We’ve thrown this around in our head for some time now, and we finally decided to pull the trigger and disable site comments. There was no particular event that forced us to do this, and we weren’t encumbered by moderation problems like much larger sites are. So why bother nixing comments?

Over the past several weeks, we read various opinions across the blogosphere on commenting, and we decided that we agreed with the camp that many single-author sites fall into, which sounds something like this: “This is our blog, and if you want your own voice, comment on your blog.” It’s not a matter of control, or humbleness, but rather a philosophical stance that we believe harbors more useful commentary and discussion.

For one, mendax.org doesn’t get a lot of commentary to begin with. Of the commentary it does get, a good percentage is from people we’re already familiar with, who we already follow on Twitter, or Google Plus, or simply know in real life. Those people can just as easily comment using any of these networks, and we can easily comment back. The rest of the individuals who want to comment probably use one of these social networks also, so it’s easy for them to utilize these networks to comment here if they so choose.

Of the remaining individuals who choose not to have a social networking account, and still want to comment, there’s always e-mail. This should cut down on the number of non-productive comments we get, as feedback that’s direct (either via an @WyldKard at Twitter, else a direct e-mail) tends to be more constructive.

Two, we believe that a lot of useful information sometimes gets lost in a site’s comments. We’ve felt this when leaving commentary elsewhere, and we took a stance some time back that, if we have a real position worth leaving a comment for, we’d sooner write about it at mendax.org and give a link back to the post we’re commenting on. Not only does this help drive traffic to the person we’re commenting to, but it tends to make our response more thought out.

In a way, we liken this to the back-and-forth that philosophers and scientists had yesteryear, which was by way of letter. This slow, almost tedious approach provided both detailed thoughts, as well as a more three-dimensional banter between parties. The same can be done across blogs thanks to trackbacks and tweets, as a more detailed picture of the involved parties can be drawn in the context of their own blogs. As a bonus, this fosters a more personal exchange, and therefore, one less prone to personal attacks.

Three, our own comments to our posts often get lost over time, when a detailed response to a reader could just as easily become its own post. We believe it makes more sense to flush such responses out as a new entry, than to minimize its importance to our position in a sub-comment.

Four, the decision follows a more minimalist approach.The site is simpler, and in our opinion, cleaner because of it. No longer do we need to worry about whether our anti-spam plugins are working, and no longer do we need to worry about catching a comment alert via e-mail, or in WordPress’ admin section. Rather, we can rely on notifications we check for other purposes daily, and be better engaged with our audience. From a plugin perspective, it also means there’s less WordPress needs to handle, and less load the server needs to provide.¹

We’re not necessarily attached to this change long-term, but would like to try it out to see how well it fosters discussion and cross-linking over the near future. If it doesn’t seem to be working out, we can always go back, but this change seems right for what we envision the site to be.

Similar Posts:

• Twitt-Two working again. – http://www.deanjrobinson.com/wordpress/twitt-twoo Some readers may have noticed that the Twitt-Two p…
• Comment moderation is a sin. – For most web-surfers, one’s inbox is the focal point for spam, but let’s be honest: the internet its…
• The online Forum. – When Internet accessibility was widespread enough to drive Bulletin Board Systems underground, Usene…

Paul Graham wrote a great piece on “stuff”, and how the trend of recent decades has been to amass an inordinate amount of it. It’s a message that some other bloggers have made as well, because there really is something to be said for the simplicity of having less stuff and living a more streamlined life. On a recent cross-country move where we had little personal belongings with us on the coast-to-coast drive, we found it rather refreshing to have little on our minds other than the drive ahead and locating a suitable rental at our destination. Evenings were spent with family, and our primary outlet into the rest of the world was our iPad, which is itself a statement of simplicity compared to computers of yesterday.

But this experience isn’t why we link to Paul Graham’s article. Rather, it’s this statement of Graham’s:

Before you buy anything, ask yourself: will this be something I use constantly? Or is it just something nice? Or worse still, a mere bargain?

Most of us are probably guilty of buying something we didn’t need but that we picked up just in case, because the price seemed good. Meanwhile, we sometimes gawk at the more expensive prices associated with certain items that we really would use a lot, yet hesitate to purchase because of the up-front cost. Our philosophy has generally been to spend more money on quality items, versus buying something cheap that we’ll outgrow or have to replace in the near future because of cheaper construction. Yet, we still shy away from certain expensive items because we don’t necessarily need them, like an iPhone 4S. We do, after all, already have an iPhone 4. Some minimalists will a argue that this hesitation is just: the iPhone 4 is good enough, so skip the iPhone 4S. But Graham made a statement that’s equally valid: if we’ll use the iPhone 4S constantly, then the purchase may make more sense.

