It was interesting to hear a fellow Georgia Democrat make an unqualified, and contemptuous, reference to Jimmy Carter's "pacifism": "They claimed Carter's pacifism would lead to peace. They were wrong." I'm guessing Miller's been mad for a long time.

Unfortunately, I doubt that the film is that faithful. If the ads are to be believed, the movie turns that great amoral user Becky Sharp (who makes Scarlett look like Melanie) into some kind of enterpreneurial/feminist hero. Better to read the book.

Watching this election season on the blogs, I'm struck by the generation gap among people who hold basically the same political views--say, Dan Drezner and me. Children of the 1970s, like Glenn and me, may not exactly be Republican partisans but we don't trust Democrats, especially those from the liberal wing of the party, with national security or the economy. Youngsters like Dan are less cynical, or more naive (take your pick), about the Dems and more likely to vote on social issues. This isn't simply a matter of priorities. It's also a product of associations and culture: What personalities and issues define the parties in your mind?

In evidence to a parliamentary inquiry, the [Royal College of General Practitioners] accuses the companies of over-playing the dangers of conditions such as mild depression or slightly raised blood pressure.

Dr Maureen Baker, the college's honorary secretary, wants the Commons health inquiry to investigate the companies' practices.

"It would be fruitful to look into the increase in disease-mongering by them," she told The Sunday Telegraph.

"It is very much in the interest of the pharmaceutical industry to draw a line that includes as large a population as possible within the 'ill' category. The bigger this group is, the more drugs they can sell. If current trends continue, publicly funded health-care systems will be at risk of financial collapse with huge cost to society as a whole."

The college lists hypertension, high cholesterol, osteoporosis, anxiety and depression as examples of common conditions that, in mild forms, are often inappropriately treated with drugs.

As someone who suffers from mild depression--which doesn't seem mild when you have it--I'm glad these people don't get to decide whether I'm sick enough to merit medication. Of course, some members of the Kass Commission might welcome that prospect--a valuable reminder of the dangers of government provision of health care. He who pays ultimately determines what's worth paying for. (As for cholesterol and hypertension, I guess they're not "diseases" until you've had a heart attack or stroke.)

It wasn't, of course. It was an extraordinarily comfortable, even conversational, argument about foreign policy and leadership. Giuliani argued for George Bush and also for himself--for fighting bad guys by being a stubborn hard ass. The core of the speech is not the jokes about John Kerry. It's this passage:

Terrorism did not start on September 11, 2001. It had been festering for many years.

And the world had created a response to it that allowed it to succeed. The attack on the Israeli team at the Munich Olympics was in 1972. And the pattern had already begun.

The three surviving terrorists were arrested and within two months released by the German government.

Action like this became the rule, not the exception.

Terrorists came to learn they could attack and often not face consequences.

In 1985, terrorists attacked the Achille Lauro and murdered an American citizen who was in a wheelchair, Leon Klinghoffer.

They marked him for murder solely because he was Jewish.

Some of those terrorist were released and some of the remaining terrorists allowed to escape by the Italian government because of fear of reprisals.

So terrorists learned they could intimidate the world community and too often the response, particularly in Europe, was "accommodation, appeasement and compromise."

And worse the terrorists also learned that their cause would be taken more seriously, almost in direct proportion to the barbarity of the attack.

Terrorist acts became a ticket to the international bargaining table.

How else to explain Yasser Arafat winning the Nobel Peace Prize when he was supporting a terrorist plague in the Middle East that undermined any chance of peace?

Before September 11, we were living with an unrealistic view of the world much like our observing Europe appease Hitler or trying to accommodate ourselves to peaceful co-existence with the Soviet Union through mutually assured destruction.

President Bush decided that we could no longer be just on defense against global terrorism but we must also be on offense.

On September 20, 2001, President Bush stood before a joint session of Congress, a still grieving and shocked nation and a confused world and he did change the direction of our ship of state.

He dedicated America under his leadership to destroying global terrorism.

The President announced the Bush Doctrine when he said: "Our war on terror begins with Al Qaeda, but it does not end there.

It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated.

"Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists."

And since September 11th President Bush has remained rock solid.

It doesn't matter how he is demonized.

It doesn't matter what the media does to ridicule him or misinterpret him or defeat him.

They ridiculed Winston Churchill. They belittled Ronald Reagan.

But like President Bush, they were optimists; leaders must be optimists. Their vision was beyond the present and set on a future of real peace and true freedom.

