The Design of Ignorance

Password Security - Summary

2011-08-10T17:45:00.001-04:00

The idea of using a password is thousands of years old, but today it is most commonly associated with computer authentication. Passwords are kept secret and used to prove the identity of a user on a computer system. Today passwords are used more than any other time in history. Almost every person in the United States has a password of some sort tied to a computer system. This includes new uses such as passwords associated with mobile technology.

Overwhelmed with passwords, many people fall victim to bad habits that weaken the security the passwords were intended to provide. Users often use weak passwords because they are easier to remember and reuse passwords across multiple services. Services often fail to address these problems as well. Poor practices for password storage and site security allow malicious users to access password databases, putting all users of the service at risk.

The people trying to gain access to your passwords are better known as crackers. A cracker might use your password to access the site of origin, but often their motivation for stealing passwords is to gain access to other services. Crackers have a number of tools at their disposal to combat modern password safety measures such as rainbow tables, key loggers, man-in-the-middle attacks, and social engineering attacks such as phishing.

There are ways to protect users against many of these techniques. Services can follow best practices for storing passwords and authenticating users. Alternatives to passwords exist. Users can pick better passwords. Software can help users manage their passwords securely. Some effort is required, but users can combine both convenience and security.

Next time I will introduce passwords with some history and the concept of authentication.

Password Security - Foreword

2011-08-10T17:30:00.000-04:00

Computer security is an important topic for me. While I don't consider myself to be an expert, and I know several people who are more committed to secure computing than I am, I still am very interested in the topic. I try to take a pragmatic approach to security where every decision I make considers risk, reward, and cost. In the last few years I have become increasingly concerned over my password security habits, and more so over the habits of others. So much so, that when the opportunity arose I chose to study it and write at length about it.

Earlier this year I took a course in technical writing. The design of the course was fairly neat. Students had to pick the topic for their final paper at the beginning of the course. Each week students had to hand in a writing assignment related to this topic. At the end of the course the final paper largely consisted of the previous assignments with some additional content to glue it together. As you can guess, my topic was password security.

I was inspired by recent high profile hacks and password leaks, as well as my recent switch to using a cloud-based password manager. My report was based largely around these events, though the final version included less examples than I originally intended. It is, to some extent, an elevator pitch to attempt to convince others that there is a real danger in insecure password practices.

Of course, a pitch that is never presented has no chance of success. To date, probably only four or five people have read my paper, and at least one of those people learned nothing from it. So, in the spirit of both my efforts to contribute to the world via my school work and to help get the word out that these practices must stop, I will be splitting up my paper into several blog posts to share with anyone who will read it. I will attempt to add value to the paper where possible, such as links to reference articles and examples that I could not fit in the original.

Google Plus: Modeling Real Life Social Interactions

2011-07-14T22:21:00.003-04:00

While the service may be in its infancy, I think G+ shows some real promise. Of particular interest to me is the ways in which the Circles feature models social interactions from the real world. I believe that in this aspect it is far better than Facebook, though it will take time for these interactions to click with users.

Circles: Just Like Real Social Circles

Quickly, think of one of your real life social circles. For most people, they will think of a group of friends, coworkers, or family that is tight knit and perhaps share some commonality. In many circumstances, these people will show up in multiple circles. G+ models this perfectly. You can easily take a person and put them in as many circles as you'd like.

Again much like real life, that person doesn't know that you consider them part of a particular circle unless they know implicitly or you tell them. That person may be on your "frenemies" list. Perhaps you only consider them to be an acquaintance (we'll get back to this) but you don't want them to get the wrong idea that you're keeping them at arms length.

You may never use this feature to its full potential, but one of the aspects of social software is that it allows you to organize and catalog your life in new and novel ways. The implementation on G+ is both easy and visual. You may learn something about how you think of your friends by attempting to put them into circles.

Sharing Controls Allow More Frank Conversations

When you share something on G+ a key feature is that you can easily limit or expand the scope of sharing. I know some people consider this to be a confusing extra step but it is necessary to model these interactions. It allows people to conveniently have separate social circles that need not often interact.

Think about it, is your mom or boss on Facebook? This answer is increasingly "yes." With Facebook's privacy settings it is complicated to avoid sharing sensitive information with these people. It's likely none of your boss's business that you were out partying all weekend, but it is so easy to inadvertently tell her just that. In order to avoid this you must either not befriend these people on Facebook (smart, but sometimes awkward) or go through a fairly unintuitive procedure to modify who can see a particular post. It's not impossible, in fact I have custom security settings that keep several people who are officially "friends" from seeing the content on my wall, but it is nowhere near as intuitive nor as central as it is on G+.

As an aside, I think that Google is placing their bets that by enabling you to have more control over who sees what info you will in turn feel more comfortable sharing things. If that becomes true then people who share relatively little now could find new life in a product like this. Also, I should note, the addition control is not absolute. Just like in the real world, if you say something to anyone then that person has the ability to share that information. Digital communications are easier to copy and verify, so it's not like this would give you carte blanche to trash talk your employer or openly cheat on your spouse.

Dealing With Acquaintances and Beyond

The way Circles work will allow for far less awkward interactions with people you don't know or don't know well. If a random person adds you to a Circle, you can simply ignore it and they will only see public posts. Any posts they share with you will go to your Incoming page. You simply don't have to see those people, and it requires no action on your part. Sure, you can block them if you really want. A better strategy would be to simply treat public posts as you would any other public speech and not say anything too personal or socially unacceptable and you don't have to do anything about them.

Say that guy you met at the party last weekend adds you, and you might share some stuff with him based on what you know about him but you don't want him to know too much about your personal life, then file him under Acquaintances. When you share personal info don't share it with Acquaintances. Or create another group that's even less intimate. Chances are that most sharing of this sort barely has a real world model because many acquaintances don't have frequent interactions after the fact. So even if you never share anything with these people you shouldn't feel bad about.

A Conversation With a Circle

In the real world it is unlikely you will have a chance to talk to people from all of your social circles at once more than a few times in your life. The one time this is likely to happen, at your wedding, is something that many people only have happen once, and others only a few times. Good luck getting your coworkers to buy you a fourth wedding gift.

Instead, you probably have conversations with a one circle of friends at a time. It's likely that you tell these groups many of the same things, but you probably choose not to tell certain groups certain things, and other times you probably change things slightly to match the group. Each group likely reacts differently, even if similarly, to the same conversation. Sometimes, you would tell two people the same thing, but not when they are in the same room. That's how social dynamics work. It's a dynamic that Facebook breaks and G+ models somewhat correctly.

For some people, Facebook has changed this social dynamic forever. Any public announcement will be just that: public for all and for all to comment on. They probably value the varied interactions of their different circles of friends meshing together. Fortunately for these people, G+ offers the "My Circles" and "My Extended Circles" sharing settings, not to mention "Public".

For everyone else, the genie can be put back in the bottle. If you have a conversation with one group of friends no one else need know. You can have the same conversation multiple times shared with multiple groups and avoid any interaction.

Why would you want to do this? Well, maybe you want to give your close friends a low down on your trip to Cancun, but you want to share photos with your family. You don't want your rowdy friends commenting where Granny can read. Or, maybe you know people from Ohio and Michigan and you want to discuss the fine mess that OSU's football program got itself into but you'd rather it not become a huge flame war.

A Conversation From a Circle

Here's another key difference. Right now G+ does not have a "wall" that anyone can write on. Some people think this is terrible, others love it. I like it because it gives me control over who sees what my friends say to me. However, the real benefit of this is that it models how interactions from a circle of friends to you work in the real world.

If you're hanging out with a circle of friends one of them might say something to you that everyone in the circle can hear. This could strike up a conversation within the circle, and maybe it's a story you would recount later to others but people outside the circle would not likely be involved.

How you model this in G+ is to make a post directed at your circle and tag the person you are speaking to. This will allow your mutual friends to comment on this post. If your friend wants to share it more broadly he can do so by clicking Share and selecting more of his circles. By sharing it with your mutual circle of friends you can have the same sort of intimate, candid conversations you would have in the real world. If it's something you want more people to talk about you retell it by sharing, the same as you would need to otherwise.

This again empowers you to control who sees what information. If you think about Facebook's wall, the idea of allowing someone to write on your wall is like asking for someone to write graffiti on your house or draw a penis on your forehead. Sure, it's also like having them sign a cast, but even then they normally ask permission. Think of resharing as your wall plus asking permission.

Public Speaking

Public speaking is something that Twitter does pretty well. Conversations on Twitter are so disjointed that it is more a broadcast platform than anything else. Of course, conversational discourse is kneecapped on Twitter due to the size limitation. Facebook makes most of the things you say into a semi-public event that is invite only. Unless your profile is open to the public only your friends will see it, but then those people not in your friends list can't interact with it. G+ is modeled a little bit after both services, allowing you to have both private and public conversations. However, G+'s public conversations are far superior to Twitter and more shareable than Facebook.

Anything you post that is aimed at the Public should be considered to be something of a seminar. It's like gathering all of your friends, acquaintances, fans, etc. into a big room and offering for anyone to comment. You can assume that this will be fairly public, as it is tied to Google after all, but the people who will immediately know about it are the ones who have you in their circles. Thus, you practically have an attendance roster right on your Circles page. Unless you disable comments then you can allow public interaction on these items, basically anyone with a G+ account can comment.

Getting Along with G+, Acceptance & Adoption

When we deal with a new service like this one we must be careful. Some people will proclaim it the next big thing, others will call it DOA, and still others will begrudgingly drag themselves along for the ride. We'll recall Google Wave (over and over again) and Orkut. We'll think of MySpace, which is funny because it was a huge success that just didn't have staying power. Maybe we'll think of all the other projects Google has done that no one would give a chance to yet have proven to be popular over time, like GMail, Google Maps, and Android.

Chances are that people like me will be more lenient on the service. I don't mean because of the reasons laid out above, but rather that I tend to love Google interfaces. Even their quirks often agree with me. I try to cheque my fanboyism and be objective. Certainly, as someone who does interface design for a living I can be critical of their choices. Still, it works for me for the most part.

It's also important to remember that this service was launched early in the development stages. It is clear that they intend to follow their pattern of rapid iterations and live testing. Google is capable of developing slick interfaces that work well, but often their first generation is somewhat clunky and pointedly favors geek culture with features like keyboard shortcuts. If you're not so much of a geek (or sometimes if you're just that much of a geek) then you won't appreciate this as much as people like me.

I'm sure there are more ways that this service both mimics and deviates from real life social interactions. After all, it is a piece of software and it does do things that are impossible or difficult to physically accomplish, like bringing together people from geographically divergent places. However, I'm not exactly a social scientist nor will I proclaim myself to be a social media expert. This is all I've thought of up to now and it was inspired by several conversations with various friends. This may not be the last I write on the subject, I only hope that the next thing I write isn't a post-mortem.

Found in Email

2011-04-04T17:09:00.002-04:00

I'm cleaning my email and I found this gem:

The only downside to that is that people *want* to believe this stuff
so badly that they'll just stop sending it to you instead of listening
to reality. So, you'll stop getting useless bullshit, but the other
people involved won't stop believing it.

That's been my experience.

It's in reference to my wife debunking one of those worthless chain mailings. It couldn't be more true.

Steps and Missteps to Cord Cutting

2011-03-14T17:49:00.001-04:00

After some setbacks to my cable television independence, I've recently climbed back on the horse. This time I have some new weapons and a new strategy: ownership. I'll get to that in the next post but for now I'd like to summarize my attempts to cut the cord.

This all started about 4 years ago. I made a change to our cable plan and I let the nice CSR sign me up for the $100/month "Triple Play" service that includes Internet, phone, and Cablevision's extended "optimum" television line up. She also threw in a second DVR, free for a year and made it so the first DVR was billed as a regular cable box. All told it was about $120/month, but for that money I got a lot of services and perks.

Then the introductory period ran out after 12 months. Those perks that seemed so nice for $120 didn't seem so great when the bill started closing in on $200. I took a step back and questioned how much I actually needed these services and which ones I could afford. I kept the Internet services, as theirs is the best in my area. I returned the both DVR boxes. I cut my cable back to their lowest plan, which isn't much more than a rebroadcast of channels available over the air (OTA). I even tried getting a better antenna to see if I could switch to just OTA, but apparently I can only do that if I speak Spanish. Also, I switched my phone service to Broadvoice.

These changes brought my total back down to a more manageable $80. I didn't sack the extra money away in the bank, though. I knew if I'm to make this work I need to invest in some other forms of entertainment. I do have a child, and I'm a guy who likes to watch TV and movies. So I bumped up my Netflix membership to 4 discs and made it a point to buy my son DVDs every couple weeks. I augmented my viewing with online streaming services like Hulu, and I started watching a lot more fansubbed anime. This worked well.

...For a while. Then my mother moved in for a month or so. She's hopelessly addicted to TV. In her house the TV runs 24/7. Often on one of those blathering, vile, manipulative news channels. I'm sure you know the one. So we had to reinstate a broader cable line-up. We kept our separate cable service, though. No DVR this time. A couple months after she left, we dropped our television service back to previously low levels.

...For a while. Next up came my wife's research project. Her concept was to monitor some of those blathering, vile, manipulative news channels and write about how they influence one's worldview. I'm sure it was interesting, though she never let me read it, and she got a good grade. However, this meant we needed to increase our service level and add a DVR. At the time my son was approaching his third birthday.

Big mistake. Once a habit formed of recording shows on the DVR and watching them later we became stuck. Sure, we can always just get rid of the thing and deal with him when we do. That's annoying, though, and it's a little unfair to him. He's just a kid and he likes some shows that have a limited or non-existent DVD presence. We limit the time he watches TV, but kids seek out new things so the shows he watches will drift over time. Two shows in particular seemed troublesome: Nickelodeon's Bubble Guppies and Disney's Jake and the Neverland Pirates.

That brings us up to a week ago.

Here's a quick rundown of the setup:

Service	Provider	Cost/Month	Notes
Cable	Cablevision	$70	including DVR
Internet	Cablevision	$50
Phone	Broadvoice	$15	No Long Distance
Rentals/Streaming	Netflix	$28	4 disc plan

Since we're all caught up now in my next post I'll go over some changes I've made, others I plan, and what the long term picture looks like.

Charles Bukowski: The Happy Outcast

2011-03-09T22:22:00.002-05:00

Charles Bukowski died March 9, 1994. In honor of this I've decided to renew my series of reprints from my coursework. This piece was part of my research anthology project for my college writing class. Included is the original work, though I received a fair share of criticism from the professor for some of it.

Charles Bukowski was an American author and poet. He was an odd, ugly man who believed that beauty was hidden in the drunks, pimps, and whores. He spent his time in bars lamenting those who would resign themselves to work eight hours a day. Bukowski, who lived an alternative lifestyle and never conformed to societal norms, was considered ugly, and was more comfortable in the company of misfits, wrote The Genius of the Crowd as a brutal reaction to how he was treated socially and how he viewed supposedly normal people.

The further away from the human race I am the better I feel. Even though I write about the human race, the further away from them I am the better I feel. Two inches is great. Two miles is great. Two thousand miles is beautiful. As long as I’m able to eat. They feed me because I feed them. I don’t like to be near them. When somebody even so much as brushes against me with an elbow in a crowd I react.

I do not like the human race. I don’t like their heads. I don’t like their faces. I don’t like their feet. I don’t like their conversations. I don’t like their hairdos. I don’t like their automobiles. I don’t like their dogs or their cats or their roses. (Bukowski)

Charles Bukowski was once described as the “human embodiment of a raised middle finger” (Miles). He could never quite fit into the mold. As a young adult he had many blue collar jobs ranging from dishwasher to truck driver. He hated these jobs. In Bukowski’s words, “I could not accept the snails pace eight to five, Johnny Carson, happy birthday, Christmas, New Year-to me it’s just the sickest of all sick things.” Instead, he chose to live in abject poverty with no job so he could dedicate himself to writing.

Charles Bukowski looks like someone beat a toad into his face. Those are my words, not a quote. I watched many hours of interviews of Bukowski between “The Charles Bukowski Tapes” and “Bukowski: Born Into This.” During that time I thought about how to characterize his looks and came to this conclusion: if you take an average person and beat a them over the face with a toad long enough to do permanent damage, you may look like this guy. Others are no kinder, Paul Ciotti of the Los Angeles Times said Bukowksi had, “a sandblasted face, warts on his eyelids and a dominating nose that looks as if it were assembled in a junkyard from Studebaker hoods and Buick fenders” (qtd. in The Poetry Foundation). As a child he was bullied and rejected by girls due to his complexion (Gale Literary Database). I am intentionally cruel, because that is the attitude that Bukowski faced for much of his life. His appearance set him apart and changed the way that society treated him.

It was these kinds of interactions that drove Bukowski to alcohol, he was a notorious drunk. He was also unashamedly drunk, often speaking passionately about the beauty of alcohol and his time spent in bars. It infected his work as well. Take, for instance, the poem Here I Am... in which he begins, “drunk again at 3 a.m. at the end of my 2nd bottle/ of wine,” (Bukowski 1-2). His semi-autobiographical character, Henry Chinaski, who featured prominently in several of Bukowski’s books as well as the movie Barfly, was an alcoholic. He chose alcohol over work and dive bars over coffee houses.

With the booze comes the bars, and with the bars comes the patrons. Bukowski was at his element with the people who have nothing better to do than sit in a bar and get drunk all day. He was proud to be a vagrant. In “The Charles Bukowski Tapes” he often refers to pimps and prostitutes as his “people,” complete with a segment in which he drives around West Hollywood pointing out various people on the side of the road to declare them as friends. At this point he had published numerous books and was known to cavort with some of the Hollywood elite. His true calling was with the Hollywood underbelly.

Charles Bukowski did not need to take revenge against those who misunderstood him and treated him poorly. He was perfectly content to go get a beer instead. Yet, when he was alone with his typewriter such resentment was sure to show. I believe that Bukowski felt the he was almost robbed of the chance to write, and to live a life of debauchery that he thoroughly enjoyed, by the average person and their desire to keep the status quo. If he was threatened he surely was not one to act, he didn’t see a point in such behavior. His weapon was his words.

On the attack of the normal, he has many poems. I believe that The Genius of the Crowd best exemplifies this idea. Other poems with similar themes include: 40,000, Another Day, Be Kind, Let It Enfold You, and Pull a String, a Puppet Moves. Over the course of his life Bukowski wrote thousands of poems and hundreds of other works. His works are often very direct, and quite blunt. The life he led and the people he encountered influenced him greatly. In sampling his catalog one can find countless examples on this theme, and I leave you with a selection from one - Some People:

some people never go crazy.
what truly horrible lives
they must lead. (Bukowski 20-22)

Failure is Great

2010-12-30T12:36:00.000-05:00

The other day as I was describing a failure of mine to my boss I realized that I really enjoy those instances. I like when the current me is able to go back and fix some failure the past me created. I like admitting to stupid mistakes, and I like correcting them.

I wanted to write a long-winded post about this and talk about various failures of mine, but every time I start I would let myself be distracted and stop. It's sat like that since the day referenced above. Thus, this post is in essence a microcosm of the phenomenon it describes.

The one failure I originally set out to address that I will include is that of my grand scheme to post juvenile friend descriptions about people in my Facebook friends list. I started everything, beginning with a spreadsheet listing every person from the friends list. Then I used the random number generator to pick 10 people. The first was my niece Angela, and I was instantly discouraged when I realized that while I know Angela well enough I don't know that I care to write about my grade schooler niece whose account was created for FarmVille.

Then there was the brief Facebook meme that solidified my resolve to scrap the project. You might recall those couple of days where people would ask for someone to send them a random number and then they'd post a status about them. Given the similarities, my idea was suddenly far less edgy. Without the edginess all that was left was the immaturity and pettiness of it all. So I gave up.

I'm embracing the failure, though. Next time I'll put more effort into my petty juvenile ideas before I announce them, that way I'm more likely to follow through and I can have even greater failures than the past. Who knows? Maybe one will be a success instead.

Michael Vick

2010-11-21T23:03:00.004-05:00

The Michael Vick story is a great example of a terrible problem in American society. Just not the one you're thinking of. It's a story of someone who took the punishment for their crime, and yet most of society wants him to fail on the other side. It's the story of how the criminal justice system is failed by society just as much as society is failed by the criminal justice system. It's also an example of how the basic moral of forgiveness escapes both our religious and secular populations.

The Obligatory Non-Defense Paragraph:
I am not defending Michael Vick's past actions, nor am I attempting to trivialize them. Nothing herein should be construed as a defense of such repulsive behavior. I like dogs. I don't understand dog fighting (or the culture around it, which is another under-reported aspect of this). I believe it is possible to defend Michael Vick without condoning these actions, and as such I will try.

So, we all know what Michael Vick did. We should all know that he admitted his guilt and rather than have some prolonged legal battle in which he'd likely have prevailed on some technicality or lawyer wizardry, he admitted his guilt. We should all know that he served time in prison that was not only deemed appropriate by the justice system, but is excessive when compared to others who have committed like crimes.

It isn't so clear why this means that Vick should no longer be a part of this society. The way he's regarded by some is baffling - whether it be various media members questioning the morality of appreciating Vick's football talent or random people on Facebook who must remind us of how horrible Vick is as a person every time he's on TV. I can see why someone would take such a stance against Ben Roethlisberger since he wasn't punished for the highly corroborated allegations of rape, but Vick's life was ruined after his crimes were exposed. He lost essentially everything he had. He lost a year of his life in prison. He's been thoroughly punished by the media, the courts, the NFL, and continues to be punished by society.

That's not enough for everyone, though. Some want to push it further and demonize anyone who would dare to support Vick's attempts to be a productive member of society. If you like how he plays you are a bad person because you've forgotten what he did.

