As we discussed last week, Windows Vista is not that big a change from Windows XP, other than a few "Wow"-inducing items and a couple of very useful enhancements. Even those enhancements, though, are typically just tweaks to existing Windows functions (like the breadcrumbs navigation technique that replaces the Windows Explorer tree or the Flip 3D function that enhances the existing Alt-Tab feature). Desktop search is an exception to this rule, though, and warrants its own entry in the ISBS Tech Guide.

First, let's review how desktop search worked in Windows XP. Basically, it worked like an application. You ran it (Start-->Search), typed in a query, clicked "Search" and received a result set. From there, you had basic interaction capability with the files, and when you were done, you closed the Search app and the results went away. It was like changing the channel on the TV, rather than reaching for the remote control. In other words, I hardly ever used it. Instead, I'd peruse my regular file folders to find a file, use the search within my mail application to find a particular e-mail, or click through the Start menu folders to find a rarely-used application. I'd use the search app only in the very rare case where I truly had no idea where I'd put something, but even then, it was typically unsuccessful at helping me find it.

In Windows Vista, search is a function of the operating system, not an application. It has gone from a tool of last resort to the easiest way to find just about anything on the PC. Here's how it works:

Let's say that before the season started, my friend sent me a Word document containing the New York Yankees' 2007 schedule, and that this morning, he e-mailed me that he's coming to New York and wants to catch a Yankee game.

The first thing I do is press the Start key (the one with the flag on it, next to the Alt key on most keyboards). This does the exact same thing as clicking on the Windows Logo in the bottom left corner of the screen, but note that you don't need the mouse to search in Vista. When the Start menu opens, focus defaults to it's search box. This is key, because again, I don't need to touch the mouse. So, after pressing the Start key, I begin to type "yankee schedule." As I type, the list of commonly used programs that is normally above the search box in the Start Menu disappears, and search results immediately start appearing in its place. With each successive character I type, Vista refines my search and shows me a shorter list of potential results.

The results are grouped and sorted intelligently. Applications are on top, followed by Files, followed by Communications (e-mails, saved IM's, etc.) In this case, after a six keystrokes (<Start>yanke), the first item on the list is the Word document I was looking for. I press Enter and the document opens. That's seven keystrokes from reading the e-mail to reviewing the schedule. As I said above, search has gone from a tool of last resort to the easiest way to find a file.

The next day, I need to pick my friend up at the airport. That e-mail he sent me had his flight number and arrival time in it. I sit down at my PC and once again type <Start>yanke. The word document is on top of the list, but just below it (under "Communications") is a list of e-mails containing the string "yanke," the second of which is the the e-mail from my friend. So, I press the down arrow twice and then Enter again. The e-mail opens and I have the information I need - this time, in eight keystrokes. (A small aside: note that Outlook does not launch to display my e-mail, just the individual message opens. This seems like a small detail, but in the past, launching an individual e-mail message would launch Outlook, which would display my entire Inbox, and kick off a Send/Receive transaction, which would download whatever mail I had residing on my POP3 server. Most of this would happen in the background, but it would all be wasted processing, given my task at hand).

Just to round out the example, say I now want to figure out how much my friend owes me for the tickets, so I need a calculator. I type <Start>calc, and the first item on the list is the Windows Calculator app. I press Enter and the calculator appears. Others may prefer to put a calculator icon on their desktop or toolbar, but I find these six keystrokes to be a faster way to work. At any rate, you have both options.

