Devon Biere’s Blog

Mark Pilgrim has posted an intriguing look back at the birth of the <IMG> HTML tag…

On February 25, 1993, Marc Andreessen wrote:

I’d like to propose a new, optional HTML tag:

IMG

Required argument is SRC=”url”.

…

An example is:

<IMG SRC="file://foobar.com/foo/bar/blargh.xbm">

(There is no closing tag; this is just a standalone tag.)

It’s fascinating to revisit the ensuing conversation between Marc Andreessen (Netscape founder), Dave Raggett (W3C fellow), Tim Berners-Lee (World Wide Web inventor), and others, especially thanks to Mark’s informative commentary.

After highlighting the players, the specs, the technology, the constraints, and the long-term implications of that WWW-Talk thread, Mark closes with a critical reminder to developers and entrepreneurs everywhere (emphasis mine):

But none of this answers the original question: why do we have an <img> element? Why not an <icon> element? Or an <include> element? Why not a hyperlink with an include attribute, or some combination of rel values? Why an <img> element? Quite simply, because Marc Andreessen shipped one, and shipping code wins.

Read the whole post at dive into mark: Why do we have an IMG element?

(hat tip: @veen)

Apparently, Twitter had a problem with frozen timelines today.  The fail whale must be working overtime.  Let’s give him a much-deserved break and have Cousin Eddie do the honors…

Another great column by Paul Krugman in the NY Times:

…the modern conservative movement, which dominates the modern Republican Party, has the emotional maturity of a bratty 13-year-old.

But more important, the episode illustrated an essential truth about the state of American politics: at this point, the guiding principle of one of our nation’s two great political parties is spite pure and simple. If Republicans think something might be good for the president, they’re against it — whether or not it’s good for America.

Here’s a friendly tip for Republicans and conservatives… when guys like Joe Scarborough (“Thank You, Mr. President”) and Lindsey Graham (birthers are “crazy”) start sounding like the (occasional) voice of reason and moderation, then your party and your movement have truly gone off the rails.

The discovery of Ardipithecus ramidus (”Ardi”), an early hominid species that predates Lucy by over 1 million years, is a truly amazing find.

AP: Before Lucy came Ardi, new earliest hominid found

The story of humankind is reaching back another million years as scientists learn more about “Ardi,” a hominid who lived 4.4 million years ago in what is now Ethiopia. The 110-pound, 4-foot female roamed forests a million years before the famous Lucy, long studied as the earliest skeleton of a human ancestor.

John Hawks, an Associate Professor of Anthropology at the University of Wisconsin, has posted a very helpful FAQ that he’ll continue to update on his blog:

What’s the big deal?  … Today’s series of papers is basically unprecedented in paleoanthropology. There are eleven papers in total, giving comprehensive coverage of the anatomy, paleoenvironment, and evolutionary interpretation of a new skeleton of Ardipithecus ramidus and dental remains representing more than 30 additional individuals. They have been published simultaneously in a coordinated effort including excavation, faunal correlation, microscopy, palynology, CT-scanning, three-dimensional reconstruction, isotopic analysis, and lord knows what else.

NewScientist: Our ancestor Ardi walked tall

I just saw the trailer for the new Robert Zemeckis/Jim Carrey 3D digital animated version of “A Christmas Carol.”  I’m certain of 2 things:

1. It will be a huge hit
2. I would rather have Jim Carrey fart in my face than have to sit through this movie

As if “Beowulf” and “The Polar Express” weren’t bad enough, now Zemeckis comes along to desecrate Dickens with yet another motion-capture, computer-generated, uncanny valley crapfest.  I’d much rather see Jim Carrey, Gary Oldman, Bob Hoskins, Robin Wright (Penn?  Penn!  Penn?), and Colin Firth in an actual movie.  Come on, Hollywood!  Just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should.

In honor of this upcoming cinematic sham, I’d like to suggest the following alternate titles.  After all, if you can send Scrooge on a fireworks-fueled ride over London, surely you can play with the title a bit.

