Bibliomancer.Com

In junior high school, I took a lot of shop class. I had to take some­thing in the period. I had no artis­tic tal­ent to speak of, and enough atavis­tic sense that home ec was for girls that I spent one period a day doing some mechan­i­cal thing or another: Wood shop, metal shop, alter­na­tive energy (we made hot dog cook­ers!), mechan­i­cal engi­neer­ing and so on. It was good, fun stuff and I was really glad I did it.

When I moved on to high school, I set it aside. Rather than being part of the cur­ricu­lum, shop was is own dis­tant wing of the school, vis­i­ble only occa­sion­ally from Gym or Driver’s ed. It wasn’t shop, it was “Voca­tional Edu­ca­tion” and the kids who went there didn’t over­lap much with my world. I was a power-nerd, on track with var­i­ous hon­ors classes, good tests and mediocre grades. My view of the uni­verse assumed there were var­i­ous tracks of aca­d­e­mic suc­cess, and over time I bought into the gen­eral idea that some­where below the low­est aca­d­e­mic track was Vo-tech (Vocational/technical edu­ca­tion), and I had the gen­eral sense that that was where kids ended up rather than drop­ping out of school. These were “the dumb kids”, trou­ble­mak­ers and smok­ers, the ones with­out real futures, unlike me and my hon­ors class compatriots.

Yes, I was a dumb, arro­gant, know-nothing snot-nosed brat. I know this. I’m also in the future.

This idea got smacked out of my head one night when I was at an awards cer­e­mony. I’d got­ten an NHS nom­i­na­tion (beat­ing out my fel­low power nerds, who had only got­ten the equiv­a­lent of hon­or­able men­tion) though the award was pretty much just for show since my grades were mid­dling at best. I hung around for the whole cer­e­mony to be polite, even when it came time to hand out the vo-tech awards.

I did not rec­og­nize the woman giv­ing out the awards – she might not have even been a teacher at the school, but given my dis­con­nect from vo-tech, who knows – but I remem­ber her twangy accent as she made a point of fully pro­nounc­ing “National Voca­tional Tech­ni­cal Honor Soci­ety” every time it came up, never short­en­ing or abbre­vi­at­ing it. I don’t remem­ber much of the specifics of what she said, but it caught me up short all the same. See, for most of the folks at this cer­e­mony, this was a lit­tle sideshow, a chance for the not-so-smart kids to be seen on the stage before we could go back to rec­og­niz­ing the best and brightest.

It was clear this woman knew that, and it was clear it made her angry as hell. And not angry because it’s what she did, angry because she was damn proud of these kids up on the stage and what they had done, and it meant less than noth­ing to most of the peo­ple watch­ing. She didn’t rant or any­thing. She just made a short state­ment about how these kids deserve respect, and she made sure that no part of the cer­e­mony was rushed or abbre­vi­ated. But that pride and anger shone through as clear as day, and it kind of knocked me on my ass.

There are few times in my life when I have so clearly seen what an utter dum­b­ass I’d been. That night pretty well upended my whole per­spec­tive on voca­tional edu­ca­tion. I stopped see­ing it as a safety net for losers and started rec­og­niz­ing it as some­thing valu­able, a path that some­one who knows what they’re doing can and should set their feet upon, and know they’re going to get some­where. Hell, com­pared to the vague plans that come form a four year degree, it was pos­i­tively enviable.

I men­tion all this because it gives a lit­tle con­text for how intensely dis­ap­pointed I was with the book Shop Class as Soul­craft. I had read the reviews and heard the inter­views and I was intensely excited about it. The premise was that there was value in real work, in learn­ing to do and make things with your hands, and that that had been lost and needed to be regained by our soci­ety. This res­onated really strongly with me, and I had hoped for a book that addressed it.

Instead, I get a book by and about a Doc­tor of Phi­los­o­phy who gave up a think tank job to repair motor­cy­cles, and has now writ­ten a book for the sole pur­pose of jus­ti­fy­ing that deci­sion, and pos­si­bly air­ing a few of his favorite bits of pol­i­tics. It’s utterly dis­ap­point­ing, and I wrote a review to that effect, but I wanted to get down the rest of my frus­tra­tion, if only for myself.

