, China has yet to prove it can go beyond forced-march industrialization. China directs massive investment into public works and factories, a wildly successful formula for rapid growth and job creation. But considering its massive manufacturing output, China is surprisingly weak in innovation. A full 57% of exports are from foreign-invested factories, and China underachieves in software, even with 35 software colleges and plans to graduate 200,000 software engineers a year. It's not for lack of genius. Microsoft Corp.'s (MSFT ) 180-engineer R&D lab in Beijing, for example, is one of the world's most productive sources of innovation in computer graphics and language simulation.

While China's big state-run R&D institutes are close to the cutting edge at the theoretical level, they have yet to yield many commercial breakthroughs. "China has a lot of capability," says Microsoft Chief Technology Officer Craig Mundie. "But when you look under the covers, there is not a lot of collaboration with industry." The lack of intellectual property protection, and Beijing's heavy role in building up its own tech companies, make many other multinationals leery of doing serious R&D in China.

China also is hugely wasteful. Its 9.5% growth rate in 2004 is less impressive when you consider that $850 billion -- half of GDP -- was plowed into already-glutted sectors like crude steel, vehicles, and office buildings. Its factories burn fuel five times less efficiently than in the West, and more than 20% of bank loans are bad. Two-thirds of China's 1,300 listed companies don't earn back their true cost of capital, estimates Beijing National Accounting Institute President Chen Xiaoyue. "We build the roads and industrial parks, but we sacrifice a lot," Chen says.

India, by contrast, has had to develop with scarcity. It gets scant foreign investment, and has no room to waste fuel and materials like China. India also has Western legal institutions, a modern stock market, and private banks and corporations. As a result, it is far more capital-efficient. A BusinessWeek analysis of Standard & Poor's (MHP ) Compustat data on 346 top listed companies in both nations shows Indian corporations have achieved higher returns on equity and invested capital in the past five years in industries from autos to food products. The average Indian company posted a 16.7% return on capital in 2004, vs. 12.8% in China.

SMALL-BATCH EXPERTISE

The burning question is whether India can replicate China's mass manufacturing achievement. India's info-tech services industry, successful as it is, employs fewer than 1 million people. But 200 million Indians subsist on $1 a day or less. Export manufacturing is one of India's best hopes of generating millions of new jobs.

India has sophisticated manufacturing knowhow. Tata Steel is among the world's most-efficient producers. The country boasts several top precision auto parts companies, such as Bharat Forge Ltd. The world's biggest supplier of chassis parts to major auto makers, it employs 1,200 engineers at its heavily automated Pune plant. India's forte is small-batch production of high-value goods requiring lots of engineering, such as power generators for Cummins Inc. (CMI) and core components for General Electric Co. (GE) CAT scanners.

What holds India back are bureaucratic red tape, rigid labor laws, and its inability to build infrastructure fast enough. There are hopeful signs. Nokia Corp. is building a major campus to make cell phones in Madras, and South Korea's Pohang Iron & Steel Co. plans a $12 billion complex by 2016 in Orissa state. But it will take India many years to build the highways, power plants, and airports needed to rival China in mass manufacturing. With Beijing now pushing software and pledging intellectual property rights protection, some Indians fret design work will shift to China to be closer to factories. "The question is whether China can move from manufacturing to services faster than we can solve our infrastructure bottlenecks," says President Aravind Melligeri of Bangalore-based QuEST, whose 700 engineers design gas turbines, aircraft engines, and medical gear for GE and other clients.
However the race plays out, Corporate America has little choice but to be engaged -- heavily. Motorola illustrates the value of leveraging both nations to lower costs and speed up development. Most of its hardware is assembled and partly designed in China. Its R&D center in Bangalore devises about 40% of the software in its new phones. The Bangalore team developed the multimedia software and user interfaces in the hot Razr cell phone. Now, they are working on phones that display and send live video, stream movies from the Web, or route incoming calls to voicemail when you are shifting gears in a car. "This is a very, very critical, state-of-the-art resource for Motorola," says Motorola South Asia President Amit Sharma.

Companies like Motorola realize they must succeed in China and India at many levels simultaneously to stay competitive. That requires strategies for winning consumers, recruiting and managing R&D and professional talent, and skillfully sourcing from factories. "Over the next few years, you will see a dramatic gap opening between companies," predicts Jim Hemerling, who runs Boston Consulting Group's Shanghai practice. "It will be between those who get it and are fully mobilized in China and India, and those that are still pondering."

