The emerging two cultures on the Internet

One of the high points for me of going to the Friends of O’Reilly camp in Holland recently was seeing Ben Hammersley in the flesh. He writes one of the most interesting Blogs around, is outrageously talented and unforgiveably young. And, like me, he likes fine cigars. Need one say more? This week, he’s put up two interesting meditations on something quite profound, namely the realisation that Internet users who do not protect themselves with firewalls and anti-virus software are almost as guilty as the creeps who pollute the commons with spam and malware. “People who can’t filter spam, or block pop-ups, or prevent viruses from spreading”, he writes, “are themselves responsible for these things. There are two cultures growing — those who can filter, and those who can’t — and it may well be up to us who can to help those who can’t to join the modern world, lest they drag everyone back with them.” Or, to put it another way, “Firewalls, anti-virus, and anti-malware systems aren’t for your own protection anymore, but for everyone else’s benefit instead.”

That’s one of the reasons my colleagues and I at the Open University produced an online course on the subject of understanding and combating malicious software. The course has just finished its first presentation and has had an astonishing (and gratifying) level of student interest and participation.

Those cerebral Bushes

Memo to self: must get a copy of Kitty Kelley’s new biography of Dubya. Here’s an excerpt from a piece by David Talbot of Salon based on a conversation with Kelley:

“But, as one of W’s Yalie frat brothers tells Kelley, it’s not the substance abuse in Bush’s past that’s disturbing, it’s the “lack of substance … Georgie, as we called him, had absolutely no intellectual curiosity about anything. He wasn’t interested in ideas or in books or causes. He didn’t travel; he didn’t read the newspapers; he didn’t watch the news; he didn’t even go to the movies. How anyone got out of Yale without developing some interest in the world besides booze and sports stuns me.” New Yorker writer Brendan Gill recalls roaming the Kennebunkport compound one night while staying there looking for a book to read – the only title he could find was The Fart Book.”

Baghdad live — and dead

On Sunday, 13 Iraqis were killed and dozens injured in Baghdad when US helicopters fired on a crowd of unarmed civilians. Guardian columnist Ghaith Abdul-Ahad, who was injured in the attack, has written an extraordinary account of what happened – and revealed just how lucky he was to walk away. Here’s an excerpt:

“One of the three men piled together raised his head and looked around the empty streets with a look of astonishment on his face. He then looked at the boy in front of him, turned to the back and looked at the horizon again. Then he slowly started moving his head to the ground, rested his head on his arms and stretched his hands towards something that he could see. It was the guy who had been beating his chest earlier, trying to help his brother. He wanted help but no one helped. He was just there dying in front of me. Time didn’t exist. The streets were empty and silent and the men lay there dying together. He slid down to the ground, and after five minutes was flat on the street.”

Batman strikes again

A protester for “fathers’ rights” wearing a Batman costume got into the grounds of Buckingham Palace (one of the Queen’s tied cottages) and scaled the front wall, upon which he placed a banner advertising his grievances. Big deal. But you would think from the hysterical reaction of the British media (lead item on the BBC Ten O’Clock News for well over five minutes) — closely followed by hysterical politicians — that (a) the entire fabric of civilisation had been rent asunder, and (b) that he had actually threatened the Queen. In fact, the lady in question was far away, taking one of her interminable holidays on one of her vast estates (Balmoral in the Scottish highlands). I am reminded of Thomas Macaulay’s observation that “We know no spectacle so ridiculous as the British public in one of its periodical fits of morality.”