[Population: One] <A HREF="http://popone.innocence.com/ar

Vernor Vinge was right. Again.

There is a vulnerability in Internet Explorer 5 that can be triggered by loading a bitmap image. No Javascript, no ActiveX, nothing fancy. You load the bitmap, and arbitrary code runs on your system. Or you load a page with the bitmap embedded in it. And it’s not a particular bitmap, it’s a general technique.

If you are currently browsing the Internet with Internet Explorer 5, you can be owned at any moment.

Reminder to self: code is data is code is bits. It’s all binary at the bottom.

[Population: One] <A HREF="http://popone.innocence.com/ar

Warning: the post ahead touches upon devil’s advocacy regarding recent gay rights events in San Francisco.

Dan Gillmor wonders whether the Mayor of San Francisco should be ordering city clerks to disobey the law. Larry Lessig chimes in. His argument is that the executive branch has a duty to disobey unconstitutional laws. I find myself pensive. Ashcroft and Bush no doubt feel that it is unconstitutional to force them to provide counsel to Jose Padillo.

I am also not convinced by the McCain-Feingold argument. There is a distinct difference between vetoing an unconstitutional law and refusing to obey one after it has become law.

Perhaps the last paragraph saves the argument:

“One critical caveat: The rule of law requires some coordination. So if a court decides that a law is constitutional, while an executive has the right to disagree, and even push to have the decision changed, it is important that the executive follow the law at least with respect to that case.”

But we do not say “Well, Bush is wrong, but it’s all right for him to make that decision until the courts overrule him.” We say “He should never have done that.”

Elsewhere, there’s the obvious comparison to Roy Moore:

“The fact is, Newsom has a duty to uphold the law, as Moore did as a judge. If he is not willing to do that, he can resign in protest. That would have been the truly principled thing to do. He could have also issued a proclamation that he thinks gay marriage would be a good thing, and his office could even issue a proclamation that he considers all those couples to be married, even if the law doesn’t allow it, and give all those couples copies to put on their walls.”

And yes, Newsom is violating his oath of office. No less so than Roy Moore, unless you think Newsom’s oath is less meaningful than Justice Moore’s. Of course, most of the people using this line of argument didn’t disapprove of what Roy Moore did.

It’s not that I disapprove of what Newsom did, because I don’t. I’m glad he did it. It’s that my approval for Newsom’s actions forces me to reconsider my disapproval for Roy Moore’s actions. I do not have a dispassionate argument for approving of the one while disapproving of the other. Neither does the guy quoted above, unless he was saying that Moore should have resigned.

Schoolhouse Rock had best never return to the airwaves. It would be far too complicated.

[Population: One] <A HREF="http://popone.innocence.com/ar

Today, being a holiday, did not feel much like a Monday. Ooops.

Anyhow, I’m going to steal a mashup from Jere today. He says he’s seen a lot of campaigns that draw from T.S. Eliot’s "The Waste Land." I’ve never been lucky enough for that, although I did once play a paladin who drew religious inspiration from an old battered copy of Selected Poems. (Eric Hargan’s Catholicworld campaign. Eric is now writing policy studies for the Federalist Society, among other lawyerly pursuits.)

But I risk digressing into the treacherous political waters so evident in my previous post. Ladies and gentlemen, it is not yet April; it is not yet the cruellest month. Still, we may still breed lilacs before their time is come.

More...