Awash with Ideas

Bob Woodward Did Nothing Wrong By Conserving His Revelations Until the Election Season

2020-09-11T12:29:29Z

Lots of people are criticizing Bob Woodward, often in really awful ways, for not revealing the information from his new book earlier. Asserting that he had a responsibility to tell us about Trump and that he is somehow guilty for not doing so. I disagree.

To figure this out, I have been trying to imagine the benefit if Woodward had told us this earlier and cannot see any. Everyone with a brain knew that Trump was lying to us. We already knew that he was dishonestly pretending that covid19 was not really a problem. We knew that he was intentionally injuring blue states. The only material thing we didn't know is that it turns out he actually *is* smart enough to understand the situation at some level.

If Woodward had released these tapes when they were happening, Kaylie MacaNinny would have lied more. Trump would have had to make up his "I wanted calm and they wanted me to jump up and down" line earlier. Sane people would have screamed. Press would have asked hostile questions.

I don't see what difference it would have made. I do not see what material, actionable information Woodward withheld. I do not see how we could have used this knowledge to coerce better behavior in Trump or change our behavior to induce a better outcome.

I do think that it would have diminished the impact on the election. I do think that this is very important information for voters. I do not see how knowing this stuff would have saved one life or altered the course of the disease at all.

The only differences I can see redound to the benefit of Trump himself. As soon as Woodward told us these things, Trump would have stopped the interviews. Of eighteen interviews, seventeen of them would never exist and Donny would have been spared the consequences of his own egotistical motor-mount.

But even if he had continue the interviews, the facts would then have dribbled out. Trump would be able to deflect them one-by-one. The sheer quantity of awfulness and dishonesty would have been lost as details arrived mixed with all the other horrible details each day.

The significance would have been diluted to death. And it would not have a significant effect (one hopes) on his election chances because of that.

I am in complete disagreement about Woodward's culpability.

(Also the "only cares about money" assertion is just plain stupid.)

Rampage Cider Bars, etc 3/2/199

2019-03-02T15:40:00Z

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1BYRZRegvdSv4fR3h4jkaWIncNcncEQlh&usp=sharing

Stuxnet

2018-11-06T15:31:24Z

"QUOTATION"

Bars 5/12/18

2018-05-12T16:22:03Z

the map

This Makes Me Happy

2018-04-24T19:15:50Z

console.clear();

a = {
    id: 'first object',
    arrow: () => {
        console.dir(this);
    },

    func: function() {
        console.dir(this);
    }

};

a.arrow();

a.func();

b = {
    id: 'different object',
    arrow: a.arrow,
    func: a.func
};

b.arrow();

b.func();

RSA Algorithm Javascript

2018-01-29T15:59:26Z

"QUOTATION"

This Is The World’s First Graphical AI Interface

2018-01-29T15:59:15Z

"QUOTATION"

Mon Jan 29 2018 09:59:00 GMT-0600 (CST)

Thoughts On Data Privacy

2018-01-11T17:50:46Z

I do not believe that a correct and appropriately flexible privacy regime starts with redaction and filtering. It's my opinion that those are details of the presentation layer, if you will. The part of the system that *acts* on the lease. The correct foundation is the definition of a system that conveys the intent of the data owner to all recipients and users of the data.

Our job has several parts, providing a language for the expression of that intent, reorganizing the data model and infrastructure to facilitate that (and, probably, encode defaults sufficient to prevent grievous violations locale policy), mechanisms for administrators to encode local policy and, crucially, to allow the owner (or originator, it that's the correct entity) to specify specific intention about a specific datum. That is, for example, a parent should be able to say, different from every other parent, that the child's middle name is too embarrassing to be revealed and he or she, as the owner of that data, requires that it never be shown to anyone or only to psychiatric personnel.

Further, assuming that the lease is the central construct, I think that the it should probably not identify specific targets (absolutely zero refIds) but a categorical identification. For comparison, most rental leases have text that specify that "the renter shall...", with the actual name of the individual specified in a header at the time of instantiation (ie, when the contract is signed). RefIds should be specified in an instance specific mechanism that connects to the abstracted spec ("the renter") to instruct the output mechanism what to do/filter/redact. (Perhaps we should define a mechanism for this interpretation but am skeptical.)

I also think that the specification of the lease should be built into the structure of the data model (though I also think it must include a mechanism that allows administrators to override, eg, with xPath metadata). One way to do this would be by adding an element to the complex types that tell us about the privacy components of its subordinates which, in turn, have such an element, too. Perhaps a sort of inline CSS for privacy.

Filtering/redaction should, I think, be considered a ubiquitous part of the rendering system, with the definition of rendering expanded to include processing the data for transmission to another system. That is, the lease should be considered the essence of the privacy regime and the fact of filtering/redacting *one* of the ways that systems respond.

A use case that exemplifies my thinking says... A system receives an object that includes sensitive data that it is allowed to have. Some bonehead thinks, "I have this and am allowed to do what I need to do." Then he or she grabs the object and transmits it to someone else. The software tool that unpacks that received object for viewing by the recipient should be able to look at the privacy data implicit in the object and say to itself, "Holy Cow!!, my user is not X. I will only show him or her the stuff that is allowed." The privacy regime should be built to be as robust as possible against errors including helping systems to prevent violations even if someone else did a bad thing.

