|  |  | 
         
          | 
 |   
          |  August 
              31, 2007: The Digital Household License
In the wake of releasing my 
              first ebook on Lulu yesterday, I've been thinking a lot about 
              what sort of license I will be using to issue future titles. To 
              get some perspective I've gone back to thinking about how print 
              books are used, and how people are likely to want to store and manage 
              their ebooks, once ebooks become a commonplace. (They're still very 
              much a geek thing, really.) One insight I had was this: Books drift around the house. 
              While I was growing up I read my dad's books. My sister read mine. 
              I read hers. Carol and I have never made any attempt to keep our 
              libraries separatethough when you happen upon a book on orthopedic 
              rehabilitation here, it's a good guess that Carol bought it and 
              that I haven't read it. There are piles of books in odd places. 
              This is the norm in households where readers live. Ebooks will drift too. Geek households now have five or six computers, 
              a couple of PDAs, a few smart phones, and here and there one of 
              the fledgling ebook readers. Cheap Wi-Fi will allow files to wander 
              among all of those devices, and wander they will. Big Media is all 
              lathered up about that, but my reading of Fair Use tells me that 
              it's not actionable, admitting up front that case law is still catching 
              up with home networking and will be for years to come. But hey, ebook drift is a good thing. You want other people to 
              discover your stuff, and the influence of family is strong. So I 
              created a prototype license modeled on the way books drift around 
              the house: The Digital Household License. The gist of the license 
              is that an ebook may be freely copied among all digital devices 
              based under the same roof. It'll happen anyway, there's some upside 
              to it, and attempting to rigidly enforce a "one device, one 
              sale" interpretation of copyright within a household will only 
              incite fury and make enemies. Here's the relevant text from the readme file in "Whale Meat":  
              By purchasing this 
                file you have acquired rights to its contents under the Copperwood 
                Press Digital Household License. This license allows you to freely 
                copy the file or files to any digital devices based in your household. 
                This would include computers, PDAs, smart phones, ebook readers, 
                audio/video players, or whatever other digital devices you may 
                have in your home with the power to render the licensed files. 
                 In simpler terms, this 
                means that you may send the files across your home network, back 
                them up, or share them with your spouse, your children, your parents 
                or grandparents, as long as they live under the same roof with 
                you. It does not mean that you cannot take the files out of your 
                house, as long as the files are stored on devices that "live" 
                in your household and are considered based there.  What we ask that you 
                **not** do is share these files with people who do not live in 
                your household. If you wish to anthologize the work or distribute 
                it as part of an educational course, please contact Copperwood 
                Press. Licenses are available very inexpensively for these purposes. 
                 This license does not 
                expire, and is not limited to the file formats delivered on purchase. 
                You have the right (which is actually a Fair Use right guaranteed 
                under Federal Law) to convert the files to formats that we either 
                cannot deliver (for example, for exotic ebook readers) or which 
                do not exist at this time.  This license is inheritable. 
                We hope, in fact, that a century from now, someone in your direct 
                line of descent will be reading these files on devices that we 
                cannot yet imagine. I'm still thinking about how to deal with resale, and may just 
              have to trust people on it. Again, being a hardass is pointless. People who know me will not be surprised that I will not, now or 
              ever, include any kind of DRM in my digital publications. The problem 
              small publishers face is not piracy, but being unable to rise out 
              of the noise. Licensing is in many respects the least of our worries, 
              but it's a base we have to cover, and this is how I intend to approach 
              it.   
 |   
          |  August 
              30, 2007: A Story for a Dollar
 I 
              just uploaded a new Lulu project: "Whale Meat," an original 
              fantasy novelette delivered in ebook form. Like most of what I'm 
              doing on Lulu, it's an experiment: A story for a dollar. The deliverable 
              is a ZIP file containing the story in several formats: RTF, TXT, 
              PDF, HTM, and LIT. One of those formats should be readable on just 
              about any device you could name.
