Sean Gillies (Posts about politics)https://sgillies.net/tags/politics.atom2023-12-31T01:26:25ZSean GilliesNikolaRemembering Martin Luther King, Jrhttps://sgillies.net/2022/01/17/mlk.html2022-01-17T18:50:46-07:002022-01-17T18:50:46-07:00Sean Gillies<p>Civil rights activist and Baptist minister <a class="reference external" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King_Jr.">Martin Luther King, Jr.</a> was born on January
15, 1929 and was assassinated on April 4, 1968. Today was the official US
holiday honoring King and his legacy, the 35th year we've done so in Colorado.</p>
<p>White Americans are highly selective in how they remember and honor King. Many
of us think only of the following, pat ourselves on the back while thinking of
the non-white musicians, comedians, athletes, celebrities who entertain us, and
consider King's work done.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>I look to a day when people will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Martin Luther King, Jr. was an anti-racist, anti-capitalist, and
anti-militarist, and was aiming beyond today's state of color-blindness for the
well off, towards a truly equitable world. One where your family's wealth
didn't depend on your skin color. One where workers were fairly compensated for
their labor and treated with respect. One where education was prioritized over
jets, bombs, drones, and extravagant military adventures. I implore you to read
up on this and push back on people who try to whitewash King's legacy.</p>Surviving the electionhttps://sgillies.net/2020/11/11/surviving-the-election.html2020-11-11T18:01:58-07:002020-11-11T18:01:58-07:00Sean Gillies<p>To survive the election and the vote count I made a huge pot of Alsacienne soul
food. First, I did a quick cure of some pork belly to turn it into petit salé.</p>
<figure>
<img alt="https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50556844798_fdc3e43668_b.jpg" src="https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50556844798_fdc3e43668_b.jpg">
</figure>
<p>On election day I sauteed onions, garlic, carrots, bay leaves, and simmered
them with homemade sauerkraut, adding the petit salé, ham, kielbasa, and boudin
blanc at the end.</p>
<figure>
<img alt="https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50581247183_3401bd5cfa_b.jpg" src="https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50581247183_3401bd5cfa_b.jpg">
</figure>
<p>This kept me well stressed-fed through Thursday. Friday we had kimchi and cheddar cheese
quesadillas and some sparkling wine from California as Biden and Harris neared
victory.</p>
<p>Saturday morning? I don't remember what we ate. I don't think I needed anything
after so much choucroute garnie the week before and after the good news. I took
a bunch of backlogged junk to the dump, which seemed like the perfect way to
celebrate Trump's loss.</p>Whew!https://sgillies.net/2020/11/10/whew.html2020-11-10T20:47:43-07:002020-11-10T20:47:43-07:00Sean Gillies<p>I don't have too much to say about the election. It was dramatic and stressed
me out quite a bit. I'm extremely relieved that Biden and Harris won and can't
wait to see Trump and his band of racist crooks and incompetent toadies leave. It's
perplexing that so many Americans voted for this cruel, narcissistic clown.
Only 71 more days. I hope he spends all of them
golfing instead of doing more damage.</p>It's all too muchhttps://sgillies.net/2020/04/25/its-all-too-much.html2020-04-25T16:13:08-06:002020-04-25T16:13:08-06:00Sean Gillies<p>Nelson Minar documents the political outrages of the COVID-19 era:
<a class="reference external" href="http://www.somebits.com/weblog/politics/covid-19-its-all-too-much.html">it's all too much</a>. The situation is
appalling.</p>
<p>I hear and read business people talking about the opportunities at this time
and I think of all the people getting screwed and opportunists like Mitch
McConnell who are screwing us all over and I get sick to the stomach.</p>Disasterhttps://sgillies.net/2016/11/23/disaster.html2016-11-23T08:14:51+01:002016-11-23T08:14:51+01:00Sean Gillies<p>Welp. The 2016 presidential election was an utter disaster. In large enough
numbers in key states, Americans threw a tantrum and voted for machismo,
racism, and kleptocracy. I think the situation now looks worse than it did two
weeks ago. We've got an abusive president-elect with a history of self-dealing
and other cons who indicates that the sleaze will continue unabated and he's
advised by a pack of wingnuts, climate deniers, internet trolls, and neo-nazis.