So we don’t feel as guilty about upgrading our iPhone 4 now. We advised a friend in the past that such an upgrade, based on the merits of what the new iPhone offers, is likely not worthwhile, but we’ll now revise that claim: if you use your iPhone 4 a lot, and expect to continue doing so, then upgrading to the iPhone 4S is absolutely worthwhile. More specifically, if you use the iPhone camera, and anticipate regular use of Siri, then the upgrade is definitely a functional one, and an upgrade you should really consider. If, however, you don’t use your iPhone much beyond a phone, and maybe a handful of apps, then an upgrade to the 4S is likely not worth your money.

Similar Posts:

• RMT, and Order & Chaos. – The business model of Order & Chaos (O&C) is irking us a bit more now, and it might help us to have …
• Upgraded to a grande? – It’s bad enough when establishments charge the same price for a smaller item. Take Starbucks as an e…
• iPhones are not being bricked. – It wasn’t that long ago that real “tech words” never entered Average Joe’s vernacular. These days, t…

In a response to Paul Thorrott on Apple not making giant leaps between major OS revisions, John Gruber points out the difference is clearer when you look at OS X from its first incarnation to today:

With Mac OS X in particular, to my recollection, Thurrott has had this same take for every single major (i.e., new cat name) release. Every single one, he’s considered to be “minor” and “evolutionary”. But man, compare Lion side-by-side with Mac OS X (“Cheetah”) and you’ll weep with joy at how much better it’s gotten. This is how Apple rolls — steady, relentless, incremental progress.

Not only is the improvement obvious in a more macro-level view across several revisions, but we’d argue that the lack of major design changes between revisions is a blessing. While there may be obvious differences between Cheetah and Lion for computer nerds, the average person will find Cheetah and Lion to be similar beasts, and only by digging a bit deeper will they stumble upon the more obvious differences. The only major shakeup to the Mac was when MacOS was scrapped and OS X took off.

Things are different on Windows; almost every major revision has irked users. Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows ME, Windows 2000, Windows XP, Windows Vista, and now Windows 7. Ups and downs. No real consistency in whether an upgrade ended up being preferential to a previous version or not (with the obvious flops being WinME and Vista). And the confusion hasn’t just been with interface changes and application compatibility, which is pretty clear when you look at the vast list of versions that have hit the market.

Apple, meanwhile, has put out only two versions of OS X at a time: the basic version and a server variant, with prices more in line with what consumers can afford. And all versions have been “OS X,” with mere numerical differences and cat names serving as layman code-names. So even the naming_convention that Apple uses is consistent with their design philosophy, which is simple_yet_elegant. How Microsoft hasn’t learned to do better yet is a a curiosity that truly boggles the mind.

Similar Posts:

• Old computers in Shady Land. – There are better technologies for businesses these days than relying on desktop PCs and Microsoft Wi…
• Ten-percent of all iPhones unlocked. – This number, 10%, is not unrealistic, despite what others are claiming. In fact, this “analysis” by …
• Gaming companies now foolish to ignore the Mac crowd? – When a Mac user walked into a room of gamers and started talking games, he was laughed at, beaten, b…

We intended to write a comprehensive review of the one-day MovNat workshop we recently participated in, but realized that others have already done so, and that our overall impression isn’t much different¹. In short, the experience was fantastic, despite the fact that we started the day with relatively cool weather and a rainy forecast. (This hampered a couple of the planned activities, but as the purpose of the workshop was to present MovNat fundamentals, we were still able to get an understanding of the basic concepts and techniques behind the MovNat philosophy.) We don’t want to echo back every other review out there, but would still like to focus on some points that we find particularly notable about the experience, and general idea behind MovNat.

For those who have no idea what we’re talking about, MovNat is, at its core, a workout philosophy based around the idea that humans evolved a range of movement abilities that helped us to prosper and evolve over thousands of years. Unlike typical gym workouts, working on these movements is the ideal method for preventing injury and developing truly functional fitness². If we practice the basic movements that humans have evolved to perform well over time (the same movements that are foundational to all human activities), then we can argue we’re developing overall fitness in an ideal, safe manner. There are 12 of these core movements: walking, balancing, climbing, jumping, moving on all fours, running, lifting, carrying, throwing, catching, swimming, and defending³.

