Paul Boyer, better known as Mormegil, has released his "Christmas Time" WindowBlinds visual style! If you have WindowBlinds, you can change your entire desktop right now to have a holiday look and feel. You can download the visual style here.
John Dvorak's new column in the current issue of PC Magazine argues that blogging is going to "bite the dust" owing primarily to 2 factors: Popular bloggers being co-opted by big media with everyone else being too obscure to keep the trend going.
This article at JoeUser.com argues that just the opposite is happening. What do you think?
The restoration of the skin archives is nearly complete. You'll notice that about 95% of the skins, themes, and wallpapers are now back. We'll be posting a list of people who helped us out with our thanks!
We are still left with a few minor challenges.
1) We are missing a few files still that we will hopefully be able to get back.
2) We are down 2 high speed servers. Some of this is on warranty so we'll be able to get them back. Technically, it's amazing we're ven up right now. But clearly more redundancy is needed.
Issue #2 really should be discussed as a community issue. Let me talk numbers: In January 2003 this site got just over a milliion visitors per month. Last month, despite the libraries being down for a couple of days this site still got over 2 million unique visitors. In short, we doubled our size and continue to grow at a huge rate.
This is good. Except it does means we need more hardware. So in a few days, we're going to start a subscription drive with the goal of getting 500 new subscriptions (500 people out of 2 million uniques) by the end of the year. If you've already purchased a subscription, you've done your part and you have our thanks. But of the 1.998 million who haven't, hopefully some of them will be willing to help us out. WIth 500 new subscriptions we'll be able to bring in 2 new servers and provide instant redundancy so that future disasters can be averted.
We will also display on the site how close we are to meeting that goal. So all subscriptions starting tonight at 10pm EST and on will be counted towards the subscription drive. A WinCustomize subscription lasts TWO years and is only $20. That's less than $1 per month. It gets you all kinds of extra software goodies, unlimited bandwidth use, a couple of premium suites and helps the site.
Thanks for all your help. We'll keep you posted! If you see any missing skins or themes at this point, if you have them please consider submitting them (screenshot will still be needed too).
We'd like to thank Pat (T-Man) and Kris (Nakor) and Nate Mook (owner of Betanews.com who is also our IT god in LA) for all their hard work in getting things back in order.
I often enjoy John Dvorak's columns. He's probably my favorite technical columnist out there. But at the same time, he is one of those people who makes rash predictions that are sometimes dead wrong. In fact, he's made so many bad predictions that he gave me the idea for a website - www.badpredictions.com that I registered almost 4 years ago. The idea was to let people submit entries that were either predictions already shown to be bad or ones likely to be bad: Who made a prediction and what the prediction was and when they made that prediction so that people who rashly make these predictions could be held accountable. We just haven't had a chance to put it together -- yet.
In that fine tradition of making bad predictions Dvorak talks about blogging and by doing so makes it clear that he just doesn't get it. More to the point, he has fallen into a logical fallacy that, frankly, surprised me. In this case, his argument is that while there are millions of bloggers out there, few are popular and of those that are popular, some of them are being co-opted by "big media". Therefore, he concludes, blogging is done. Dead. Finished.
But on closer inspection, his argument fails. Let's look at it:
Let's start with abandoned blogs. In a white paper released by Perseus Dev Corp., the company reveals details of the blogging phenomenon that indicate its foothold in popular culture may already be slipping (www.perseus.com/blogsurvey). According to the survey, more than half of them are not updating anymore. More than 25% of all new blogs are what researchers call "one-day wonders". Meanwhile the abandonment seems to be eating into well-established blogs: Over 132,000 blogs are abandoned after a year of constant updating."
This paragraph really sets things up for the rest. It actually says a lot more than I think John Dvorak intended. For one thing, as it becomes clear later, he believes that it takes massive numbers of bloggers to have nay impact. Not true. I would argue that bloggers like Steven Den Beste, who is not a professional writer, carry as much clout as many full time journalists in terms of influencing people.
But more to the point, the assumption Dvorak makes is a false one. It doesn't take a million bloggers to have a significant impact. The issue isn't the number of bloggers, it's the number of readers those blogs get. Period. The only relevant statistic, which is absent from Mr. Dvorak's analysis, is how many readers, on a daily basis, are dedicated bloggers getting.
