One of InstaPundit's readers asks, "Who is S. French of Baltimore, Maryland, and why did he register the domain name lautenberg2002.com on Monday?".

Between Google and InfoSpace, I've got at least a partial answer to the question. The phone number and address given match those of Schaefer Construction Co. of Baltimore, MD. (They don't appear to have a website.)

The email address given matches that on this classified ad.

You can't hide from Google, man.

(For those who haven't been following the story, Frank Lautenberg is a former senator from New Jersey; he is likely to be tapped to replace Bob Torricelli on the November ballot, since the latter withdrew from the race after the latest in a long series of scandals. Lots more information from InstaPundit and Eugene Volokh.)

UPDATE: Text amended to correct a spelling error on my part: as the InfoSpace link indicates, "Schaefer" should only have one "F". (Thanks to Marc Nelson for noting the error.) As Mean Dean points out in the comments, this is consistent with the spelling of the name of the former Governor and current Comptroller of Maryland, William Donald Schaefer. I have been unable to find any connection between him and the company; Schaefer himself is a lawyer, and his biography says nothing about the construction business.

Lileks is Screeding again, and that's always fun. This time, it's directed at one of his own (Minnesota) Senators, Paul Wellstone.

As I've noted elsewhere, there are two parties nowadays: the US party, and the UN party. The former includes Republicans and Democrats who have an inordinate, romantic, and almost quaint attachment to the Constitution and the notion of national sovereignty. The latter regard nation-states as subsets of a global construct that values unanimous impotence over individual effort, and values procedure over results. The US party calls in mortar fire on the enemy positions. The UN party stands up, climbs over the lip of the trench, and recites Robert’s Rules of Order as it approaches the machine-gun positions. Yea, though I walk through the shadow of death I shall fear no evil, for evil is specifically prohibited under Article 4, subclause B.

Steven Den Beste has a lengthy essay on how the cellular telephony industry developed in the United States and in Europe, why the European cellphone industry is now in serious trouble, and why they pretty much deserve it.

I confess to a deep feeling of satisfaction about this on a personal level, primarily because of all the horseshit I put up with from GSM fans over the years when they talked about how superior the European approach to this was.

I had heard that HDTV technology has followed pretty much the same trajectory, though with Japan taking the fall for its technocratic hubris, rather than Europe.

... I learned from Get Smart -- including biowarfare agents spread by crop-dusters. (And be sure to read Bob Hawkins' comment.)

You know, it amazes me that, given how many 60's and 70's comedies have been remade for the big screen, no one has done a Get Smart remake. (Yeah, I know that Don Adams did a couple of feature films, but I mean a recast remake, as with The Brady Bunch or The Beverly Hillbillies.)

Casting call:

Maxwell Smart: French Stewart
Agent 99: Courteney Cox
Chief of Control: Peter Boyle (or Robert Picardo)

The Lazy Pundit is a fax machine that keeps drinks cold! It fits into the boot of a car.

Kevin Shaum is a letter-opener that works in the opposite way to that which you'd expect and makes reassuring noises.

Larry Wall is a key-ring that keeps your breath fresh for up to twenty-four hours, is made of rubber and tells you when people are lying. (I just know that if Larry reads this, it'll be the subject of next year's State of the Onion address.)

Damian Conway is a contraceptive device that has no moving parts! (Somehow I think he'd like this.)

Perl 5 is a bicycle that comes with a variety of coloured fascias and is rustproof. (There is more than one way to pedal.)

Perl 6 is a fizzy drink! It does away with household drudgery!

Movable Type is a pudding! It is guaranteed to save you a hundred pounds a month!

Okay, that's enough.

CNN.com introduces us to two new digital audio formats that have "dead meat" written all over them. While both include improvements over the existing CD audio format, those improvements are so marginal -- and the problems with the formats so numerous -- that their marketplace failure is inevitable.

Speaking as a Tivo owner and addict (but I repeat myself), I'm not normally one to poo-poo new technology. But the creators of these new formats haven't missed a trick in making this technology as unappealing as possible.

The new format discs wil be more expensive than the already-overinflated price of audio CDs. Both formats will include watermarking, a precursor to making it impossible to rip your audio to MP3 format. Neither format is available in a portable player. The differences in audio quality are only percepible under audiophilic conditions: using a 5.1 system, sitting surrounded by the speakers in an otherwise quiet room.

And if that wasn't enough (and it is), there is of course the killing disadvantage: the fact that there are two formats, and neither player will play the other format. Does the name "Betamax" mean anything to anyone anymore?

Predictions: SACD, which requires new gear, will die an ugly death. DVD-Audio will linger on as an audiophile format; since it can play on existing DVD players, it can piggyback on the success of DVD video. But will never come close to replacing audio CDs, let alone MP3s.