Blame it on my (loosely) Catholic upbring­ing, but I grew up think­ing that bad behav­ior was addi­tive. That is, if you do a bad thing, then do it again, that’s twice as bad as if you’d just done it once. This was sup­ported by my sim­ple under­stand­ing of con­fes­sion and penance, and held up by my equal sim­ple under­stand­ing of law enforce­ment and crim­i­nal sen­tenc­ing. Sure, there was a cer­tain amount of nuance — theft seemed to be judged more on total value than the num­ber of things, for exam­ple — but that was the basic model. What’s more, as the more well behaved of my sib­lings, it seemed like a very fair arrange­ment to me.

That sense of fair­ness haunted me well into adult­hood with­out my giv­ing it much thought. I would see peo­ple do some­thing that seemed very clearly bad in my eyes, and have other peo­ple shrug it off. That was ok, peo­ple have dif­fer­ent tol­er­ances, but what got me was that they would do it again, or do some­thing com­pa­ra­bly bad, and the excited lit­tle kid in my brain would want to hump up on top of some­thing and point and say “SEE! SEE! That’s TWICE as bad! Aren’t you appalled?”

But the thing is, peo­ple weren’t. The peo­ple who were both­ered the first time were both­ered again, and the peo­ple who weren’t both­ered the first time just shrugged it off. That just seemed wrong and, per­haps more impor­tantly, unfair. This nig­gled at the edge of my mind for a long time with­out ever really crys­tal­liz­ing — it just didn’t come up enough to really merit more than annoyance.

Then the inter­net came along, and I was del­uged by exam­ples of this on a daily basis[1]. This proved the basis for many impor­tant moral lessons, but it also laid out the addi­tive fal­lacy in the stark­est of terms. Go to blogs and forums where peo­ple are com­plete jerks and you will quickly dis­cover that they always have a body of peo­ple will­ing to defend them, no mat­ter how obvi­ously rude, insult­ing or destruc­tive their behav­ior. Some­times there’s a clear expla­na­tion, like a fierce free speech advo­cate or just a big­ger jerk, but usu­ally it seemed to just be a func­tion of com­mu­nity. Para­dox­i­cally it seemed the more often the per­son was a jerk, the more tol­er­ant their com­mu­nity was of it.

Occa­sion­ally, the bad actor might strain tol­er­ance, usu­ally if he’s really machine-gunning the hate, but most often the only way things could change would be if the bad actor took things to the next level, to make his behav­ior dras­ti­cally worse, such as by start­ing to include racist com­ments in what had hereto­fore been merely misog­y­nis­tic remarks. But oth­er­wise? No problem.

It really hurt my heart to acknowl­edge that if bad behav­ior is addi­tive, then it suf­fers from dras­tic dimin­ish­ing returns — repeat actions only move the nee­dle up frac­tion­ally, and only for as long as mem­ory lasts. If peo­ple are will­ing to be tol­er­ant of the first bad action, then they will prob­a­bly be tol­er­ant of each sub­se­quent bad action. In fact, these sup­port­ers will become so inured to it that when some­one else raises it as an issue, the sup­porter will sin­cerely won­der why this per­son is over­re­act­ing so strongly.

This is, to be frank, a kind of crappy moral con­clu­sion to reach. At best it sug­gests a zero tol­er­ance pol­icy of ass­holes, and while that seems sat­is­fy­ing on paper, it over­looks the sim­ple fact that every­one has the occa­sional bad day. And, if I’m com­pletely hon­est with myself, I have to acknowl­edged that there are a few ass­holes that I also tol­er­ate in this fashion.

It’s good to be aware of that. Yeah yeah, pop phi­los­o­phy, blah blah blah. Not very sat­is­fy­ing, but the alter­na­tive is that lit­tle part of me that still really and truly wants things to be fair, and I;m pretty sure I don’t want to let him out of the box.

1 — In ret­ro­spect, I would prob­a­bly have seen it sooner if I lis­tened to more talk radio.

So Cory Doc­torow, who is usu­ally a pretty smart guy, weighed in on cloud com­put­ing today. I’m inter­ested in what he has to say, so I absolutely went and checked out his opin­ion. I was sur­prised to say the least.

What’s jar­ring is that his the­sis — that cloud com­put­ing is so excit­ing because peo­ple think they can make money off it — is pretty fair. I would go so far as to sug­gest that it’s not even par­tic­u­larly con­tro­ver­sial, out­side of a few techno-idealists. It’s just that the rea­son­ing and exam­ples that fol­low are far less about that point and far more about…honestly, I’m not sure. Maybe the man keep­ing us down or something.

For my two bits, cloud com­put­ing is far from any kind of new idea (even if the ter­mi­nol­ogy is newly hip). There has always been a con­flict between the idea of doing every­thing locally with one mighty com­puter and doing things remotely where there are advan­tages like redun­dancy, acces­si­bil­ity and cost. The idea of the “thin client” — a cheap com­puter that plugged into a more pow­er­ful com­puter to do every­thing — was a re-emergence of the clas­sic dumb ter­mi­nal, and it was the next big thing for a while, until com­put­ers got cheap enough that it seemed wasteful.

Today, com­put­ers have got­ten cheaper still, to the point where the aver­age user may well have access to sev­eral com­put­ers. This is impor­tant because it means that for nor­mal human activ­i­ties, like writ­ing or play­ing music or play­ing games, it mat­ters a lot what is on which com­puter. There are solu­tions for this — home net­works, USB dri­ves and such — but they all have their own lim­i­ta­tions. For a user, being able to get to their con­tent from any machine with­out has­sles is the ulti­mate con­ve­nience. There are some ubiq­ui­tous exam­ples of this, like gmail and flickr, but it’s pos­si­ble drop­box is the best bet­ter exam­ple. I have a free 2 gig account with them, and any­thing I’m writ­ing gets saved to the local drop­box direc­tory, and gets synced to all the other machines I’ve signed up. If I’m on some­one else’s machine, I can access my stuff via the web.

None of this is par­tic­u­larly hard­core. I don’t talk about Ama­zon or Rack­space and the cloud ser­vices they offer here, I’m just talk­ing about things that my mom might use. And that, I think, might be where my opin­ion ends up dif­fer­ing from Doc­torow. He is right about the sheer amount of com­puter power that can be cheaply bought by the aver­age user, but even he acknowl­edges that it’s sim­ply more com­puter than most peo­ple need. This sim­ple truth has sold a lot of net­books and a lot of cheap Dells, and it’s ulti­mately the flaw in any argu­ment that a cloud ser­vice is not as fast or pow­er­ful as your com­puter. Users (except­ing a very nerdy seg­ment) don’t mea­sure com­put­ing in absolute terms — they need enough power to per­form cer­tain tasks, and most of what’s past that point is likely to be lost on them. If remote com­put­ing can clear that thresh­old (and evi­dence says it can) then it can do the job.

Now, he’s right to be wary of preda­tory pric­ing schemas and bad busi­ness prac­tices, but I don’t think that’s news, and if noth­ing else the robust­ness of the cloud mar­ket seems to have suc­cess­fully dri­ven the entry price to “free” for the aver­age user. And that’s the rub — I think Doctorow’s sense of the aver­age user is a bit more rar­efied than mine. If he thinks Amazon’s ser­vice is for the aver­age guy, then heck, maybe he’s right. We may already all be too smart to need any­thing but sftp, our per­sonal linux box and a few scripts. I cer­tainly know peo­ple for whom that is true, but their time tends to be worth enough to merit just pay­ing for the service.

But I appar­ently know many fewer of them than Mis­ter Doctorow.

The Penny Arcade guys have a great post today about the approach­ing Microsoft Store.  No shock that they find the funny in it, but I was par­tic­u­lar­ily taken by this passage:

On the desk­top, and this is unfor­tu­nate for them, the only way to make a truly dis­crim­i­nat­ing choice is to pur­chase a competitor’s product.

That is to say, going with Microsoft is not a choice for most shop­pers, it is the absence of a choice.  Or, as they put it in the comic: “Isn’t every store a Microsoft Store?“‘

It is hard not to look at this effort by Microsoft as a slightly petu­lant swing at the suc­cess of the Apple Store.   The ulti­mate proof will be in what kind of store it turns out to be. The fear is that it will be a com­puter shop where the bulk of cus­tomer choice is between which ver­sion of Vista or Win­dows 7 will pro­vide them the “best expe­ri­ence”.  Like a tiny Best Buy, with­out the over­priced DVDs.

