Groklaw has posted the edited and disclaimered text of an email conversation with “PJ” at the Pentagon about how the DoD just loves Linux. Towards the end of the email, there’s this bit of praise that points to the power of blogging:

GROKLAW

“I think your efforts at building (and leading) a community is one of the internet’s treasures. I used pull my hair out trying to explain to senior executives how important community building can be, especially among the intelligence analysts on our secure networks. Building collaborative tools and having someone such as yourself to lead a group of analysts is really the key to success for transforming our “business”. I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone do this as well as you have with Groklaw.”

True dat. The blog is a really cool tool, and like all tools it’s only as good as the people using it. The exciting thing about blogs and the Internet is the potential that exists for pulling together people with like-minded interests from all over the world – transparently and easily. As PJ suggests, blogs like Groklaw also prove the case for tools that will help existing businesses work together better.

I’m seriously, honestly not gloating. I’m hoping against hope that the Republicans will be sufficiently embarrassed by this incident to maybe clean up their act.

Talking Points Memo: by Joshua Micah Marshall: February 15, 2004 – February 21, 2004 Archives

“This week a trio of Republican senators on the committee felt compelled to hold a closed door meeting with conservative activists to tell them to back off. To quote The Hill: ”[S]enators, who received last week a closed-door briefing on the investigation from Senate Sergeant at Arms Bill Pickle, warned conservatives they might come to regret their position when the results of the probe are fully known. Pickle is expected to finish his investigation by March 5.”

The nature of truth is something that fascinates me. Read Aaron Swartz’s posts Up With Facts: Finding the Truth in WikiCourt and Down is Up: What This Stuff Is, then head over to Calpundit for Conservative Lysenkoism….The Definitive Report (mentioned previously at this blog).

Here’s my comment on Aaron’s first post here, with some reflection on and by the others…

[Update 2/23/04 7:49 pm] Here’s a very interesting and thoughtful response to Aaron’s “Wiki Court” proposal.

I’ve stopped wearing watches. The correct time is never too far from view anymore, nor do I lack for devices on my person to keep me temporally informed. However, I’ve always loved watches and clocks as works of gadget art.

Back in the day, I had a musical watch from Casio that played about 12 different songs. I still think that was the coolest watch ever, but Gadgetopia just posted an item about a watch that could actually be cooler – and more useful to high-schoolers – The Catapult Watch!

A quick trip to the website confirmed that “the only watch that’s also a weapon” was real. It must be real; gif animations don’t lie. Even the tagline for this timpiece trebuchet is clever: “It’s time to get medieval on your friends. ”

If this kind of thing shakes your groove thing, see the Backyard Artillery home page for potato guns, pig catapults, and rubber band machine guns!

A Wired News article (Scientists: Bush Distorts Science) reported yesterday that 60 scientists, including 20 Nobel laureates, signed off on a report claiming that “the Bush administration has distorted scientific fact leading to policy decisions on the environment, health, biomedical research and nuclear weaponry.”

The article further reports “President Bush’s science adviser, John Marburger, said he was disappointed in the report, and called it biased.

“He said he was troubled by the fact that some very prestigious scientists signed the statement.”

I’m sure he was.

I’m troubled by the fact that the website for the Union of Concerned Scientists seems to have a lot of broken links that prevent me from finding out exactly who these scientists are. However, the link to the report page works, so read it for yourself.

I have no better comment than the way user “American AC in Paris” put it in the Slashdot discussion of the report,

“The response to this has been that these scientists are motivated by partisan considerations and are trying to create a political issue.

“Trouble is, if you can’t count on 20 Nobel laureate scientists to make an honest, apolitical assessment of the state of science in our government, who on earth can you trust?”

[Update – 2:27 pm: There’s a much better discussion on this topic over at CalPundit.]

Bill Maher is the brilliant, incisive mind I would be, if only i were. See Janet Jackson and the Obscenity Hearings

[Editor’s note: Stumax.com would like to welcome new author Charles Pickwick. This is his first entry.]

