Cool new way to write blog posts

For years, I’m been a big fan of WordPress.  How could you not be? WordPress is amazing versatile open source software; 25 million people rely on it to publish their blogs.   If there is one thing that could be a bit easier, though, it is the WordPress post editor.   It works well enough, but it’s a bit clunky and the window can be confining.  wordpress editor

Rather than composing on the WordPress editor, then, I often write my posts on MSWord, or I dictate them in Dragon, then paste them into the WordPress post editor.  One needs to be careful, though, to first strip out all of the word processing formatting tags.  If you don’t, those tags can wreak havoc with the site design—they crawl outside of the post and change the formatting of other posts too, and they can even modify the homepage design.   To strip out those formatting tags, I copy the finished text from my original workspace and paste it into Notepad (on Windows) and immediately copy it out and paste it into the WordPress post editor.   But that requires two extras steps.  And then I find myself tweaking the post once it has gone live.

windows live writer imageWhere, then, can one get the best of both worlds:  A) a spacious writing area with WYSIWYG and B) no worries about formatting tags?   This post is my first attempt to use Windows Live Writer, a free utility from Microsoft.  I learned about it from the company that provided my magazine theme, Solostream.  The screen looks very much like a well-equipped word processor.  When you are finished with your post, you choose your blog (you can set up many blogs at once) from a pick list, and you are finished.  You can easily format photos and videos too.  

It all seems quite painless.  This is an excellent product by Microsoft, which allows me to appreciate WordPress all the more.   Now I’m going to hit “publish” and we’ll see how it looks. 

Continue ReadingCool new way to write blog posts

Senator Bernie Sanders discusses the immense magnitude of the backdoor bailout

Senator Bernie Sanders has presented some jaw-dropping facts about the financial bailout at Huffpo. He frames his article by mentioning that back in 2009, when he asked Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke to identify the institutions that received a backdoor bailout from the Fed, he refused. Sanders refused to accept that answer. Instead, he worked hard to force an amendment into the "Wall Street Reform" bill, and we now know some of the startling things Bernanke refused to admit:

After years of stonewalling by the Fed, the American people are finally learning the incredible and jaw-dropping details of the Fed's multi-trillion-dollar bailout of Wall Street and corporate America . . .

We have learned that the $700 billion Wall Street bailout signed into law by President George W. Bush turned out to be pocket change compared to the trillions and trillions of dollars in near-zero interest loans and other financial arrangements the Federal Reserve doled out to every major financial institution in this country. Among those are Goldman Sachs, which received nearly $600 billion; Morgan Stanley, which received nearly $2 trillion; Citigroup, which received $1.8 trillion; Bear Stearns, which received nearly $1 trillion, and Merrill Lynch, which received some $1.5 trillion in short term loans from the Fed.

We also learned that the Fed's multi-trillion bailout was not limited to Wall Street and big banks, but that some of the largest corporations in this country also received a very substantial bailout. Among those are General Electric, McDonald's, Caterpillar, Harley Davidson, Toyota and Verizon.

Perhaps most surprising is the huge sum that went to bail out foreign private banks and corporations including two European megabanks -- Deutsche Bank and Credit Suisse -- which were the largest beneficiaries of the Fed's purchase of mortgage-backed securities.

Sanders has written a blistering piece in which he argues that the biggest banks padded their own executive's pockets, refused to lend to small businesses, used near-zero interest loans they obtained from the Fed to buy Treasury securities and that they continued to gouge consumers through high credit card fees. He suggests that those banks that received this corporate welfare could also have used this money to work out mortgage loans. He is aghast at the conflicts of interest. I am so relieved to know that we have at least one politician who is willing to shoot straight with the American people.

Continue ReadingSenator Bernie Sanders discusses the immense magnitude of the backdoor bailout

Justice Isn’t Boring

I'd heard about this Boring case a couple of years ago, and it finally has reached a verdict. In essence, Google's Street View crew accidentally drove up and filmed a private road, and the owners had nothing better to do than sue. I'm picturing some legal adviser drooling over Google's coffers and thinking they had an angle to get something substantial in the form of a settlement. But the case was pretty weak, with several judges simply stripping off charges, until they were left with second degree trespass. But they won! They beat Google! As Geek.com puts it: Boring couple win $1 compensation for Street View trespassing.