Surrogates of our president-elect are on news programs floating insane ideas
like a national registry of Muslims and internment camps. I'm very concerned
for the safety of my Black, Latino, LGBT, immigrant, female, Muslim, and Jewish
friends and family in such an abnormal political climate. Don't tell me that
this is normal, that nothing has really changed, or no one is more at risk
today unless you're ready for an earful. If you're a Trump voter who insists
that you're not a racist or bigot, I insist that you prove it by speaking out
and standing up against atrocities when the time comes.</p>Vote!https://sgillies.net/2016/11/06/vote.html2016-11-07T09:30:05+01:002016-11-07T09:30:05+01:00Sean Gillies<p>I hope you've had the chance to vote early by mail, like I have, like we all
should be able to do. But if not, please do take the time to vote on Tuesday
and bring a friend or two. I'm sure almost all of us know people who feel
frustrated about the system or less than passionate about the candidates or
complacent about a Clinton victory (which I'm counting on!) and who might stay
home on election day. Put some pressure on them, remind younger friends how
much they'll regret letting bitter old white men further dictate their future,
drive or carry them to the polls if need be. I think John Scalzi really nails
it <a class="reference external" href="http://whatever.scalzi.com/2016/11/01/thoughts-a-week-from-election-day/">here</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Basically lots of people would love it if you didn’t vote. Disappoint them.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Disappoint the misogynists. Disappoint the bigots. Disappoint the literal
racists and fascists backing Trump in this election. Vote!</p>DDOS on climate science?https://sgillies.net/2009/12/16/ddos-on-climate-science.html2009-12-16T00:00:00-07:002009-12-16T00:00:00-07:00Sean Gillies<p>Ed Parsons has been <a class="reference external" href="http://www.edparsons.com/2009/12/data-the-key-to-the-climate-change-debate">beating</a> <a class="reference external" href="http://www.edparsons.com/2009/12/data-the-key-to-the-climate-change-debate-part-2/">the</a> <a class="reference external" href="http://www.edparsons.com/2009/12/data-the-key-to-the-climate-change-debate-part-3/">drum</a> for open climate data. I like open
data, but it's not not without its own problems. A potential problem for
science, and scientific consensus, in a brave new world where we are all now
climate scientists, is the ramping up of the social denial of service attacks
identified by <a class="reference external" href="http://www.easterbrook.ca/steve/?p=1001">Steve Easterbrook</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>But in reality, the denialists don’t care about the science at all; their aim
is a PR campaign to sow doubt in the minds of the general public. In the
process, they effect a denial-of-service attack on the scientists – the
scientists can’t get on with doing their science because their time is taken
up responding to frivolous queries (and criticisms) about specific features
of the data. And their failure to respond to each and every such query will
be trumpeted as an admission that an alleged error is indeed an error. In
such an environment, is it perfectly rational not to release data and code –
it’s better to pull up the drawbridge and get on with the drudgery of real
science in private. That way the only attacks are complaints about lack of
openness. Such complaints are bothersome, but much better than the
alternative.</p>
<p>In this case, because the science is vitally important for all of us, it’s
actually in the public interest that climate scientists be allowed to
withhold their data. Which is really a tragic state of affairs. The forces of
anti-science have a lot to answer for.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Joe Gregorio has this social denial of service thing <a class="reference external" href="http://bitworking.org/blog/Camera_Ready_Copy_and_the_Social_Denial_of_Service_Attack">nailed</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Let's go back to electronic denial-of-service attacks. They worked because of
an inherent asymmetry between the attacker and the attacked. [<em>i.e. from
earlier in Gregorio's post</em>: The attacker performs very little computation to
send the packets, but the server has to accept them and perform some
computation to determine if they are valid or bogus. In this way an attacker
with the same or less computational power can overwhelm a bigger host.] The
same is true of the social denial-of-service attack where arguments,
responses, rebuttals and more importantly time has to be spent responding to
the bad faith objections, which are easily written up and tossed onto the
mailing list.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Denial of service on climate science was bad enough before the leaked emails,
now scientists have to read the emails, parse them, and explain how they don't
falsify the science in every public forum and every media outlet. Next, add to
the mix climate data and models. What happens when some blog or cable TV gasbag
complains that not only do the model results of scientists not match his
interpretation of the data, but that he <em>couldn't even get the model to run on
his computer, no matter how hard he tried</em>, and that the code itself might be
fraudulent. That's not going to be a victory for transparency.</p>
<p>Perhaps we need to match open climate data and models with a change in the
rules of our climate debate. Gregorio explains the rules used by the IETF:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Remember that one way to fight a denial of service attack is to raise the
amount of computation required by the attacker. In the case of a Working
Group the way to do that is by requiring disruptions to take more time and
energy. This is where the call for "camera ready copy in the form of a Pace"
comes from in the AtomPub WG. Camera ready copy is much more difficult to
write than a one or two line objection tossed into a mailing list. Only if
you are willing to put in the work to write up a Pace with reasonable text
will it start to take up the time of the WG. Your willingness to put in the
time and effort to create camera ready copy will distinguish your proposals
and objections from those of an attacker.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Similarly, in the climate debate, we could demand that denialists publish their
arguments and supporting evidence in peer-reviewed journals. (Note that I'm
distinguishing denialists from the skeptics who already <em>do</em> publish in
peer-reviewed journals.) Does it risk giving them unwarranted credibility?
