See You in September Cake

googlegroups2sucks · Joined: 26 Jul 2007 Posts: 213

Praising Microsoft - and attacked by wolves
..=2E. Wherein I attempt to explain why I had the nerve to say that
Microsoft should get much credit for both the PC and Internet
revolutions.

By David Kirkpatrick, Fortune senior editor
September 1 2006: 3:54 PM EDT

More power to them. But I don't think, looking back at the genesis of
the computing era we still live in, any of them can explain why, for
instance, every major company on the planet standardized on Windows.

I can assure you it wasn't because Microsoft strong-armed all those
CIOs in some perfidiously evil way. It was because Windows was the
first product that came along that was easy enough to use, and had good
enough support, to transform how corporations worked. It certainly
wasn't perfect, but it was good enough, and that was saying something.

[ it certainly is saying something. i don't think enough people
realize how _difficult_ writing good code can be, especially for
complex environments with thousands upon thousands of variables. the
smallest bugs can grind everything else to a screeching halt. read
below, to see how awful software can get. ]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/

The FBI's Upgrade That Wasn't
$170 Million Bought an Unusable Computer System

By Dan Eggen and Griff Witte
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, August 18, 2006; A01

More than two years after Sept. 11, when a team of researchers from the
National Research Council showed up to review the status of Trilogy,
FBI officials assured them that the bureau had made great strides. That
was true in part: By early 2004, two of the three main pillars of the
program -- thousands of new PCs and an integrated hardware network --
were well on the way to being delivered and installed.

But, as the researchers soon learned, the heart of the makeover, VCF,
remained badly off track. In its final report, in May 2004, the NRC
team warned that the program was "currently not on a path to success."

The review team from the NRC, which is affiliated with the National
Academy of Sciences, was made up of more than a dozen scientists and
engineers from top universities and leading technology companies, all
of them independent of the FBI and its contractors.

The report observed that the rollout of the new case-management
software had been poorly planned nearly from the beginning. Months
after the program was supposed to be complete, it remained riddled with
shortcomings:

=B7 Agents would not be able to take copies of their cases into the
field for reference.

=B7 The program lacked common features, such as bookmarking or
histories, that would help agents navigate through millions of files.

=B7 The system could not properly sort data.

=B7 Most important, the FBI planned to launch the new software all at
once, with minimal testing beforehand. Doing so, the NRC team
concluded, could cause "mission-disruptive failures" if the software
did not work, because the FBI had no backup plan.

After the disappointing preview of VCF in late 2003 by Azmi, who was
then an adviser to Mueller tasked with reviewing the system, the FBI
scrambled to rescue the project. The Aerospace Corp., a federally
funded research-and-development firm in El Segundo, Calif., was hired
for $2 million in June 2004 to review the program and come up with a
"corrective action plan."

The conclusion: SAIC had so badly bungled the project that it should be
abandoned.

In a 318-page report, completed in January 2005 and obtained by The
Post under the Freedom of Information Act, Aerospace said the SAIC
software was incomplete, inadequate and so poorly designed that it
would be essentially unusable under real-world conditions. Even in
rudimentary tests, the system did not comply with basic requirements,
the report said. It did not include network-management or archiving
systems -- a failing that would put crucial law enforcement and
national security data at risk, according to the report.

"From the documents that define the system at the highest level, down
through the software design and into the source code itself, Aerospace
discovered evidence of incompleteness, lack of follow-through, failure
to optimize and missing documentation," the report said.

Archived from group: alt>cake

googlegroups2sucks · Joined: 26 Jul 2007 Posts: 213

http://www.kantei.go.jp/foreign/m-magazine/backnumber/2006/0831.html

Koizumi Cabinet E-mail Magazine No. 247 (August 31, 2006)
[Lion Heart -- Message from Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi]
(Provisional Translation)

Visit to Central Asia

Junichiro Koizumi here.

There still remain today a number of buildings that were built by these
detainees. Navoi Theater in the city of Tashkent is one such building.
It is said that people in Uzbekistan praised the work of the Japanese
detainees when the theater survived the large earthquake that hit the
city 40 years ago while many of the nearby buildings collapsed, saying
that, "Buildings constructed by Japanese people are indeed sturdy."

[ not only buildings, but lens' too. ]

http://www.nikon.co.jp/main/eng/portfolio/about/history/nikkor/n27_e.htm

Fastest 35 mm lens
Tale Twenty Seven: Ai Nikkor 35 mm F1.4S
by OSHITA, Kouichi

I have been telling the tale about digital camera lenses for two nights
in a row, so let's get back to the Nikkor lens for SLR cameras. The 35
mm F1.4 was my longing lens, which led me to meet the Nikkor.

As with the W-Nikkor 3.5 cm F1.8, even the large-diameter wide-angle
lenses for rangefinder cameras are similar in size to standard lenses.
The lens under development was intended to provide the same size as a
standard lens and the same 52 mm attachment size. The task of designing
this lens was taken on by Yoshiyuki SHIMIZU. At that time lenses with
similar specifications were available for rangefinder cameras, though
the specifications for SLR cameras were the first. In addition,
large-aperture lenses fail to deliver fully satisfactory performance
even if minimal irregularities in lens aberration are present. Thus, it
is not hard to imagine that our predecessors had difficulty both in
designing and in manufacturing the lens. Almost five years had passed
from the start of development to when the target performance was
finally realized after two prototypes.

The lens went on sale successfully in 1971 with the features of
Close-Range Correction (CRC) System introduced first in the 24 mm F2.8
and the Nikkor's first multi-layer-coating treatment. It utilized all
available technical know-how that the then Nippon Kogaku could offer,
suitable for the world's first 35 mm F1.4 lens for SLR cameras.

This lens has been used to date since its first introduction in 1971
through changes in the lens barrels and the adoption of what was then
the latest super-integrated coating technologies; changes were also
made to the optical system at the time when the lens barrel design was
changed to the NEW-Nikkor. Though the basic lens construction remained
unchanged, the glass material and the lens curvature were changed by
Teruyoshi TSUNASHIMA, to improve the performance at open aperture. The
lens has been consistently in use for over 30 years, thanks to the
efforts for continual improvement of our predecessors even after the
lens was brought to perfection.

Today, this lens can no longer boast of having unique specifications,
although the 35 mm F1.4 offering the attachment size of 52 mm is still
unparalleled. The lens will keep holding the title of the smallest 35
mm F1.4 for SLR cameras, at least for the time being.

[ tradeoffs are everywhere in life, and photography is no exception.
one of the pleasures of taking pictures are the tradeoffs actually,
because they are so clear cut. in making a 35mm lens with a large
apertured f1.4 while maintaining a 52mm diameter, nikon managed to
_neutralize_ a classic tradeoff. large aperture lens' (good - less
need for flash) usually means large diameter (bad - heavier, another
stack of filters to lug around). very tough to achieve from a
technical and manufacturing stand point.

as stated above, it took one of the best companies of its day a full 5
years of development before they could obtain their perfectionist
goals. and it turns out, the balance they achieved was perfect enough
to have lasted over 30 years on the open market, largely unchanged. it
came out in 1971, and was in production until just recently.

that's not all. the lens performance, while not perfect, came pretty
darn close to high-end german-made optics (e.g. leica), but at
dramatically lower prices. in my estimation, the 35mm f1.4 achieved
about 95+% of leica's performance, but at about _one quarter_ of its
street price. the difference in results are virtually
indistinguishable with the naked eye. from a business stand point, i
think it's an astounding achievement, greater than the technical merits
of the 35mm f1.4 gem, and best demonstrated by the fact it lasted so
long on the market. ]

googlegroups2sucks · Joined: 26 Jul 2007 Posts: 213

http://www.eastandard.net/hm_news/news.php?articleid=1143957752

Leaders support Obama on graft claims
By Vincent Moracha and Mangoa Mosota

Leaders from Western Kenya have reacted strongly to Government
criticism of US Senator Barack Obama following his sentiments on
corruption and tribalism.

MPs Mr Omingo Magara (South Mugirango), Mrs Ruth Oniang'o
(Nominated), Mr Gor Sunguh (Kisumu Town East) and Bishop Bineah Salala
of the Anglican Church of Kenya said Obama's the sentiments were
true.

