Yes, please, Intarwebs—tell me more about how Steve Jobs will rock the world tomorrow!

Unable to resist the hype, I predict the Turtlenecked Overlord will announce one or more of the following STUNNING INNOVATIONS:

1. an INCREDIBLE new Mac laptop made of diamonds and powered by the solar winds;
2. an AMAZING new Apple service that allows me to stream music to ANY DEVICE for only 0.99;
3. a BREAKTHROUGH new technology developed by Apple that allows information to be stored on a spinning disk via magnetized particles.

PLACE YOUR BETS NOW!!!

Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell gave an interview to the New Yorker. Being terrorist-loving, freedom-hating hippies, they asked him about waterboarding.

“Waterboarding would be excruciating,” the US director of national security, in overall charge of intelligence, said in the interview in the New Yorker magazine, speaking of the simulated drowning technique that many regard as torture.

“If I had water draining into my nose, oh God, I just can’t imagine how painful! Whether it’s torture by anybody else’s definition, for me it would be torture,” he said.

When asked to define torture, McConnell replied: “My own definition of torture is something that would cause excruciating pain.”

Let’s see… if waterboarding = excruciating, and exruciating = torture, that would lead to the conclusion that waterboarding = torture.

However, in the same interview, McConnell says “We don’t torture.”

Mm-hmm.

Given that I am so busy burning flags and spitting on the Bible, it is understandable that I might, like many of my communist brethren, mistakenly think that McConnell had basically just admitted that his superiors, up to and including the President, had authorized the CIA to engage in illegal behavior.

Don’t be fooled! He didn’t say waterboarding is torture, he said that for him, it would be torture. See? It all depends on what the meaning of the word “is” is. And besides, he never actually says that the CIA used waterboarding, just “‘special methods’ of interrogation.”

The second installment of Bill Kristol’s NYT op-ed column is even more predictable than the first, being a routine right-wing “Democrats want the U.S. to fail in Iraq” broadside, this time targeted at Barack Obama.

What is extraordinary, however, is this addendum to the column:

In last week’s column, I mistakenly attributed a quotation from Michael Medved to Michelle Malkin. I regret the error.

STOP THE PRESSES!

Was that an acknowledgement of error from Bill Kristol? As far as I know, that would be first time ever that he as admitted being wrong. Sadly, it’s not in regards to any of his wildly off-the-mark predictions of immediate and fabulous success for the invasion of Iraq.

There’s a post on Slashdot this morning pointing to a Digifreedom.net article (which appears to have been slashdotted) about promoting open-source software to people outside of the open-source community. As quoted in the Slashdot post,

Since most people would rather die than write or study software source code, it is actually counterproductive to promote software ‘because you can modify it yourself and be part of its community’. Look for really practical advantages which can be enjoyed every day by the person you want to convince. Start from the actual deep passions, beliefs, interests and practical needs of the people in front of you and go backwards from there, delaying the apparition of terms like ‘source code’, ‘the four software freedoms’, GPL, Gnu, Linux, etc.

This topic was brought to my attention recently while talking to a co-worker. As usual, I was going on about something I thought was cool about Linux. At some point, my co-worker says, “Yeah, that’s pretty cool, but why would I want to switch away from XP?”

Problem is, I don’t have a good answer to that question.

Most people who use proprietary, closed-source software pay no noticeable cost. They buy a computer from Dell or Apple, so the operating system is included in the purchase price. Often, so is the cost of software suites such as Microsoft Office.

In the case of the co-worker I was talking to, his laptop is supplied by the company we work for. As a result, he’s got Microsoft Office Professional and Adobe Creative Suite 3 at no cost, even though these two software packages retail for $500 and $1200, respectively.

Since the OS and software comes pre-installed, very few users ever have to go through the hassle of installing this stuff from scratch.

Consequently, closed-source proprietary software seems cheap and easy to deal with, and open-source becomes an extremely hard sell. In my own use of Linux, I brush off issues like video and wireless driver problems, funny rendering and slow performance in OpenOffice.org, and the hoop-jumping required to view streaming video and audio. I know the work-arounds, and I consider these inconveniences to be a worthwhile trade-off for the vast amount of software available for zero cost and the cool stuff that it will do. However, I have already drunk the Kool-Aid.

Honestly, the biggest selling point I have run across is eye-candy like 3-D desktop compositing. After installing Compiz-Fusion on my laptop, I was sitting in a meeting taking notes on my laptop. “Wow,” says someone leaning over my shoulder, “is that Vista?” I explained that no, this was Linux, and we then spent the next ten minutes going through all the 3-D flipping windows, desktop cubes, water/fire effects, and other visual whiz-bang that puts Vista and OS X’s half-ass desktop compositing implementations to shame.