Some call it stubbornness. I call it principled leadership.

One could tell a similar story about crime in New York City. Giuliani probably assumed listeners would make the connection, though I'm not sure how many people outside New York did. (Based on what I saw on TV, pundits weren't providing much context.) The speech might also remind New Yorkers, especially those who dislike Bush, why, before 9/11, they may have disliked Giuliani. Stubornness is useful in the face of determined evil, but it also tends to run over innocent--or, in some cases, less guilty--bystanders.

When Giuliani talks about terrorism, I think he's right, and persuasively so. When he was making headlines with dubious Wall Street prosecutions--most famously of Michael Milken--I thought he was a dangerous fanatic. Even as mayor, I distrusted his authoritarianism. But like most people who prefer their streets clean(ish) and safe, I do prefer New York today to New York before Giuliani. Unfortunately, the two sides of his crime-fighting persona are inseparable.

What to make of all this? The usual lessons, I suppose: Life is full of tradeoffs. Power requires checks and balances. And you probably don't want John Lindsay fighting terrorism.

The most remarkable thing about the speech wasn't its content but how it was delivered. Giuliani spoke fluidly, but in an utterly conversational way, as though he had no text. Instead of trying for old-style oratory, which works for few contemporary speakers, he gave a model 21st-century performance. If you didn't see the speech, check out the video, available via this C-Span page.

"It shows how desperate Nader is, to have to join up with these people. He basically has nothing in common with them, aside from an anti-corporate leaning and a desire to rehabilitate his image," said Cal Jilson, a political science professor at Southern Methodist University in Texas who has written extensively on third parties. "And when a party nominates Buchanan one election and Nader the next, it shows there's no there there."

Nader spokesman Kevin B. Zeese sees it differently. "It's actually surprising how much Ralph and the Reform Party agree on," he said, citing electoral reform, ending corporate welfare, and opposition to the Iraq war as examples.

For those who aren't familiar with him, Cal Jillson (the correct spelling is the Sherry Bebitch Jeffe of Dallas (or to flatter both, the Norm Ornstein)--always good for a quote that suits the reporter's needs but shows no particularly deep understanding or interesting analysis of what's going on.

For more background, see the first chapter of TFAIE.

The commission thinks the reason the bits of information that might have been assembled into a mosaic spelling 9/11 never came together in one place is that no one person was in charge of intelligence. That is not the reason. The reason or, rather, the reasons are, first, that the volume of information is so vast that even with the continued rapid advances in data processing it cannot be collected, stored, retrieved and analyzed in a single database or even network of linked databases. Second, legitimate security concerns limit the degree to which confidential information can safely be shared, especially given the ever-present threat of moles like the infamous Aldrich Ames. And third, the different intelligence services and the subunits of each service tend, because information is power, to hoard it. Efforts to centralize the intelligence function are likely to lengthen the time it takes for intelligence analyses to reach the president, reduce diversity and competition in the gathering and analysis of intelligence data, limit the number of threats given serious consideration and deprive the president of a range of alternative interpretations of ambiguous and incomplete data -- and intelligence data will usually be ambiguous and incomplete.

"But the Cheneys apparently put family values above political litmus tests."

What the fuck is this supposed to mean? Anyone against gay marriage doesn't have family values? Go back to writing about economics you fuckin' idiot.

For this gentleman and others who might have been confused, let me clarify: The Cheneys have a gay daughter. Their family experience--the role of family values in their own personal lives--is more important to them than toeing the Republican line.

I do believe that enabling gay people to form families--not merely couples, but the extended kinship relations implied in marriage--would be a good thing, for extended families as well as for couples. But I don't think "anyone against family marriage doesn't have family values." If I did, I really would be an idiot, no adjectives required. Only a highly defensive misreading would suggest otherwise.

In related news, Grant McCracken blogs on Candadian anti-Americanism: "Anti-Americanism is rampant. Many Canadians now make free with the most derogatory comments about their southern neighbors. They are pleased to call Americans stupid, aggressive, and vulgar."

Mark Franchetti of The Sunday Times (London, presumably; the link is from The Australian) has more:

[F]ollowing the discovery in the wreckage of flight 1047 of traces of hexogen, an explosive used in previous Chechen attacks, the Russian authorities had conceded that terrorism was to blame.

The Federal Security Service (FSB) has confirmed that traces of the same explosives were found in the wreckage of the second plane, and it has also emerged that the Tupolev-154 sent at least two distress signals – an SOS followed by a hijack alert.

Suspicion pointed to two suspected "black widows", female Chechen suicide bombers, apparently determined to strike a blow against the Kremlin in the run-up to yesterday's elections in the breakaway Caucasian republic--expected to be won by Moscow's man Alu Alkhanov.

The suspected "widow" on flight 1047 was S. Dzhebirkhanova, a young woman believed to be a Chechen who boarded the plane after changing her ticket for an earlier flight.

Suspiciously, none of Dzhebirkhanova's relatives or friends has come forward since the disaster to claim her remains.

No next of kin have been identified either for Amanta Nagayeva, 27, the suspected terrorist on the other plane. Registered on the passenger list as living in Grozny, the Chechen capital, she was the last person to buy a ticket for flight 1303, only an hour before takeoff.

She was a market trader whose brother disappeared four years ago after he was detained by Russian troops. It is also believed that she once lived in a small village in southern Chechnya where an Islamic militant ran a terrorist training camp. Her remains were found in small fragments, suggesting she had blown herself up.

The mystery remained how the bombers managed to smuggle their explosives on board. Domodedovo airport, which the two flights left within 46 minutes of each other, was overhauled two years ago and re-equipped with the latest baggage scanning technology and dogs trained to smell explosives.

Maybe black widows didn't fit the profile.

What movies rarely do, however, is provide us an opportunity to marvel at the scope and complexity of materials science and engineering.

Ah, but “rare” does not mean “never,” and there are a handful of films that have great materials moments even if the movies themselves do not always, if ever, attain greatness. To be sure, materials never have the starring role, but they oftentimes have the power to amaze, awe, and accomplish fantastic feats.

Before pushing the “play” button on the countdown, however, I encourage you to first review the ground rules that I employed in filtering through the nominees. Some of them may seem arbitrary (and they are), but they all serve to give me a manageable structure in which to operate. As with any good article, these parameters are outlined in the Experimental Procedures section. Okay, enough with the introductory blah, blah, blah. Let’s get on with the show.

The list is here, and, no, The Graduate isn't #1.

The big problem with aircraft accident investigation is that everyone immediately trots out their pet theories. Of course, as you so aptly put it, everyone is spooked on terrorism already, so there's ample room for a knee-jerk reaction right there.

Determining whether or not these were actual terrorist events will take a while, unless some group claims responsibility and has data to back up their claim. The flight data recorders and the cockpit voice recorders all have to be read, the wreckage needs to be examined thoroughly, radar tapes analyzed, maintenance records reviewed, pilot's medical histories reviewed, autopsies performed (you need to look for shrapnel inside victim's bodies), etc., etc.- all of the gumshoe type work. This is a lot different than 9/11, when the whole world saw on video the two airplanes hitting the towers. Even then, if the World Trade Center attacks hadn't occurred on 9/11, but the Pennsylvania and Pentagon ones had, it would have taken some time to figure those out (well, except for cell phones).

Even after all of the investigation is completed, and the probable causes and findings are issued by the appropriate experts, that's still no guarantee of total agreement. For example, there are still a lot of people out there that believe that TWA 800 was downed by a terrorist missile and a government cover-up ensued, even though the evidence is extremely compelling that the NTSB got it right the first time.

Also, even though the odds of 2 aircraft crashing within minutes of each other due to unrelated causes are astronomical, in Russia, anything is possible when it comes to air safety. If this investigation goes like the one on the Kursk (the submarine that sank in the Barents Sea a few years back), it's going to be a spectacular goat rope.

So, to sum- good for you for not even speculating, and sticking to the facts!

Coincidences do occur--all the time. That doesn't mean the crashes were a coincidence, but it's certainly possible.

For more on Kerry and the hapless hamster, see Will Saletan's satire of the Swifties. And the Kerry Hamster Dance is here here. Both links are courtesy of a Google search for "kerry hamster."

That we all suspect terrorism, though no group has claimed responsibility, suggests just how much terrorism has changed: It's not about specific causes (Chechen rebels say the crashes aren't they're doing) or specific targets but about generally striking fear. Or maybe we're all just spooked.

In other blog-favorite news, Grant McCracken has several stimulating posts on "the economics of the gaze" (with a comment from Professor Postrel, who often comments there), as well as a photo the contents of his refrigerator ("How to Blog Like an Anthropologist II").

As Los Angeles County's 100th case of West Nile virus was confirmed Tuesday, the Board of Supervisors took steps to assert sweeping new powers to enter private property to eradicate mosquito-breeding spots.

With Los Angeles County cases surpassing those in San Bernardino County, previously hardest hit in the state, the supervisors directed lawyers, health authorities and the agricultural commissioner to draft an ordinance to let officials go onto private property anywhere in the county and clean up standing water in which mosquitoes can breed.

Where are these mosquitoes? Apparently not on the Westside.

The issue arose at a campaign town hall meeting in Davenport, Iowa, when a woman in the audience asked an unusually pointed question: "I need to know, what do you think about homosexual marriages?"

The vice president was candid in his response. "Lynne and I have a gay daughter, so it's an issue our family is very familiar with," Cheney said. "We have two daughters, and we have enormous pride in both of them."

The statement marked the first time Cheney has publicly addressed the fact that his daughter, Mary--who helps run his campaign--is gay, although she has been open about it.

"With respect to the question of relationships, my general view is that freedom means freedom for everyone," he added.

In February, President Bush proposed a constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriages.

Since then, the vice president has been in a difficult position. In 2000, he had said the issue should be left up to the states. Reluctant to publicize his differences with Bush, when asked about the issue previously, he said, "I support the president."

But his latest remarks made plain that his view is different. "That's appropriately a matter for the states to decide. That's how it ought to best be handled," he said. "At this point, my own preference is as I've stated. But the president makes basic policy for the administration."

Needless to say, social conservatives are upset. But the Cheneys apparently put family values above political litmus tests.

A new analysis commissioned by the Legislature suggests that sending American jobs overseas, far from being a blow to employment, can actually help preserve existing jobs and create new ones.

The paper, prepared by the Public Policy Institute of California, warns lawmakers against trying to stem the practice by prohibiting offshoring in state contracts, noting that such a ban would drive up the cost of services and take money away from other programs in the budget.

I have seen a copy of the report, sent 10 days ago to the Assembly Office of Policy Planning and Research, which requested it in May. But that office has yet to release the document publicly, and a spokeswoman for the researchers who prepared it said the paper is still a draft that is being reviewed by the Assembly for possible revisions.

"It's a work that is very close to being completed," said Abby Cook, spokeswoman for the policy institute. "We're waiting for some final feedback."

That feedback is not likely to be warm from the Democrats who control the Legislature. Many of them have jumped on the outsourcing issue, hoping to demonstrate their affinity with working people.

The last thing they want is a study done in their name that claims shipping jobs overseas is not only good for the economy, but for workers as well.

But that, more or less, is the conclusion of the 47-page report, for which authors Jon Haveman and Howard Shatz culled all the recent research on the issue and examined trends in California employment. While conceding that data on the latest trends are still in short supply, Haveman and Shatz wrote that offshoring is probably overrated as an economic phenomenon for good or ill, but that, if anything, it is likely to be a net positive.

"Because of the dynamics of the U.S. economy and offshoring's expected effect on productivity, the overall, longer-run effect of offshoring may be to increase living standards at home," they wrote....

That's not just economic theory. The numbers in the real world support this view. Between 1991 and 2001, wrote Haveman and Shatz, U.S. firms that expanded their employment abroad also increased their domestic employment by 5.5 million workers. Their share of overall U.S. employment also increased during this period.

The LAT has more:

"What data are available suggest that the number of jobs being offshored is small relative both to the overall labor market and to the number of people working in the relevant at risk-occupations," the report says. "The bigger challenge for California is the … movement of jobs from California to elsewhere in the United States."

The report warns that foreign countries might retaliate by limiting their purchases of California goods, and that the state may end up spending more taxpayer money if it hires only companies offering domestic workers, because the higher labor costs will make the contract prices larger.

"At a time when California is considering decreases in help to the poorest Californians and making other difficult spending choices, limits on offshoring will aid above-average wage earners," the report said.

The Assembly's Office of Policy Planning and Research, which commissioned the report for $25,000, has not released it, but a copy, dated Aug. 12, was obtained by The Times.

That passage appears in an article reporting that the legislature has passed the first of six anti-outsourcing bills. A bill to "prohibit the state from hiring outside service contractors, such as software companies and call centers, if they planned to use foreign workers for the jobs" is headed to the governor's desk. Only a girly-man would sign it.

When art economist David Kusin read about The Scream being snatched, the first thought that came to his mind was terrorism.

Mr. Kusin speculated about the reasons behind the theft only because he was asked to by a reporter. But as president of Dallas-based Kusin & Co., which helps governments and banks value artwork used as collateral for loans, he's tapped in to the art world in a way few people are.