Oniang'o said the outbursts by Government Spokesman Dr Alfred Mutua
and the Kenyan Ambassador to the US, Mr Peter Oginga Ogego, were acts
of cowardice and a desperate attempt to run away from the truth.

"Why didn't they respond when Obama was still in the country? They
feared a backlash from Kenyans who had been awakened by Obama's open
talk at the University of Nairobi," she said.

Deep-rooted vices

Oniang'o said Obama had the right to comment on corruption and
tribalism on behalf of a majority of voiceless Kenyans.

"Obama is our son and we will welcome him back to our country," said
Oniang'o.

Sunguh said corruption and tribalism were deep-rooted vices that could
ruin the country if not checked.

"President Kibaki's advisers are his tribesmen, who have shown little
interest in forging national unity. Corruption in the Government is no
secret to Kenyans," claimed Sunguh.

He said because Kenya gets financial aid from the US, its
representatives have a right to question how the money is used.

Magara dismissed Mutua as a man who did not bother much about
researching before engaging in national debates, adding that Kenyans
should not take him seriously.

"He is like a music system for the Government," he said, adding that
Mutua's remarks were inconsequential.

[ i must protest. i don't think there's anything wrong with being a
music system. cough. please allow me the chance to play a song for
kenyan unity and against tribalism. ]

One Love
Bob Marley

One love, one heart
Let's get together and feel all right
Hear the children crying (One love)
Hear the children crying (One heart)
Sayin', give thanks and praise to the Lord and I will feel all right
Sayin', let's get together and feel all right
Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa

Let them all pass all their dirty remarks (One love)
There is one question I'd really love to ask (One heart)
Is there a place for the hopeless sinner
Who has hurt all mankind just to save his own?
Believe me

One love, one heart
Let's get together and feel all right
As it was in the beginning (One love)
So shall it be in the end (One heart)
All right, give thanks and praise to the Lord and I will feel all right
Let's get together and feel all right
One more thing

Let's get together to fight this Holy Armageddon (One love)
So when the Man comes there will be no, no doom (One song)
Have pity on those whose chances grow thinner
There ain't no hiding place from the Father of Creation

Sayin', one love, one heart
Let's get together and feel all right
I'm pleading to mankind (One love)
Oh, Lord (One heart) Whoa.

Give thanks and praise to the Lord and I will feel all right
Let's get together and feel all right.
(Repeat)

googlegroups2sucks · Joined: 26 Jul 2007 Posts: 213

addendum: the 35mm f1.4 ais is still in production! whoops. a bunch
of ais lenses were discontinued earlier this year, but not the 35mm
f1.4, according to nikon's site:

http://nikonimaging.com/global/products/lens/mf/wideangle/35mmf_14/index.htm

googlegroups2sucks · Joined: 26 Jul 2007 Posts: 213

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060905/ap_on_bi_ge/viacom_ceo

Freston out, Dauman in as Viacom's CEO By SETH SUTEL, AP Business
Writer
19 minutes ago

NEW YORK - Tom Freston, one of the founders of MTV, is being forced out
as CEO of Viacom Inc. just eight months after the media conglomerate
split up from CBS Corp. Viacom's chairman and controlling shareholder
Sumner Redstone said the board was disappointed with the company's
stock performance and wanted more aggressive management.

Freston is being replaced by Philippe Dauman, a longtime Viacom
executive and board member. Dauman's business partner Thomas Dooley,
another board member, is also assuming an active role in the company
with a newly created title of senior executive vice president and chief
administrative officer.

Redstone told analysts on a conference call that the decision was a
difficult one given Freston's deep roots at the company, but that the
board wanted a more entrepreneurial and aggressive management team that
would have a closer relationship with investors.

"On the one hand we love Tom," Redstone said. "On the other hand, the
board felt that not enough was being done ... that the communication
with Wall Street had been deficient, and the stock price reflected
that."

[ i thought the stock price was up after cruise was thrown away. funny
how these things work out.

so freston is out for not being "aggressive" enough, while cruise was
cut loose because he was too aggressive when jumping on oprah's couch.
]

Dauman will report to Redstone, while Dooley will report to Dauman.

Dauman and Dooley have worked with Redstone for more than 20 years.
Dauman has been a director of Viacom since 1987, oversaw strategic
transactions, legal and government affairs, human resources and
administration in the 1990s and was general counsel of Viacom from 1993
to 1998.

[ i don't see how anyone who's survived in redstone's world for 20
years can be anything but a yes man. for better or worse, viacom will
be run by an aging ceo that judges talent as if they were
over-aggressive executives, and executives as if they were
under-aggressive performance artists. ]

googlegroups2sucks · Joined: 26 Jul 2007 Posts: 213

http://www.kantei.go.jp/foreign/m-magazine/backnumber/2006/0907.html

Japan and AU

By Alpha Oumar KONARE, Chairperson of the African Union Commission,
Former President of the Republic of Mali

Japan has increased its cooperation with Africa and launched various
initiatives aimed at mobilizing international support for Africa's
economic and social development in recent years. Its approach is
laudable as it encourages the ownership and development policies by
African countries.

Two names come immediately to mind when reviewing the development of
Africa-Japan partnership. First, Honorable Mori, former Prime Minister
of Japan launched this partnership. Honorable Mori is an African, the
keeper of the holly Temple.

The second, is also an African brother who has continued Mori's
historical move, I am referring to Honorable Prime Minister Koizumi. He
has visited Africa and the headquarters of the African Union. He
organized TICAD III in Tokyo in 2003, welcoming 23 African Presidents
within 48 hours.

Prime Minister Koizumi wants to share Japan's successes with Africa.
This is the reflection of his profound belief in human beings and their
sense of solidarity, work efforts and good governance practices. Prime
Minister does everything in a style which unique and can seduce. He is
discrete, alert, determined and has the urge to win and to teach.

[ that he is. ]

I have no doubt in my mind that with Prime Minster Koizumi and because
his actions, supported by Mori, he will pass on smoothly to his
successor and in 2008, at the time of the fourth TICAD, TICAD IV, and
the G8 Summit, Africa will have begun its own success story.

Africa will never cease to thank Koizumi, and he will always be with
Africa.

[ another one of my marley faves below... ]

http://www.bobmarley.com/songs/songs.cgi?redemption

Bob Marley

"Redmption Song" was a plaintive, almost Dylanesque acoustic spiritual
song, devoid of any trance of reggae. When he sang it, he wore the
expression of a playful child, but his voice bore the authority of a
Biblical patriarch.

A universal tune, another Bob Marley song that has become a standard,
'Redemption Song' is like a final statement in a career, a summation of
all the themes and thought that had created it. "You've got to live out
the book."

Redemption Song
Bob Marley

Old pirates yes they rob I
Sold I to the merchant ships
Minutes after they took I from the
Bottom less pit
But my hand was made strong
By the hand of the almighty
We forward in this generation triumphantly
Won't you help to sing these songs of freedom
Cause all I ever had redemption songs, redemption songs

Emancipate yourselves from mental slavery
None but ourselves can free our minds
Have no fear for atomic energy
'Cause none of them can stop the time
How long shall they kill our prophets
While we stand aside and look
Some say it's just a part of it
We've got to fulfill the book

Won't you help to sing, these songs of freedom
'Cause all I ever had, redemption songs, redemption songs, redemption
songs

Emancipate yourselves from mental slavery
None but ourselves can free our minds
Have no fear for atomic energy
'Cause none of them can stop the time
How long shall they kill our prophets
While we stand aside and look
Yes some say it's just a part of it
We've got to fulfill the book

Won't you help to sing, these songs of freedom
Cause all I ever had, redemption songs
All I ever had, redemption songs
These songs of freedom, songs of freedom

googlegroups2sucks · Joined: 26 Jul 2007 Posts: 213

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/business/story.html?id=8b5b53b8-b0b3-4c1f-80da-1bb1eb4a4256

Personal and political wounds slow to heal, Stronach finds
Barbara Yaffe, Vancouver Sun
Published: Thursday, August 24, 2006

Possibly to her consternation, none of Stronach's political acrobatics
to date has gotten more media play than her May 2005 post-fling breakup
with Peter MacKay, then the Conservatives' foreign affairs critic.