Continue ReadingJustice Isn’t Boring

Can Future Censorship Be Regulated?

The question at hand is, who decides what you find on the web? I recently read Regulating the Information Gatekeepers about search engines. This article focused mainly on commercial implications of search engines changing their rules, and the ongoing arms race between companies that sell the service of tweaking web pages and links and click farms to optimize search engine ranking positions, and the search engines trying to filter out such bare toadying in favor of actual useful pages. On my MrTitanium.com site, I ignore all those search engine games and just provide solid content and current items for sale. In 2002, MrTitanium was usually in the first dozen results when Googling for "titanium jewelry". In 2003, Google decided that the number of links to a page was the primary sign of its usefulness. Within days, link farms popped up, and my site dropped from view. I waited it out, and in 2004, Google changed the rules again, and MrTitanium reappeared in the top 30. Top five for "titanium earrings". But the real question is, should someone be regulating these gatekeepers of information? Who decides whether a search for "antidepressants" should feature vendors, medical texts, or Scientology anti-psychiatry essays? There are two ways to censor information: Try to block and suppress it, or try to bury it. The forces of disinformation and counterknowledge are prolific and tireless. A search engine could (intentionally or inadvertently) favor certain well represented but misleading positions (such as Truthers or anti-vaxxers) over proven science, and give all comers the impression of validity and authority to "bad" ideas. But the question of regulation is a dangerous one. The best access to information is open. But if a well meaning legislature decides that there needs to be an oversight board, this board could evolve into information police and be taken over by populist electors who choose to suppress good information. On the other hand, the unregulated and essentially monopolistic search industry began with great ideals, and so far has been doing a good job at a hard task. But it, too, could become malignant if there is no oversight. Another facet is, whose jurisdiction would this fall under? If the U.S. congress passes laws that Google doesn't like, they simply move offshore. There are designs for, and even prototypes of, data centers that float beyond any countries jurisdiction, powered by waves and sun, and connected via fibers and satellites. If the U.N. starts regulating, then whose rules apply? North Korea? Iran? China? And who could enforce it? The information revolution is just beginning: We do live in interesting times.

Continue ReadingCan Future Censorship Be Regulated?

Comcast is trying to destroy the Internet

Today I received the following email from Free Press on the issue of net neutrality:

In the past 24 hours, Comcast has been caught abusing its massive media power, stomping on competitors and violating Net Neutrality. The New York Times reported last night that Comcast threatened to cut off Netflix streaming video unless the company that carries the traffic paid huge tolls.1 Earlier in the day, Comcast was exposed for trying to bar cheaper cable modems from its network — a clear violation of Net Neutrality. This is what a media monopoly looks like in the Internet age — one company, consolidating its media power to squash competitors, stifle innovation and price-gouge consumers. Such outrageous abuse comes just days before FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski is expected to finally propose new Net Neutrality rules to come up for a vote in December. It's never been more crucial that he hear from you. If the FCC stays on the sidelines, Comcast will turn the Internet into cable TV, where it gets to pick the channels, overcharge you for them, and decide what downloads quickly and whose voices are heard. Comcast is the same company that wants to take over NBC Universal in one of the biggest media mergers in a generation. It's not just the Internet at stake here. It's the future of all media: television, radio, social networks... and our democracy itself.
If you find this information disturbing, you can do something about it. Sign this message to the FCC: "Don't Let Comcast Kill the Internet." Oh, and the malicious actions of Comcast go far beyond what Karr outlined above. See the article of Timothy Karr of Free Press in the Huffington Post. In that article you can read the Eight Count Indictment Karr levels against Comcast. It includes counts for anti-competitive activity regarding modems, the inexcusable request to merge with NBC Universal, censoring the speech of Vinh Pham, who dared to criticize Comcast on his blog (Comcast contacted the company that hosts Pham's blog and demanded the entire blog be censored) and blocking public access at a public hearing regarding public access to the Internet. Comcast needs to be slapped down big time, and the FCC needs you to ferociously pressure them to do what is obviously needed. For more information: 1. New York Times, "Netflix Partner Says Comcast 'Toll' Threatens Online Video Delivery." 2. Free Press, "Zoom Complaint Against Comcast a Reason for FCC to Act."

Continue ReadingComcast is trying to destroy the Internet