I've noticed that a certain sequence of spam has been coming in a group of four, always in the same order, always at the same time, for the past month or two.
Status: U Return-Path:
Status: U Return-Path:
Status: U Return-Path:
Status: U Return-Path:
I find it interesting, because it provides just a tad of insight into what goes on on the other end of the spam storm.
I have a lot to do today, which is why I'm doing this instead.
ditto delirium heater chemise dogmatism saloon arrest thicket mottle callisto midas styrofoam stickpin stank jaguar creekside benefit berglund cogent alveolus squatted
"Sure, yeah, ditto, " I said in my delirium. Little did I realize that I had just agreed to wear a space heater under a chemise to show my support for the dogmatism of a chick I met in a saloon just an hour before my arrest.
How did I end up in this legal and moral thicket? My memory is as mottled as the surface of callisto (flockhart), but I seem to have the midas touch when it comes to women. Everything I touch turns to styrofoam.
All I can remember is that she showed me her stickpin. When she told me to lean in to get a better look, I noticed it stank like a jaguar squatting at a creekside. As I passed out, I wondered about the benefit of wearing accessories with the odor of wild animal droppings.
berglund! That is the sound you hear when you come to after being drugged in such a nefarious manner. I was aware that the cogent drug still filled one of my alveolus; it could be released at any moment.
As I squatted in my prison cell, I realized that I was out of giblets.
You know how a string of unrelated nonsense words has become the telltale sign of a spam email? Well, in a blatant rip-off of Spamusement, which I enjoy, I've decided to recycle these wasted bits into prose, in an attempt to make sense of this 21st century flotsam and jetsam.
The following list of words is exactly as it appeared in a spam I received:
libidinous condonechampaign gilead blurrybelief styrene peachskirt sloven uterusinteger cheney tiltinvertible alluvial culbertsongrievous keys bowmandefect oberlin crawfordcommitted slant disciplinaryfang siderite spawnwring limp paraboladietician chili scarletimperceivable
The same list of words, unchanged, appears in bold text.
Martha was feeling libidinous, but she could not condonechampaign. In gilead, she had developed a blurrybelief about the effects of mixing alcohol with styrene. She soberly slid her peachskirt down her hips and into a slovenly heap on the floor. She set about the task of inserting her artificial uterusinteger.
Meanwhile, in another part of town, Vice President cheney was performing his triple tiltinvertible for the now overwhelmingly Republican Senate. They had replaced the aisle that they always spoke of "reaching across" with a creek that was too wide to do so. The alluvial sediments were annoying in their shoes, but they preferred it to having to talk to the Democratic Senators. Congested People for Piping had tried to file the culbertsongrievous act in a nationwide referendum, but high-ranking Democrats on the other side of the creek were the keys to passing this important legislation. Senators bowmandefect, oberlin, and crawfordcommitted to put the right slant on this bill, but the disciplinaryfang of VP Cheney concerned them. They had to get their siderite before they tried to bring it across the aisle, er, creek. Everyone watched Senator spawnwring out his socks after an unsuccessful attempt to limp across the gravelly creekbed
In the quadratic lunchroom where only the higher-order Senators ate, the paraboladietician grew concerned for public health as they placed their fifth-order for chili.
Martha was pleased to find the trace of scarletimperceivable after the installation.
Red-state folks, blue-state folks, green-state folks, it's time to move on.
Take a look at this map. In a winner-take-all election, it's very misleading to look at pure red or blue states. The overall election was 51% to 48%, not 100% to 0%. If you were to color the entire country in a single color by who won the election, it would be solid red, but that would be very misleading, no? That does not tell the whole story. Nor does coloring entire states, or even counties, a single color. In reality, it's all shades of purple. This is a great example of lies, damned lies, and statistics.
If you want to see an even more enlightening perspective, take a look at these weird maps which show states distorted to reflect relative size of their population.
My point is that everyone including the media should stop obsessing over the number of red states or red counties and remember that it's really all shades of gray. Even we, ourselves, are individually divided. Every voter is red on some aspects and blue on others. Each of us has a purple heart. There are Republicans who believe in abortion and Democrats who don't. There are conservatives who think it's okay for gays to marry and liberals who agree with tax cuts. Each party is made up of a variety of factions which pick and choose the planks of the party platform that are meaningful to them.
We can focus on what makes us different or focus on what we have in common. We are all Americans. Let's stop bickering, feeling disenfranchised or arrogant, victimized or invincible, and sorry for ourselves. We are not a divided nation. This is a nation of Americans strengthened by our diversity of views and blessed with the capacity and freedom to express them. This is what makes us great. These are our checks and balances. Threatening to leave because your candidate didn't win is absurd and utterly and completely misses the point of what this country is based on. We live in an ongoing debate and laboratory of continuous improvement. To abandon the experiment now is just bad science.