Such a mentality is pervasive everywhere towards ex-cons. Social justice in our society is one that punishes first, but never forgives and rarely forgets. The punishment for a criminal record is to become a second-class citizen. You have to divulge it every time you apply for a job, or they'll likely find out anyway. Good luck getting that job at that point, unless it's something lowly that no one else wanted. Even so, this is occasionally more understandable than not. I understand that you don't want someone whose already committed fraud working in the banking industry. How does having a past involving animal abuse disqualify you from throwing a football? (Save the pigskin puns.)

If Michael Vick cannot contribute to society in the field of sports, for which he has tremendous and unique talent, then we need to throw out the entire justice system. We should switch to a system in which crimes at that level result in a quick death penalty. Why should we let these people out of prison if we've predetermined that they must not be able to positively contribute? If we're not letting them out then we may as well just off them now rather than sheltering them for dozens of years. This is society saying that the justice system is a failure, and it is a failure precisely because society deems it such and refuses to give ex-cons a chance.

That is also society's way of never forgiving. Forgiveness is a basic Christian value. The Koran prescribes swift punishment for certain actions, but forgiveness after. Culturally, it's a principle that has been important for millenia. Here is a case where forgiveness seems not to apply. After all, how can you forgive a man enough to let him throw a football when he's only been to the extent of the law, become a pariah, and lost most of his fortune? He clearly hasn't suffered enough, where "enough" is determined by the harshest sentence any member of the public can imagine for him. No, we can't forgive a man who has admitted he was wrong and paid the price, because such an action in our society has become taboo. Instead, we should forgive those who admit no wrongdoing and are never punished, or at least we should forget and then act enraged when reminded. Vick admitted his guilt and thus he should be dead to all of us, or maybe just dead.

What good is a failure for society? Why should we want someone to slip into destitution and obscurity when they do something wrong, even if they are punished for it? If Michael Vick were left with no football career do you think he is more or less likely to commit further crimes?

Personally, I hope Vick succeeds. I think his can be a success story, someone who made grave mistakes and lost it all but was able to bounce back after atonement. We almost never get to root for the ex-con, this is our chance.

Two Big Take-Aways from Last Night

2010-11-03T12:00:00.001-04:00

I could write a lot about the importance of the elections last night or what went wrong and what went right, but I'm honestly in no mood. I'll summarize my thoughts like this: if you spoke to me two years ago I would have told you that the Republicans will take Congress back in 2010, and I'd be happy about it.

Of course, in the meantime the Republican party has become a vile piece of shit pressured by some of the most self centered people in the country to be even more vile, so I'm no longer happy about what happened. The Contract with America and the Silent Majority ended up being good for the country, even if they didn't really achieve their goals. I have a hard time believing that the Tea Party and whatever you want to call their radicalized bullshit will yield similar results. Back to the point...

Two things stand out in my mind more than anything else from last night:

John King needs an election results screen to be happy.

I mean, good for you, John. You looked so enthusiastic last night. I was delighted to see you in front of the touch screen again. You can point, click, pan, zoom, circle shit, and even write on it. You looked so very at home. I hope you have one of those things in your bedroom. If not, get one soon because I have a feeling you'll never be happier.

We don't have to worry about hard line Tea Partiers winning too many big races.

While they may be able to take individual districts and push the House far, far to the right last night showed that the larger the population is the less well the TP group does. In other words, every Democrat should be hoping for a strong TP influence in the next Presidential cycle. That will make Senate races easier to win (even Sestak almost won and he was running from the left, I have no doubt that Spector would have taken that race). More importantly, a radicalized, half-literate, batshit crazy Republican candidate or running mate guarantees a Democrat win for President.

The biggest proof of this is in Nevada. Reid was terribly unpopular. Almost anyone could have beat him. Sharron Angle is an extremist. She's not politically savvy. She has few populist views. She only came close because Reid has been demonized for the last two years, especially by Faux News and the conservative radio alternate universe. The Republicans worked hard to trickle this agenda into more mainstream and center targeted sources, at the very least presenting it as such that some hidden group of moderates was actually unhappy with Reid's specific performances, never mind that they were really unhappy because they were out of work and the only way the government can create jobs in a recession is through deficit spending, something the Republicans were set against even though it was the backbone of Reagan's fiscal policy. Yet, they were unable to beat him despite years of electioneering against him.

We'll see more of this. Definitely. It'll be like this in 2012. When it is, in an election that should have far greater turnout, we'll see even more defeats of radicalized Republicans. And it will be good.

Social Experimentation

2010-10-22T08:05:00.004-04:00

Now that I've detailed how many friends lists are maintained, and how I maintain mine, it's time to put this to the test.

The theory: I believe that my social network is comprised of well known associations and that I can make a legitimate justification for each of these.

The test: I will randomly select friends from my friends list. For each friend that I select I will write an entry about them. I plan for these entries to be candid and informative, they will probably consist largely of descriptions about how I know the person but many people will also include some personal stories. If I cannot explain how I know someone and why they're on my list then I will defriend them.

By picking at random I hope to avoid any bias toward people with whom I have a deeper and easier to explain relationship. I'd like to get some of those more awkward relationships out into the open without waiting until the end. If I defriend anyone I will write about it.

I've already entered my current friends list into a spreadsheet. Using random numbers from Random.org I've selected 10 people so far. First up, my niece Angela.

Since this is a public blog I'll use first names only, or first name last initial. I don't want people to be listed in stories on the open Internet without their consent but I don't think it's worth getting consent first. When this is reposted on Facebook I will tag people.

That's about it. I'll try to work my way through my friends list. I realize this is the sort of thing that a teenage girl might do, and that makes it so wonderfully awkward. I can't promise any sort of a schedule, but now that I'm committed I have to at least do a few.

Qualifying as My Facebook Friend

2010-10-21T08:15:00.002-04:00

In my last post I wrote about how I think most people treat social networking "friends" with a new mix of intimacy and distance, and that I doubt most people have lists filled with true friends. In this post I will explain what is required before I add someone to my friends list, which I believe deviates from the norm in a few ways.

How do you become one of my Facebook friends? The simple answer is that we have to have some significant contact outside of Facebook.* So, to be my friend you must have a deeper connection than simple acquaintance.

I have several previously unwritten measures that I use to determine whether I should send a friend request, or if I should accept one. Most of these I would consider "significant acts." Though I will admit that I'm far more inclined to accept a request because I view that as an olive branch, the request in itself can be considered a significant act.

A significant act is an action that solidifies a friendship or moves an acquaintance up a level. Normally this is something like, "I see this person every day." Sometimes it's someone I'm just getting to know but I've at least had a few interactions with them. More often than not I have had a lasting relationship of some kind with these people, even if that relationship consists of purely online interactions.

This brings me back to the asterisk about contact outside of Facebook. Since I consider online interactions as potentially significant it is not impossible that a person who I only know through Facebook would become a friend. In fact, that happened recently when a friend of a friend (who I've met once but only talked to a little) sent me a friend request. In several interactions with mutual friends he and I had talked, so I felt that I knew him well enough to accept the request.

I can classify most of my friends fairly quickly. There's family, the inescapable fact that if your family is part of your life you will probably interact with them in multiple ways. Friends from everyday life, the people I know because my wife and I interact with them on a somewhat regular basis. Friends from my hometown, likely people that I was completely out of touch with for a decade that these networks have brought back into my life. Coworkers and former coworkers, people who I've met through work that I felt inclined to codify my connection to them. Friends from online, people who I know from my 15 years of online presence. There's also some stragglers in there, but almost everyone falls into these categories.

Having high standards for the people I share my Facebook presence with allows me to worry less about privacy problems that have plagued the service. If I know everyone on my list then I don't have to worry as much about sharing my phone number or email with contacts. I don't worry about telling people my location or my activities, because I know these people well enough to assume they will not abuse the information. I can, at times, have very meaningful interactions on the site. I'm also not weighed down with the noise of hundreds of acquaintances.

I believe that social networks which have been codified need to be maintained. There should be some barrier to entry. There should be situations where you cut ties. Sometimes you lose touch with a person, or you grow apart, and it should be okay to realize this and record it by removing that person from your friends. If one of you decides to get back in touch then you can always re-add.

This is how I manage my social network. In my next post I will introduce an experiment of sorts that I will impose on myself. I hope to prove or disprove how close I am to those in my friends list.

Qualifying Facebook Friends

2010-10-20T17:20:00.001-04:00

One of the concepts that social networks are redefining is that of friendship. Sites like Facebook and MySpace focus upon a "friends list" that allows users to interact with one another, control their privacy, or just show off. I think it's intriguing how this has changed the meaning of friendship, and also how it breaks down old walls and builds new ones.

For me, the most interesting aspect is how many social networking users have changed the meaning of "friend" into "acquaintance." While it is common for someone's friends list to achieve membership numbers in excess of 500, it is rare in a real social network that a person would actually consider 500 people their friends. I do not believe that there has been such a huge population of super networkers and that online social networking sites [from here on: Facebook] have suddenly exposed them. Rather, I believe that this demonstrates a situation where somewhat loose acquaintances are now added as "friends" on social networks.

Adding people to your social network seems to have replaced previous acts such as exchanging business cards, phone numbers, or emails. In many ways it is superior to the actions it replaces. If you meet someone at an event that was planned using Facebook then you can later add them from the attendees list. However, the boundaries are significantly different between adding someone to a list online and giving them your phone number.

Social contexts were dramatically different before the advent of Facebook. If I give you my phone number you probably feel some hesitation to use it if you do not know me well. If you never use it then we will never communicate. If, instead, I add you to my friends list on Facebook then we barely have to initiate communication. Unless I've quarantined you using privacy features then you'll likely see my every status update, and you can choose to browse through most of my interactions. In essence, I've conveniently opened my life to someone I may barely know.

The walls continue to break down from there, though. While you may have felt that hesitancy to use my phone number or email, it's less likely that you will hesitate to write something on my wall or reply to a status update. This is a major social dynamic of early contact that has changed dramatically. Not only can a short encounter cause me to open my life to you, but the social code dictating further contact has opened up such that it is far more likely that you will engage me.

That's not to say that new barriers haven't formed. It may be easier for communications to occur and that may enable lesser acquaintances to know more and say more, but these interactions are by far less intimate and less important. Significantly more interaction is required before any sort of trust is established, which is somewhat ironic considering the volume of information you've likely shared.

The other big wall is one that may or may not be real, but in a world where everyone is at your fingertips you may not have such an urge to meet up in person. I say this may not be real because I do not believe that online communication will create a generation of reclusive geeks who only talk online. Those geeks will be there, but they were there last generation as well, and the one before that and so on. More to the point, those who don't already fall into this category will not be reclassified due to social networking. Instead, I believe that some of the types of encounters we used to have will be less prevalent. After all, who needs to meet and catch up with friends if you never quite fell out of touch?

The cliché is that absence makes the heart grow fonder. Absence is almost nonexistent in modern culture. We are always online, always available, always within reach. This can have many unwanted effects between friends. Those old friends from high school are now available, but they might not be the same person you remember. If you put your coworkers in your network you might suffer from too much information or too much exposure. These things serve to deteriorate relationships, not to grow them.

Is this the right way to handle social networking? I believe it is not. It certainly isn't right for me. In my next post I will discuss how I handle my Facebook friends. Beyond that, I hope to explore some patterns and actions that may help bring these things more in line with past societal expectations.

Route 23 Honda

2010-10-09T22:22:00.003-04:00

Last month I had to make one of those big financial decisions. My old truck finally crossed that line of marginal utility where the cost to benefit ratio was no longer in its favor. New car time.

So, you're looking at the title of this and thinking, "this guy bought a Honda." Wrong. However, I did have a great interaction with a Honda dealership. I came so close to buying a Honda Fit that I actually put a down payment on it to hold it until the weekend. In that time, I decided to buy a different car. Yet, I walked away from this so happy with the way I was treated by Route 23 Honda that I feel I need to sing their praises.

First, there was our salesman, Alton Brown. We wanted to buy the car just so we could make Good Eats jokes for the next 10 years. Of course, he was just a pretty good guy. He wanted to sell the car. He didn't want to lie to us. He didn't want to make a bunch of small talk or try any sneaky salesman tricks. Sure, he had the pamphlet on the car memorized, but I never caught any of the little deceptions that pretty much every other salesman we met threw in. Over the course of our dealings he was pretty open and didn't disappear for too very long.

Then there was the price. Cost was a major factor for me. I need basic transportation with a little cargo flexibility and room for my family. Beyond that it's all dollars. I have a spreadsheet that compares the yearly TCO for a range of cars. I used various resources to collect information on the price of each vehicle, including what people really pay. I knew that Honda doesn't cut too many deals. And yet, they did. They offered me a price that sites like TrueCar say the Fit simply doesn't sell for, at least not new. Even better, I was approved for a loan with a 0.9% APR. I knew I was getting a great deal.

So, I signed some papers and put a deposit down. They said the deposit was refundable. The paper they had me sign said it wasn't. So I had them note that it was and initial it. I knew Amex would have my back, but I was still nervous about the potential fight to back out. I had a pit in my stomach about it afterward. Oh well, it would be a pain but it might not even be necessary.

It was, though. We backed out. Not because the deal was bad. Not because the car was bad. Instead it was because another car, the Kia Soul, was a better fit for us. We liked it better. It was more comfortable. No fault of Route 23 Honda, they did a great job.

Amazingly, here's where things got even better. A simple phone call to my salesman was all that was required to cancel the deal. I could hear he wasn't happy about it, but he didn't say anything to that effect. I thanked Alton and told him we'll see him next time. I hung up. A few days later I had to give my credit card number to their billing department (they actually have security on their system so the number was unavailable) and they issued the refund.

That's it! It was one of the best experiences I've ever had with a dealership, and I didn't even buy there. Because of this, I will certainly visit Route 23 Honda any time I'm shopping for a car. Good dealerships are few and far between.

Answering Google Searchers

2010-09-01T07:29:00.000-04:00

We've already established that I like to check out my traffic stats. Of course, there's that little section that tells you what search terms were used to find your site. I've seen plenty of sites simply lampoon people for searching things. I'm going to do things a little different and try to answer some questions.

Ever since I wrote my complaint and follow-up about Chegg my blog has started to come up when people try to find out more about book rentals. I'm still a big advocate of this, it is usually the cheapest way to get textbooks. So I'm going to focus on that right now, since we're right at the beginning of the semester.

"chegg crappy service"
It makes me a little upset with myself that this was the top search term for my site last month. I was venting after a bad experience. I want to take a moment to clarify that one experience doesn't define a company with hundreds of thousands of customers. If you hit my site because of this I hope you read that and let it sink in. It is also worth noting that eventually Chegg responded to my complaint, this indicates that up the chain people care and it's actually a sign of a good company to resolve issues like this eventually. While it can be terrible to be on the consumer end of these exchanges, we have to take the corporate side into account. Some extent of the treatment I received is there because Chegg must deal with fraudulent claims. There is always some friction required to push back and keep frauds from running wild.

"chegg charged me for full cost of book", "chegg lost book fee", "chegg missing book", "what happens if you dont return chegg books"
Chegg does charge fees for lost and damaged books. So do all book rental services. In fact, if you change the media you'll find that under certain conditions you'll be charged for the replacement of DVDs from Netflix or games from GameFly. It's a perfectly reasonable requirement and it is necessary for these service to stay in business. However, that does not excuse these services from providing their customers with reasonable due process to prove that the missing book is indeed the fault of the customer. Netflix is pretty good about this, they excuse a certain number of missing discs before they begin to bill you. They also monitor their distribution and return process closely to look for theft trends. I think there may be a problem with this process for Chegg. That doesn't excuse you if you lose a book. My suggestion is to thoroughly document the return process so that if something goes wrong you can easily demonstrate that it was beyond your control.

"what box do we use to return to chegg"
Ideally you'll save the box they shipped your book in. However, I realize that's not always possible. Use the smallest box that will fit your book while still allowing it to lay flat. I suggest you wrap it in newspaper and put something in the box to keep the book from bouncing around, which may damage the book. I returned the last book I had in an Amazon box and had no problems. If you can't find a box for free then you can buy one cheaply at a UPS store, the couple of dollars likely won't break the bank and it's still cheaper than buying used from most sources. You have to go to a UPS location to drop off the package anyway.

"quality of chegg books"
Chegg books seem no better or worse than any decent used books. I didn't have a problem with them at all. In fact, I've actually found some useful notes. I don't recall any books being pristine, but the economics books I rented were both in very good condition. Comparatively, the used books I've bought were no better. Also, I recently rented a book from BookRenter, which I was expecting to be in excellent condition since their policies are less lenient to abuse, and I found it was in no better quality than those I'd received from Chegg.

I hope that helps you wayward searchers. Next time it seems I should take up some questions about Hulu.

Alice in Wonderland

2010-08-29T19:32:00.003-04:00

When I decided to revive this blog after a few months of dormancy the first post I began to write was about the Tea Party. Specifically, I was going to explain why the Tea Party, as a group, can be considered racist. I never finished that post and a few others finally made the same argument I had in mind, rendering my purpose moot. Of course, since I abandoned that post I won't make that the subject of this one.

Instead, I'd like to propose a new tact with these idiots. It's the initial thought I had on the "movement:" ignore them. They aren't worth your time. They aren't worth my time.

When I thought about this a video came to mind. It's a CollegeHumor animated parody of Disney's Alice in Wonderland mad tea party. The more I think about this the more apt it becomes. Indeed, everyone else is playing the role of Alice while the Tea Partiers play the buffoons.

If you watch original scene you will notice some key elements of the Tea Party. It's fraught with false logic, their message is all over the place, and from the outside looking in they appear to just be crazy. Alice tries to talk sense to them, but when she does she's talked over, the subject is changed, or she's met with an even more nonsensical answer.

However, the Tea Party is not run by complete idiots, even if the public front is made up of imbeciles like Sarah Palin, the GOP political strategists behind the scenes are much savvier than we give them credit for. Like in the original there is more going on than we initially see. In the Mad Tea Party we are reminded that saying what you mean and meaning what you say are different concepts. This is also true of the political Tea Party. They've taken a couple pages from the activist's handbook and realized that by yelling louder you can over-represent yourself and that a loud extremist group can help the more mainstream groups redefine the centrist position.

At some point during the scene their ideas begin to make sense. Sure, it makes sense to maximize your partying by celebrating every day that isn't your birthday, if you really like to celebrate yourself. Just like it makes sense to cut taxes or to worry about the deficit. Of course, all of these ideas are short sighted.

Perhaps the most pertinent allegory of all is that of the original Mad Tea Party, in which the reason for tea time was due to the Mad Hatter being perpetually stuck at six o'clock. The Tea Party is rife with people who are stuck in a particular time period. Most of them are in an imaginary time when pop culture teaches us that some particular set of values ruled American life. Still, others are stuck in a time period where Reaganomics is still considered a good idea, and they've drank the Kool-Aid enough to conveniently forget that Reagan had a double dip recession, tripled the deficit, and his economic policies led to another recession in 1991. By knowing nothing of history the Tea Party has conveniently stuck themselves in a place where their goals are unattainable, because they're striving for a time in American life that either didn't exist or cannot exist without abandoning almost all American values. It would require government to dictate culture in a way that would make China seem like a Free society.

All of that is beside the point, though. It's the last salvo. The point here is that Alice eventually moved on. In the Disney version she didn't learn much, and I think that's how most Americans will be when this political scene eventually fades. Sure, she had a slightly better concept of how things work in Wonderland, and likewise I can see these political arguments causing some people to be at least slightly more aware of the governmental workings here. Mostly, in that it was just a time killer.

In the book Alice learns a bit more about the world. She learns that time is a person rather than a concept. She sees that there is a method to madness. Those who are more politically savvy may pick up on the subtler aspects of this brutish political group. Further, in the meta debate over their ideas both sides throw around political and economic concepts that are actually worthy of debate. It's very confusing, but perhaps that aspect is worthwhile and maybe when this farce comes to an end we will be ever so slightly better for its occurrence.

In both renditions, Alice walks off rather disgusted. That's what I think we should do here. It is what I will do. The first step in this process for me was realizing after my vacation that I don't want to catch up on the backlog of STFU, Teabaggers. Then I unsubscribed. I also unsubscribed from Media Matters because they rarely do more than pwn Fox News, another organization I think is a waste of time. I like both of these sites, especially STFU Teabaggers where I was a somewhat frequent, though anonymous, contributor. It's not that I will completely erase news about these groups from my life, but I will no longer partake in concentrated vitriol against them.

The Tea Party is essentially a group of political trolls. They don't exist to further the conversation, they exist to influence it in the most negative and nonproductive ways possible. Trolls use misdirection to derail a debate. The best way to handle trolls is not to feed them, starve them of attention. They simply aren't worth the time.

p.s. The reason why the Tea Party is racist is because they've actively embraced or ignored their racist elements. The same is true of any group, tacit ignorance and acceptance is the best way to cosign a message. It is something that is only solved by internally policing what is and isn't socially acceptable within your group. For instance, left leaning media offered up some very sexist views of Hillary Clinton during her Presidential campaign, but the greater population of socially progressive people shamed them for it, including then candidate Barack Obama.

What Does a Smartphone Do?

2010-08-20T08:06:00.001-04:00

It's been about a month since I received my HTC Droid Incredible. I'm extremely pleased. Recently I've been thinking about the various ways this phone has changed my life.

I have a history of limited success with my cellphone choices. The phones I've had thus far were... okay. Most of them got the job done and that was about it. So, it's been somewhat revelatory having a true smartphone for the last month.

A quick rundown of my previous phones: The first was a Kyocera stick phone that pulled little more than basic phone duty, I had phone numbers stored in it but that's about it. Next was a Samsung flip phone, and with that phone I added alarm clock duties that are now requisite on all my phones. After that was an LG flip phone, which I started using for light camera work and text messaging. Then I made a big jump from Verizon to AT&T and I got a Blackberry Pearl, which also marked the shift from texting to email, a little more contact management, occasional searches, and infrequent GPS duties.