Maybe, but I think that it's balanced by increased cost. Even low-cost
electronic journals completely stacked with friendly reviewers will help level
the asymmetry that makes a DOS attack possible. Forcing the denialists to read
and personally sign off on the work of others, or even just keeping them
occupied correcting each other's grammar and spelling, would be a good start.</p>
<p>We <em>could</em> demand this, and by "we" I mostly mean our media, but that would
require our media to transform itself into something that infotains us a little
less and edifies us a little more, and that's probably too much to ask, yeah?
I don't have an answer, but it's interesting to look at some aspects of the
climate debate as a denial of service attack, and I didn't see that
perspective come up in any of the many comments on Ed's blog. I also recommend
Bryan Lawrence's <a class="reference external" href="http://home.badc.rl.ac.uk/lawrence/blog/2009/11/29/drawn_into_climategate">post</a> on this topic. He doesn't use the word "attack", but
certainly expresses some frustration at the extra load put on climate
scientists in these times.</p>
<section id="comments">
<h2>Comments</h2>
<section id="re-ddos-on-climate-science">
<h3>Re: DDOS on climate science?</h3>
<p>Author: <a class="reference external" href="http://blogs.weogeo.com/pbissett">Paul Bissett</a></p>
<p>Sean,</p><p></p><p>I agree w/ many of your arguments. However, it is not as easy as you suggest.</p><p></p><p>1) there is a difference between those who deny warming occurring since the onset of the industrial revolution and those who question the relative impact of anthropogenic activities on the background natural climate variability. These two groups often get lumped together, but they are very distinct. Propagandists tend to be in the first category (warming deniers), credible scientists tend to be in the other (anthropogenic questioners).</p><p></p><p>2) having worked in the field of predictive oceanic modeling for nearly 20 years, and published in peer-reviewed journals, and guested edited peer-reviewed journals, I can tell you the science of modeling depends heavily on the assumptions of the model, the mathematical equations used to approximate the physical environment, the tuning parameters of those equations, data input to the models, the validation data used to verify the models, and the computational horsepower to run those models. The only people qualified to run those models are those in climate research centers. These models require huge computers, large staffs, and millions of dollars of infrastructure support.</p><p></p><p>The only way to create a critical review of the models predicting anthropogenic impacts is to fund a separate effort to develop and tune the models differently to see if alternative theories could explain the observations. In practice this is almost never done, because peer-review research is subject to peer-reviewed funding. The bigger the project, the more group support you need to get your project funded. This tends to create positive feedback in the scientific community; a noted flaw, but like democracy is the best system compared to everything else.</p><p></p><p>Good observations eventually rule. Part of the current debate lost in the noise is that the last decade has been marked by "unexplained" cooling since 1998. This is unexplained only in terms of how the models were previously being forced, which just goes to say the models were not quite right, and they don't quite know why.</p><p></p><p>Modelers step in when observations are too sparse or limited to definitely make a case. Climate researcher do not have the equivalent of Large Hadron Collider (a true shame). If they did, the scientific debate would be a lot easier.</p></section>
<section id="re-ddos-on-climate-science-1">
<h3>Re: DDOS on climate science?</h3>
<p>Author: <a class="reference external" href="http://ambergis.wordpress.com">Kirk Kuykendall</a></p>
<p>So maybe Al Gore just didn't want to distract Dr. Maslowski from his work ...</p><p><a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/copenhagen/article6956783.ece">http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/copenhagen/article6956783.ece</a></p></section>
<section id="re-ddos-on-climate-science-2">
<h3>Re: DDOS on climate science?</h3>
<p>Author: <a class="reference external" href="http://blogs.weogeo.com/pbissett">Paul Bissett</a></p>
<p>Kirk,</p><p></p><p>that's the problem on both sides, rhetoric rather than facts. NASA measurements show a 7.8% increase in seasonal ice cover since the low stand in 2007.</p><p></p><p><a href="http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/seaicemin09.html">http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/seaicemin09.html</a></p><p></p><p>Let the scientists do their jobs, fund the research adequately, and quit politicizing the science. The facts will surface, but they will take time and good measurements.</p></section>