"Norway is not a member of OPEC, and its oil production is completely independent," he reasons about the world's third-largest oil exporter. "As a result, the country is resented in many fundamentalist Islamic circles because it goes its own way."

The heist could be an effort to get Norway to fall into step in return for the famous painting. Such a scenario takes the widely held belief that the artwork was stolen for ransom into a frightening realm.

Sounds a bit far-fetched to me--but then this is a strange crime. (A Google search turns up several articles in major publications quoting Kusin. He's a bona fide art expert.)

UPDATE: For the answer, Tim Sandefur points to these posts at Musical Perceptions.

Perhaps the most revealing part of the article is the paragraph where Lapham pretends to have heard the speeches at the Republican National Convention that does not open until a week from today. Referring to "the platform on which [George W. Bush] was trundled into New York City this August with Arnold Schwarzenegger, the heavy law enforcement, and the paper elephants," Lapham writes:

The speeches in Madison Square Garden affirmed the great truths now routinely preached from the pulpits of Fox News and the Wall Street Journal--government the problem, not the solution; the social contract a dead letter; the free market the answer to every maiden's prayer--and while listening to the hollow rattle of the rhetorical brass and tin, I remembered the question that [Richard] Hofstadter didn't stay to answer. How did a set of ideas both archaic and bizarre make its way into the center ring of the American political circus?

True, the issue is dated September, but I got my copy in early August, and Lapham must have written those words in July. Didn't it occur to him that his readers might notice he was claiming to have witnessed an event that had not occurred when the magazine went to press? Evidently, Republicans are not the only ones Lapham thinks are stupid.

Jason Tanz in Fortune looked at how well-established industrial companies are using aesthetics as a competitive tool:

Of course, it's no surprise that companies like Apple and Herman Miller are good at design. What is surprising is how many downright dowdy manufacturers are successfully reinventing themselves as design-driven shops. Master Lock, for instance, would be happy to sell you one of its sleek new Titanium Series padlocks, developed with the aid of Design Continuum in Boston. (If you're not crazy about this particular model, don't worry. "We change our designs every year, almost like the auto industry," says John Heppner, Master Lock's president and COO.) AC Delco now offers a car jack that mirrors the curves and colors of the wackiest concept car. And in the past few years the Stanley Works--a 160-year-old company--has released a raft of new offerings that range from a one-piece Antivibe hammer that cuts down on vibration to a laser-equipped stud finder. "You're seeing lots of companies that have very good technological histories saying, 'That's great, but it's not enough in this marketplace,' " says Virginia Postrel, a columnist for the New York Times and author of the new book The Substance of Style. "Now they're trying to find a way of using design to make their technologies resonate."

It's working. In 2001, Whirlpool introduced its Duet line of washers and dryers, which have soft curves and splashes of color; now the company has 19% of the front-loading washer market, up from zero two years ago. In 1999, Coleman revamped the design of its coolers to make them look more streamlined; by 2001 its cooler sales had increased 40%, and Coleman led the category for the first time in ten years. (It sells 100,000 of its hip solid-steel coolers—which retail for around $100—annually.) And in the two years since it was released, Stanley's newest Antivibe has become one of America's top-selling hammers.

And Bobbie Gossage in Inc. examined small-business strategies. HarperCollins has posted an excerpt from the first chapter of The Substance of Style online here; in it, I discuss GE Plastics' use of aesthetics as a competitive tool. (Interestingly, the excerpt is from a slightly earlier draft of the chapter than the one that actually appears in the book.)

Hey, those Martha Stewart sounds are even scarier this year... What do you call a stack of 48 copies of "Martha Stewart Living: Spooky Scary Sounds for Halloween," or another of375 copies of "Entertainment Weekly: The Greatest Hits 1971?" How about a CD price-fixing settlement award? As a result of a class-action lawsuit filed in 2000 by 43 states, the nation's five major record lables are adding thousands of CDs to the collections of state libraries, schools, government organizations and other non-profit groups. And according to most reports I've seen, the CDs the labels are shippping, are trash. Unless, you've got a better word for 1,400 copies of Whitney Houston's CD single "The Star-Spangled Banner" or 58 copies of Michael Bolton's "Timeless".

I've omitted dead or otherwise annoying links; the remaining one is worth checking out.

