If you're wondering about Win 7, whether to shell out your money or just stay with XP or Vista, and maybe hearing the stories about installation problems... check out this comparison of Windows and Ubuntu Linux systems.

You see, if you wait a few days (till October 29) you can download a slick version of Linux, brand new Ubuntu 9.10, for free. In many ways it's superior to Windows.

Installing should be easy, but as with Windows, there can be a few challenges. For this reason I'd suggest getting together with some friends, including a geek or two in there, and do it together. Maybe even look up the Linux Users Group in your city. Make sure you know how to get access to useful stuff like Skype and video codecs (not in there by default because it's not open source software). And once you've got the hang of it, Linux is actually much, much easier to install and update.

At a glance:
I'll be downloading and trying out Lubuntu when I have time in November. I'm impressed by LXDE (the "desktop" that Lubuntu uses) - it's not quite as pretty now, in its early stages of development, but then I like functional more than pretty.

And note there are plenty of other Linux options out there - in fact I'd recommend you download a couple, burn them to LiveCD, try them on your computer and see which you like best.

Dual boot: If you do need Windows for some reason (specialist software, or advanced photo-editing) you can still install Linux. Install Windows first, back everything up, then insert the Linux LiveCD and follow instructions to set up dual boot. Then you've got Linux for secure web browsing and stability, and Windows whenever you need it.

I've had problems with Linux, as I had with Windows, but by and large I'm happier with Linux, and happy to support something created by a community based on a philosophy of openness.

An email from my brother, back in Australia where the economy is going strong.

When he refers below to "the libs," that's actually our conservative party, who were in power under the very cleverly populist John Howard, from 1996 to 2007:



Not far off, I suspect.

*Terrorgraph = Telegraph, Sydney's News Corporation newspaper. As in the T-shirt, "Is that true, or did you read it in the Telegraph?"

There's a Japanese porn star called Miyabi who's supposed to be coming to Indonesia to star in a non-porn Indonesian film, about an Indonesian guy who's obsessed with her and tries to kidnap her.

If they meant to attract attention, they were very smart. Self-appointed defenders of Islam are getting very upset, and saying she's not allowed to come, though they're probably buying her DVDs and watching them in private like everyone else.

It's easy to read someone that you agree with, and nod as one's prejudices are confirmed. For that reason i'd rather read an intelligent conservative that challenges me to think than a liberal who tells me I'm right.

An example is this interview with "old-school supply-sider Bruce Bartlett": Reaganomics is dead (long live Reaganomics). He doesn't take the orthodox line, acknowledges that Keynes got it at least partly right, and makes some general criticisms of the way people think about economics and crises, which if anything are more critical of the right wing than the left. I'm no economist, but he's talking way more sense than the kinds of people I'm used to seeing on Fox. (Which I admit, is not saying much - he probably deserves better praise than that.)

I found this quote funny.

As Larry Summers [Obama's chief economic adviser] once put it, we don't have a VAT [Value Added Tax] because liberals think it's regressive and conservatives think it's a money machine. We'll get a VAT when liberals figure out it's a money machine and conservatives figure out it's regressive.

The GST (Australia's name for a VAT) certainly seems to be a money machine in Australia.

Another interesting comment:

The mistake of the left is to assume you can raise rates on the rich and they won't react. They'll put more effort into tax avoidance and evasion. That won't do anyone any good except tax lawyers.

I've heard this argument, along with an argument that the maximum tax rate to avoid this is 30%. Sounds reasonable, but not sure if it's actually true - I've only heard the right-wing side of the argument, and one thoughtful rebuttal by a leftie. That left me slightly agnostic about the idea, but with the feeling that there's a significant degree of truth in there.

Traveling in Sarawak, Malaysian Borneo, with my good friend David. His approach to travel is to find a friend who knows a place and its language, and travel with them - so I've become his guide for Indonesia and Malaysia. 

