I don’t know about you, but in the last two years I’ve certainly travelled the full spectrum of political emotions from ambivalence to hope to tragic disappointment back to ambivalence. No matter which side of things you’re on, the common theme seems to be that things are just so very wrong. Everyone is feeling the pain of the economic beating we’ve been taking and everyone is tired of politics as usual, whatever that means.

Here in Oregon, we have mail-in ballots which encourages early voting. Most of the time, I take advantage of that. This time around, however, I haven’t filled mine in yet. It’s pretty silly. I know which way I’ll vote. I’m just having a hard time getting it done. It’s ugly business. Even though I remember, my faith that it matters isn’t there.

But, I’ll do it regardless. I’ll put my $0.02 in. I hope you do too.

Update: Seth Godin, points out the upside of voting: “Voting is free. It's fairly fast. It doesn't make you responsible for the outcome, but it sure has an impact on what we have to live with going forward. The only thing that would make it better is free snacks.”

Earlier today, Greg—my business partner at Luma—spent some time in a local industrial plant filming clips for a new product being made. On the way home, we I got into a discussion of why we make things in Portland and under what conditions we might consider making something somewhere else. For me, this is a very important issue. I don’t want to say anything absolute and say that we will never make something in another country. There are many reasons, however, that it’s important to me that we make our products as close to home as possible.

Now, it’s not about nationalistic pride. There’s a place for that, but when I analyze my feelings on the matter, none of them are about flag waving. Even if they were, I drive a car made in Japan and use computers and phones made in China. No, for me, it’s about doing what is best in the long term for the company and its products versus what might be better for short term profits.

By using a set of manufacturing partners within a few miles of where we live, we have the ability to have great relationships with them. We talk with them all of the time. We’re right there with them when we’re tuning how something is made. And, we’re listening to their ideas of how to do things better and implementing accordingly. Because of this, there are very real and significant improvements coming in the next version of our products and how we make them. I don’t think there’s any way we’d be about to introduce such awesome improvements in the next version of our products if we didn’t have these close ties.

If we had somebody in China manufacture our stuff, it’d be a lot harder to work this closely. We could save some cash in the short term, but we’d loose reaction time. Companies like Apple get around this by sending teams of people to China on a continuous basis. Small companies like ours can’t do that. For me, innovating quickly to get to better products is more important than a few percentage points on the bottom line from selling today’s products.

Plus, by making things locally, we do better for the environment and our local economy. Sure, we’re a small company, but every bit counts, right?

How quickly are we innovating? More on that in the days to come.

I’ve been shooting quite a bit of video lately with the Panasonic GH-1. It’s a great little camera, especially at 720p. It shares the same downside as it’s little brother, however, the GF-1. It uses the AVCHD format instead of recording its H.264 output into a more reasonable format, like a QuickTime .mov file. This makes the ingest and file management side of the equation a bit nastier than it should be.

Either you can go dumpster diving into the directory structure of the card and grab the .mts files—assuming that your video editing solution supports .mts files. Some do, some don’t. Or, you can use iMovie or Final Cut Pro’s Log & Transfer function to import the video from your card. Except, when you do that, Apple’s products transcode the files into huge ProRes or AIC files. Great for editing, but bad for disk space and archiving purposes.

ClipWrap from divergent media gives nice a way out of this mess. You can use it to turn AVCHD files into QuickTime movies. Even better, since AVCHD uses H.264, ClipWrap doesn’t have to transcode. Instead, it pops the H.264 data out of the .mts files and stuffs it into a QuickTime container. I’m sure it’s slightly more complicated than that when you get into the details, but that’s the general idea. And it works well.

I was a bit hesitant to give ClipWrap a try because their FAQ explicitly mentions that they don’t have full support for the specific version of H.264 that the GH1 uses. However, the trial version seemed to work, so I dove in and haven’t had any problems. It could be since I’m shooting only at 720p and not 1080p, I’m not tickling the problem. Maybe I’ve just been lucky so far. In any case, I hope they’ll get to the bottom of things soon.