All of this would be fairly impressive on it's own, but the coolest feature of Windows Vista Search is the saved search result windows. Let's say my ticket exchange above is part of a larger service I provide, distributing Yankee tickets to friends throughout the year. In that case, I probably have lots of documents and e-mails that contain the phrase "yankee," so I'd have to be more specific in my search to find what I'm looking for. In that case, here's what I'd do: Type <Start>yankee to bring the list up. But then, instead of clicking on an item, click "See all search results" at the bottom of the list. This opens a standard Vista window, displaying everything that matches the search (including applications, files, e-mails, etc). I can sort/group any way I want (by file type, by name, by date, etc.). Then (and here's the cool part), I can save my search window as it's own folder. Now, whenever I open this folder (or refresh the window), I can see all files/e-mails on my PC that contain the term "yankee." To be clear: I'm not saving the result set from my recent search; I'm saving the query itself. So if I get ten more e-mails tomorrow regarding the Yankees, the same window will contain ten more items tomorrow. Also of note, given how Windows XP worked: the items in this window are the actual files themselves, not shortcuts or pointers to the files. I can open/edit/rename/delete/etc. the files right from this window, even if they actually live at the end of some complex folder tree in my Documents folder. The Vista architecture allows a file to be referenced natively from more than one location, which greatly enhances the usability of search (among other things).

Two other notes - one on indexing and one on the Mac search tool.

Regarding indexing: Vista Search comes complete with a small indexing application, which allows me to specify which folders are included in the search index and which are not. This covers Windows folders, but also folders within your Outlook inbox. So, for instance, since I'm such a pack rat and never empty my Deleted Mail folder, I set Search to ignore the Deleted Mail folder in my mail file. This eliminates clutter from my search results, but allows me to keep my poor man's e-mail archive. Also, the index management tool lets me include networked folders, so I can have the Search function on my laptop, for example, search the shared network drive and bring back files that I worked on from a different machine.

Regarding Mac Search: When Vista was in beta release, many compared the search function to OS X's Spotlight search tool. The biggest criticism of Vista's implementation (other than the persistent cries of "copycat!") was the fact that the search tool was not always visible on the screen (in OS X, it's always in the upper-right corner). I find that I actually prefer this choice, since the tool is always one keystroke away. Also, while some may prefer the mouse for common tasks, I'm very much a keyboard shortcut user. I don't know if you can bring Spotlight into focus with a single keystroke (although I'm sure someone will tell me in the comments. <clears throat>). If not, having to mouse to the upper right and click to execute a search would drastically reduce it's utility to me (especially with a wide screen monitor).

As it stands, I'm obviously a very big fan of Vista's search tool. I've already used it more in the first two months than I did in all my prior years of Windows usage.

Next week: What's the deal with Vista security?

Good news: Kryptonite is real.
Bad news: It's not green.

Yet another in a series of science mirroring science fiction:

Researchers from mining group Rio Tinto discovered the unusual mineral and enlisted the help of [Dr Chris Stanley, a mineralogist at London's Natural History Museum] when they could not match it with anything known previously to science.

Once the London expert had unravelled the mineral's chemical make-up, he was shocked to discover this formula was already referenced in the literature - albeit literary fiction.

"Towards the end of my research I searched the web using the mineral's chemical formula - sodium lithium boron silicate hydroxide - and was amazed to discover that same scientific name, written on a case of rock containing kryptonite stolen by Lex Luthor from a museum in the film Superman Returns.

The new mineral does not contain fluorine (which it does in the film) and is white rather than green but, in all other respects, the chemistry matches that for the rock containing kryptonite."

Now, about that whole "flying man of steel" thing...

Many of my fellow Yankee fans are unhappy about the baseball standings these days. I don't see why. After all, it's all a matter of how you look at it...

 

OK, I'll admit it - my wife and I are American Idol fans. For what it's worth, we're not Fanjaya fans; we're the kind that actually looks for some high quality music from the contestants. So there's that...

Anyway, last night's show, Idol Gives Back, was clearly something special. It's great to see a pop culture behemoth finally do something with it's marketing potential other than just selling soap. And of course, when the show was over, they got some help from my family as well.

The show was obviously designed to make us think, but the thing it made me think about most rather surprised me.

We've all seen many (too many? not enough?) pictures of the African poor - the young mothers dying of AIDS, the children living in mosquito-ravaged conditions, dying of malaria, malnutrition, or just basic neglect. We've also seen many pictures of the American poor - particularly since Hurricane Katrina created so many more of them on a single day.

This is the first time in my memory, though, that these two sets of images were set side by side in this way. Watching it, I couldn't help but notice how much better off the American poor were than the African poor.