1. The Dickens Express
2. Robert Zemeckis’ A Series of Unfortunate Films
3. Scrooged 2: Dead Eye Syndrome
4. A Christmas Cowplop
5. And Decrease the Surplus Actors
6. National Lampoon’s Christmas Vacation 3: Count Olaf’s London Adventure
7. A Humbug’s Life
8. Dumberer and Dumberest: When Jacob Met Ebenezer
9. 3 Ghosts and an Asshole: An IMAX 3D Experience
10. Tiny Tim and the Order of the Pixels

They need to start a support group for directors like George Lucas and Robert Zemeckis.  Quit being geeks and get back to making movies!

Well, Senate Finance Committee chairman Max Baucus has finally vomited forth his crapulescent, steaming pile of a health care plan, and… wow.  It is something to behold.  After months of pointless delay and fruitless concessions to Republicans who have no intention of supporting meaningful health care reform and in fact aren’t supporting even this watered-down gift to the insurance and pharma industries, Sen. Baucus has delivered a craven, pathetic proposal that is almost universally reviled by both the right and the left.  Individual mandates with no government plan option, inadequate subsidies, utter failure to meaningfully address affordability and skyrocketing costs… I could go on but others have already said it better.

Watching the Democrats fumble this debate (catastrophically?) and hearing the Republicans whine disingenuously about bipartisanship and artificial deadlines, I’ve been struck by the following thought:

What would happen if Republicans were the ones advocating true health care reform?  Consider a Bizarro World in which traditional Republican tactics were applied to Democratic goals. In this alternate universe, here’s what we would see:

• The plan would be called “PatriotCare” or “FreedomCare”
• The Bizarro World Republicans would frame health care reform as a national security issue
• Their initial position would be a single-payer, Medicare-for-all type of approach, with a fallback position of no less than a robust, government-run health insurance option
• They would ridicule co-ops and triggers as worthless
• They would say that bipartisanship was a fool’s errand, given the importance of the mission and an unreasonable, corrupt opposition
• They would not let the opposition play them for morons with months of stalling and faux debates
• They would call Joe Wilson a traitor, demand his resignation, and settle for no less than a full-throated censure
• They would point out the righteousness of their cause and the merits of their plan, then publicly dare the opposition to come up with something better or explain their foot-dragging to the American people
• They would relentlessly call out obstructionists, conflicts of interest, and town hall crazies (with and without firearms)
• They would be quoting, or at least alluding to, scripture to support reform (“I was sick, and you cared for me…”)
• They would not use anemic phrases like “silly season” to describe the jackassery of their opponents
• They would mock the utter hypocrisy of “fiscal conservatives” suddenly finding their principles after voting for massive tax cuts for the rich
• They would, if necessary, use reconciliation successfully and without hesitation
• They would dominate the debate and the message
• They would concede virtually nothing

I should point out that I am not advocating these methods, although some would be worthwhile and many would be effective.  I do, however, think the Democrats could learn something from the focus and drive the Republicans have shown in past legislative battles.  So, I guess I’m kidding on the square, as Sen. Al Franken would say.

Enough is enough.  Get this thing out of Baucus’ feeble hands and get it done.  I hope it’s not too late.

The Telegraph is reporting that a new movie about Charles Darwin and his family, Creation, has been unable to secure a distributor in the U.S. due to its “controversial” subject matter:

Creation, starring Paul Bettany, details Darwin’s “struggle between faith and reason” as he wrote On The Origin of Species. It depicts him as a man who loses faith in God following the death of his beloved 10-year-old daughter, Annie.

The film was chosen to open the Toronto Film Festival and has its British premiere on Sunday. It has been sold in almost every territory around the world, from Australia to Scandinavia.

However, US distributors have resolutely passed on a film which will prove hugely divisive in a country where, according to a Gallup poll conducted in February, only 39 per cent of Americans believe in the theory of evolution.

Granted, movies about 19th Century scientists aren’t exactly in high demand at the multiplex.  And maybe it’s not that great, although early reviews are favorable (Variety) to near-glowing (Reuters).  It’s got a terrific cast (Paul Bettany, Jennifer Connelly, Toby Jones, Jeremy Northam), a solid director (Jon Amiel), and an Oscar-winning producer (Jeremy Thomas).  Perhaps it will pick up a distributor yet.

However, if it doesn’t get a U.S. release due to religious controversy, then that would be a disgrace, if not a surprise.