Until GH-1 support is official, I can’t fully endorse it but I did go ahead and purchase it since it is solving a problem for me right now. But, it’s certainly the right kind of product to solve this problem and if you’re using an AVCHD camera, you should take a look.

In response to my post about ClipWrap, Chris Bevan sent along a note sending me a link to an Apple forum post where somebody has pulled together an Automator application that can rewrap AVCHD files. This script uses an FFmpeg binary that is in ClipGrab, another tool you’d have to download and install to use this script as is. But, you can open it up easily enough and change it to whatever FFmpeg binary you’d like.

Here’s what this script executes for each .mts file it’s given:

$ ffmpeg -i "$1" -acodec copy -vcodec copy "$1.m4v"

Easy enough. I built up a copy of FFmpeg with Homebrew and gave it a spin on some of my Pansonic GH-1 AVCHD clips. On the first go, FFmpeg didn’t want to write an output video file, so I changed the output parameter to use a QuickTime extension:

$ ffmpeg -i movie.mts -acodec copy -vcodec copy movie.mov

The video came through just fine, but the audio didn’t come along for the ride. Searching about, I found a DVXuser discussion thread covering some of the ins and outs of using FFmpeg to rewrap AVCHD. Apparently, while the H.264 stream can be rewrapped without a problem, the AC3 audio track isn’t supported by QuickTime in the MP4 container format. The suggestion there was to transcode the audio to PCM:

$ ffmpeg -i movie.mts -acodec pcm_s16le -vcodec copy movie.mov

That does the trick with the audio. The resulting file plays fine from start to stop, but scrubbing doesn’t work at all. Repositioning the playhead results in the audio tracking just fine, but the video freezes. H.264 isn’t a great format for scrubbing to start with, but in this case the DVXuser discussion thread provides the clue that there’s not a seeking index baked in. The rewrapped video that ClipWrap outputs scrubs acceptably well though, so there’s obviously a solution.

The next step is to find that solution to build up an index. But I haven’t found a solution so far. If you know of one, please let me know and I’ll update this post with the solution (along with credit of course!)

Now that the Xserve has been discontinued and is joining the Xserve RAID on the shelf of discontinued items, what’s the likely future of Mac OS X Server? After all, Apple is busy learning lessons from the iPhone and iPad and integrating them into Lion and likely improving how they all work together.

Reading the tea leaves, both in Apple’s actions as well as the wider world of network services, I think it’s possible that there won’t be a Mac OS X Lion Server release. At least not a separate boxed product.

Before you scoff and let me know how many places are still managing their local user accounts with OS X server and using Podcast Producer and so on, I didn’t just say that I think that most of the functionality of OS X Server is going way. But, I think that the separate SKU and packaging are.

After all, what is Mac OS X Server? How is it different than Mac OS X? The big secret is that it’s not very different at all. For all intents and purposes, you can view OS X Server as a set of software packages that runs on top of the same Mac OS X binaries that you have in your MacBook Air. Some of these packages include both the service software as well as the user interface to configure it. Others simply turn on or enhance functionality that’s already there in your current installation. A few of these packages provide access to, and support for, the specialized bits of hardware in the Xserve. There’s no real reason why Apple can’t simply ship the OS X Server features as an add-on pack instead of as a completely separate OS.

Furthermore—and this is the important part—the view of clients and servers that the division of Mac OS X and Mac OS X Server addresses is one from the 1990s. That was a world where organizations had services hosted in their own data center on their own equipment and they controlled the clients as well. As for the rest of us, most of us just had a single PC or Mac and networking simply meant talking to the Internet.

That world is long gone, at least anywhere outside of the big ol’ Enterprise that has always wanted to treat their PC infrastructure like 3270 terminals. Organizations in the new world are comfortable putting services into the cloud and happy not to control all the devices their users are using. At the individual level, we all have multiple computers and devices that should all work together much better than they do now.