Continuing (paraphrasing)
There are perhaps 5 million blogs. Most new blogs are abandoned. Luckily for the blogging community, the growth rate is larger than the abandonment rate. But growth eventually stops. The most obvious reason for abandonment is boredom. Writing is tiresome. This is compounded by the lack of feedback. Most blogs have an audience of 12 readers. Some people must feel the futility.
So what? Here's one key fact: Most bloggers do not see themselves as indie journalists. He's writing as if all bloggers are in it to be be pundits. Most bloggers are simply people that want to record their thoughts and life. Like journals and diaries, most of these are given up at some point. But so what? Most would-be book authors also give up. Does that mean writing books is doomed? Look at the numbers he's throwing around -- 5 million blogs. I think most people would agree that if even 100 mega blog sites had a readership of say 20 million people monthly that that would be a significant force.
The fact that there are apparently 5 million blogs should send shivers up the spine of old media -- 5 million people, presently, have figured out how to get their own thoughts and views onto the web where others can read them. That's 5 million potential competitors. And of those 5 million, it only takes a handful to make a huge difference. Arguing that most of them fail equals doom to all is akin to saying that because most businesses fail that capitalism is doomed.
So then he gets to taking a direct shot at Glenn Reynolds and Lileks and Andrew Sullivan.
The problem is further compounded by professional writers who promote blogging, with the thought that they are increasing their own readership. It's no coincidence that the most read blogs are created by professional writers. They have essentially suckered thousands of newbies, mavens, and just plain folk into blogging, solely to get return links in the form of blogrolls and citations. This is, in fact, a remarkably slick grassroots marketing scheme that is in many ways awesome, albeit insincere.
I don't even know where to start on this. How does he know they're "insincere". I don't see how their popularity can be construed to "suck people in". Suck people into what? To what end? I haven't seen Reynolds write about getting a gold plated rocket car recently. Dvorak's cynicism is amazing not to mention is utter disdain for us "newbies". We're all just sheep too dumb to figure out we're getting conned. I don't write for glory, I write because I enjoy it. I like communicating with other people and I happen to think that it's a good thing that people from all over the world can get together and talk about things that "big media" hasn't talked about. It makes us think. Perhaps Dvorak would prefer we get back to watching football but I must say that I and other people I know who blog find it very stimulating. It makes you think. It lets you interact with lots of different people. And it lets our voices get heard. Even if it's only heard by a few people, so what? Instapundit and the others are incredibly popular because of quality.
With that said, it's time to destroy John's argument: According to Alexa, only 3,370 websites on the Internet link to Instapundit. So apparently the scam Dvorak imagines isn't working too well. 3,370 links to out of 5 million blogs.
Again - these sites are popular because they produce outstanding quality every day.
Unfortunately, at some point, people will realize they've been used.
Used for what? At best, 3,370 people will feel used. What about the other 4.9 million? And in what way will those 3,370 people feel used? I link to Instapundit in lots of places and I don't feel used.. I link to things that I think other people will find interesting or useful. I link to content not people.
This will happen sooner rather than later since many mainstream publishers now see the opportunity for exploitation. Thus you find professionally written and edited faux blogs appearing on MSNBC's site. This seems to be where blogging is headed -- Big Media. So much for the independent thinking and reporting that are supposed to earmark blog journalism.
Whoa. I've read Glenn's articles on MSNBC and they are the same kind of material he has on his blog. Who is being co-opted? Bloggers or big media? If blogging has become powerful enough that big media finds itself carrying the viewpoints of popular bloggers, then I think the question answers itself. But let's make sure we understand what is being said here: "Big Media" instead of having a monolithic set of typically left wing columnists on their sites are now having columns written by popular bloggers who continue to write as they always have is now somehow a bad thing for blogging. Really?
Let's look at this from an analogy: Let's say I was an independent film maker making films about American success in Iraq. And I became very popular in the grass-roots sense. And then Warner Bros. paid me to take one of those independent films and distribute it to every movie theatre in the country. Who exactly has gotten co-opted here? Who is influencing whom?