I was terribly disappointed in AT&T's service, though. So as soon as we had the chance we jumped ship back to Verizon. I splurged and for the first time bought the phone I really wanted, the Incredible. Of course it's picked up the duties of the previous phone, but it's so much more capable. Here's a list of what this phone is to me, with a brief review of the features.

It's a phone! Well, duh. It is a decent phone with good call quality. I've used the speakerphone a lot with great success. I like to use it so Kevin can talk to his grandmother without having to hand the phone over to him. My only gripe is that I instinctively hit the "Phone" button but all that's available from there is a numeric keypad. If you hit the numbers it will then select contacts based on the old-school phone key mappings, but it's difficult to call those contacts secondary numbers. I want an alpha keypad so I can search contacts and then easily select which of their numbers to call. The solution is to put the People shortcut within easy reach and teach yourself to use that instead.
It's the Internet! The Internet capabilities of this phone are pretty great. It has some Flash support, but that's not the strength. The browser on this is really great. Navigation and zoom is every bit as good as the iPhone, but it's a bit quicker. Actually, the zoom functionality is better because not only can you easily zoom in on your text but the browser then changes the flow of the text to match the width of the screen. It does this with tables and some other elements, too. For instance, if I browse the forum I frequent using my phone then I can zoom in on the thread titles column, it will then resize that column of the table to match the width of the screen so that I no longer have to scroll horizontally to read the entire title. Maybe that sounds minor, but it's huge for readability. Counter point: Navigation between tabs takes a few actions more than iOS.
It's an email client! That sounds like a non-issue, doesn't it? However, Android phones have the advantage of fantastic GMail integration. Basically, the GMail client on this phone is a native-running version of the web interface. Sure, there's a few differences, but it's a phone. It supports conversations, labels, and all that GMail goodness. The way other clients handle some of GMail's features really annoys me. For instance, my Blackberry would treat my Google Reader shared items as new messages when they hit Buzz. It would also treat every message sent as a message received because of the way conversations work. Android doesn't do that. It easily handles both of my accounts. On top of that I also have an IMAP account and my Yahoo! account. The Blackberry had some great shortcuts that I miss, but the pros far outweigh the cons here.
It's a camera! The camera on this thing is simply amazing. I turned the capture resolution down to 5MP, because I just don't need the extra detail that the max 8MP resolution offers. The flash works okay, especially for a phone. It's not too slow, either. It's great because I finally have a camera on my person that takes passable pictures and doesn't require 2 minutes to warm up. (The Blackberry was terrible about opening the camera app, and then it took grainy low res pictures.) There's no downside here.
It's an IM client! Maybe this falls under the Internet, but I think it warrants its own bullet. I no longer send SMS "text" messages. Instead, I use IM over my phone. Why pay the outrageous rates for SMS messages/plans when I'm already paying for a data plan? There's no need at all. Plus, I'm more highly available via IM because I can have it open on my computer or my phone. I did this a bit with the Blackberry, but I found it to be annoying. This phone handles the conversations a bit better and I like the onscreen keyboard better than the Pearl's keyboard. It helps that this device is so much more responsive, so I can reply very quickly. The downside is that some people still think SMS is a good idea, I've started telling them to use my Google Voice number.
It's an iPod! Well, it's at least an MP3 player. I don't think the music players available on this thing quite stack up to the iPod, but they're close enough to render my iPod Touch a paperweight. Between the music stored on my phone and Pandora, I probably use this thing 30 hours a week for just that. I need to get a bigger MicroSD card, but otherwise it's completely replaced my old music player. It also has some features that the iPod lacks, like an FM tuner. If my commute ever changes back to one that relies on public transit then I will use this more, but I've already used it a few times if there's something interesting on NPR and I have to get out of my car.
It's an alarm! I mentioned this one before, I use my phone as my alarm. The alarm on this is much better than my Blackberry's was. It's almost the same as my iPod's alarm, but the iPod's weak external speaker rendered that useless. I suspect any iPhone would be equally good. The last time I had a phone with this good of an alarm system was the LG. I'll add in here that it's also my watch. I haven't worn a watch more than a handful of times since I started carrying a cellphone.
It's my planner! I generally have no clue what the date is. Actually, there's a lot of times where I can't pinpoint the day of the week. I have to try very hard to remember what's planned. The phone syncs nicely with Google Calendar and I've started putting things directly in via the phone. As I get more used to this I may even stop relying so heavily on my wife to remember what the hell I'm doing on a given day.
It's got the traffic and weather! When it's quick and easy to pull up this information on your phone there's that much more incentive to take a second to check this info. I can glance at the weather in the morning, and I normally check the traffic before I leave the parking lot after work.
It's a GPS Navigator! I have a Garmin that I use on the weekends, so I haven't had too much of a chance to use the GPS. I did use it a few times, once as a test on my way to work. Another time to find a restaurant in Passaic. Both times I found the turn by turn directions to be on par with Garmin's, though the text to speech system isn't as good. I'm a big fan of GPS navigation and I'd always planned to eventually get a second unit for my truck, but I've scrapped that now. The navigator on my phone is good enough for lighter duty use and I can use the Garmin for longer trips.
It's a time killer! Like the iPod/iPhone, this device is great for little hand held games. I have a few on it already. These are perfect for taking a break or in the waiting room. Yesterday I managed to play a game of Minesweeper while my boss took a call. [Don't tell her that.] Of course, I can also play most YouTube videos on it if I want. Or I can pull up Google Reader and churn through my RSS feeds.
It's going to be my 3G modem! I did root my phone but I've yet to get the tethering to work correctly. I will, though, and I'm sure it will come in handy eventually.

I could go on into minutia but I'll stop there. I think the point is clear, this is a very useful device. Some of the uses are limited and others are trivial, but overall it's great to have around.

I will temper my enthusiasm, though. By now you've heard that the battery life on Android phones is terrible, and I won't dispute that claim. Depending on what I'm doing I've gone anywhere from 12 hours to 2 days between charges. It helps to put the phone into airplane mode at night, something akin to the sleep mode that Blackberry phones have. There's also something to be said for the sheer volume of my personal data that I've entrusted to Google, which is a topic I could write an entire post on.

There's also the iPhone comparison issue. It is inescapable to compare the Incredible, or really any Android phone, to the iPhone. For me the Incredible wins hands down. When others mention they're in the market for another phone I tell them that the iPhone will serve them well. This is akin to my advice with portable music players, I prefer not to go the Apple route* but I point almost everyone else in that direction if they're looking for such a device. I actually don't point people away from Android, but I recommend they go to the store and try out the different offerings.

*I have an iPod Touch because I won it, I still have my iAudio player from before that but the iPod holds 16x as much music so it was impossible to resist at the time. As I mentioned, the iPod is now a paperweight.

I'll have to see how this phone ages. I plan to write about my experiences with it and any tips, tricks, or particularly useful apps that I find. For now, let's just say I'm pretty happy being an android.

Windows Server 2008 R2 and COM Objects

2010-08-19T12:15:00.001-04:00

So we just went through a huge ordeal while trying to decommission an old server and move a legacy website onto a new one. The old server was a 32 bit Windows Server 2003 machine, the new one is 64 bit Windows Server 2008 R2. The website is classic ASP that uses Dimac's JMail control and SoftArtisan's FileUp control, which are both 32 bit.

The result was several HTTP 500 errors and a relatively generic set of log messages. Actually we weren't always seeing anything in the logs. It was fairly perplexing. When we did get error messages they were like this:

800a01ad|ActiveX_component_can't_create_object

8000ffff|Enque:_Error__no_pickupdirectory_found.

80004005|[Microsoft][ODBC_Driver_Manager]_Data_source_name_not_found_and_no_default_driver_specified

The first part of the solution was to set the application pool for that website to 32 bit. You do this by opening IIS Manager, select Application Pools, select the application pool you're modifying, in the Actions pane click Advanced Settings..., then set Enable 32-Bit Applications to True. After you've done that, reset IIS and try your site. If the site still isn't working, reboot your machine. Apparently Windows isn't all that keen on switching between 64 and 32 bit, so sometimes a reboot is in order. [We had to.]

Maybe that will fix your problems, it didn't for us. In fact, the ODBC error seems to stem from this action. Apparently when you create an ODBC DSN it's only available to 64 bit processes. You have to create the DSN in the 32 bit space by using the 32 bit Data Source Administrator from the SysWOW64 directory [odbcad32.exe].

We still had those pesky JMail errors. The object was created successfully but we were getting File I/O errors. We followed advice that suggested we should copy the DLL to the SysWOW64 directory and register it there. No change. We modified the permissions on the DLL to allow everyone to read and execute it. No change.

What we hadn't thought of yet was to modify permissions on the SMTP pickup folder. We didn't think of this because the test page we'd created had everything but the instantiation commented. Still, this simple change made all the difference. For whatever reason, giving write permission to the IUSR didn't fix this. We tried a few other users before we gave up and just gave all local users write permission to the pickup folder. This did the trick.

Overall this was a royal pain. That's why I stopped to do this quick write up. I hope it helps.

Video Quality, Content, and Cable Replacement

2010-08-17T17:52:00.000-04:00

Last week researchers at Rice University released the results of a study on subjective video quality. These largely confirm my opinion on the current best streaming service. It's not the video quality, it's the content.

We don't watch movies and shows in a vacuum. Other factors matter. The most important one is that you actually want to watch the content. This is especially true of any service that you might have to pay for. It's the reason why Netflix doesn't have a streaming only plan, those DVDs help augment their limited but growing library of streaming content. Without the extra DVD many subscribers would have lower satisfaction as the ebb and flow of licensing cause periods where desirable content is lacking.

Of course, that's only part of the story. The importance of these services is that they are likely to displace our current television service in the long run. For that to happen the services need to not only mimic the television experience, but surpass it. Meanwhile, the cable providers won't rest on their laurels and watch themselves be supplanted. The only way to win this battle is to provide the absolute best overall service for the money.

So long as you've tried them all then you already know what the best service is.

The video quality doesn't matter so much. The user interface is something that we can hack at until we've found every flaw and highlight, but after watching two videos you likely know what you like. You intuitively pick the best service. You've probably already done the cost/benefit analysis without even knowing.

This is a $90 Billion industry. It's an understatement to say that there's a lot at stake. Netflix has become a billion dollar company in roughly a decade. Speculation on a Hulu IPO puts the value at around $2 billion. Online video might be a startup industry, but it's growing fast.

Millions of people have decided that Netflix provides sufficient value and have subscribed. Millions also watch Hulu on a daily basis. Of course, I think Hulu is better. Millions more subscribe to some sort of cable television service and may or may not bother with the other two. There is a lot of strong crossover in these groups. I'm sure most Netflix and Hulu users either still subscribe to cable, or they use other online video services.

All of these services are trying to tip the scales in their favor. Netflix has added thousands of new streaming titles since I last reviewed their streaming library. Hulu adds new content constantly, and they have the advantage of their traditional media ownership. Cable isn't adding new content so quickly, instead they're adding more technology via set top boxes and their own streaming offerings. Of course, the cable companies also get the most money directly from subscribers, their goal is to stop the bleeding.

How does this apply to the customers, though? Well, for one we can't expect a free ride forever. If content shifts online then we'll see more premium services pop up. Netflix is one of them, and increasingly Netflix acts like an old-school premium channel by signing exclusive streaming contracts to lock in content for extended periods of time. Hulu added their Plus service, which is a little different in that it's more akin to a television archive with access to some higher video quality content. It's a very cool take on such a service, but I wonder how broad the appeal will be.

If online video expands and more customers shift away from cable providers we'll also see an increase in broadband prices, especially in monopoly markets. Most markets will continue to have these monopolies, or anti-competitive oligopolies in the short run. Eventually we may see more competition from wireless and wifi providers. During the period where options are limited we're likely to see broadband prices increase as cable subscribers decrease. There will be offset contracts for subscribers to both services, but this will be a big hindrance to those who want to switch away from cable simply to save money.

The point of this exercise is to emphasize that money only matters in the short term. What we need to focus on is value. Money is part of value, so some people may be more inclined to use Hulu and deal with advertising so they won't have another $9+ bill each month. Others hate commercials and love the idea that they can pay a paltry amount to avoid them. Value is very subjective and it requires everyone to evaluate things themselves.

Even video quality is merely part of the value equation and is likely to be a non-issue in a few years. Today's issues include playback smoothness, image quality, and buffering. It is a given at this point that these issues won't exist in another five years. Advances in video encoding, decoding, and hardware will cure the smoothness issue. Competition will cause more providers to offer HD video, and those same advances in delivery will help this video get to you smoothly. Edge networks will help the bigger providers with the buffering, but so will smaller file sizes. These things are problems today, not tomorrow.

The real problem is overall experience. Things like UI design and customer service. Technological and economical challenges are relatively easy to solve. We know where to look, and have a rough idea of what to do. Human interaction is infinitely complex. The larger your user base the harder it is to please everyone. The solutions to these problems don't scale the way others do.

That's why when I review on of these sites I focus so much on getting to the content I want and viewing it. I focus less about what the content is than I do with how it works. The online video services that solve these problems will invariably solve the other problems. So they're the ones worth considering. Beyond that it's all content.

Book Rental Industry Madness!

2010-08-12T20:29:00.007-04:00

The Google email alerts were aflutter with activity today after I wrote my post about Chegg.

One of the benefits of having a blog that almost no one reads, yet still having access to Google Analytics, is that I can practically hone in on every little hit my blog receives. Sometimes it's just fun, because I can presume to know exactly who that hit represents. Other times it's handy because I can track down strange traffic.

In this case, there was strange traffic. I do get stray visitors to my blog, but they are few and far between. So when three people replied to the last post, something seemed odd. Maybe my preachy rant about how to run a customer service operation had gained traction somewhere. Needless to say, I was curious.

So I checked. My little blog received visits from a PR management firm, Chegg competitors, and of course, Chegg.

I have to say... I'm flattered.

I'm also impressed. It's good to know that these companies are paying attention. It's great to see them using the web to manage their reputations. This probably shouldn't be too surprising. These are web upstarts, they aren't stodgy blue chips and they haven't grown beyond the point of caring.

Since I know you guys are reading, I want to say something to you.

Chegg: Thank you for your efforts to make me whole again as a customer. I don't know if that was a direct result of what I wrote before, or if it was already happening. We weren't expecting another call or the personal attention we received. Any way I look at it, in the end you went above and beyond.

I hope my story raised some eyebrows. My wife said that she found other stories of similar experiences on the web. The problem we had, more than anything, was how far things went and the treatment along the way. Until this incident I was an advocate of your service. I hadn't written about it, but through word of mouth I would tell everyone in college to check your site first. I'm sure if experiences like mine are limited then you'll continue to have high customer satisfaction.

Fleishman-Hillard: I suspect your reputation management service had something to do with the above. Kudos to you.

BookRenter: I do still intend to use your service. Thanks for visiting.

And I'm not quite sure why Follett visited. I know they're in the textbook industry, but that one seems odd.

It's been a weird day, but I feel like this was productive.

Edit: My wife points out that Follett also does book rentals. Guess I didn't look hard enough (and thinking back I vaguely recall the press release on that one).

Chegg: Cheap Books, Crappy Service, Costly Results

2010-08-12T07:28:00.003-04:00

My wife and I have been using Chegg for a while with decent success. Renting a book through Chegg is generally at least $30 cheaper than buying used, even if you sell the book back. I like the business model and all was going well until last semester. Now they're trying to charge me full price for two books on a gotcha scheme where you can't prove their employees' ineptitude.

Here's what happened: Both of us rented several books for Spring semester. Time slipped by and my wife never sent them back. So we paid a late fee. That was fine, it was our fault. After that we made sure to send it back, because inaction on our part would result in the purchase of the book. So we sent three of them back in a single box.

The catch: only one of those books was checked back in. The box was received, there was no mention of damage to the box. Thing is, we can't prove that we put all of the books in it. Why? Because with Chegg you simply use their return labels, so there's no receipt saying how heavy the box was, nor is there any remaining evidence of the contents. It's your word against theirs.

What this means for you is that if one of their warehouse workers screws up, you're paying. Or at least you'll be charged. I'm nearly certain that's what happened here. I have no hard evidence but it certainly does fit. We know we returned all of the books due at the time, the box arrived, but only one book was checked in. That's not all, though...

Just today, as we attempted to print the return label for the last book we'll ever rent from Chegg, we found that the book was marked as returned. It happens that this is my Macroeconomics book, whereas the Microeconomics book from last semester is one that went missing. Needless to say, they're very similar books. Why is this one, which I'd only just received back then and is still sitting in my office, marked as returned when the other went missing?

There's a million scenarios, but this is what seems likely: The books arrive and for whatever reason they are manually checked in (a barcode is misread, maybe that's just the process). The worker receiving the book doesn't pay enough attention, because they're probably not paid well enough to pay attention and likely have quotas to meet for the day. Said worker checks in the book that was recently rented instead of the book that was due.

That still leaves a mystery of what happened to the other book that is missing. However, in such a scenario it's likely that stressed, underpaid workers doing repetitive cataloging will make mistakes. So it wouldn't surprise me if that book were simply not properly checked in.

Of course, that's only half the problem. The other half is the way this service will treat you in this scenario. They're argumentative. They're brash. They refuse to acknowledge any possibility of fault. You'll spend countless calls with different members of their CSR team explaining the same thing over again, and receiving the same attitude each time. Then they charge you full price and completely destroy the value of their service.

That ends my relationship with Chegg. Well, there is one more chapter to this. After my wife speaks with yet another supervisor today, if the problem is not somehow amicably resolved, we'll be speaking with our credit card company to dispute the charge. Fortunately, Amex tends to look down on this as much as I do.

Update: It would seem that it is possible to get through to these people. After a conversation with a supervisor, and an explanation that yes there are two economic fields with similar names, we're getting a refund. There's no explanation as to what happened to the other book. I don't particularly care, though. It's over and that's what matters.

Update 2: Pretty wild. We received another call and a bit more of a refund. I think Chegg is taking this to heart. There's more here.

Let's Hear it for My Wife

2010-08-06T08:02:00.000-04:00

My wife is finally a college graduate, twice. Just yesterday she finished her undergraduate studies and has earned her BS in Social Work. A month ago she received a diploma in the mail from her last college, who decided two years later that she had indeed earned her associates degree. So that's two degree in the span of a few months.

Over a decade ago she graduated with honors from high school. She made it into one of those whose-who books and all of that. She had full scholarships to many colleges, and was accepted into NYU. Her parents, although they'd lived just outside of NYC for 30 years (longer for her mother) refused to consider NYU. Lehigh was too far for their baby. So they sent her off to Sacred Heart in Connecticut. She hated it.

Sure, she made some friends. There was a nun there who she still speaks fondly of. Maybe some of the teachers were good, I don't remember at this point. The other people at the school were terrible. She was saddled with a crappy roommate and had to switch, that roommate never let it go, though. She and her friends decided to make college unbearable for my wife and her new roommate and they largely succeeded. Her grades were still decent, though. So she was able to transfer schools easily, at the cost of some of her scholarships.

Next up was Wright State in Ohio. Here she made a lot of friends, and she had a pretty good time. I'm reminded of some of the parties and pranks on an almost daily basis. Of course, the problem here was hardly the school or the people... it was me. Our relationship was a huge distraction from her studies. I didn't support her. My life was a mess and it generally rubbed off on her. Her GPA was approaching 3, which she thought was passable though she certainly wasn't thrilled by it. Turns out it wasn't, she lost her financial aid after they raised the standards slightly. She'd found a school she liked but she could no longer attend.

Defeated, she returned to Jersey and worked. And worked. And worked. She's a hard worker. Her whole family is. I'm envious of their work ethic. Of course, something didn't sit right with her. She'd spent four years in college and had nothing to show for it. When she said she wanted to go back I knew this time had to be different.

She enrolled in Bergen Community in NJ. Nothing fancy this time. Bergen is fairly reasonable if you live in the county and it just so happens that we lived in the ass crack of Bergen at the time. I liked to call our place the last house in Saddle Brook, because we were technically in Saddle Brook but for all intents and purposes we lived in Garfield. Please don't take too much offense if you live in that area, but I was not a fan. Still, she was able to go to a decent community college on the cheap and that's what she did.

This time was different, though. She had to work while going to school. Fortunately, unlike me, she could keep pace with two full time schedules. She was on course for an AS in two years. At this point she was a little uncertain what she wanted to do at school. She'd been through so much of the soc/psych program but she didn't want a degree that would be useless without a graduate degree. In the end, I don't even remember what she decided, because it didn't much matter. She knew she was going to go on to another school rather than rest on her associates degree. Ultimately it came down to one gym class. The problem? I was working in NYC and she was pregnant, still working, and just couldn't be bothered for a diploma she'd do little with. She wanted to move on and so she did. Another two years of school and still nothing.

She enrolled in William Paterson in Wayne. You might recognize it as the school that Sammi from The Jersey Shore attends. It's still fun to point that out. Anyway, she was set on education when she enrolled. She was accepted into the department and was doing well. Yet, every new semester brought new drama. Her advisors told her contradictory things and kept changing the program requirements. She could feel her work slipping away again. It would take an extra year, at least, at this rate. She was attending full time, spending the rest of her time being a mom. [I believe being a full time student is far easier than being a full time mom.]

Another change was in order. She switched to social work. This department was much better. She was back on track. As she approached her last year it looked like everything would fall into place. Of course, at this point we knew better. She wasn't able to take either her qualitative or quantitative research classes in the fall. This forced her to take both classes in the spring so that she could take senior seminar over the summer - that is, if she could get permission to take them both at once and if senior seminar would be offered. This set up the spring semester from hell.