In this world, especially in Apple’s marketplace, Mac OS X Server as a separate product no longer makes any sense. Instead, it makes a lot more sense for some of the services in Mac OS X Server—iCal, AddressBook, and Mail services—to go into a data center somewhere. Others, such as Podcast Producer and advanced file sharing, are things that can be either baked into the client version or provided through add-on packages available for download.

All of this is speculation, of course. I might be just projecting how I’d do it myself if I were in charge of Apple’s server strategy onto the tea leaves. We’ll find out soon enough.

Response to Feedback

Some quick Twitter feedback points out that there’s a Mini server and a Mac Pro server. What about them? My answer is that Apple sells systems with iLife and the like pre-installed. Why not optional Server packages on some products? It’s all the same from a manufacturing and fulfillment standpoint. Take this hardware, add these packages, and ship.

As far my statement about viewing OS X Server as a set of packages, Thomas Brand tweeted that while he was at Apple, the server functionality was indeed distributed as an add on package. There ya go.

Others point out that they think it’s important for Apple to keep a Server product alive as a separate SKU for integration ease. That’s quite possible. I’ll be the first to admit that I’m playing the speculation game here and that there’s a high chance I’m effectively smoking crack for some reason I’m not taking into consideration. Then again, I’m just saying it’s possible. I am stopping short of a full-bore prediction. For now.

The last two years have been heavy travel years for me. Last year, I tipped the scales at over 90,000 so-called elite qualifying miles on United and Star Alliance airlines. These EQMs count for status and in air travel, status is worth having. The nice bits that come along with upper tiers of frequent-flyer programs helps take the edge off of the travel experience. Unfortunately, I didn’t make it to United’s lofty 1K level. I missed it by less than 10%. Doh!

If I’d flown Lufthansa instead of Emirates to India or if I’d skipped out on flying those Southwest flights I took up and down the west coast, I’d have made it. But, this game isn’t horseshoes and close wasn’t good enough. Don’t get me wrong, Premier Executive—the level many other airlines designate “Gold”—does a pretty good job. I’ve spent most of my flying time this year in upgraded first class seats. I won’t lie. It’s been pretty decent, ignoring the TSA and other parts of the travel slog.

This year, I’m closing in fast again on 100,000 EQMs. That’s the magic mark for 1K. To see exactly how things are going to play out, I added up the trips that I’ve booked for the rest of the year. The numbers say that I’m just a bit short.

1036 miles short, to be precise. One percent.

There’s no way I’m going to stand for that. Not at all. It’s obvious that one more quick trip will be added. It doesn’t need to be far at all. I don’t want to do a mileage run, however, just for the sake of it. It should be some sort of fun vacation thing. Maybe I’ll sort out a good fare to go visit some folks I’ve been meaning to see. But, I’m not coming up a thousand miles short.

I was listening to air traffic control earlier tonight while landing in Denver. Usually, ATC is all business, especially when your talking about the approach and departure controllers at a major hub airport. In the midst of tonights normal business, however, there was something a bit unusual:

“Denver, it looks like there’s an animal on 16L... Yeah, it’s right in the middle of 16L at Whiskey Delta. Looks like it’s dead.”

Since we were on the approach for 16L and just a couple of minutes from touchdown, I was interested in what was going to happen. So were the pilots in the cockpit of the 757 I was on. Would we need to go around or take other action? The controller had the plane in front of us that had just landed take take a closer look. The message was relayed back to us:

“United 572, that dead animal is about the size of a squirrel or maybe a possum.”

“Roger,” the pilot of my flight responded, and then cooly added: “just as long as it’s not a dead cow or anything like that.”

Without further ado, we landed, pulled up to our gate, and that was that. Or so I thought. Two hours later as the aircraft servicing my connecting flight pulled up to our departure runway, the captain got on the intercom:

“Ladies and gentlemen, it looks like we’ve got good and bad news. The good news is that we’re next for take off on runway 17L. The bad news is that there’s a dead animal in the middle of the runway.”

We waited a few minutes while a truck with blinky lights on it cleared things up and then we were good to go. Still. Two dead animals on two different runways on opposite sides of the airport within two hours of each other. It’s not something that I’ve run into before.

After waiting (and waiting (and waiting)) for AT&T to support iPhone data tethering, it’s been nice to find out how well it works in practice. Well actually, the iPhone part of the tethering works awesomly. Over either BlueTooth or USB, connecting to the network is as easy as it can possibly be. The only caveat is that, like all things iPhone in the US for now, the service is conditional on AT&T.

In New Orleans, where I am right now, I’ve been getting roughly about a megabit down, about a quarter of a megabit up, and 300ms ping times using Speedtest.net. This is roughly the kind of performance that I’ve seen in most places in the US that aren’t San Francisco or New York. It’s not jaw-dropping, but it gets the job done. Of course, it may all go to hell when everyone else who is attending RubyConf shows up with their own iPhones and overloads the local tower. We’ll see about that.

The amusing thing about it, however, is that even with AT&T’s legendary service issues, it’s still usually better to tether than to use the insanely overpriced internet service in many high-end hotels. At this point, unless I know I really need to move some data and can bill the expense to an active project, I usually try the service through my iPhone first and drop back to hotel networks as a last resort. Sad, but true.

It’s not perfect. The pricing isn’t bad even though it’s metered, but the $20 fee to turn on tethering is petty—especially given the metering. Furthermore, it’s totally silly that there’s no provision to let your iPad pair up over BlueTooth and tether as well. I have a feeling, however, that these things will take care of themselves over the next year or two. In the meantime, it’s better than nothing, and it’s better—not to mention cheaper—than the Sprint EVDO solution I was using until recently.

RubyConf 2010 was a conference “off” for me. Don’t get me wrong. I was there. It was great. What I mean, however, is that I wasn’t there in any capacity that resembled work. I wasn’t there to photograph the conference. I wasn’t there to speak. Instead, I was just there as an attendee to listen to the talks, catch up with old friends, and talk Ruby. It was like a few days off, conference style.

I pretty much succeeded on all three fronts. Unfortunately, I didn’t get to wallow in the event as much as I’d like because I did end up working quite a bit on a new website for Luma. Oops. But, I did get enough of everything I was there to do. I also ate way too many beignets and filled up on gumbo and dishes made with plenty of blackening. New Orleans was a good host city and I’m glad that RubyCentral (the organizers) chose to bring us here and give a small little economic boost to this city that has taken hit after hit these last few years.

This year was a big year for RubyConf. In years past, it’s always been a small conference run like a small conference. The last few years, however, there’s been a huge demand for tickets and it has sold out in no time at all. This year, the game changed and RubyCentral found a larger venue to hold a conference that they didn’t have to restrict the numbers as much as they did before. The result was that there were a lot of people at RubyConf.

Even with the larger attendance, however, the conference didn’t feel as big as it was. It was still run like a small conference. There wasn’t an expo hall. There were no huge banners. No door monitors checking badges. In fact, the badges were a make-your-own affair. There wasn’t even much of a stage production. In almost every way they could get away with, RubyCentral snubbed the trappings that go along with modern conferences. For the atmosphere that the organizers were after, it worked well. I liked it.

I think most other people did too. I did hear lots of bitching about the WiFi. It’s fashionable to complain about WiFi failures at conferences, but the technology and most WiFi equipment really doesn’t work well with the kind of device density that tech conferences bring. Especially when everyone has two to three WiFi devices. It’s possible to get this mostly right, but you do have to bring in an external vendor that knows what they are doing to do it with any level of acceptability and spend big bucks to turn on a 50-100Mbit connection for the duration. Would it have made sense to spend the bucks for it at RubyConf and charge the extra amount it’d require to attendees? Hard to say. Certainly, I find it hard to imagine that anybody would not come back next year simply because the network wasn’t in too good a shape. After all, we’re there to talk with each other, not send instant messages.

In any case, thank you to Chad, Rich, David, and Kelly at RubyCentral for giving us RubyConf this year—and for giving me an opportunity to just be a geek again and hang out with great friends for a few days.

For a moment as I sat in my seat on board a flight from New Orleans to Denver, I thought that the rest of my day was totally going to be pear shaped. The flight attendant’s eyes had just narrowed and her face was wearing an expression that only comes out when someone has just flipped the bozo bit on you.

A few minutes before, I had been making photographs and shooting video out of the window of the aircraft. It’s something I do all of the time. I was using my Panasonic GH-1 with a flip out screen. I shot some footage of clouds going by. Then, when decided I was done for a bit, I sat back in my seat and put the camera in my lap. The screen flipped around as I set it down and was displaying a live view through the lens of the panel above the seat. Just as I was noticing that the shapes of the air vents were framed nicely..., I was surprised by somebody speaking very sternly to me.

“You can’t film the interior of the aircraft. You have to stop now.” I looked up at who spoke and a flight attendant was standing right at my row. I wasn’t actually filming right then, but how was she to know?

“OK,” I said. “No problem. By the way, where I can read where it says I can’t?”

“It’s our security policy,” she responded testily.

“I understand,” I replied, “I’m asking where I would be able to read that security policy?”

I figured it was an appropriate question. As the words came out of my mouth, however, that I realized that she wasn’t actually listening to what I was asking. She was just perceiving my questions as resistance. Her expression hardened further. She didn’t reply this time, but just stood there glaring at me with a look almost challenging me to press on. This wasn’t a situation I wanted to make worse. After all, just imagine the outcome of a flight attendant reporting a security policy matter to the captain.

“It’s not my intention,” I said choosing my words very carefully, “to be an ass. I’m complying with your request. I just want to know where I can find out more information about the policy so that I can be better educated. That’s all.”

“They’re in our security manuals,” she said waiving to the front of the aircraft. At least the steely glare had started to soften from outright make-my-day-punk hostility to something a bit less threatening. She went on, ”They’re not available to you.”

“That’s interesting...” I responded. At this point, I decided just shelve any further questions I had and just shut up. I leaned down and packed up my camera in my backpack. After carefully watching me do so, the attendant walked away. Luckily, this happened just a few minutes before the crew buttoned up the plane for final approach, so I didn't have to wait too long to get off the plane and sort out my thoughts.

After settling into the terminal to wait for my next flight, I looked up United’s policy on photography and video. The relevant bits are: “The use of still and video cameras, film or digital, including any cellular or other devices that have this capability, is permitted only for recording of personal events.” It goes on to say, however, that “...unauthorized photography, audio, or video recording of airline personnel, aircraft equipment, or procedures is always prohibited.”

Since the air vents are airline equipment, it does look like I was violating a strict interpretation of United’s published policy. Sadly, the policy and the legality and enforcement of it isn’t really why I’m writing this, even though I do wonder what threat a photo of the panel above the seats could be.

No, the reason I’m writing this is because the exchange that I had with a flight attendant over the use of a camera seemed to have the potential, at least for a few seconds, for a very unpleasant outcome. In a more rational world, I’d actually laugh at myself for even having a worry. But, in the world of post 9/11-travel, nude-o-scan machines, and a security apparatus run amok, things are increasingly irrational. For a moment there, yah. I did worry. That sucks.

It’s great that loads of people are jumping on board the protest against the new TSA security regime that’s rolling out across the United States. They should. A choice between getting electronically strip searched or sexually molested is no choice at all. It’s giving up too many rights in the name of security. And that, my friends, is tyranny.

The fact that it’s only now that people are really making a fuss about the nude-o-scans is sad. It should have been obvious from the get-go that it was a technological cop-out and an unreasonable search is an unreasonable search no matter how you do it. But, regardless of the timing, it’s good to see that the opposition is finally coming through loud and clear.