UPDATE: Danny Noonan of Electric Commentary blogged on this topic last month:

The Milwaukee Public Library got, in part: 188 copies of Michael Bolton's 'Timeless," 375 of "Entertainment Weekly: The Greatest Hits 1971," 104 copies of Will Smith's "Willennium," 11 of "Martha Stewart Living: Spooky Scary Sounds for Halloween," lots of Christmas music, and everything in between, from nearly all genres from rap to classical - and even 77 copies of a CD by chanting Spanish monks.

There was even mold growing on a few of the 520 CDs received in Mequon - a five-disc 1999 set titled "Respect: A Century of Women in Music."

Today's Washington Post has a front-page story about anti-Americanism in Arab pop culture, leading with a description of the latest film from Egypt's best-known moviemaker, Youssef Chahine. The new film, entitled Alexandria . . . New York, is "a cinematic divorce paper," according to the Post. Writes reporter Daniel Williams, "Chahine said he had long admired the United States and its biggest city, but now he has made a film brimming with resentment."

Oh yeah? Spare me Chahine's supposedly lost admiration. The last time I saw Chahine take up the subject of the U.S. he once "admired" so much, he portrayed the country as an old whore pandering to Jews. That's the conclusion of his 1978 "masterpiece," Alexandria . . . Why? The film tells the story of an Egyptian film student in the 1940s who wants to come to the U.S. to study. At the movie's end, he's on a ship approaching New York. What we see is the Statue of Liberty itself in the guise of that fat, painted whore, welcoming not the Egyptian student, but instead a group of European Hasidic Jews complete with long sidecurls. The overpainted Ms. Liberty laughs lasciviously, exposing her mouthful of bad teeth, while a Jewish chant is playing on the soundtrack.

It gets more devastating from there. Read the whole thing, which includes recommendations for Egyptian artists worth covering. And if you haven't read it already, check out Chuck's feature-length look at how pop culture might liberate the Muslim world.

There are two ways to interpret this week's Dilbert strips, which satirize aesthetic-oriented tech design, and probably both of them are right. As always, Scott Adams has a keen eye for corporate foolishness, especially when it involves taking good ideas and making them stupid. As Dilbert tries to suggest to his bosses, today's aesthetic imperative is not a drive to substitute style for function but to add style to function. One of the main causes is that quality as traditionally defined has gotten so high (and price so low) that businesses have to find a new dimension on which to compete. Slapping a pretty shell on a lousy product, or building a beautiful restaurant with lousy service and worse food, won't work.

But the strips also represent the engineer's rebellion against the idea that style has value--or that, on the margin, additional style might have more value than additional function. This objection, which often comes from people who consider themselves on the right of the political spectrum, echoes the left-wing critique that says consumer capitalism is all about deceiving peoople with pretty packaging. In chapter three of The Substance of Style, I look at the legitimate value of aesthetic pleasure, even in functional products, and at one point I argue with this post from Steve Den Beste's blog:

Today an engineer similarly condemns the latest iMac for using behind-the-curve chips and mocks buyers who've "been seduced by the case plastic":

After people get over the oh, cool! and start really looking at this, the only real reason for getting it will be to impress people, just as was the case with the Cube, because what is really innovative about this is the case. And you can't actually get any work done with a fancy case.

Missing the effects of the technological progress he sees as legitimate innovation, the engineer doesn't consider the tradeoffs. For a long time, ever-greater computing power was indeed what people looked for in a new machine. But computers are so capable these days that most customers don't need the absolutely fastest chip. To someone who doesn't plan to tax the machine's processing speed, a beautiful case may be worth more than cutting-edge technology, not just for status ("to impress people") but for personal enjoyment. At a given price, adding style will be more valuable, at least to some people, than adding power. True, you can't get any more work done with a fancy case, but you can enjoy the same work more.

Despite my qualms about its implicit argument, I did enjoy the Dilbert series, particularly yesterday's entry:

For a full archive and lots of other Dilbert stuff, go here. My Reason interview with Scott Adams is here.

"We didn't understand the shoe business worked in fashion seasons. We finally got a line of shoes and brought them to the marketplace and the retailers said 'Fine. What are you doing for fall?' We realized then that a bunch of MIT folks trying to design women's shoes was a big mistake. We had this great technology…why not sell it to other people who make shoes and make their shoes better and let them deal with the fashion stuff?

"The shoe industry is more accepting of change as it relates to styling because they view that as the most critical thing. Of course, the high tech industry couldn't care less about fashion." (After all, it took the personal computer industry nearly two decades to realize there was life beyond eggshell white.) "The point is, industries change first in their own dimension, not all dimensions."