5 Tons of Flax

What the deuce!

Posted by Jon on 19 February, 2008

I haven’t posted anything in awhile; been busy and distracted. Also, it’s like having a pen pal when I was a kid, or keeping in touch with people now. I stop writing and then feel guilty for not writing anything, so I avoid it, etc. But this great sock puppet video is worth a posting; I loved Sesame Street when I was little, but it could have definitely used a dose of Marx! Via Crooked Timber.


Posted in uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

A train runs through it

Posted by Jon on 1 December, 2007

Street Use is a blog about ways in which people adapt technology (or adapt to technology) in creative ways – ways that are probably not covered under warranty. Usually its posts focus on the wacky – and very clever – things people in developing countries are doing with technology that middle class westerners would never, ever think of. It’s from the same blogger who runs Cool Tools, which is sort of a compendium of products that rock. Think of a mini Whole Earth Catalog done as a blog.

Anyway, here’s a video they had up on Street Use today. I suspect that, whatever the problems these people have (e.g., poverty), single-use zoning laws (or at least their enforcement) don’t rank highly among them. It’s from a Bangkok market.

Posted in culture, technology, urbanism | Leave a Comment »

The Parable of Jesse James: Keynesian crime?

Posted by Jon on 30 November, 2007

The Popular Front for the Liberation of Discordia: The Parable of Jesse James

Jesse James once sought shelter at a lonely farmhouse. The widow there apologized for her poor hospitality. She said she had very little money and despaired of paying the debt collector, who was coming imminently to demand $1,400.

James gave her $1,400 and told her to get a receipt. Then he hid outside and watched the road.

The debt collector arrived, looking grim, and entered the house. A few minutes later he emerged, looking pleased.

James accosted him, took back the $1,400, and rode off.

Don’t just rob from the rich and give to the poor; instead, rob from the rich, give to the poor, have the poor give to the rich, and then rob the rich a second time. Everyone wins! (For some reason, this seems Keynesian.)

Posted in economy, funny | Leave a Comment »

Mac OS needs an uninstaller?

Posted by Jon on 28 November, 2007

I’m preparing right now for an upgrade to Mac OS 10.5 (Leopard!) on my old iBook G4. One thing I’m doing is listing all the third party software I’m going to need to reinstall, and reflecting a little bit on the accumulation of software I’ve installed and no longer use.

As per an older discussion I came across here, I think one major thing missing from the Mac OS is an easier method of purging the detritus files left behind when you trash an application. That doesn’t mean the horrible Window-style uninstallation process, but something more elegant. Building on a few other people’s thoughts at the discussion linked above, here’s my thoughts and what I’d like to see:

First off, on the whole, a Mac deals with applications in a much more elegant and intuitive manner than a Windows system. My understanding is that, with rare exceptions, Windows programs are installed by a separate installation program that is either unique to the applicaiton in question or a generic installer. This process scatters files all over the hard drive. When it comes time to uninstall, you’re dependent on that installation/uninstallation program that came with your app; the Windows “Add/Remove Programs” panel really just points you to wherever that uninstaller is located.

Mac applications, on the other hand, are almost always treated as a single file; each app is actually a folder of files, but packaged in such a way that it can be dealt with as a single file. The Mac approach is far more intuitive; with rare exceptions (I’m looking at you, Adobe and Microsoft), “installing” an app means simply copying it from the source (e.g., a disk) to the hard drive. Putting it in the designated Applications folder is more about good organization than (generally speaking) necessity. The problem comes when you run the app – the app itself (not a separate installer) creates support files (e.g. preferences) in various places. If the programmer is responsible, these will be in the appropriate places; a preference .plist file might be in ~/Library/Preferences/AppName/ for example.

The problem of course, comes when you trash the app. The app is “uninstalled” effortlessly, but its support files, preferences, caches, etc. are left behind. This uses up space, very occassionally can cause conflicts, and worst is inelegant.

