Now I can, and will, buy downloadable music. Thank you, Amazon. I'll buy from you, not from DRM slave Apple.

I have not bought even CDs in the last several years because of the DRM idiocy. I have also not downloaded anything that was not expressly made available for download by the artists, without DRM.

I still won't buy DRM encumbered CDs or DVDs. My roomies do, but they are too wedded to their video addiction to forgo DVD movies and TV shows on a basis of principle.

To all of those who want to sell stuff to people like me, take this as a hint: I will not buy DRM encumbered media. I will not buy the devices required to play DRM crap, and that won't play anything but DRM crap.

(Disclaimer: I work for an Amazon subsidiary. I'm still thrilled on a personal and ethical level.)

If I get a hold of one of your single serving containers of crap, and it says "0 grams of trans fat", I expect it to really be Zero. Yet if I read the ingredients list, and the top item is "liquid and partially hydrogenated soybean oil", and a few down the list is "hydrogenated soybean oil", I know that you are LIARS!!

You see, if you have a vat of stuff, say 10 Kg (10,000 g) worth, and one of the ingredients is 45 g of trans fats, the trans fats in the resultant concoction are not 0 grams, regardless of "serving size"!! Simply subdividing the servings until the trans fats are less than one gram per serving does not make it "0 grams of trans fat". It just doesn't work that way. Yes, it has "less than 1 gram", or even "less than 0.5 grams" of trans fats, but it is still not zero!!

So don't try to tell me that anything with partially or fully hydrogenated crap in it has "zero", "0" or "no" grams of trans fat. Because you are lying, deceiving, and scum. If I had thought to grab the container of poison, I'd have grumbled to weights and measures, or the FDA, or whoever.

Water has 0 grams of trans fat per serving. "Butter" flavored "Spread" made with hydrogenated (partially or fully) soybean oils does not, and can not.

Now quit lying. "< 1" is not the same as "0". While "0" is "< 1", "< 1" is not "0". This is basic chemical analysis, set theory, and horse sense.

I have found ways to save. The biggest savings has come from efficiency, not reducing equipment. Buying more efficient electric appliances and light bulbs is why my utility bill (PG&E, among the most expensive in the nation) does not equal or exceed my rent (in Silicon Valley, also among the most expensive in the nation).

Saving

I can't convince my roomies that the extraneous TVs and recording devices should be turned off. Same with certain computers and monitors. So I have to save elsewhere.

I started with "CFL"s - compact fluorescent lights. Egad, did I get resistance - "they buzz", "they hurt my eyes", "they don't fit", blah, blah, blah. So I started with the porch light, which was a PITA to have to always replace. Then my bedroom, and the bathroom. The kitchen was next, then I snuck one in on the stove hood - it was always on. The clip lamps and other spot sources got them next, because I stopped buying anything else!!! Now the one die hard roomie uses adapters and 15 watt incandescent bulbs to supply his "low light" addiction. The rest are "squiggle bulbs".

Next came the computer monitors. A CRT monitor uses twice to 3 times what a comparable screen area LCD uses. A CRT also weights more, and eats up more desk space. So when I started digging out of the dot bomb slump, the first thing I started doing was "upgrading" my monitors, and downgrading my energy use.

Finally, I got really spendy. When I moved recently, I went ahead and bought new air conditioners, with really good energy ratings. While they didn't get installed until the height of the heat wave this last summer, they still are a savings over the previous ones. Now, some will say "you don't need A/C", but with my physical limitations, yes, I do, or I get a really nasty rash under my bad arm. Cooling the bedroom to 75 degrees so I can sleep without stewing in my own juices is a good idea.

Costs

I am infamous for scoping out sales. I bought CFLs by the dozen, when they were on sale, or clearance. When a light fixture takes 4 bulbs, swapping in squiggle bulbs for all of them saves a chunk. But it requires lots of bulbs.

Finding LCD monitors on sale was a bit harder. Some of the brands that are available cheaply aren't very reliable. So I watch the ads, and will even do the rebate go 'round. That process is still somewhat slow, but getting there.

