The Slow Route to FastAccess

Six hours I'll never get back: Hooking up a LinkSys WRT54G broadband router to my Windows XP box.

The router, which I bought for around $50 after a rebate, is an amazing Linux device that's an 802.11g wireless access point, router, and four-port 10/100 Ethernet switch. You can reprogram it with SSH and a lot of other Linux software, turning it into a killer pint-sized wireless ISP. Robert X. Cringley calls it "disruptive technology":

... the WRT54G with Sveasoft firmware is all you need to become your cul de sac's wireless ISP. Going further, if a bunch of your friends in town had similarly configured WRT54Gs, they could seamlessly work together and put out of business your local telephone company.

All I wanted was the router, so that I can keep a wired home network functioning and add wireless access.

The WRT54G's installation wizard assumes an easy process: Run the wizard with your Internet connection working to detect configuration settings, connect the modem to the router over an Ethernet cable, plug the router into the computer, and we all live happily ever after.

Unfortunately, as I found out after trial and error (and error and error), the Westell modem provided by BellSouth FastAccess DSL is actually a router. Two routers don't get along with each other, causing connection problems, IP address conflicts, and something ominous called double NATing. I'm guessing that my NATs, whatever they are, should remain single.

Thanks to a forum post by Tom Scales on SpeedGuide.Net, I found the solution: Plug the Westell back in to the computer and configure it over a browser to Bridged Ethernet mode, which delegates all routing responsibilities to the WRT54G, then connect the Internet back into the router.

From any room in my house, I can now waste time on the Web at breakneck speed.

Windows Xp · Networking · Linux · 2005/01/21 · 6 COMMENTS · Link

Bush Clock Down for the Count

Four years ago today, I marked the inauguration by publishing a Java applet counting down the seconds "until the U.S. has an elected president again."

I'm taking a beating in e-mail this morning from random strangers who remembered the clock and came back to taunt me.

I'm not one to shy away from abuse (I'm a Democrat, after all), but there's a point I'd like to make to fuck@you.com and the other people who were kind enough to write.

In 2 minutes and 13 seconds, the U.S. will have an elected president again. I'm not having as much fun watching the clock tick down to 0000:00:00:00 as I thought I would in 2001, but there's some comfort in the fact that President Bush has been elevated to the office by voters this time around.

Four years ago, my disgust was motivated by the manner in which the Supreme Court stopped the recount in Florida and the absence of a legitimate and complete county-by-county recount at any time in the process.

I'm still dumbstruck by Justice Scalia's assertion in Bush v. Gore that a candidate in the midst of a recount should be protected against "casting a cloud upon what he claims to be the legitimacy of his election." How can a candidate who hasn't won an election yet have an assertable right to legitimacy, absent time travel?

But in any case, that bitterly divisive decision officially becomes history today, and for that at least I am grateful.

Politics · Java · 2005/01/20 · 8 COMMENTS · Link

Nofollow May Be a Rank Solution

I had no idea how important Google PageRank was to the business world until I did some PHP/MySQL programming for a local ecommerce retailer. The boss watched search rankings on product-related keywords for the company and its competitors on a daily basis, and you could see the immediate effect on sales of a rank move.

Multiply one small St. Augustine company by one million and you have a huge worldwide economy, utterly dependent on the vicissitudes of an algorithm.

Google's support for a nofollow attribute throws a wrench into comment and referral spam by adding a huge new concept to the Web: a link of no confidence.

Web publishers can now link to a site without improving its PageRank. Robert Scoble enthusiastically explains one reason that people will do this:

... last year a carpet store in Redmond ripped off a lot of people. The store is now out of business, but back when it was happening I wanted to link to the store but couldn't.

Why not?

Because one link from my blog would have automatically put the store at the top of the search page on Google for "Redmond carpet store." Why is that? Because of my Page Rank.

This sounds good, though it officially abandons the pretense that Google's search algorithm is tailored to the linking behavior of Web users, rather than the other way around.