The African children were dressed in rags. The American children were wearing clean clothes. The African children had crooked or missing teeth. One of the American children was wearing braces on his teeth, and several were wearing eyeglasses. The African food distribution center was a large room, empty except for a large table in the middle, where dozens of kids were each given what appeared to be a clear broth with some kind of meat in it (hard to tell exactly what it was). The American food distribution center was a modern warehouse with food stacked on palettes, literally reaching up to the ceiling. The facility was staffed by dozens of volunteers, who distributed nutritionally balanced grocery bags to hundreds of families at extremely low costs (e.g., $1/bag). The African school was a group of children in a relatively empty room with a few adults, sharing materials. The American school was well-lit, fully furnished with desks, bookshelves, educational materials on the walls, books, pencils, etc.

This is my third draft of this post, because I'm desperately trying to avoid minimizing the plight of the American poor. I realize that they're struggling, and acknowledge that they need help to achieve the very basics of life (and, indeed, they received some of my help last evening). What I'm discussing here is the contrast between the two. When discussing the American poor, the goal is usually to elicit sympathy in some form or another, and so there's never a mention of how much better off they are than those in other places. But the fact remains, each of the African kids in those film clips would trade places with any of the Americans in an instant, and consider themselves blessed to be living with so many riches.

One of the great things about America, I believe, is our insistence on raising the bar. We don't compare our quality of life to other countries and then rest on our laurels because we're so far ahead. We set high expectations of ourselves based on what the average American has achieved, and then strive to bring those below that average up to par. It's an attitude that leads to constant improvement and constant growth.

Bashing America has become a bit of a sport lately. Despite this malaise, and despite that awful feeling in the pit of my stomach as I logged on to make my pledge, I must admit that I felt a bit of pride seeping in. Our poor have it rough, but not that rough. And yet still, we rally together to make their lives better. That's an American ideal that seems to have thrived when many of the others have been so severely tested...

I happened to catch him on Letterman's show tonight. I've heard his old stuff so frequently, that it never occurred to me that he's still writing jokes. Anyway, here are the ones that stuck in my memory. Same old Steven Wright. Absolutely classic:

In school they told me "Practice makes perfect," and then they told me "Nobody's perfect," so I stopped practicing.

Imagine if you could see an itch?

Imagine how weird a phone would look if your mouth were nowhere near your ears?

A friend of mine has a trophy wife, but apparently it wasn't first place.

 

By now, you've probably read several dozen reviews of Windows Vista. When I first started using it, I was tempted to join in as well, but I decided I should spend some time with it first and then offer my opinion. So here you go - a review of Windows Vista that's based on what it's like to use the OS on a day-to-day basis, not on the results of some laboratory diagnostic test:

It's Good.

It's not a buggy piece of crapware, and it's certainly not awesome, spectacular, or life-changing (anyone who describes an OS that way is either trying to sell you something, or is such an irrational fan of Steve Jobs that he/she would use the same words to describe the iBrick). Ironically, Microsoft's advertising campaign goes about as far as I would take it: "Wow." And even then, only "Wow" to a couple of things. In every other aspect, Vista basically does it's job and does it well.

The first "Wow" is the Windows Aero design. The edges of the windows are translucent, so when you drag one on top of the other, you can see a blurry image of the back window around the edges of the front window. To be sure, this is more cool looking than it is useful, but I must admit, it is extremely cool looking. If the WinXP windows looked like index cards scattered across the desktop, then these look like Shrinky Dinks, or, to use an even geekier reference, like Tom Cruise's Minority Report computers.

The second, and much more useful, "Wow" is the Flip 3D and Live Icon features. Flip 3D is that three-dimensional rolodex interface that you've seen in the advertisements. Rather than using Alt-Tab to cycle through the icons of open applications, Vista lets you use Start Key-Tab (that's the key with the flag on it - situated right near the Alt key on most keyboards) to see a 3D rolodex of the live content on each open window (including animation, video, moving status bars, etc.). When you recognize the one you want, you just release both keys and that window animates to the front.