The newer A/C units were on an off-season clearance. I bought them in February, not July. You can save up to $50 per unit that way.

The biggest cost was time to convince people to change, and the time to find the sales. Since I do a lot of online price monitoring now anyway, the costs have reduced significantly from when I first started.

Without Housing: Decades of Federal Housing Cutbacks, Massive Homelessness, and Policy Failures

Western Regional Advocacy Project (WRAP), a coalition of west coast social justice-based homelessness organizations, has released a report that documents how more than 25 years of federal funding trends for affordable housing have created the contemporary crisis of homelessness and near-homelessness. The report was released in San Francisco on November 14, 2006 at 12 noon, at the Philip Burton Federal Building, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, in conjunction with release events in 7 other cities ranging from Seattle, Washington to San Juan, Puerto Rico.

Thoroughly documented using federal budget data and other sources, Without Housing presents this data with passion and vitality, and uses artwork to give life to the words and data to express the pain and frustration experienced by real human beings abandoned by a federal government more concerned with the profits of corporations than with the well-being of its poorest people.

Commentary

When I was growing up, there was a safety net for housing, and a planned balance of the types of housing available in a city. There were places where the government mandated and made sure that the people who held lower paying jobs could afford to live, near their work.

The idea that a mixture of inexpensive apartments and snazzy condos can co-exist seems to have been lost by even the most "liberal" or "progressive" communities. The idea that we just might want our grocery clerks, janitors, assembly line workers, and government employees seems to have been swept away by the "conservative" revolution and the "I got mine" generation that came to power 25 years ago.

Now we are paying the price, and our friends, coworkers and kids are homeless, or suffer from overcrowding and food insecurity. You see, the "homeless" are not just "winos" and "crazies". Often they are the working poor, the disabled, and, increasingly, young adults.

How does this affect businesses? Lots - by reducing the pool of qualified employees due to impossible housing needs, by causing current employees additional stress due to lack of affordable housing, and therefore financial distress, by increased security costs associated with the perception of the "homeless menace".

So download the report, and read it(the artwork alone is worth the time). Then decide what we as a society should do about it, and get your representative in government to work on it.

Also, see just the artwork of the critical graphs. Now I get to save up to buy the posters...

Yeah, yeah, I know, it's a friggin' "A-list" blog, but the cartoons are funny.

Quotes like:

One thing that appears to set the BlogHer conference apart from most others is that the event will provide free child care, an important thing given that many in attendance are so-called "mommy bloggers."

The topics include discussions titled "Is the next Martha Stewart a blogger?" and "From here to autonomy," a talk about trying to earn a living blogging. There will also be a conversation about writing about sex in blogs.

It goes without saying that I didn't go to BlogHer '06. Apparently they actually had some geek content - too bad it never got any press - it was just overshadowed by the mommy/girlie thing.

Then there was this, from another (mailing list) source:

Mommies Online: Another Feminist Revolution?
Berkeley Cybersalon
[date, time & location, blah, blah]

Between these, and the "Motherhood Manifesto" propagated by various liberal organizations, I feel that female technologists who don't have children at home are given short shrift in the blogosphere.

There is a subtext of "you're not a real woman if you don't make babies" that makes me want to puke. Damnit, part of what feminism was all about was reproductive freedom and reproductive choice - including the choice NOT to reproduce! Part of equality is not being obliged by your plumbing to spend nine months every so often as an incubator!

For years I've ranted and railed against "women's" content on the web: fashion, diet, celebrities, relationships and childrearing. Even decades before that, I dropped my subscription to a well known science fiction magazine because the had an advertising section that was literally titled "Of Interest to Women", and was so full of stereotype "women's content" that it made me see red. It hasn't changed, to the best of my knowledge.