Waiting for a flight, I spoke to someone nearby, and she was shocked that I could speak Malay. "Boleh cakap Sarawak!" she said to her sister, then "Boleh cakap Melayu!" Interesting that she refered to her own language as "Sarawak" before saying "Malay" - but of course they do have their regional differences. It seems that not a lot of foreigners learn Malaysian. Even my very Indonesian version of Malay impresses people sometimes, though I speak very slowly to allow for the accent difference, and as I try with limited success to work out which bits to modify. It's fun.

It turned out she was returning home for "Hari Raya" (Big Day), the day after the fasting month ends. She invited David and I us to join her family on that day, so we did. When we turned up on the day, her brother and mother looked at us strangely (their faces saying "Who on earth are these people?") but when we introduced ourselves as friends they instantly relaxed and warmly welcomed us in, offering us food and drink, while we and other visitors sat, and while the youngest son played a first person shoot-em-up game on a laptop.

The day is also known as Aidul Fitri, an important Muslim occasion where people visit friends and family, in a ritual of asking and granting forgiveness. While we were there, several other visitors came and clasped hands in turn with everyone present. Now, it was interesting to see the other family who were there - the mother was introduced as a close friend of our friend's mother. They were Chinese, they were not Muslim (I asked), and yet they were an important part of the celebration of this Muslim family's holy day. Not to mention that our hosts also welcomed these two foreigners who they assumed to be Christian - and when we said we had no religion, they didn't try to convert us.

We talked history and politics a little. What did they think of Brooke, the "White Raja" who colonized Sarawak? Before him there were headhunters in Sarawak, said the father, and  If it weren't for him, there might still be headhunters. They didn't like the Iraq war (no surprise there). They asked my opinion of Obama - they seemed pretty happy with him. I've been seeing that a lot, in people from various countries.

Her mother was a great cook. I got to try a nice Sarawak layer cake - better than the shop-bought version. But my favorite was the Sarawak curry with glutinous rice cakes - I've asked for the recipe. (It ranks up there with Sarawak Laksa, a coconut based spicy noodle soup that I discovered here, an interesting variation on the Singapore Laksa I'm used to in Sydney, and just as good.)

David & I were both touched by our experience.

I saw an evangelist in Sydney once, by the steps of the Town Hall, with a large speaker. The only time I ever saw someone preach there.

He was just getting started, informing us that God loved us and would be sending us to hell, when he was interrupted by mounted police clopping past. He started again, but a loose police horse came galloping back in the other direction, followed by the other police horses (these ones with riders still in the saddles) in pursuit.

He started again with his message of love and hell, but shortly afterwards exuberant, shouting Koreans began to appear around the corner of Woolworths. The trickle became a flood, with hundreds and possibly thousands of jubilant Koreans shouting "Kor-e-a! Kor-e-a!" This was 2002, and Korea had just scored their latest success in the FIFA World Cup - possibly the match where they got into the semi-final). Very well-behaved by the standards of football fans, but louder than any one preacher, even with his loudspeaker.

I looked over at the Town Hall steps. The preacher had packed up and went home.

It was awesome.

Edzard Ernst, the first Professor of Complementary Medicine in the United Kingdom, talking about homeopathy and the ethics of pharmacists selling homeopathic products:


It does seem pretty clearly settled now that homeopathy doesn't work. It's worth noting though that some products marked as homeopathic actually have been known to contain active ingredients, and I wonder whether they might sometimes work. (Wikipedia notes poisoning cases from homeopathic remedies - not quite the desired effects, but they show that low levels of dilution have been used at times.)

Years ago, my dog had a plea allergy, and a fellow dog-owner, and health shop manager, suggested homeopathic drops that he said worked for many people's dogs. Worth a shot, I thought. And I was convinced that they worked - my poor mutt was scratching much less, I thought. At the time I had no idea what homeopathy really meant, let alone that the science would come down conclusively against homeopathy years later. I hindsight, either the itching improved coincidentally, or I imagined the improvement, or there really was some active ingredient that did something. That last option now seems like a long shot.