You can gather considerable appreciation for these movements when you consider that many individuals, who may be able to do, say, a dozen pullups, are not able to climb atop a horizontal bar. This illustrates the notion that many people may have appreciable strength in some areas, but are woefully lacking the ability to properly utilize that strength. In a sense, that strength development is wasted, because it succumbs to considerable weakness that exists in other areas. MovNat is about addressing these weaknesses and developing an overall fit person⁴, akin to those of our ancestors who, in order to survive, needed to fully master the aforementioned 12 movements.

MovNat is not about reenactment, though. The 12 movements aren’t practiced purely because they are important in an evolutionary context, but because they continue to be important today⁵. Just as martial arts address the potential for a fight, so too does MovNat prepare us for the potential circumstances that we might encounter, be they natural disasters, accidents, or other worst-case scenarios. More importantly, MovNat teaches us not only how important the 12 movements are, but how to perform them correctly, so as to not injure ourselves when executing them. Further, these 12 movements are taught to be efficient, so as to expend as little energy as possible when doing them.

It’s also worth pointing out that despite MovNat meeting our inherent need to be outdoors, MovNat itself is not restricted to parks, forests, and other outdoor play-spaces. Indeed, many of the 12 movements can easily be practiced indoors, to include the local gym⁶. A good thing to remember, though, is that a MovNat workout needn’t contain every, or even most, movements in a single session; just work the movements you can, when you can. So if you’re limited to indoors spaces because of inclement weather, there are still workouts you can explore.

MovNat is still in its infancy, and with only three “official” trainers, the movement (no pun intended) is still growing. Founder Erwan Le Corre is in the process of writing a MovNat book, and MovNat coach certification is coming later this year. Only recently, a MovNat alumni group was started on Facebook, which may become an avenue for distributing training materials summarizing workshop lessons to those who’ve already attended a MovNat event. All of these things are excellent, and we continue to look forward to how MovNat evolves.

Is the workshop worth it? If you’re new to the concept of natural movement, you’ll have plenty to learn, and even those of you who’ve explored things like barefoot running or Parkour⁷ in the past, will have plenty to look forward to. The one-day workshops aren’t cheap, but considering the travel required by the instructor, and the lack of other good source material out there, it’s a small investment in one’s future fitness, especially considering that one doesn’t need a gym membership or store-bought equipment to continue doing MovNat workouts. Those considering participating in a workshop in the future needn’t be worried about being too unfit, either; the day’s exercises are illustrative (albeit hands-on), and only a short portion of the day is what could be described as “intense.” Still, you’ll be surprised at how sore you’ll end up just doing seemingly simple exercises.

It’s hard to walk away from the one-day workshop without looking forward to future MovNat workouts; looking at the world differently is an expected outcome. It’s not so much that a new world opens up to you, but rather that you rediscover a world you forgot about as you left childhood. It’s a world you’re happy to have back.

Similar Posts:

• No Warhammer for you! – There’s been talk for some time now about online retailers, and how selling via the web affects bric…
• The Nike+ Fuelband takes on the Jawbone UP. – After receiving our fifth Jawbone UP, we decided to seriously look into the newest competitor in the…
• Why we’re getting a Jawbone Up. – Firstly, Jawbone products are good. Sure, we had problems with the Jawbone 2 earpiece because of a p…

While we’ve already been eating healthier in recent years than we used to, it wasn’t until we stumbled across the “hunter-gatherer” diet that we really started to evaluate our food intake. Our goal has never been to lose weight, but from an overall health perspective, we found it fascinating that western foods aren’t particularly good for you. We’re not just talking processed foods and the fast-food western diet, but the general neolithic diet that formed after the introduction of agriculture, which would fuel the human population boom.

There are many sites that provide information on such hunter-gatherer diets, but we’ve found a perfect synopsis in Loren Cordain’s “The Paleo Diet.” Among the tenets of the paleo “philosophy” is eating high-protein foods like lean meats, and avoiding processed foods, sugars, grains, legumes, and milk products. There’s more, but that’s the gist. The book does a fine job of explaining why certain foods should be avoided, and why a high-protein diet is good for you. While most people break hunter-gatherer diets down to, “eat only what cavemen ate,” it’s only until you understand why caveman diets are good that you can get behind this simple motto.

The self-experiment.