In the coming decades, China and India will disrupt workforces, industries, companies, and markets in ways that we can barely begin to imagine. The upheaval will test America's commitment to the global trade system, and shake its confidence. In the 19th century, Europe went through a similar trauma when it realized a new giant -- the U.S. -- had arrived. "It is up to America to manage its own expectation of China and India as either a threat or opportunity," says corporate strategist Kenichi Ohmae. "America should be as open-minded as Europe was 100 years ago." How these Asian giants integrate with the rest of the world will largely shape the 21st-century global economy.

Posted by lck at 11:33 AM | Comments (0)

August 08, 2005

On a sentimental string (riding the brane)

I plan to write a semi-serious post about one thing I semi-seriously love and that is String Theory. You don't have to know what it is. Besides, if you do know what it is you're a liar. Nobody knows exactly what String Theory is nor what exactly it is all about. Hundreds of thousands physicists and some of the best brains on earth have been working on it for the last 40 years and the theory is the first large theoretical framework to become mainstream while still being fairly incomplete, undemostrated and not unanimously accepted within the community (Some believe impossible to demonstrate in the classical sense but this is debatable. In fact while direct verification would require energy-scales fantastically far away from what we can reach in accelerators, several indirect methods are being investigated).

I will clear views up, is a promise, but for now I want to drop these three on you:

Cosmic Variance
Cosmic Variance is a group blog by five people who, coincidentally or not, all happen to be physicists and astrophysicists: Mark Trodden, Risa Wechsler, Sean Carroll, Clifford Johnson, and JoAnne Hewett. Their blog is about "whatever they find interesting" — science, to be sure, but also arts, politics, culture, technology, academia, and miscellaneous trivia. A blogroll and some physics-related links can be found on their links page. here or banner-click.

The Elegant Universe
A classic. The beautiful documentary you can watch on PBS for a mere 3-hours spare and the mandatory Quicktime 6, by the crackpot mind of the very Brian Greene (Author of the book) here. The Elegant Universe is very much entry-level and recommended to just anybody.

Two Cheers for String Theory
by Sean Carroll, assistant professor in the Physics Department, Enrico Fermi Institute and part of the Cosmic Variance group. This long post may be (unlike The Elegant Universe program) a bit more technical but sure to rip your heart apart. Sean really loves his baby. here

String Theory, the next 20 years are going to be a lot of fun! (Bring the Chocolate, Cheese, & Wine)

Posted by lck at 12:37 AM | Comments (0)

July 29, 2005

Crazy aunt purl

These things happen when you are peeking over your wife's shoulders.
Laurie, a San Fernando Valley resident, probably does not consider her writings here much of a literary matter at all. But her blog is hilarious, posts documented by way of an omnipotent digicam, which she is apparently married with, and her view is of curiosity. So, here she comes, very recommended and a permalink on the sidebar from today onwards.

Don't miss her Talking Trash story.

Keep it up!

Posted by lck at 11:51 AM | Comments (2)

July 20, 2005

Ghosts, time and the old girl

[ed- GHOSTS... is a short read from Wendy and, as always, a very welcomed submission - lck]

This island has been my home for the past forty eight years.
I have savored every moment of my life here and do hope to enjoy the rest of my days on this small piece of the rock. For forty of those years I have lived with the ghosts.

They appeared one day, unwelcome but inevitably here to stay. I won't question any deeper meanings as to why, for that is something one does in their youth, when they have their life in front of them and all the time in the world. An old woman touches on the thought but does not dwell, she knows life really is too short.

In the early years they were nothing more than distant memories, after almost a decade had past, they came to stay. This old girl's ego took the battering of a lifetime. Wouldn't you know it, to this day, those same insecurities still remain. When terrified you will loose the one who is closest to you, it scars, scars deep. Time may heal wounds, but not all of them. Even now I look over, watch him dozing in the shade of the cherry plum tree and marvel at the man he is and can't help but wonder yet again why he chose me, of all people. It is one of those few foolish things that I've always allowed myself, to remain in love with him, against my better judgment.

The children have long gone. Their shrieks of laughter and constant chatter grown up, off to their own adventures. They are good people. I did the best I could with them, but the ghosts, clouded a lot of the time I should have been mothering. In the end they turned out okay. Happy. I can't ask for anything more. When they were little I was so jealous of our time. Time for just the two of us, time to talk, time to laugh, time for hands. The ghosts occupied some of that time, I still don't think he realizes what I was complaining about when I complained. Once the little ones left the nest, I had more time with him, and the ghosts.