CDs may be the last successful consumer audio distribution format ever. If they are replaced, they will be replaced by removable computer media used to store compressed audio data (MP3 or a successor format, such as Ogg Vorbis). CD audio and DVDs are good enough for most people's purposes (especially once we dispense with this MacroVision and region encoding nonsense). And any new formats coming out of the current constellation of media and consumer electronics companies will have insufficient marginal benefits, and too many, too-onerous encumbrances, and will be too much more expensive than online distribution, to become successful.

Bob Cringely foresees a decline in US market dominance because of reductions in basic research.

So what we have is less and less basic research. In time, this will lead to less research and development, and ultimately to fewer and poorer products. We're eating our seed corn. It may not show for a few more years, but the result of this behavior will eventually be a shift in global scientific power.

This is not a good thing.

Point taken -- but, a shift towards whom? Is anyone else doing the basic research that we are not, or are things tough all over?

Also, I think that Cringe misses a deeper point here. The big corps and the universities are struggling towards a free-market means of funding basic research; the former by tying it to market advantage, the latter by retaining property rights to the fruits of its labors. Aside from poor execution -- unavoidable when trying new organizational principles, and ultimately fixable -- what they're finding is that current intellectual property law is a poor fit.

This isn't exactly news. But if enough corporations and universities become dissatisfied enough with the current state of affairs, that kind of fiscal and intellectual clout can drive change, even a complete overhaul of the framework of intellectual property in the US.

What shape will that change take? Conventional wisdom says that corps will want to hold their intellectual property ever more tightly. But envy of others' portfolios may be a more potent driver than miserliness with their own. It's possible that some sort of IP-sharing scheme may emerge, something like an ASCAP for patents. It may even be made to work within the current legal framework, no slow-moving legislative or regulatory changes required.

My main concern is that there still be room for the non-commercial creator to work. Ideally, software patents should not exist at all. Alternatively, an ASCAP-style organization might make special provisions for non-commercial software. Given how many corporations use free software (Linux, BSD, Perl, Apache), I'd say the odds favor such an arrangement.

Steven Den Beste writes on the damage that the attack in Bali will have on the Indonesian economy, which relies heavily on tourism.

... the entire nation of Indonesia is going to suffer for this, not just the Balinese. Tourism in the entire nation will collapse now, and from what I've been reading, that was as much again as Bali had. All of that is probably dead now.

Overall, it will cost them several billion dollars per year in foreign income that they can't afford to do without. As a result of that, and the expectation that western corporations will be pulling out and foreign investment will dry up, the news reports say that the Indonesian stock market collapsed today and the rupiah is dropping like a stone.

I can think of one thing that might make up the difference. Would Bali, or any other site in Indonesia, be a good place for a US Naval or Air Force base? (Especially given that our bases in the Philippines are closed.)

From a cursory look at a map, I'm not sure. Compared to the old Filipino bases, it would offer easier access to the Indian Ocean (without overflying or flying around Indochina), but a longer haul to China and Taiwan. And depending on what kind of rights we have in Australian bases and ports, it might be entirely superfluous.

And that's leaving aside the task of convincing the governments of both Indonesia (still in denial?) and the United States (we're kind of busy elsewhere).

But it's the only thing I can think of that might keep the Balinese economy from sinking without a trace, and it would make a pretty strong point to the bombers -- rather the opposite effect of what they'd hoped for, I expect.

My main concern is that the Indonesian government may distance itself from the US/Australian side of this war -- gravitating not so much towards the Islamists as towards China.

Eric S. Raymond has written something profound and important: a draft for an Anti-Idiotarian Manifesto. Go read it. Now.

After a one-week hiatus, James Lileks resumes The Bleat, and promptly reminds us why his presence was so sorely missed.

Stopped off at Dreamhaven, a sci-fi / comic store that always seems like such a sad place to me. It’s full of what-ifs, none of which will ever happen, all of which make the plain flat world outside its doors seem so infuriatingly normal. Sci-fi and comics are like a consolation prize for people with impractical imaginations - hey, we think of these things too, and here they are. Ripping yarns and silver spacecraft and women with impossible bosoms in leotards. And over here is the really smart stuff that’s better than most of the serious novels or short stories, and most people will never know how good it truly is. Welcome home; nice to see you; now open a page and get lost.

Sense of wonder and pathos, all in a paragraph. As a reader, I love it. As a writer and blogger, I despair; he makes it all look so easy. If I devote myself to the craft of writing, study the masters, and practice, practice, practice, then someday ... I still won't be nearly as good as James.

Yeah, but let's see Lileks write a recursive descent parser. (Of course, then we get into someone else of whom I'm insanely jealous; and Damian's both a better programmer and a better writer. It never ends.)

Perhaps everyone knew about this except me, but there will soon be a major change in the leadership of China, as Jiang Zemin steps down from his posts as President of China and Secretary-General of the Chinese Communist Party.

Jiang is expected to hand over his title as party secretary-general to his vice president, Hu Jintao, at a congress that starts Nov. 8. That step is expected to begin a process of installing a new generation of leaders in China's most sweeping change of government in more than a decade.