Even with things which work really well, like the X-Box (which boasts a fan­tas­tic online expe­ri­ence and store), how do you trans­late that into a worth­while shop­ping experience?

I’m not opti­mistic about this effort. I intel­lec­tu­ally hold out hope that the guys at Microsoft are smart enough to keep this from being every bad thing one might expect , but I don’t feel it. All the ways to make this smart and work­able are too small for Microsoft as a whole.  Maybe the store folks will be given enough lee­way to prove me wrong. Maybe.

But all this got me won­der­ing if there was a way to make a Microsoft store any good, and I real­ized there was.

The para­dox that Microsoft will need to over­come is that they have too few choices among their prod­ucts, and too many choices among all the things that sur­round them (hard­ware and soft­ware). For a store to be suc­cess­ful, they don’t need to con­cen­trate on cre­at­ing more choices among their prod­ucts, they need to find a way to give me fewer choices among other prod­ucts.  That means they need to either look at hard­ware or soft­ware.  Hardware’s kind of a dead end — com­pet­ing with Dell is eat­ing their own lunch, and coop­er­at­ing with them is just redun­dant.  Soft­ware, how­ever, is rich with potential.

If you use Macs, you will some­times hear Win­dows users talk about the sheer breadth of soft­ware avail­able for the PC, and how that’s a point against Macs.  Mac users laugh this one off because they know the secret — less soft­ware means that what there is tends to be bet­ter. There are two big  rea­sons for this. First, most Mac Soft­ware has a degree of pas­sion behind it: pro­gram­mers only develop for the mac because they want to, and that sets a nat­ural bar.   Sec­ond, and per­haps more impor­tantly, there are fewer options, so find­ing the good ones is easier.

Microsoft fans may be expe­ri­enc­ing a knee jerk now at the asser­tion that Mac soft­ware is bet­ter than Win­dows, and that is clearly Very Wrong Indeed, so let me explain the con­trast.  There is a lot more soft­ware avail­able for Win­dows than there is for the Mac, and that has a pro­found impact on the qual­ity of the user expe­ri­ence. Assume the qual­ity of prod­uct is exactly the same, and the dis­tri­b­u­tion of qual­ity is roughly equal, find­ing a really good piece of soft­ware -  the kind you get excited about, some­thing like Scrivener or Omn­i­graf­fle -  is like find­ing a nee­dle in a haystack. The trick is that the Mac haystack is much, much smaller.   More is not nec­es­sar­ily bet­ter in this case — even if the Mac soft­ware is gen­er­ally bet­ter, there will still be more good win­dows soft­ware just out of pure vol­ume, but you can go nuts try­ing to find it.

The other fac­tor of qual­ity is that the most excit­ing Mac soft­ware comes from smaller com­pa­nies. The posi­tion of Adobe Cre­ative Suite and Microsoft Office are pretty well cemented in the uni­verse, and the really inter­est­ing stuff comes from peo­ple who aren’t try­ing for a piece of that pie, and instead are look­ing to fill some other niche. These are the com­pa­nies who make the most excit­ing stuff, but they are the hard­est to dif­fer­en­ti­ate from the noise around them in the PC world.

This is where a Microsoft store could really shine. Rather than offer­ing me the same soft­ware I can find at Best Buy,  Micro Cen­ter, Frys, Sta­ples or Ama­zon, why not offer me the best soft­ware out there?  Why not offer the kind of soft­ware that is so good and use­ful that win­dows users can be smug rather than apolo­getic? For those com­pa­nies and indi­vid­u­als putting out elec­tronic prod­uct, use some of that Microsoft mus­cle to help them put phys­i­cal media on the shelves. Be picky as hell, limit shelf space to only those pro­grams that cre­ate enthu­si­asm, and sud­denly there’s some­thing to buy.

That’s a store I’d shop at.