The pendulum swings.
Americans cast their votes.
Either way, we win.
There are a lot of Intro To Groovy articles out there. A lot of them I find lacking something. All that syntax without motivation is hard to grok. I found this article by Mark Volkmann to be the most worthwhile.
On the other hand, maybe the tenth article you read is the one where it finally sinks in, and it doesn't really matter in which order you read them.
[Line By Line Project] [Soft Where It Hurts] [AppFuse Line-by-Line] Inside-Out Architectures
I've noticed an interesting trend in the world of software, and it’s starting to occur in more places. We used to write programs taking either a top-down or bottom-up approach, but the paradigm is shifting. We're starting to architect our applications using an inside-out methodology and gain powerful benefits from the new perspective. Interestingly, the benefits seem to come at very little cost.
One of the earliest examples that comes to mind is Object-Oriented Programming (OOP). With OOP, the function, which used to be the smallest quanta of software, was encapsulated into the class, which became the new fundamental building block. Objects called methods, rather than functions operating on data. One exception here is that OOP was not a low-cost endeavor. I still remember spending a year not knowing how to write a program anymore, as I tried to rewire my brain for OOP.
Another early example is event-driven environments, in which the operating system or windowing system would call into your code as events took place, rather than your code driving the flow and calling the operating system. Again, learning to write Windows programs hurt. Badly.
What I've noticed recently, though, is that examples of inside-out architecture are starting to multiply, and they’re not nearly as painful as the two examples above. It's happening in multiple domains and in more subtle ways. You don't have to completely change the way you architect an application, yet these subtle tweaks in architecture are having significant impacts without being completely invasive.
One example of this is Inversion of Control (IoC)/Dependency Injection. This is such a wonderfully simple concept, but hugely powerful. Your code is cleaner, because objects are given what they need, rather than having to actively go get it for themselves. You write only the code that you really care about, and the glue code is provided by a lightweight container. You get a lot of benefits including simplicity and testability, and it costs little more than providing some setters and a bit of wiring in XML.
Similarly, there is Aspect-Oriented Programming (AOP) . With AOP, you conceptually assign the execution point to your code, rather than placing your code at the point of execution. Again, you get so much power and productivity from such a deceptively simple variation in approach. The Spring framework gives you the benefits of both IoC and AOP with so little effort that it seems to violate the laws of thermodynamics.
Hibernate and JDO have changed the way we deal with databases. Rather than placing database read/write code within an object, we now look within an object and persist it with external code in a sort of pseudo-container. Reflection and bytecode manipulation are important enabling technologies that are themselves an example of software turned inside-out.
Closures are another place where things get turned inside-out. Rather than calling code from a function, you pass the code into the function. It's a concept that's been around for years in some languages, but it's starting to become more popular and available.
Service-Oriented Architecture (SOA) is another increasingly popular inside-out architecture. Rather than writing an application with internal functions or services, the services have become external resources that any number of applications can access. DLLs, COM, DCOM, and CORBA were early examples of this, but the concept has moved from a deployment strategy to an application architecture.
One of the newest structures in integration architecture is the Enterprise Service Bus (ESB), which makes application integration an entity in itself. Rather than writing integration code within your application, your integration layer provides the mechanism to integrate everything in one place. ESB is like applying IoC and AOP concepts to application integration. This realization led me to two new acronyms and a nursery rhyme:
- Aspect-Oriented Integration (AOI)
- Integration-oriented Inversion of Control (IoIoC)
- Old MacDonald had a bus, IoIoC
And on that bus he had some apps, IoIoC...
If you connect the dots, I think will find that there's something evolutionary and unconscious going on here with this trend of turning architectures inside-out. Even though there are clear differences in these various technical advances, I find a hint of commonality among them. With apologies to Sun, perhaps the container is the application.
Are you aware of other places where architectures or structures are turned inside-out and yield disproportionately large benefits from a seemingly simple twist? What else might we turn inside-out? What unwieldy or difficult architectural problems might improve when put through this topological wringer? Maybe an awareness of this trend will lead us to more deliberate innovations of this type.
I believe in what you do I believe in watching you It's what you do I could turn you inside-out What I choose not to do I could turn you inside-out What I choose not to do "Turn You Inside-Out" R.E.M.
I have to confess that my support for President Bush is not nearly as enthusiastic as it might have appeared during the campaign. I'm no blind follower. It's almost exclusively motivated by the threat of terrorism and the fact that he recognizes that danger more clearly than John Kerry does. Other than that, I've viewed him as just another politician, and I've probably even bought some of the scandalous propaganda about him. I just considered it to be secondary to keeping America safe from terrorists.
