Pure evil.
 

It's about time.

Formula 1 has introduced a new points system which will result in the driver with most wins crowned 2009 champion.The current points system will still operate to decide a tie if two drivers have the same wins and to define all other championship positions.

Only 50 years too late. Finally, no more rewards for drivers tooling around in 2nd or 3rd position and playing the points. If this scoring system was in place since 1950:

This certainly changes the legacies of the "golden era":

If only the official records could be changed to retroactively award past titles to the "real" winners -- Clark and Senna tied with Prost with four titles each; Prost loses two titles ('86 and '89) that he won without the most race victories, but picks up two in which he did win the most races ('83 and '84); Moss would lose the dubious honor of being the "best driver never to win a world championship"; Mansell would become a well-deserved three-time champion; the historically overrated (in my opinion) Piquet and Lauda would drop from three titles each to just one; Jones and Andretti would both be two-time champions; and, of course, Massa would have earned the 2008 title over Hamilton (which pains me, because I was pulling for Hamilton all year, but fair is fair...). Fascinating, too, that three third-place championship finishers would have been world champions under a fair scoring system!

The rest of the multi-championship winners -- Ascari, Fangio, Brabham, G. Hill, Stewart, Fittipaldi, Hakkinen and Shumacher -- won all of their championships fairly by scoring the most victories; many of those titles, however, would have been settled on points to break ties on total victories. In 1982, for example, five drivers scored two wins each, yet the title went to Rosberg with only a single victory.

Update 3/18: The Telegraph covers this same theme today. For some reason, they claim that Prost would have also beaten Piquet in 1981, but I don't see how -- Piquet had three race victories, Prost only two. They also claim Brabham would have won no titles under present rules; how they arrive at that conclusion is beyond me -- Brabham had five wins in '60 to Moss' two, and in '59 would have won a three-way tie between with Moss and Brooks, each with two victories but with Brabham coming out ahead in points.

(h/t: The Digital Picture)

To all my friends around the world, I wish you a Merry Christmas. If you're Jewish, make that a Happy Hanukkah. If you're an athiest, make that a Merry and Blessed Christmas. And if you're an Islamist who wants me dead because I'm an infidel, well... fuck you. Now on to the New Year's resolutions:

• Be it resolved that I will stop writing angry blog posts. Unless provoked, that is. I cannot promise any reduction in my output of profanity; being a native of the NYC metro area, that is hard-coded in my DNA. But I'll try limit my foul-mouthed rants towards those who truly deserve it -- Islamofascist goatfuckers and their Prophet of Hate (piss be upon him), fans of the Boston Red Sox and Fernando Alonso, Leftist hypocrites and their Obama-fellatiating sycophant lapdogs in the media, global warm-mongering alarmists who preach the science-fiction of anthropogenic climate change to easily indoctrinated children and childish adults; and so on. Come to think of it, very little is likely to change on the angry blogging front.
  
  
• I further resolve that I will not start smoking again. Cigarettes, that is. If I come across a kilo of blonde Moroccan hashish, all bets are off.
  
  
• Finally, I resolve that I will take more photographs in 2009. I'm talking real photographs, which means I'll spend more time thinking and visualizing, and less time snapping away like a lunatic. If things go according to plan I'll end up with fewer image files but far more photographs. Maybe I'll even sell a few of them.

And with that, I bid y'all a Happy 2009.

...and I'm liking it. Some didn't understand, though. My pal, for example:

AA: I don't get it.

Me: It's like a book, except when you fall asleep and it falls to the floor, it costs $350 to replace.

AA: I still don't get it. What's different about it than a book?

Well, the big differences:

• 1. Size - Don't compare its size to a single book, but a stack of books. A really, really big stack of books. Which, typically, is what I am usually working my way through.
  
  
• 2. Value - Most new books cost around $10. Some more, many less. I figure this thing will pay for itself after about 30-40 books. Actually sooner, if you figure in books available for free (ManyBooks.net, FeedBooks.com, Gutenberg.org). Also, Amazon lets you download the first chapter or two of every book as a sample before you buy - and as I often never make it past the first chapter, this will be very cost effective for me...
  