Hu Jintao was apparently hand-picked by Deng Xioaping on his way out the door, to be Jiang's successor. Hu previously served as Party Secretary of the Tibet Autonomous Region, and is responsible from much of the crackdown there in the early 1990's.

The appointment of one of the prime movers in the crackdown on Tibet may portend bad times ahead for the prospects for further reform in China. But Jiang also seems to be moving allies of his own into positions of power (though it remains to be seen whether they are any better); and the forces for change -- mostly financial and demographic realities -- may be beyond the ability of any Chinese leader to do much about.

Is China yesterday's news? The leadership of the Chinese military, at least, appears thoroughly nonplussed that the US doesn't seem to care about them anymore, and has found new playmates in Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein.

I left China impressed that China's defense establishment would sooner instigate a cross-strait dust-up than seriously help the United States in the war against international terrorism. Indeed, the terrorist threat is but an annoying distraction from the game of balance-of-power politics. They urgently want to resume full military-to-military contacts and resent any hint that China is no longer central to American foreign policy. For reasons that may relate to defense spending, they would rather be perceived as a growing threat than be ignored. In short, the PLA is concerned about the relative de-emphasis on the China relationship in the United States and is apparently eager not to be deprived of an enemy.

Perhaps the best thing the US can do with respect to China is to pretend to ignore them. With the focus upon the United States as an adversary, the most reactionary forces within the government have more traction; absent that, making money and attracting investment becomes the primary focus. That in turn pushes the country toward reform, the rule of law, and the taste for freedom that comes with entrepreneurship.

Wow. As Mike and the Bots would say, good old-fashioned nightmare fuel.

More changes to the site's look. I got fairly ambitious in changing the site's layout, and if you looked at it while it was in transition, the result looked pretty weird. But it got better.

I'm actually using a table for the high-level layout, a stylisting no-no among modern webmasters. So sue me; I couldn't get the floated-text layout working the way I wanted.

I'm using a smaller text size (though still your browser's default font). I may switch back if it starts to make me cross-eyed.

I also did away with the calendar. It seemed to me to be a frill I could live without. There is one drawback to that, in that lots of un-highlighted space on the calendar served as a sort of automated nag, to prompt me to post more often. I may put it back if I need the added push.

The one other noteworthy change is the addition of a "Houstonians" section to the links collection, complete with a link to the H-Town Blogs site. I knew that Kevin Whited was a Houstonian, but I didn't know that about Laurence "File 13" Simon, Ted Barlow, and Ginger Stampley. (Ginger's political blog, "What She Really Thinks", sadly is no more; she's even pulled the archives off the net. The link here is to her blog on role-playing games, an interest of mine as well.) Hopefully I'll get to meet some of these people soon.

Let me know what you think, of the new layout or anything else.

Foreign Policy magazine has published an assessment by John Lewis Gaddis of the Bush administration's National Security Strategy report to Congress, published September 17, 2002.

Gaddis compares this report favorably to the last report from the Clinton administration:

The Bush objectives speak of defending, preserving, and extending peace; the Clinton statement seems simply to assume peace. Bush calls for cooperation among great powers; Clinton never uses that term. Bush specifies the encouragement of free and open societies on every continent; Clinton contents himself with "promoting" democracy and human rights "abroad." Even in these first few lines, then, the Bush NSS comes across as more forceful, more carefully crafted, and--unexpectedly--more multilateral than its immediate predecessor. It's a tip-off that there're interesting things going on here.

...

The Bush NSS, therefore, differs in several ways from its recent predecessors. First, it's proactive. It rejects the Clinton administration's assumption that since the movement toward democracy and market economics had become irreversible in the post-Cold War era, all the United States had to do was "engage" with the rest of the world to "enlarge" those processes. Second, its parts for the most part interconnect. There's a coherence in the Bush strategy that the Clinton national security team--notable for its simultaneous cultivation and humiliation of Russia--never achieved. Third, Bush's analysis of how hegemony works and what causes terrorism is in tune with serious academic thinking, despite the fact that many academics haven't noticed this yet. Fourth, the Bush administration, unlike several of its predecessors, sees no contradiction between power and principles. It is, in this sense, thoroughly Wilsonian. Finally, the new strategy is candid. This administration speaks plainly, at times eloquently, with no attempt to be polite or diplomatic or "nuanced." What you hear and what you read is pretty much what you can expect to get.

Link via Ipse Dixit.

Orin Kerr refers us to a Washington Post story of the indignities suffered by the recently-released captives at Guantanamo.

The men described their confinement at Guantanamo as boring but not inhumane. They said they were allowed to bathe and change clothes once a week and were given copies of the Koran to read. Faiz Mohammed said the food was good, but he complained that there was no okra or eggplant.

No eggplant? Somebody alert Amnesty International!