Years ago, core computing tasks were performed on shared mainframe computers, with individual users assigned terminal devices to communicate with the mainframe computer. Some of the terminals were smart, and able to enhance the interaction. Notably, the CTC Datapoint 2200 was in fact itself a programmable computer (in production five years before Steve Wozniak's Apple I), and was the direct ancestor of the x86 computers of to-day. But few of smart terminals themselves ran any code other than to provide interface for communication with the mainframe. (And the dumb terminals ran no applications.) There were efforts to get the general population using mainframes by way of terminals located in their homes, but these efforts enjoyed limited success.

Then the idea of personal computers caught hold, so that a large share of the population indeed computed at home or in the office. But the computing itself was primarily done at basically the same physical location as was the user. It was possible to add some communications hardware to the computer, and then use it as a terminal device, but most of the tasks that had previously been performed on a mainframe were now being performed locally.

When the 'Net came into wider use, some people started having the thought that perhaps it would be an advancement if principal computing tasks were moved onto the Internet, which is to say onto serving computers that were available by way of the 'Net. Unsurprisingly, I see this as a return to an earlier, previously unpopular model.

Now, sometimes, changes in an infrastructure can breathe new life into essentially older technologies; and one shouldn't reject this idea of moving back to locating core computing on remote machines simply because we had previously reduced its relative use. But I find it a signally unappealing idea, because it removes the independence of personal computing. I very much like the fact that I can do everything without communicating except communication itself. I have local applications for text processing and for type-setting, for multimedia generation, for mathematical analysis, and for programming. For these things, I don't have to rely upon a connection to the 'Net nor upon someone's server.

While there are some tasks that might be better performed by a network of distributed service, there is no particular reason for handing responsibility to such a network for mundane tasks that users could easily be performing with local equipment. And the introduction of the opaque buzzword cloud to refer to distributed service on the Internet does nothing but get my back up.

Anyway, I was prompted to ventilate by this story:

T-Mobile Sidekick users have had things such as contact information and photos stored on the cloud, which in this case is to say some servers that T-Mobile has leased from a division of Microsoft, which division is aptly named Microsoft/Danger. Well, the servers weren't properly backed-up, they crashed, and most or all that they held is just … gone.

[Up-Date (2009:10/15): Microsoft has now largely reversed itself, declaring we have recovered most, if not all, customer data for those Sidekick customers whose data was affected by the recent outage. We rebuilt the system component by component, recovering data along the way.]

The Woman of Interest alerts me to reports that Marge Simpson is to appear on the cover of the November issue of Playboy.

To see Elmer Fudd in drag, watch The Big Snooze (1946, directed by the egregious Robert Clampett).

The short-term result of the Nobel Committee giving the Peace Prize to President Obama will probably be to increase his political capital in some amount (in a context where polls shows his domestic approval trending downward and at or below 50%). In the long-run, this award will prove damaging to popular American perceptions both of Europe and of the Democratic Party.

American perceptions of Europe will suffer, because the only distinctive objectives had by President Obama which enjoy majority support are objectives at which he will not succeed. And American perceptions of the Democratic Party will suffer because it will be seen not simply as seeking the wrong things but as doing so in alliance with alien forces.

Very shrewd. The real result of this demand will be to make it more difficult for states to agree to limit emissions, which in turn will allow the Saudis to sell more petroleum. (Nor will they take much blame for failure to reach agreement, as that would interfere with Yank-bashing.)

While Franken has at times resorted to worse intellectual dishonesty than in this case he exposes, here he is right on the mark. As Franken's line of questioning and the answer that it elicts show, the statistic in question tells us virtually nothing about whether the outcomes of arbitration would be considered equally or more favorable to employees than are the outcomes of litigation. It is, in other words, a garbage statistic.

Firms are entitled to require arbitration as a condition of doing business with them, but those who deal with these firms are likewise entitled to require that there be no such imposition as their own condition of doing business.

For some time now, I've been asserting that, when the same statistical protocol is used, the UK is actually ahead of the US (per capita) in all but a couple of forms of violent crime. I'm going to have to revise that assertion. The UK is ahead of the US in all forms of violent crime except criminal homicide.

Joe Wilson has behaved like a d_mn'd fool, and there's not much reason to expect him to stop behaving like a d_mn'd fool, but he's being offered a Golden Opportunity:

A clever politician would agree that such an apology were required, and then proceed to deliver something that were indeed an expression of regret, and impossible to fault on technical grounds, but that wrapped an explanation of Wilson's ostensible concerns. The apology could be formally very polite and yet a strong declaration of belief in opposition to the President's programmes. Listeners at all inclined to sympathy for Mr Wilson or to anxieties about the President would have that sympathy or those anxieties greatly reïnforced.

Were I a Democrat then, while I'd generally bet on Wilson's continued foolishness, I wouldn't take this particular bet. The chance of losing is quite low, but the loss would be far too great.

In predicting response to the speech yester-day of President Obama, I certainly did not anticipate the outburst by Joe Wilson.

Pericles once noted that the choices of a leader should be informed by the fact that he would not always be the leader.

Our two major political parties need to remember, when in opposition, that their presumption is that they will not always be in opposition. Their behaviors when in opposition set precedents that will be followed by each other party when it is forced into opposition. The next time that we have a Republican President speaking before Congress, there will be less to prevent a Democrat from heckling him or her.