  
• 3. Form - I can read with one hand without constantly fighting to keep a cover from closing on me like I do with hardcovers and trade paperbacks. And I don't have to adjust the light, or my position, every time I move from left- to right-hand pages while reading at night with my bed light. The screen is excellent, it's not like reading a computer screen but very much like reading ink on paper. Maybe even easier on the eyes because the background isn't white like paper but a light grey so the contrast isn't so bad.
  
  
• 4. Instant Gratification - If I want a book, I'll have it. Now.
  
  
• 5. I'll be, like, saving tons of trees and decreasing my carbon footprint to, like, help save the planet from global warming, maaan..... Maybe they sell a carry case made from hemp.

OK, that last one is bullshit (much like the Global Warm-Mongering wealth redistribution scam itself).

But the rest of it is pretty much spot-on. It may be premature to call it 'revolutionary' but it it's fair to say it's a big step forward from previous e-book devices I've tried. First there was the so-called 'interactive' books that were basically HyperCard stacks that I ran on my old Mac SE/30. I get a headache just thinking about it. Then there was the Apple Newton. Aside from the fact that there was little in the way of material available for the Newton,the display was awful - too much glare, and a very narrow viewing angle. The Kindle by comparison is sharp and clear at any angle and the glare is no worse than a typical glossy magazine. Clipping my Mighty Bright light on the cover and adjusting it off to the side to eliminate any reflection makes the Kindle the perfect bedtime reading tool (try reading in bed with an SE/30 on your lap...).

It's not without weakness, though. Images and illustrations are laughable; the market for dead-tree editions of Photoshop books and National Geographic is safe for now. Even the simplest line drawings are awful. Maps are completely unreadable, and since maps are constantly referred to while reading books on, say, the Civil War, their unreadability in digital form renders the Kindle version of the book practically useless to me.

Browsing is also a big zero. The search feature is painfully slow, and the digital equivalent of flipping through pages is even worse. A reference book such as The ARRL Handbook or Forta's ColdFusion books would be useless to me on the Kindle. And forget about magazines - can you imagine a news magazine without photos?

I hope file management will be improved upon in a future firmware update. Currently all documents are displayed in a single directory. I'd like to be able to categorize my books and other files in folders - one for history, another for science fiction, another for astronomy, etc. I've already accumulated eight pages of titles in my Home directory and still have more than half of my onboard storage free. What happens when there's 20 pages? Or 50, after I add an SD card to expand memory? I need subdirectories!!!!

The secondary features of the Kindle - web browser, MP3 player - are extraneous fluff. If I wanted an internet-enabled Swiss Army knife, I'd buy an iPhone. (Oh, wait.... I did.)

I'm not sure whether the awful graphics are inherent in the design of the e-ink display or simply a result of the publishers not taking the time to optimize the images for the device. I'm hoping the latter because I can see one excellent use for the Kindle: as an electronic star atlas. I grabbed one sample astrobook, Astronomy of the Milky Way, just to see whether the charts were usable. They're not. But I imagine they could be if they were scanned and resized specifically for the Kindle's 600x800 display. I'd love to see the S&T Pocket Sky Atlas in a Kindle edition... as long as it is readable!

Graphics aside, I've found the Kindle to be a very natural way to read, nothing like reading PDF or text files on a computer (which I find tiring) and a far cry from my previous adventures in e-book reading.

So my early verdict is: For your typical novel or non-fiction book with few if any illustrations, the Kindle is a killer device. Having humped stacks of books all over this country and others, I can affirm that travel with a single (thin) book-sized doohickey fully loaded with reading material is a welcome addition to my geek lifestyle. I doubt my frequent visit to the local book stores will cease, but I can't imagine buying many more paperbacks. The Whispernet purchase-and-delivery system is slick and the coverage here in Outer Whitelandia is adequate. It's simple enough to use, making it fairly Luddite-friendly. And, I'll be damned... I find myself finishing more books since getting this thing, perhaps because I don't have to think about which book(s) to take with me when I'm on the go - I just take them all. No more stack of partially read hardcovers next to the bed. That alone makes it worth the price.