MacKay took on the role of broken-hearted lover last summer,
pathetically retreating to a potato patch in his home riding of Nova
Scotia, comforted by the task of planting, family dog at his side.

Stronach laughs, "I don't eat potatoes," then turns serious, saying of
the breakup, "It was very difficult. People have no appreciation for
how difficult that breakup was."

Their falling-out upon her departure from the Conservative caucus
followed a difficult meeting in Harper's Opposition leader's office,
attended by the leader along with MPs Jay Hill and Rob Nicholson. "We
had a strong difference of opinion."

The discussion centred on Stronach's determination to split with the
party position against a Liberal budget, for the sake of her
Newmarket-Aurora constituents.

[ for the record, when i made the post about someone sitting down with
belinda and having a talk about switching, i did _not_ know she was
going out with mackay. i didn't even know he existed.

the only things running through my mind was the pressures harper must
have been going through from trying to topple the martin's liberal
govt, and belinda's public disagreement. i had the sense a strict
conservative like harper wouldn't take that kind of dissent lightly,
and either something had already snapped between the two, or was going
to snap fairly soon. thus my post. i'd say it took less than 30
seconds for me to think about, then spell out the idea.

out of 100, it was ranked maybe 90, in terms of priorties. pretty darn
low. mostly, i was just relieved blair/brown's labour had won because
their participation was essential for the g8 objectives to move
forward. the only reason i was following developments in ottawa at
all, was because it centred around corruption issues.

thinking back on it now, if i had known belinda was going out with
peter at the time, i probably would _not_ have written that particular
post, since it makes the possibility of crossing all the more unlikely.
i probably would've written some joke about political arguments in the
bedroom instead. ]

googlegroups2sucks · Joined: 26 Jul 2007 Posts: 213

[ love this post! ]

http://www.nikonians.org/dcforum/DCForumID6/18452.html

Enterprise
Member since 6-Sep-06
17 posts 10-Sep-06, 05:55 PM (GMT+1)

"The Most Hated Lens"

I'm talking about a lens that is the worst of the worst and the best of
the best, a champion among losers and a Queen among Kings.
I'm talking about the Nikon 18-200 AF-S VR. Never before has a single
lens so divided Nikonians, so split the fabric of DSLR users of all
makes and models. It's mere mention sends shivers down the spines of
Pentax and Sony shooters.

How It All Began
In the beginning we had expensive zooms and primes. Lesser glass was
easy to identify, poor in build and limited in actual use. Rich or
poor, the man with a 17-35 2.8 stood tall and knew he had bought into
the secret society, even when his skill could not match the abilities
of such fine glass....and few could. Nikon watched this and saw that it
was good.

The Trickle Down Effect
As the DSLR wars burned on, Nikon knew a change had to be made.
"We must evolve and we must abandon pretense and fashion. A lens shall
be made, oh, a lens of such properties that it will seem impossible to
some. But yay, we are Nikon. It will be done."
And Nikon, drawing from the trickles of vast optical wisdom siphoned
off Nikonian caves of Chromatic aberration brought forth the.....
Nikon 18-200 AF-S VR DX

Hate Builds in the Hearts of Many
Even before a single human held or looked through the 18-200, a
stirring of anger could be felt. It was jealous, spurned and without
logic. Those who had sacrificed at Nikon's altar could not comprehend
this callous venture.
"We sold our hearts and souls for the promise of individualism and
flattened fields of excellence and this is how you repay us?!" You
build a monstrosity of economy to challenge our refinement? You place
excellence into the hands of THAT class of people? Surely we deserve
more separation from them than this!?"

The Pangs of Truth
But it was true. Nikon, seeking to find new allegiance amid the masses
had built a treasure...affordable and easy to master, light and with
unexpected versatility. It could not topple a 70-200 nor challenge a
28mm 1.4. It could not find respect amongst angry hordes of
prime-mates. But what it could do, with far too much competence to
bear, was capture moment after moment with speed and grace, sharpness
and contrast. And it could do so continuously, while elitists fumbled
for their better crystals. Once the 1.4's were remounted the diligent
18-200 had already completed it's job. And Nikon saw that it was
good...though not as good as a 28-70 2.8 if you had time to swap for
it.

And End and a Beginning
Nikon knew that this was only the beginning. Yesterday's superb glass
is today's glass of mediocrity...a glass half empty. And so it goes
with the 18-200, a lens that measures up, perhaps too well and too soon
for full acceptance. Purest's will remain devoted to the 2.8's and the
1.4's. They will scoff at the 28-200G, the 18-70DX and the 18-55DX, but
their disdain and dread in it's full force is brought forth by the
amazing 18-200 alone. Yet it cannot be beaten, hurt or challenged. It
is alone, unique and superb in it's own right. It's absurd range and
sharpness lead enraged pixel peepers to blow up images 50, 100 and even
150%!!!
"You see this!", they cry! "A soft edge! A blue edge! A fuzz, a creep
and a squeak! We won't have it!!!"
And at 250% crop, "There, there! We told you! All soft, all blur, no
pop, it looks like fur!!!"

And Nikon saw that it was good.

MAX

Make it so!

googlegroups2sucks · Joined: 26 Jul 2007 Posts: 213

[ save for the iraq war, which i will always view as a strategic
blunder, it's difficult to disagree with much of anything stated below.
underestimating this man would be a mistake. ]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5336082.stm

In full: Cameron on foreign policy

Here is the full text of Conservative leader David Cameron's speech on
foreign policy and national security in the annual JP Morgan lecture at
the British American Project on 11 September 2006:

"It is an honour to be speaking to the British American Project today,
on this sombre anniversary.

Your organisation is one of the most illustrious of the countless ties
that connect our two countries.

Today we remember the almost three thousand dead, killed in the most
callous and indiscriminate act of terrorism in modern history.

There is much we owe to their memories.

To find and defeat those responsible for planning international terror.

To do everything we can to stop further outrages.

And, above all, to make the world safer for the future.

Fighting terrorism is the most consuming concern for modern government.

I know that if my party wins the next election, the moment I walk
through the front door of Downing Street I will have the huge
responsibility of protecting the British public from this threat.

It will involve action to support and enhance our security response.

It will involve action to make our society stronger at home.

And it will require firm action on the international front.

It is the international dimension that I'd like to focus on today.

It is important to take care when developing foreign policy in
opposition.

First, we are Her Majesty's loyal opposition - and I take the 'loyal'
part seriously.

Where possible, we should offer support to the Government so ministers
can speak abroad with the authority of the whole country.

And second, we should use the time and space available to us seriously.

Foreign policy-making should not be a narrow discipline: we should
bring a wide range of experts into the process.

William Hague has been developing our thinking in a range of areas,
with, for example, a new Conservative focus on human rights.

And I have established a Foreign Affairs Council to access the advice
of a wide range of senior former diplomats and service personnel.

It includes, for example, Charles Powell and Charles Guthrie, as well
as historians and former ministers, and will help me formulate foreign
policy for the next Parliament.

I also believe that we should try to debate foreign policy in a mature
and responsible way.

It is not responsible to try and polarise debate through simplistic
exercises in political positioning.

If you question the approach of the US administration, you're
"anti-American". If you support what the United States is doing, you're
"America's poodle." If you care about civil liberties, you're "soft on
terror." If you back an extension of our security laws, you're
"building a police state".

These are not mature contributions to debate.

Foreign policy decisions are not black and white, something which the
public well understands.

We need a sense of balance, judgement and proportion in handling the
complex and dangerous challenges of foreign and security policy in the
twenty-first century.

In analysing the threat we face today, I'd like to go back to September
11th, 2001.

At lunchtime on that day I was working at home in my constituency in
Oxfordshire.

When the news came that America was under attack, the first thing I
thought about was Sam, my wife.

She was in Manhattan.

She'd flown there to open a new store, one that she had designed.

It took several hours to get through to her on the phone.

Like so many others, I watched those towers come crashing down.

I used to go for meetings there when I worked in business before
becoming an MP.

Like everyone in this room, I looked on with horror and wondered what
kind of world had dawned that morning.