All of the other icons in Vista are also improved. When you Alt-Tab, Vista shows you thumbnail versions of the live content, rather than those old, static app icons. If you mouse over the minimized applications on the task bar, you also see these live content thumbnails. IE7's Quick Tabs feature shows you the open web pages in live content thumbnails. And inside the windows themselves, the icons for unopened files reflect the first page of the document, a thumbnail of the picture, or the first frame of the video, depending on the file type.

I know this sounds like pure "Wow," but I found it a huge productivity boost in two ways. First, it's much, much easier to recognize a window's content than it's icon/title, which is all you had to go on in Windows XP, so choosing/switching applications is simpler and faster. Second, you can check the status of a long running process (e.g., a DVD burn, a backup, a large download) without having to switch applications and interrupt your train of thought. It's also noteworthy that these features only run on machines with high-powered graphics cards and fast CPU's. At lower resolution or slower speeds, these "preview" features would look chintzy and add almost no value, and so Vista disables them automatically.

Another very useful (although much less "Wow") feature is the breadcrumb functionality in each window's address bar. Rather than the traditional "tree" structure taking up real estate on the left side of the window, Vista shows you each node in the current path, and provides a navigation arrow for each one. So if you're currently in the Documents/Excel/Finance/2007/Budgets folder and you want to switch to the Documents/Word/Reports/ folder, all you have to do is click the arrow next to Documents in the address bar and select Word, then select Reports in the newly opened view.

Back on the "Wow" side of the spectrum is the Windows Sidebar. Current OS X users will find it a patent violation familiar, while long-time Windows users will enjoy the slick user interface and the wide array of available "Gadgets." Microsoft's Windows Live Gallery will let you browse a few thousand of them, and then download them directly into your Gadget inventory, ready for use. I also downloaded an application called Amnesty Generator, which allows me to convert (most) Google gadgets (intended for the Google Desktop) to Vista gadgets. Between these two libraries, you could easily fill up the sidebar on a portrait-shaped 24" monitor (more on that in a future Tech Guide post!)

I'm leaving out a bunch of things, of course, and I'm sure there are more surprises tucked away for me to eventually find. Two things in particular, Vista's search capabilities and its new security strategy, fall so squarely into the "Wow" + "useful" category that they warrant their own Tech Guide entries, so you'll have to come back to hear about those as well.

Bottom line: if you're in the market for a new PC, buy it with Vista pre-installed. Everything interesting that happens to Windows (and Windows software) in the coming decade will happen to Vista. If you buy something else now, you'll kick yourself later. If you're happy with your current PC, though, then wait a while. It'll be around when you're ready to upgrade. If you need some "Wow" before then, go rent Minority Report.

Like everyone else, I've been listening to and reading about the horrible events that took place at Virginia Tech yesterday.

While this was the most deadly, it was not, unfortunately, the first of it's kind. This time around, though, the discussion of what happened and how it could have been prevented/mitigated seems to be focused on a strange mix of topics.

One discussion thread is the two-hour delay between the first shooting and the e-mail notifying students about it. There seems to be an implication here that the University's primary role in this situation is communication, not security - as if the students would have been perfectly capable of defending themselves, had they only known sooner that there was a shooter on the loose. Personally, I'd have been happy if they had secured the campus and not informed anybody, as opposed to the other way around.

Another discussion I've seen floating around is about VT's "open campus," and whether the ability to walk freely into and out of buildings without metal detectors, ID cards, etc. is worth enduring the occasional tragedy:

It is very difficult, because we are an open society and an open campus. We have 26,000 people here. The best thing that we can do is to have people report anything that they saw that was suspicious. We obviously cannot have an armed guard in front of every classroom every day of the year. What we try to determine is are they kept out of harm's way by staying in the dorms or staying in the academic buildings. We send out communications by e-mail, we have an emergency alert system to get the word to our students as quickly as we can.

- Charles Steger
Virginia Tech University President

You'll excuse me, but this is bullcrap. An open campus is great on a normal day. But the instant a shooting occurs on campus, police should be on the scene and the building in question should be sealed (which, apparently, was done in this case). As soon as it was determined that the killer might still be on the loose, all other campus buildings should have armed guards posted, and anyone entering/exiting those buildings should be at least observed, if noy searched. Taking this step does not destroy a free society or "let the terrorists win.". It is a logical, temporary step to secure the campus and protect the students. When they're sure they've got the guy, the precious freedom to enter a building unobserved can be immediately restored.