I offered many times to liberate him from myself. Give him all the time he needs, all the time in the world. He declined every time. To this day I still wonder why. Not that I wanted to leave, him, but the anguish that they caused me, these ghosts, was beyond words. I'm still jealous of our time. When he goes into the shell and I am left here with my words to share with nobody but the migrating birds over head and the sun. Makes this old girl lonely.

I take back what I said, an old woman does have time to ponder those things. She is just wise enough to move on quickly. I'll be going, back in to the house, prepare those greens we picked earlier today in the garden. You should see those tomatoes, best ones we've grown yet.

Then I'll wake him, and we'll have some time.

© Wendy Wonnacott

Posted by zib at 09:05 PM

July 13, 2005

God's little toys

Confessions of a cut & paste artist
By William Gibson
Wired Magazine 13.07
All rights reserved.

When I was 13, in 1961, I surreptitiously purchased an anthology of Beat writing - sensing, correctly, that my mother wouldn't approve.

Immediately, and to my very great excitement, I discovered Allen Ginsberg, Jack Kerouac, and one William S. Burroughs - author of something called Naked Lunch, excerpted there in all its coruscating brilliance.

Burroughs was then as radical a literary man as the world had to offer, and in my opinion, he still holds the title. Nothing, in all my experience of literature since, has ever been quite as remarkable for me, and nothing has ever had as strong an effect on my sense of the sheer possibilities of writing.

Later, attempting to understand this impact, I discovered that Burroughs had incorporated snippets of other writers' texts into his work, an action I knew my teachers would have called plagiarism. Some of these borrowings had been lifted from American science fiction of the '40s and '50s, adding a secondary shock of recognition for me.

By then I knew that this "cut-up method," as Burroughs called it, was central to whatever it was he thought he was doing, and that he quite literally believed it to be akin to magic. When he wrote about his process, the hairs on my neck stood up, so palpable was the excitement. Experiments with audiotape inspired him in a similar vein: "God's little toy," his friend Brion Gysin called their reel-to-reel machine.

Sampling. Burroughs was interrogating the universe with scissors and a paste pot, and the least imitative of authors was no plagiarist at all.

Some 20 years later, when our paths finally crossed, I asked Burroughs whether he was writing on a computer yet. "What would I want a computer for?" he asked, with evident distaste. "I have a typewriter."

But I already knew that word processing was another of God's little toys, and that the scissors and paste pot were always there for me, on the desktop of my Apple IIc. Burroughs' methods, which had also worked for Picasso, Duchamp, and Godard, were built into the technology through which I now composed my own narratives. Everything I wrote, I believed instinctively, was to some extent collage. Meaning, ultimately, seemed a matter of adjacent data.

Thereafter, exploring possibilities of (so-called) cyberspace, I littered my narratives with references to one sort or another of collage: the AI in Count Zero that emulates Joseph Cornell, the assemblage environment constructed on the Bay Bridge in Virtual Light.

Meanwhile, in the early '70s in Jamaica, King Tubby and Lee "Scratch" Perry, great visionaries, were deconstructing recorded music. Using astonishingly primitive predigital hardware, they created what they called versions. The recombinant nature of their means of production quickly spread to DJs in New York and London.

Our culture no longer bothers to use words like appropriation or borrowing to describe those very activities. Today's audience isn't listening at all - it's participating. Indeed, audience is as antique a term as record, the one archaically passive, the other archaically physical. The record, not the remix, is the anomaly today. The remix is the very nature of the digital.

Today, an endless, recombinant, and fundamentally social process generates countless hours of creative product (another antique term?). To say that this poses a threat to the record industry is simply comic. The record industry, though it may not know it yet, has gone the way of the record. Instead, the recombinant (the bootleg, the remix, the mash-up) has become the characteristic pivot at the turn of our two centuries.

We live at a peculiar juncture, one in which the record (an object) and the recombinant (a process) still, however briefly, coexist. But there seems little doubt as to the direction things are going. The recombinant is manifest in forms as diverse as Alan Moore's graphic novel The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, machinima generated with game engines (Quake, Doom, Halo), the whole metastasized library of Dean Scream remixes, genre-warping fan fiction from the universes of Star Trek or Buffy or (more satisfying by far) both at once, the JarJar-less Phantom Edit (sound of an audience voting with its fingers), brand-hybrid athletic shoes, gleefully transgressive logo jumping, and products like Kubrick figures, those Japanese collectibles that slyly masquerade as soulless corporate units yet are rescued from anonymity by the application of a thoughtfully aggressive "custom" paint job.