I've had to stop participation in many "women's" organizations, primarily because they seem to devolve into catfights and "women's" interests (the fashion, diet, celebrities, relationships and children thing). One supposedly web trades oriented mailing list had so many "community" request for hairdressers, exercise and diet parlors, spas, nannies, maids, stores and dog groomers that it was like reading a webified women's magazine from the 50's. Coupled with the backbiting and political correctitude, I had to stop reading it, it was so boring and infuriating. I've investigated others, and it's the same old dreck: a living stereotype.

The only female oriented organization I've found where it stays mostly technical is LinuxChix. We have a few fluff posts, and sometimes the infernal childcare debate pops up, but the childfree women at least are there to leaven it somewhat.

Now, I will admit there is a place for mommy blogs, and daddy blogs too. The growth of a dependent parasite into an independent adult is something for both women and men to blog about. So is the growth of kittens, puppies, and your bowling score.

To imply that mommy blogs are more interesting or important than technology or politics is a bit arrogant. Really, the world doesn't revolve around you and your kids. But technology and politics will affect the world your kid grows up in.

One company that does this for businesses is called Netvocates Read their company website - and feel sick. From their main page:

"NetVocates provides its clients with expertise in blog monitoring and advocacy. Our trained staff of experts utilizes a unique combination of proprietary technology and human analysis to deliver a focused stream of timely, actionable intelligence to our clients. And a nationwide field force of active bloggers advance clients’ objectives and achieve measurable results."

Another company that does this for political types (both Republicans and Democrats!) is The Rendon Group. Their slick website uses ambiguous corporatespeak to describe their search and destroy propaganda services. Their "approach", when deconstructed, says that they find, analyze, and then inject propaganda into media communications to produce measurable results. Professional propagandists, who make fly-by-night advertising agencies look positively ethical. Take a gander at their partial client list, and shudder.

Now, this is not to say that companies and politicians don't have the right and need to present their perpective. That's what press releases, interviews, advertisements and such are for. However, paying for anonymous insertion of blatant propaganda into supposed individual communications is another thing. Yes, free speech includes the right to anonymity and pseudonymity. But that is for individuals - not organizations or companies. If you're paid to say something, then you damn well better say who's paying you, even if you don't use your real name. It's called ethics, and includes transparency in business and politics.

So now bloggers are up against not only derision and marginalization from "regular" journalists, but they are being targetted by professional propagandists hired by unscrupulous companies and politicians too lazy or too corrupt to clean up their act. Great.

Blah, blah. No meat here. No good description of basic journalistic ethics, and where bloggers fall down on them. No prominent examples of "astroturfing", bloggers paid to write puff pieces to create "buzz" or propaganda for some company or party. It could have been a story, but instead it just did a drive-by on newspaper sponsored blogging and quit.

Obligatory Flame

I must flame the story just for the comment by Patrick Williams, managing editor of the Dallas Observer, a weekly (or is that weakly) publication:

"They're filled with all the news not fit for print," Williams wrote. "They're a place where writers go when reporting is just too hard. Let us pray... that blogs can go back to what they should be: teenagers and college students talking about sex and music."

Ethics, Journalism, Facts, and Opinions

Here's my beef: most people who look at blogs look through either one of two lenses - it's all facts, or it's all self absorbed blithering. The reality is, it's both and neither.

I have a small background in Journalism - I wanted to be a reporter one day. I got over it. To me, most of the stuff paid reporters write about is boring - the entertainment and sports areas, and the crap that surrounds them. Those guys are the most paid. The science, health, business and tech beats are dull in a different way. Ever tried to cover the science and tech area and make it interesting to more than just hardcore geeks? I don't think it can be done.

Basic journalistic ethics are pretty simple: don't state something as "fact" without being able to back it up, and where there's a difference of viewpoint (opinion), try to present both sides fairly.

For example, I present the Williams quote as fact - he wrote it, it got published, and cited in another story. I cite that story in the start of my article, and attribute the source of the quote to Mr. Williams. Is it truth? Well, yes and no: yes, he did write those works to the best of my ability to determine, no, his words aren't true, they're just his personal opinion.