Look, I’m for good, solid, and effective airport security. It should be obvious, however, that fondling men’s balls and feeling along the curves of women’s labia isn’t reasonable. Nor is strip searching, whether or not you use technology to do job. I know that the real risk of loosing my life in an airplane isn’t going to change because someone gets to feel or see my dick. Nor does seeing other people get felt up and groped make me feel any more secure. No, all of this makes me feel like I live in a police state. The kind of state we opposed for the entirety of the Cold War.

You want real security? Do more outside the airport perimeter to defuse plots before they get to the airport. Use behavioral profiling inside the airport. Ask more questions when needed. Ensure that every person that goes through security is supposed to be there and can’t get through on a forgery like they can today. Sure, use a metal detector, bag scanner, and—if deemed appropriate—a quick and efficient pat down. But do it in a way where we’re secure in our possessions, our body, and our dignity. And do it in a way where you don’t create big crowded areas that become their own targets.

Furthermore, we need to reaffirm as a society that air travel remains safer than getting in a car and driving. We have to accept that there are always risks, even if small. And, we have to recognize that people that want to do harm will always find a way around the barriers. You don’t have to look any further than your nearest prison to find out how permeable any security implementation can be when enough thought is put into defeating it.

Finally, no matter what happens, the methods used on 9/11 can’t work again. A terrorist may indeed take down another airplane, but they won’t be able to turn it into a weapon the same way they did that day. That was a one trick pony that took advantage of a government and passenger response based on prior history. Let’s push to have airport security implemented accordingly.

Big screens are really great for use on stage. You can display big graphics, change them at a whim, and reuse them for the next show. There’s just one thing you have to be careful of when putting a big screen on stage. Never, ever, evar put a plasma screen on stage if you want to make a photograph with it in the background.

Why? Because when you take a sequence of photos at a reasonable shutter speed (1/250th in this case), you’ll end up with a series of photos that look like this:

Each of these photos was made from the same angle with the exact same background filled with a plasma display. All those purples and greens aren’t supposed to be there. Horrid, isn’t it? Trust me, nobody on this particular production is happy about this. The only possible solution—other than swapping out the display for and LCD one or using backlit projection—is to shoot at 1/60th of a second. That’s not a recipe for success either.

Bottom line, if you’re planning an event—corporate, conference, TEDx, whatever—and are going to use screens on stage, make very sure they aren’t plasma. Then double check and then triple check. It’ll save grief later.

The seventh edition of the Web 2.0 Summit has come and gone. It’s the sixth year that I’ve been the photographer and I’ve seen the event go through a few phases from irrational exuberance to weathering the downturn. This year felt like the start of a new phase. One that wasn’t mired in the “batten down the hatches” mentality of the last couple of years. Instead, there was a sense of optimism starting to show through. Some of this came out in commentary from the stage about the points of control theme noting that most of the map should be labeled terra incognita yet to be unexplored.

I’m totally on-board with the thought that there’s a lot more to come and that we’ve not seen anything yet when it comes to the web. Even though so much has happened, we’re not done yet exploring how all the parts can make a whole that can’t yet be imagined. Society is still just starting to come to gripes with what it means, how it affects how the world is structured, and even how we organize our governments.

At seven years, it’d be easy for a conference like Web 2.0 Summit to lurch into mediocrity and ride its reputation into the ground. Thankfully, it doesn’t seem like that’s in the cards. John Battelle and his staff put together a great program. I have no doubt they’ll do it again next year. The only thing that Web 2.0 Summit needs at this point is a bit of a freshening up of some of the activities around the conference. A legendary evening event. The injection of a sense of wonderment into the spaces around the hotel. Or something else I can’t yet imagine. At its core, however, the Summit is solid.

Photos are of John Doerr and Diana Rhoten, two of the speakers at Web 2.0 Summit.