<section id="re-ddos-on-climate-science-3">
<h3>Re: DDOS on climate science?</h3>
<p>Author: <a class="reference external" href="http://ambergis.wordpress.com">Kirk Kuykendall</a></p>
<p>Paul,</p><p></p><p>Yes, it will take time, but I don't think the Navy is waiting. I recall hearing about a classified doc produced by the Navy several years ago discussing where to move ports in response to rising sea levels. At the same time other parts of the gov't were saying there just isn't enough evidence to take action. Maybe the Navy's models are classified. (Malowski, incidentally, works for Naval Post grad school)</p></section>
<section id="re-ddos-on-climate-science-4">
<h3>Re: DDOS on climate science?</h3>
<p>Author: <a class="reference external" href="http://www.vector1media.com/vectorone">Jeff Thurston</a></p>
<p>Interesting points.</p><p></p><p>Having managed research in a University for a long time I offer the following.</p><p></p><p>1) Most research (esp. this type)is conducted by teams of people. The days of lone scientists completing work like this are few and far between. The denials of service would have to cover huge areas and large numbers of people.</p><p></p><p>2) Most universities expect scientists to do three things. a) teach, b)research and c) community work. The last item is the one that gets the shortest shift, yet it is the last one needing the most attention - for the situations you describe.</p><p></p><p>There needs to be more people explaining good science to everyday people in terms they understand, and to be doing it continually. Informed people can make better judgements.</p><p></p><p>What I find interesting is that few instititions actually sit with media to develop these forms of relationships.</p></section>
<section id="re-ddos-on-climate-science-5">
<h3>Re: DDOS on climate science?</h3>
<p>Author: Sean</p>
<p>Thanks for the comments. I'm very sympathetic to scientists who feel that global warming is over hyped and studies of it funded beyond reasonable levels. As an undergrad, I worked in a molecular biology lab under a professor who argued that the Human Genome Project was going to take more than its fair share of the pie and sideline other important work. I studied under some of the prominent skeptics as a atmospheric science grad student. I admire people who'll take an unpopular stand when necessary. I don't admire those who'll whip up the anti-intellectual segment of our societies into a DDOS on consensus.</p><p></p><p>Paul, I'm with you on observations, but there are some things I'm not willing to risk losing forever while we wait for absolute certainty. Personally, I'm a bit more concerned about direct damage to ecosystems and landscapes (over-fishing, deforestation, mountaintop removal) and the scientists studying these human impacts are just as vulnerable to consensus-jamming.</p></section>
<section id="re-ddos-on-climate-science-6">
<h3>Re: DDOS on climate science?</h3>
<p>Author: <a class="reference external" href="http://ambergis.wordpress.com">Kirk Kuykendall</a></p>
<p>I forgot to point out how the Navy is highly experienced in countering jamming efforts. (For some interesting history, read this story about the <a href="http://people.seas.harvard.edu/~jones/cscie129/nu_lectures/lecture7/hedy/lemarr.htm">birth of spread spectrum.</a>) In addition to rising sea levels, the Navy is also <a href="http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/11/in-nod-to-global-warming-navy-prepares-for-ice-free-arctic/">preparing for an ice free arctic.</a> I expect renewed interest in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Thayer_Mahan">Alfred Mahan.</a></p></section>
<section id="re-ddos-on-climate-science-7">
<h3>Re: DDOS on climate science?</h3>
<p>Author: <a class="reference external" href="http://blogs.weogeo.com">Paul Bissett</a></p>
<p>Sean,</p><p></p><p>I think we're aligned in our concerns. Part of the reason for starting WeoGeo was an attempt to open up critical geospatial information that was locked in the silos of individual organizations. Kinda "Think globally, act locally" w/ respect to geo-content.</p><p></p><p>It has taken me away from direct science endeavors (which I miss), but I am hoping that by enabling easy access to quality measurements, our contributions will have an equally lasting impact.</p><p></p><p>Keep swinging at the blowhards. I got your back...</p></section>
<section id="re-ddos-on-climate-science-8">
<h3>Re: DDOS on climate science?</h3>
<p>Author: Bill</p>
