Posts

So I’m working on two projects these days. The first is an extremely business-logic heavy application. It was originally implemented in PHP, but I’m writing a Web service that implements the same logic in Java. The other is a code review of an EJB-based application. I’m reviewing the source code to find potential security problems, and even though I’ve looked at hundreds of files, I honestly have no idea what any of the Java code is for. I know that many people love PHP, and for some applications, it’s great. WordPress is a perfectly fine application written in PHP, because it’s all about slapping a Web interface on a database. PHP is great for that. However, implementing even trivial business logic in PHP is rather painful. In my Java version of the application, I access the business logic in the following ways: ...

Body and Soul: And in my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink. A must read post on torture.

Last week, Jim Henley asked: So the question that arises is, did we, as part of the SAP, torture former regime scientists last summer as part of the WMD search? The answer, it seems, is yes.

Gmail is perhaps the most threading-oriented email client ever. If treats threads of messages as individual items, and doesn’t even give you the option of viewing messages outside the context of their thread. I like this approach, especially for mailing lists. The intelligent grouping of messages means less clutter in your in box, for one thing. I find, though, that the threading has a strange psychological effect on me. Seeing an archived thread that I’m not interested in back at the top of my in box because a new message has been tacked on can be depressing. Most threads I just want to go away, but some pop back up over, and over, and over, with the current count of messages right there staring me in the face. I’m not sure why this haunts mre more than just getting an individual item from a thread in my in box in my old school email client, but it does. It’s like the moments at the end of a scary movie when they guy everyone in the audience thinks is dead rears back up one last time. Maybe they need a command that says, “automatically trash or archive any further emails in this thread,” so that uninteresting threads die and stay dead, at least as far as I’m concerned. ...

Recently I bought a big bean bag from LoveSac.com. I’m mentioning this only to give them credit for their top notch customer service. The Sac that we bought had a red microsuede cover that unfortunately turned everything it came in contact with red as well. I emailed Kelly, LoveSac’s self-described customer service goddess, and she asked me what kind of cover I wanted to replace it and shipped it to me, no questions asked. She told me just to throw away the microsuede cover (or to give it to someone we hate). I doubt I’d ever have cause to buy another bean bag chair, but they’re a great company and I wanted to recommend them. Good customer service is rare. ...

Respectful of Otters describes a social program that just works today. Unsurprisingly, despite its low cost and absurdly high effectiveness at actually saving money (and lives), it’s often a political target.

The Sacramento Bee has a depressing interview with a Marine who has returned from Iraq. It really drives home the point that any soldier who fights in a war is a victim of it.

So on May 11, conservative New York Times columnist David Brooks wrote a column with the headline, “For Iraqis to Win, the U.S. Must Lose.” The point was pretty basic – the people who eventually end up with power are not going to be people who are seen as US stooges. Going into the war, the biggest US stooge was Ahmed Chalabi. As it turns out, the Bush administration was his stooge, but I doubt that’s how it’s perceived in Iraq. Earlier this week, Chalabi’s funding was cut off by the Pentagon, as of today he’s been thrown off the Interim Governing Council, and his home and offices have been raided. That would seem to indicate that he’s completely out of favor with his former allies in the Bush administration, but perhaps the alternate explanation makes more sense. Recent polls have shown that Muqtada al-Sadr, who has been under assault by the coalition for a couple of months, is the second most popular leader in Iraq. The most popular, Grand Ayatollah al-Sistani, has had a somewhat rocky relationship with the coalition as well. Could it be that the Pentagon is throwing Chalabi in the briar patch in order to boost his legitimacy going into the handover on June 30 and the elections (whenever they happen)? As it is, Lakhdar Brahimi has said he isn’t going to include Chalabi in the caretaker government, so Chalabi is out of power in a month either way. If he’s the guy the the Pentagon really trusts, then kicking him while he’s down may be the best move possible to increase his political viability. This possibility was raised in a comment over at Dangerousmeta, and I felt compelled to post about it myself. Update: Josh Marshall makes a pretty good argument that the conspiratorial view of Chalabi-related events is probably off base. ...

I don’t know how realistic the talk of reinstitution of the draft is, but I do find it a bit disturbing that twice in the past few weeks I’ve gotten spam encouraging me to jion the National Guard. The most recent spam was sent to the contact address for a domain name that I have registered (it’s not an address that has ever been used for anything else), so I know for certain that I didn’t sign up for something and get these emails as a side effect. It’s just spam. The spam itself looks professionally produced, so the question is who is paying for a spammer to recruit for the National Guard? ...

Change for America reports that Kerry’s latest campaign theme is taken from the title of a poem by Langston Hughes, Let America Be America Again. I have to admit that when I saw it, it made me think of an episode of The West Wing when the staff adopted the slogan “Let Barlet be Bartlet.” I wonder if most other people will make the same association?