The third predominant topic I've been reading about is gun control, and generally in the vein of "had the students been allowed to carry guns, one of them could have taken out the shooter before he killed so many people.". I realize there's a wide spectrum of political opinion on both sides of this issue. Without offerring an opinion of my own, I'll just note that this discussion is, at best, incomplete without mention of the other shootings (accidental or otherwise) that would result from a proliferation of firearms on campus.

Remember, we're talking about a college campus. Good people do stupid things on college campuses, like drink excessively, for example. Also, many students experience a great deal of stress (around exam time, for instance) and don't always know how to deal with that stress properly. Others, like the shooter in this case, have serious medical problems and do not have the support system in place to treat it properly. Any proper discussion about gun laws needs to take this into account in order to be useful in any way.

Sadly, nothing can be done to bring back those who were killed. My fear in this case is that the resulting discussion isn't doing enough to prevent another such occurrence, because we're discussing all the wrong things.

As I mentioned earlier, I recently moved my old PC into my older son's room, and bought myself two new computers to replace it - a desktop for the home office, and a laptop to take full advantage of the wireless network I was now able to setup in the house. It's been more than four years since I bought a new PC, and as you might imagine, quite a bit has changed in that time. Most notable, of course, was the introduction of Microsoft's Windows Vista operating system, which came pre-installed on both new machines.

The new machines, the new operating system, and a healthy dose of new software has made the last couple of months a constant learning experience. I've discovered what "just works," what requires configuring/tweaking, and what requires a proficiency with Google, the patience to read through user help forums and, occasionally, the right tech support phone number.

Given my crash course in all things new to harware and software, I've decided to start a weekly feature here at I Should Be Sleeping - the ISBS Tech Guide. Each weekend, I'll post an entry on a different technology topic that I've dealt with recently, and let you in on all the features, pitfalls, tricks, tips, etc. that I've come across in my travels.

I know from my site analytics that posts about technology attract a disproportionately high number of visitors, mainly due to the heavy search engine activity. Google has become Level 1 Tech Support for just about any technical problem, and anything I can do to contribute to the quantity of good information out there seems like a worthwile exercise. Also, I'd like to write down a lot of what I've learned in the last couple of months, and this blog seems like a good place to do it. So here's your guarantee: since I'll be referencing this guide as often as anyone else as time goes on, I have all the right incentives to make it accurate, complete, and easy to read. Also, it's free and you get what you pay for. So there you go...

Finally, the ISBS Tech Guide gives me the opportunity to use Blogger's new Category feature. As I've mentioned before, I'm not a big fan of Blog categories, since so many blogs have them and I've never really felt the need to use them. In this case, though, I'm hoping the category view provides a true "How To Guide" feel that can serve as a reference for someone who is interested in such things, but doesn't have a specific question.

So look for the ISBS Tech Guide each Monday morning, whydontcha? We'll pick up next weekend with our first technology topic: The Windows Vista Review.

Stay tuned...

...unlike some homes in the Northeast today. Some examples from Chez Greenberg:

(Click images for larger versions)

Jeff Porten linked to a blog post from another site, and now I'm linking to his. Why? Because this is f*%^#ing hilarious:

Ask Google for driving directions between the White House and 10 Downing Street in London. Click the link for the full effect, but here's the good part:

That could be the funniest thing I've seen on the web in ages...

As the 2007 NCAA tournament wound to a close, I bet the Rutgers Women's Basketball Team figured they'd remember this basketball season for the rest of their lives. Other than losing to Tennessee in the finals, it was a dream season. They accomplished (almost) everything they set out to do, and had achieved national recognition for their efforts. They would all graduate from a fine school and move on to successful professional careers, some in the basketball realm, others not. No matter - they would always be remembered as the 2007 Rutgers team - the one that made it to the finals against the mighty Tennessee Lady Vols.