It sounds like the movie attempts to be even-handed about its treatment of Darwin’s conflict with his own faith and that of his wife.  Roger Ebert says that, if anything, the film is too cautious in its approach:

I ask myself, do we really need to watch the Darwins edging around the substance of their disagreement? The film maker, Jon Amiel, obviously has great respect and affection for the scientist–for them both, really. Did he restrain himself in fear of provoking controversy? Has it gotten to that point? “Creation” dares not state relevant ideas that were acceptable nearly 50 years ago, when “Inherit the Wind” was nominated for four Academy Awards. There’s no such shyness in the anti-Darwin faction.

I intend to see the movie one way or another.  I hope it gets a U.S. release and a fair chance.  If not, it will be one more sad example of this country’s systemic ignorance and antagonism toward science winning the day.

Creation Trailer:

I could not agree more with Paul Krugman’s latest NY Times column:

There’s a famous Norman Rockwell painting titled “Freedom of Speech,” depicting an idealized American town meeting. The painting, part of a series illustrating F.D.R.’s “Four Freedoms,” shows an ordinary citizen expressing an unpopular opinion. His neighbors obviously don’t like what he’s saying, but they’re letting him speak his mind.

That’s a far cry from what has been happening at recent town halls, where angry protesters — some of them, with no apparent sense of irony, shouting “This is America!” — have been drowning out, and in some cases threatening, members of Congress trying to talk about health reform.

The misinformation, paranoia, and outright lies around health care reform have become poisonous and destructive.  As if the “Kill Granny” crap wasn’t enough, now we’ve got Sarah Palin enlightening us on how Obama’s “downright evil system” will kill the elderly and her baby with Down Syndrome using “death panels.”  Utterly incredible.

Our political discourse is once again being thrown off the tracks by shameless, lying blowhards and uninformed mobs.  Making significant changes to the health care system is no joke.  It can and should invite tough questions and vigorous debate.  But what’s happening at these health care town hall meetings is disgraceful and, yes, undemocratic.

Dave Winer (@davewiner) sums it up perfectly (if a bit coarsely) on Twitter:

People who have “dissenting views” of course have a right to speak. And after you’ve spoken, sit down and shut the fuck up.

I heartily agree, and I would believe this just as strongly if it were a bunch of Democratic thugs shouting down Republican lawmakers.

We all need to do our homework on health care reform and get involved in an honest and productive debate, regardless of our political stripes.  Here are some places to start…

• Wikipedia: Health care reform in the United States
• CBS News: 10 Health Care Reform Myths
• White House: Health Insurance Consumer Protections
• HealthReform.gov: See how health insurance reform will benefit your state
• OpenCongress: H.R.3200 - America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009

Did you know that U.S. patent applicants were once required to submit small, physical models of their inventions (“not more than twelve inches square … neatly made”)?  I had no idea.  This Wired article provides some fascinating background and a nice gallery of models.

After the patent office stopped requiring models, it spent more than 50 years trying to figure out what to do with them. Before they were auctioned in 1925, mostly to Sir Henry Wellcome, a pharmaceuticals magnate, they had a variety of homes in the nation’s capital. They were stuffed anywhere space could be found in the patent office building, but eventually lost their spots.  “Crowded out of the hallways, the models were put on display in a rented building. Early in the present century a wave of economy caused that practice to be abandoned,” reads a 1925 New York Times article. “For a while the old models were stored in a leaky tunnel near the House of Representatives’ office building.”

Seeing these clever, intricate models provides some interesting color to the ongoing debates surrounding intellectual property.  As software programs and processes and business methods become dominant in the modern patent battleground, I can’t help but think that most of these “inventions” pale in comparison to the zipper, the dental drill, or the mouse.

This is a fascinating and beautiful demonstration of the universality of music (via @timoreilly on Twitter)…

It’s captivating to hear the audience sing the fifth in the pentatonic scale with no coaching at 1:58.  You can hear the crowd’s excitement grow as they keep pace with McFerrin up and down the scale across two octaves.

Bobby McFerrin is a brilliant and thoughtful musician.  It’s too bad that many people only know him for “Don’t Worry, Be Happy.”  If you’re not familiar with his work, check out his classic version of the Beatles’ “Blackbird” for a taste: