You Can't Make Mistakes.

This piece appears in this month’s issues of Erudition. You can find it here: http://www.eruditiononline.co.uk/article.php?id=909

When I was invited to write a piece about the future of technology, I assumed that I was being asked to predict which gadgetry we would have next year, how medical science will progress, and the new and terrifying surveillance methods our governments will employ. So, here are those predictions:

You will have more and smaller (and sometimes bigger) gadgets. They will thrill and delight you. Then you will tire of them and throw them away and buy different gadgets. Apple® will love you. Your smartphone will begin—if it already hasn’t begun—to be a little creepy. It will, of its own (programmed) volition, gather data about your friends and contacts in such a way that every time you pull someone up in your contacts list, you will be presented with more information than the last time you looked them up.* Medical science will find increasingly bizarre ways to not cure cancer, but to look at cancer. Cattle and chickens will be replaced by grasshoppers and ants as sources of protein as the human population outgrows its ability to produce food supply. Your government will place tiny microchips in your toilet paper to monitor your bowel movements.

Now, with that boring, run-of-the-mill assessment out of the way, let us actually have a look at what the future of technology will be for us as people.

Firstly, you will not notice the proliferation of technology in the world around you. It will just be there. Everywhere. You will not see it. It is this type of technology which I will address presently. Secondly, due to proliferation, there will be two kinds of people in the world: those who know what they are looking at and how it works and those who do not. The latter group will comprise the majority of people.

This is, of course, already happening. Ask anyone with an iPhone to describe the manner in which it connects to other such devices and you will get a range of bizarre answers of varying levels of complexity and detail. An example: a friend explained to me his theory that the reason that he had to turn off his iPod on take-off and landing was because it was communicating with satellites. He believed that the device was communicating with satellites because it would magically change its time when he went from the United States to Egypt or Egypt to Thailand. He had overlooked the fact that the time had only changed once the device had been plugged into a laptop.

Explanations like this abound when your average end user picks up a device or opens a web browser and then tries to contemplate how and why these things work the way that they do. This is not really a problem most of the time. Users of technology do not need to understand how something works or in some cases even how to use it. Some things just work without ever requiring human intervention. When they stop working, however, this is a problem.

What do you do when your mobile phone, iPod, computer, router, or other devices stop working? You call someone and then they tell you to either take or send it somewhere to have it looked at by a technician. We are becoming increasingly reliant upon technicians and technology experts. There will come a time, very soon indeed, that there will be no user-serviceable devices in the market at all. Apple has done a good job of doing away with external artifacts that betray that your device can be opened up and looked inside. This is the way of the future.

Personal computing could already be considered esoteric, but this is only the beginning. As mentioned above, we are going to see—or, more importantly, not see—tiny computing devices embedded in all manner of objects and products. Everything will become “smart”. Users, on the other hand, will become less smart about how these things work. Those who do know and who can repair and change the manner in which the devices function will become tantamount to clergymen or magicians. They will be the keepers of the esoteric knowledge of the future.

Think of it like this: if you told someone in the fifteenth century that you could look into a device and see someone looking into a similar device on the other side of the world, they would either turn away in utter disbelief or they would call you a witch and burn you at the stake. Yet we do this all the time with Skype and other internet video phone and video chat appliances and applications. Magicians, astrologers, priests, and mystics in antiquity were revered—or reviled—for their knowledge of the unseen world and familiarity with the methods used in manipulating it.

Magic, science, and religion have never really been all that different, if even at all separable. Each comprise on one hand a set of theoretical models which are required for understanding and explaining the world. On the other hand, they each have a set of protocols for interacting with that which is not directly visible or tangible. The practitioners of each have deep knowledge about both the theory and protocol associated with their chosen discipline. This knowledge allows them to interact with the world in a manner very different from those around them.