(And for the naysay­ers — that soft­ware really is out there. The fact that you haven’t seen it is mostly just an illus­tra­tion of the under­ly­ing problem. )

The Live­scribe Pulse is pretty much one of the most bril­liant devices of recent his­tory. The abil­ity to have your writ­ing cap­tured to a com­puter with­out the pain of weird clip­board attach­ments is a really excit­ing tech­nol­ogy for peo­ple who like writ­ing long­hand (like, say, me).

Unfor­tu­nately, the first gen­er­a­tion pen is a mon­ster. Not to say it doesn’t work, but the thing is huge. It’s like writ­ing with a big, fat marker, and all the tech­nol­ogy in the world can’t make it appeal­ing for me to write with. I’ve been qui­etly hop­ing for their suc­cess so that they can even­tu­ally pro­duce a sec­ond gen­er­a­tion pen that’s a lit­tle more manageable.

Thank­fully, all signs point to things going well. Tar­get car­ries them, which is great. Plus, one of the first paper prod­ucts they released were mole­sk­ine knock­offs, which shows a great under­stand­ing of their tar­get audience.

I was at Tar­get the other day and dis­cov­ered that they’ve clinched it. They seemed to have entered into a part­ner­ship with paperblanks, the mak­ers of the dis­tinc­tive note­books with the mag­netic clo­sures. They don’t even have them up on the web­site yet, but they were stacked neatly under the pens. It’s a small thing to be excited about, but it’s the sort of con­ver­gence I’m really happy to see.

I am still wrestling with my opin­ion of The Age of the Unthink­able: Why the New World Dis­or­der Con­stantly Sur­prises Us And What We Can Do About It by Joshua Cooper Ramo. It is both a very good and a very annoy­ing book.

To explain that con­tra­dic­tion, I’m going to talk a lit­tle bit about Clause­witz and Jomini. They’re a pair of 19^th cen­tury mil­i­tary writ­ers, and some of the most influ­en­tial mil­i­tary thinkers of all time. I do them a great dis­ser­vice in sim­pli­fy­ing their work here, but they are iconic of a divi­sion in mil­i­tary think­ing which is mir­rored in most other sorts of think­ing. Clause­witz argued that the way to win a war was through over­whelm­ing force, applied unre­lent­ingly at your enemy’s weak­est point. In con­trast. Jomini argued for win­ning a war by fight­ing smarter – strike at your ene­mies’ sup­ply lines, fight only when you can win, pick your bat­tles and in doing so you can over­come a vastly supe­rior force.

This actu­ally got played out very inter­est­ingly in the US civil war, which was fought in a pretty Jomin­ian fash­ion form the out­set, which went badly for the north because Robert E. Lee and his gen­er­als were much, much bet­ter at it than the union gen­er­als. Grant’s vic­tory came in large part because of a shift to Clause­witz­ian tac­tics, and a will­ing­ness to grind out the fight with the south to its bru­tal conclusion.

This con­flict, between force and cal­cu­la­tion, has been with us for most of his­tory. George Eliot called it the dirk ver­sus the cud­gel, and I’ll use those terms now if only because I’m tired of try­ing to spell Clause­witz. It shows up in fas­ci­nat­ing places in mil­i­tary his­tory (look up Thomas Jefferson’s idea of a navy some­time), as recently as with the mod­ern Amer­i­can fas­ci­na­tion with air power. Like the per­pet­ual cycle of offense vs. defense, the dirk and the cud­gel rise and fall in rela­tion­ship to one another, but this pat­tern is a bit more inter­est­ing because of its predictability.

Put sim­ply – intel­lec­tu­als and engi­neers love the dirk. They love its ele­gance and its empha­sis on knowl­edge, under­stand­ing and intel­lect. They are con­stantly cer­tain that the cud­gel is just going to up and go the way of the dinosaur any time now because the dirk is just so much more ele­gant. And they are always sur­prised when some­one shows up and takes a cud­gel to the side of their head (or, more prop­erly, the heads of the guys they’ve sent to fight for them).

On a lot of lev­els, Age of the Unthink­able is a pre­dictable tract on the death of the cud­gel, writ­ten in a man­ner bet­ter suited to an ambi­tious grad stu­dent than a vet­eran of the world stage. It is so enam­ored with flex­i­bil­ity and resilience that it either dis­misses or merely pays lip ser­vice to strength and deter­mi­na­tion, and that is what keeps it from being great. By the end there is a nod to the idea that we need both to thrive, but it is so absent from the rest of the book as to cut it off at the knees.