She was approved to take both classes at once, though some people thought she was crazy for wanting to do it. There wasn't a choice, really. It was that or she wouldn't graduate this school year. Disaster almost struck immediately, she had to switch around her schedule three times because after a single class with the one professor she knew she'd fail. Turns out that wouldn't be her only problem that semester, the teacher she eventually had for quantitative was terrible. He didn't teach the class such that any of the students understood the material, then he waited until the last three weeks of class to approve everyone's work and give a semester's worth of exams all at once. My wife is the only person in the class who got an A. We know this because he apparently showed another student. In fact, she got an A in all four of her classes that semester.

On to summer semester. At this point we have to thank her professor for even offering to teach the class. No other teacher would, and a couple dozen students wouldn't graduate this school year without it. After the semester from hell this one was easy in comparison. The course requires you to do three things, write a research paper, give a presentation on your findings, and take an exam. Done, done, and done. In the meantime she interviewed for jobs, got one, took her GRE, and was accepted into graduate school. She doesn't rest on her laurels.

Oh yeah, she also got her other diploma around the same time. Actually, the same day she was hired. It turns out that Bergen changed their program eliminating the gym requirement. When she received mail from them she was perplexed. What could it be? Oh, it's just a diploma issued in May 2010 from a school she hasn't attended in two years. It should be fun to explain this to employers.

That's really it. She's been in college intermittently for 15 years. She was enrolled at some point during at least 10 of those years. Now she has two diplomas from two different institutions, finally some validation for all her work.

As for me, I'm inspired. I've been back in school for the last year. It's a hard slog, especially with the way my time is split. Yet, I don't think it quite compares to the trials she's been through. It merely helps me to appreciate her work.

That's why I decided to write out her story, because I think it needs to be told to fully appreciate how great this accomplishment is. She didn't give up. Sure, life got in the way, but that didn't stop her. She worked damned hard and earned her degrees at least twice over. I'm proud. Exceptionally proud. So much that I wasn't quite sure how to express it. The only thing I could think of was this.

I love you Karenann.

The Best Streaming Service

2010-04-26T17:58:00.002-04:00

I've long avoided writing this post. Maybe it's because I was hoping for more progress in the streaming video field. Maybe I was just being lazy. I'm actually leaning towards the thought that I didn't want to admit the truth.

The truth is that there is no best streaming service. However, there are best services in a couple of categories. There's also the highly subjective "best service for Dan." Without delay, that service is:

Hulu.

Sorry Netflix. I've been a loyal customer for so long. In fact, I probably watch more content from Netflix than I do from Hulu, but it's all on DVD. The truth is that due to the implementation and catalog I almost never watch anything via Netflix streaming. Hulu is easy, available, and most of all it has loads of high quality content. In the end, no technical measure can make up for that quality of the catalog. The video quality is better on other services, as is the community. I should also mention that I can tolerate commercials, especially in the low dosage and variety that I see on Hulu.

If you prefer the catalog offered by Netflix, it is the superior service. If you can't stand commercials that may tip it the edge. I consider Netflix the winner overall if we ignore content. The combination of online and offline viewing is great. I appreciate the user reviews and recommendation system, both of which help me make up my mind what's the best use of my entertainment time. The Silverlight based player is also superior to most Flash implementations. It's not perfect by any means, but it delivers solid video quality and UI with much less resource utilization. I can watch Netflix content on my 6-year-old Pentium 4 desktop without noticeable degradation in quality or dropped frames. I can't say the same about Hulu.

I have to also mention Amazon's VOD service. It's Flash based, yet they've worked some magic to deliver a superior video experience to just about anyone else in the streaming sector. It's a winner in that respect, but it loses in almost every other. The UI is terrible and confusing. Most importantly, from a value perspective Amazon ranks up there with a trip to Blockbuster (brick & mortar, that is). Most of the VOD offerings are available as rentals for only a small discount over buying a boxed set or renting a DVD. I'd rather use my money on a Netflix subscription and rent the DVDs. I'd recommend Amazon's service as a way to try one of the few series they have before you buy or rent the set, but otherwise I don't think it's worth it now.

As for other services, I've excluded many based on principle alone.

I don't count YouTube because only a small part of its content is longer than 10 minutes. Most of the shows you can watch there are webisodes, or they're illegally posted and broken into 10 minute chunks. No thanks.

I really like Vimeo's player for its UI and video quality, but beyond that is suffers from the same problem as YouTube. It's all user-generated, independent content. Vimeo has a lot of merit, they're kinda the PBS of the web. They host a lot of great shows, but ultimately the stuff there is just for a quick break from work or its all substance with no entertainment value. I'm also not sure of their website at all, I only seem to view their content via the embedded player. I'll have to do a proper review another time.

There's many, many more. I'm not going to bother to review all the different networks, especially since the biggest players simply signed up with Hulu. Viacom hosts a lot of its stuff, but they use a no-frills Flash player and they seem to focus more on making their content short so it can be embedded. This seems to be the way smaller cable networks have gone. They really want you to watch TV instead. Anime sites like CrunchyRoll have serviceable players but nothing great. Aggregator sites like Joost have largely given up on hosting content (beyond ads) and focused on aggregation, so they're not worth a mention. Beyond that, how much is there? I'm sure I'm missing some service but I doubt it would change the top three that I picked.

Hulu it is. I'll give it another year or so and revisit.

Feature Creep: The Enemy of an In-House Developer

2010-04-15T06:25:00.000-04:00

If you do in-house development then you probably have first-hand knowledge of feature creep. If you don't know what that is, or you haven't seen it happen, then I envy you. It's an ugly monster and the bane of my work. The problem is not limited to in-house developers; it is particularly acute in that environment, though.

This is because development cost is a taboo topic in most in-house development environments. The developers and their immediate management don't want to talk about it because they don't want to remind senior management that in-house development is expensive. Senior management is happy to ignore it because they crave the finite control, costs be damned. So a game is played to balance the quality of the product with costs, where the quality is generally lower than a prepackaged system and the cost is generally higher. In general, this works fine. It helps keep developers employed and management happy.

The real problems start as the customization culture trickles down the management chain. Depending on how vertical the structure of your company is, you may have dozens of management steps between the top and the developers. Typically, when software is not a primary focus of the company, your developers and their managers will be quite low on the org chart. This puts them at a disadvantage when dealing with almost any manager and makes saying no quite difficult.

Therein you have the perfect storm: A situation where discussion about cost is a taboo, but the number of powerful voices calling for increased cost is huge. It's worse yet, though. When management's focus is not on software but instead specifically on how to make software work for them (as in, each manager personally) there is often little to no concern about the cost of feature creep to usability. In fact, usability is typically not in a non-technical manager's vocabulary. Outside of the developer group no one cares about usability, and often inside the developer group it is neglected because of the notion that client doesn't care.

Unfortunately, even if the user thinks they don't care about usability they really do. The difference between great software and passable software is often usability. The difference between a truly happy client and a client who is merely happy that development is done is usually usability. Software is supposed to solve a problem, to help a user achieve a goal. If it is too difficult to use it creates more problems than it solves, or it hinders the users from achieving their goals. At that point it should be considered a failure, though reality shows that this rarely happens.

Failed development projects, whether they are recognized or not, are dangerous. They put developers on shaky ground. They cause managers to think of the taboo of their in-house development: cost. If they aren't thrilled with the product then they will be far more likely to consider whether it is worth the money. The only thing that keeps this from happening is that they are often too egotistical to admit failures, but eventually if feature creep continues they will come around. When they do they will externalize the failure to the development group, after all it is their job to make this software and if it's so much more expensive then it should be better, right?

Wrong. There is little connection between cost and quality in software. Devs don't dare tell a manager this, except maybe as a last resort. Lest he add things together and realize that he could put company resources to better use.

Of course, most developers actually do want to put resources to better use. With less pet projects on their plate most developers will try to automate processes to save the company money. They'll refine existing systems to make them more efficient. In this aspect, in-house developers yearn to be more like system and network administrators; if you can't tell I'm there then that means I'm doing my job. Occasionally they might venture off course to test some new technology or try to solve a particularly complex problem, but for the most part a dedicated in-house developer is happy with the sense of accomplishment that comes when he or she knows that their product made a truly positive impact.

Developers have a responsibility to fight against feature creep. Don't buy into the false mantra that your job is to do as you're told. Your job, at any level of any company, is to act in the company's interest. That means to be truthful about costs and try to help management make the right decisions. There is no room for complacency in this. Feature creep is the developer's enemy and it is our duty to fight.

DINOsaurs

2010-04-11T13:25:00.000-04:00

Politics around the healthcare debate have reached fairly epic levels recently. As the bill passed I've noticed a general mood among the people I know who are even remotely politically aware that is eerily similar to the mood before and immediately after the election. Moderate Republicans have all but shut up about things after passage, meanwhile the radical factions have gone completely bonkers. [Note: for some it was not a long journey.] Democrats were whipped up at the end, and they still have a feint elation about the entire ordeal, yet the pessimism that this administration is not liberal enough soon returned.

Granted, it has been my position that this administration is neither significantly more liberal or less liberal than President Obama promised as a candidate. I also believe that by the administration and congress whipping members into passing comprehensive health care reform, among various other acts that are done or in the works, they've been very productive. Between this and credit card reform alone, I'm very happy with the first year or so of this administration.

I'm not as happy with congressional Democrats, though. They seem almost completely inept at forming any sort of narrative or defending any of their actions. I can't think of the last time that a Democratic member of the legislative branch called out the revisionist history that the Republicans are selling. The history that says that tea partiers are the majority voice of the people (which only works if you look at racial demographics) while ignoring the historic victory that brought President Obama into the White House. The history that blames Obama for the recession, ignoring that the housing crisis started during the summer of '08, and the problems that led to our crappy economy were almost completely ignored by the previous administration and the ones before it. The history that calls out as offensive almost every presidential act that Obama performs, regardless of the bipartisan precedent of that act. The history that calls the obstructionist attitudes of Republicans - who are now voting against proposals identical to those they previously drafted - maverick and revolutionary. Why aren't our representatives fighting back at this? Why isn't anyone standing up to say, "Hey, that's a lie," or "This health care plan was good enough for you when you offered a nearly identical plan as an alternative to the Clinton health care legislation."?

I believe it is because we've let our Democrat representatives grow too soft. We've mistakenly believed that a sweeping victory for Democrats in two straight elections would give them the leverage necessary to make the progressive changes we desire. We were wrong. Not in our intentions, but in our judgment. We were led to believe in the majorities we gave, but these were false majorities propped up by numerous "independents" and "blue dog" Democrats. When the other side formed a narrative that the majority was dangerous, ignoring what previous majorities on their part had done, these groups of right-leaning politicians that caucus with the Democrats completely caved, and they took the rest of their caucus with them.

I propose that we frame a new narrative for the upcoming election. I believe we should challenge every one of these worthless "Democrats" from the left. We should be upset at their inaction, cowering and inability to properly represent the people who elected them. If the Republican have RINOs, then we should properly label these politicians DINOs. Democrat In Name Only. Also, because they tend to cling to an anti-progressive agenda that ignores civil rights movements over the last five decades, we can call them DINOsaurs. They're outdated and unwanted. When they lose their office we should let them know it is not because they leaned too far left, but because they leaned too far right and we could no longer support them. We don't need them in our caucus.

We should expect some losses come this November, but they will largely be these useless barnacles that do almost nothing to further our cause. Progressives need not lament, but instead become engaged. Good riddance to these people, let's work to replace them with someone useful.

Christie Guts Education

2010-04-10T13:21:00.003-04:00

I was reading an article posted on Facebook about NJ Governor Christie's cuts to educational funding. Some of the responses seemed to cheer for Christie and these huge cuts, claiming that they were aimed squarely at corruption. This is a short version of my opinion on the topic. I think there's a lot of misconceptions on this issue:

Cutting funding for education isn't going after corruption. It's a blatant affront to public service. What corruption there is won't be so easily weeded out. But he and others like him are in favor of voucher systems and charter schools, this is an attack on the secular public schools in favor of private (and largely religious) private schools.

It's also an attack on the communities that need this most. If you look at the list of cuts the biggest (dollar wise) are in the neediest areas. Obviously Upper Saddle River schools will get by without an extra $300k, and they'll have an easier time finding a way to replace that money. Passaic and Paterson schools lost millions, and they'll have to cut innumerable services and jobs to make up for that. They cannot squeeze blood from a stone by raising local taxes enough to cover this. Indeed, even if they could Christie has made sure that's impossible because the cuts across the board are 5% or more and local municipalities are only allowed to raise property taxes enough to cover a 4% school budget increase.

But let's look at the corruption issue and charter schools. What makes anyone think charter schools are immune to corruption? Evidence points to as much or more corruption in charter schools. Let's use my hometown of Dayton, OH as an example. Faced with high unemployment and low tax revenues the city tried a charter school system that promised to cut costs and corruption. The result? Charter school owners took the money and ran, did not provide even half of the services they promised, and many of them have been shut down with their administrators indicted or sued by the city. Now the city's schools are in complete shambles and the system is bankrupt, bogged down with several lawsuits and scrambling to figure out what to do with children who no longer have schools.... See More

Instead of hearing failed stories like this we're presented with the stories of privileged children who excel in these schools. In upper-middle class areas where families have two parents and home life is easy. Areas where charter schools are easy to fund and likely to succeed, and there's little evidence that the public schools were failing. Areas where there is no need for after-school programs, or food assistance, allowing the schools to operate cheaply and at a profit.

Then there's the teachers. Do you think charter school teacher make so much less than public school teachers? Do you think public school teachers make so very much money? In NJ, one of the highest paying states for teachers in the country (but also one of the wealthiest states and among the highest cost of living), teachers make on average slightly more than the average college graduate. Those averages ignore the different types of degrees, for instance the math and science teachers are required to have degrees that would result in higher pay in the private sector. Also, those with postgraduate education are included in that average, and the average pay for those with masters degrees is $30k more per year than the average pay for teachers.

Suffice to say I think the data presented is often skewed, and there's such a huge focus on the benefits teachers get and the misinformation about their salaries. What Christie is doing is beyond the pale, some cuts were required but to simultaneously cut services for the poor and taxes for the rich is sickening. I have a very wealthy friend who is moving to CT. She's moving because the school system in Montclair is so bad. We don't need to protect the rich, they aren't leaving the wealthy areas in any sort of worrying numbers.

Toyota

2010-02-09T17:45:00.001-05:00

This morning Toyota made the much-anticipated announcement that it will recall another half million vehicles. This recall is far more telling than the last, though. This is a highly publicized recall for an issue that has caused no significant incidents. In other words, this is Toyota's first foray into the territory that GM and Ford have lived in for at least thirty years.

The question of the day is: will Toyota manage to control this incident and win back their overblown reputation? If they don't then we can trace their decline back to this moment. As soon as the CEO of Toyota made a public apology during a voluntary recall the game changed.

It's unclear now, but Toyota is in a precarious position. Both GM and Ford have managed to improve design and quality significantly over the last decade. Recent changes at GM should help to control costs. If the American manufacturers (aside from the seemingly doomed Chrysler) are able to salvage their reputations at a time when Toyota has lost its magic then the trend towards Japanese manufacturers could reverse. That's terrible news for Toyota.

It's also bad for Honda. Honda's fate is tied to Toyotas similarly to how any of the Big Three are tied to the others. Even though automobiles are built globally, with parts sourced from all over the world and final assembly increasing pushed closer to the point of sale*, the most important factor in a homogenized market is the perception of quality. Too often that perception is tied to the manufacturer's country of origin. "Japanese cars are better!" "This is German engineering!" And of course the fading murmur of "Buy American!" If the biggest Japanese manufacturer loses its believers its sure to change perceptions of a few Honda faithful.

The truth is that none of these things matter today. These safety recalls for Toyota should change nothing. Toyotas aren't less safe than they were yesterday, or a year ago. They merely experienced the inevitable when you're mass producing a complex machine that's designed to hurdle rank amateurs down roads filled with other amateurs at high speeds. Something will eventually go wrong; some obscure detail will cause a failure; and people will die.

For the record, I have little sympathy for some of the deaths related to the original recall. Especially for the California highway patrolman who let his Lexus speed out of control before wrecking at 120 MPH. Seriously? A police officer, one of the best trained drivers on our roads, didn't know to shift into neutral? Turn the car off? It's a shame he took his family with him but it's hard to fault Toyota when it's clear that the driver was lacking common sense.

*Translation: Japanese and American manufacturers source parts from the U.S. and overseas, and most cars they sell in the U.S. they assemble here.

Two Points Each, Mac and PC

2010-01-04T05:15:00.003-05:00

Compatibility. While the general thinking is that Windows machines have the most software and the world works on Windows, so you can do anything in it, I believe this is a short sighted non-technical viewpoint. The reality is that Microsoft makes very little attempt to support standard formats, instead they spend time developing their own formats which then become de facto standards. Despite Microsoft’s practice of stunting compatibility using patents and copyright claims, Mac owners enjoy the ability to open most file formats without the need for additional software. Windows users have to install third party applications to open standard formats such as PDF.

“It just works.” When Mac users say this they aren’t talking about the lack of viruses and other malicious programs. They’re talking about usability, compatibility, and stability. Due largely to Apple’s software and hardware philosophies, Mac owners enjoy a relatively hassle free experience. The interface is highly consistent and few developers of software for Macs stray from the conventions. Apple’s control of the hardware means few driver issues ever arise. Their design standards for the hardware add another element of usability. Once you learn to use OS X you rarely have to think about it, it just works.

Advantages of a PC:

Ubiquity. Microsoft was able to grab the business market. This is the true key to their success, without the exposure and indoctrination of millions via the workplace the home computer revolution of the 90’s would not have been possible. Now that everyone knows how to use Windows they find themselves confused by the design differences between the PC and the Mac, which can make short stints on a Mac frustrating. Also, since the market share is so skewed in favor of Windows the impetus is on users of other operating systems to make sure that Windows users can interact with their content. This is a distinct advantage for Microsoft and to some extent the users of its OS. While Microsoft is free to create file formats like WMA with limited implementations outside of Windows, other vendors are not afforded such a luxury, and the users don’t have to worry about receiving a deliverable in a format they can’t open.

Availability. Windows is also highly available, and so are the devices on which it runs. You can get a Windows PC easily and cheaply. The lack of vendor lock-in for hardware means that manufacturers are able to race to the bottom on price. This means that Windows PCs are available to a wider audience and they are infinitely configurable.

The Delight in Disorder

2009-12-30T05:43:00.002-05:00

This is part of a series of reprints from my classes. Once the class is over, I will lose these if I don't save them elsewhere. I've decided to post them here as they may be of some interest. Here we were to analyze how the structure of a poem is used.

Robert Herrick makes use of rhythm and rhyme in “The Delight in Disorder” to call attention to parts of the poem that are disorderly. In the poem he describes a woman’s garb with attention to the ways that it is imperfect. He declares this imperfection to “[d]o more to bewitch me than when art; / Is too precise in every part.” (13-14) This point is also illustrated in his poem’s structure.

The poem uses closed form, a waltzing rhythm, and imperfect rhyme. Often the rhymes are close but to make them work a word must be pronounced oddly, with syllables stressed in unusual ways. In the case where “thrown” is rhymed with “distraction” the author relies on a foreign pronunciation to make the rhyme work. The form and rhythm help to emphasize traditional beauty, but the rhyme provokes delight in the reader and accurately demonstrates the poem’s subject.

Tom on the Fire Escape

2009-12-28T05:36:00.001-05:00

This is part of a series of reprints from my classes. Once the class is over, I will lose these if I don't save them elsewhere. I've decided to post them here as they may be of some interest. This work is in reference to the Tennessee Williams play.

In "The Glass Menagerie" I believe that the fire escape is used to reflect upon what has happened within the apartment and plan for the future. When Tom is on the fire escape I think he is introspective, regretful, and a bit sad at first. Later he shows signs of hope for change, with which he is excited, happy, and far more emotional. Being on the steps allows him to distance himself from what has transpired, and it is here where he has time to think more calmly upon the strife that occurs when he is home. It’s at this distance that he can see his future and make plans to get there.

In the opening scene Tom addresses the audience directly from the fire escape, here he sets the scene. He’s also telling the audience, in a matter-of-fact manner what they should expect from the play. The next time Tom speaks from the fire escape he is drunk and returning home, yet he speaks with mild excitement of his night in vague innuendo to the earlier fight. Later, it is only after descending the steps that he agrees to his mother’s plan to fetch a beau for Laura from his workplace, he does so with a pointed quip. When Tom and Amanda are on the fire escape together they plan for Amanda’s future, though also secretly plan their own, flashes of excitement are shown but only in regards to their secret aspirations. When Tom is waiting on the fire escape with Jim he gives details of his plans to reach the future in his dreams, which is the most emotional scene outside for Tom, as his excitement to leave has reached its peak. Finally, at the very end of the play Tom addresses the audience again, here he is his most reverent and seems satisfied with the choices he made, but he’s also calm and somewhat morose.

The Necklace

2009-12-26T05:36:00.001-05:00

This is part of a series of reprints from my classes. Once the class is over, I will lose these if I don't save them elsewhere. I've decided to post them here as they may be of some interest.

In the short story “The Necklace,” I believe that the necklace represents wealth, luxury, youth, and societal stature. The necklace is all that we covet; the things that are just beyond our reach. It is also a risk and a liability. Lastly, it is a façade and a lie.

When Matilda sacrifices so much to attain the necklace -- and the occasion to don it -- she risks all of the comfort and stature that she has attained. This effort is due to the envy she has of those around her that have greater stature; presumably those who were born of this stature. Her desire for this alternate lifestyle is so great that she is unable to appreciate the life she has.

After the necklace is lost the story turns from one of envy into one of strife. The character grows and is no longer concerned with the lifestyle of others. She is instead focused on finding the means to feed and clothe her family as well as pay back their numerous debts. This is the price paid for the sin of coveting. It is also the result of cost of losing her bet with fate.