Place technological advancements in computing in this context. There is already a clergy associated with computing. System administrators (sysadmins) require a huge amount of knowledge in order to do their jobs and to make systems and networks function properly. Dabblers often miss things and with disastrous consequences. End users neither need nor want to have the kind of knowledge that sysadmins have , but they know that they are different. Every office has a set of people who are considered “technological wizards.” These are often the same people who are employed to keep the servers and networks in good operating condition.

There are also those who will use their vast knowledge for evil. The recent Stuxnet infection of computers in Iranian nuclear power plants comes to mind. Black-hat hackers and virus engineers will hold dominion over the black magic of the future and we will have reason to fear them. The less end users know about the devices that they use, there will be a greater chance that those devices can be used against them. This may manifest in actual life-threatening situations—think “smart” cars, onboard navigation systems, autopilot—or they will be used to monitor their users surreptitiously—tracking the whereabouts of users using the GPS devices in their mobile phones, monitoring email and text messages, tapping calls.

This is not a warning, this is a prediction. The path has already been set. End users have neither the desire nor the the need at present to know how or why their devices function. This trend will continue to the point that they will barely even know how to use them. They will simply know that they are there. Those who possess the esoteric knowledge will be increasingly considered to be wizards and magicians to the point that they will come under scrutiny if not members of the orthodox clergy. This already happens to some extent. In governmental background checks, technological knowledge of those being investigated is of great concern to weed out any potential “hackers” who might be or have been involved in any illegal activities.

The average lay person will both marvel at and fear the knowledge of the sorcerer. The clergy will work to maintain their position of dominance as the keepers of the knowledge, though they will mostly be charlatans, possessing only partial or partially-falsified knowledge; the real knowledge being locked away in vaults somewhere; the keys held by few, if any.

——————

*This has already happened. My phone freaks me out all the time with things like this. It should learn to mind its own damned business

For all of those of you out there who are interested in owning your information again, please check out a new project being developed by four NYU students called diaspora*.

Diaspora will allow you to take back control of your social networking data by allowing you to run your own instance of its service on your personal computer/home server. For more information about what it will do, check their project page. You have to give these guys credit for using a Back to the Future reference in their prospectus.

As you might know, I am an ever bigger advocate for open source projects that actually serve to put control into users’ hands and to sate that DIY spirit that so many people have. This is a project that I am very enthused about. If you have ten bucks lying around and want to help out a project that has the potential to change the way we do social networking online, then give it to these guys. Click on their project below to get involved through Kickstarter.

Please check out the new satire in the May edition of Intuition:

Disrael: A new solution to an old problem brings hope

Daemons: Tech-wars against evil in the intertoobs ramp up

Also, if anyone out there would like chance to write satire for Intuition, please contact me for further details.

Enjoy.

I took a bunch of my friend Peter Waters‘ mates mosque-walking around Fatimid Cairo the other day. We walked from the north gate to the south gate of the old city—Bāb al-Futūḥ to Bāb Zuwayla and then into the Qasaba. We then continued on from there and wound up near Sayyida Zeinab Mosque, but only the first part of our walk is documented here.

These are some snaps that I took with my new camera. I’m trying to get the hang of geotagging and recording walking maps with the pictures in, so this is still a little disjointed. I marked all of the spots on the map that appear in the photos. You can zoom to see the route better if you like and click on the little blue markers for the names of individual places.

Bab to Bab

[nggallery id=18]

I have two new articles in the April edition of Intuition:

Census Cookies – A breakthrough new method of data-gathering is being pioneered in the United States

Cosmic Rays – They’re coming from outer space to break your electrical goods

Enjoy.

“A series of pipes.”

My dad has been hosting his origami site at Geocities for the past several years. I spoke to him yesterday about acquiring a domain name and self hosting the site as Geocities—presently owned and operated by Yahoo—will close its electronic doors very soon. He will move from there to a self-hosted site with its own independent address, which is inherently better because of greater control over the back-end of things. He rightly said that this was a good thing anyway, because this is how we keep these things—websites, the Internet—alive. This started me thinking about the Internet and how different a place it is from when I first started using it over a decade ago.

Thinking about Geocities in particular made me a bit reminiscent about all of the one-off, special interest sites that sprang up in the late 1990s. Usenet aside, you could find almost any information—be it quality or not—in single column pages with colored text and often over a bright—sometimes obnoxious—background. In those days, the big Internet companies had sites that were complex, multi-column affairs with boxes and ads, but the real Internet was the domain of the people writing whatever they wanted in center-aligned pages.

It was a great time to be a conspiracy theorist. Or really into Wicca.

Searching the Internet in the 90s was fantastic and weird. Democracy at its finest. All things change with time, some for worse some for better. There are reasonable arguments in either direction for the changes evident in the Internet over the last decade and a half. For some applications, the Internet has made life easier, obviously. Communication is fantastic. I live in Egypt and communicate with friends readily all over the world in an inexpensive and effective way. This is due to greater ubiquity of broadband Internet coverage in Egypt and elsewhere.

Websites have also become easier to create and maintain. I use WordPress to generate this site and have been for several years. The first version of the site, however, was written in PHP by yours truly. It was an exercise in basics which has made working with and customizing WordPress much easier for me in subsequent years. That said, it is really easy now to have a site that looks more or less professional, and everyone does. The downside is that now everything on the Internet seems to be a blog and sites grow stagnant as soon as the writer gets a book deal—which seems inevitable for many upstart bloggers these days.

The information which used to be so readily available on the Internet is now relegated to the All Thing¹ of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a great tool as a first-reference: it democratizes basic reference, particularly for those who already have experience with traditional encyclopedias. It also contains vastly more information on a much wider variety of topics than do traditional encyclopedias. That said, it is still only a first reference, and the “peer-review” to which the information is subjected to is conducted by experts and non-experts alike.

My brother and I grew up with a set—two actually—of encyclopedia in the house. It was a great first- or quick-reference for almost anything that we wondered about or were writing about for school. As I got older and learned more about doing research, the references and bibliography proved perfect guides to more and deeper information on a given topic. That was how it was done.

The Internet changed all that. I cannot count the times that I heard college professors tell students that they had to use books and journal articles rather than online references. I was always confused. Did college students really not know how to use a library? It turns out that, no, they did—and do—not. Library usage seems to be, more and more, a thing of the past. The library at my present University is not expanding its collection very rapidly because they are exploring electronic alternatives—none of which work very well.

We used to go to the library with my mom almost every weekend. We had library cards by the time we were six or seven years old. I was—and am still—an avid reader because of this level of access to books. I am like a ship without a rudder—or more aptly, a ship without water—when I have no access to a library. This is not to say that I do not now primarily access academic journals via the Internet while conducting research. I do. It is easier, and saves me the time of sifting through stacks of journals in the basement in order to photocopy endless pages from them. This is an improvement.

Additionally, Google Books and the Internet Archive are becoming ever more useful resources for finding out-of-print and public-domain works written before the current copyright cutoff. They do not, however, replace the public or research library. Instances of false information being reported elsewhere in the media based on a Wikipedia article as an authoritative source are a good argument for returning to more rigorous forms of research on the part of journalists and academics alike.

Also, the above-mentioned one-off specialist sites seem to be going by the wayside as the Internet evolves into an archive of photoshopped pictures of cats and funny/stupid things. It used to be the case that the top of the search engine output would be a number of websites with a vast amount of—potentially questionable—data on almost any topic.

Now, on the other hand, Wikipedia is at the top of the list for almost anything that you can search for. That is unless you are accustomed to advance searching and particularly adept at using keywords. Most of the students who I help at the reference desk are not. They typically begin their research by going to Google and typing their topic or a full sentence (e.g. – “Mongolia” or “why is there domestic violence in the middle east?.” These are two recent examples of searches which students were having trouble with). To get to much of the real information that is available on the Internet these days you have to sift through hundreds of entries in blogs or advertisements. Monetizing the Internet proves to be primarily a tool for obfuscating it rather than improving user-as-content-generator experience.

This is one of the primary reasons that I am an advocate of net-neutrality and online rights—including, but not limited to, file-sharing, digitized books, and un-filtered/un-traffic-shaped Internet service, not to mention open-source/open-licensing. The Internet has the potential to be a tool for posterity, and indeed it is already serving us in this manner to some degree. It has the potential to be so much more. The moment that corporate interests became more important than the needs of Internet users, the system broke. It will limp though, but it will not recover fully and become the repository of information that it should be until corporate money-making interests are set aside.

This will not happen anytime soon, and indeed, Yahoo’s decision to discontinue Geocities in order to promote their new web-hosting platform—which is pay to play—is a step in the wrong direction. The Internet is not about closing things down in order that they might not be in conflict with business interests: it is about information being freely and readily available the world over and even beyond. This used to be a purpose of libraries as well.

It seems, however, that we have lost sight of this, lulled into contented complacence by cute pictures of talking cats and repositories of awkward family photos. This does not bode well at all. It will eventually change, though. Economies and finance online are not, and never have been stable. The one thing that is stable at this stage is the ability of one computer to connect to another. As long as we have that, when the corporate hegemony Internet collapses, we will simply start over, one node at a time.

Until then, if anyone needs me I’ll be reading online comics and looking at pictures of sandwiches.

———
¹ A reference to the progeny of the blogosphere presented in Dan Simmons’ Hyperion and Endymion.

Don’t forget to wear a condom.

The comic this morning on xkcd is a good example of arguments for and against electronic voting.

Read it. Careful though: it is funny, so the humorless fascists for whom you work may have blocked the site and also be in the business of firing anyone who tries to access it.

Regardless of that, it is a little ridiculous to have anti-virus software on a voting machine. A voting machine should probably not be network connected. If it is in fact network connected, then we shouldn’t have had the problems that we did with corrupted SD cards not having the voting data when needed. These things each indicate other problems as well.

First, if a voting machine is online, it is immediately insecure. All computers are prone to attack through either a network interface or by way of physical access to a machine. That said, some computers are more secure than others. Those computers used for high-profile applications—such as, I don’t know, off the top of my head, uh, VOTING—will of course be more delectable targets. So, possible operating principle number one: keep voting machines off-line.

Then, if a voting machine is off-line, why does it need virus protection software? The SD cards used for transporting data—the insecurity of which we will get to in a moment—should be checked for any virus or malware IMMEDIATELY BEFORE they are being placed into a machine. Ergo, there should never have been any need for virus protection software on these machines.

On to the point of XKCD this morning: What operating system is running on these voting machines and what is it doing? I am not sure, but I am just going to take a gander that is was Windows XP, or some-such. Now, Windows is known for: crashing, being-virus prone, being entirely insecure in the case of physical access to a machine, and a laundry-list of other fun things. Firstly, Windows should not be the operating system of choice for this application. There are more than enough compelling reasons to take that right off the table. Therefore, we should assume that there was a contract—read: set of payouts, kicks-backs, or other reward perks—involved between Premier Election Solutions (a.k.a. – Diebold) and Microsoft.

Let’s look at this again. Logically, so far, we have decided that: 1) voting machines should be using a secure, robust operating system, 2) voting machines should not be networked.

Or should they?

Is it secure to have votes stored in .xls (Microsoft Access) files and then transported on SD cards to a computer terminal by some flunkie (read: election official or Premier Election Solutions Employee) for transmitting over what one would hope are secure channels?

No, is the only answer to that question, by the way. PHYSICAL ACCESS to data is the point of least security. Swapping cards is just the easiest way to corrupt/alter the voting data.

The alternative: a networked voting machine which is connected to several sets of voting servers around the country—redundancy, in this case, is security, or at least accountability—via port/transport-encrypted connection protocols. The data is transmitted and tabulated at these central sites, plural. The data that is transmitted is stored on a separate physical disk from the operating system. That disk is encrypted and, if it is an SD card, there is no physical access to it—like a slot that it plugs into. Screwdrivers with weird noses are in order if you want it out.

When the data is transmitted, it can be in the form of an encrypted binary image of the disk. This is more secure than an .xls stored on an SD card. All of this will happen when the decentralized server farms call the data in at the end of the election. Also, at the end of the election, a printout could have a per-transaction list of the data received from the voters at each site. There are a number of ways to maintain the anonymity of the voters. Remove names, randomize times, etc. This printout would also be output electronically so that it can be stored for checking results, if there is a dispute.

Votes are tabulated/reported faster. The security is better—though only as good as its worst implementer. Everyone goes home happy-ish. Or at least as happy as they were before the election.

Back to the original topic: virus software. Here’s a fun thing: often, these days, viruses are written to attack and corrupt the virus protection software itself. Like real-world pathogens, they have adapted to attack the defenses first, and then go for the soft belly. So, if your computer is riddled with viruses, start over. This time, don’t use the virus software. Just use a malware detector like Spybot – Search & Destroy. In the distant past, when I still bothered with Windows, this was my virus-protection scheme, and it worked like a charm. My dad has been doing the same thing for years, and it works like a charm.

Again, back to the original topic: voting machines should not have Windows on them. Neither should servers. Linux is working all over the computing world on servers and in embedded devices for applications which require a great deal of security and require the OS to be robust—i.e. – not crashy. It comes in all sorts of flavors. It is scalable, customizable, and the source code is open. In other words, the kernel—most basic part of the operating system—can be fully customized to run exactly what is needed in the hardware, which also limits security gaps. It is also good at all the things that we talked about above: transport encryption, disk encryption, complicated networking schemes, redundancy, binary image backups. It also doesn’t have that nasty habit of crashing and dying forever. If it crashes, it can reboot, and it will be fine. This can even happen automatically since parts of the system can be restarted without your ever having to know about it in a user interface.

I don’t want to sound like an evangelical Linux user, but I am. And I will also admit that Linux is not for everyone—a statement that I do not fully believe, but which I will allow at present. It is however, perfect for an application like running voting systems. Even if you ran a Linux system comparable to what is running now on these silly machines, the problems would scale back immediately.

So, take that for what it’s worth. I felt that the comic was funny, but might need a little further explanation. There you go.

Oh yah, disclosure: This post was written from a laptop running an unnecessarily secure Ubuntu install, backed up on a server in my house running Debian and transmitted to the internet via a router running the Linux-based DD-WRT to a—you guessed it—Linux web-server share running WordPress. This blog post is delivered to you using only open-source operating systems and applications on our end. I can’t vouch for what you used to view it, but if you used Firefox, it’s a step in the right direction.

n. – the opposite of innovation.

Yah, I made up a word: sue me. Actually, don’t sue me. I can’t afford that right now. Between preparing to move out of the country and writing chapter 4 of my thesis—a job I do for very little pay—I’m not in any position for an out-of-court settlement.

More to the point though. I caught the following quote this morning, and this was the word that came into my brain.

It’s not the genius who is 100 years ahead of his time but average man who is 100 years behind it. -Robert Musil, novelist (1880-1942)

It is absolutely true, by the way and it reminded me of a discussion that I had with my dad after my last post regarding the state of innovation in our current economic and social climate.

What we decided was that the best thing for a struggling economy/company/city is to let it fail, unless it is willing to change.

Case in point: General Motors. Old, good company. Makes cars. Could be substituted with any of the other major American automotive companies. They haven’t really committed any serious innovation in the past century. Cars are, with many bells and whistles aside, primarily the same as they were 100 years ago. They still operate under the same principles, for the most part, and the end result is the same. If you disagree with this, then you haven’t looked under the hood of any car. I would suggest then that you find a Model-A and dismantle it. Then, find a late model Mustang and dismantle it. Put both of the back together. You’ll see what I am talking about.

Now, there are some companies which have committed innovation. Any company that is putting a solar panel on the top of a car to give extra power for the air-con—Toyota—is innovative in this climate. Running cars on hydrogen fuel cells, hybrids, electrics, and plug-in models are all innovative.

General Motors—our present case-study—has done none of these things. And I don’t want to hear that GM has the Volt, an electric concept car. It is too late for concept cars. Please move to the back of the line.

Back to the crux of this line of argumentation: GM has made no major innovations of late, possibly ever, and yet they and their investors are worried and scrambling to figure out/fix their current financial problem. However, nothing they do will make any difference.

They already have the only solution to their problems, but it is just a concept car. They could save the company and generate a huge amount of business if they were just to release that car, and all problems along with it. It wouldn’t be for everyone, of course. At first it would only be for the brave who don’t mind being late because their battery died or something. It would be for those who are willing to test and try and see how it works. The deal that would have to come along with it, of course, is that the dealers would have to service anything that went wrong with the car free-of-charge and immediately. Throw in 24-hour tow-from-anywhere-and-take-you-home service: brilliant.1 They would change everything.

The only other thing to do now is to simply let it die, which is more likely. Maybe the market fallout from that will take the other big two with it. We can only hope.

I know, I’m a horrible bastard for wishing such fates on American companies. “Do [I] know what effect that would have on so many Americans’ lives?” Yes, I do. But, do you know what else would happen? Some genius young engineer, right in line with his time, will be able to step up and do something brilliant. This time, though, he won’t have the added innovative hurdle of having to either out-shout the “Big Three” or be subsumed into them and destroyed by their contrary interests. Jobs and economic development to follow.

We haven’t seen a Thomas Edison, Alexander Graham Bell, George Washington Carver, or any of their ilk in such a long time that we wouldn’t know an innovator if they punched us in the face. Maybe it is time for some knock-outs, but they won’t come until the big, stupid brutes die off to make way for the skinny, malnourished geniuses.

———

1 This idea was lifted directly from a phone conversation with my dad yesterday. Dad: it’s a great idea.

that I am turning into my father

Not that it is a bad thing. Quite the opposite, in fact. However, my dad seems to have this weird set of things that happen to him. For a long time, I admit, I thought that it was because he is just particular or fussy in certain, strange ways. For instance, he used to tell us that he believed that he had a sign on the top of his car that was invisible to him—but visible to assholes—which indicated that people should drive like assholes when they are around his car.

The scary thing is that it does sometimes seem that way.

Another seemingly odd thing is that my dad will only wear Jack Purcell sneakers. Now, this wouldn’t be odd, except that the late, great Hunter S. Thompson also only wore Jack Purcell sneakers, and that they have become increasingly hard to find. My mother, bless her, goes to relatively extreme lengths to procure said sneakers for my dad. Or at least she did until the advent of really good internet commerce. Now I think that she buys them online.

This is not the only thing that my dad has trouble finding though. It seems that almost everything that he likes simply goes out of business, becomes unsupported, or disappears completely. Other things, like hand-held computers—which I argue have just evolved in ways that have made them unrecognizable, though Dad has compelling arguments as to why this is not the case—have gone out of vogue to the point of non-existence. Certain very good spam removal software, cordless 18v power tools, computer peripherals, et al have simply ceased to exist once my dad has taken a liking to them.

Now, this has happened to me to some degree in the past. Something that I buy once, and then like, seems to not be available when I go back to get more. It has usually been something that I could take or leave: nothing too important.

Until today.