The current perspective being applied in much of this conversation focuses inwardly. The lease proposed by Jon (and I apologize if this is too blunt and hope you are sincere about this being a strawman) talks only about how to protect himself as the operator of a system from violating the rules. A good privacy regime should be above those concerns and provide the information that lets him –and everyone else– protect themselves.

Which is to say that the lease and the information it conveys should allow Jon to say, "I have to filter," but it should also allow the system that receives the data (and the ones after that) also to decide what it should do.

Kaye and TQ Facebook Time Jump 01/04/18

2018-01-04T18:58:11Z

So many of the good things in my life happened, often because of, Kaye. This little Facebook ditty is nice. Reminds me how grateful I am for for the relationship.

Download kayeAndTqFacebookTimeJump010418.mp4

Public Key Encryption Tool Demo Video

2018-01-02T00:39:28Z

Go ahead. It's only 90 seconds.

Download publicKeyIepTransfer.mp4

You can play with this at http://genericwhite.com/rsaEncryptionDemo/

The best science fiction, fantasy, and horror novels of 2017

2017-12-30T16:57:33Z

"QUOTATION"

Sat Dec 30 2017 10:57:22 GMT-0600 (CST)

Robot Overlords

2017-12-30T03:58:18Z

http://blog.genericwhite.com/robot-overlords

The Republican’s Guide to Presidential Etiquette

2017-10-09T12:08:06Z

The Republican’s Guide to Presidential Etiquette

Mon Oct 09 2017 07:07:52 GMT-0500 (CDT)

The Republican’s Guide to Presidential Behavior

2017-10-09T12:07:53Z

The Republican’s Guide to Presidential Behavior

Mon Oct 09 2017 07:07:22 GMT-0500 (CDT)

Ukraine v Russia

2017-07-12T02:55:05Z

There are few things more annoying that the permanent effort to litigate Hillary Clinton's campaign. Worse, as the only sense in which it arises is, "Hillary did it, too!" and "Why aren't you mad at her, you hypocrite?" Lots of things are characterized as the last refuge of scoundrels but this has to be the worst. It suggests the comparison of a person who is probably the best human ever to run for president to an uneducated tyrant who disgusts every decent human being in the country. It is truly grotesque.

It also demands a comparison between the two campaigns. One that was carefully and successfully executed in a way that should make any American proud. If you read the extensively prepared positions, look at the immense and carefully organized operational structure or listened to her speeches, you will see a sound candidate running an amazing and effective campaign. Look at Trump's campaign and you find a disorganized nightmare of ad hoc racism, hatred and appeal to the worst instincts of our fellow citizens. Also, grotesque.

But the suggestion that we compare the horrific collusion with Russia shown by Junior's emails with the gathering of evidence about Manafort's connections to Ukraine is the worst yet, only understandable as the last refuge or Clinton haters and Trump apologists. It is unfair and silly.

The biggest reason is that the Clinton campaign is no longer relevant. Turn it around. When the Republicans started their jihad about email servers, nobody cared, not one tiny whit, that they were completely uninterested in the exact same behavior by people on their side. There was the real, legitimate fact of the precedent but everyone, news organization and Congressional committees alike, treated Hillary's servers as de novo, asserting that it was important because she was an important person who was expected to wield national power some day. Trump's collusion with Russia is important because he is president. He wields national power this day.

Had Hillary sent Chelsea to meet with the government of Ukraine to encourage them to bring the power of their government to bear on defeating her opponent as quid pro quo on relieving sanctions, it would still be completely irrelevant. She lost. There is no possibility that she will put Ukranian interests above America's. There is no possibility that the Ukrainians will have leverage over the government to force foreign policy decisions that help them achieve their goals over ours because she is not president.

Of course, the Clinton campaign did nothing like that at . What actually happened is that someone heard that Manafort had improper ties to the Ukrainian government and, before accusing him publicly, went to ask the Ukrainians if it was true. The people with whom she met did not subsequently release a ton of stolen emails in a careful pattern to damage the opposition or hack into the computers of dozens of strategically chosen voting authorities around the country. The Ukrainians at the meetings, as far as anyone can tell, were not lawyers with a brief to work on sanctions or anything else that would represent a potential corrupt 'ask'.

Even more, nobody from the campaign management was involved in any way. The person involved was not in any way a representative of Hillary Clinton. Don Trump Jr can't say the same about his dad. Nor Manafort, Sessions or the rest.

The demand for equal consideration of these things is the epitome of false equivalence, fabricated, fictitious and dangerous to the republic. That Trump is a bad person and dangerous is obvious to anyone that is not a dumb partisan. That he very well may be a Mancurian Candidate, secretly working in favor of foreign powers from within the White House is a real possibility. Even setting aside that he explicitly called for them, it is now all but certain that he and his campaign encouraged illegal acts by the Russians to interfere with the election in his favor and probably in return for his repeated interest in lessening sanctions. That the Trump people uniformly "forgot" to mention the meetings until they were found out by the media confirms the stench of corruption.

