Grant McCracken argues in The Coming Point-of-Sale Revolution that the future of in-store marketing is lots of perky people smiling at me. They might even punch me.
It is worth a read. But it also creeps me out as an idea. Just the thought of it — or is it the thought of me thinking about how I think about it? — makes me feel like (or think I’m thinking like) Lou Grant (starting at about 2:26 in the clip below).
httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNyj4FV56JY
Brigid Crawford asks, What Does Marital Status Have to Do with Fitness to Practice Law?.
The blog was down much of the day while I was busy in Baltimore and Washington (how does it know to die whenever, and almost only whenever, I’m out of town?). Here, according to support, is the cause:
The apache service did not like the initial IPv6 assigned to the domain. I changed out the IP and reset the apache service for the domain and I can now view the domain.
I don’t actually understand how this is possible, but if this is the straight dope, it suggests IPv6 adoption is going to be much rockier than I ever imagined.
Update: I asked for further and better particulars, and got this:
The tech who helped you is not in the office. Therefor I cannot give you an definitive answer. However, I had a similar issue on another machine. It appeared to be a kernel bug. The IP was visible to the VPS guest, but could not use. It appache cannot listen on an IP, it will not start. The best course of action was to simply renumber the IP. Hopefully this gives you more insight. If you have any additional questions, please let us know.
I admit crim pro is not my strong suit, but why isn’t the conduct described in Islamic Shura Council v. FBI (C.D. Cal. Apr. 27) simple perjury by a government official?
The Government’s in camera submission revealed that the Government initially misled the Court in two material respects. First, the Government’s representations regarding its use of “outside the scope” were inaccurate. The Government initially represented to the Court that the Government provided all information that “include[d] any reference to plaintiffs in any document in any file,” and any information withheld as “outside the scope” of Plaintiffs’ request was “non-responsive.” (Opp’n to Pl.’s Mot. Summ. J. at 3, 11.) Mr. Hardy’s second declaration stated that, in truth, documents “that would otherwise be considered to be responsive to plaintiffs’ request” were excluded from production or redacted as “outside the scope.” (Second Hardy Decl. ¶ 5.) Second, the Government’s representations regarding the number of responsive documents were false. The Government previously represented that it had identified only a limited number of documents responsive to Plaintiffs’ FOIA request. (First Hardy Decl. ¶¶ 19, 31–43, 45–46.) Mr. Hardy’s second declaration acknowledged that the Government had identified a large number of additional responsive documents, but that the Government did not disclose the existence of these other documents. (Second Hardy Decl. ¶ 13.)
The first declaration was, if I am reading it right, under oath. And there were lawyers involved in many stages of this too.
(Case spotted via Volokh. Neither he nor the judge call it perjury.)
I remember flying up to DC shortly after they turned the air traffic control system back on post-9/11. People here in Miami were weird about it — they treated it as a very dangerous thing to do. For some reason I didn’t feel threatened at all. That said, the experience at the airport, in which a great effort was made to search everything, and in the air, in which for the first time we told to stay in our seats for the last 30 minutes of the approach to DC, was decidedly off-putting. The atmosphere on the plane was oddly strained.
Now, once again I’m flying early Tuesday to the DC area (although actually landing at BWI and spending the day in Baltimore), right when the airport security staff are likely to be at their jumpiest. Who can blame them?
Still, I cannot help but think that the giant security apparatus, and the huge dead-weight costs of people going to the airport early and wasting time, is one of the clearest signs that that we are not, despite recent events, succeeding in the ‘war on terror’ because we are letting our choices and expenditures be defined by those who do not wish us well. Maybe we’d be better off trusting those metal cabin doors to protect us from hijacks, and accepting that even so there can be no perfect safety in a complicated world.
I’d take the risk, but I’m not the one who would have to explain it if something went wrong, and those who do have gigantic institutional incentives to be, and even more to be seen to be, risk-averse. Thus, the FBI openly is being transformed into a domestic intelligence agency, one charged with preventing rather then solving crimes. In a perfect world, of course, prevention is better than cure, and punishment is not even cure. But there is no way an FBI or any other public agency can seriously undertake this mission without, and there is no other word for it, spying on a lot of people. I think history has a few things to teach us about how that works out for societies as a rule, and I wonder how much we are heeding those lessons.
On Wednesday, I’ll be in DC visiting family and friends. On Thursday and Friday I’m going to the GIGANet Doubleheader. My part of the talking will be about IP numbers on Thursday, and about ICANN on Friday. There’s a written paper for the Friday talk.
Lauren Weinstein catches Sen. Orin Hatch trying to airbrush his legislative record to make it more Teaparty-compatible:
Hatch wants to keep his job — and the birthers present a serious problem for him. You see, back only eight years ago, when Austrian-born Arnold Schwarzenegger (for all his faults, still a quite moderate, non-wacko guy) was in his ascendancy with the GOP, Hatch proposed a constitutional amendment — the “Equal Opportunity to Govern Amendment” [“Presidential Eligibility Amendment”] — to allow persons born abroad (like Schwarzenegger) to become president!
This bit of history has become rather inconvenient for Hatch, when he needs to appeal to Tea Party and birther zealots.
…
Apparently until a couple of days ago, the details of Hatch’s proposed amendment were still available in the direct archives of his Web site, listed along with his other legislative efforts over the years. But there’s a gap in that list of pages now, seemingly where mention of the amendment used to be present.
via Lauren Weinstein’s Blog: Google Exposes Senator (Sloppily) Trying to Delete History for Birthers.
Of course, looking like you wanted to do Schwarzenegger a favor isn’t going to win you friends with anyone these days.
Recent Bluessky Posts
Jotwell Blenderlaw