By the time December was half-over, we decided that we’d recover from holiday indulgence by taking on the “Paleo Challenge,” which comes down to adopting a hunter-gatherer diet for one month to see whether there are any noticeable improvements. So as of January first, we would attempt to adhere to the paleo philosophy. Not to lose weight (as that’s not an issue for us), but for general health reasons. (We say “philosophy” rather than “diet” because the latter has a negative connotation usually associated with fad weight-loss programs and tends to imply a weight-loss goal. We’re on-board with neither.)

This self-experiment has now been going on for 11 days, and we’ve generally been successful. We say “generally” because we’ve lapsed a couple times: we ate sweet dessert made with flour at a group restaurant outing this past weekend; we still have a morning espresso daily, albeit with a smaller amount of sugar than usual; we had two cappuccinos, which were sweetened with sugar and made with whole milk; we have a small portion of dark chocolate every couple days; we’ve had a glass of wine several nights; we ate cheese; and, on work travel, we ended up getting two slices of pizza for lunch because we didn’t want to go hungry, and we took a couple of sips of soda. (We realize we could have fasted instead of eating pizza, as fasting is supposedly good when done intermittently, but given this was a working lunch, we deferred to appearance over our new dietary regimen).

The big problem with “cold turkey” changes is that they’re big, so it’s easy to get derailed by such transgressions. Knowing that we intended to “eat paleo” the majority of the time, but that we likely couldn’t do it every day, for every meal, while this experiment was going on, it eased the guilt of minor transgressions, and makes it easier for us to continue the experiment instead of calling it off just because we veered here or there; we don’t consider the aforementioned lapses apocalyptic to the Paleo Challenge, since we still generally adhere to the diet.

Obstacles.

The hardest part with this experiment is sticking to it when around other people. If you’re making every meal yourself, sticking to a plan is easy, but if you’re going out to eat with other people, then it’s not always an option to choose a paleo meal from the menu – you might end up with pizza.

We haven’t given in to most cravings, but that’s certainly something that needs addressing. We’re fans of artisanal breads and cheeses, and giving up both has been difficult. (We may very well resume eating dairy products per other “primal” diets, since we’re not lactose intolerant. Breads will sadly remain off our list, however.)

Results?

In many ways, it’s too early to identify noticeable changes, since we’re only 10 days into the experiment. We did find, rather quickly, that with this diet, cutting out soda and other caffeinated beverages mid-day did not adversely affect how tired we were at the end of the day. In the past, weening ourselves off caffeine took a toll, resulting in headaches and significant tiredness in the afternoon. This time around, however, we didn’t notice any adverse reactions to giving up our mid-day caffeine intake.

We’re not eating less on the new diet, but obviously we’re not eating as many carbs. On the day we had pizza, we distinctly felt different than after meals since adopting the paleo philosophy. (Because of digestion, guilt, or both?) When we get hungry a couple hours after a meal, it’s a different type of hunger than in the past. With our typical high-carb meals, we later end up with a heavy growling stomach alerting us of a need to eat. Under this new diet, we generally stay satiated longer, with a slowly growing hunger that feels like a hole in our stomach – it’s a strange feeling, and noticeably different.

We’ve read that adopting a high protein diet may take a week or so to get used to, as many people are more tired initially, but after a short duration, then feel significantly more energetic compared to when they were on high-carb diets. We’ve yet to get that energy boost; we’re no more energetic than we were a month ago, and just as sluggish in the mornings. Hopefully by next week, we’ll have something more positive to report.

After eating, we do generally feel better than before; we’ve dealt with stomach issues (acid reflux?) in the past, but no paleo meal has prompted this to the extent that most high-carb meals do. This requires further exploration, but this benefit alone would warrant further adherence to the diet beyond the one-month “challenge.” We’ll continue reporting on our progress.

Similar Posts:

• Yes, paleo-eating is not sustainable. Big deal. – The question of a paleo/primal diet being sustainable for the world’s population is a recurring one …
• Weight loss (and health) by eating natural. – Lately, a number of people we know have gotten onto the weight-loss bandwagon, which to us seems abo…
• Week of tweets: 2011-02-27. – The Semiotics of Meat: a Paleo Deculturalization Program http://bit.ly/e4jFtS # The upcoming Smurfs…

Much is being written about the philosophy of WikiLeaks’ founder, Julian Assange, and naturally, most of it is in defense of material ending up on the WikiLeaks site. While there’s a lot worth commenting on, the more obvious logical flaws are easy to address.