 The story itself is living evidence that I didn't take the advice 
              of Harlan Ellison at Clarion back in 1973: Don't keep rewriting 
              it! Write it, proof it, and sell it! Well. I wrote the story 
              while I was still in college in 1974. I've been fooling with it 
              now for 33 years. I gave it to a semiprozine back in 1981, rewrote 
              it again in the late 1980s, another time in the early 1990s, and 
              yet again this past year. I figured it was time to just cut clean 
              and put it where people could get it, and in the process test the 
              viability of the notion of selling short fiction "by the piece" 
              in ebook form rather than in an anthology. For each sale, I get 
              80 cents, and Lulu gets 20 cents. I'm good with that. The story itself is unlike anything I've ever done, and it's really 
              the only fantasy story I've ever written that I would let someone 
              else read. The idea came to me after I failed out of engineering 
              school in 1970 after a single semester. I've always loved math, 
              but I have a terrible time with arithmetic, and especially setting 
              decimal points. So although I was poleaxed by the beauty of calculus, 
              I had a terrible time applying the math to real projects, and understood 
              very quickly that I was not engineer material. That said, I now 
              present you with a 
              calculus fantasy for a dollar.   
 |   
          |  August 
              29, 2007: Botnets and Web 2.0
It's nice, sometimes, to have the big guns like John Dvorak on 
              your side. He 
              doesn't much like the Web 2.0 fetish, as I don't, and never 
              have. His point is one worth meditating on: Microsoft itself, the 
              Big Kahuna, tripped over its own feet recently and lost the use 
              of its WGA system for an entire day, infuriating millions of people 
              and implying that many of them were software pirates when they are 
              not. In this case, the problem was a bug in WGA. However, like all server-side 
              systems, WGA is vulnerable to DDoS attacks. I get twenty or thirty 
              emails linking to some variant of the 
              Storm Worm every day, and they are getting cleverer all the 
              time. The botnets are growing, and virtually nothing is being done 
              about it. It 
              may be the case that nothing can be done about it.  Nobody knows how many bots are out there, and most client-side 
              people don't care, because there's no downside for them personally. 
              The bots are careful not to call attention to themselves, and don't 
              noticeably degrade system performance. More is better here, for 
              both the botmasters and for their feckless PC victims: The more 
              bots you have at your command, the less each individual bot has 
              to do to accomplish the botnet's mission, whatever it may be. Command 
              ten million bots (and if that isn't possible now, it soon will be) 
              and an individual machine only has to send a server request every 
              few seconds for the botnet as a whole to render a server unusable. 
              This looks so much like ordinary user activity that it would be 
              difficult or impossible to spot an individual bot by examining what 
              it requests. If more than one attack is underway at once, a clever 
              botnet could rotate the server target among the individual bots 
              so that it doesn't look like a user is requesting the same server 
              every five seconds. The old botnets were cancers. The new ones are 
              parasites, and becoming gentler and more careful parasites all the 
              time. Future bots could become symbiotes, but that's another discussion, 
              one I hesitate to take up here. (Got some great ideas for a Phil 
              Sydney novel, though, assuming anybody remembers Phil Sydney.)  Microsoft should be glad that there's so much money in spam and 
              penny stock scams. A 2008-class botnet could shut down WGA for as 
              long as the botmasters might desire, for the pure spite of itand 
              still leave plenty of bot bandwidth for pushing penis pills. The 
              same is true of any Web 2.0 site out there, including the biggies 
              like GMail. Nobody's immune, and if there's any master plan for 
              reducing or eliminating the power of botnets, I have yet to see 
              it. So while I use Web 2.0 apps here and there, I've made a conscious 
              decision not to be dependent on them, especially for my paying tasks. 
              They add numerous points of failure to a path that for many years 
              has led from my keyboard and monitor to my hard drive and back. 
              Some things may require a Web 2.0 architecturesocial networking 
              and online collaboration, as my recent research has been telling 
              mebut beyond that, heh: I'll stick with the stuff sitting 
              right here on my own desk, with the CDs on the shelf and spare parts 
              in the closet.   