So now we have the emergence of the professional blogger working for large media conglomerates and spewing the same measured news and opinions we've always had -- except for fake edginess.
These aren't the droids you're looking for. Good grief. Has he read any of these co-opted articles? Well, let's take a look at today's "fake edginess" on MSNBC from Glenn Reynolds. If that's "fake edginess" then serve this newbie up some more.
Another so-called revolution bites the dust. Big surprise.
...Right.... You know, I think I will work on getting BadPredictions.com up soon just so that I can get this particular prediction in there. The bottom line is that when millions of people can get their information from sources other than a tiny set of former Columbia graduates working and living in New York or Washington D.C. that's a good thing for everyone -- even John Dvorak.
Martin has created a great BootSkin tutorial. It explains how to create your own BootSkin to change your Windows 2000 or Windows XP boot screen. Check it out. Thoughts of the day...
I updated my msstyles rant. It amazes me that someone out there would actually pay money to patch their uxtheme file. I'm surprised Microsoft hasn't busted "companies" that make a profit selling cracks to the gullible.
Tomorrow I'm speaking to U of M on software development and about the game industry.
Tuesday I'm off to LA on business and won't be back until late Wednesday. I really hate traveling. I mean I can't understate it. I REALLY hate travel. I could write a blog just on that subject. I know that our company could be a lot bigger and I'd probably be a lot wealthier if I was willing to travel more but while I don't mind going to new places, the actual act of traveling drives me nuts. It's not flying that bugs me, it's the airports, train stations, whatever. It's just such a hassle. I don't like being inconvenienced. I'd pay an extra 25% on everything dealing with travel if they would just make flights on time, have more logical paths (no flying to Atlanta "on the way" to Las Vegas for instance). The result is that I end up just paying for first class (or insist on at least business class if a client really needs me to fly out to visit) which of course makes things a lot tougher when dealing with us. This is the part where someone emails me and says "You need a better management team." Duh. I know, this is one area we are weak as a company. We don't have a "Vice President" who can do this kind of thing. Who knows the whole company's business, is reasonable technical, and knows business. I'm the only "generalist" (knows all the things going on but focuses on none) in the company at present. Our management team is brilliant in the sense that they are amongst the best in the world at what they do. But because we do so many different things it's hard to keep an eye on all of it or understand the technology, business, and running of all of them at once. Or more to the point, one can't specialize on the various details AND keep track of all of it. So I'm the generalist. And that's not surprising (read next paragraph on how much stuff is going on at once).
So right now I've got this on my plate. That is, these are the projects I'm currently spending significant time in the next few weeks:
That's all between now and the holiday break.
The left really hates George W. Bush. I don't particularly care for Bush myself. But it's more on a personality level than due to his policies. I haven't decided whether I will vote for him or not. But one thing is for sure, he seems to drive some people on the left insane.
And I mean that literally -- IN-SANE. Ask them why and the reasons usually are in a gurgle of profanity and crazy talk. And unfortunately for them, the left is increasingly becoming its own worst enemy. As you surf the web looking for blogs or whatever to read, it's becoming increasingly difficult to read a coherent left-wing blog. More and more I read blogs that just spew so much hatred towards Bush that whatever point or argument they were making is lost.
Worse still, their talking points are increasingly becoming bizarre, unsustainable, and out of touch with the American people. It is as if the people on the left assume that most people hate Bush too or are gullible. This makes for a lethal combination for Democrats. On the one hand, their core base is becoming increasingly crazy sounding due to their irrational hatred of George W. Bush. And their more "moderate" members are stuck with lame talking points like "Worst economy since Hoover." (like please, do they really think that Americans have discounted the affect 9/11 had -- $1 TRILLION lost in one day added to an already slumping economy as Bush was elected?).
There are, of course, exceptions. Kind of. But it's getting hard to find someone who can put forth a rational argument for throwing Bush out of office. Especially when their alternative is increasingly looking like someone like Howard Dean who seems to be totally devoid of any geopolitical thought whatsoever and have zero interesting economic proposals other than raising my taxes. Not a great message: "Vote for me and I'll enact policies that won't protect you from terrorists but we'll raise your taxes? Yay!"