I've long ago hung up my Apple Fanboy spurs, but stories like this always make me gloat:

Google pipped - Apple the new king of Silicon Valley as market value overtakes hi-tech rival

Andrew Clark in New York - The Guardian, Friday August 15 2008

The sleek, touchscreen iPhone has proved so lucrative for Apple that the electronic gadgets manufacturer has unseated Google to become the most valuable company in America's cradle of technological innovation, Silicon Valley.

Queues outside Apple's stores are commonplace since the phone's launch a year ago as shoppers line up to get their hands on the prized device.

On Wall Street, the phenomenal popularity of the phone has fuelled a 44% surge in Apple's share price in 12 months. By the close of trading on Wednesday, Apple's market value had edged up to $158.8bn - a shade ahead of Google's $157.2bn.

Apple's predominance amounts to a shift in the balance of power in the hi-tech world. The company has repeatedly been able to eclipse rivals with its distinctive, easy-to-use designs. The iMac and the iPod continue to be firm favourites among laptop computer buyers and music fans.

My favorite media Apple death knells:

6/1997 - 101 Ways to Save Apple - Wired Magazine - Death Knell by Nathan Myhrvold, chief technology officer at Microsoft
"The NeXT purchase is too little too late. The Apple of the past was an innovative company that used software and hardware technology together to redefine the way people experienced computing. That Apple is already dead. Very adroit moves might be able to save the brand name. A company with the letters A-P-P-L-E in its name might survive, but it won't be the Apple of yore."

10/6/1997 - Sybase's Chief Exec Says Microsoft Faces "Crossroads Crisis" - TechWeb, by Steve Burke
Faced with a similar question on what he would do if he were acting chief executive Steve Jobs, Dell chief executive Michael Dell said, "I'd shut it down and give the money back to the shareholders."

10/5/1998 - OH, DO I LOVE MY iMAC - BusinessWeek, by Peter Burrows
How will iMac fare once the novelty fades? ''This computer is a fashion statement right now, but those things wear off,'' says Oppenheimer Securities analyst James D. Poyner. ''If Apple intends to sell lots of machines based on how they look, that's a pretty tenuous story.'' The iMac has to hold its own in a market of sub-$1,000 (and falling) PCs. And Korean-based E-Machines has announced plans to sell an iMac look-alike for less than $600, say analysts.

10/5/2000 - Apple R.I.P. - Forbes, by Michael S. Malone
Steve Jobs can't run companies, but he has proven that he is a genius at motivating teams of people to produce extraordinary products. In fact, he may be the greatest project team leader in the history of high tech. That is no small achievement. But it does not translate to being the CEO of a giant corporation. Jobs failed the first time running Apple, failed at Next and only succeeded at Pixar because the company worked around him. He succeeded in the short term during this, his second, Apple tenure because he ran the whole company as a product team. That only works so long. Why is he a poor CEO? Because he's mercurial, insufficiently engaged by the more boring (but crucial) operations like distribution and, ultimately, because he's a pretty nasty piece of work. In the best of all scenarios, Jobs would hire a competent CEO and focus on product development, but his ego would soon lead him to undermine his replacement. Steve Jobs is Apple's Alcibiades: the company can't live without him, or with him.

1/5/2001 - Technology's walking dead - ZDNet, by Michael Kanellos
[Article about tech predictions] 2004: Apple - Watch for the big fire sale. Pretty designs and overpriced blue plastic can only get you so far.

How sweet it is. Especially on a day in which, before I hop in a iPod-equipped car to go pick up a new iPhone 3G at the AT&T store, I get to write about Apple's ultimate "fuck you" to the ill-wishers and doomsayers using a 17" MacBook Pro. Not too bad for a dying company.