The Clinton family has been harassed for twenty five years, charged with fake crimes and abused with the misuse of government resources from Whitewater to Vince Foster to Benghazi to Email Servers and a thousand steps in between. Hillary, far from being corrupt, is probably the cleanest, least corrupt politician in history as demonstrated by the horrific abuse and endless investigation that has failed for decades to turn up any important dirt. Comparing her to the thug in the White House with his practice of ripping off vendors, blatant lies, and obvious, proven corruptions of character too numerous and disgusting to list, is egregious.

Demanding equal time for a minor conversation by a peripheral Hillary staffer as we do for the proven truth that the Trump management team met with Russians and concealed the meetings is a ridiculous obfuscation. It is one thing to spend all these years abusing Hillary for sheer political gain. It is quite another to keep talking about her in a way that obscures discussion of the real corruption and real national danger represented by this corrupt president.

Who needs the FCC? Seattle writes its own broadband privacy rule

2017-05-06T22:07:59Z

Sat May 06 2017 17:07:52 GMT-0500 (CDT)

Build a Better Monster: Morality, Machine Learning, and Mass Surveillance

2017-04-24T14:12:31Z

Mon Apr 24 2017 09:12:31 GMT-0500 (CDT)

Trump Hides From The Press While Signing Bill Allowing States To Defund Planned Parenthood

2017-04-13T18:34:38Z

Thu Apr 13 2017 13:34:21 GMT-0500 (CDT)

Earth's new address: 'Solar System, Milky Way, Laniakea' : Nature News & Comment

2017-04-11T17:40:07Z

"QUOTATION"

Tue Apr 11 2017 12:39:52 GMT-0500 (CDT)

Trial Balloon for a Coup?

2017-01-30T20:45:24Z

undefined

2017-01-30T20:45:07Z

What “Things Going Wrong” Can Look Like

This Book David Miessler is Reading Just Perfectly Explained Trump's Cabinet Picks: The Dictator's Handbook

2017-01-28T18:12:01Z

**"Trump, once again, isn’t failing at the game—he’s playing a completely different sport, right in front of us, and he’s winning. And all we’re doing is jabbering on about how he’s making this mistake or that one.

"He’s not building a team of experts to run the country, because he’s going to run it himself. They’re there to defend him and keep him in power, as loyal servants. Nothing more, nothing less.

"It’s all him. It always has been. They’re just there for decoration and to tell him how cool he looks while he knocks heads together.

"We’re basically all being outplayed…again. This doesn’t mean he can’t or won’t self-destruct due to bad moves in other areas, but hopefully at some point we’ll learn to stop underestimating his ability to read and manipulate people. He’s really, really good at it."**

Sat Jan 28 2017 12:10:45 GMT-0600 (CST)

Why tomatoes got bland—and how to make them sweet again | Science | AAAS

2017-01-26T20:41:02Z

Thu Jan 26 2017 14:40:52 GMT-0600 (CST)

Cummings: Trump's 'gag orders' on federal workers likely illegal

2017-01-26T20:30:06Z

"Cummings argues the HHS memo, and possibly memos sent by other agencies, appear to violate several laws, including the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act. The whistleblower law, Cummings said, requires the inclusion of a "mandatory statement that employee communications with Congress and Inspectors General are protected" in "any nondisclosure policy, form, or agreement.""

Thu Jan 26 2017 14:28:54 GMT-0600 (CST)

I want to be clear. I seek to "undercut his legitimacy." I would destroy his presidency* if I could.

2017-01-26T15:29:56Z

"Those complaining about his fixation with fictional voter fraud or crowd counts at his inauguration, in their view, are simply seeking ways to undercut his legitimacy."

Thu Jan 26 2017 09:29:12 GMT-0600 (CST)

Putin is pretty happy to see Trump get with the program: Felony Charges for Journalists Arrested at Inauguration Protests

2017-01-26T14:40:34Z

"He said his organization was concerned about what he called “the sharp deterioration of press freedom in the U.S.,” which he linked to Mr. Trump’s campaign, noting that the candidate had “obstructed major news organization, vilified the press and attacked journalists by name with unrelenting hostility.”"

Thu Jan 26 2017 08:39:47 GMT-0600 (CST)

Comey has more service to render: It keeps Mr. Comey at the center of the FBI's investigation into ties with the Russian government.

2017-01-24T15:23:01Z

Tue Jan 24 2017 09:19:24 GMT-0600 (CST)

Only surprised he wasn't rewarded with Attorney General. "Trump Is Said to Keep James Comey as F.B.I. Director" He delivered the Presidency.

2017-01-24T15:19:11Z

Tue Jan 24 2017 09:16:40 GMT-0600 (CST)

You Are Not Equal. I’m Sorry.

2017-01-24T15:15:55Z

"You are not equal. Even if you feel like you are. You still make less than a man for doing the same work. You make less as a CEO, as an athlete, as an actress, as a doctor. You make less in government, in the tech industry, in healthcare."

Turning CO2 to Stone – Science Bulletin

2017-01-23T15:48:16Z

Mon Jan 23 2017 09:47:54 GMT-0600 (CST)