 |   
          |  August 
              25, 2007: vbDrupal
I support a small, semiprivate phpBB forum that has recently been 
              under attack from user-list spammers, who register bogus users in 
              the hope that search engines will spider user lists and raise the 
              rankings of the Web stes cited in their bogus user profiles, which 
              are almost invariably for porn and pills. I've turned on everything 
              I can to discourage this, but phpBB moronically does not allow you 
              to simply hide unvalidated users, so the craziness continues. And 
              fairly recently, my hosting service disabled PHP exec(), 
              rendering my two instances of the Gallery Web photo album unchangeable 
              and thus useless. (Gallery uses exec() to call an external 
              image processing package.) So I've been sniffing around for alternatives, even if it means 
              leaving my current hosting service for less paranoid pastures. The 
              software doesn't have to be free, though it should not have delusions 
              of "enterprise" pricing, heh. (I've always been willing 
              to pay for software if it does what I want and isn't needlessly 
              paranoid.) This may be an opportunity to (finally!) mount hardsf.com 
              and use it for online SF workshopping, as I've wanted to do for 
              years. What I'm looking for feature-wise is this: 
              An online threaded message board with effective comment and 
                user list spammer control.An online photo album.Collaborative document editing.A download area for documents and other files.Static but fully formattable mini-Web pages allowing users to 
                post bios and promote their work. Built-in group chat for workshops.The ability to make selected forums completely private and invisible 
                to non-members. The group chat can be done otherwise if necessary, but the rest 
              is pretty core to the mission. I'm looking at a lot of different 
              packages, but one that intrigues me is vbDrupal, 
              a melding of the commercial forum package vBulletin 
              (which I have visited and like a lot) and the open source Drupal 
              content management sysyem. My question for this morning is: Has 
              anybody here used either Drupal or vbDrupal, and if so, what do 
              you think? Any other suggestions?   
 |   
          |  August 
              22, 2007: Odd Lots
              The Vista network layer slowdown that's been observed while 
                Vista is playing music may be no more than a change in software 
                priority. See this 
                article. (Thanks to Tim Goss for the pointer.) This leads 
                to the question: Why can't Vista summon the power to both handle 
                the network at full speed and play music at top fidelity? How 
                and where is Vista wasting all those cycles?Here is a 
                marvelous photo-essay on "bubble cars," the tiny 
                little cars that pop up on the scene from time to time (generally 
                in Europe) and then vanish for reasons obscure. The smart car 
                (which e.e. cummings would probably have loved, for its case and 
                its oddness) is the latest to hit our shores, but it's an ancient 
                tradition. Love those three-wheelers!Pertinent to the above, the Dark 
                Toasted Blend site is a surreal collection of the odd and 
                the interesting, perfect for browsing on days when you're feeling 
                under it and can't summon the energy to do anything useful. My 
                current favorite (even more than the bubble car essay, but hey, 
                I'm a book publisher!) is Unusual 
                Books and Book Sculptures.One thing that's gotten pretty high on my priority list to acquire 
                and test is Crossover 
                Linux from Codeweavers, 
                a commercial framework for using Wine 
                to run Windows apps on Linux. Supposedly it runs Visio well, and 
                that's something I just have to see. Always interested in hearing 
                reactions from people who have used it.Most of you have now heard that somebody has done the painfully 
                obvious and created a 
                utility to correlate the IPs of people who are editing Wikipedia 
                anonymously with the organizations that are listed as owning those 
                IPs. All sorts of groups have been caught with their hands 
                in the wiki jar, from the Vatican to the CIA togasp! How 
                could it be?the Democratic Party. From BBC 
                News: "...a computer owned by the US Democratic Party 
                was used to make changes to the site of right-wing talk show host 
                Rush Limbaugh. The changes brand Mr Limbaugh as 'idiotic,' a 'racist', 
                and a 'bigot'. An entry about his audience now reads: 'Most of 
                them are legally retarded.' The IP address is registered in the 
                name of the Democratic National Headquarters." How very 
                mature. So...can we please eliminate Wikipedia anonymity now?   
 |   
          |  August 
              21, 2007: Why Vista?
