Why I Still Despise Apple: I'm not generally anti-Apple -- I admire much of what they have done in making high-quality products and still do -- but today I had problems with Safari for Windows 3.0.x crashing on me, so I figured it was time to upgrade to the latest. So, I Googled for it and came to the download page:

Note the choices. First, email is checked off by default, whereas an honorable company would leave it *unchecked*. Secondly, there are two choices, plain Safari and Safari with QuickTime. Now, plain Safari is what is checked, and that's good, since why in the hell do I want or need to download and install an update to QuickTime just to get Safari? At least it's not bundled with iTunes as the QuickTime download once was.

OK, not too annoying, just uncheck the email and get on with the download. Wait! What's this? The installer name is "SafariQuickTimeSetup.exe" -- better cancel the setup and try again, since I must have accidentally failed to select the right radio button in the option group. OK, try it again, and, yes, the file for the *non*-QuickTime installer is definitely named "SafariQuickTimeSetup.exe." Oh, well, must be some annoying thing they do, and I'd guess the other installer is different (or maybe the files have a different source but are given the same name on download. Or something).

Curious now, I start the download of the QT version and go on with the install from the original file. Well! Turns out the so-called non-QT installer *does* install QuickTime. And when I do a file compare of the two installers:

well, what a shock -- a file compare of the two files shows that they are IDENTICAL.

To add insult to injury, the installer puts a QuickTime link and a Safari link in my Quick Launch bar on my Windows TaskBar -- the installer should have asked for permission to do that, not just do it by default. Who the fuck needs a shortcut to QuickTime anywhere on their computer? When does *anyone* launch the content viewer instead of letting the OS launch the appropriate app according to the content you want to view?

I cannot *stand* this kind of behavior. First, I end up not getting what I asked for and then it installs things I didn't want in the first place (and thought I was avoiding). And didn't give me any choices about those things (not that at this point I'd even trust it to honor those choices...).

Last of all, making things worse still, I suspected that the installer probably put a system tray (MS keeps telling us that it's not the "system tray" but the "notification area," but I don't give a crap) icon launcher in the Run line in my System Registry, so I fire up RegEdit and, yep, there it is, in all it's glory -- not only does Apple think I need a useless icon in my Quick Launch toolbar, but I also need another useless icon in the system tray. That is, I need TWO USELESS ICONS in my TaskBar from which I can launch QuickTime, but never ever *will*.

What is *wrong* with these people? Don't they use computers? Don't they recognize the pollution of the system tray and the Quick Launch toolbar that is endemic, with program after program installing their icons there for no good purpose? Well, no good purpose for the user of the computer -- it's an advertisement for the software, but that doesn't do *me* any good.

To be fair to Apple, they are certainly not the only ones sticking icons where I don't want them. But I must say I've never seen such a blatant overriding of the end users' wants and needs as a download page that gives you the same installer regardless of which you choose. Assuming this is not simply a coding error on the download page, that kind of autocratic approach is exactly why long-time Windows users like me can never ever recommend Apple products -- because Apple lies to you, telling you you're in control and then doing whatever it pleases in the background.

Headline in 2030: "Republicans Killed the Planet!" Kevin Drum is writing about the frightening ways in which recent climate change research shows that things are going bad much more quickly than our most pessimistic models forecast:

It would be nice to think that perhaps our current climate models are too pessimistic; or even that they're right but maybe we'll end up at the low end of the predicted warming ranges; or at worst that the models are right and we'll end up right at the center. But that just doesn't seem to be the case. What it really looks like is that our current models aren't pessimistic enough and that the growth in greenhouse gas emissions is exceeding even the modelers' highest estimates. We are fast approaching a point of no return that will likely kill hundreds of millions of people, destroy much of the world's food supply, and spark resource wars that make Rwanda look like a mild family quarrel.

I read this and immediately wondered what difference it might have made if we as a nation had gotten serious about climate change in, oh, I dunno, about 2001 or so, within the first year of President Gore's first term. What if we had a chance back then to turn things around, an opportunity that is now long gone because of five moronic judges members of what was, until Bush vs. Gore, the most respected institution in our US governmental system?

Will we someday look back and declare that Republican partisanship killed the planet?

Health Care Reform as Investment/Stimulus: Health care reform seems to me like it ought to be a major priority in an economic downturn, since it's one of the major inefficiencies sapping the economy of vigor. Not doing so is an example of "eating your seed corn," in that because you feel like you can't afford to invest in something important, you end up prolonging really bad policies that eat up funds that always seem to add up to the same amount you lacked to finance the reform. The federal government is not like me -- when I'm poor I can't afford the economy size because I have no mechanisms for borrowing money. But the US government can always afford it, and should never avoid a good long-term economic investment on the grounds that it will cost to much in the short run.

And maybe health-care reform will pay off sooner than we think.

Just imagine where we'd be as a competitive world economy if Hillary Clinton's health-care plan (or something like it) had passed 17 years ago.

Depressing.

The Future of the Republican Party is as Important to Democrats as the Future of the Democratic Party: Some partisan Dems (of which I'm a charter member) are hoping that Palin's influence waxes rather than wanes, on the theory that the more she mesmerizes her pary, the better it is for long-term Democratic interests, since she can only take the Republicans into enhanced irrelevance.

I'm all for that.

But I worry about the implications for the long-term health of political life in this country.

Republicans have sullied political life for the last 15 years (or more) with their Machiavellian power grabs and this has been *very* bad for the country. With Dems in control, wouldn't it be much better to have reasonable Republicans advocating policies that actually made logical sense (even if we disagreed with them)? Wouldn't that ultimately be better for the country as a whole?

I fear for a Democratic party that thinks it has all the best answers and doesn't need an opposition party to help it hone its message and policies into something even better than it starts out as. The whole Clinton/Obama primary battle should be Exhibit A in why credible competition is much more healthy for long-term political interests.