Worse, it falls right into the worst sort of traps. Have you seen Ris­ing Sun? Recently? It was a kind of fun action flick when it came out, but nowa­days it’s run­ning theme of JAPANESE SUPERMEN WILL RULE US ALL is almost com­i­cal to behold. Ramo seems to feel the same way about the Chi­nese, and he does things like quote Sun Tzu in ways that might have been novel and inter­est­ing 20 years ago, but are just tired now.

And that’s sort of the rub. 20 years ago, this would have been a bril­liant book. Earth-shakingly bril­liant. But now, it’s full of insights that are going to be trite to any­one who has read any decent non fic­tion (or good sci­ence fic­tion) in the past decade or so.

BUT

The thing that keeps me from dis­miss­ing this book entirely is that they are good and legit­i­mate insights, even if some of the analy­sis (and writ­ing) around them is flawed, and it’s pos­si­ble that there are peo­ple they would be new for. So if you’re a reader who is actu­ally baf­fled by the rate of change in the world, and if you don’t under­stand why plan­ning and response might make for a more robust defense than bar­ri­ers or why an orga­ni­za­tions abil­ity to learn is impor­tant, then this book is a great primer for such things. It’s prob­a­bly a great read for high school fresh­men, for example.

On a purely prac­ti­cal level, the first chap­ter can be skipped, as can most of the sec­ond. If you’re annoyed by gim­micky writ­ing, expect to get annoyed early and often – he overuses nar­ra­tive tricks like the reveal pretty much every chap­ter.  For all my cyc­nicsm about this, if you aren’t a reg­u­lar reader of non-fiction or sci­ence fic­tion, this may be an inter­est­ing read.  If you are then this will likely pro­vide a few inter­est­ing anec­dotes, but lit­tle in the way of revelation.

I’m still try­ing out my Kin­dle, and lov­ing it so far, but I still have many more tech­ni­cal hoops to jump through to see how I like it, but I have to admit that one thing has jumped out at me. The size is prac­ti­cally per­fect, as illus­trated below (Sorry for the qual­ity — it’s from my camera):

Kin­dle vs. Moleskine

On the right is one of my Mole­sk­ines. As this pic­ture shows, in it’s case the kin­dle is only slightly wider and slightly shorted.  Given that the Mole­sk­ine is some­thing I’m already very com­fort­able tot­ing around, that makes the Kin­dle very easy to work into approach to car­ry­ing things. Specif­i­cally, i won’t need to find some new way to carry this new gad­get — I’ll just keep it with my note­books.  For more of a com­par­i­son, let me add my HP net­book and my ipod to the shot:

Clock­wise from top left: HP Mini-Note 1000, Ipod Touch, Mole­sk­ine, Kin­dle in its case

For some­one who is try­ing to get every­thing down to one bag, kin­dle plus net­book already looks like a promis­ing combination.

I’m not used to win­dows yet, so I’m still try­ing out a lot of soft­ware options, includ­ing win­dows live for blog­ging. It’s got a very Microsoft inter­face, for good an for ill, so if this post looks weird, please feel free to blame MS.

It’s now been a few weeks with an HP Mini 1000, and I remain pretty happy with it. Prac­ti­cally speak­ing, there’s only one thing it does that I couldn’t do with a smart­phone, but that one thing is pretty impor­tant – writ­ing.  I bought the HP because it has the best key­board of any of the net­books – the Asus EEE 900 is almost as good, but try­ing them side by side def­i­nitely came down in favor of the HP.

The net­book is def­i­nitely lib­er­at­ing – I’ve already ditched my usual bag for a much smaller one, and it’s really, really nice to move towards a lighter load. A large bag tends to attract more stuff and get heavy pretty quick.  Restrict­ing to a smaller bag heads that off at the pass.  Sim­i­larly, it’s a lot eas­ier to grab in one hand and take up to the kitchen or bust out when I have an idea.  If my lap­top weren’t so large (17”) the con­trast would per­haps not be so pro­nounced, but as is the dif­fer­ence is night and day.