Slashdot aggregated an 
              item indicating that when you play audio files in Vista, network 
              performance slows down. Nobody's quite sure what's happening, 
              nor (more crucially) whether it's a bugi.e., accidentalor 
              a consequence of a feature. If the latter, the feature is likely 
              to be DRM, and while I don't get frothy over DRM if it doesn't get 
              in my wayI don't for the most part use DRMed contentthis 
              is a case where Vista may well penalize users across the board for 
              the sake of DRM, whether users are accessing DRMed content or not. All the more reason to ask: Why should any of us bother with Vista 
              at all? I spent a couple of hours the other night poking at Vista 
              on my brother-in-law Bill's new laptop. The system seemed sluggish 
              to me, even though it was clearly burning cycles furiously and did 
              its best to cause second-degree burns on my thighs. (Note to self: 
              Don't use modern laptops in your underwear.) The mouse pointer stuttered, 
              as it does on my Tablet PC. I don't recall ever seeing mouse 
              stutter under Windows 2000, which I have used daily now for almost 
              eight years. What's the value-add, then? I saw nothing in the UI that seemed 
              anything other than needlessly different from XP or 2000, and certainly 
              nothing that made the "Vista experience" easier to grasp 
              or accomplish. I've heard the argument that Vista protects stupid 
              users from themselvesmaybe, a littleand while there 
              might be a slim sliver of truth in that, my suspicion is that Vista 
              exists primarily to protect Microsoft, and through them Big Media, 
              from their users. No thanks. That's a war I won't take part in. I've become a little 
              worried about what will be on my next laptopit certainly won't 
              be a Tablet PC, egadbut was heartened recently as a friend 
              received a slightly broken 2 GHz laptop from a neighbor who would 
              otherwise have put it out on the curb. He replaced the keyboard 
              with a spare purchased on eBay, and then nuked XP Home and installed 
              Windows 2000 from a generic boxed copy. All the drivers for the 
              specialized laptop hardware were freely downloadable. Now he has 
              a Win2K laptop, without crapware or DRM booby traps, that runs like 
              lightning and will not turn on him. Given that I use my laptop basically 
              for Web and email access on trips, I don't need state-of-the-art. 
              And that assumes that the state-of-the-art has significantly advanced 
              on MS operating systems since Win2K. I'm not sure it has. Win2K 
              already has symmetric multiprocessor support. Does Vista do it better? 
              Haven't heardand how effectively can our apps take advantage 
              of the four or more cores you can now get in retail machines? MIT 
              recently turned loose a 64-core CPU, expressly to see what software 
              architectures can do with that many cores. (My guess: Without radical 
              re-thinking and complete re-coding, not very much.) As time allows I'm going to get a Ubuntu Feisty Fawn partition 
              on my SX270 lab machine and spend some quality time with it. A lot 
              of Windows software runs under Linux via Wine, 
              and I haven't played with Wine for several years. Time to get back 
              to it. Failing that, Windows 2000 may eventually become a compatibility 
              layer for me, running in a VM so that I can maintain my Visio 2000 
              drawings and my InDesign 2.0 layouts. Vista's most significant feature 
              may be that it isn't necessary. Paths to whatever you need 
              to do on X86 hardware probably exist elsewhere. Keep looking. I 
              intend to.   
 |   
          |  August 
              19, 2007: Cisco's Mutilated Cables

 I installed another pair of Linksys PLE200 Powerline netwoking 
              adapters for Carol's sister a few days ago, and again (as I described 
              in my entries for June 
              2-4, 2007) they worked right out of the box, in spite of the 
              illiterate documentation and the moronically coded management utility. 
              What is worthy of note this time (I overlooked it the first time) 
              is the state of the two CAT5 patch cables included with the ~$200 
              PLK200 
              Powerline networking kit. Basically, they're mutilated. One of the two patch cables is shown above. I hope everybody knows 
              what's wrong here: You can't just hank up a CAT5 cable like it was 
              a power cord and still call it a CAT5 cable with a straight face. 
              Making tight 180° bends in the cable kinks the copper conductors 
              and inserts impedence bumpsthink of them as electron turbulenceat 
              the kinks. This causes packet errors and hugely reduces the 
              continuous bit rate at which the cable can operate. It's worse yet when you consider that the PLE200 unit itself is 
              designed to carry HD video over IP, and it thus asks a lot 
              of its cables. If you intend to move video over your network, you 
              should ideally use the newer, higher-bandwidth CAT5E cables, and 
              keep the radius in any cable bends as broad as possible. I watched 
              the guy who installed CAT5E throughout our house in 2003, and he 
              was an artist: The cables turn gently wherever they turn, at radii 
              that in many cases was 24" or more. (This is much easier 
              to do when you can place cables before the drywall goes up!) I've always liked Linksys gear, but my experiences recently have 
              not been as good as they were three or four years ago. Cisco has 
              since bought Linksys, and it boggles the mind to think that Cisco 
              could be behind the kinds of carelessness I've seen in products 
              I've installed over the last year or so. One hopes it's a coincidenceand 
              next time I may try another vendor.   
 |   
          |  August 
              14, 2007: Wikipedia on Your Hard Drive
I remember hearing a couple of years ago that Wikipedia 
              was available as a downloadable file (!!) and you could put 
              it on your laptop. Got distracted and didn't pursue it, as my three-year-old 
              Thinkpad was getting pretty full and time was (as usual) tight. 