When she finds that the necklace was a fake the definition changes slightly. I believe that this is to tell us that the images we perceive are not always what we believe them to be. The necklace that represented her ability to attain the lifestyle she envied was a forgery, and so too was that lifestyle. The friend she envied so greatly that she could not bear her presence wore fake jewels to appear of greater stature.

I believe the author’s intent was to demonstrate that we are usually better to live humbly than to spend all of our time and energy focused on what we have not. We do not have the necklace, and we may never have it. Even if we can obtain it, we may find that it was never real in the first place.

Christmas Cable Management

2009-12-24T22:25:00.003-05:00

Stop right there! Don't throw away all of that useful packaging! As my gift to you, I'm going to show you how to reuse those annoying twist ties that are included in virtually every toy you buy.

I have a two year old son. He's having a great Christmas. After I took a few gifts out of the original packaging I was left with a mess of twist ties and little plastic anchors.

These ties are used to keep items securely fastened while allowing a clear view and even a trial touch of the item inside. I wasn't originally a fan of these, though they are at least less annoying than bubble packaging. Now I save them whenever I get them. Why? I figured out that they are perfect for cable management solutions.

The first use I realized was that the ties are strong enough that you can wrap them around cables to keep them together and you don't even need to tie them after. Just wrap around a few wires until you run out of tie. The wire is fairly strong and somewhat stiff, though the gauge varies with each product.

Tonight I realized how useful the plastic anchors could be. They have holes in them for the wire ties to pass through and anchor points to wrap the wire around. They come in varying sizes so you could use different ones at different points to keep your cables orderly. As you can see, I've put the wire through backwards so that the cable I'm tying down sits between the anchor points, then I run the wire tie around the back and wrap it in a figure eight to lock it down. On most of these there's even an extra set of holes on the ends, you could use this to lock down another cable or you could drive a tack or screw through it to secure the anchor to a wall or desk.

The great thing about these is that they're free and they work very well. They hold nicely but they're easy to undo. You can reuse them, too. If you're a an environmentally conscious geek father like me these are a great solution to a couple of problems.

Amazon Video On Demand Trial

2009-12-23T20:46:00.005-05:00

I like to shop at Amazon. I'm a big fan of their reviews, and I often consult them even when I won't make the purchase from that site. Still, I've been doing most of my holiday shopping there for the last four or five years. I live in the land of malls otherwise knows as North Jersey, and I know better to go anywhere near a mall at any convenient hour in the month or two approaching Christmas. So, I sit at home or work and I review, compare, and buy my presents online. That's not what this article is about.

When I bought my last salvo of presents recently I purchased an $8 copy of Miracle On 34th Street for my aunt. With this purchase I was given a $5 credit to use on Amazon's Video On Demand service. Not bad. Since I like to review streaming video services, I figured that I am obligated to use this credit for just that.

My first impression was that there was a tiny catalog to choose from. Amazon is great at pushing traffic in profitable directions, as such the landing page after you successfully redeem your credit is a list of television series that are available to watch. There is not a clearly defined navigation off of this - not that the links aren't there, they just blend in too well with Amazon's standard navigation - so I considered this to be the choices I had. I selected Battlestar Galactica from a relatively unimpressive lot.

A quick run down of Battlestar Galactica. I'm unfamiliar with the series but I'd heard good things for quite some time. I decided to start with series, rather than the miniseries, which seems like it was a mistake. Then the two episodes I watched weren't in the proper order [my fault, see below] so I was a bit lost. The series seemed interesting and I was able to figure out the general idea. I'm not sure if I can get past the grating sound of the actors proclaiming "frack" instead of "fuck." It's a perfect example of how TV censorship is dumb. Now that I've got that out of my system, back to Amazon...

Starting the first episode was fairly easy. I clicked through, purchased the video, and it played. The video quality is pretty good. So good, in fact, that I didn't realize that I'd selected the standard definition version of the episode. No matter, this was entirely passable for a computer screen. I think if I were to watch it on my TV I'd be annoyed by the visible distortion from compression. Gradients seemed to be the worst victims of this, the result is a fairly high contrast picture. The trade off here is that the video runs very smoothly. I didn't notice any dropped frames and panning scenes seemed very smooth.

I was most impressed with the resources this required. Something tells me that Amazon's service would be great for people with slower PCs, at least comparably. Even though it uses a Flash-based player, it didn't tax my system the same way that Hulu and most other Flash video services do. Even when I watched the second video in HD the experience was better than most streaming services I've used. Netflix is the only other service the comes to mind, but they use Silverlight.

The next video I made a point to watch in HD. Their HD videos allow you to choose from 480p and 720p. To get 720p you have to use the pop out interface, but from there I couldn't find a way to make the video full screen. Why didn't the interface on the pop out have a button for full screen? Perhaps if the player detected a faster connection it would allow me to watch 720p without the pop out, but I don't see why because I didn't have any problems watching the 720p version when I did. The picture quality is, of course, even better. For my laptop's screen I didn't think it was so terribly much better that it justified the price difference. The previous problems with noticeable compression disappear. Everything is crisp and the colors are good. The picture quality of 480p is on par with DVD, and 720p lives up to the HD moniker.

Of course, I was again too quick to judge their navigation and I clicked on season two thinking it was episode two. This was quite annoying once I realized what I'd done. As a user, I internalize this and feel dumb. As a UI designer, I realize that this is at least as much of a failing on Amazon's part as it is mine. Their UI works great for other parts of their store, but I think they're both trying too hard to retain consistency between Video On Demand and the rest of Amazon, or they're not trying hard enough. I think a large part of my confusion came from my expectations of how Amazon navigation works, my past experiences with their navigation, and my past experiences with competitor's streaming interfaces. Overall I was very disappointed with this aspect of the service.

Once I took a few seconds to acquaint myself I was able to navigate a bit better. I checked out the rest of their selection. I'm not overly impressed by it. Since this isn't a subscription service that isn't a huge ordeal, though. When I did find something to watch, like Battlestar Galactica, I was impressed with the completeness of the offering. The worst thing about Netflix and Hulu is that they often fail to secure entire series for streaming. If I'm going to watch something via streaming I'd like to be able to finish, and if I'm forced to start with DVDs then I normally finish that way. If I wanted to it seems I could watch all of this series via Video On Demand, which is comforting and I'm sure makes it easier to part with money.

Which brings us to the last issue with Amazon's VOD: money. There's not a lot of free content on this service. Instead you're purchasing videos, either individually or in a bundled package. The SD video I watched was $1.99 and the HD one was $2.99. I could have purchased an entire season in SD for $17.99 or in HD for $44.99. That ads up very quickly. By contrast, a month of Netflix at my current service level is only $24.99. During that time I could surely watch a season of a show if I want, and I've done that a few times. Hulu is even cheaper. I just have to be willing to sit through some commercials. It seems that Amazon is trying to compete against Apple and DVDs. They may have a decent shot at Apple, but I think there's still a lot of value in DVDs that VOD isn't matching. The sense of ownership, portability, and permanence in DVDs is missing and I'm not convinced that they've done anything to top that.

Overall, I think that Amazon's Video On Demand is a competent player, but they're overpriced right now and they still have some navigation issues to deal with. I'd like to see an expanded catalog and perhaps a subscription offering or ad-supported content. Shy of that I'll probably stick with other services.

Review of Four Authors' Styles

2009-12-23T05:20:00.000-05:00

This is part of a series of reprints from my classes. Once the class is over, I will lose these if I don't save them elsewhere. I've decided to post them here as they may be of some interest. This assignment was for the class to read four stories and write what we thought about each author's style.

Hemmingway’s The Killers is a quick, choppy, simply written story. It’s very light on detail, leaving the reader to decide what kind of town this is set in using a few clues. At the beginning I found the abrupt style to be difficult to follow, the short volleys of wry dialogue are sometimes confusing. By the end I was accustomed to this and easily followed along, it was almost as though I were part of the conversation. The style of the work leads the reader to feel only slightly connected, but not entirely enthralled in the story, which seems to be a similar commitment level as shown by the characters Nick and George.

In a rather stark contrast to Hemmingway’s style, William Faulkner writes flowing, expressive prose in A Rose for Emily. The story is peppered with metaphor and period specific phrases, this along with lengthy descriptions paints a very complete picture. The narration indicates that it is written from the viewpoint of a busybody who feels inexhaustible amounts of pity for Miss Grierson. I believe that it is the writer’s intent for the reader to foresee the ending and perhaps pity the narrator and the townsfolk for their inability to solve the mystery sooner.

We find simpler wording, but longer, broken sentence structure in Olsen’s I Stand Here Ironing. The story is told from the viewpoint of a mother who is disconnected from her oldest daughter. She belabors the failures of her first attempt at raising a child. If Faulkner attempted to claim sorrow for a character but evoked sorrow for the narrator then Olsen does the opposite, I feel that the narrator wants to be pitied while it is obvious that her daughter is more deserving. I had difficulty connecting with this piece, which may be due to my contempt for the narrator but I also found the style to be boring and arduous.

Poe’s The Tell Tale Heart is another very expressive piece. He uses longer, broken sentences with repetition and extensive punctuation to heighten the sense of madness in the story’s main character. There is a strong irony present throughout the story as the protagonist vehemently maintains his sanity while his deeds and tone betray the opposite. The style of this story was the most compelling of the four for me, told otherwise it may merely be boring police drama.

A Group is Its Own Worst Enemy

2009-12-21T05:54:00.000-05:00

This is part of a series of reprints from my classes. Once the class is over, I will lose these if I don't save them elsewhere. I've decided to post them here as they may be of some interest. I was trying to write about my favorite piece of writing. I succeeded and I failed. I do love Shirky's piece but I've thought since that I should have selected another work.

On April 29, 2003 Clay Shirky gave the keynote at the O’Reilly Emerging Technology conference in Santa Clara. I wasn’t there. Fortunately, Mr. Shirky saw fit to post the text of his A Group is Its Own Worst Enemy keynote online shortly thereafter. A few years later, on the recommendation of a friend, I read this for the first time. I’ve returned to it frequently since.

The topic of Shirky’s piece is social networking. He commented on this shortly before the massive explosion of self-aware networking sites and just as blogging was becoming a mainstream concept. While the topic was hardly ahead of its time, many of the focal points were of the distant past. He saw fit to remind everyone that group dynamics and human interaction are nothing new. Neither, it would seem, are the troubles that social software operators encounter as those group dynamics are at work.

He begins by explaining the title and its origins. He explains the story of W. R. Bion, a Psychologist who published the results of a study in his paper Experiences in Groups in 1950 about a group of neurotics. It is Shirky’s opinion -- if not Bion’s, I have not read that paper -- that we can determine many behavioral patterns of a group from this study. He explains using parables of Internet communities that have long since passed, most notably “LambaMOO.” Then he explores the question of “why?” social networking is about to explode. While he continues in-depth on the subject he begins this analysis with the conclusion: because it’s time. In retrospect we can see how right he was. Still, it’s enlightening to see that moment captured and understand how everything started to come together.

Lastly, he offers advice on what not to do if you are running a community and what you may want to plan for at the onset. As someone who has participated in numerous online communities and created a few this is almost sacred text. Yet, I believe that most participants in communities could benefit from this thousand-foot view of how they operate.

I find myself drawn to this text so strongly because it all rings true to me and many of the topics are ideas that I have expressed at some time or another. Shirky brings everything together with great style, though. His words are straightforward and mostly simple. He balances heavy content with friendly presentation that does little to scare away the non-technical reader. I believe the true power of A Group is Its Own Worst Enemy is in the ability to make any member of a group more aware of the role they play. In some cases, they may not realize that they are part of that group at all. I think the most important audience for this, though, are those who seek to create, run, or oversee a group. For that audience I believe that this should be required reading.

Comments on My English Class Postings

2009-12-19T05:43:00.001-05:00

If you've been following along you've noticed that I am attempting to post much of the writing I do for school online. I believe that this is something more people should practice. After all, that's how knowledge is spread. In my case, I'm paying for the classes and putting in the hours to produce this. It would be a shame for this work to forever be condensed to a letter grade and forgotten.

I want to advise caution to those who may read my English work. If you are in school and wish to use this work you do so at your own peril. I'm sure that any student who has found their way to my blog specifically for these posts was directed by a search engine. Keep in mind that your teachers likely understand how the Internet works as well.

While I did not put these works up to be plagiarized, I also am not particularly concerned with such things. If you want to use my old schoolwork for any noncommercial purpose then feel free. That's not my goal, but I am powerless to stop it. The same is not true for any professors out there who want to keep their students honest. They can and will stop plagiarist. The easier it is to find a work once the easier it will be to find it twice.

That's not to say that I want to claim ownership of my ideas. Please take my ideas and build upon them. Cite me as a source if you really want, but it is not necessary. When you take my ideas you should do the work to make them your own. I have never had a thought that was perfect. There is room for all of these ideas to grow. That is why I've posted these.

I also want to note that I have not posted any group projects. I claim ownership to all of the works that I post here unless otherwise stated. I'm unwilling to obtain consent to post entire works that I cannot claim as my own. Since I cannot claim ownership of a group effort I cannot in good conscious reproduce them here.

Lastly, I want to point out the timing of the postings. I waited until after my class and was sure to post a note on every work stating that it is a reposting from prior school work. This is important because I do not want to run the risk of a teach accusing me of plagiarism. If you decide to self-publish your schoolwork then you should do the same. Even if you can convince the professor that you've merely reproduced your original work online you'll still have to waste time in doing so.

The Real Reason Behind Capitol v Vimeo

2009-12-17T17:45:00.000-05:00

Capitol records is suing the video community site Vimeo. The complaint is over a short they created in which the employees of Vimeo lip sync the Harvey Danger song Flagpole Sitta, a late 90's alt-pop song that enjoyed a brief bit of success. It is a white kid in skinny jeans anthem and they fit that bill.

I don't find the lawsuit itself particularly interesting. From the sound of it, I believe Capitol will win on at least one count of copyright infringement. The video itself obviously infringes, though I don't see how it does any damage to Capitol's property. Still, their hook is compelling from a legal point of view. Check out this excerpt from NewTeeVee:

The difference, according to Capitol, is that not only has Vimeo not tried very hard to protect copyright owners, but it actively encourages infringement. Capitol alleges that Vimeo’s use of copyrighted material is “not an accident,” claiming that the web site contains “a massive amount of content that features, and draws most (if not all) of its appeal from, the use of copyrighted works.” As a result, according to the complaint, Vimeo is not only aware of copyright infringement happening on its system, but “actively promotes and induces that infringement.”

What's interesting about this is that Vimeo's appeal is the high quality of its unique, user generated content. Just like in the video, the compelling element is not the song but they way in which their employees are lip syncing. I would go so far as to say that it's more interesting than the original video, though I haven't seen that in a decade. Vimeo is one of the user generated content sites that is relatively free from blatant copying. Perhaps copyrighted works are used as background music for these videos, but they are rarely, if ever, the central focus.

That's why Vimeo is being sued. Not because their site is rife with copyright infringement. Not because their site encourages infringement over unique content. Specifically because the community at their site has flourished into one that consistently puts out unique user generated content of high quality. Vimeo is like YouTube with the noise turned down. This scares the pants off the content industry.

As the trend towards Internet Television strengthens the monopolies of the content industry weaken. Quality user generated content is a direct competitor to professionally generated content. The content industry has a long history of using the legal system to ensure that they squash the competition. That's what they're doing here.

I feel bad for Vimeo. They made an innocent video to show what a fun-loving bunch of wacky kids they are at their little Web 2.0 start up. They probably thought that like other various mashups and non-malicious infringements that their video would either fly under the radar or become a success such that the content owner would appreciate the attention drawn to their work and see the positive aspects of it. What they didn't realize is that they've become the nemesis of big business. Big business does not treat its adversaries well.

Algorithmic Authority and Me

2009-12-05T08:05:00.000-05:00

I'm a big fan of Clay Shirky. His assessment of sociology in online communities always seems spot on. When he recently wrote about the idea of algorithmic authority he continued the trend.

What is algorithmic authority? Here's Shirky's definition:

Algorithmic authority is the decision to regard as authoritative an unmanaged process of extracting value from diverse, untrustworthy sources, without any human standing beside the result saying “Trust this because you trust me.”

There is a lot more to it than that, and I invite you to read the full piece on his blog. If you want, go do it now. I'll still be here when you're done.

Anyway, I'm sure you're wondering why the heck I'm writing about it? Well, for one I think it's just an interesting idea. I think we all recognize it to some extent, but to codify it in definition and to think about how it affects us is a little different. Of course, I don't usually like to write about things on here without adding at least something of my own. The real reason I'm writing this is betrayed in the title of the post: algorithmic authority affects me greatly, specifically in reference to this blog.

When I started writing The Design of Ignorance I likened it to yelling in a paper bag. I was far more interested in blowing off stress in a productive manner, and documenting my random thoughts and ideas, than I ever was in things like readership. I certainly never plan to monetize my blog, for instance. What I did not consider was the effect that my choice of the Blogger platform would have on the potential for an audience.

That's where Google Analytics comes into the equation. Since I put Google Analytics tracking on my blog I've been able to see who hits the website, from where, how long they stayed, and how they were referred. It doesn't track RSS subscribers [Hi Justin!] but that's on purpose, if I'm ever curious about that I'll switch to Feedburner. It does show me what keywords caused someone to land on my blog, and to what page they were directed. Without question, the two biggest sources of traffic are searches for "best streaming site" and "hd stretch." As of this writing, my blog is one of the top results for either of those searches.

In short, Google PageRank has declared, using its authority, that I am one of the best places to get information on these topics. I cannot tell you how guilty and pressured that makes me feel. I don't like the idea of being an authority by fiat on topics in which I profess little authority, yet I have a strong opinion. I also hate the thought that people out there are searching for information and, upon finding my blog, are potentially disappointed.

I tried using the social searching features to promote other sites. It doesn't seem to do anything. I've modified the original post about hd stretch to send searchers in the right direction. At least I can take that approach.

This pushes me to write more on the subjects. I'm not convinced that I want to do that, even if they interest me. Yet, here I am playing amateur pundit and frighteningly I have an audience. I cringe to think of myself in league with other amateur pundits.

So, I try my best not to let this influence me too greatly. I'll continue my streaming reviews at my own glacial pace. I'm less bothered by the stretch issue, so I doubt I'll write much about that in the future.

It nags me, though. Perhaps that's for the best.

Online Degrees

2009-11-25T05:21:00.000-05:00

This is part of a series of reprints from my classes. Once the class is over, I will lose these if I don't save them elsewhere. I've decided to post them here as they may be of some interest. This is from my Introduction to Information Systems class, which I was too lazy to test out of.

I think there are two primary questions that a hiring manager would consider when reviewing a prospective employee’s education: What is the reputation of the institution? And, does this education significantly qualify the application?

As for the reputation of the institution, it serves to note that most online-only schools are not well established institutions. Further, the initial wave of these schools served to sully their own name while they experimented with teaching and business models. As another student said, some of these institutions are known as “diploma mills.”

One particular such institution is also known for aggressive recruiting practices, so much so that they are the subject of a lawsuit that will go forth next year. That same institution has a reputation for extremely low standards for its professors, and not much better standards for the education of its students. While I’ll avoid naming the institution in question, I think that most who read this will immediately know the one which I allude to. If you can guess, then you can be sure that those who would hire you can as well.

However, this is not a phenomenon that is specific to online universities. Trade schools generally share this fate, making them all but worthless for most professions. Traditional universities have been known to fail as well, though they have far more invested and as such far more to lose by such actions.

That is why I believe that online curriculums offered by traditional universities offer the best of both worlds. Such an institution has the necessary legitimacy to function without online education, yet it is extended – and by proxy its legitimacy – to the online arena. I don’t believe that the absence of this precludes online-only institutions from legitimacy, but it helps to explain the prejudice that some may hold against them.

The other side is the student. It is important to remember that a poor student can be offered the best education and learn nothing while an excellent student can attend a terrible university and still achieve their goals. This makes an evaluation difficult, but if you are hiring you do not want to allow prejudice against an institution exclude a great candidate.

As someone in the class mentioned, the motivation of a student is important for online learning. If a student is not self-motivated and self-sufficient they will likely fail. However, I would add that they may not fail their class by this, but merely fail to learn what they should. This ties into the institution, because if an institution has a reputation for allowing students to easily pass then the student without motivation may be able to cruise through. This person is likely not a great asset to your organization.

Studies show that it is easier to cheat with an online-only class. This is a fault with the system, not necessarily the institution or the teachers. Students attending such classes should have the maturity to know that they only cheat themselves and waste their money by doing this.

Beyond that I would mention that it takes the right personality and curriculum to succeed at an online-only program. Some people will learn better through the immersion and focus provided by a classroom. These people may shortchange themselves by attending online classes. That would be difficult to detect when hiring such a person.

Lastly, I think online-only schools lack much of the socialization that is a part of the college experience. Dormitories, classrooms, and other in-person interactions not only build bonds but teach important lessons. Were I to interview a candidate who attended an online-only institution immediately after high school I would be weary of their social skills. They may communicate view email exquisitely, but how will they act during a meeting? After skipping the dorm life, how will they react to the cubicle farm?

I think that online curriculums are gaining much legitimacy. They deserve different questions, but it is my hope that fewer people see them as inferior. Still, there will always exist prejudice about certain institutions, whether they be online or not.

Backups

2009-11-23T05:19:00.000-05:00

Monitoring Internet Usage

2009-11-20T17:16:00.000-05:00

This is part of a series of reprints from my classes. Once the class is over, I will lose these if I don't save them elsewhere. I've decided to post them here as they may be of some interest. This is from my Introduction to Information Systems class, which I was too lazy to test out of.

I'm not against monitoring internet usage in the workplace. I am against ham-handed management of people's communication. Often I find that this argument is oversimplified: You're at work to work, and you can't possibly be working if you're online on an outside instant messenger or checking your email. This argument ignores all other factors, such as lengthened work-weeks and jobs where productivity is held at a higher value. I think that a situational approach and proper management are required, no monitoring technology can replace these.