Well, all of that is gone now.

As it turns out, they'll always be remembered as the women that a popular morning radio DJ made a stupid, racist comment about. The news articles coming out about them now don't even mention the basketball season, and we're not even a month past it yet.

So here's my question: who did this to these poor women? Who ruined their legacies? I would submit that it was not Don Imus. He said a stupid thing that was only heard by his ever-shrinking audience, and most of them probably ignored it or deemed it a lousy attempt at humor. The small minority of folks who took him literally probably brought their own racist and/or sexist attitude to the table to begin with. All the same, he attacked these women without provocation, and he got his punishment - both from the court of public opinion and the unemployment line.

But it was the so-called "civil rights leaders" that affixed the "victim" label on these women for the rest of time. As racism continues its slow decline in our society, folks like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson run the risk of losing relevance. To combat this trend, they need to elevate public displays of racism to "national scandal" status. To do any less would suggest that this instance is somehow less awful than the last one. And so we see a steady stream of condemnations: Trent Lott, Mel Gibson, Michael Richards, Don Imus.

This Sunday marks the 60th anniversary of the start of Jackie Robinson's major league baseball career. Baseball is acknowledging the day with a league-wide celebration, in which every player on every team 200 players throughout baseball (and of every skin color) will wear Jackie's number 42 for the day. Yet, there are some who believe that Robinson's legacy is in danger, because only 8.4% of current major leaguers are African American (more than 40% are minorities - primarily Latinos, as well as a growing number of Asians).

Like Revs. Sharpton and Jackson, I believe these folks completely miss the point. And that point is this: skin color is no longer relevant in becoming a major league ballplayer. Black, brown, yellow and white have all succeeded. Kids of all colors cheer players of all colors, and there is very little talk of who's in who's group. What matters is what you can do on the field. That's why all the so many players are wearing #42, not just 8.4% of them. That's what Jackie Robinson helped bring about. That is his legacy.

The Rutgers women should be remembered for what they did on the court, not what they said in some press conference or on the Oprah Winfrey show. They've earned that legacy. To the extent that it's been stolen from them, I think it's a shame.

UPDATE: Apparently, some players felt that having everyone wear the number lessened the impact of it, and preferred to have one or two representatives wear it for their team. Four teams, including the Dodgers (Robinson's former team), had all the players wear it. All in all, it came out to about 200 people, with at least one on every team.

"My baby's mother just died and now my daughter and I are an international media circus! Woo Hoo!"

To paraphrase Jon Stewart: We all owe Kato Kaelin an apology...

Ladies & Gentlemen, an update on what Germany's scientists are doing these days:

The molecules responsible for the characteristic leathery, plastic aroma that suffuses new cars are known as volatile organic compounds. These are regularly emitted from plastics, synthetic fabrics, upholstery, carpets, adhesives, paints, cleaning materials and other sources. Only a fraction of these volatile organic compounds are obvious—the rest are odorless.

Toxicologist Jeroen Buters at the Technical University of Munich in Germany and his colleagues investigated the health effects of volatile organic compounds that cars emit.

Buters and his colleagues first collected molecules from the air inside a new car and a three-year-old vehicle of the same brand placed under 14,000 watts of light, where temperatures reached up to 150 degrees Fahrenheit. They next exposed these compounds to human, mouse and hamster cells grown in lab dishes. These are commonly used to test toxicity.

New car smell does not appear to be toxic, the scientists found. Air from the new car did cause a slight aggravation of the immune response that could affect people with allergies, but the same was not seen with the older vehicle.

Well, I'm glad we got that sorted out. Now they don't have to recall all of these.

Yeah, I know - baseball has more stats than any other sport, and I'm suggesting a new one. But the fact is, one of the current stats just isn't measuring what it's supposed to measure (at least not in all cases) and rather than looking at a meaningless number, I'd like to see it fixed.

The stat I'm referring to is Earned Run Average (ERA), defined as the average number of earned runs a pitcher gives up per nine innings. For a starting pitcher, this stat is fine. If someone pitches six innings and gives up two earned runs, we can safely assume he gives up roughly three runs per nine inning game (especially if he does this consistently throughout the year). My problem involves using the ERA for relief pitchers.