9/11 was a wake-up call indeed..... although with hindsight, the first
attack on the World Trade Centre in 1993, the horrific bombings of US
embassies in East Africa, and the assault on the USS Cole should have
woken us up already.

But 9/11 alerted us all to a security threat on a new and unprecedented
scale.... to a world of connections and complexity, conflating
religion, foreign policy, domestic security policy, even economic
policy in an unstable mix..... and to a world in which we urgently
needed new thinking to match these frightening new challenges.

All that we have learned since 9/11 confirms this picture.

Yet there are some who still do not appreciate the new realities.

They believe that the threat is no different in nature from that posed
to Britain by terrorism in the past, for example by the IRA.

I am afraid that this view simply does not reflect reality.

This terrorist threat is clearly different from those we have faced
before.

We are dealing with people who are prepared to do anything, kill any
number, and use suicide attacks to further their aims.

These people include a number of our own citizens.

They are driven by a wholly incorrect interpretation - an extreme
distortion - of the Islamic faith, which holds that mass murder and
terror are not only acceptable, but necessary.

As I said in a speech on this subject in August last year, "there is no
list of demands we can accept and no group of terrorists we could meet
and negotiate with - even if we wanted to - to stop the attacks."

This terrorism cannot be appeased - it has to be defeated.

And as I said in August this year, the actions we must take
domestically, in partnership with other countries, could not be more
pressing.

Expanding the security services and unfreezing the Home Office budget.

Improving anti-terrorism law.

Deporting those foreign nationals who threaten or directly encourage
terror.

All of these things are vital and urgent.

But true success in this endeavour, and true progress in making the
world a safer place requires a deep understanding of what we're dealing
with.

We will not defeat the terrorists unless we cut off their life support
systems.

And the deformed vision of Islam which inspires some of them is part of
a wider picture that includes..... the perception by many Muslims that
Islam is under attack..... the suppression of political freedom and
economic opportunity by ruthless dictatorships..... the relative lack
of progress in some Muslim societies..... and the belief that the West
deliberately fails to resolve issues of crucial concern to Muslims,
like Palestine.

The clear implication of this is that we cannot just rely on
conventional counter-terrorism.

We need a broader and highly co-ordinated strategy..... identifying and
thwarting terrorist plots..... separating the terrorists from their
recruiting base.... and winning the trust of the majority Muslim
community..... addressing the geopolitical issues that constitute
direct and indirect security threats.

In foreign policy terms, how have we dealt with this threat over the
past five years? Broadly, the response can be summarised as 'neo
conservatism.'

There is a wide-ranging debate about exactly what neo-conservatism is.

But for the purposes of my argument today, we can focus on three
propositions that are most commonly understood to represent the core of
neo-conservative thinking.

First, a realistic appreciation of the scale of the threat the world
faces from terrorism.

Second, a conviction that pre-emptive military action is not only an
appropriate, but a necessary component of tackling the terrorist threat
in the short term.

And third, a belief that in the medium and long term, the promotion of
freedom and democracy, including through regime change, is the best
guarantee of our security.

We must be honest in looking at what has happened in the world during
the five years that these beliefs have been the guiding principles of
British and American policy.

It is, of course, a mixed picture.

We have managed to avert further terrorist attacks on the scale of
9/11, and our security services deserve all our thanks for the brave
and painstaking work they do.

And yet across the globe, terrorists are being recruited in increasing
numbers and are active in many more areas than before September 11th.

Hundreds of people have died at their hands: here in London we lost
fifty two people in July last year.

Two of the world's most repressive regimes, in Afghanistan and Iraq,
have been removed.

I supported both these actions, and I support our ongoing work in those
countries.

And yet both continue to suffer appalling levels of violence.

These countries used to suffer barbaric dictatorships.

Now they suffer terrible civil conflict, and our own troops are
continually exposed to murderous attacks.

Libya, once the greatest terrorist threat to the West, has abandoned
its nuclear weapons programme.

But North Korea continues to make steps towards developing its own
arsenal.

Syria has withdrawn its troops from Lebanon.

But as we have seen in recent months, Hezbollah still poses a grave
threat to democracy in Lebanon and to stability in the region.

And at the epicentre of global instability, in the Middle East, Israel
is in the slow and painful process of disengaging from Gaza, and free
elections have been held in the occupied territories.

But those elections delivered Hamas to power - an organisation which
remains publicly committed to the destruction of Israel and prepared to
use terrorist methods.

Finally, there is Iran.

There is little positive to report on this front.

The regime in Tehran has encouraged parts of the insurgency in Iraq and
is widely suspected of involvement in the murder of British troops
around Basra.

It is the principal sponsor of Hezbollah.

Worst of all, it is now only a few short years away from developing its
own nuclear weapons capability - and it remains to be seen whether the
world's great powers have the will and the ability to stop it.

So: continuing instability in the world.

An ever-present threat of terrorism.

Democracy struggling, often unsuccessfully, to take root in the Middle
East.

The threat of a nuclear Iran.

On any reasonable measure, the challenges are greater today than five
years ago.

And we must recognise something else - that the way we have tried to
meet these challenges over the past five years has had an unintended
and worrying consequence.

It has fanned the flames of anti-Americanism, both here in Britain and
around the world.

I find it extremely troubling how many people - not just in countries
affected by war and instability, but here in the West, here in
Britain=BF =BFregard America not as a beacon of freedom and a
pro-democracy superpower, but as the world's worst power.

Anti-Americanism represents an intellectual and moral surrender.

It is a complacent cowardice born of resentment of success and a desire
for the world's problems simply to go away.

I and my Party are instinctive friends of America, and passionate
supporters of the Atlantic Alliance.

We believe in the alliance for both emotional and rational reasons.

Emotional - because we share so much.

A set of values and beliefs about the world - a common language, common
institutions, and our common belief in individual liberty.

Profound memories too - our soldiers fighting together to liberate
Europe; our joint effort to withstand and defeat the Soviet Empire.

But there are rational reasons for the Atlantic Alliance as well.

The fact is that that Britain just cannot achieve the things we want to
achieve in the world unless we work with the world's superpower.

So when it comes to the special relationship with America,
Conservatives feel it, understand it and believe in it.

All Conservatives share this attitude.

I cannot think of a single Conservative Member of Parliament who does
not think the same way.

That is a source of great strength for any Conservative leader in their
dealings with America.

We do not have to worry about a divided party at home.

It is precisely this strength of feeling that gives us the confidence
to speak freely to any American administration.

I believe that it is now vital for our strategic and security interests
that we challenge anti-Americanism.

That means reviving the best traditions of the special relationship.

And it also means developing with America a tough and effective foreign
policy for the age of international terrorism - a policy that moves
beyond neo-conservatism, retaining its strengths but learning from its
failures.

Britain does not need to establish her identity by recklessly poking
the United States in the eye, as some like to do.

But we will serve neither our own, nor America's, nor the world's
interests if we are seen as America's unconditional associate in every
endeavour.

Our duty is to our own citizens, and to our own conception of what is
right for the world.

We should be solid but not slavish in our friendship with America.

It all comes down to a sense of confidence.

Your long-standing friend will tell you the truth, confident that the
friendship will survive.

Your newest friend will tell you what you want to hear, eager to please
so as not to put the friendship at risk.

We have never, until recently, been uncritical allies of America.

We have for more than half a century acted as a junior partner to the
United States.

Churchill, though he found it difficult, was junior partner to
Roosevelt; Margaret Thatcher to Ronald Reagan, John Major to George
Bush Senior in the First Gulf War.

It is not an easy part to play, but these three Prime Ministers learned
to carry it through with skill and success.

I worry that we have recently lost the art.

I fear that if we continue as at present we may combine the maximum of
exposure with the minimum of real influence over decisions.

The sooner we rediscover the right balance the better for Britain and
our alliance.

This is not anti-American.

This is what America wants.

As Senator John McCain has said: "not only do we seek European
leadership, we believe it is necessary to make the world a better,
safer place for our interests and our values. This means true
leadership, not a group of countries that merely follows American
directions, as some fear; nor a coalition that opposes American power
simply because of its country of origin, as others suggest."

In that context, what should be the outline of British and American
foreign policy in the post-neo-conservative world? Let me start by
making clear where I agree with the neo-conservative approach.