So facts can include opinion, if the fact is that so-and-so expressed such-and-such as his opinion. But saying "The house is made of blue bricks" is not supportable as fact unless I can produce a picture, or take you and show you. This is the "old" standard of journalism that I learned 25 years ago.

Now, though, the line gets grey. Opinions are routinely cited as facts, because someone wrote them down (therefore they must be "true?"). The only thing that is true about them is that they are some person or organization's viewpoint on a thing. Yet this has become the norm in newpaper reporting. Yet the same journalists pooh pooh blogs, because we openly call viewpoint our viewpoint. (Hint: the entire preceeding paragraph is opinion.)

In blogging, fact and opinion are mixed, not clearly delineated. Some bloggers would have you believe their opinions are hard fact, but it "just aint so". Usually I like to state some facts on which I base my opinion, but to me that's just good writing.

What really is problematic is undisclosed "opinion whoring" - presenting someone elses opinion as your own for pay. Also called "astroturfing", it's the dirty underside of big name political blogs, especially on the right (they have more money to pay.) Real grassroots stuff is when Joe and Jane Nobody express something as their opinion, and invite others to share it, citing the whys and howfores. If I say "I think Bush and his cronies suck", I have a basis for my opinion - and with a bit of searching I can even come up with credible citations of incidents and policies that give rise to my opinion.

If I have citations supporting my opinion, it's assumed that I found them myself, with the aid of a search engine, and at least read part of them to be sure they say what I said they say. The Williams quote above is an example, again. I cite an article, that cites a quote, although the article is somewhat sloppy in that it does not say where he wrote it. If he didn't actually write it, it's the publication I cited's fault for the misquote.

But astroturfers and pseudo bloggers are not honest about where they get their material, or why they publish it. They take the propaganda of others, and regurgutate it as their own opinion (and "fact") for pay (in either money, favors, fame, or all of the above.) It would be one thing if they disclosed their relationship with the source of their material. That's why, for the time being, if I write about A9.com or Amazon, I disclose that I'm currently employed by A9.com, a subsidiary of Amazon. They don't pay me to write about them, but I still disclose it to alleviate even the perception of conflict of interest.

Upshot

So, are journalists really all that much better than bloggers these days? Well, no, actually. With puff pieces, opinions cited as hard fact, corporate and politcical pressure to spike stories, and sloppy reporting, they are about equal with your well educated blogger. More's the pity.

The fact that bloggers have managed to break some astounding stories that should have been covered by the corporate, mainstream media is a real, big sign to me that reporters no longer have the monopoly on good reporting and ethical journalism. Yes, we have our lame teenagers talking about sex and music, but we don't pretend to be "fair and balanced" like some notoriously biased astroturf "news" companies.

I came upon yet another news article saying, essentially, the best way to improve an ailing company's stock price (hence value) is to lay off employees. It seems to be "conventional wisdom" in the quarterly profit driven business world. This is stupid.

What are the ways to increase profit? Cut costs, or increase productivity. The easiest, and sleaziest, is to cut headcount - a layoff - to reduce costs. The low end employees are shoved out the door. Problem is, when you do that, you also cut productivity. The workers that are usually cut are the ones actually engaged in producing product! Do this too many times, and you have only a pathetic shell of a company, inhabited by lots of entrenched managers and no one with any spark of creativity left.

Now, if you really want to cut costs by reducing overhead, you don't cut production staff, you cut executive staff! Eliminating one $500,000 VP is the equivalent of sacking 10 $50,000 widget makers! But it doesn't look "good" to Wall Street anal-ists if you just chop dollars, not lots of bodies.

Other cost cutting measures might work just as well, but aren't as flashy. Like, say, tying executive salaries to profitability. If the company doesn't make money, the CEO only gets $80,000/year, and no stock. Essentially, put executives on commission - no profit or no growth in the year, no bonus. Cutting jobs to boost profit is "ungrowth", so even if there is an increase in profit, they get docked for shrinking the company. You could also reduce the amount of travel allowed, and stop catering lunches for meetings.