If the left were serious about getting rid of Bush they would put forth a candidate with these talking points:
1) Zero tolerance of terrorism. We will stay in Iraq and win that war.
2) Will balance the budget through spending cuts.
3) Must get back to eliminating the deficit. As soon as the economy bounces back will enact a 2% across the board temporary tax to repay the debt. EVERYONE will pay this.
4) NATO countries and South Korea will send X number of troops to Iraq to help OR the United States will remove X number of troops from those countries and send them to Iraq.
5) To China: Stop putting your currency at the same rate as the US dollar or we will put tariffs on your goods. Massive tariffs. China has 5 times the population of the US, there's no excuse for a $200 billion or whatever trade deficit.
But overall, I think the strongest message a candidate could give right now and have a chance would be to say we're going to win the war on terrorism, stay in Iraq, and make our domestic policy about balancing the budget. I think these things would appeal to a lot more people than crazy talk like "John Aschcroft is going to come to your home and send you to a secret prison" or "Worst economy since Hoover..."
Either way though, the left needs a positive message. They need a message that is about something more than just hating Bush.
I suspect I'm not the only one who is thinking this. As a student of history I've come to a fairly simple conclusion when it comes to war: Wars only end when both sides decide that it ends.
While this may seem straight forward, it a conclusion that seems to escape from many policy makers. Many of the problems we face in Iraq are the result of the enemy not believing they are defeated. The United States and its allies have fought a war as antiseptically as possible. Surgical precision to win the objection with the least amount of damage and casualties to both sides. But we are now seeing the downside of that strategy.
In World War II, the German and Japanese people didn't want anymore war. They had suffered massive losses both human and material. Their lands were devastated, their countrymen dead or maimed. There was no significant resistance after the defeat because the people themselves knew they were defeated. And they knew, in their hearts, that their enemy would be more than happy to inflict even more gruesome losses on them should they not fully submit.
The same cannot be said in Iraq where every American casualty is reported on the evening news. Think about that. In nearly a year of "war" American combat deaths is well under 1,000. That's less than a 10th the casualties the Americans suffered taking one tiny island in the Pacific during World War II that few people have heard of. The people themselves have not suffered greatly either giving those who oppose American occupation hope to dislodge their enemy. We face a scenario where those who oppose us do not see significant risk to themselves because we are willing to go to such lengths to not harm anything without being positive about whom we are harming.
Which begs the question, can this war really be won without the defeated sustaining massive losses? Can the war be won without our enemy's homes and towns being consumed in the destruction of war? Many a general has said "War is hell" but in this war, war is merely "inconvenient" to our enemy. I realize we have portrayed the Iraqi's as victims. And they most certainly are. But so too were the Italians and German people in World War II in their way (particularly the Italians). War without suffering invites those unfamiliar with it to be tempted to it.
During the American Civil War, I would argue that Sherman's march to the sea had a lot to do with the ultimate success after the war between north and south. The average southerner who didn't own slaves, who didn't have much of a stake in who actually won the war certainly wasn't going to be inclined to support anyone sniping at union troops. They'd seen their farms and cities laid waste by Sherman's armies (And retreating confederate armies).
But in Iraq, what is the incentive for the average Iraqi to thwart some terrorist or thug fighting US troops? If they see a team of teenage "soldiers" setting up a mortar position to fire on Americans, what is the incentive for the people around to stop them? The Americans aren't going to blast that neighborhood. So they just take the position, "it's none of our business, we're not involved."
Which brings us to the main issue -- can you really win this war without the civilian populace having a very immediate stake in the outcome? Democracy, freedom, etc. are all wonderful concepts. But on a day to day basis for the average Iraqi they are distant ideals that have little to do with their day to day lives. Successful wars end when both sides decide it's over. When one side fully accepts defeat. When the population itself has a vested interest in there being peace.
So while 21st century American warfare may accomplish quick short term victories, it remains to be seen whether it can be effective in delivering long term success. I am not convinced that you can win a war such as we have in Iraq without massive destruction. I don't say that because I want there to be death and destruction, far from it. But I suspect that realistically, winning "hearts and minds" of a people is a lot easier when those same people have already experienced the alternative to cooperation.