I fully appreciate the scale of the threat we face.

I believe that the leadership of the United States, supported by
Britain, is central to the struggle in which we are engaged.

I believe that the neo-conservatives are right to argue that extending
freedom is an essential objective of Western foreign policy.

And I agree that Western powers should be prepared, in the last resort,
to use military force.

We know from history that a country must be ready to defend itself and
its allies.

More than that, we and others are justified in using pre-emptive force
when an attack on us is being prepared, and when all means of peaceful
dissuasion and deterrence have failed.

Furthermore, I believe that we should be prepared to intervene for
humanitarian purposes to rescue people from genocide.

But I believe that in the last five years we have suffered from the
absence of two crucial qualities which should always condition foreign
policy-making.

Humility, and patience.

These are not warlike words.

They are not so glamorous and exciting as the easy sound-bites we have
grown used to in recent years.

But these sound-bites had the failing of all foreign policy designed to
fit into a headline.

They were unrealistic and simplistic.

They represented a view which sees only light and darkness in the world
- and which believes that one can be turned to the other as quickly as
flicking a switch.

I do not see things that way.

I am a liberal conservative, rather than a neo-conservative.

Liberal - because I support the aim of spreading freedom and democracy,
and support humanitarian intervention.

Conservative - because I recognise the complexities of human nature,
and am sceptical of grand schemes to remake the world.

A liberal conservative approach to foreign policy today is based on
five propositions.

First, that we should understand fully the threat we face.

Second, that democracy cannot quickly be imposed from outside.

Third, that our strategy needs to go far beyond military action.

Fourth, that we need a new multilateralism to tackle the new global
challenges we face.

And fifth, that we must strive to act with moral authority.

Let me touch on each of these in turn.

Part of the problem we have encountered these past five years is that
the struggle has been perceived - as the terrorists want it to be
perceived - as a single struggle between single protagonists.

The danger is that by positing a single source of terrorism - a global
jihad - and opposing it with a single global response - American-backed
force - we will simply fulfil our own prophecy.

We are not engaged in a clash of civilisations, and suggestions that we
are can too easily have the opposite effect to the one intended: making
the extremists more attractive to the uncommitted This is not to deny
the connections between terrorist activity in different parts of the
world.

It is simply an appeal for us to be a little smarter in how we handle
those connections.

Our aim should be to dismantle the threat, separating its component
parts, rather than amalgamating them into a single global jihad that
simply becomes a call to arms.

The second proposition of a liberal conservative foreign policy is a
recognition that democracy cannot quickly be imposed from outside.

In part, this is because democracy takes time.

The transformation of a country from tyranny to freedom does not begin
and end with regime change and the calling of elections.

Put another way, democracy is not the foundation of freedom.

Democracy itself has foundations, without which it cannot stand.

A great American President once stood on an American battlefield and
reminded his audience that their forefathers had "brought forth in this
continent a new nation."

As Lincoln said at Gettysburg, America was "conceived in liberty." But
though that new nation was born in 1776, it had been long in the womb.

It takes longer to build a democracy than the time it takes to draw up
and sign a constitution or a declaration of independence.

The foundations of democracy are the rule of law, including the
freedoms of speech and association; civil society, meaning the network
of independent organisations which sustain social life independently
from the state; =BFan independent and impartial judiciary; =BFand a free
economy, including the freedom to trade and to register property.

The ambition to spread democracy is noble and just.

But it cannot be quickly achieved to suit a political timetable.

Because it takes time, it cannot easily be imposed from outside.

Liberty grows from the ground - it cannot be dropped from the air by an
unmanned drone.

In the last month I have visited both South Africa and India.

These countries show that democracy can flourish everywhere there are
people.

And the key to this flourishing is growth from within.

Roelf Meyer, co-architect of South Africa's new, non-racial
constitution, told me why he thought the handover from apartheid to
majority rule was achieved with such relative peace and stability.

One of the main reasons, he said, was that political and community
leaders inside South Africa took ownership of the process, and
responsibility for their people's future.

So in many ways the debate about whether Britain, or America, or any
other external power, should engage in nation-building misses the
point.

You can't carry out nation-building unless the people inside a country
want to build a nation.

As the Republican Senator Chuck Hagel has put it, "We can help
countries reach their destination but it must be on their terms and
their way."

A good example is the EU accession process, through which countries
have voluntarily embraced democratic and institutional reform in order
to gain the benefits of EU membership.

Let us remember that it took Britain and America decades to emancipate
women and the male working population, to clear slums and to conquer
killer diseases like cholera and typhoid.

So we must show sympathy for the sheer difficulty and desperation of
life in many countries that we would like to move forward on the path
to democracy.

They face huge pressures and challenges - like the basic battle for
water supplies, or a high birth rate leading to an overwhelmingly young
population.

Recognition of these circumstances leads us to the third proposition of
the liberal conservative approach: that our strategy needs to go far
beyond military action.

As I have made clear, there may be circumstances in which military
intervention is the best way to deal with security threats: we should
never shy away from that reality.

I thought carefully about this responsibility before deciding to stand
for the leadership of my Party.

I know that sometimes it will have to be done.

Sending troops into battle is one of the most difficult decisions a
Prime Minister can ever make.

I've always had the greatest faith in our armed forces.

I was in Afghanistan earlier this summer.

Seeing our servicemen and women at work in Kandahar, in Kabul, and at
Camp Bastion in Helmand province has redoubled that faith.

But it is not military might alone which will deliver security to us,
or freedom for the world.

If we accept that democracy takes time; that it is founded on the
institutions of society, and that it cannot easily be imposed from
without=BF =BFthen we must put far greater effort into helping undermine
dictators and tyrannies from within, and helping moderate regimes to
move forward.

Bombs and missiles are bad ambassadors.

They win no hearts and minds; they can build no democracies.

There are more tools of statecraft than military power.

Intelligence, economic development, educational training, support for
pro-democracy groups, international law, foreign aid, sporting and
cultural initiatives can all play their part.

Britain has a huge contribution to make here, from the knowledge and
experience of our diplomats abroad, to the work of the British Council,
to our expertise in culture, media and communications.

As the limits of military power become more obvious, we must use our
non-military power to better effect.

So force should be a last resort.

Even in a technological age every war produces innocent civilian
casualties.

Every war, however skilfully conducted - and our own armed forces have
shown unmatched skill in such conflicts - produces its quota of sorrow
and anger, with consequences hard to predict.

The prospect of war may attract too readily those who look for quick
dramatic answers.

Such answers often turn out to be illusory.

Whether our chosen method of intervention is military or non-military,
I believe that the new and highly connected nature of the threat we
face demands a new emphasis on multilateralism=BF =BFthe fourth
proposition underlying the liberal conservative approach.

We should not be na=EFve or starry-eyed about multilateralism.

But a multilateral approach is essential if we are successfully to
tackle some of the biggest security challenges we face - for example
the challenge of nuclear proliferation.

Of course, a country's right to decide its own foreign and defence
policy, and - within a framework of rights and responsibilities - to
act alone when necessary, is a cornerstone of nationhood.

But as we have found in recent years, a country may act alone - but it
cannot always succeed alone.

The United States has learnt this lesson painfully.

As Senator Joe Biden has put it: "There was never any doubt that we
could defeat Saddam Hussein without a single foreign soldier.

But because we chose to wage war virtually alone, we have been
responsible for the aftermath virtually alone.

" A new multilateralism should have two dimensions: international
institutions, and international alliances.

There has always been scope for multilateral action that involves NATO,
the UN, the G8, the EU and other similar institutions.

But I believe we will need to both reform existing institutions, and
develop new ones if we are to have the range of response mechanisms we
need for the range of security challenges we face.

In deciding the most appropriate instrument for action, we will need to
balance two factors: legitimacy, and effectiveness.

These factors tend to work in opposite directions.

The United Nations, for example, confers the ultimate legitimacy on any
multilateral action.

But the very process of securing that legitimacy can undermine its
effectiveness - as we saw, for example, in the Balkans.

We have seen another example more recently.

Darfur is at the risk of genocide from the Government of Sudan.

Yet Sudan has been able to ensure that the UN is effectively unable to
act.