I'm very familiar with the idea of Japanese and Chinese textbooks filled with half-truths and distortions. The Japanese textbooks hide their aggression in the 1930s and 40s, and the Chinese dwell on Japanese atrocities, presumably leaving out anything dark in their own past. And these are valid points - it's disturbing that the Japanese haven't faced their past in the same way as Germany has; and I certainly wouldn't expect to get a balanced view of history from in an authoritarian state. (I know the versions of history taught to schoolchildren in Indonesia, especially under Suharto, was deeply biased.)

But let's have a look at who is wagging the finger here. What are our history books like? What did we in the West learn about China when we were at school? I for one had no idea that Western nations colonized China just a century ago, forced an opium trade that the Chinese rulers didn't want, and then stood aside when the Japanese attacked and slaughtered. I for one knew little or nothing about these things.

No wonder many Chinese people don't like Westerners who try to tell them what is right and wrong. Yes I have an opinion on Tibet and the Falun Gong (not that I like the Falun Gong as an organization and movement, but I believe in rights for people I disagree with too). But I'll be a heck of a lot more careful before expressing these opinions, and make sure I'm well informed.

Thank you to the French traveler, residing in Beijing, who shared this insight with me.
 

We all have our areas of foolishness, but some are more dangerous than others. To me, horoscopes and tarot cards look like foolishness, but they don't do massive harm. A clairvoyant may even be a good counsellor, and a tarot card may provoke a person to think more than they otherwise would, because of their openness to it. On the whole I see them as negative, but I know the human tendency to see patterns where they don't exist, and I don't try to convert my mystical friends.

Beliefs in a religion that you would kill or die for are more blatantly Bad, yet still have many adherents. It was the Europeans who led the way in this particular form of evil in the middle ages and through he Reformation - which is important to remember when we think about those movements within Islam that pursue violence today. Islam today is actually much more enlightened than the Christianity of several centuries ago (that's faint praise) in that there is a large mass of Muslims who abhor the extremists, and believe in harmony between religions.

Then there are those religions that encourage dysfunctional behavior - less blatantly evil, but cruel and harmful in their impacts nonetheless. Telling people who are attracted to the same sex that this is not an avenue for them causes much sadness, and encouraging celibacy as a "higher" calling potentially increases the risk of "celibates" finding twisted and selfish outlets for their sexuality, in particular the abuse of children.

I know I have my own beliefs that cause harm as well. I consider it essential to my own growth that my beliefs - intellectual, personal, relational, about myself and others - are open to change.

The Church of Marx

Then there are Marxists - a confusing breed, just as perplexing in their own way as the adherents of oppressive religions, and just as inclined to select the arguments and versions of history that support their beliefs.

I had a fascinating argument with a pamphleteering Marxist in Sydney a couple of years ago. He was from the International Committee of the Fourth International if I remember right - he was Trotskyite, in any case - and wanted to use positive words that we all approve of, like democracy, in places where they didn't belong. The conversation as I remember it:

Here's another belief that I don't get: that Stalin was bad (okay, I agree with that part) and Trotsky was good. If the Soviet leadership had stayed true, everything would have been great.

So... you're telling me that we have a system in which only a few have a say, and we the vanguard gain power by force, then rule in the name of people, who do not have a voice unless they subscribe to views that we approve.  Then for Stalin to do what he did is somehow an aberration? I'm sorry, it looks to me like the natural course of events - where power is gained by violence and not quickly transformed into an actual democracy (where all have a voice without discrimination) then in the absence of any concept of democratic legitimacy, the strong and wily will gain power. To naively suggest otherwise is to leave things open for a long term repressive dictatorship, and this is exactly what happened in quite a few countries around the world in the 20th century, with the result of tens of millions of deaths, hundreds of millions living without personal freedom, economies that frankly sucked, and much more suffering besides.

That's all stating the obvious... and yet the beliefs prevail. Is this what I think it is - a dangerous and malignant foolishness - or am I missing something?

Conversation at a party in Northern California this year:

To be fair, it was about 1 a.m., she'd probably had a glass or two of something, and my accent confuses a lot of people.