We seldom legislate new technologies into being. They emerge, and we plunge with them into whatever vortices of change they generate. We legislate after the fact, in a perpetual game of catch-up, as best we can, while our new technologies redefine us - as surely and perhaps as terribly as we've been redefined by broadcast television.

"Who owns the words?" asked a disembodied but very persistent voice throughout much of Burroughs' work. Who does own them now? Who owns the music and the rest of our culture? We do. All of us.

Though not all of us know it - yet.

William Gibson's latest novel is Pattern Recognition.

Posted by lck at 07:36 PM | Comments (0)

July 05, 2005

A hand up, not a hand out

[ed- Wendy believes that helping Third World Countries is a) a process b) an investment for both parties involved c) not necessarily entirely peaceful and d) has to go thru an unavoidable colonialist-like phase. Here the plan goes: - lck]

As long as I can remember we're seen those commercials on TV asking for our money. Money to be sent to nations filled with big eyed starving children. Desolation via the airwaves, pleading for our help. In 2004 the US gave $1, 835 million in foreign aid to developing countries. . But will giving money help no matter how well apportioned?

Look at Table 1 mid way down the page here - here, you see the aid sent to 13 countries over a time period spanning from 1971 to 1994. For 13 countries, $3, 261,500,000 over 23 years. That is an awful lot of band aids and bowls of gruel and quite a retirement plan the despot leaders have racked up (see: Arafat). The children are still dying and now not only from starvation but from genocide and AIDs. Will simply giving these governments more money actually achieve anything or will they be back with their hands out next year?

Though a government in itself is not a profit organization, that is what it would take in this situation. Your people are dying and being massacred, you have your personal coffers stuffed to the brim and have decided it's time to hit the road. Instead of capitulating to your opponent, turn the country over to The Plan. Note: this is approved by present governing body before going into exile. This is not an "Iraq", this is not an "occupation" but may well be thought of as a "temporary colonialism with major perks". This is not a "genocide", this is not "slavery". This is business. With each side holding up it's end, it will work, in a perfect world, it would work, strike that, in a perfect world this wouldn't even be necessary.

The Plan: A blanket approach.

Countries XY & Z have more people than they know what to do with. Afflicted and starving. Countries AB & C have their share of afflicted and not quite starving but sure, they have hungry, homeless and people requiring medical aid but gee wiz, no money to make it happen, they are sending it to countries XY & Z. Yet, there are citizens of countries AB & C want said countries to provide the basic necessities of life: food, clothing & shelter to the populations of countries XY & Z. For free. Because AB & C "has more" than XY & Z.

Looking at history, before the revisionists change it, that is, we can see that Socialism has never worked. And it never will. Why would countries AB & C want to participate in a global form of it if it is proven to fail? So much money, you and I both know it's all about the money to be given to theocratic thugs with countless Swiss bank accounts? Investing in the retirement funds of said leaders (of their wives and children see: Arafat), is it really necessary? I don't think so. Why do it for free? We see it doesn't get anybody anywhere. Kids still die. Bad guys still kill everybody. The despots get wealthier.

But let's not discount this helping out thing altogether. Turning over control for said services is a possibility.

XY & Z and AB & C will enter into agreement. This is not "occupying" , look at it more as a very large national contract.

Government: Immediate deposing of current administration (that means all of 'em, remember they have already agreed to get out, this isn't over throwing anybody). Complete control of military implementing a COC with officers from AB & C. Secure all borders & infrastructure. Eradicate any and all roving bands of bad guys , face it, there are always assholes who don't like change. Implement constitution with a clearly defined separation of church and state (no subset of laws for persons of specific affiliations), granting freedom, equal rights and suffrage. Ethnic groups are not given "special rights", every person is treated as an individual. The UN, Geneva Convention and World Courts have absolutely no jurisdiction here, The Plan does, without security, both of borders and internal the rest of the plan will be null and void. Immediate utilization of existing military (and military/logistical support from AB & C for immediate distribution of relief (food, water & medical) and temporary housing.

Resources: R & D in country to survey all resources available. Best way to cleanly utilize said resources to be determined within a month. Local labor to be utilized to cull resources at the same time implementing renewal programs where applicable. All done while observing clean air/anti-pollution policies from the outset. Immediate improvements to infrastructure and communications systems. No use having resources that can not be utilized. Clearing of arable land for crops. Which segues into industry.