So we may need to fashion alliances which can act faster than the
machinery of formal international institutions.

We must also use our considerable historic, cultural and trading links
with Islamic governments that seek cooperation rather than
confrontation, to strengthen their position domestically and within the
Islamic world.

For instance I regret that our Government has been so indifferent to
the views, and neglectful of our friendship with, the Gulf states.

And from Malaysia, to Egypt, to Jordan, to the Maghreb, there are
governments with whom we work closely already, and with whom we could
do more.

This does not mean uncritical acceptance of all their views or actions.

But it does mean persistent engagement at all levels, and it means
basing our actions on real sensitivity and understanding of their
domestic circumstances.

Most of all Turkey, with its very substantial Muslim population, should
be a principal ally of the West.

Turkey is a democracy, an aspirant EU member, and a key strategic
partner in the post 9/11 world.

The fifth and final proposition of a liberal conservative foreign
policy is the vital importance of moral authority.

I believe that the values we hold dear in Britain and America are the
common values of humanity.

Human dignity, personal freedom, national self-determination - these
are the aspirations for all people everywhere.

But if we assume - and I think we should assume - some responsibility
for extending these values internationally, we must strive to do so in
a way that is consistent and honourable.

A moral mission requires moral methods.

Without them, we are merely war-makers.

Might becomes our only standard of right.

And we sink in the esteem of the world.

If the West is to help other countries, we must do so from a position
of genuine moral authority.

This means we must strive above all for legitimacy in what we do.

We need to ensure that we only deploy troops as a last resort, and that
a British Government takes with the utmost seriousness any decision to
send our servicemen to kill and be killed anywhere in the world.

And I believe that the consent of Parliament should always be required
for any substantial deployment of troops on active service.

But legitimacy means more than going through the right channels.

It means doing the right thing.

That is why we must not stoop to conquer.

We must not stoop to illiberalism - whether at Guantanamo Bay, or here
at home with excessive periods of detention without trial.

We must not turn a blind eye to the excesses of our allies - abuses of
human rights in some Arab countries, or disproportionate Israeli
bombing in Lebanon.

We are fighting for the principles of civilisation - let us not abandon
those principles in the methods we employ.

We must not forget the lessons of the Cold War.

A firm stand military stand was essential.

But it was only part of the strategy.

We did not defeat communism on the military battlefield.

We defeated communism in the battle of ideas.

Equally, we are today facing an enemy which ultimately will not be
defeated by military force, but by moral force.

We must therefore present to the world a genuine and attractive
alternative to the fanaticism of terror and dictatorship.

We must not merely be stronger than our enemy, but better than our
enemy.

The problems we face are unique to our times.

But for centuries politicians have had to grapple with the issue of
when and whether to intervene in the affairs of the world.

I have said I am a liberal conservative.

Let us remember the words of the perhaps the greatest Liberal Prime
Minister, and the great Victorian advocate of moral interventionism
abroad.

WE Gladstone's famous Midlothian campaign was founded on the
proposition that, and I quote, "the foreign policy of England should
always be inspired by a love of freedom.

" But he also warned against imperial hubris and international
arrogance.

As he said, "even when you do a good thing, you may do it in so bad a
way that you entirely spoil the beneficial effect.

" In short, we must be wise as well as good.

This is a struggle which requires all our might and all our conviction.

But it is a long struggle, and it also requires our intelligence, our
patience, and our humility.

I have set out today the principles according to which I would conduct
that struggle: Passionate support for the Atlantic Alliance within a
rebalanced special relationship.

Retaining the strengths of the neo-conservative approach while learning
from its failures.

And basing our actions on a new approach to foreign affairs - liberal
conservatism, which I believe is right for our times and right for the
struggle we face."

googlegroups2sucks · Joined: 26 Jul 2007 Posts: 213

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,17129-2355558,00.html

The Times September 13, 2006
Cameron's criticism gives US jitters over a future Tory government
>From Tom Baldwin in Washington

In Washington yesterday there was an undercurrent of anger at Mr
Cameron's timing. John O'Sullivan, from the Hudson Institute, said:
"Even if these things needed to be said, perhaps the fifth
anniversary of 9/11 was not the best day to say them."

Nile Gardiner, who runs the Margaret Thatcher Centre for Freedom at the
right-wing Heritage Foundation, said: "I think this speech will have
raised some eyebrows in Washington because, although pro-American in
parts, it's clearly designed to put some distance between Cameron and
Bush."

[ not surprisingly, the responses ignore the substance of cameron's
arguments, whether it's wrong or right, accurate or inaccurate, valid
or invalid, and instead delves into timing or motivations or whatever
else pops easily into mind.

what exactly is the problem these days? i'm genuinely puzzled. do
people find cameron's speech too difficult? and if so, why not _ask_
the person to clarify? or are people too busy to remember? too
suspicious to take anything at face value?

it's kinda funny. with the advent of the internet, society has made
tremendous progress in making info fly all over the world with the
greatest of ease... but almost no progress with the roadblocks that
stifle people's minds. all these bits and bytes zipping around at the
speed of light, only to come to a screeching halt once it is read. ]

googlegroups2sucks · Joined: 26 Jul 2007 Posts: 213

http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_a/dance-of-diplomacy-is-grist-for-the/20=
060913092909990001

Dance of Diplomacy Is Grist for the Gossip Mill
By HELENE COOPER, The New York Times

Until now, Ms. Rice's rumored matches have been, shall we say,
unlikely ever to appear on the cover of GQ magazine. In July, Italy's
normally staid Corriere della Sera raised its eyebrows over a joint
appearance in Rome between Italy's similarly staid foreign minister,
Massimo D'Alema, and Ms. Rice. In April, a headline in The Boston
Globe promised a tale of "Jack and Condi: A Love Story," after Ms.
Rice gave the pullout bed aboard her plane to the former British
foreign minister, Jack Straw, during a surprise trip to Baghdad from
Blackpool, England, where she was visiting Mr. Straw's hometown.

But it took a two-hour flight to Halifax, Nova Scotia, this week,
followed by a 90-minute motorcade north up Highway 102 to Pictou
County, for Ms. Rice to find herself linked to someone with similar
star appeal: Peter MacKay of Canada, the single, sophisticated foreign
minister, routinely named Canada's sexiest M.P. by The Hill Times in
Ottawa, and the closest thing to eye candy on the diplomatic circuit.
Tall, athletic, young, blond and recently dumped by his girlfriend, a
fellow member of Parliament, Belinda Stronach, who parted with him when
she switched parties, Mr. MacKay does not look like your usual foreign
minister.

He has a tan and the build of someone who spends his time on the rugby
field, not holed up reading G-8 communiqu=E9s. Sure, at 40 years old, he
is younger than Ms. Rice, who is 51, but that did not stop gossips from
engaging in baseless speculating.

[ a few points. first, those g8 communiques can help change the world,
as we've seen from last year's g8 summit and this year's aid
announcements from japan. second, belinda's crossing helped pass an
additional $500 million in foreign aid via the ndp's budget amendment
-- something that conservatives were staunchly against. third, i have
a wild, speculative sense belinda and peter still have feelings for
each other, and if true, we're talking a love triangle here. ]

Bizarre Love Triangle
New Order

Every time i think of you
I feel shot right through with a bolt of blue [tory blue]
It's no problem of mine but it's a problem I find
Living a life that I can't leave behind
There's no sense in telling me
The wisdom of a fool won't set you free
But that's the way that it goes
And it's what nobody knows
While every day my confusion grows
Every time I see you falling
I get down on my knees and pray
I'm waiting for that final moment
You'll say the words that I can't say

I feel fine and I feel good
I'm feeling like I never should
Whenever I get this way, I just don't know what to say
Why can't we be ourselves like we were yesterday
I'm not sure what this could mean
I don't think you're what you seem
I do admit to myself
That if I hurt someone else
Then I'll never see just what we're meant to be
Every time I see you falling
I get down on my knees and pray
I'm waiting for that final moment
You'll say the words that I can't say

googlegroups2sucks · Joined: 26 Jul 2007 Posts: 213

http://podcasts.engadget.com/2006/09/14/the-engadget-interview-j-allard-microsoft-corporate-vice-presi/

The Engadget Interview: J Allard, Microsoft Corporate Vice President
Posted Sep 14th 2006 1:58PM by Ryan Block

The world where consumers are right now -- relative to digital music --
is really in its infancy. We're going it take them along and prove
digital music and try to take the digital music experience to the next
level -- and sort of as a background thread and a lower priority for us
right now: are those integrated experiences?