              So this morning I see an 
              article aggregated on Slashdot about how to install Wikipedia locallyand 
              indexing it so you can perform keyword searches. Whoa. I sat back, and let it sink in. There are some reasons not to do thisit takes a fair bit 
              of time, some geeky and not-inconsiderable screwing-with-bits, and 
              you lose the up-to-the-minute changes people are constantly making 
              to the databasebut when you're done, you can take Wikipedia 
              out into the wilderness while you're researching the feeding habits 
              of the lesser northern verkshquemy, and not have to lug a satellite 
              system on your back. The astonishing thing to me was the peripheral fact that all 
              of Wikipedia can be crammed into a 3.9 GB download. Good god, 
              I can put that on 
              a thumb drive. (Ok, there's a catch: You don't get all the pictures. 
              I haven't tried this yet; I'm not really sure if you get any.) You 
              could certainly put it into one of the better ebook readers, and 
              before very much longer, onto a smartphone. I'm pretty much through boggling, but I'm also doubly certain that 
              all this wringing-of-hands over things being "not notable" 
              on Wikipedia is wasted, and mostly bogus. Prior to this morning, 
              I would have guessed that Wikipedia took hundreds of gigabytes or 
              worse. If the whole damned thing can fit on a thumb drive, flame 
              wars about whether accurate material is notable 
              or not notable is ridiculous, another form of fetishism, and 
              probably just a power trip. Basically, throw it all inlet 
              us sort it out.   
 |   
          |  August 
              12, 2007: I Am Not e. e. cummings
I am not e. e. cummings. For a few days in the spring of 1973 I 
              thought I might be, and started writing little poems all in lower 
              case. After I had the good sense to reread the poems, I stopped 
              thinking that I was e. e. cummings. However, LiveJournal, 
              as good as it is, thinks that I am e. e. cummings. Mr. Cummings 
              didn't use capital letters a lot, but he didn't begrudge them to 
              other people who struggled with issues like how to start a sentence 
              about cummings without using a capital C at the beginning of the 
              sentence. So. I do not write poems all in lower case. I am not j. p. duntemann. 
              I am not jeff duntemann. I am certainly not jeff_duntemann. My name 
              is Jeff Duntemann. LiveJournal, however, forbids me to be Jeff Duntemann. 
              It would allow me to be jduntemann, or jpduntemann, or grouchycontrarian. 
              Because I need a good RSS-capable mirror for my primary journal 
              site, I bought a 
              LiveJournal account, and grumbled while begging the system's 
              gracious permission to be jeff_duntemann, which is not my 
              name and makes me look a variable in a bad C program. And that brings me, by the way, to the point of this rant: Hey! 
              You out there! Yeah, you, whoeverthehell wrote the username management 
              code for LiveJournal, you are an inferior programmer! (And I'll 
              bet I know what language you code in.) You are an adolescent, lower-case 
              character fetishist with untreated pimples and an emotional age 
              of about 15. So boy, I'm a-callin' you out. I dare you to 
              stand up here and explain to us grown-ups why there cannot be upper-case 
              characters in a LiveJournal username. Or that much-despised ASCII 
              character 20H, which as a character-of-space ought to sue for discrimination 
              under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. And boy, I don't think you're man (or programmer) (or poet) enough 
              to do it.   
 |   
          |  August 
              10, 2007: Gretchen's Home
Gretchen came home yesterday noonish, looking groggy but not in 
              terrible discomfort. We sent her up to bed, where she stayed the 
              rest of the day. She's in much better spirits today, and spent a 
              good part of the afternoon down with us, watching Jeopardy 
              with Bill Leininger and coaxing Katie Beth to behave. Katie has 
              actually been almost unbelievably goodhow many 9-month-olds 
              sleep reliably through the night, from 10:30 PM until 7:30 or 8:00 
              AM the following morning? Carol and I are bemused by the evolution of baby technology, even 
              since the mid-1980s, which was the last time we paid much attention. 