As much as I hate to admit it, this is the sort of thing Linux and open-source software in general needs if it is to win more users. It needs something up-front and obvious that people will point to and say “That’s awesome. How do I get that?”

In an article relegated to the Times’ “Fashion & Style” section, reporter Alex Williams describes the recent pop-culture resurrection of 80′s action heroes. Focusing on Hulk Hogan, Chuck Norris, and Sylvester Stallone, Williams writes,

The leading action symbols of the Reagan era — with all their excess, jingoism and good vs. evil bombast — have returned, as outsize and obvious as they were in the decade of stonewash. Yet as stars of prime-time hits and feature films (not to mention Republican mascots), these actors are still as ripped and imposing as they were 20 years ago, and they continue to carry an undeniable authority with fans old and new.

Indeed, at a time when the country is faced with a new tangle of problems, the return of the ’80s action hero suggests that some Americans, particularly men, are looking to revel in the vestigial pleasures of older times and seemingly simpler ways. (Witness the popularity of the best-selling “Dangerous Book for Boys,” a celebration of the traditional rugged joys of boyhood.)

How dreadfully depressing.

The article refrains from passing judgement on the sort of Americans who would look to a collection of action-figure has-beens with a collective age of 183 to defend them from scary terrorists and skyrocketing mortgage payments.

Let’s keep in mind, though, that this same crowd has collectively spent the last seven years:

• Swooning over our man’s man President decked out in a stuffed-crotch flight suit;
• Getting giddy over the chiselled charm of the Secretary of Defense; and
• Contemplating the sexiness of presidential hopeful Fred “I Could Drop Dead Any Moment” Thompson

I’m certainly not the first person to point out that this sort of adolescent fantasy hero-worship, when extrapolated to the political sphere, leads to bad places. Hopefully, this latests resurgence is the last tired gasp of a demographic group that’s getting as far down the road to retirement as its idols.

The news has been all a-twitter for the last few days about an alleged incident in the Persian Gulf involving several Iranian speedboats and the U.S. Navy. Among those eager to invade yet another Middle Eastern nation for no good reason (such as the President), the incident has been used as a jumping-off point to talk a lot of trash.

Today, during a Pentagon briefing by Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Michael Mullen, we got this trenchant bit of analysis:

And while, thankfully, no shot needed to be fired, there’s no doubt in my mind that shots would have been fired had the situation demanded it.

I’m not sure Admiral Mullen could have come up with a statement more devoid of meaning had he tried. Who know? Maybe he was trying.

To muddy the waters even further, it’s not even clear that the video being trumpeted by the bomb-Iran crowd as proof of Iranian aggression is even legitimate.

In the latest installment of his “Security Matters” column at Wired.com, security expert Bruce Schneier bucks conventional wisdom and advocates running an unsecured wireless home network:

To me, it’s basic politeness. Providing internet access to guests is kind of like providing heat and electricity, or a hot cup of tea. But to some observers, it’s both wrong and dangerous.

I’m told that uninvited strangers may sit in their cars in front of my house, and use my network to send spam, eavesdrop on my passwords, and upload and download everything from pirated movies to child pornography. As a result, I risk all sorts of bad things happening to me, from seeing my IP address blacklisted to having the police crash through my door.

While this is technically true, I don’t think it’s much of a risk. I can count five open wireless networks in coffee shops within a mile of my house, and any potential spammer is far more likely to sit in a warm room with a cup of coffee and a scone than in a cold car outside my house. And yes, if someone did commit a crime using my network the police might visit, but what better defense is there than the fact that I have an open wireless network? If I enabled wireless security on my network and someone hacked it, I would have a far harder time proving my innocence.

Perhaps Schneier is just looking to play the contrarian, but this strikes me as being one the worst ideas I’ve heard in quite a while. Worse still, it comes under the guise of advice from a well-publicized commentator on security issues.

Schneier’s argument essentially boils down to “I do it, and nothing bad has happened to me.” I count this reasoning as being in the same category as “I never wear a seatbelt, and you don’t see me getting thrown through my windshield.” On top of that, his justification for the risk of something bad being low goes something like this: “I want to do something foolish. The rest of you should do the same foolish thing so that the risk of something bad happening to me is lower.”

Sure, I’d like to have pervasive, free wifi available too, but encouraging people to drop the security on their access points seems like an exceptionally bad way of going about achieving that end.