Industry: Export resources at fair market value. Do not accept pressure from related external cartels. First quarter profits being rolled back into the country's development, defence/security, infrastructure and educational foundations. As second quarter picks up, additional funds to permanent housing, local schools and dividends to countries AB & C to pay for the initial outlay. Successive quarterly profits to be dispersed similarly and into new sectors as needed.

Food: instead of pressure on the AB & C to subsidize their farmers so they could import genetically engineered food/grains from XY & Z. Instead, eet up XY & Z to grow the food for their own starving masses. Excesses to be exported m XY & Z to neighboring countries. Let AB & C feed their own, let their farmers go back to work. Where freshwater is not abundant set up aqueducts leading in from coastline. Major desalinization and solar power projects starting second quarter after infrastructures have been rendered efficient.

Medical: Immediate relief dispersal via military at outset. Construction of permanent clinics in country interiors with construction of fully equipped medical facilities to begin in second quarter. Medical students in capital to be sent to universities in AB & C to complete their education with the agreement that they return to XY & Z to serve the population. Interim: trained medical professionals to be sent from AB & C to XY & Z for the duration of Stabilization. Implement a population control method like that of G, birth control, vasectomies and education. Make the spread of AIDS a capital offense. Ease the suffering of those already infected, further education.

Education: Second quarter initialize program ensuring every area has primary education available to all including all applicable technology. Education students as with medical students, to be sent to AB & C to complete training.

Security: Zero tolerance for interference of neighboring countries wether it be a government operation or one simply originating from there. Zero tolerance for terrorism.

Once stabilization is achieved, further projects - specialized education, cultural (music & arts), wildlife and tourism, further investment and countless others to be picked up.

Control of country and resources to remain under AB & C for pre-defined time period (15 - 20 years). During that time XY & Z will have developed into a fully self-sufficient country with profitable exports. Able to provide food, shelter, medical and jobs for the population. Two years before final pull out of XY & Z elections will be held for government offices at national, state and local levels. Population of XY & Z will not hold citizenship of AB & C. Investors can opt to stay in XY & Z or accept buy out from newly formed government of XY & Z. Once pullout is complete, AB & C will have no further obligations to XY & Z nor remaining citizens or investors.

Just think. LoveMeBecauseICareConcerts will no longer be needed.

Looks easy on paper. Does it not.

Posted by zib at 06:15 PM | Comments (1)

July 03, 2005

Oil Wars

Let's Stay Out Of This Fight

It's an incendiary mixture: China and oil. But Washington should stay out of the battle between Chevron and CNOOC for Unocal.

ROBERT J. SAMUELSON for Newsweek Business
July 11th, 2005

We cannot decide whether china is a threat or an opportunity, and until we do, every discussion of our relations seems to slide into confusion and acrimony. The latest example is the noisy controversy over the bid by CNOOC (the China National Offshore Oil Corp.) to buy the American oil company Unocal. There are some real issues here, but they're lost amid all the political clamor. We're being told (to cite one congressional resolution) that CNOOC's victory might "impair the national security" by jeopardizing "critical energy production capacity." The alarms sound plausible but are actually over the top.

Start with the basics. On April 4, directors of Unocal (2004 revenues: $8.2 billion) accepted an offer to be bought by Chevron (revenues: $151 billion). On June 22, CNOOC (revenues: $6.7 billion) made a counteroffer. Chevron's bid, consisting of 25 percent cash and 75 percent Chevron stock, is valued at roughly $16.5 billion; CNOOC's offer is $18.5 billion, all cash, financed partly by low-interest-rate loans from its state-owned parent company. Unocal shareholders are scheduled to vote on the Chevron proposal Aug. 10.

Even if CNOOC wins, there's no danger that much U.S. oil production would be siphoned off to China. Unocal's American production is tiny (57,000 barrels a day out of the total U.S. output of about 7.3 million barrels), and CNOOC pledges to keep it here. Nor is the United States being overwhelmed by Chinese investment. True, there have recently been some big transactions: the Chinese computer maker Lenovo's purchase of IBM's personal-computer business, and a proposal to buy Maytag by a consortium of the Haier Group, China's largest appliance maker, and several U.S. buyout firms. But China's overall presence is modest. In 2004, Chinese firms accounted for only $490 million of U.S. direct investment out of the total foreign direct investment of $1.5 trillion (that's foreign ownership of U.S. firms, factories and real estate). Meanwhile, U.S. multinationals have $2.1 trillion of foreign investment, including $15 billion in China.