It’s not with­out quirks. With a 3 cell bat­tery, I’m look­ing at 3–4 hours of bat­tery life, which is kind of short. HP is the­o­ret­i­cally releas­ing a 6 cell bat­tery next year, and I’ll likely grab one, but it’s a shame to need it.  In fair­ness though, I knew what I was get­ting into pick­ing this up before Jan­u­ary.  Less pre­dictable was the power adap­tor, which is not well fit­ted to the charg­ing port. A stiff breeze will dis­con­nect it, and that makes it very frus­trat­ing to work while plugged in.

These are minor con­cerns at best though, akin to my gripes with win­dows XP.  For all that they may bug me a lit­tle, the device works just fine, and my abil­ity to write any­time, any­place with­out lug­ging around a huge block of com­puter has taken a turn for the bet­ter. For any­one else who really wants some­thing small and portable but still friendly for writ­ing, I would def­i­nitely encour­age look­ing at a net­book. That said, if you’re not look­ing to do any writ­ing more involved than the occa­sional brief email or IM then I must admit you’d prob­a­bly be bet­ter off with an Ipod Touch„ Nokia n800/810 or a com­pa­ra­ble device (unless, that is, if there’s some win­dows spe­cific func­tion­al­ity you demand).  Sim­i­larly, you can get a more pow­er­ful lap­top for the price of a net­book, so make sure you really want to pay for some­thing smaller and lighter before you shell out. 

For me, this is just the sweet spot I needed, and when I close it up, I get a lit­tle rush of nerdy plea­sure since it feels like I always imag­ined a cyberdeck to.  Crazy, I know, but if you’re not going to be excited about the device, then get some­thing cheaper.

I like to think of myself as a pretty savvy guy, with a decent edu­ca­tion, a good job and a good under­stand­ing of tech­nol­ogy. This is well and good, but I think all of those things have con­tributed to the odd­ness of some­thing I haven’t done in a while.

This morn­ing, I clipped coupons.

It shouldn’t be that odd — it’s some­thing I did grow­ing up, and con­tin­ued to do after col­lege when my income was on the painful side. I think I stopped when I moved to Cal­i­for­nia. There were new gro­cery stores (that sold liquor) and I was mak­ing bet­ter money than I ever had before, so it seemed kind of unnec­es­sary. I fell out of the habit.

Now, in recent years I’ve got­ten my finan­cial habits under much bet­ter con­trol. Paid off credit card debt, stayed within my means, saved, invested, all that jazz. I am per­haps not as fru­gal as I could be, but all in all I run a pretty tight ship. So, given that it was inter­est­ing to me when, in the midst of all the bad finan­cial news, a lit­tle switch flipped and said “get the coupons today”.

As pan­ics go, I feel like that’s pretty restrained, but what scares me a lit­tle is that the behav­ior is bad in the big scope. I’m not entirely sure thrift is con­sis­tent with the needs of the econ­omy in its cur­rent form. What I’m not sure of is whether that’s a strike against thrift or a strike against the economy.

The finan­cial cri­sis is no triv­ial mat­ter, no one would argue oth­er­wise, but I can’t help but note how much it offends some peo­ple I know and think about it a lit­tle. Some of it is nor­mal indig­na­tion, some of it is per­sonal inter­est in the impact this has, but what’s curi­ous is that I think no small part of it is hurt pride.

I know a lot of engi­neers and technology-oriented peo­ple. These are smart peo­ple, smart enough that it often makes for a bit of a chip on their shoul­der. They have strong opin­ions on pol­i­tics, but usu­ally with a cer­tain bit of dis­dain, as if mere politi­cians are not really smart enough to under­stand things.

The finan­cial cri­sis takes a ham­mer to this because of it’s sheer com­plex­ity. These very smart peo­ple are obliged to face the fact that peo­ple in non-engineering fields might be smart too. Actu­ally smart, not just touchy-feely emo­tion­ally smart. That the sources of these prob­lems are some­thing they can­not under­stand cuts to a pretty pri­mal nerve.

I think it’s a good thing. Geeks are pretty com­pla­cent, even if they’re highly ver­bal and argu­men­ta­tive. Hav­ing these smart peo­ple get inter­ested in and pos­si­bly even respect­ful of the intel­li­gence required for other fields could be a great boon on so many levels.