Take last night's Yankee game for example. In the fifth inning, Andy Pettitte gave up two infield singles and suffered an error by the first baseman, Doug Mientkiewicz, making it first and third with nobody out. Joe Torre lifted Pettitte for reliever, Scott Proctor. The score at the time was 4-2 in favor of the Yankees.

The runner on first immediately stole second, making it second and third. Proctor struck out the first batter he faced, then gave up a sacrifice fly (bringing a run home and advancing the runner on second to third), and then threw a wild pitch to bring a second run home. Score: 4-4. Then, Derek Jeter made another error, but the runner was caught stealing to end the inning.

At the end of this mess, Pettitte gets charged the two runs (although only one earned run due to the Mientkiewicz error) and Proctor is charged with no runs at all. Now, Pettitte deserves the two runs, because he put the runners on base, so the runs that scored are a result of his actions. No complaints there. But to charge Proctor with no runs is to assume that his job is merely to avoid making the problem worse. That's not the case. Proctor's job in this situation is to shut down the Devil Rays and maintain the Yankee lead, much like Pettitte would have been asked to do if they let him keep pitching. So, to call Proctor's performance "perfect" (i.e., no runs allowed) after giving up the lead strikes me as a mis-statement of what relief pitching is all about.

Relief pitchers are frequently brought into tight spots. The good ones get out of the jams without giving up any runs. The mediocre ones let a few runs in, and then stop the bleeding. The really bad ones start giving up runs of their own, but that's another topic for another day. My point is this: baseball's current stats judge the good relief pitchers and the mediocre relief pitchers as the same: no runs allowed. ERA = 0.00.

I suggest a new statistic called Earned Runs While Pitching (ERWP), to be defined as the average number of earned runs scored by the opposing team while a given pitcher is on the mound for nine innings. In the above situation, therefore, Pettitte would accrue one run toward his ERA in the fifth inning, but zero runs toward his ERWP (since no one scored while he was on the mound). Proctor would accrue zero runs toward his ERA, but two runs toward his ERWP.

If Pettitte and Proctor continue to have outings like they did last night all season long, Pettitte's ERA would rank him (deservedly) as a fairly mediocre pitcher, and Proctor's ERA would rank him tied for the best pitcher ever (ERA = 0.00). ERWP, on the other hand, would show Pettitte as better than average, and Proctor as having let the team down.

One could argue about which stat is most appropriate at what time (roughly: ERA for starting pitchers, ERWP for relievers), but at least we'd have both to consider.

Off the news wires today:

Beatles May Go Online As Apple, EMI Come Together:

Apple Inc. and music label EMI Group Plc plan to announce "an exciting new digital offering," EMI said Sunday, a move that could involve putting the Beatles music catalog online.

EMI said it plans to hold a news conference Monday at its London headquarters where EMI Chief Executive Eric Nicoli will be joined by Apple Chief Executive and co-founder Steve Jobs, the company said in an e-mail to reporters.

Currently, no Beatles songs can be downloaded via online music services. EMI has been the distributor for the Beatles since the early 1960s.

If that's really what they're announcing, I'm willing to bet that the Beatles set yet another music record, becoming the group with the most music downloads in a single day. And you'll forgive the geek side of me, but it will also be an acid test of ITMS' network infrastructure, as we see whether or not the servers can handle a huge spike in requests on a single day.

Of course, we're still not sure that's what is happening:

A live Webcast of the event, which will feature "a special live performance," will be available at http://www.emigroup.com beginning at 1 p.m. local time in London (8 a.m. EDT).

That would be a very, very special live performance, eh?

This guy seems to have it just right:

I do not want--as I believe most Americans do not want--to sell out American interests, to simply withdraw, to raise the white flag of surrender. That would be unacceptable to us as a country and as a people. But I am concerned--as I believe most Americans are concerned--that the course we are following at the present time is deeply wrong...