<p>Sean, the points you raise have merit to be sure. But science is all about the examination of data. To deny the data to other scientists is to deny that science is being done. Denying access to the data is unforgivable in my view.</p><p>Second, you downplay the legitimate concerns of the people trying to get access. There is no question that there have been many serious errors in, for example, the hockey stick studies (data sets mislocated, data sets misrepresented, data sets used in the opposite sense of the original authors). We all make mistakes. But scientists go back and look at what they did, and at least do not repeat the same mistakes in the next paper. This is demonstrably not the case with Mann and his studies. That no one questioned follow on papers when these errors were publicly known is strong evidence of the corruption of the peer review process. The continued use of stripbark proxies when nearly everyone on the planet except these few agree that they are misleading is another example.</p><p>Third, while I agree that the world has warmed in the last ~130 years, the question of the rate of warming is a legitimate question at this point. As people begin to look at what parts of the record are available they are discovering that the adjustments are questionable. This has occurred in Australia, New Zealand, Siberia, Alaska, and Norway to mention just a few from the past couple of weeks. It may be the adjustments are appropriate, but in some cases it would be hard to see how this could be so (Darwin for example). And ultimately, it is the rate of warming that is most important. It is the rate(s) that will tell if we have serious climate issues or not. So it is vital we get it right.</p></section>
<section id="re-ddos-on-climate-science-9">
<h3>Re: DDOS on climate science?</h3>
<p>Author: Sean</p>
<p>Bill, you've got me wrong: I'm in favor of open data. As to the discoveries you say have been made in the past couple of weeks: let's get them written up and submitted to a peer-reviewed journal.</p></section>
</section>Judgement mattershttps://sgillies.net/2009/12/11/judgement-matters.html2009-12-11T00:00:00-07:002009-12-11T00:00:00-07:00Sean Gillies<p><a class="reference external" href="http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/12/my_reaction_to.html">Whuh</a>?</p>
<blockquote>
<p>I think judgment matters. If you have something that you don't want anyone to
know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place. If you really need
that kind of privacy, the reality is that search engines -- including Google
-- do retain this information for some time and it's important, for example,
that we are all subject in the United States to the Patriot Act and it is
possible that all that information could be made available to the
authorities.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>I think Google's hiding behind the Patriot Act here. A search engine company
wants to hang on to data to analyze it for trends and develop predictive models
that it can turn into revenue. There's a business need for the data that the
company would find a way to justify, legislation or no.</p>
<p>The second sentence there, the one that Eric Schmidt is taking so much flak
over, doesn't disturb me as much as it confuses me. Is he saying that we all
need to simply drop the acts and quit keeping secrets from each other? Be more
real? Let it all hang out, man? Is he using a provocative statement to check
the internet community's pulse? Is it a "tell"? Is he just winding up the
haters?</p>
<blockquote>
<p>If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't
be doing it in the first place.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>How do we keep the tyranny implied in that statement out of the "GeoWeb"?</p>GeoWeb: utopia or dystopia?https://sgillies.net/2009/12/07/geoweb-utopia-or-dystopia.html2009-12-07T00:00:00-07:002009-12-07T00:00:00-07:00Sean Gillies<p>Somedays I have very mixed feelings about where the "GeoWeb" is <a class="reference external" href="http://www.galdosinc.com/archives/746">going</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Example 1: Intelligent Traffic Systems</p>
<p>Roughly translated: A million cars idling for 10 minutes will consume some
140,000 litres of gasoline. At the same time we have serious global problems
with climate change and local problems with air pollution. Why should this be
the case? The problem can be seen as one in which there is a lack of
communication between the vehicles and the road.</p>
<p>I interpret this to mean that the traffic systems should regulate the
highways such that this condition does not take place, or takes place much
less frequently. One of the functions of Intelligent Traffic Systems would be
to minimize the pollution generated by the use of the highway system. Of
course, he does not say how that might entail regulation of an individual’s
actions but one can easily imagine the vehicle being told it cannot enter a
particular section of the highway, or cannot even be taken out of the drive
way. What is key in Wen Jiabao’s remarks is that we can use technology to
help us understand the consequences of individual actions, and the
relationship between those actions and physical laws (”wisdom of the earth”).