But over time I think there'll be a greater emphasis. Counter to
Microsoft's DNA, the type of stuff that you hear from time to time, it
really isn't. 20 years ago we said, "The business world is going to
change because of technology and we have to get world-class at numbers,
we have to get world-class at manipulating words, we have to get
world-class at drawing pictures. And over time people are going to
figure out that words, pictures and numbers all go together and will
increase the focus on the Office-like experience. Well we didn't start
with Office. If you remember Lotus Symphony? Lotus Symphony was an idea
that was ahead of its time. We really needed to get numbers right,
words right, and pictures right and then bring them together with the
communication back-end with email. That's what built the Office
proposition. I think you're going to see a very similar thing here
where once interactive gaming and connected interactive gaming really
takes hold and people really get their head around it and we take
gaming mainstream; we do the same thing for digital music, we do the
same thing for digital television -- IPTV and the like, and people
really get their heads around it there's going to be all sorts of
scenarios that connect those dots and the emphasis will start shifting
to the integration across those things. But we have to be world-class
in music, games and video before we put too much attention on what it
means to put those things together.

[ bingo. allard is the kind of guy that wears too much black (judging
from the photo), but he gets it.

now apple and jonathan ive... ]

http://www.businessweek.com/print/magazine/content/06_39/b4002414.htm

Who Is Jonathan Ive?
An in-depth look at the man behind Apple's design magic

But the headliner of the show made a decidedly less showy impression.
Shambling onto the stage with a nearly shaved head and dark T-shirt,
Apple Computer (AAPL ) Senior Vice-President for Industrial Design
Jonathan Ive looked like grad student who had gotten lost on the way to
Starbucks (SBUX ). The 39-year-old Brit slouched unfabulously in his
seat and quietly answered questions from conference host and
award-winning editor, Chee Pearlman. Despite countless invitations, he
refused to trumpet his own design prowess or to dish on what it's like
to work with his perfectionist boss, Steve Jobs.

The man who, after Jobs, is most responsible for Apple's amazing
ability to dazzle and delight with its famous products, chose instead
to talk about process -- what he called "the craft of design." He spoke
passionately about his small team and how they work together. He talked
about focusing on only what is important and limiting the number of
projects. He spoke about having a deep understanding of how a product
is made: its materials, its tooling, its purpose. Mostly, he focused on
the need to care deeply about the work.

By the time he graduated, Ive was already something of a legend in
British design circles. Grinyer visited him once in his flat in the
very tough Gateshead section of Newcastle and was shocked to find it
filled to the rafters with hundreds of foam models of Ive's final
project, a microphone and hearing aid combo that teachers could use to
communicate better with kids with hearing problems (not surprisingly,
in white plastic). "I'd never seen anything like it: The sheer focus to
get it perfect," recalls Grinyer.

To understand how to make a plastic shell look exciting rather than
cheap, Ive and others visited a candy factory to study the finer points
of jelly bean making. They spent months with Asian partners, devising
the sophisticated process capable of cranking out millions of iMacs a
year. The team even pushed for the internal electronics to be
redesigned, to make sure they looked good through the thick shell. It
was a big risk for Jobs, Ive, and Apple. Says one rival: "I would have
had to prove that transparency would increase our sales, and there's no
way to prove that." He figures Apple spends as much as $65 per PC
casing, vs. an industry average of maybe $20.

[ it's important to get people who love their craft, because they tend
to obsess about getting it just right. those just in it for the money
or for their resume don't usually care enough, or care enough just to
slide by and not get into trouble.

two important qualifiers: 1) their definition of perfection is shared
by a majority of customers (and not too exotic for mainstream tastes)
2) they're given the latitude to achieve perfection, i.e., given enough
time and money. in these days of ever shrinking budgets and cutthroat
cost-cutting, almost no one has enough time or money to get it right.
in that respect, ive is lucky enough to have a boss (jobs) as obsessive
as he is, and with roughly the same design sensibilities. it's a good
match for both. ]

googlegroups2sucks · Joined: 26 Jul 2007 Posts: 213

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.06/xbox.html?pg=3&topic=xbox&topic_set=

Issue 13.06 - June 2005

The Xbox Reloaded
J Allard convinced Bill Gates to take on the Internet. Then he
persuaded him to spend $2 billion to take on the PlayStation, too. Now
he's aiming at the future of gaming - and the arrival of the
mind-blowing broadband Metaverse. (Whoa.)

By Josh McHugh

In January, Allard and the rest of the Xbox senior executives gathered
to write brief statements on what motivates them to come to work every
morning. The mission: to inspire the group's rank and file. "Most
people put down flowery, make-the-world-a-better-place, Miss America
types of things," Allard says. "I wrote: What gets me out of bed and
into the office every day is the thought of Ken Kutaragi's resignation
letter, framed, hanging next to my desk."

A few months later, Allard is having lunch on the outdoor deck of the
Ramp on San Francisco's waterfront when his phone starts buzzing. He
runs out to the parking lot to make a few frantic calls to try to
verify the text message he just received: Kutaragi, the creator of the
PlayStation and the preeminent figure in modern console gaming, has
been demoted from his position as head of Sony's Game Business Group.
Then it hits him - it's an early April Fools' joke. Certain that his
boss, Microsoft's senior vice president of home and entertainment,
Robbie Bach, is getting revenge for a prank Allard pulled last April
(he convinced Bach he was taking a sabbatical to be an executive
producer on The Apprentice), Allard returns to the table and demands to
know if I'm in on the ruse. But it's no joke. Kutaragi is out.

[ i don't see why you can't do both. defeating kutaragi gives the
credibility needed to pull off miss america goals (and offsets the
dangers of nauseating sugar overload), while miss america goals gives
the inspiration needed to drive a stake through kutaragi's playstation
(and offsets soulless corporate competition and selfish money
pursuits).

yes, there are strategic synergies (e.g. in terms of reach, cross
marketing, etc.), but an important yet underrated benefit is in terms
of attracting and retaining talent. people who are rigidly dogmatic
one way or the other (e.g. too bimboesque or too sociopathic), are
usually _not_ as effective as people who can think and feel both ways
because the nature of people, and of the world we live in, is _not_
rigidly dogmatic. supercomplex problems require supercomplex people.
reality tends to eat ideologues alive. ]

googlegroups2sucks · Joined: 26 Jul 2007 Posts: 213

> MacKay pointed out that nothing was final until she appeared at the
> press conference and announced her defection. Stronach then handed him
> her BlackBerry and asked him to speak to her father. It was a short
> conversation, reports Plamondon, who says the elder Stronach a former
> Liberal candidate played a critical role in getting his daughter to
> stick to her decision to defect.

take note gossip fans, it was her father -- not bill clinton -- that
played a pivotal role. plamondon is a tory, and if clinton was
involved, he would say so.

on a more personal note, it seems peter and belinda still cared for
each other before the defection, and the break-up was the _result_ of
belinda's anger at harper and that fateful meeting, not the other way
around. technically speaking, it appears belinda dumped harper and his
party, then peter dumped belinda. after which, david peterson (he
wrote an account of how it happened last year) and tim murphy swooped
in, with martin giving the go-ahead. it's one thing to have an idea,
but it's orders of magnitude more difficult to actually execute it
properly, and those guys did it remarkably well.

ok, now back to allard and xbox...

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.06/xbox.html?pg=2&topic=xbox&topic_set=

The Xbox Reloaded
Issue 13.06 - June 2005
By Josh McHugh

So when Allard cooked up another unlikely proposal in 1999, his bosses
paid attention. Ballmer remembers thinking that Allard's proposal was
over-the-top. "Bill called me up and said, 'Let's get this thing fired
up.' I said, 'Um, this is pretty different, pretty bold.' Actually,
'wacky' was probably more like it," Ballmer remembers. "I didn't say,
'Stop,' but I pushed back pretty hard. There's no way to muscle in on
guys like Sony and Nintendo using just sheer resources."

