What Chandler is and isn't

* Chander is a PIM: Personal Information Manager
* Chandler is a platform for an integrated General Information Manager: Documents, Photos, Music
* Chandler is not a feature list or a set of tools for getting things done (ie. toolbar)
* Chandler is a way of getting things done
* Chandler is a way to manage your life information
* More of an approach to life, less of a diet pill

They've come a ways since the last time I checked in on them... conceptually, it's compelling, but I'm not sure it's ever gonna make it. We'll see.

Chandler - Intro

Ah the power of wikis.

This page, which arguably ought to at least be a link to a page on the US Civil War, says only "kkk". Yep.

May be reverted by the time you see this... I'll post an image somewhere.

Civil war - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The new Malthusian security advocates use fearmongering tactics every bit as shamelessly as those overseeing the ‘war on terror’. Indeed, in the very process of depicting environmental and health issues as a major threat to human survival, they actually take the politics of fear far beyond the alarmist scenarios dreamt up by the architects of the ‘war on terror’. The Malthusian security agenda accepts the ideology of anti-terrorism in order to draw attention to its claim that there are even graver problems threatening the future and security of humanity.

In one very important sense, however, the Malthusian security agenda is even more retrograde than the traditionalist security agenda. The traditional variety was usually focused on a specific enemy; in many instances the enemy was clearly identified -- the Russians, the Cubans, or some specific group of subversives. Today’s security agenda, by contrast, is uncertain about how to distinguish friend from foe and what the problem really is. According to this view, there are no friends or foes. The new security agenda adopts a fiercely misanthropic outlook and blames human behaviour in general for threatening security. They believe that our behaviour -- leading to population growth, consumption of oil, environmental degradation -- is the real threat. For them, threats are transnational, global, interconnected; in other words, everything is a potential threat. Infectious diseases, environmental problems, economic discontent and terrorist violence are seen as being parts of a broader, generic security problem.

In years to come, this approach, which is now institutionalised through the US Department of Homeland Security, is likely to expand into more and more spheres of human experience. It is surely only a matter of time before the assumption implicit in the Malthusian security agenda -- that we do not simply need a ‘war on terror’ but a ‘war on everything’ -- will be made more explicit.

[ I'm not all that moved by this article.

Yes, organizations which have agendas (read as, every organization in existence) are going to attempt to capitalize on the idiom of the moment in order to get people thinking about their pet issues. No surprise there, it's been happening forever.

I bet in the late 1700's everyone in england tied every problem to all us pesky colonies.

I think the more likely result of all this isn't a DHS "War On Everything" but an eventual burn out of public attention. Eventually people will get tired of it and stop caring. Remember how charged the 1980's were? How about the 1990's? Not so much, right? Well, eventually people will reach their limit of tolerance for all this being scared and they'll basically stop.

That notwithstanding, however, a lot of these issues are pretty important. I don't disagree that it's often disingenous to link them to terrorism (even indirectly, as in "kills more people than..."), but that doesn't mean they don't pose threats. Ok, I'll concede the semantic argument that they're not "security" issues, per se, but ultimately I'm not sure it matters what you call it in the short term when it's still got to be dealt with in the long term. -k]

Meet the Malthusians

Scientists want to adopt a set of declarations to improve the security of research that uses DNA synthesis. A proponent discusses the whys and wherefores of this effort.

They seem to be taking the K. Eric Drexler approach, being that we can't completely prevent potential threats from getting their hands on this stuff, so lets cooperate amongst ourselves and make sure we're ahead of the curve.

I basically support that, mostly because I basically agree that it's impractical and dangerous to assume you can keep people from acquiring certain technologies.

Keeping Synthetic Biology Away from Terrorists

The irony, of course, is that those who declare their loyalty to the brilliant clich� of an unchanging past are themselves at the service of the imperfect new. After all, to be an American traditionalist - and isn't this what Americans celebrate on July 4? - is to affirm the revolution.

Hmm. an interesting take...

James Carroll: What we love about America - IHT

Now we have a separate Department of Defense internet now, did you know that?

Do you know why?

Because they have to have theirs delivered immediately. They can't afford getting delayed by other people.

I think there are other reasons, Ted.

There's so much wrong with this foolish diatribe. Shouldn't he at least be paying someone to explain technology to him? Being old and a senator is fine, but being uneducated about a topic over which you have control is not fine, not in any way is it fine. -k

Seantor Ted Steven explains the Internet

Interesting...

I know some of y'all MSers will be at Blackhat. I expect a report :)

-k

invisiblethings: Introducing Blue Pill

...paradoxically, the closer we get to systems that achieve a reasonable score in keeping evildoers out, the more vulnerable we are to attack from those evildoers who bypass our filters.

So when the Attorney General of a US State speaks of requiring MySpace to achieve giant strides, it's worth suggesting that he's not only being unreasonable; he may even be making things worse.

The simple argument is that if parents think MySpace is a safe place to leave their children alone, they are likely to leave them far more vulnerable to the predators who do break in, than if they recognise the reality of the situation.

That reality is that predators will break in. The way to deal with it is to supervise and monitor, so that people know they are being watched - exactly the same way you stop fights in the school playground. It's not rocket science.

Hear hear.

MySpace case opens security can of worms [printer-friendly] | The Register

So practice your Steve Perry impression, cut the sleeves off all of your t-shirts and head on down to the Alamo for an evening of heart-melting ballads, fist-pumping rock, and Travis County's premier Journey cover band!

Fucking awesommmeeeee!

Steve Perry is one of my heros. NO ONE pulls off air-mic better. So so rad.

-k

Austinist: Don’t Stop Believing: The Journey Sing-along

[ Not bad. Keller seems honest and genuine here and, as he says, I haven't really seen the backlash that was so worrisome to the administration. If that constitutes tacit approval, then so be it. I think people are too lazy to really care anymore, but the situation is what it is. -k]

Letter From Bill Keller on The Times's Banking Records Report - New York Times