We can choose to let a million vehicles idle on the highway, but in doing so
we cannot avoid the consequences for air pollution, and for damage to our
health and to the planet. What an intelligent traffic system might do then,
at the very least, is to make the linkage between actions and consequences
visible to all of us, even if it does not yet constrain those actions.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>I'm all for a "planetary nervous system", but the thought that it would sooner
or later be hooked up to a state-operated planetary immune system that
constrains our actions is a bit chilling, no? I'm probably to the left of many,
if not most, of my readers, but I'm not ready to be <a class="reference external" href="http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/The_Return_of_the_Archons_(episode)">of the body</a>. I suspect
it's going to be constant struggle to keep the "Wisdom of the Earth" from being
rigged against civil liberties.</p>
<section id="comments">
<h2>Comments</h2>
<section id="re-geoweb-utopia-or-dystopia">
<h3>Re: GeoWeb: utopia or dystopia?</h3>
<p>Author: <a class="reference external" href="http://www.cadmaps.com/gisblog">Randy George</a></p>
<p>Come on Sean, surely you already knew about the "Intelligent Traffic System?"</p><p></p><i>"The shepherd cries</i><p></p><i>The hour of choosing has arrived</i><p></p><i>Here are your tools"</i><p></p><a href="http://www.vanityfair.com/online/politics/2009/12/al-gore-the-poet-laureate-of-climate-change.html">Al Gore</a><p></p><p></p><p>Do you still wonder who Obama will appoint as the next Poet Laureate?</p><p></p><p></p><p>Believe me, I didn't make this up! Osip Mandelstam, Not!</p><a href="http://www.vanityfair.com/online/politics/2009/12/al-gore-the-poet-laureate-of-climate-change.html">Al Gore Vanity Fair</a></section>
<section id="re-geoweb-utopia-or-dystopia-1">
<h3>Re: GeoWeb: utopia or dystopia?</h3>
<p>Author: <a class="reference external" href="http://ambergis.wordpress.com">Kirk Kuykendall</a></p>
<p>Oh, the irony: Chinese teaching us the lessons of Adam Smith.</p><p></p><p>ITS will allow a market place to be built where we pay for the consequences of our actions, perhaps by combining congestion pricing with cap and trade. Clearly they want us to be more efficient so we don't fall behind on our payments.</p></section>
<section id="re-geoweb-utopia-or-dystopia-2">
<h3>Re: GeoWeb: utopia or dystopia?</h3>
<p>Author: Sean</p>
<p>Al Gore is our shepherd? Good grief; you don't have to be a believer to cringe hard at that one.</p><p></p><p>I've been meaning to follow up on your post about Atom-formatted Microsoft data, Randy. Interesting stuff, I hadn't been following that application.</p></section>
<section id="re-geoweb-utopia-or-dystopia-3">
<h3>Re: GeoWeb: utopia or dystopia?</h3>
<p>Author: Tom</p>
<p>In many places individual vehicles are already impractical or regulated out of feasible use and replaced by public transport - which is probably more constrained than the ITS, which would probably only be useful on congested commuter routes anyway.</p><p></p><p>There is a danger in using IT-based automation to turn economic and environmental levers wholesale into a pervasive "artificial gravity" though: for one thing it reeks of trying to solve a monolithic, too-hard problem wholesale with a mixture of theory and ideology. We know how that usually goes: some significant cost is</p></section>
<section id="re-geoweb-utopia-or-dystopia-4">
<h3>Re: GeoWeb: utopia or dystopia?</h3>
<p>Author: Tom</p>
<p>*cough* ignored</p></section>
<section id="re-geoweb-utopia-or-dystopia-5">
<h3>Re: GeoWeb: utopia or dystopia?</h3>
<p>Author: Sean</p>
<p>I just added "against civil liberties" to the tail of my blog post. I'd implied it from the start, but it's better made explicit.</p></section>
</section>Changehttps://sgillies.net/2008/11/03/change.html2008-11-03T00:00:00-07:002008-11-03T00:00:00-07:00Sean Gillies<p><strong>Update</strong> (2008-11-07): Restoring the country's economy, confidence, dignity, and reputation will be tough; I expect to be disappointed along the way, but right now I am enormously pleased. Fort Collins, Larimer County, Colorado, and the United States of America expressed enough hope over fear, and rightly held the GOP accountable for getting us into this ditch.</p>
<img alt="http://www.barackobama.com/images/widgets/Obama08_ThumbLogo200.gif" src="http://www.barackobama.com/images/widgets/Obama08_ThumbLogo200.gif">
<p>After 7 disastrous years of mal-intent and incompetence, let's give the hopeful and serious a chance. It's time for a change.</p>