This morning I went to buy deodorant. I have a brand and type that I particularly like because it has no aluminum in it and yet it still acts as a deodorant. It is Adidas brand Cotton Tech antiperspirant produced by COTY. When I left for Egypt last fall I took 8 sticks of it with me because I like it so much.

Now, it isn’t that this is just a brand or a type that I particularly like, but it is the ONLY antiperspirant on the market that doesn’t use aluminum. It uses some other stuff, like powdered cotton, and it is the best deodorant I have ever used, and the only one that has ever really worked.

The ONLY ONE on the market, keep in mind.

So, I go to the store today to get that and a few other things. I don’t see it. Finally, I spot the Adidas brand deodorants. I look at the labels. Those labeled “deodorant” have no powdered cotton stuff in them. Those labeled “antiperspirant” ALL have aluminum in them. Then I spot one that boasts about cotton something. I pick it up, thrilled—though the packaging is very different than what I am used to—and swiftly realize that it is not what I am looking for.

This antiperspirant has the same cotton stuff that my old one did AND is has aluminum zinconium—or some equally heinous-sounding shit—in it.

Damn, I thought, and decided that I would just check at a different store. I did, and they didn’t have what I was looking for either. They had the women’s variety, though.

So I figured that I would just come home and look online and then buy it on the internet.

Oh no. No, no, no.

I looked EVERYWHERE for this stuff. I even copied the information off the label of the last stick that I have. Nothing. NOTHING.

It is not jsut as though this stuff doesn’t exist, it is as though it has never existed. There is no evidence of it ever having been sold anywhere.

Fickle internet.

So here I am. Without deodorant—though I know that I left about 3 sticks of it in Egypt and am now fiending to have it when I go back in a month and a half. I have exhausted every online source for deodorant and I can’t find a single stick. Even if I could, I wouldn’t be able to buy enough of it to keep me in aluminum-free antiperspirant for the rest of my life, which is what I would need.

So, I am furious. The problem, again, is not that I liked the brand or that type or anything and could easily replace it with something similar. The problem is that there is ABSOLUTELY no other similar product on the market.

So, my options are as follows: 1) Find this stuff and stockpile it if it is the last thing I do. 2) Write an angry letter, receive no response. 3) Find an alternative that doesn’t even come close to doing the same thing. 4) Stop wearing deodorant altogether. 5) Learn more chemistry. Find the ingredients on the label of the one remaining stick that I have in my possession—read: cold dead hand. Create a concoction based on these ingredients and then use the ol’ trial-and-error method to sort out the proper proportions and method for making it.

I carry the curse of my father: the curse of liking brilliant things that are destined to either fail or simply disappear from the consumer market.

I suppose that I will go back to writing my thesis now, just sweaty and smelly.

Damn.

If you haven’t been using the beta of Firefox 3, then now is your chance to download the full release. As an additional incentive, Firefox is going for the world record in single-day downloads today. Give them a hand and download an installer today.

“Why should I?” you ask.

Well, for starters, it’s free. And I know that Internet Explorer is free, but it’s really not. See, Internet Explorer is closed-source, which means that it is difficult for developers to work with, and we can’t see the source code to fix things if there is a problem. It is also not very extensible.

Firefox, on the other hand, can be made to do almost anything. Don’t like those annoying ads that infiltrate your web content? Firefox has a plugin that removes them. Want to use Firefox to ftp content to a server somewhere? Yep. How about backing your bookmarks up to a secure remote location so that you can use them from anywhere? Already there.

Firefox also gives you complete control over the cookies that it saves, how much data it keeps in the cache when you turn it off (like cookies, login and password info, and download info), and it is the best browser out there for blocking malicious content. Tabbed browsing was first used in Firefox as well.

Plus the logo is cool, isn’t it?

So, download it today and try it out, won’t you? You won’t be disappointed.

PS – This site looks fantastic in Firefox 3. If for no other reason, check it out.

[Update: the official "Download Day" will begin at 1pm EDT today]