You also could increase productivity, but that involves real, long term, effort. You need to analyse your processes, find the inefficiencies, and encourage all of your employees to come up with "a better way to build a mousetrap". You need to be willing to experiment, and pilot test your solutions. But this isn't a quarterly process, so it doesn't play well to Wall Street.

Buzzwords and Hype

We've all heard/read it. Phrases like "User Generated Content", "Web 2.0", "Interactive Network", "Blended Multimedia Content", and other such cruft get thrown around by marketing people, and picked up by astroturf bloggers (people who just regurgitate press releases). A large number of these terms are either redundant, or oxymorons.

Reading some blogs is like reading some advertising flak's rough draft - all fat, no meat. Pompous, at best. I swear some of these idiots post just to see their drivel in print, and since they have nothing real to say, just spew the same crap they read elsewhere!

Mind you, the only area worse than the tech sector on this is the political blogosphere. One "big name" dittohead regurgitates some think-tank's propaganda, and all of the other similar dittoheads echo it. I guess these twits think that if you say the same thing a magic number of times, it must thereby be true. Sorry, guys, up is still up, down is still down, and calling lies "truth" does not make it any less a lie.

Now, I admit, it isn't possible to come up with something "original" or "profound" every day. I can't. On the other hand, I don't post every day. I don't tend to post unless I think I have something real to say. (You may not agree with my assessment, but that's expected.) Maybe if this was a group blog, with lots of contributors, it would have a daily post with decent content. But it doesn't.

So, if you really want profound, real insight, don't read hype sites. Take everything you read on somebody's blog with a big grain of salt, and run away when it reads like marketing puffery or propaganda. Your brain and sanity will thank you.

My area of specialty is Linux operating system and software, both implementation and customization. I also write perl and shell code, admin miscellaneous source control systems, and even play with the hardware. I play with embedded systems as a hobby.

Since I'm not a programmer, I don't do any contributions to open source projects. I just test it and comment to those that do. Nothing glorious, or ego-worthy.

I like to write, and when I get time I do reviews (see The Other Hand). Since I actually have a fairly busy life, I don't get to write up as much as I like.

So I have fairly unknown, unimportant blogs, a fairly calm, routine job, and a tendency to flame from my days on usenet.

What a maroon. The "ljl" is linked to my typekey/typepad profile, which lists my web page. This blog is linked from my web page. How hard can it be to figure out "who I am and where I'm coming from"? Do I need to draw a map? I don't have a seeing eye dog to loan out!

I can't really take seriously a doofus who can't even click a link in his own blog to see my profile (the typekey link), and check out my web page to see a whole lot about me. He wants to be spoon-fed, or something.

I use "ljl" as a user id on this blog. I don't usually post anything with my full name, because I don't like people getting hung up on the uniqueness of my name and ignore what I'm writing about. But it's not "anonymous".

Feh. Color me very unimpressed.

BTW, I've been blogging since 2002. Blogging is not a "new" technology. In fact, it's been around since at least 1997! That's nearly ten years - ancient in the computer and web field!

In other news, Amazon now has PodCasts, a newer technology that offers content that their users actually might be interested in.

Oh, my. Robert Scoble (http://scobleizer.wordpress.com/) and Shel Israel (http://redcouch.typepad.com/) did a talk about blogging at Amazon last week. They are the authors of Naked Conversations, a book supposedly about the benefits of corporate blogging. From what has come out in the blogosphere since, it appears that their message is "Blogging makes you money, every company should do it!!" hype. That went over like a lead brick with Amazon's CTO Werner Vogels (http://www.allthingsdistributed.com/), who already has a blog, just not a corporate rahrah one. He asked pointy questions, and apparently the two A-list bloggers thought he was rude and thus Amazon didn't "get" blogging.

The irony, it burns. Two self-congratulatory author types (yes, I know, it's redundant) can't back up their hype for a tough, cynical, audience, and thus conclude that the company didn't "get" their pet technology, when the toughest questioner already has a well established blog!