Although President Bush could reject CNOOC's acquisition of Unocal on national-security grounds, it's hard to see a strong justification. "There's no national-security issue here—zero," says energy economist Philip Verleger. "Unocal doesn't have technology that needs to be kept secret."

Of course, oil could divide China and America. We may someday be competing for scarce supplies. After the United States and Japan, China is the world's third largest oil importer. Its demand could grow 60 percent by 2020, says the International Energy Agency. All that extra demand would probably have to be satisfied by imports. China's oil policy differs from America's, says Richard D'Amato, chairman of the congressionally created U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission. China wants to guarantee its future crude supplies through long-term contracts. American policy is for oil to go to the world market and be available to everyone. "If they continue demanding control of oil at the wellhead, it's a train wreck [for everyone] in the next 10 to 15 years," he says.

Maybe. But China faces huge obstacles, the largest being the opposition of oil-producing countries. "They want to be able to sell to all customers," says Verleger. China has secured some exclusive agreements, reports energy analyst Greg Priddy. In Sudan, a Chinese oil company is producing about 150,000 barrels a day. In Iran, China signed a contract to develop a field that might yield 300,000 barrels a day. Still, these amounts are small against the world's demand of 85 million barrels a day or China's demand of 7 million barrels a day.

Interestingly, however, CNOOC's bid for Unocal wouldn't much advance China's quest for secure energy supplies. CNOOC says it simply wants to expand its business. So it seems. Unocal's appeal is that it has large natural-gas and oil reserves in Asia; but most of the resulting production wouldn't go to China. Natural gas in Thailand and Bangladesh is contractually committed to local markets. Oil produced in the Caspian Sea by a consortium of 10 companies flows toward Europe by pipeline. After liquefaction, Indonesian natural gas might go China. So? The world has ample gas supplies. If Chevron wins, the gas might end up in the same place.

We shouldn't see demons where they aren't. This is mostly standard corporate combat: two suitors want the same trophy. Chevron is probably the favorite. CNOOC's advantage lies in its subsidized loans. But Chevron is bigger and can stir anti-Chinese political fervor. Let them fight it out—without Washington's interference.

How America and China construct their relations is one of today's great projects. We have many real issues with China: the undervalued yuan; possible military conflicts, notably over Taiwan; the nuclear status of North Korea; the potential economically destabilizing effects of huge trade imbalances (China's surpluses and America's deficits); China's compliance with global trade rules. We must defend our interests, but if we reflexively treat the Chinese as a threat, we will answer our own question: they will become a threat.

© 2005 Newsweek, Inc.

Posted by lck at 09:40 AM | Comments (0)

June 19, 2005

I have a tiny little soul... growing

Bossi is back from his convalescence, good for him, and ready to play Braveheart once again.
If you can read Italian this is a good read...

Fallita una sottoscrizione tra i militanti, il terreno è finito alla Popolare di Lodi

di FILIPPO CECCARELLI

QUANTO costa il sacro? Quanti euro? Quanta fede?
Con qualche azzardata inventiva, si può perfino ammettere che il pratone di Pontida sia, per quanti vogliano crederci, sacro. La parola è impegnativa, ma i leghisti che qui, per la diciannovesima volta, si ritrovano oggi a giurare fedeltà al Bossi risanato e alla Padania, non si sono mai fatti troppi scrupoli dall'invocare un che di religioso, d'inviolabile e mirabolante su quei 20 mila quadrati: "il sacro suolo della libertà" si trova scritto nella pubblicistica padana, "Pontida è la culla della nostra storia", "è nostra madre", "uno spazio magico" e così via.

Il cerimoniale quest'anno appare ancora più ricco di risonanze simboliche e televisive. Così, oltre allo sventolio di una bandiera monstre, sulla venerabile radura è prevista l'elevazione di un cumulo di pietre. Ogni leghista recherà la sua e l'alta massa minerale, alla fine, dovrebbe riassumere lo sforzo ritmico e concentrato d'innumerevoli cammini.