This boils down to metrics: Is someone's productivity and worth to an organization measured in how much time they spend online? I posit that it is not. You are not paid to not use the Internet, you're paid to perform certain tasks. Depending on the type of tasks and the expectations of your employer, this may preclude using the Internet, but it likely does not. Instead we should judge employees based on their ability to get their job done, only when they fall short of that should we question how they use their time.

Work/life balance is another issue to consider. When employers ask increasingly more time out of their workers’ lives they should expect a compulsion to bring the home life back into the mix to find a better balance. This is especially true when it comes to IM where that communication can be vital to maintaining healthy home relationships. It can also be said that the workplace continually creeps into home life. How is IM unacceptable at work when BlackBerries are required to be on at home? Again, this is about balance and it will vary individually. The employee who works minimal hours has less claim to this than the one who works dozens of hours overtime and some employees allow their home lives to affect their work. Managers should deal with these employees individually and realize that their Internet usage may not be a particularly useful metric to fixing the problem.

Lastly, I will side with employers from a Human Resources perspective. I think this is where monitoring, and even filtering, is important. Employees should know they are being monitored and they should have a few clear usage guidelines for the Internet. It may be acceptable to communicate with your family and friends, but not everything is acceptable to do from work. Companies need to take a zero tolerance stance on pornography, discriminatory practices (take for instance the Human Rights Watch worker that was recently found to post on Nazi bulletin boards), harassment, industry secrets, etc.. Such offenses should be taken extremely seriously and should be actively monitored. Employees that cross the line should be dealt with immediately. Policies like this should be clearly stated, though.

Schools are somewhat similar. I think there, since you’re likely not dealing with adults, you should be a little more proactive in monitoring and stopping abuse of technology. I see most of this as twenty first century note passing. Other content should be filtered, though pretty much any filter can be broken. This is still a situation where filtering and monitoring will not take the place of parenting and teaching. If a child is struggling you might look at abuse of technology as a contributing factor, but it is dangerous to assume that it is the definitive factor and even more dangerous to act on such an assumption without considering how it may effect the child.

With parenting, I think that young children should be monitored closely. This isn’t to say that I’m afraid of what they might see or who they might talk to. It is that they are far more likely not to understand, to take things wrong, and to make poor assumptions about what they’re seeing. I don’t want my child reading a hate website unattended, lest they believe such foolishness is true. I don’t want them to use social networking sites unattended, more because of cruelty like that of the Lori Drew case than worry over someone appearing on To Catch a Predator. The younger the child the more help they need with interpreting the situation Eventually they grow older at which time I would scale back monitoring only to avoid more serious problems such as lawsuits over infringement. Though such things may be a little easier to block than to monitor.

Operating Systems

2009-11-18T05:13:00.000-05:00

This is part of a series of reprints from my classes. Once the class is over, I will lose these if I don't save them elsewhere. I've decided to post them here as they may be of some interest. This is from my Introduction to Information Systems class, which I was too lazy to test out of.

I have a really funny story about how I crashed the VAX server at my father's work in 1983, but I'm going to spare you. Instead, I'm going to focus on operating systems that I have more direct, coherent interactions with. I'll try to do this in chronological order.

MS-DOS 4, 5 - My first experience really managing a system. High memory, what a throwback.
Windows 3 - I strongly preferred DOS to Windows at this stage, I thought of it as a gimmick and totally unstable.
MS-DOS 6.22 - The high point for DOS. Improved memory management (though I remember we used QEMM) and disk management. Good stuff. Anyone for a modem game of Doom?
Windows 3.1 -That minor revision made a big difference. Also, the business world started to catch on with Windows so more utilities came out. This was about the time I started using the Internet, and compared to today it was absolutely terrible. I still preferred DOS when I could use it.
Windows 95 - It was such a big deal, and it was a huge improvement. I think it was slightly overhyped. Ultimately I found myself still going into DOS for a lot of things.
Windows 98 SE - I think that this high point of the Windows 9x line. We waited until Second Edition was released before we upgraded. It required some initial work to make it run well, but after that it was rock solid.
OS 9 - I helped a few friends that had this work on their computers. It was neat, but I absolutely hated it. It was so difficult to do any maintenance to the system and everything was so slow.
Windows Me - Oh my, what a disaster. I don't recall any useful feature upgrades from 98 SE but it seems that Microsoft tried to do too much with the 9x code base. It didn't work, this was the most unstable and unusable OS I've ever experienced.
Windows NT - I have limited experience with this, as I switched employers and they were on the verge of upgrading to 2000. Still, I used it. It was largely unremarkable.
Windows 2000 - By combining the architecture of the NT series with the better UI of the 9x series, this was a huge improvement over everything out there. I'm less thrilled with 2000 server.
Windows XP - I remember how excited I was that the better architecture of the NT series would be available to home users. On the down side, Microsoft created a highly networked OS that largely ignored all of the security lessons learned in the Unix community, which lead to rampant viruses and onslaughts of malicious software that continue to this day.
FreeBSD 5 - This was the best server OS I've used. It was highly stable, great performance, and Ports is awesome. I was able to do so many various things with this system it's hard to believe. I regret switching later.
VectorLinux - After inheriting a relatively ancient laptop I was able to use this Slackware varient to get it working. It has a tiny footprint but provides little in the way of ease of use.
Gentoo Linux - When it came time to replace my FreeBSD machine I chose this OS. It had more active development and great documentation. Unfortunately it also had days of compiling and eventually dependency problems.
Windows XP MCE - This was the best version of XP. It has a slightly better UI and just the right mix of enabled features to allow the home user to get things done. Specifically, I liked that it had IIS so I could do ASP.Net development without a hack at home.
Ubuntu Linux - This is by far the best that Linux has for the home user. Setup is a breeze and it recognizes tons of hardware. Of course, using Linux can be quirky and this one comes so close to being complete that it's a let down when something that "requires" a Microsoft product forces you to stop using it.
Windows Server 2003 - Good improvements over 2000, I like IIS 6.
Vista - I used this a few times. What I saw was that Microsoft tried to fix the security problems they've had and overshot creating this annoying system of prompt after prompt after prompt. I noticed that after a weke of using this OS most users would dismiss any and all dialog prompts without so much as a glance. They shifted the security problem from systemic to psychological. It was enough to tip the scales for me to buy a Mac.
OS X Leopard, Snow Leopard - I'll admit that I waited a long time to really try out OS X. I knew what it was like from years in the industry. OS X gets so very much right, and with a few tweaks it's an absolute dream to use. Most things in OS X just work, the usability of the OS is great, and I don't have to jump through hoops to get it to work with most of my stuff.
Windows Server 2008 - I only recently started using this. I'm not sure I've seen a huge improvement over 2003, especially in the management interface which I haven't gotten the hang of yet.
Windows 7 - For the first time since OS X was released it seems that Microsoft has taken the lead in usability. The security problems seem to finally be fixed, there's a clear point where you have to tell the system that you want to be an administrator but you're normally just a user. I'm very excited for this and I can't wait for Apple to truly respond.

In Which I Pretend to be a Sports Writer...

2009-11-16T19:02:00.000-05:00

I wrote this in response to last night's Patriots-Colts game which was decided by a last second touchdown by the Colts. The main points of contention were a controversial coaching decision by the Patriot's coach, Bill Belichick, and a close call at the end of a pivotal play. I originally posted this in a forum, but I like to repost writings I'm particularly happy with.

I had phoned it in on this game. I missed the first part of the game reading to Kevin, and generally trying to convince him that yes, he did need to go to sleep. Then I turned it on and Indy was already pretty far behind and things looked rather bleak for them. For most of the game I decided my time was better spent with the volume muted and me catching up on Google Reader.

I started paying a little more attention in the second half, but I was prepared for it to ultimately be a let down with some sort of controlling performance late in the game by the Pats. I kept the game on, but it was either muted or half-muted the whole time. I keyed in when they scored making it 28-34 with almost 3 to go. Now it was interesting, but for whatever reason I couldn't bear to watch. I figured that Brady would throw a series or short passes then they'd just sit on the ball after a first down or two. So I was surprised when it got to 3rd down. Either the game would end there, because a first down would at least allow the Pats to run out most of the clock, or we'd get to see Peyton's two minute drill.

When the 3rd and 2 pass was almost intercepted my heart raced. I saw the frustration on the defenders face that he had the ball and couldn't complete the pick, which may have been a pick 6 if he had. I said to the TV, "but it doesn't matter because you stopped the pass, so you'll get it back on the next play."

So I dropped my eyes back to the reader figuring I'd have a few moments of uneventful punt return and commercials. I was stunned to see the offense on the field for 4th down. It was scary. That offense is imposing in such a situation. I didn't event think to question the coaching. I was in too much shock at the audacity. I'm not a pro football player, but I can imagine that the Indy defense had to feel some of that apprehension. Two yards of 11 guys versus Brady & Belichick, and I considered the 11 guys the underdogs.

It was close, but I think officials got it right. There are close calls, bad calls, and controversial calls. That was not a bad call. For it to be a bad call there would have to be clear evidence that the official got it wrong. Most of the evidence appears to confirm the official got it right or at least that it could go either way. It wasn't a controversial call, because I think that only a true Pats homer would argue the call at this point (or someone that didn't see it). It was a close call.

There's no point arguing close calls after the time to challenge has passed. The game is full of those and you can count on at least one per game going against you. Pats fans really should never complain about close calls, the team has had more than their share of close calls go their way in the last decade, not to mention that they tend to be on the winning side of controversial calls more often than not as well. In fact, it was the Pats success that is often credited to their luck with calls that led me to realize this about football. Good teams can win even when a bad call, let alone a close or controversial one, goes against them. Good teams also capitalize on calls that go their way. It's the mark of a great team when both of these happen.

What you can't do is try to blame the refs. It's not the refs fault that the Colts were within 6 that late in the game. It's not the refs fault that they had a close call to deal with, either. If the ball were thrown a yard further then it would have clearly been a first down. Most importantly, of course, it's not the refs fault that they went for it on 4th and 2.

The reason why any armchair quarterback was shocked by that is because you know that this is the one situation where it was a terrible idea. The Pats were at their own 28. The Colts were hot in the 4th but not unstoppable. The play would end with the 2 minute warning giving a premier quarterback with a hot offense 2 minutes to cover 30 yards if you don't make the first. It changed the dynamic of the Colts offense and allowed them the option of the run or the pass, which is important because Manning had already thrown two picks that game and there were clearly moments of confusion between he and his receivers.

So the Pats lost.

Now the kicker: If you're a Pats fan, or a member of their organization, your response should be "big fucking deal." The way you're playing now you're in the hunt for a first round bye in the playoffs, and you're surely going to win your division. So, you'll likely see these guys again, right? These guys that squeaked one out on you. These guys who've collapsed several times against you in the playoffs. And you'll be driven. You'll be mad that they stole it from you last time. Maybe they'll be cocky. And it will be the rematch of the year.

Favorite and Daily Use Applications

2009-11-16T05:47:00.000-05:00

Netflix Streaming: The Holy Grail of Online TV?

2009-11-15T21:54:00.001-05:00

I write a lot about online entertainment. I suppose it makes sense, because I'm writing as a hobby and most of my other hobbies somehow involve online entertainment. I also write a lot about Netflix. I really like the company and the service fits me almost perfectly. Are they the best, though?

When I previously wrote about Hulu and ABC I mentioned Netflix. Actually, I tend to use it as the bar with which other streaming sites are measured. It's bothered me since then that I never came back to write a review of Netflix's Watch Instantly.

Netflix was founded with a purpose: Deliver users television and movie content via the Internet. That may go against what you think of the company. Chances are you associate them with mail order rentals. It's true that they shifted to that business model, but only after they realized that the infrastructure for streaming video was not in place in the late 90's. When they finally were able to start offering this service they were neither pioneers nor were they pushing the limits of technology. However, they have a long history of getting things right and they continued that tradition here.

The Watch Instantly service was originally somewhat of a dud. The interface and process was well done, but the content on there was mostly terrible. There were a few exceptions, mostly documentaries, but the majority of that first generation of content was the stuff that doesn't even get late night plays on third rate cable stations. I watched a few movies from that era and I was excited, but I also wasn't worried that I would go over the 17 hours of playback per month they offered.

I think the potential must have been obvious to the studios because Netflix struck several deals and significantly expanded their offerings. Of the 17,000 or so streaming titles in their catalog it's fairly easy to find something you would like to watch. Still, the vast majority is rubbish. That's the way the long tail works. One can hope that as the catalog expands better content will continue to float to the top. Still, this is a stark contrast to Hulu which has a wide variety of first rate content.

When you're looking for that content you can go a few ways about it. What I usually do is browse through the Watch Instantly selection where I can drill down into subcategories, from there I can sort titles alphabetically or by rating. The rating data is useful, but I wish it were more applicable to me - more on that later. This works a little like Hulu's "Channels" and allows me to quickly find new content that I may want to watch. It's not as focused as Hulu is, though, and there's a lot more noise to clutter the decision. The other way is to browse through the catalog as usual but instead of adding a DVD to your queue you either watch the content right then or you add it to a streaming queue. It's kind of nice, you look for something and get a surprise that you don't have to wait.

Once you've decided on a program to watch you get to experience the real gem: the player. Netflix play is great in that it gauges your computer and connection in order to deliver the best possible quality of video with the least interruptions. At first I found this annoying, I wanted to be able to get the highest quality of picture and I was willing to let it cache for longer in order to get that. Now I'm convinced that this is a good way to go.

Why? It seems that Netflix has more shades of gray in their quality settings than Hulu does. With Hulu it's high or low quality (and their standalone player has a medium setting). The difference between the two is stark, the low quality is often unacceptably bad and the high can burn out all the fans in your system in a single viewing. Netflix dynamically pics the right quality setting and only occasionally have I been let down by this. Unlike Hulu, I can watch a show with acceptable video quality without noticeable dropped frames or having to crank the volume because my computer is doing double duty as a furnace.

The down side to this is that every time you skip back and forth the stream is interrupted and the player goes through the negotiation process again. If you're watching a series and you want skip the opening and ending sequence you have to renegotiate. If you missed something and you want to go back 30 seconds you have to renegotiate. Also, sometimes if your connection has a hiccup you'll find it switching to the lower quality setting. A refresh normally fixes this, but that's annoying.

Still, it's a bonus that once you start watching you aren't constantly reminded that streaming content is still playing catch-up to traditional TV. If I were watching this over my TV I'd probably not think about the source at all.

Other notes about the player: I like the interface for skipping around. When the movie loads it loads a series of still frames taken at 10 second intervals. When you skip it gives you a timeline of these and you select one to skip to. It's very fast, but you lose precision. You cannot skip to 3:16, you have to go to 3:10. The other controls are fairly standard. I'd like to see integration with media buttons for the in-browser player, as it's the only thing available for Mac.

It uses Silverlight. I'm not a huge fan of Silverlight, and Flash made some big strides shortly after Netflix committed to the change. Still, I think that Flash is a resource hog and Silverlight may be slightly better.

Of course, Netflix also has the widest variety of available players. They don't have a standalone player for Mac that I know of, but they do have integration in Windows Media Center and that works very well. You can also access this content on a few gaming systems. Plus there is the Roku player and a whole host of other devices that are ready to stream from Netflix. For the sake of this review I'm focusing on the in-browser player. I'd like to do a head to head comparison of Windows Media Center Netflix vs. Hulu standalone. I'll save that for another day. I probably won't be comparing any of the other devices anytime soon. I don't feel particularly compelled to buy any of these TVs or Blu-Ray players that only work with Netflix, being a two trick pony isn't that much better than being a one-trick pony. I think I'd rather buy the Roku player since that company seems to be expanding its offerings all the time.

The elephant in the room: subscription fees. I'm going to ignore this elephant, sort of. If you're not a Netflix subscriber then I don't think you should become one just for streaming. You should become one because the DVD-by-mail rental model is superior to other rental models and the streaming is a bonus. That's my take on it. I've had Netflix since 2002, long before they offered streaming content. When they offered it I considered it a perk, and they didn't charge me any extra. For me this service is essentially free. I'd pay for Netflix even if they took it away. Some may not agree with that, and certainly if you're one of the people who dislikes the DVD rental model they use then you would value it differently.

My biggest gripe: no streaming for additional profiles. As I've said before I'm very particular about the way I rate movies and I have very different tastes from my wife. This really hurts Watch Instantly because I can only access it via my wife's account. Netflix doesn't even have a way to migrate accounts, so if I were to offer to pay them more and have separate accounts. I would have to go back and re-rate all of the movies I've seen, 1400 and counting. When I go into my wife's account I find that many movies I enjoy or I may enjoy are rated poorly. This is because Netflix displays ratings based on what you've rated in the past and how you've rated different types of movies. It doesn't completely kill the value of the ratings shown, but it comes close.

The verdict: Netflix is king of the browser. For all its faults, Netflix still reigns supreme if you want to watch content from your browser. It isn't perfect, but neither is the competition, so I say that it wins. That's just for the browser. On the desktop the showdown has only recently begun. Next up: Netflix Media Center plug-in vs. Hulu Desktop. Stay tuned.

My Computers and Mac vs PC

2009-11-12T05:35:00.000-05:00

This is part of a series of reprints from my classes. Once the class is over, I will lose these if I don't save them elsewhere. I've decided to post them here as they may be of some interest. This is from my Introduction to Information Systems class, which I was too lazy to test out of. While working on this I compiled a list of my computers that I posted earlier.

About 50 hours a week I use my work machine, a Dell Precision M65 laptop running Windows XP Professional SP2. When I’m at home I primarily use an Apple MacBook White laptop running OS X 10.6 (Snow Leopard). Often, I connect into my file server, which is a Dell Optiplex 170L desktop running Windows XP Professional SP3. The file server, which I have dubbed “Kowalski,” is in my office and does not have a keyboard, mouse, or monitor attached to it. Other than hosting copies of my media files, it also serves as secondary desktop and I use it as a print server.

Other machines in my house include my wife’s Lenovo S10 netbook, a Dell Dimension 4700 desktop running Windows 7, and a Compaq Armada 1500 laptop from 1996 running VectorLinux that I saved for my toddler to play with. Roughly 6 years ago I received the Compaq laptop, at the time it was my first laptop, so I worked hard to make it useable again. I’m proud to say that it works well for light internet use and simple games, it even has a working wireless NIC.

As for my thoughts on the Mac vs. PC debate. Well, I find that it’s not much of a debate. Instead you have a majority of people who simply don’t care and a tiny minority of geeks who are passionate about one system or another to a religious extent. Very little debate happens due to this, instead each side focuses on circumstantial issues, biased opinions, and stereotypical members of the other camp. While this is great for strengthening the resolve of the group, it’s terrible at exposing the true strengths and weaknesses of each operating system.
In my opinion, the market leader (not to be confused with the sales leader) changes every few years. It’s about to change back to Microsoft, after Apple has enjoyed several years of superiority with OS X. The problems with Windows over the last several years have been security, polish, and a fear of breaking backward compatibility. Apples issues have more to do with their longstanding inability to attract corporate users [builds familiarity] and software vendors [more tools to get things done] and cost of entry.

Microsoft made a great stride in addressing their issues with Vista, they came close to fixing some of the worst security problems. Unfortunately, Vista is bloated due to the backward compatibility, and it is severely lacking in polish. [For a great breakdown on the polish issue search for “Joel Spolsky Yale talk” on Google.] After some time using Windows 7 it is clear that Microsoft has further refined their security, nailed the polish, and it seems that their implementation of backwards compatibility was taken right from the OS X playbook.

Meanwhile, Apple has mainly rested on their laurels with their operating system. The jump from OS 9 to OS X was huge, and for good reason: OS 9 was terribly outdated and only the staunchest Mac users remained. Since, they’ve further polished the system, and I can say that Snow Leopard has great usability from experience. The only issue that they’ve addressed at all in the time has been entry price, you can get a computer similar to mine for about $900. I did find that there are plenty of software vendors for the Mac world, I only ever need to use a Windows desktop if a site require Internet Explorer or to verify that my Pages document is formatted correctly to display in Word, but I know that plenty of people out there require software that you cannot find for Mac. Similarly, I’ve seen almost no increase in consideration for Mac users in the corporate world. Firefox has done much on the Web to expose the need for platform independence, but little else has changed.

Last year when I bought my MacBook I did so because I was fully aware of the issues with Vista. I did not want to buy a Vista laptop. I knew the Vista Capable debacle. [Though I don’t know what happened to the lawsuit that it caused.] When my Inspiron 6000 died I knew I would have to either buy a Mac or a PC with Vista, and at the time a PC with similar specifications was no cheaper than the MacBook. Ironically, Vista’s issues and the success of netbooks have pushed the PC manufacturers to sell respectable machines for far lower prices. Right now the PC truly is the better deal.

Windows 7 will re-energize Microsoft’s slumping sales. If we can assume that the price of a new PC will remain somewhat flat, or only rise a small amount, then I think they will fly off the shelves. People will be happy with them, and the bleeding in the laptop segment will stop for Microsoft. The debate will still go on, but it’s clear that competition is a good thing.

PS3 or XBox 360 for Netflix?

2009-11-11T17:44:00.001-05:00

Mike over at Hacking Netflix has a brief comparison of the two gaming consoles that can stream Watch Instantly content.

Reliability: The Xbox 360 suffers from the infamous "red ring of death" and is the console with the lowest reliability (23.7% system failure rate), according to Square Trade. Winner: PS3.

User Interface: The Xbox has had almost a year lead on the PS3, so it has a unique party mode feature and Xbox-style UI while the PS3 is slower and has the "generic" Netflix streaming UI. Winner: Xbox 360.