So the thing ripples, unto and past the point that Slashdot (http://slashdot.org/) posts about the tiff. Yes, it was a slow news day at Slashdot, apparently. Then the ripples get big.

Now, I think that these two authors should give Mr Vogels a great big thanks. You can't buy this kind of publicity and attention. Even if their book is pure bunk, this will have sold at least twenty more copies, just to people wondering what they're whining about!

Now, I've read some of their bog entries, especially about this, and I immediately get out my Buzzword Bingo cards. Too bad I'm not playing for money. I've also read a number of Vogels entries, about this and other subjects. Geeky enough to lose me, but realistic. Guess which blog made my links? Yep, the geeky one.

I've looked at some other of the so-called "A-List" blogs. I am unimpressed. Lots of hype and razzle-dazzle, not much real meat. Hell, the closest to A-List that I peruse on a regular basis is Post Secret (http://postsecret.blogspot.com/) - because it feature stuff from real, albeit anonymous, people. No astroturf.

Amazon & Blogging

So, about blogging at Amazon and subsidiary companies:

First, a lot of what happens "inside" the company is under NDA. Duh.

Second, a lot of what we do in many areas is maintenance and upkeep. Most of it is either very routine, or fixing the results of Murphy's Law in "overdrive" mode. This is common to any large company I've worked for. Not blog fodder.

Third, there is a constant re-evaluation and revision of technologies, so Amazon can deliver the best service in it's core business: helping people find what they want, and get it when they want it. That all happens on internally, not in public. It's often boring, and not remotely ready for the public. Plus the NDA issue.

Now, Amazon has a policy on external communications, just like any other company. Employees who blog, like me, need to make it clear that the opinions that we post are our own, not Amazon's, and we are not allowed to discuss anything not already in the public domain (or cleared to be released to the public). Also, lots of stuff is just not blog fodder.

Some companies, like A9 with Open Search, have official blogs (http://blog.a9.com/blog/) where technologies and relevant links are pointed out. But that is because it "fits" with what they do. I have links to some of them in my sidebar.

I personally do not think that people who are looking for things to buy are interested in the mechanics of the order processing and delivery system. I know I'm not, I just want my stuff. So Amazon.com itself doesn't really have anything to blog about! Now the authors featured on the plogs, and the creators of listmania lists, or people who submit reviews, yes, they have something to contribute - and there are mechanisms on the site to do it.

Blogging for blogging's sake is silly. A company being pushed to "blog" for nebulous, feel good, gains when they already have other content addition methods that are better suited is ridiculous.

Obligatory Disclaimer and Disclosure

I work for A9.com, a subsidiary of Amazon. I blog on my lunch hour, and after work. My opinions are mine (all mine!), not those of my employer. Amazon and it's subsidiaries have thousands of employees, each with their own viewpoints.

Again, Thank You!

The basic SiteInfo specification is an XML format that the A9 Toolbar can read to let you provide navigation and menus for your site. The toolbar group came up with a stand-alone SiteInfo extension for Firefox so that more than just A9 toolbar users could enjoy this utility.

Then, Werner Vogels (CTO, Amazon) came up with a siteinfo template for MovableType blogs to automatically generate a SiteInfo for his blog, and, of course, shared it.

Well, it doesn't *quite* work happily with my somewhat oldish version (3.0) of MovableType. Phooey! I guess it's time to upgrade.

But, once I trimmed out the complaining bits, I got it to build a site info for this site. Got the A9 toolbar, or the Firefox extension? Check it out. Otherwise, get them...

My list of problem users is less than 10% of the company. My boss is great, my team is great, and I get some interesting stuff to play with, along with the daily stuff. The users are mostly technical, and most of my time is spent with Linux, not Windows.

The only wrinkle? The parent company's IT can play CYA and slowpoke too often. Not suprising considering the size of the company.

Yes, this place is a keeper.