Over the last few weeks, I’ve had lots of discussions with people looking to buy a camera who want to know if they should wait for the Panasonic GF2 or get the GF1 now. Some of these folks are just buying a new camera. Others have a more targeted need in mind because they are going on a trip in December. Of course, since the GF2 is on the horizon, that makes the discussion more complicated. Will the GF2 be better? How much better?

These aren’t easy questions to answer without having the new camera in hand. After reading up more on the new GF2, however, it looks more and more that the GF2 is an incremental release. A sideways move. It’s not an OMG you must wait for it at all costs product. Therefore, my buying advice for the next few months is as follows:

If you want to make photos in 2010 with a wonderful new (to you) camera that kicks ass and easily goes with you in your bag or jacket, then buy the GF1 now. If you want to save a few bucks because the price has come down due to the impending arrival of the GF2, the GF1’s unadvertised price on Amazon with a 20mm lens is currently $599 (as of 11/20). That’s three hundred bucks cheaper than what I paid for it.

On the other hand, if the size difference matters more than making photos to you and you really aren’t going to take many photos anyway, then wait. Furthermore, if you’re going to feel bad for some reason that somebody will have a model with a larger number on it than you do next year, well, then by all means you should wait for the GF2.

Look, I think that the GF2 is shaping up to be an interesting camera. But I mean interesting in the way that a camera geek who likes playing with gear means interesting. I’m curious to see how this touch screen stuff will work. I’m hopeful that there will be high ISO improvements as well. The real question for me is whether it’s interesting for 30 minutes or something much more lasting. That, I can’t answer. But, I don’t think it’s interesting enough to affect your buying decision this year.

At the end of the day, this is photography we’re talking about. If you’re going to get out there and make photos this year and don’t want to carry around a big honking DSLR, get the GF1 now and don’t worry about it. Especially if you’re going to take a once in a decade trip somewhere interesting, like Australia.

It’s with more than a slight sigh of relief that I read in the New York Times and The Oregonian about a terror attack that didn’t happen last night in Portland. My current hometown seems like an unlikely target, but then again, Oklahoma City was an unlikely target as well in 1995.

As I read deeper though, several thoughts strike me. The first that this wasn’t a foreign run operation. Instead, it was the result of a six month sting by the Feds after Mohamed Osman Mohamud raised concerns via e-mail monitoring. It’s unclear how far would have Mohamud would have gotten on his own. On the other hand, it’s clear that he was totally prepared to go through with it—in fact, he thought he was going through with it when he was arrested. It is clear that we are dealing with somebody who is way over the line here.

The second big thought that strikes me is that—regardless of how far Mohamud would have gotten on his own—this case is evidence that the Feds are doing the kind of on the ground counter-terrorism work that we need them to do. That’s a good thing.

But, I can’t stop focusing in on the question of whether Mohamud would have been able to get this far on his own. There’s something here that doesn’t feel like it adds up. It’ll be quite interesting to see how the story unfolds as the details emerge.

Today was a travel day that started at the Houston’s Intergalactic Airport (IAH). I dropped off the rental car, checked in at the counter, and then as I was walking up to security I saw that a nude-o-scan was in operation. It was one of the millimeter wave scanners. Some people were going through it, others through the normal metal detector. It almost looked like people were being asked to go, not being chosen to go through. Even so, as I got into line, I geared myself for opting out.

As I put my bags on the belt for their scan and was just about to find out if I was going to get to opt-out or not, the TSA agent managing the front of the area closed down the entrance to the scanner. That was a nice surprise.

More surprising was watching a couple of people get patted down in the physical examination area of the checkpoint. They were getting the new enhanced pat-down routine, but it wasn’t the extreme version that includes lingering feeling up of traveller’s genitalia that I’ve witnessed in several other places recently. Instead, it looked like a text-book example of how you’d do the new procedure on somebody you wanted to respect you afterword.

It was a much different mood than many of the checkpoints I’ve been through lately. It was almost like the local agents were going out of their way to not appear anything like the worst of the stories we’ve heard. It was strange, but welcome. I hope it wasn’t an isolated case.