Of course, I have neither of these. I have an old PS2 that is never used. My wife keeps telling me that she wants a Wii, but it seems like a big expenditure for a platform that was aged the day it arrived. I also have my reservations about whether a Wii would be used after the first two months until my son is older.

Of the three companies, I would definitely prefer to support Nintendo. Sony and Microsoft are bullies and I strongly object to their business practices. That would make my decision quite tough. The XBox seems to have more ways to interact with your media while the PS3 opens the door to Blu-Ray. If I were to make a snap decision today I'd probably buy a PS3, at least I'd get a Blu-Ray player out of the deal if we stopped playing games on it, and it doesn't require expensive secondary purchases and online subscriptions to use it for Netflix.

Favorite Websites

2009-11-10T17:31:00.000-05:00

This is the first post in a series of reprints from my classes. Once the class is over, I will lose these if I don't save them elsewhere. I've decided to post them here as they may be of some interest. This is from my Introduction to Information Systems class, which I was too lazy to test out of.

Like the vast majority of Internet users, I get my search results from Google. I avoid Live.com like the plague. Interestingly, I recently took a blind comparison between the three major English language search engines and found that I preferred Yahoo! slightly over Google. That is not enough for me to change the default search on my phone and many computers.

I use GMail for almost all of my email needs. When I was given I GMail invite long ago I admit that I was skeptical. Ultimately, I think that GMail’s concepts of email conversations and labels were revolutionary. I know they invented neither but their implementation is top notch. I can hardly wait for Google Wave.

Facebook is the unquestionable king of social networking. No site on the Internet is better at helping you find and stay loosely connected to a group of people. Their suggestion data mining is so good it’s a little scary.

Netflix is my favorite site, and my top pick for entertainment. I've been using Netflix for seven years. In that time I've seen the site grow from a simple rental-by-mail service to a community of movie fans. This site has the best selection of streaming content on the Internet, though Hulu is closing fast. I'm also a fan of Bill Scott, the director of UI engineering for the company. I've rated over 1400 movies, according to my Netflix profile, and roughly 500 of them were rented or streamed from the company.

Honorable mentions include: SlickDeals.Net for bargain hunting; Lifehacker for, well... "lifehacking;" and Wondermark.com for humor.

Cablevision

2009-11-03T17:38:00.000-05:00

I'm a fan of Cablevision. As an addendum to my recent decision to cancel cable again, I want to clarify that it is not the fault of my cable company. I may not like giving them too much of my money, but I'll likely remain a customer of theirs as long as feasible.

Their services are great. I realize that they're a little pricey, but you get top notch service for the added cost. My Optimum Online connection is reliably fast, and I certainly could not do better for the price. At the very least, not without signing a prolonged contract that would surely balloon in cost after some period of time. Their cable packaging is a bit more expensive than Time Warner at the top tiers, but they offer lower tiers that are cheaper than what you can get elsewhere. I'm a little less bullish on their phone offerings, but I think they're good for a cable company. I truly believe that the totality of their services provides great value compared to others in the industry.

The customer service at Cablevision has consistently been top notch. The only unpleasant experiences I can recall involve installation. Like the time that we had to have the installer dispatch four times because they kept installing at a business with a similar address down the street. That happens so rarely that it's pretty much a non-issue. Every time I've called customer service or visited one of their locations the people have been helpful and friendly.

The impetus for this post was a reflection on their customer service during my cancellations. I was never treated poorly. I was never deferred to a retention specialist. There was no push back, no fight, no pleading for me to stay. Each time I was treated with respect and a friendly person helped me accomplish my goal.

These things matter. Service and value are the sign of a good business. More importantly, I can't think of the last time I thought of these things as the strength of a cable or phone provider. Typically, this industry thrives on anti-competitive practices, coercion and cost-cutting measures. I honestly believe that Cablevision has better values than most of its competitors. It isn't their fault my values have changed such that I no longer need as much of their services.

Canceled Cable... Again

2009-10-30T18:15:00.001-04:00

After a few fairly successful months of having limited cable service, I reinstated most of what I had canceled. Now that the summer is done, I've gone back to the previous system. Why did I reinstate and subsequently cancel? Read on...

Why I Reinstated Cable

I had to do it for my mother. My wife was to take some summer classes that would involve her presence on campus four days a week for a couple hours each day. In order to accommodate this we would either have to put my son in day care four days a week or have a babysitter. We decided that my mother could watch him for a few hours at a time, so we asked her to come out from Ohio. My mother watches a lot of TV, and many of "her" shows are on cable-only networks.

My mother is also tracking the latest release cycle for many of these shows. That means that DVDs can't fill the void. I still don't have my computer hooked up to the TV, nor do I have the remote working with it, so she couldn't use that. Besides, we're lucky if she can use a DVD player, I'm sure most Internet TV interfaces would be beyond frightening to her.

I wanted my mother to be able to spend time with her grandchild. I wanted her to be at least reasonably comfortable here as well. Lastly, I wanted an unlimited calling plan again since she would want to call friends and family who are out of state. It was clear that I would have to pay more to the cable company to achieve this.

On the plus side, since I spent those months at the lower service plan I was eligible for their big discount offer that allows you to get most of their available services for about $100 per month. That's roughly $40 more than I was paying them.

One last, selfish reason: Sports. I was able to reinstate ahead of my mother's arrival during the height of the NBA and NHL playoffs. Many of these games are only carried on cable. I have to admit that I also had a hard time with canceling because of the football that is only on cable.

Then I Canceled

In the end my mother only stayed for three weeks. I had cable for roughly five months. It was enticing to stay because of the discount offer. In the back of my mind I knew it was a trap, yet I was falling into it.

My son was able to watch Nick Jr (formerly Noggin) again, which is more a benefit for us than for him. Even if the Nick Jr channel mostly shows a limited set of reruns its still more diversity than our DVD collection has. After a while of watching the same four episodes on a DVD you start reciting lines in your sleep. We let him watch shows only at certain times, so it's not life altering for him to lose the channel, he's fine with the DVDs.

The sports were compelling for me, but it's not worth almost $500 per year. I'm not that crazy about college football, and that's the biggest loss here. I will miss Monday Night Football games, but if I really want to see them then I can go to a sports bar. Beyond that, there are very few times when I want to watch a sporting event that is only on a cable station. Generally, these are the earlier rounds of the playoffs. Even if I limited myself to half of the money saved by canceling this service I'd still have $8 for every sporting event I care to watch that's only on cable. I can use that money to get out of the house instead.

There's nothing more that's compelling to me. That's it. Those were the two things that I will legitimately miss about having that cable service. I did watch a bit more TV since I had it, but I can do other things instead. Most of the shows I would watch were out of boredom, not a strong desire to watch them. There's a ton of content online now. I have no reason to pay the extra money to the cable company.

Lastly, it really is a trap. They offer the first year of this deal at a discounted price. It's about $50 more per month after the discount expires. It may be possible to negotiate to keep the discount, but I hardly see why that's a worthwhile endeavor year after year. Ultimately, I'm back to saving $85 per month over what I was paying at the beginning of the year.

Moving? Get a PO Box

2009-10-28T17:48:00.000-04:00

I recently moved. We were having problems with our neighbors, so we knew several months in advance that we were going to move. About 3 months before the move we decided to get a PO Box and forward our mail there. It was a great decision.

The last few times we’d moved we had mail go missing because the forwarding simply failed. The USPS is pretty good, I’m not knocking them, but sometimes things slip through the cracks. Previously, we had good relationships with our neighbors and so we’d end up getting the mail that wasn’t forwarded. We knew that wouldn’t be the case this time, so we setup as big of a buffer as possible.

What’s great about this approach is that you can redirect your mail before you move. This gives you a few months to see what doesn’t get redirected and to change the address on your accounts when you see they’re still set to the old address. I kept track of these accounts in a spreadsheet so that I’d know to change them again later. Then once you’re settled into the new place you can start changing the address on your accounts to mail you at your new home.

At the end you have a choice: You can keep the PO Box if you want. You can cancel the PO Box and file a change of address to your home. Or you can cancel with no change of address. If you do the latter then you’ll effectively cancel some of the junk mail you receive, but the danger of that is that you may miss some random piece of mail that you didn’t anticipate.

My Computers

2009-09-23T17:02:00.002-04:00

I'm currently in a Computer Literacy class. I'm only taking the class to familiarize myself with the school environment and because it seems like too much work to test out of it.

Anyway, I made this list of my computers and some of their pertinent stats. I thought it would be interesting to throw up here so that I can reference it later when these systems won't be as powerful as my cell phone (my iPod is already more powerful than the one). Here's the list:

· My Work Computer: Dell Precision M65

o Display: 15” integrated, capable of WSXGA+ resolution

o Secondary Display: 2 external 20” wide-screen ViewSonic monitors (running WSXGA+ resolution, 1680x1050)

o Processor: Intel Core 2 Duo, 2.4 GHz

o Memory: 2 GB RAM

o Storage: 80 GB hard disk

o Operating System: Microsoft Windows XP Professional SP2

· My Primary Home Computer: MacBook White

o Display: 13.3” integrated display set to WXGA resolution (1280x800)

o Processor: Intel Core 2 Duo, 2.0 GHz

o Memory: 2 GB RAM

o Storage: 160 GB hard disk

o Operating System: Apple OS X version 10.6 (Snow Leopard)

· My Wife’s Primary Home Computer: Lenovo IdeaPad S10

o Display: 10.2” integrated set to WSVGA resolution (1024x600)

o Processor: Intel Atom, 1.6 GHz

o Memory: 1 GB RAM

o Storage: 160 GB hard disk

o Operating System: Microsoft Windows XP Home SP3

· My Media PC: Dell Dimension 4700

o Display: external 20” wide-screen ViewSonic monitor (soon to be a Toshiba 32” LCD TV)

o Processor: Intel Pentium 4 with HyperThreading, 3.2 GHz

o Memory: 2 GB RAM

o Storage: 200 GB primary hard disk, 40 GB secondary

o Operating System: Microsoft Windows 7 (RTM version)

· My File Server: Dell Optiplex 170L

o Display: None

o Processor: Intel Pentium 4, 2.8 GHz

o Memory: 1 GB RAM

o Stoarge: 80 GB primary hard disk, 200 GB secondary

o Operating System: Microsoft Windows XP Professional SP3

· My Son’s Primary Home Computer: Compaq Armada 1500

o Display: 12.2” integrated TFT

o Processor: Intel Pentium II Mobile 266 MHz

o Memory: 32 MB RAM

o Storage: 4 GB hard disk

o Operating System: VectorLinux Standard

Viral Gaming

2009-08-21T18:09:00.001-04:00

Listen to the criticism of social network site, especially Facebook, and you'll hear complaints about people wasting time playing games. This was something I never noticed when my only social networking experience was on MySpace. Once I joined Facebook it seemed that every other contact was playing some game or another.

It wasn't long before I was sucked into the fray. I noticed a few of my friends were playing Mafia Wars, which appeared to be an HTML-based RPG. I figured that I could probably handle something like that, click on it a time or two a day, do a few tasks, and that would be it. Of course it never works out that way.

The problem is that these games are designed to take advantage our competitive nature. I started out doing exactly as I planned, or maybe less. Then I kept losing fights, getting robbed, and was killed repeatedly. Each time something like that would happen a notification in the Facebook interface would show.

My choices were to give up or dedicate a little more effort. Not to be outdone by a little game, I decided to give it a real try. First I simply increased my efforts to improve my character. I did more tasks to gain experience and reach higher levels. I bought more property so I could have income to buy more weapons. Then I bought weapons and defensive items.

None of it worked. My character was still losing fights and getting robbed and killed.

Back to square one, I wondered what the heck I was doing wrong. There is a link in the application to a user forum. Taking a peek, I found that there were a few guides to help pick weapons and upgrade your character. Those led nowhere. Then I realized the undercurrent of the discussion: everything focused on having a huge "mafia." [read: guild, team, group, etc.]

There was my problem. Not only did I have a small mafia consisting of whichever friends were playing the game, but I had made little to no effort to expand it. When the game posted notices on my profile I quickly deleted them. I changed permissions to disallow such postings because I didn't want to advertise my involvement. This meant that I wasn't spreading the game to those around me, so I wasn't connected to as many players.

That's when it hit me: To be successful at this game you have to spread it like a virus.

That's what all those alerts are intended to do. Create more players that need more players, spreading virally by spamming via the players profile. I was a failure because, even though I was infected, I was washing my hands after each use so it wouldn't spread further.

The game seems somewhat self-aware about this. By default it posts an entry about almost everything you do, with certain achievements being highlighted by larger posts that have accompanying images. In order to "ask for help" to get your other mafia members to contribute on a task you have to post an alert to your profile. You can invite your contacts to play the game, and this is considered more important than reviewing your existing mafia to the point that you have to access your mafia via the invite screen. If you run out of invitations - I suppose their somehow arbitrarily limited - then you have to post an alert on your profile to all your contacts asking them to join. Occasionally the game asks you to send game items to your friends, and of course the entire contact list is the default option.

There are more games like this. In fact, my wife was playing another game by the same company. This one, FarmVille, uses cute images and sappy statements to garner attention. It spreads the same way. It also has limitations that impair your ability to play unless you manage to convince others to play as well. The kicker here: When my wife let the app spam her profile a few times and not enough people bit she actually asked me to start playing as a favor. I complied and a similar cycle ensued, except I had enough "neighbors" to be somewhat successful at this.

I took a different approach. I found that the forum had an "Add Me" thread for Facebook. If you post a link to your profile you'll get dozens of friend requests. This all but ruins Facebook for other uses but what the hell am I doing there anyway? I did spend some time setting permissions so that I could add all of these total-stranger-friends to a group that wouldn't be able to dig into my personal life. It's the other part of the site that's ruined, the one where I can see the broadcast messages of my real friends. C'est la vie.

What do I get from all of this? I suppose the reward for me is a few mindless, distracting clicks a day. Things that I can do to give my brain a rest from the tribulations of working in a cubicle farm. I'm not winning anything, though. More realistically, I've lost by playing.

Time to Re-Evaluate

2009-08-19T14:33:00.002-04:00

True story: Upon receipt of the pictured tweet Justin asked, "what presence?" Indeed. That's why I need to evaluate things again.

What is all of this doing for me? I have absolutely nothing to show for my 5,000+ forum posts from the last few years. My tweets are worse than useless. They're inane and I consider them a liability so I lock them down. I login to Facebook and head straight for time wasting games, I'm not connecting with anyone.

Will I cut these things? I don't know. I need to take a deep breath and figure out what the hell I'm doing here. One thing is for sure, it's not working.

Hulu: The Best Streaming Video Site?

2009-06-09T21:53:00.003-04:00

Hulu is the undisputed champion of free streaming music video sites. What if we remove the word 'free'? Is it still the best?

I watch a couple shows a week on it. I watched even more before but I eventually ran through the interesting parts of their anime library. I've also tried to limit the time I spend watching TV, even if the computer is functioning as my TV.

Hulu has a great selection of content. Their strength is the same sort of content you would find on both major and cable networks. The television-sourced content is top notch, but their movie selection is mostly tired and old. As I mentioned, they have a respectable selection of anime, mostly series but a few movies as well.

The video quality is pretty great, if you have the hardware for it. Much of the content is available in two quality settings, 360p and 480p. Some is only available in the lower quality 360p. If the original was wide screen then so is the Hulu version. [At least as far as I can tell.] The 360p version is watchable and most likely to run smoothly, the high resolution content is better than standard definition television but not as good as 720p HDTV. [The numbers really give it away.]

The bigger difference between the two formats is in the audio quality. The low resolution audio is terrible, it sounds flat and tinny. It's compressed so badly that quieter sounds are sometimes lost entirely. The high resolution sound is good, if not great. The story is all about the low resolution sound which is unlistenable.

The problem here is that the only way to get the high quality sound is with the high quality video. If your hardware, particularly your processor, isn't up to the task then you're stuck either watching a smooth, full screen 360p video with atrocious sound, a choppy, full screen 480p video with great sound, or a smooth, windowed 480p video with great sound. I'll return to this, but needless to say it's not the best list of options to choose from.

Moving on to the interface, Hulu's site is fairly easy to use. I don't find their search particularly useful but most of the categories are organized well enough that it doesn't matter. The default sort of each category is popularity of video. You can also sort by air date, date added, and user rating. The same sorting options exist for shows instead of videos. I prefer to view by show, as I'm normally seeking a particular series or episode of a series. Each show has a page that lists all of the videos, with indications of when they were added and whether it's a clip or an entire episode. For my purposes most clips are rubbish, though The Office often has good clips of original "webisode" content.

The player interface is the best among the free sites. This is especially true if you make an account, where you can set your preferences to default to the higher quality video. If you don't have an account or change this setting then you will always have to click the 480p button to get to the higher quality stream. You cannot make this change while a commercial is playing.

When the player is not in full screen mode there are a few other interesting buttons on the right side of the video. If you're happy to watch the video in place you can click the "lower lights" button that overlays a translucent black layer on top of the page, but does nothing to dim the rest of your screen. If you can't watch in full screen but you want to resize the video you can click "pop out" which will put a very similar interface on screen in a window with no other content in it. Lastly, there's the full screen button.

The full screen mode is decent, but conspicuously missing is the quality setting. If you enter full screen only to realize that you forgot to go to the higher quality video you must exit full screen to change quality. The same is true if you enter full screen but find the video to be choppy and want to watch at 360p. I'm not sure why this is so but it proves to be an annoyance. You can stop and start the video with the space bar, and escape will exit full screen. I don't know if there are any other keyboard controls, but it's better than nothing.

Playback is fairly simple and intuitive. There is a progress bar at the bottom of the video that disappears after a few seconds, except in the pop out window where a small progress bar is shown the entire time. It has dots on it that show when the commercials are. You can skip ahead or go back. There's some algorithm that tries to force a commercial if you skip past one, and you only have to sit through one even if you skip past two. In the lower left is a play/pause button. That's it.

Of course, this is an ad supported service. With a few exceptions every video you watch will have commercial breaks. You can pause the commercials but you cannot fast forward. Even if the commercial doesn't load it will make you sit through a 15 second notice that you're being a bad citizen. Occasionally you will be offered an alternative commercial scheme where you can watch a two minute ad then the entire video will be commercial free. Normally I take that offer, especially if it's the cool Honda ad. I'm not a Honda guy, nor a big Danica Patrick fan, but that ad is good. In general I find the ads on Hulu to be far more tolerable than the ones on television. The breaks are shorter and the mixing isn't so ridiculously loud. They're also often real ads, not the self-serving drivel like on ABC.com. Lastly, the ads played in line with the rest of the stream, so you don't have to click to continue. Overall it's a very television-like experience, but more pleasant because the ads are fewer and higher quality.

That brings me back to the original question: Is Hulu the best? My verdict is no. Hulu's service is limited to only a few devices and their media center capabilities are wanting. The well-documented fight they've had with Boxee hasn't helped. On my Macbook running a 480p video at full screen pushes the 2GHz Core 2 Duo processor to its limits, and at that it drops frames. Flash video doesn't seem to offload much if any of the rendering to the GPU, keeping it all on the processor. This is unacceptable when you pair it with the poor audio in the lower quality stream. The commercials are tolerable, if that were the only fault I might declare Hulu the winner on the strength of their catalog.

There is a respite for Hulu, though. They recently released a media-center friendly desktop application. The content navigation in this app mirrors the website -- though it's a little clunky, especially so with a remote. The playback is better, adding some fast forwarding capabilities and showing a scene preview if you use the progress bar to skip around. The scene preview is a little slow. The real killer feature is the "medium" video quality setting. It seems to play a little smoother than the 480p stream from in-browser and the sound quality seems better than 360p.

The short take is that Hulu is a great DVR alternative with a good selection, but they take second place in the online streaming contest.

Neither Blonde Nor Female, But Apparently Real

2009-06-05T23:16:00.003-04:00

I received this email the other day, one of those somewhat worthless humor forwards. Normally I ignore it or laugh. This one seemed fishy to me, though.

I smelled a photoshop job. Looking at the image up close showed a lot of blur and an undue amount of compression artifacts around the lower right pillar. I was determined to find out where the picture was from and prove that it was doctored.

I started my search with the blue sign. I didn't believe that it was an American street sign. Convinced that I had seen something like that in pictures from England I searched for "blue sign London." Soon I had found an image hailing from Manchester with a very similar sign, so much so that I initially thought I'd found the same sign. It was not the same, but I kept looking.

Image search eventually failed me, so I turned to Google Maps Street View. I wasn't able to find much using that but I was bored and it was sort of neat to virtually tour Manchester. After a bit of traveling down Quay St. I stumbled upon the corner of Quay and Gartside. Long after I'd given up, I was able to find what I was looking for.

View Larger Map

Unfortunately, I was unable to prove it false. I don't know exactly how the van was extracted, but it appears that the pillars are there and in the same configuration as in the forwarded picture. Even with the failure, it was kind of fun to research and rewarding to know that you can still find pretty much anything on the Internet.

A New Project, Dead Already

2009-04-21T18:41:00.001-04:00

Last week I started a new blog, Un-F*** My Life. Today I've decided that it is a dead project.

The idea of the project was to reply to FML posts, taking each one at face value, in a sort of Dear Abby style. It was fun and it allowed me to address the annoying repetition of the FML posts. I think I was also able to make the point that many of those posts were easy to deal with so long as you had a modicum of maturity.

Everything died when I realized that since Friday I hadn't even had time to read FML, let alone comment on it. Of course, my little blog probably had no value to anyone but me anyway. So the effort required was far too much and the reward far too little. I even took FML out of my RSS reader. The project is dead on arrival.

New Rules for Netflix Ratings

2009-04-20T14:22:00.003-04:00

I am a big fan of Netflix. I put some thought into how I use the service in order to get the most for my money. I'm fairly happy with the results I get, but sometimes I have to tweak my usage to serve myself better. How I rate movies helps me remember how I felt about a movie and it helps the system suggest more movies, or predict how much I'll like a movie. After a few years of rating movies one way I have decided to change.