On Valentine's Day 2000, Ballmer and Gates sat down with Allard and the
heads of a handful of other Microsoft divisions for an all-day meeting
to decide whether to make the $2 billion commitment required to get
Xbox off the ground. Allard sketched out a road map in an email he sent
around on the morning of the meeting:

Year 1: Xbox is viewed as the leader in online gaming and a credible
contender in the next-generation console battle. we establish momentum
around multiplayer gaming, saved game roaming, and "organic" titles
(e.g., using the internet to extend games beyond their shrink-wrapped
experience) ...

Year 2: Xbox titles look better than playStation 2 titles as isvs have
more time with the graphics part and the overall system. we enhance the
system to offer voice chat for multiplayers to further extend our
networking leadership ... dolphin [Nintendo GameCube] becomes a niche
product (toy) and is not covered in the serious gaming magazines. It's
a 2 horse race ...

Year 3: Xbox sells more units than playStation 2 in this calendar year
....

And so it happened. In the space of 21 months, Microsoft went from
being a software company to fielding a serviceable console with
eye-popping graphics and the most advanced online gaming capabilities.
Nintendo has sold more than 18 million GameCubes but has since faded,
leaving a two-horse race.

Everyone at the meeting agreed that initially Xbox wouldn't make a
dime. In the first year, the console retailed for $300 and Microsoft
lost as much as $125 on each unit sold. "Yeah. We took it in the
shorts," Allard says. "The first time around was just a bath. A lesson.
Practice."

[ ballmer is the only rational player in this story. he's right in
that allard's proposal was wacky, and gates is doubly wacky for
agreeing to it. i mean, how often does a 30 something gaming punk get
$2 billion handed to them to go up against two monumental japanese
giants? and you know what? ballmer was wrong, and the two lunatics --
gates and allard -- were right.

i've said this before but it's worth repeating again. not enough
people realize how risky the tech business is, how many times microsoft
has made giant strategic bets, and how often they've turned out to be
correct. i think it's a phenomenal track record. ]

googlegroups2sucks · Joined: 26 Jul 2007 Posts: 213

http://www.kantei.go.jp/foreign/m-magazine/backnumber/2006/0921.html

Many thanks for the past five years

Junichiro Koizumi here.

This will be the last issue of the Koizumi Cabinet E-mail Magazine, of
which we launched the Japanese version in June five years ago and the
English version in March two years ago.

Ever since my inauguration, I have spent every day thinking about how I
can discharge my responsibilities as Prime Minister and have devoted
myself wholeheartedly to my job while keeping close to heart the
Chinese philosopher Mencius' words:

"When about to place a great responsibility on a person, heaven may
test one with hardship and frustrated efforts in order to toughen one's
nature and shore up deficiencies."

Although holding discussions, asking for advice, and utilizing the
knowledge and wisdom of experts are all essential, in the end vital
decisions have to be made on our own. There will be times when we have
to disregard our friendship or personal preferences and become
hardhearted.

I have worked hard to the best of my abilities for the past five years
as a public figure, always preparing myself to be able to promptly
respond to any situation at all times.

Over the years, I have received both strict criticism and warm
encouragement from many people of Japan including the readers of this
e-mail magazine. I cannot tell you enough how much your words have
encouraged me.

In my policy speech immediately after my appointment as Prime Minister,
I stated, "The top priority that I must address is to rebuild our
economy and reconstruct our society as one full of pride and
confidence. Moreover, Japan must fulfill a constructive role as a
member of the global community."

Thanks to the efforts of people in the private sector and across the
nation to advance reforms while enduring their pain, the Japanese
economy has moved back onto the recovery track, and people are
regaining their confidence. With the Japan-US alliance and
international coordination as the basis of foreign policy, the
Government of Japan has endeavored to achieve peace and stability of
the world as a responsible member of the international community.

It is precisely because I had the support and cooperation of many
people that an ordinary person like myself was able to come this far.

There is a saying that goes, "People with virtue lack talent, while
those with talent lack virtue." I believe myself to be a timid, plain,
common sense individual.

I have given my all with a feeling that something is always protecting
me and that luck is on my side.

Yesterday, Mr. Shinzo Abe was elected as the new president of the
Liberal Democratic Party (LDP). He was the first chief editor of this
e-mail magazine. He has also served as the Deputy Chief Cabinet
Secretary and the Chief Cabinet Secretary of the Koizumi Cabinet, as
well as the Secretary-General and the Acting Secretary- General of the
LDP. As such Mr. Abe is a trusted friend who has long been supportive
of the reforms that I have advanced.

[ congratulations to Mr. Abe. i wish him all the best. ]

The new prime minister of Japan is scheduled to be elected on September
26. After leaving my office, I would like to assist the new prime
minister as a Diet member while maintaining a low profile.

I have expressed my current sentiments in the tanka poem below:

"Many thanks to you all
For all your support
Many thanks to you all
For all your encouragement and cooperation
Words of thanks are not enough to express my gratitude"

To conclude I would like to express my deepest appreciation to the
readers of this e-mail magazine and to the people of Japan for all your
support and assistance over the past five years.

[ from the bottom of my heart, and the seat of my soul, i wish to thank
the Prime Minister and his cabinet for their work on africa and
elsewhere. japan's contributions to the global community -- as they
have in the past -- will help improve the lives of literally millions
of people across the planet. it is their loss and ours, the Prime
Minister is stepping down.

however, one can only ask so much, from a man who's already done so
much. leadership isn't always peaches and cream and it can exact a
heavy price at times. for an honest and sincere man, the job appeared
joyful as it was painful, delightful as it was agonzing, uplifting as
it was burdensome, rewarding as it was difficult, and yet through it
all, he always showed unwavering determination. this man did not
neglect his responsibilities, and kept his promises the best he could.

and if after his countless battles he grew a bit more weary, and seemed
a bit more tired as the years in office grinded on, something
interesting happened outside his office -- japan grew less weary and
the people more hopeful. for that and so much else, the Prime Minister
can retire and go back home, justified and content.

Have a pleasant and well-deserved trip, Mr. Koizumi. ]

Take Me Home
Phil Collins

Take that look of worry, I'm an ordinary man
They don't tell me nothing, so I find out all I can
There's a fire that's been burning, right outside my door
I can't see but I feel it, and it helps to keep me warm
So I, I don't mind, no I, I don't mind

Seems so long I've been waiting, still don't know what for
There's no point escaping, I don't worry any more
I can't come out to find you, I don't like to go outside
They can turn off my feelings, like they're turning off the light
But I, I don't mind, no I, I don't mind
Oh I, I don't mind, no I, I don't mind

So take, take me home, 'cause I don't remember
Take, take me home, 'cause I don't remember
Take, take me home, oh, no

'Cause I've been a prisoner all my life
And I can say to you

Take that look of worry, mine's an ordinary life
Working when it's daylight, sleeping when it's night
I've got no far horizons, I don't wish upon a star
They don't think that I listen, oh but I know who they are
And I, I don't mind, no I, I don't mind
Oh I, I don't mind, no I, I don't mind

So, take, take me home, 'cause I don't remember
Take, take me home, 'cause I don't remember
Take, take me home, 'cause I don't remember
Take, take me home, oh Lord

Well I've been a prisoner all my life
And I can say to you, but I don't remember

Take, take me home, 'cause I don't remember
{Repeat to fade}

cake it´s better being a fat bastard and eat lot´s of cake than being thin guy.

May in Cake Apple sets tune for pricing of song downloads By Joshua Chaffin and Kevin Allison in New York Published: May 1 2006 21:15 | Last updated: May 1 2006 21:52 Apple Computer on Monday revealed

Cake I'm hungry.

cake name?? Hi, I don't know the name of this cake but its very tasty.. I want to know its name.... I ate like 7 years ago.. Its like a normal cake but the inside is very very moisty with this sugary water mix... Anybody knows the name?

Cake In The Face Volume in drive C is HAL9000XT Supercomputer Volume Serial Number is E0A8-5B1E 07/12/2004 16:33 . 07/12/2004 16:33 .. 06/12/2004 20:26 CD Number 1 06/12/2004 20:28 CD Number 2 06/