On the very day that I post about their ridiculous MusicPass plan for DRM-free MP3 offerings, Sony takes my advice:

SAN FRANCISCO — Sony BMG, the music company, announced Thursday that it would become the fourth and final major label to begin selling digital music on Amazon.com, offering its entire catalog in the MP3 format by the end of the month.

There is still the issue of Amazon’s retarded MP3 Downloader, but if a company the size of Sony is listening to me (which, clearly, they are), Amazon can’t be far behind. Right?

There was a lot of talk last week about the news that Sony was going to be selling MP3′s without DRM. The reason for all the hubbub was that, as previously mentioned, Sony was the last hold-out among the major record labels, with EMI, Universal, and Warner having already decided to abandon digital rights management.

The celebration may have been a bit premature. This week, we find out that Sony has come up with a rather convoluted scheme for its DRM-free downloads:

On Monday, for example, Sony BMG announced it will release a mishmash of 37 albums in the unrestricted MP3 format, confirming last week’s report that the label would ditch DRM. Under Sony’s new plan, consumers would purchase a credit-card-like ticket from Best Buy, Target, Fred’s, Winn-Dixie or other outlets. The cards will have a number that must be entered into the MusicPass site, where the full album can be downloaded.

“The MP3 files delivered through MusicPass play on computers, as well as on all MP3 players, including iPods,” said Thomas Hesse, a Sony BMG sales president. “This makes them a simple, easy-to-use solution that will appeal to fans who already access their music on the internet, as well as to consumers who are just getting into the digital realm.”

Wow, that’s awesome. Next time I’m over at the Winn-Dixie, I’m definitely gonna pick me up one of those, because with (COUNT ‘EM!) thirty-seven records to choose from, I’m sure to find something I like, right?

Nice work, Sony.

This is idiotic. The entire point of downloadable, DRM-free music is choice and availability. Customers are not limited by the selection at their local music store, or by physical media, or by the device on which they can play the music which they have purchased. With the exception of DRM (which I’ll admit is at least a step in the right direction), this Platinum MusicPass plan by Sony completely misses the boat on nearly every count.

This latest ploy is yet another attempt by a traditional distribution company to preserve its profit margins in the face of a radically changing market. I’m not a “Information wants to be free!” believer—artists deserve to be compensated for their work. That said, billion-dollar profits based on the sale of a limited supply of $20 plastic discs are a thing of the past.

Thus, we get absurd attempts such as this one to force customers through a convoluted and artificial mechanism. There will undoubtedly be some people who shuffle off to their local BestBuy and pay for the card. At least when they download the music, they’ll be able to move it from one device to another and burn it to CD without restrictions, assuming, that is, that Sony can be trusted when they say the files are DRM-free. Given their history, the jury’s still out on that one.

Regardless, it’s unlikely that this experiment will be much of a success.

This is the sort of thing one can expect when George W. Bush has been allowed to pack the Court with right-wing sycophants:

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court appeared ready Wednesday to uphold the nation’s strictest requirement that voters show photo identification before casting a ballot.

The justices are faced with a partisan dispute that echoes the bitterly divided decision that sealed the 2000 presidential election for George W. Bush. Now, as then, the court seemed divided along ideological lines.

Wednesday’s arguments were over a challenge to an Indiana law, passed in 2005, that is backed by Republicans as a prudent way to deter voter fraud. Democrats and civil rights groups oppose the law as unconstitutional and call it a thinly veiled effort to discourage elderly, poor and minority voters — those most likely to lack proper ID and who tend to vote for Democrats.

Mind you, it has been demonstrated over and over that the supposed voter fraud claimed by supporters of this sort of legislation does not exist. It makes zero sense that people could be convinced to engage in polling-place voter fraud in numbers sufficient to actually affect the outcome of elections, and multiple studies have shown that indeed, it’s not happening.

Nonetheless, Republicans (ironically) continue to raise the spectre of democracy subverted. Besides, they say, if it’s not hurting anyone, doesn’t it make sense to have in place the safeguard of rigid identification requirements for voting?

Let’s leave aside for the moment the fact that opponents of the Indiana law have demonstrated the existence of people denied their right to vote by this legislation. Simply stating “Well, it’s not hurting anyone” is the equivalent of the “If you don’t have anything to hide, what are you worried about?” argument.

If the conservatives on the Court had any integrity, they would oppose the baseless government overreaching represented by this legislation. However, given that “preventing voter fraud” is Republican code for “disenfranchising African Americans, the poor, and the elderly,” it’s more likely they will loyally follow the party line.