You may or may not have seen the news today. If you did, you may or may not have seen the following quote regarding gay marriages. This was reported in AP, and I’ll provide a link to the New York Daily News so that you can read the full story.

“I strongly believe marriage should be defined as between a man and a woman,” Bush said during an Oval Office session with Tunisian President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali. “I am troubled by activist judges who are defining marriage.”

Here are some questions I would like to ask President Bush, should I have the chance:

Mr. President, do you honestly believe that certain judges are actively overturning laws they dislike? By what mechanism are they causing these cases to appear in their court? Was the judge who refused to remove the 10 Commandments from his courtroom an example of an activist judge? Have you heard of the system of checks and balances? I was under the impression that the legislative branch makes laws and the judicial branch merely interprets them; is this no longer the case in our society? Aren’t there some laws against judges abusing their power? Would you be willing to name names to enable the appropriate authorities to take actions against judges who are abusing their power? What exactly is the function of the judiciary, and what specific guidelines should judges use to fulfill this function?

Go to The Law Dictionary (or have Mr. Rove do this for you). Search for the phrase “judicial activism.” It doesn’t even appear! Nor does “activist judges.” How the heck am I supposed to learn about this topic when even an online law dictionary won’t tell me what I want to know. Is this a conspiracy? Do you, Mr. President, have a definition of “judicial activism” that you could send me so that I’d know judicial activism when I see it? It would be really cool if it was a checklist of some sort that I could just tick off like one of those Cosmo quizzes. You know, 0-40 – not really activist, 41-70 – moderately activist, 71-100 – get off the bench.

I’m concerned, Mr. President. I’m personally pro-Gay marriage, but I’m on your side when you say that we shouldn’t have judges making legislation. After all, judges are supposed to be fair and impartial, and there’s no room for that kind of crap in lawmaking.

I think this is a serious problem, and it’s time that we Americans did something about it. I used to think there was room for plain disagreement in this country. I used to think that the Constitution was written broadly enough that there might be some room for interpretation. No more. Ever since 9/11, I can see that things are too serious to leave to the whims of certain judges, even if their decisions might ultimately be overturned on appeal. I’m ready, willing, and able to support your stance against activist judges. I hope that you will answer some of my questions so that I’ll know just what an activist judge is, anyway.

Thank you.

C. Pickwick

P.S. I’m really too lazy to read this whole long article. Could you or Mr. Rove read it for me and tell me what it says… you know, in a nutshell? Thanks.

P.P.S. Oh, and this one’s really long and detailed, too.

By way of As the Apple Turns (the Apple News god whose merest FireWire adapter cables we are not worthy to gaze upon) comes this gem from Kuro5hin. Read We Are Morons: a quick look at the Win2k source || kuro5hin.org and learn something you’ve known all along. (Warning: explicit content. May cause blushing or crashes.)

See the The Nation’s Daily Outrage for the latest Anne Coulter embarrassment.

In computer news, there were a couple of related articles on Macs and security issues. MacCentral’s article Macs and viruses—are we as safe as we think? (short answer: pretty much, yeah) admits that, while no one’s written a virus for Mac OS X yet, it’s still theoretically possible that someone will take up the challenge. More disturbing is that, despite no actual Mac virus problems, Intego’s Mac-only antivirus software, VirusBarrier, “has seen steady growth in its anti-virus software sales.” Okay, I guess it’s good to be prepared, but companies who make a living off of spreading FUD make me heave.

MacFixIt points to an AustralianIT article titled Why Windows Breaks. Short version: lousy programming. (Quick quote: “This error is a stupid fault. Whoever wrote that piece of software should be mortified.”) Reading the article makes me wish I’d thought to do with my Windows installation CDs what the guys at PowerLabs did with theirs. Watch the movie. And don’t try this at home.