Tax & Spend Administration?

Last night Secretary Paulson announced that the U.S. would seize control of Fanny & Freddy Mae, the two largest loan corporations in America. Those two are so large that they could not fail, and yet there was the distinct possibility. And so the government stepped in. The terms of the seizure are not yet clear, but it’s sure to cost tax payers a bundle, although it will surely be less than if the loan system failed.

The administration probably did the responsible thing at this point in the game, by acting to see that chaos didn’t prevail in the loan market. However, all of their protestations of keeping government small should be taken with a very very very small grain of salt, given that this administration will have spent more money and placed America in more debt than the previous two administrations combined (and perhaps the 2nd Reagan administration). Also, stricter regulation of the loan market would have prevented such silliness in the first place, proving that some regulation actually saves us money.

So when Republicans say they’re for smaller government, be sure to ask who’s paying the bill for Fanny and Freddy.

Google Chrome?

A picture of a mess of wires

This past week Google released a new browser called Chrome. Google has been a principle and driving donor to the Mozilla Foundation, the people who brought you Firefox. Why, then, would they abandon that work in favor of starting from scratch? There are any number of reasons I can think of, putting aside what they in fact wrote:

One of Google’s interests is to be able to compete with Microsoft in the applications space. Google already has a spreadsheet and a document editor available on their web site for free. However, the browser interface itself gets in the way of the user experience. By way of an example, if you wish to save documents to your desktop, something everyone does, one has to invoke a download function, which might in fact cause the document to be displayed in the browser, rather than being saved. Otherwise it might bring up the download windows, which is rather clunky.
To take this a step further, it is equally possible that Google is unsatisfied with the semantics to be found with the combination of HMTL, Javascript, and Java. One thing we do not see in the announcement, for instance, is a discussion of standards adherence. Google has a history of attempting to set de facto standards. The problem with this is that people moving from Microsoft could end up exchanging one evil for another. Don’t get me wrong- EVERY company wants to play this game. However, in Microsoft’s case, they are supervised by at least two government bodies to see that their interfaces remain (at least somewhat) open.
There is perhaps a more obvious reason. Firefox in particular is one of the most complex pieces of code in the world, making use of nearly every C++ construct that exists. Few on this earth are really qualified to make changes to the code because of the level of sophistication. Sometimes, in such circumstances, starting from scratch is easier.

Is there room in the market for Chrome and whose market share will it take? My guess is that Firefox will bear the brunt of the loss, but sometimes hype is sufficient to steal from others as well. If there truly are new capabilities in Chrome, they will quickly find their way into other browsers. Unless Google encumbers the work in some way, Chrome will end up being a demonstration project. Of one thing we can be assured: the hackers are still out there, and they will be among the first to use Chrome, to find its weaknesses, and to exploit them. We can say that the other browsers are well vetted (yes, even IE). Here is another opportunity for PCs to be 0wn3d.

Oops! McCain loses one point

He was doing just fine at his lovefest in the Twin Cities, but then Senator John McCain started talking about cutting taxes. As I wrote earlier, he was palatable because he was talking about the least offensive tax, a corporate tax cut. As he takes a more offensive position by generalzing cuts, especially in light of news like the Federal Highway Fund running out of money, now I’m giving Obama the win for the economy, and McCain loses personality points for pandering.

Social Contracts on Internet Security

Everyone and I mean EVERYONE tells you that the best thing you can do for yourself and others if you have a Windows system on the Internet is to run anti-virus software, and keep your patches current. Otherwise your system can be a nuisance to others, as it is broken into and used as a bot to attack others.

That doesn’t work so well when the anti-virus software causes the user problems. These systems take a performance hit, that is for sure. But they can have bugs as well, as this page from McAfee demonstrates. What has happened here is that a program called “McScript_InUse.exe” has gone crazy, pegging the system’s CPU. Not only does this kill performance of every other application on a system, but it can have an impact on your energy bill, because a 100% used CPU means that it will run faster with more fans on and more cooling required.

McAfee cannot be condemned for having bugs in their software, even though it is ironic that they exist in large part because Microsoft Windows has bugs that are taken advantage of. It never-the-less brings up the question of whether such active scanning technology is the right approach, or whether we have to do better at providing better underlying security. The extreme version of this would be provably secure programming, a field in which Dr. Gene Spafford (a network legend) has devoted his career.

In the meantime, however, we have to hold McAfee to a higher standard, just as we should Microsoft. When people believe that they will be harmed by the very software that is meant to protect them and others, especially when the more negative consequences impact others, they will not upgrade. We discussed this with the ETH Study, some time ago, and now we can expect additional consequences.

The Giant Bear roars again…

Prime Minister Putin – er – President Medvedev has laid out five “principles” of foreign policy, according to this article from the BBC. The funny thing about principles is that there things people aspire to, but often times don’t meet. And Russia is no exception. And to be fare, principles often conflict with one another. Let’s see…

3. No isolation

“Russia does not want confrontation with any country; Russia has no intention of isolating itself. We will develop, as far as possible, friendly relations both with Europe and with the United State of America, as well as with other countries of the world.”

You would think that means not overrunning your neighbors with troops, but the Russians may choose to hide behind the next one to get around that little inconvenient fact:

4. Protect citizens

“Our unquestionable priority is to protect the life and dignity of our citizens, wherever they are. We will also proceed from this in pursuing our foreign policy. We will also protect the interest of our business community abroad. And it should be clear to everyone that if someone makes aggressive forays, he will get a response.”

While one cannot argue with the general idea, there are many Russians in neighboring countries who have Russian passports. Is that grounds for invasion? But if it is not, perhaps the next one is:

5. Spheres of influence

“Russia, just like other countries in the world, has regions where it has its privileged interests. In these regions, there are countries with which we have traditionally had friendly cordial relations, historically special relations. We will work very attentively in these regions and develop these friendly relations with these states, with our close neighbours.”

As Bill Cosby would say, “Riiggght.” Read: if you aren’t friendly to us, we’ll invade to “protect our citizens”.

Cuba, are you listening? Still, better to oppose the principles and the bad behavior of one state rather than compound it. Of course that might depend on who makes the decision. President Bush might decide that one more crusade is in order.