              (It's hard to believe that our nephews are now 22 and 24.) Gretchen 
              has a thing called a "Diaper Genie," which is a very clever 
              gizmo that amounts to a tall, slender wastebasket and a long, long 
              plastic bag that unrolls axially (like a condom, though I hesitate 
              to use the simile) and becomes a sausage skin with dirty diapers 
              acting as sausage stuffing. You pick up the lid, drop a dirty diaper 
              into the bag (pushing it down if necessary), and when you twist 
              the lid it seals the dirty diaper into its own little plastic-bag 
              sausage. Previously added diapers gather at the bottom of the device 
              like a string of fat hot dogs, and are dumped regularly. Katie's 
              bedroom thus does not smell of poopy diapers, and because her bedroom 
              is right next to the guest room, Carol and I are good with that. 
              Really good. Katie's formula bottles are modular and easy to clean, with disposable 
              linings. The formula itself is easy to deal with, with a little 
              measuring scoop in every can. Two scoops powder, four ounces of 
              water, shake well, and you're there. Her toys play synthesized music 
              (classical, at that! She'll know "Carmen" before she can 
              walk!) and her baby monitor works on 2.4 GHz. We can hear freight 
              trains going by a few blocks away on the monitor before we hear 
              them normally. By contrast, I had a tin toy clock that played "Hickory Dockory 
              Dock" when I turned a crank. (There was a rubber belt inside 
              with nubs that plinked against a set of tuned steel fingers, as 
              I discovered when the poor thing fell apart a few years later.) 
              It played equally well if cranked in either direction, which is 
              why I can still hum "Hickory Dockory Dock" backwards 52 
              years after last hearing it. My folks actually did have a baby monitor, 
              which was a 2-tube intercom in a Bakelite cabinet that did not suffer 
              roughhousing very well but survived in my posession (in several 
              pieces) until we moved from Arizona in 2002. But diapers, eek! The 
              less I can recall about dealing with diapers in the Fifties, the 
              better I think I'll like it. (We found the diapers that Carol had 
              worn in the early 1950s in a box in the basement of her mom's house 
              this past spring. Squares of cloth. No tabs. And you had to wash 
              them...) Speaking of mutant sausages, Pete Albrecht sent me a link to the 
              story about 
              the Chicago police ticketing the Oscar Mayer Weinermobile.   
 |   
          |  August 
              8, 2007: If I Had a Billion, Part 5
(Continuing a thread I began in my July 13, 
              2007 entry.) A gratifying number of people who wrote to me indicated 
              that they would fund research, in a lot of different areas. I'm 
              for that; research is much less political than education, and much 
              more can be done with less money. (Even a billion dollars would 
              not allow me to buy Harvard and convert it into public housing, 
              as much as I think that that would improve both higher education 
              and public housing.) So. Here's a notion for you: Establish a foundation with our billion 
              that would fund the evolution of PC hardware, a PC OS, and PC programming 
              toward parallelism, all on an open-source basis. My plan (call it 
              Parallelogram) would be to start with Linux and re-think 
              all pertinent components to make good use of at least eight cores, 
              figuring that by the time the project matures enough to useful, 
              Intel will be shoveling cores onto their dies like there ain't no 
              tomorra. A major emphasis in the project would be to anticipate exploits 
              and design them out of the architecture. This is more than just 
              forbidding the use of unbounded string functions (though that would 
              be a good start) and would include a minicomputer-style "supercore" 
              that performs supervisory functions from a memory space that is 
              inaccessible to any user space. I don't see why the supervisor should 
              not have its own memory stick on the mobo, nor even why it can't 
              have a separate CPU, though I admit I'm getting a little out of 
              my league in suggesting it.  It wouldn't be up to me anyway. With thirty million in annual revenue, 
              I could hire a crew of superb programmers to crank code and a couple 
              of genius-level guys like Michael Abrash and David Stafford to architect 
              it and attack the hard problems. I would try to steal a few guys 
              back from Microsoft, primarily Anders Heilsberg, whom I would task 
              with creating a suitable parallel processor programming system. Key to the effort would be a guy to manage the project from the 
              top. Somebody like Dave Cutler would be my goal, understanding that 
              managers sometimes have to be berserk hardasses to make difficult 
              things happen. (Not everybody agrees that open-source projects need 
              tough central management, but everything I've read suggests that 
              they do. There would be no Linux without Linus.) Hey, it's a game, OK? Stop rolling your eyes. But PC technology 
              seems mired to me, and one reason it's mired is that hardware and 
              software (primarily the OS) currently come from utterly different 
              continents of the mind. The advent of multicore CPUs suggests that 
              mobo-level hardware and its OS must evolve together, or one or two 
              of your cores will end doing all your work while the rest twiddle 
              their thumbs and generate heat. Apple does as well as they do because 
              they can make hardware design decisions in light of software needs 
              and limitations, and vise versa. I had an intuition years ago that 
              hardware and software coevolve, and for that coevolution to go anywhere 
              useful, the effort must be managed. That's what the Parallelogram 
              Project would be about. My great fear is that a billion wouldn't 
              be quite enough, but damn, I would give it my best shot, and succeed 
              or fail, interesting things would happen.   