However, the two times that I've truly sat down and listened intently to him when he wasn't campaigning, when he was just speaking from his core, I've been surprised to find myself impressed by what I found inside the man.
The first time was when he was on Larry King a few months ago. I wrote about it here. Admittedly, this was part of the campaign, but he was simply sitting and talking with Larry and his wife. He was very genuine, very honorable, and very sharp. No spin, no politics. Just straight talk.
The second time was tonight, when I watched the TiVoed press conference he held earlier today with the White House Press Corp. Again, I wasn't really expecting to be impressed, but I was. I'm finding myself feeling a renewed sense of hope, even though this wasn't a feel-good, touchy-feely kind of press conference. I just recognize that we have a pretty good leader at the helm.
Despite the trouble he has assembling English sentences at times, I found him to be a refreshingly real, determined, and sincere man with a mission to improve this country to the best of his ability. I got a sense that I was seeing a great man come into his own. I think all of us may be very surprised by what great things he may do for this country in the next four years. In fact, it occurred to me that we may see a dramatic shift in the what we come to expect from our politicians after Bush's second term. We may hold them to more honest, bullshit-free standards than we've come to expect from Washington, D.C. over the years. You would never hear George W. Bush say "It all depends on what your definition of 'is' is."
I know that if you're a liberal, a skeptic, a cynic, or someone who simply relishes in hating George W. Bush, you'll have a very hard time hearing or buying what I'm saying, but I'm telling you, if you can drop your defenses for a moment and try to put aside all the propaganda you've been fed and swallowed about him, you'll find a decent, honorable man who knows how to get things done and is committed to leaving this nation and this world in better shape than he found it.
It's so easy, when you're feeling unhappy about the result, to twist every sentence to something negative like "sure, leaving it in better shape for himself and his oil cronies." Well, try to let that cynicism go for a moment, and you may actually find that you can see a real person with good intentions shine through. Don't buy into all the lies.
I wasn't always a red-state guy. I was born in Brooklyn. I used to be about as liberal as they come. I can easily put myself in your shoes. But, I'm telling you, what you've been told about this guy isn't true. It's a smear campaign. Just listen and watch him, and you'll see it. He's not a smooth-talking politician. He's a good man trying to do good work, knowing that half the country and a lot of the world doesn't like or understand him. That's a pretty tough job.
Look at it this way. If Kerry had been elected, you would have thought that any Bush supporter who couldn't see what a wonderful man he was was either blind, stupid, or just bitter. You would tell them to stop whining and recognize the man for who he is. Well, try to rise above your negative filters, the same way you would have expected people who voted for Bush to do if Kerry had won.
This is still the same great country it has always been. You may actually find that you come to respect and appreciate the man that you have invested so much time and energy in hating.
I feel confident that you can trust Bush not to trample everything you hold dear. I just don't believe that's what he's about. And even if you do expect him to do that, why not wait until you actually have some evidence, before just buying into the smear campaign that's been waged against him. If you really examine the facts, I don't think you'll find anything that warrants the accusations and lies. If you really do, I'll be right there with you shouting about it, but so far, I just haven't seen anything real.
All we are saying is give Bush a chance.
This really tickled me.
10 Ways Dick Cheney Can Kill You
I hope all you Kerry supporters remember this campaign. Remember all the easy criticism and second-guessing of every move Bush made. Remember all the "I have a plan"'s from Kerry and Edwards. Remember all the promises about health care, about jobs, about security, about hunting down terrorists, about the price of oil, about not equivocating with the U.N. and the rest of the world on U.S. security.
If elected, he will have no more power than George W. Bush did. He is not a wizard with a magic wand. He is subject to the same laws of physics, economics, and world opinion that Bush has been. He is going to have as hard a time delivering on any of them as Bush has, and I think Bush has done admirably. (And, by the way, Bill and Hillary promised to tackle health care in 1992.)
The so-called "rush to war" that took well over a year, and really over a decade of Saddam Hussein's flouting terms of his surrender, was influenced by bad intelligence, including lies from France and Russia due to their scamming the oil-for-food program. Had Kerry been in office, he would have been subject to those same inputs and conditions. Do you think he is clairvoyant, or simply unresponsive to threats based on the information available to him?
If Kerry delivers on all his magical plans, then he'll be the greatest president ever, and we'll all owe you a debt of gratitude for electing him.
If he doesn't, he's just another damned politician. And in 2008, I hope you remember all the expedient condemnations he made about Bush's every move and all the easy promises he made to get your vote. Don't be surprised when his opponent sings the same tune that Kerry sang four years earlier.
Either way, it's time that the American people develop a longer memory for these things. And stop being so gullible. Politicians say what you want to hear, and you actually believe them. It's because of this that our politicians talk to us this way. Grow up, America!