I am concerned--as I believe most Americans are concerned--that our present course will not bring victory; will not bring peace; will not stop the bloodshed; and will not advance the interests of the United States or the cause of peace in the world. I am concerned that, at the end of it all, there will only be more Americans killed; more of our treasure spilled out; and because of the bitterness and hatred on every side of this war, more hundreds of thousands of [civilians] slaughtered...

Isn't this exactly what we have always done in the past? If we examine the history of this conflict, we find the dismal story repeated time after time. Every time--at every crisis--we have denied that anything was wrong; sent more troops; and issued more confident communiques. Every time, we have been assured that this one last step would bring victory. And every time, the predictions and promises have failed and been forgotten, and the demand has been made again for just one more step up the ladder. But all the escalations, all the last steps, have brought us no closer to success than we were before...

Let us have no misunderstanding. [They] are a brutal enemy indeed. Time and time again, they have shown their willingness to sacrifice innocent civilians, to engage in torture and murder and despicable terror to achieve their ends. This is a war almost without rules or quarter. There can be no easy moral answer to this war, no one-sided condemnation of American actions. What we must ask ourselves is whether we have a right to bring so much destruction to another land, without clear and convincing evidence that this is what its people want. But that is precisely the evidence we do not have...

But the costs of the war's present course far outweigh anything we can reasonably hope to gain by it, for ourselves or for the [civilians]. It must be ended, and it can be ended, in a peace of brave men who have fought each other with a terrible fury, each believing he and he alone was in the right. We have prayed to different gods, and the prayers of neither have been answered fully. Now, while there is still time for some of them to be partly answered, now is the time to stop...

Amazing, isn't it? A critique of the war in Iraq that doesn't refer to the President as an incompetent, moronic criminal. A rational argument that acknowledges the complexity of the situation, the brutality of the enemy, and the difficulty of ending the war after having fought it for so long. Why, it's almost like the speaker is from an entirely different era, when politics was more about making your case than destroying the credibility of the other side.

Oh, who was the speaker? Sorry, forgot that detail - it was Robert F. Kennedy, circa 1968, speaking about the Vietnam war. As Glenn likes to say, read the whole thing.

Headline : Three Yale Students Arrested for Burning an American Flag

Political scandal? Excuse for various presidential hopefuls to weigh in with the most opinion poll-tested response to such an incident? Front page news for several days? The subject of continuing coverage on MSCNNOX News?

Not this time. You see, the flag they burned happened to be attached to a house when they burned it:

[Police officers] saw that a flag hanging off of 512 Chapel St. was engulfed in flames, [a spokeswoman] said. While one officer removed the burning flag, the other officer stopped the students, who were further down the street.

According to court reports, the charges against the students initially included two counts of reckless burning, which were later changed to two counts of second degree arson at yesterday's arraignment.

So this one is too much of a slam-dunk even for the story-starved mainstream media. It doesn't even help that one of the students was born in Pakistan, the son of a former Afghan governor, and once worked as a translator for U.S. troops in Afghanistan.

At least, I should say, it hasn't helped yet. There's always tomorrow's paper...

If you don't know who these people are, you probably look at this picture and think, "Boy and his Mom Playing Baseball on a Spring Day."

If you do know who they are, you think, "Remembering Cory Lidle: Father and Husband."

It's hard to imagine a single picture that can convey as much joy and sadness at the same time...

Man, talk about solving a problem no one knew they had! Scalzi just pointed this out:

Powercast and its first major partner, electronics giant Philips, are set to launch their first device powered by electricity broadcast through the air.

It may sound futuristic, but Powercast's platform uses nothing more complex than a radio--and is cheap enough for just about any company to incorporate into a product. A transmitter plugs into the wall, and a dime-size receiver (the real innovation, costing about $5 to make) can be embedded into any low-voltage device. The receiver turns radio waves into DC electricity, recharging the device's battery at a distance of up to 3 feet.

Picture your cell phone charging up the second you sit down at your desk, and you start to get a sense of the opportunity.

I had just assumed you'd always have to plug something in to recharge it. Apparently not.

I'm picturing public recharging kiosks in coffee shops, airport waiting areas, etc.. The possibilities really are endless...