I read some search engine optimization forums this morning to see how they're responding to the change, figuring that these panicky PageRank Kremlinologists might see the implications beyond weblogging.

One pointed out that the change breaks the first principle of Google's recommendations for webmasters: "Make pages for users, not for search engines." This may not be a big deal, because weblogs themselves are one big feedback loop in which humans and Google conspire to make each other happy. We feed it links to webloggers and current content; it moves bloggers up the ranks and feeds us traffic; we become more motivated to publish. do { } while (true).

Wikipedia has the same circular relationship with the one true search engine:

We write a thousand articles; Google spiders them and sends some traffic to those pages. Some small percentage of that traffic becomes Wikipedia contributors, increasing our contributor base. The enlarged contributor base then writes another two thousand articles, which Google dutifully spiders, and then we receive an even larger influx of traffic.

Overnight, a handful of weblog companies have implemented a change that touches the entire Web: How people trade the most valuable unit of currency in the attention economy, the hyperlink.

Before this change, every outgoing link on a Web page lowered its rank, leading some optimizers to view them as a leak:

Outbound links are a drain on a site's total PageRank. They leak PageRank. To counter the drain, try to ensure that the links are reciprocated.

The most far-reaching impact could be from publishers who adopt nofollow on external links to boost the effect of their internal links, taking a bajillion rank suggestions right out of Google's algorithm. The subset of the Web devoted to making as much money as possible, properly optimized to plug leaks, becomes as searchable as AltaVista in 1997.

Publishing · Google · Wikipedia · 2005/01/19 · 8 COMMENTS · Link

Thanks for Sharing, Sheriff

The gay talk show host Michelangelo Signorile interviewed Sheriff Mac Holcomb of Marshall County, Alabama, who made headlines last week when people discovered that his official Web site celebrates the old-fashioned values of his youth in the '40s and '50s:

During this era, love of God, family, and country abounded. Men were men and women were women and there was no mistaking which was which. Both were proud of their individual roles. Homosexuality was very queer and a despicable act ... an abomination.

The 19-minute interview's great -- Signorile patiently draws Holcomb out until he has offered reasons to oppose homosexuality from the political, spiritual, and even animal kingdoms (male dogs in Alabama are straight).

There's one moment when the self-described "redneck sheriff" gives an unexpected answer:

Signorile: Well, do you believe that gay men and lesbians should be protected against being fired in their jobs? Do you believe there should be anti-discrimination laws?

Holcomb: Oh, yes. I don't--, I've had four homosexuals work for me in my administration. Knowingly. I hired them knowingly. That doesn't mean I'm for it.

Even with the marraige bans, social liberals must be winning the battle for gay rights if a scripture-quoting small town sheriff in Alabama is proudly stating the number of abominations he has hired.

Politics · 2005/01/19 · 7 COMMENTS · Link

Buzzword.Com may be offline for a few hours during the day Wednesday. I am planning to perform some server maintenance tasks and look for the cause of the software's recent decline to a speed approximating continental drift.

Manila · 2005/01/18 · Comment · Link

Democratic Podcast: Bush Plans Benefit Cuts

Saturday's Democratic response to the presidential radio address was delivered by Sen. Debbie Stabenow of Michigan. For the third straight week, the topic is President Bush's plan to privatize Social Security.

A transcript of Stabenow's remarks:

Hello. I'm Senator Debbie Stabenow.

Social Security reflects the best of American values. It's a promise our government makes to all Americans that if you work hard and play by the rules, you'll be able to count on a basic quality of life and dignity in your older years.

Social Security is not a handout. It's a benefit that Americans earn by working hard all their lives and paying into the system.

But Social Security is about more than retirement, it's America's insurance policy. It protects you whether you're a 22-year-old just starting your career, or you're a 75-year-old enjoying retirement.

It's not just about tomorrow, it's about today.

Social Security covers you if you lose a parent, or if you become disabled.

Social Security is the great American success story.

Before Social Security, 50 percent of older Americans were living in poverty. Now, it's only 10 percent. If that's not a success story, I don't know what is.

Some claim that Social Security is in crisis, but let's look at the facts.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office reports Social Security can pay 100 percent of its commitments until the year 2052 -- almost 50 years.

Still, the program does face long-term challenges, and we should act to strengthen and improve the program for the long term.

Democrats want to be a part of that effort, and it will require some hard choices. But to provide some perspective, the projected long-term Social Security shortfall is only one fifth, or 20 percent, the cost of the tax breaks enacted by President Bush.

Democrats look forward to receiving a detailed Social Security proposal from President Bush. But we're concerned by some recent leaks from the White House.

A memo prepared by an administration official suggests President Bush will push a privatization plan with deep cuts in benefits. These cuts would be as high as 25 percent for some current workers, and 45 percent for retirees in the future. And the benefit cuts would apply to all seniors, even those who choose not to invest in privatized accounts.

America's insurance policy was never meant to be a privatized 401-K plan, or a high-risk investment. It was meant to be the secure foundation for your retirement.

I remember the looks on the faces of Enron employees, many with tears in their eyes, who told me, "Thank God for Social Security, it's all I have left."

Beyond its deep benefit cuts and added risks, privatization also would substantially add to the National Debt. Our nation already is staggering under the largest budget deficit in the history of the country.

Taking on even more debt could destabilize financial markets, drive up interest rates, and stifle economic growth. It also would force our children and grandchildren to bear the burdens of more debt and higher taxes.

When I think about my own children and all young Americans across our country who have hopes and expectations for a secure financial future, I cannot imagine piling even more debt onto their shoulders.

Democrats hope that the president will reject privatization schemes that would require deep benefit cuts and massive increases in the National Debt.

We want to work with the president to strengthen and improve the program.

Senator Max Baucus, our senior member on the Finance Committee, will be leading our caucus on this issue.

Democrats look forward not only to making Social Security more secure, but to developing new and innovative ways to promote savings in addition to Social Security.

Too few Americans are saving for their future, and we must address that. It's simply not enough to maintain the status quo.

Democrats are committed to keeping the security in Social Security. At the same time, we want to look to the future to create new ways for Americans to build wealth and retirement security, because every working American deserves a secure retirement.

I'm Senator Debbie Stabenow. Thank you for listening.

I have trouble believing that Americans will let President Bush make changes to Social Security that would cut benefits to retirees in the near term and solve no long-term issues.

But it's a huge mistake to think privatization won't happen. As Bush's second term begins this week, no one should misunderstimate his ability to steer the ship of state towards an iceberg.

Three numbers for anyone who believes there's an imminent danger to Social Security that must be addressed today with the most radical changes in the history of the program:

Cost Estimates over the Next 75 Years

• Social Security trust fund shortfall, predicted to begin in 2042 or 2052: $3.7 trillion


• Bush's Medicare prescription drug benefit: $8.1 trillion


• Bush's tax cuts, if made permanent: $11.6 trillion

Source: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal think tank

Politics · Podcasts · 2005/01/18 · 3 COMMENTS · Link

With all the accusations of bias and sloppy war reporting, the New York Times doesn't get enough credit for being the weirdest newspaper in America.

Reviewer Ned Martel on the PBS cooking show Everyday Food:

[Co-host Allie Lewis] demonstrates a forced beginner's pluck, and she reveals a brittleness when she's trying to be soft. When musing over her al dente sautéed snap peas and radishes, she takes a moment to mock her mom's lifelong preference for canned vegetables: "In fact, my mother would probably consider this raw." She later disses her dad's delusions of grandeur as a green thumb, and confesses her struggles to wean herself from butter, a predilection that was hard won at the Cordon Bleu in Paris. (La pauvre!)

Journalism · 2005/01/18 · 1 COMMENT · Link

Read More Entries