My solution would be similar to some that people suggested in the above discussion, but with a few minor variations:

In /Library/Receipts/ and ~/Library/Receipts/, the operating system should create a file for each application that lists each file they create in the corresponding library. Any files created to root, or /System/ or /Applications/ or ~/Applications/ would also be included on the user- or system-level receipt for that application.

Note that this doesn’t seem to involve any effort on the application programmer’s part, since it’s done at the operating system level (that is, the system is put in place by apple). Nor does it include any files in ~/Documents/ or the other user data folders. Each time an application makes or alters a file, the file is logged in Receipts (though you don’t need it to duplicate entries), and if the app deletes a file, it’s removed by the operating system from the Receipt log. Finally, if two or more apps modify or read the same file, it’s entered into both of their receipt logs independently.

That’s the operating system backend. The front end would be a “Receipts Manager” app that Apple would include with the other Apple utilities. It’s function would be to consolidate the data from all the receipts in the system and user libraries.

So how would all this work from the user’s point of view?

  • Installation is unchanged: apps are bundled folders, there are no “installers”
  • Uninstallation of an app is unchanged: drag it to the trash; support files/prefs/etc. remain in place. This means that people can do manual upgrades just as they do today, or can trash the app and reinstall it without losing preferences.
  • The critical difference is that all the support files are logged as being associated with a given application (in a simple text file, not a monolithic registry). The receipts manager would allow you to view all the files (in, e.g., Library, not Documents, etc.) logged as associated with a particular app. You could then have several basic actions:
    • delete all associated files for AppX
    • delete all associated files for AppX within the user’s home folder, or just the system level, or another user’s home folder (dependent on user’s administrator status)
    • don’t delete files that are listed on two or more applications’ receipts. This is critical for avoiding “dependency” issues where multiple applications rely on a common file (e.g. Microsoft Office apps). Using a Receipts Manager program to consolidate all the different apps receipts and cross check for common listings is the key here.

This system wouldn’t be perfect, but it would seem to address some of the Mac method’s deficiencies, while still steering clear of the horrible Window’s system where everything requires an uninstaller. The apps are the same as today’s, but the operating system now bothers to keep track of where they put things.

Posted in technology | Leave a Comment »

The “street” in “movements”

Posted by Jon on 13 November, 2007

I happened across a TPM post-and-discussion about a book called The Bulldozer and the Big Tent. Just a run of the mill “democrats need to have clearer principles” blog discussion. One comment (towards the end of the thread) particularly caught my attention though:

You might want to revisit your American history lessons artappraiser, because every major political evolution in America’s turbulent and violent history, from the borning of this nation, to the civil war, to the labor rights and union struggles, to the womans rights movements, to the civil rights movements, to the ending of the Viet Nam war were struggles fought and won by large street movements. The delays are always the result of political or legal processes. With regard to Iraq, and the Bush governments insidious and ruthless nazification of America, – there will be no change in any of these policies through the political or legal systems. The Bush government and the republican reich have total control of both systems, and will not relinquish that control peacefully.

Calling the major movements of the past “street movements” isn’t the way they are typically discussed. “Movements,” yes – but the emphasis on the “street” is usually missing.

I find this interesting particularly because of my love of Jane Jacobs and the resulting fact that I see our built environment as shaping our economic and social interactions. To be more clear: recognizing the “street” nature of historical American movements (and both historical and contemporary movements in foreign nations) brings to light how important are the social connections formed by people in cities and towns which provide the basis for movements to occur. Within car-based culture, lives are atomistic and non-hierarchical, emergent social movements are less likely. In a world where what Jacobs considers “general-purpose public spaces” are designated solely/primarily for automobile use, and in which there is little to no casual public mingling, how do mass movements develop? Moreover, how do they express their power, particularly if they are antagonistic to established powers.

It seems that, in general, they don’t. Actually, we can see movements with real political power today. Considering the Christian Right, for example, it’s obvious that they are based on a social connections formed in public mingling which lend themselves to political mobilization. However, their social web is centered on the church building (parts of the civil rights movement were also church-centered, of course).

With everyone spread out and atomistic, “movements” become diffused and watered down.

Posted in culture, political economy, politics, urbanism | 1 Comment »