Questa dei sacri sassi non è del tutto nuova. O almeno: alcuni frammenti di roccia furono prelevati sul Monviso nel settembre 1999, ai tempi della fase pagana della Lega, e poi nascosti alle telecamere per timore che facessero cortocircuito visivo con i sassi che proprio allora venivano tirati dai cavalcavia. Ora, Giuseppe Leoni, che è molto cattolico, ha spiegato che l'idea del mucchio di pietre s'ispira a quello cui i pellegrini hanno dato vita fuori dal santuario di Santiago de Compostela. E insomma, vista la santità di Santiago, del giuramento, della madre Padania, delle rocce e di tutto il resto, compresa l'indimenticabile ampolla, ecco, non sembrerà troppo strano che già nel 1998 la Lega decise di comprarsi il benedetto pratone di Pontida.

"Compriamoci Pontida" fu lo slogan. Vennero quindi emessi dei Btp, Buoni Terreno Pontida, da 20-50-200 mila lire per tre distinte pezzature del terreno. Superbo imbonitore, il gran capo: "Ohé - gridò Bossi dal palco - mentre io sto qui a parlare, questi mi si comprano tutte le quote del terreno e non me ne lasciano nemmeno uno spicchio! Tenetemene via sei - ordinò - per mia moglie e per ognuno dei miei figli!". Ed ebbe i lotti dal 496 al 501.

L'operazione politico-finanziaria venne affidata nelle mani di Calderoli. Agli acquirenti delle zolle venne consegnata una pergamena: "Ogni padano potrà raccontare ai nipoti non solo di esserci stato - proclamò l'ineffabile ministro nella cerimonia di consegna - ma anche di aver contribuito a conservare per sempre un sacro luogo di libertà". In tutto, nell'arco di un paio d'anni, furono venduti Btp per 500 milioni. Ma la Lega si era impegnata per 2 miliardi e 750 milioni più Iva. E qui, come già s'intuisce, le cose cominciano a complicarsi.

Perché dei leghisti tutto si può dire meno che siano portati per gli affari. Ogni volta che hanno chiesto soldi per investimenti politici, comunque e regolarmente questi soldi finiscono per incontrare un sacco di difficoltà e disavventure, non di rado creando impicci non sai bene se più buffi o crudeli, considerata la buona fede dei militanti. E' probabile che non sia cattiveria, ma ingenuità e pressapochismo. Ci hanno provato con le cooperative del made in Padania (liquidate in perdita); poi riprovato con le sale del Bingo (chiuse con ignominia); quindi con i villaggi turistici in Croazia (falliti, con grane giudiziarie).

Il capolavoro dello spirito imprenditoriale leghista resta comunque la banca padana, battezzata Credieuronord, lanciata "per liberarci del giogo romano" proprio in contemporanea con i Btp del prato di Pontida. Nella vicenda Credieuronord la voragine è stata anche più seria, e 2.500 risparmiatori padanisti sono rimasti con un palmo di naso, tanto che mesi orsono è dovuta intervenire in soccorso la Banca Popolare di Lodi.

Nel frattempo, ancorché ipotecato alla banca di Fiorani, il pratone ha continuato a ospitare comizi, feste celtiche e perfino sposali tra militanti, reclamizzati sulla Padania con lo slogan "Un giuramento d'amore". Nel 2000 furono emesse e distribuite sul sacro suolo di Pontida delle banconote celebrative, coloratissime e con il volto di Bossi. In verità, anche una stele avrebbe dovuto ricordare, incisi su pietra, i nomi dei singoli sottoscrittori. Poi più modestamente si è parlato di un cartellone. Ora siamo agli anonimi sassi sostitutivi. E al debito da onorare.

Ma il punto vero, al di là delle valutazioni contabili, è che il delicatissimo rapporto fra devozione e denaro va spesso a parare là dove si confrontano fede e credulità. Lo insegnano vecchie favole: "E il campo dei miracoli dov'è?" domandò Pinocchio. "E' qui a due passi". Detto fatto traversarono la città e, usciti fuori dalle mura, si fermarono in un campo solitario che, su per giù, somigliava a tutti gli altri campi.

Ma la "pratoneide padana" non è ancora finita perché nel 2002 l'amministrazione centrista di Pontida stabilì che proprio lì, nel sacro recinto ai cui margini s'erano intanto sistemati un supermercato e delle villette, doveva passare una strada. "Oltraggio!" si ribellò allora l'iperbolico Calderoli, scagliando contro la sindachessa Donadoni tanto di giacobini, Stalin e talebani: "Sarebbe come costruire in piazza del Duomo abbattendo la cattedrale". Si bloccò dunque la variante del piano regolatore che però rendeva il terreno edificabile aumentandone di gran lunga il valore.