 |   
          |  August 
              6, 2007: Gretchen's OK
My sister Gretchen got out of surgery this afternoon, and while 
              she's understandably groggy, she's in decent spirits and the outlook 
              on all fronts is good. Many thanks to all who sent their prayers 
              and good wishes. Katie Beth has been exceptionally well behaved, 
              considering that her mom is away from her. On the other hand, it 
              takes all three of us (Bill, Carol, and myself, plus earplugs) to 
              change her diaper. Bill will be back at work tomorrow, so Carol and I are going it 
              solo for a good part of the day. Katie has taken a strong liking 
              to Carol, and she doesn't cry quite so much anymore when I'm in 
              her immediate vicinity. And she laughs when I make funny noises. 
              I guess we're making progress. More later.   
 |   
          |  August 
              5, 2007: Odd Lots
              Don Lancaster wrote to say that Carl and Jerry were not 
                the first to build a house-current hot-dog cooker. Don built a 
                couple when he was in high school, and said that it was a pretty 
                common school shop project in the shop books back in 1954.On a recent "celebrity" episode of Jeopardy, a CNN 
                news anchor did not know the question to the Final Jeopardy answer: 
                "It's the permanent member country of the UN Security Council 
                with the smallest land area." An actor (Harry Shearer?) knew 
                the answer. A fashion designer said "My apartment" as 
                a "witty" way of saying, "I have no clue." 
                The CNN anchor had no clue either, (she said "France") 
                but you and I might expect that she would know at least a little 
                about current affairs. Fast forward to the recent DefCon, where 
                NBC sent a 
                beautiful blond reporter (looks just like a network cracker, 
                right?) to act as a mole and try and get the goods for a TV special 
                on hackers and hacking. They were on to her instantly, and basically 
                humiliated both her and NBC. The punchline is something that all 
                media people need to memorize as part of Journalism 101: "Don't 
                screw around with people who are smarter than you." Which 
                in this case (in light of my own personal experience with TV news 
                people) would be most of them.The HTML editor I'm looking for has to be utterly WYSIWYGthink 
                InDesign for the Weband my big surprise is that such are 
                almost non-existent. This is a real puzzler; writing HTML markup 
                from scratch is a mostly idiotic waste of time when what you're 
                doing is tantamount to page layout. (Web sites with data-driven 
                back ends are a different matter.) Dropping into an HTML line 
                editor is something that I do now and then, but the bulk of my 
                Web content consists of static collections of text boxes with 
                an occasional image, and you shouldn't need to write HTML manually 
                to do that.Pertinent to the above: NVu 
                came on the scene looking like a replacement for Dreamweaver 3 
                (which is what I have used since 1999 or so) but it hasn't seen 
                a release in over two years and although there's been some (sparse) 
                muttering from the author on his blog, from here it looks like 
                it's been abandoned.For you Compactron fans out there: I discovered that the 6J10/6Z10 
                tube consists of a 6BN6 gated beam detector plus the power pentode 
                section of a 6T9. Circuits for the 6BN6 and the 6T9 are common, 
                so you can stitch together a one-tube detector/audio module without 
                circuits specific to the 6Z10. I intend to do this when I get 
                back home and will report here.   
 |  |