Wikileaks does not leak something like the “Collateral Murder” video as a way of putting an end to that particular military tactic; that would be to target a specific leg of the hydra even as it grows two more. Instead, the idea is that increasing the porousness of the conspiracy’s information system will impede its functioning, that the conspiracy will turn against itself in self-defense, clamping down on its own information flows in ways that will then impede its own cognitive function.

The problem with this line of reasoning is that it doesn’t quite match up with how recent newsworthy leaks (e.g. State Department cables) ended up on WikiLeaks. That is to say, the leaker in this case wasn’t noteworthy himself other than the fact that he had access to information, an access that wasn’t really warranted given his station. In other words, the concept of need-to-know was not adequately enforced, since this individual did not have a need-to-know regarding the respective leaked information.

If the leaker did have a need-to-know, they would have been a player in the “conspiracy” (as Assange labels it), making the leaks a more noteworthy example of whistle-blowing. While the media loves to use “whistleblower” in the context of WikiLeaks, the reality here is that someone in a lowly station leaked documents that they were not intimately linked with. That’s not to say that an outsider can’t comprehend the contents of a document they happen to come across, merely that they likely don’t comprehend it in full, and as such, make for about as good a whistleblower as your average Hollywood star makes a good politician.

The point here is that the functioning of Assange’s “hydra” isn’t going to be severely damaged long-term. Assuming that the government looks at what happened as more than a mere PR disaster and actually attempts to make change to the system, they’ll re-address need-to-know and better ensure that people with access to documents are more intimately linked to them. In other words, (using Assange’s language) if you’re not specifically involved in a particular conspiracy, then you don’t have access to any documents regarding that conspiracy. And this reassessment means that long-term, the conspiratorial hydra is only going to get stronger, not weaker.

If this were, instead, a case of a real whistleblower leaking documents on a project they were directly involved with, then the leaks would be more noteworthy: there’d be clear evidence of a problem within the conspiracy, and one that would warrant more dire action. All this current situation highlights, however, is a weak link that can be fixed relatively easily, because the weak link isn’t integral to the system. A real whistleblower, on the other hand, would be.

These leaks are not specifically about the war(s) at all, and most seem to simply be a broad swath of the everyday normal secrets that a security state keeps from all but its most trusted hundreds of thousands of people who have the right clearance.

Hundreds of thousands of people who have the right clearance still shouldn’t have access to the same documents. Clearance does not imply access; clearance plus need-to-know warrants access. Assange somehow thinks that the government’s enforcement of need-to-know was just, and that’s why WikiLeaks will damage the system. But, he fails to realize that there’s an overabundance of players here, and not all of them are on the field; compromising a non-vital player isn’t ideal for the team, but if, in response, you cut the player and remove the position from the roster entirely, then the problem is solved.

The question for an ethical human being — and Assange always emphasizes his ethics — has to be the question of what exposing secrets will actually accomplish, what good it will do, what better state of affairs it will bring about.

One has to ask, though, whether publishing a “dump” of data is more effective than vetting out what gets published. That’s not say that Assange is in a position to properly vet any of what he posts, merely that it may seem, to the casual observer, that publishing thousands of often-unrelated documents is more for show and esteem, than to promote any real change.

Similar Posts:

• Why Apple pulled the WikiLeaks app. – God forbid Apple enforce its app store rules and pull the controversial WikiLeaks application. It’s …
• Universities to security analysts, “Shuts up, yuo!” – Two researchers scheduled to talk about security flaws in university “card” programs were given a ce…
• Emergency backups curiously lacking. – One of the most annoying things about my Apple Powerbook is when the battery gets low enough on stan…

Great article by Jason Fried on minimizing one’s workflow for better productivity. The article time-stamp bears the mark of April Fools Day, but the advice is no joke:

Most of the stuff you agonize about just doesn’t matter. Truth is, things are pretty easy and straightforward — until you make them hard and complicated.

As applicable in government and politics as in industry. We daresay, applicable in life in general. People sweat the details, and though that’s often important for a finished product, it’s not always important just to get results. And more importantly, unecessary busy-work is not helping anyone.

Indeed, if the masses adopted this simple philosophy, the world would be a better place.

Similar Posts:

• iPhone SDK doesn’t mean jack. – News is abound that Steve Jobs announced a non-widget based SDK for native third-party applications …
• The iPad as a gaming platform. – World of Goo is an impressive indie title, which appeared on the iPad not long ago, though it’s been…
• Our paleo challenge. – While we’ve already been eating healthier in recent years than we used to, it wasn’t until we stumbl…