L'anno scorso, con il sindaco Vanalli, la Lega ha riconquistato Pontida: e quindi nessuna strada minaccia più, in teoria, l'inviolabilità e l'inedificabilità del pratone. Il guaio è che in pratica questo vale molto di meno, mentre il debito con la banca rischia di costare molto di più.

FILIPPO CECCARELLI Copyright la Repubblica 19/6/2005

Posted by lck at 11:29 AM | Comments (0)

June 12, 2005

Prepare for the coming MacTel revolution

This past week at Apple Computer’s World Wide Developer’s Conference, CEO Steve Jobs dropped a bomb in his keynote address that stunned the crowd and Apple users around the world: Apple would begin incorporating Intel x86 chips into its computers beginning next year.

Prepare for the coming MacTel revolution

By MICHAEL FRALEY

On the Web, the discussion boards have been fierce, as some lifelong Apple devotees are swearing that they’re going to jump ship, and other lovers of all things Apple are trying to calm down their buddies, chastising them for getting overworked about something that’s no big deal.

To someone standing on the outside looking in at the cult of Apple, you can wonder what the fuss is all about. Apple is leaving behind its past commitments to Motorola and IBM chips. So what? Intel is the leading microprocessor manufacturer on the planet, right? Perhaps this all makes sense.

To the devotee, this is Apple being seduced by the dark side of the Force, and Emperor Jobs isn’t making it any easier.

In the short term, this probably means that Apple’s G5 machines are going to be viewed as the “lame ducks” of the computer world. After all, who’s going to invest in a new computer that contains technology headed for certain extinction within a year or two? Apple can promise support for their old technology all they want, some people are just not going to be convinced. As a result, I’m going to go with the common wisdom and predict a slump in sales until the new Mac OS 10.5 Leopard machines with the Pentium M chip come out.

This is a decision that has been years in the making, and Jobs has admitted that in Apple’s labs, OS X machines have been running with Intel chips from the very beginning. This actually surprised me until I put it together with another piece of information I’ve long known: the underpinning of OS X is Unix. Unix is strong, stable, has been around since the late 1960’s, and has spawned variants/copycats such as Linux and FreeBSD. As Lawrence Charters wrote in a 2002 Washington Apple Pi Journal (www.wap.org) article, Apple has decided to give its customers a combination of something old (Unix), something new (the emerging desktop and notebook technologies) and something comfortably familiar (an OS that kinda-sorta looks like OS 9.2). Adding an Intel chip to something that is already an eclectic blend shouldn’t be a surprise at all.

And yet it is a surprise. According to Anandtech (www.anandtech.com), AMD chips already outgun Intel’s. Some have said that simply because Apple is promoting Intel, we shouldn’t assume that the same machines couldn’t run an AMD chip. True, but as Anandtech tells us in its report on the Apple trade show, “driver support for AMD platforms may not necessarily be there.”

A Mac with an Intel chip will finally be able to have the Windows OS installed on it. However, from what I understand, precautions will be taken to make sure that the Mac OS can’t be installed on a Windows box. However, knowing how wireheads love a challenge, it may be inevitable.

In the end, lovers of the Apple Macintosh will have a tough decision to make. From a philosophical standpoint, just what IS a Mac? It isn’t the chip, which will be from Intel — and which in the past has been provided by Motorola or IBM anyway. It won’t exactly be the OS, which is built on top of Unix. The motherboard will be Apple technology — but does a motherboard alone make a computer an alternative to the other machines sold in stores across the country? Is that what we’re left with — an image, an entire culture, wrapped around a motherboard?

All right, perhaps that last sentence was a bit overdramatic. Still, it’s worth thinking about. When the vital parts and even a good chunk of the OS is strung together from the same sources many other manufacturers use, what makes a Mac “alternative”? Are the Apple hardware and software developers more like good cooks who can take common ingredients and work their own magic with them?

Apple has the opportunity to gain in many ways from this alliance, but what it has lost — its distinctiveness — may be a difficult thing to recapture.

Posted by lck at 09:22 PM | Comments (0)

May 23, 2005

60secondstory

Hey

our 60 SecondsStory (but not quite 60 seconds and Narrator "invisible" :-), as it edges the rules) post.

QT Streaming, click-the-pic

That's enough for "friendly competition?" Now, if we had only read the rules in the first place!
Who's sleeping here???

Posted by lck at 12:45 AM | Comments (0)