The Old Way
My old system for rating a movie was to try to rate it as objectively as possible. I focussed heavily on the merit of the movie, acting, script, and direction. I would then combine that with my preferences and come up with a rating. This introduced some personal bias, but I think most of the ratings were pretty fair. The exceptions were a few movies that I either loved greatly or hated completely, at which point I would typically let my emotions get the better of my objectivity and rate generally loved movies poorly or generally disliked movies highly.

The problem with this is that I was trying to be objective and not allow my bias to influence the ratings too greatly. This would be great if I were the only one reviewing these movies, or if the rating data wasn't being used for other purposes. Neither of those conditions are true, though. In short, I was being unfair to myself out of some sort of misguided attempt at journalistic integrity, even though I'm no journalist.

Other oddities happened because of this as well. I stopped trusting my own ratings. When someone asks me what I thought of a movie I will look that movie up on Netflix and use that rating to stir up the long term memories associated with that movie. It works great because I have the movie box, description, and my rating all there on one screen. I found that, increasingly as of late, I was having to mentally adjust my ratings based on whether I thought they were skewed for objectivity when I made them.

The New Rules
With my new system I will not change my baseline ratings. Instead, I will allow my bias to more significantly influence my ratings. After I have my final number doing this I will review it to make sure it accurately reflects how I interpret and feel about a movie. Then I'll click the little star that matches.

Basically, everything starts out the same as above. I get a rating number by thinking about how well made the movie was and whether it's worth watching. Then I allow myself to modify that rating by zero or more stars depending on how I felt about the movie and how strongly I felt it. If I have no strong emotions either way then a three star movie will remain at that rating. If I enjoyed that movie a good bit, I will probably add a star. I may add two stars in some circumstances. I doubt I would ever feel the need to add three. The opposite is true if I genuinely disliked a movie.

A few examples:
I recently rented The Prestige. It was a decent movie that mixes science, fake magic, and real magic. I thought it was beautifully shot and decently acted. It was an okay script. Objectively, I think I would give it four out of five stars. Once I added more of my personal bias into it I reduced it to three stars because I didn't like some of the treatment it gives to science, it was a little over-the-top, and it has an fairly obvious plot twist that seems to be there only for plot-twist addicts.

I also recently saw the import So Close. This is something like a Charlie's Angels flick set in Hong Kong starring the locals. It wreaks of bad acting, it's completely over the top, and it's cheesy as anything. The action scenes are top notch, though. If you enjoyed the Charlie's Angels series and like Jackie Chan movies then you may enjoy this. I objectively gave it two stars out of five. I think in the grand scheme of things that movies like this are largely trash. They are, however, trash I tend to enjoy. I liked the car chases and the Asian culture infused in this. So I bumped the rating up to three stars.

As you can see, two movies on the opposite ends of the quality spectrum now have the same rating. I'm able to be both intellectually and emotionally honest.

Other Rules
I did pluralize the word 'rule' for a reason. I have changed the way I think of a few things related to rating movies. I will no longer rate movies 'Not Interested' unless I have a very good reason. I have re-assessed my category ratings using the new Taste Preferences with a particular focus on emotional honesty.

For 'Not Interested', right now I'm reserving it for series items where I've seen parts of the series, but not all, and I am completely uninterested in watching any more. This means there are only 3 items with this rating so far: Dragon Ball Z, Home Movies, and Survivor Season 1. The first two are cartoons that I don't like, yet they are suggested because I apparently differ from the normal person who watches anime and adult oriented cartoons. The last is just weird. I don't know if the system suggested this for me or not, but I'll leave it there so that it won't suggest any "reality" shows.

I didn't like the effect that too many 'Not Interested' selections had on my suggestions and other ratings. I also don't like that it inflated some of my ratings counts. I've seen enough movies without the ones I haven't seen being counted.

My category ratings were a mixed bag of intellectual ratings, emotional ratings, and shame. Some categories I rated higher not because I like watching those movies, but because the movies themselves tend to be well made. That's great, until you realize that you aren't interested 15 minutes in but watch the whole thing anyway. The emotional ratings are probably the right ones, at least that's my take. Some of the ratings were born of shame, though. I was ashamed that I like anime, seeing that as the last step into hopeless geekdom. Finally, I realized that these ratings were entirely for me to help Netflix know what kind of movies I might enjoy. I'll eventually betray the same information by what I rent and how I rate it, so I should be honest to myself and rate categories as I think I would actually want to watch the movies in them. The good thing about Taste Preferences is that it presents the data in a way that makes this easier to swallow by asking you how often you want to watch such movies instead of forcing you to rate them on a five star scale. My only gripe is that I wish the ratings were more granular instead of never, sometimes, often.

That's a lot of thought put into rating movies. The good news is that I mull over these decisions for so long each time I rent. Rating a movie takes a second or two. I'm just trying to maximize my results.

Back From Hiatus

2009-04-17T09:47:00.003-04:00

I've been quite busy the last month or so. I neglected my blog as a result.

Even though I don't rely on readers to validate my content, I believe that I should put effort into what I write. If I can't dedicate myself to some sort of well-formed thought then I simply won't try. That's what happened here.

The good news is that I've been thinking a bit. I have some customer service experiences to share. I took a road trip that left me contemplating the psychology of motorists. I haven't stopped my quest to eke out a few more pennies worth of efficiency without negatively affecting my lifestyle, which seems to equate to watching a lot of shows online. So on and so forth...

I hope to post more frequently again. My goal is to have the best blog that no one reads.

The Benefit of Consistent Naming

2009-03-03T17:18:00.000-05:00

In late 2007 I started a project that required a pass-through database to allow for auditing and change approval to occur between our CRM product and Outlook. I was, and am, acting as the database administrator (DBA) on this project. I was fortunate enough to be able to create the database almost single-handedly.

Doing everything yourself is tedious work. It can also go very wrong if you assume that you're not just doing it alone, but doing it for yourself. I stuck to some best practices to create cleanly formatted, self-documenting, and commented SQL code. This has allowed me to have exchanges like this:

Coworker: "What is the procedure to get a contact's information?"
Me: "getContact"
Coworker: "Oh."
Coworker: "What if I want to add this user as a subscriber?"
Me: "Use the addSubscriber procedure, pass it the contact ID and the user name."
Coworker: "Oh."

Eventually they stop asking because almost everything is so predictable. These exchanges may make them feel ridiculous but that's the point. If you stick to a well defined naming scheme then your code should do a lot of self-documentation. If the code is documented then it will normally be equally convenient to simply reference the code. This is a benefit to everyone. There is less need to bother me. The code is more readily available to the other developers than I am anyway.

Another benefit became apparent to me a few times recently: It helps you find when you are about to do the same thing twice. This is a big database that my team has been working on for the last year. There are almost 200 stored procedures and functions. Unfortunately, I was not able to create them all. I did create the vast majority, though, sticking to my same naming conventions each time. Now we are actively developing parts of this project again, so I need to put new functionality in the database. At least twice in recent weeks, a procedure I was prepared to create already existed, was named exactly what I intended to name it and did exactly what I wanted.

The lesson here is the power of doing things the right way for the sake of it truly being the right way. I could have probably done things faster if I didn't take the time to properly indent my SQL queries or if I used the query designer every now and then. Yet, I would cost myself and the company time in the long run because it would be far more difficult to decipher those queries to troubleshoot or change them. I could have used procedure names that were less descriptive to save some typing time or avoid names such as "getAcceptedCompanyMinorityStatusValues" but then I couldn't tell you exactly what the procedure does without looking at the code, and if I needed that later I might use a different naming scheme and do the same work twice. It is usually quicker to do it right once than it is to do it half right twice, especially when twice is likely to grow exponentially.

Solution for My Time Sheet Problem

2009-02-26T12:35:00.000-05:00

I have to fill out a time sheet at the end of every week. It's due by Monday at noon. Each week I find myself filling in 40 hours to the main project that I worked on, then wondering to myself, "Okay, what did I do this week that took away that time, kept me late, and made me miss lunch?"

It's a perplexing question. Even with my attention draining habits, I still feel that I am putting in over 40 hours of real work per week. Yet I rarely feel that all 40 of those hours were spent working on my current primary objective.

I've found that the times I keep detailed logs of how I use my time that I have dozens of interruptions during the day. These are interruptions for various business reasons, not my own attention wandering off to the realms of the Internet, I tend to simply discount those times from my time sheet. I feel that it is a disservice to myself not to somehow indicate that these interruptions occur.

The problem is that it is another attention draining task to stop and note each interruption. It also magnifies the impact of small interruptions, which I can sometimes regain my focus immediately after. So I resort to keeping clues around by way of emails, notes, and phone logs. Then my time sheet exercise is to find all of these notes, combine them with other events that I remember but did not note, and rebuild my week in an honest fashion.

Doing this on a weekly basis is hard. It also doesn't mix very well with the whole Inbox Zero thing. It's too much work to get this information all into a single store, and if I immediately process and file it then it is that much harder to reference it by date.

With Outlook 2007, I think I've finally found a workable solution, at least for my email. I created a category "For Time Sheet" and assigned that to the category quick click event. This allows me to quickly mark the items that are interesting for my time sheet. Next, I file these items in my personal archive. On my personal archive I have created a For Time Sheet search folder that lists all of these items. I added this folder to my favorite folders list.

Now with a single click I have access to all of the items that are interesting for my time sheet, regardless of what folder they reside in. I can remove the category as I record the time I spent working on these items, allowing me to limit the list to only the current time sheet. Since I try to use email as much as possible for correspondence this unobtrusive process does most of the work for me.

Social Networking Boundaries

2009-02-22T22:37:00.004-05:00

Where the heck are the boundary lines, anyway?
The modern social networking site seems to be half popularity contest, half status update. Sprinkle in some idle chatter and time wasting and you have electricity. It seems that everyone has a different idea of how to use these sites and where they draw the line. At a bare minimum you're exposing parts of your life to the world, and greater parts to some loosely defined circle of friends and acquaintances.

What does friend mean to you?
I'm completely lost here. It seems as though I could consider anyone I've ever had any sort of contact with a friend. I've seen people do that on these sites. Even more abstracted are when your friends are really someone you don't know, you're just a fan.

I normally view friends as people that I have a legitimate connection to. That may mean that I only have conversations with them on a message board or that I've known them all my life. To qualify it has to be a situation where I actually communicate directly with the person at some point. Otherwise how could I ever consider that person a friend?

That's limiting, though. It omits those loose acquaintances whom I may want to become friends with. If I'm stingy with that label I will forever have a small circle of friends. Maybe they'll be closer to me but they will be far fewer. Perhaps I might miss out on a great friendship because of this. Could it be that I'm unwilling to open up?

On the other hand, I think it's odd to apply that label too loosely. If everyone is your friend, do your real friends know who they are? Do you know who they are? I may be missing something, but I don't think that even the best social networking software can enable someone to truly maintain hundreds of friendships.

Who do you want to truly connect with?
If you look at your friends list, how many people there would you talk to every day? How much of what you put in your profile is really for their consumption alone? What are the other people doing there and do you ever think of their presence?

I wonder about all of this because of the odd mix of events that occur on social networking sites. Many of them act as a sort of microblog with status updates serving as quick publications. They're used in odd ways, though. Often the microblog includes a chat spin off, or it's actually directed at a certain person or people. After all these years have we come back around to in-browser public chat with a slightly modified format?

Beyond that, I feel like a voyeur watching these status updates. Even though I've limited my friends list in ways, I still find myself questioning whether I would see these things in any other medium. I'm not sure if I want to know them, and I wonder if the person on the other end truly wanted me to know it or if they've just desensitized themselves to the lack of privacy.

My problem here is that I don't know whether these things were intended for me. I sometimes feel compelled to comment or act on information but don't because I wonder if I'm crossing some fuzzy border.

Social networking has a permissive dimension that is above one, but far shy of two. That is to say that it is like a fractal dimension. It is clearly not one dimensional, or else we could see the line and we would know when we cross it. It is not two dimensional either, because there is no clear line for where others stand and the other axis is not well defined. Instead, like the fractal, as you examine each line you will see never ending complexity comprised of the same questions. I suppose it boils down to this: Social networking boundaries are irrational.

My RSS Reader has a "Productivity" Category

2009-02-21T00:43:00.002-05:00

I put it there. Nevertheless, it's there. This post is about the irony of that.

Recently, one of the feeds that I have categorized under the Productivity folder, Lifehacker, posted about ManicTime. ManicTime is an application that somewhat unobtrusively monitors your application usage and provides a report. You can tag time spans and use it to help figure out how you're using your time. It's great for someone like me that has to fill out a detaile time sheet at the end of the week.

Here's where the irony comes in. I installed this app on Tuesday. Since then, only one day (the first day) was Firefox not the top application by sheer volume of usage. I used Firefox for almost 30% of the time I was on my computer. The most time consuming thing I do in Firefox? Read articles fed to me via my RSS reader.

Fortunately I don't live in a fantasy land where average people are 100% attentive. If I did then I would think that something was seriously wrong with me. However, I do live in the real world and I think that 30% might be a little high. Sure, I do read trade-specific articles part of the time. I do have a business reason to have Firefox. Still, the primary reasons I go there are personal.

Now I have to figure out what to do, or if I should do anything. I'm not too worried about my productivity. I even amaze myself with my ability to meet or beat deadlines occasionally. I do wonder if lowering the noise might boost my productivity, at least in a way that would result in less overtime and more family time. Then again, if I take away my distractions during the day I may realize how boring and tedious my job is. I may stagnate and stifle my creativity. What to do? What to do?

I'm going to try to cut back. I think I need to push myself to improve this ratio. I at least owe it to myself to experiment and see if an extra 10% of my attention is worth the price.

Netflix Suggestions Know Me Better Than I Know Myself

2009-02-18T20:35:00.000-05:00

I really like anime. There, I said it. Happy now, Netflix?

You've been telling me that I'd like all sorts of anime series for years now. I kept hitting the "Not Interested" rating. I kept watching all sorts of anime on Adult Swim and occasionally on DVDs from your service. Still, I rated the Anime & Animation category low and refused many of your suggestions.

I was kidding myself. I'm hopeless. Anime is a guilty pleasure, and I am guilty.

I know how terrible it can be. It tends to be weird and even annoying. I just can't help but like it, though. I finally gave in when I realized that I'd watched an entire 26 episode series on Hulu over the weekend.

So, tonight I cleared all of my Not Interested ratings and even added a few series to my queue. I just don't want to argue anymore. You obviously know better.

Google Reverse Phone Search

2009-02-17T17:48:00.000-05:00

I recently received a forwarded message at work containing some sly misinformation on one of Google's features. You can search for a phone number on Google and if that number is listed it will show you whatever information it can find on it. Pretty neat, eh? Apparently there are privacy concerns, as the email described:

The email went on to give a set of verifiable instructions to check if your phone number nets results. It's legit. If your number is listed this really works.

Google has implemented a new feature which enables you to type a telephone number into the search bar and hit enter and you will be given the person's name and address. If you then hit the Map link, you will get a map to the person's house. Everyone should be aware of this! It's a nationwide reverse telephone book and mapping system
If a child gives out his/her phone number, someone can now look it up to find out where he/she lives. The safety issues are obvious and alarming.

What isn't legit are the "safety issues." They should be obvious, but not alarming. I say this because this information has been easily accessible for years. If your number is listed then all of this is easily obtainable. In fact, that's how Google was able to get the information: someone else has this information in a publicly available, search-able, index-able format. Google hasn't introduced anything new, they've just made it a little bit easier.

To demonstrate how little this changes, I did a search for my boss's phone number on whitepages.com. It returned her home address, both her and her husband's names (including middle initial) and their approximate ages. Not only was this just as easy as the Google search, it also supplied me with more information in the results. I'm quite positive that with a little more time and effort I could obtain far more information about her than Google provides alone.

The problem is even less profound when you consider the full scenario. If someone has access to your child enough to obtain their phone number then we can assume a few other things:

They could probably harm your child right then, or at a later time in the same place.
They would be able to follow your child home, or follow them until they are alone.
It is likely that they could obtain other information, such as where the child lives, directly from the child.

If we take that into consideration we're left with a dramatically limited scope in which Google's feature makes any noticeable difference. In any of those instances the predator has no use for Google or any reverse directory. Plus, scenario 1 and 2 decrease the likelihood that you can do anything to change the situation. At least if someone is stalking your child at your home you have some control over whether that child is alone and some chance to take notice of unusual strangers.

I believe that predators who would rely on this feature are less dangerous, on average, than those who would use another method to obtain this information. That is because the more skilled stalker would be using other tools that return more information and are more likely to find a match. There are pay sites that offer huge amounts of aggregate public information, and with a little leg work you can find out plenty from public records offline. The less skilled predator is more likely to attack the child without ever bothering to search for additional information. Somewhere in between you have a stalker that needs easy to use tools like Google search, and is happy with the paltry amount of information it provides, yet they are willing to step back and research their victims. These people are more likely to exist in Lifetime made for TV movies than they are in the real world.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but I have the same belief about most technologies that make information more accessible. You should be more worried about the entities that had access to the information before. You should be most worried about the people who actively sought the information when it was difficult to obtain, not the ones who will only look when it's easy.

More Stretch TV

2009-02-16T10:28:00.004-05:00

The other day my wife sent me a link to a video of Campbell Brown ripping into Wells Fargo. What I instantly realized, aside from my disagreement with Ms. Brown, is that they stretched her. This is really weird stuff for an online video.

CNN has both HD and SD feeds, so one would think that they could take either the original recording or the SD feed to make the video for their site. Oddly, when I had cable throughout the election I would watch CNN in HD and I rarely, if ever, noticed any stretching. I would imagine that the network has their equipment in order to broadcast a proper 16:9 picture. Why did they choose to stretch this video then? Did they use the SD broadcast but stretch it for their wide screen player? We may never know.

Campbell, if you ever see this, ask them to stop! All the evidence you need is in this story: When I mentioned that the video was stretched my wife reacted that she noticed something was off. She wasn't sure if the video was out of proportion or if you had gained a lot of weight.

Finally, I'd like to note that my previous HD stretch piece is probably the most viewed one on this blog. It seems that it is high in the results on Google when you search for... "HD stretch," go figure. Well, if you've reached this site looking for advice I apologize. You may feel heartened that I feel the same way about picture stretching that you probably do. Until the time that I take a deeper look into how to fix the issue, may I suggest the following:

Try a more specific search, such as "brand [and model] hd stretch."
Check your user manual or check http://safemanuals.com/ if you lost your copy.
Go to the AVS Forums and look around. If you need, ask about your problem there.

I'm sorry I can't be of more help. I hope you find a solution somewhere. If you do, post a comment telling others how. Maybe the next person to stumble by won't have to search as much.

That Adolf Hitler Kid

2009-02-15T20:03:00.003-05:00

I'm still following this story. I'm waiting for DYFS to release a statement on why these kids were removed from their homes. This was too much of a one sided story and I want the record set straight.

In case you missed it: Late last year it came to light that some ignorant white supremacist trolled the world by naming his kids after nazi* icons. On a slow news day his local ShopRite did the right thing by refusing to make a cake saying "Happy Birthday Adolf Hitler." He was instantly a hero to those who portray common sense and decency as "PC," a martryr to racists everywhere, and a huge jackass to everyone else. End of story.

Only, it wasn't the end. DYFS came in a few weeks later and removed his kids. That's when the martyrdom was kicked up a notch. Suddenly, everyone in the world became a Monday morning social worker and the popular assumption was that these kids were removed due to their ridiculously stupid names. This was compounded because only the parents are allowed to talk as DYFS, as most such social services, has strict confidentiality laws about their cases.

I take issue with the parents, the names they gave their kids, their defense for the names, at least one popular defense for the names given by others -- including their aunt, and the assumption that DYFS is doing something wrong.

The Parents
These people have to be off their rockers. Honestly, who gives kids such names? What did they think the result would be? If nothing else, they are obviously too stupid to realize that freedoms go both ways and everyone else is free to shun their kids for their names and treat them like manure. The saddest part is that they had three children and didn't learn.

The Names
Well, this goes without saying. It's one thing to name your kid after someone controversial. If I were to name my kid after Malcolm X I would probably raise some eyebrows. Yet, I would not be naming him after perpetrators of some of the worst acts in human history. It's unfathomably gross to think that someone in good conscious named these children such.

Ignoring all of the psychology involved for the kid, by giving that name they paid tribute to Hitler and publicly acknowledged that they held Hitler in the highest esteem. Hitler's name should be ascribed to waste baskets and poop scoops, not children.

If they had chosen the name Adolf you wouldn't be reading this now but that's not what they did. They chose Adolf Hitler, leaving no doubt about who they were naming the child after. It's sick and stupid and the parents deserve whatever misfortune this name brings about.

Their Defense of the Names
This is one of the more insulting aspects of this story. These people are either completely delusional or they just take the public for suckers, probably a bit of both. Their claim is that they gave these names due to a desire for a unique identity for their children. Seriously? You couldn't think of anything better than to name your children after insane war criminals responsible for genocide? We're supposed to buy this?

Further insult to our intelligence comes when questioned about the swastika tattoo on the father's neck. He's not racist, he just likes the artwork. Sure, buddy.

The Popular Defense
Several editorials, blogs, and comments I came across about this situation offered the same quip that one of the family's relatives did during an interview with the local NBC affiliate. They combined two current events, this one and the election, and came up with the brilliant "but we just elected someone name Barack HUSSEIN!!!!!!!! Obama."

Do you really not see the difference? If you don't, stop reading and never return to this site again. There's no help for you. Just to spell it out, though: President Obama was named before the tyrant dictator took power. He was not named after Saddam. Further, Saddam sullied a fairly common name, but by no means to the extent that Hitler did with Adolf. It is very clear that Barack was not named after Saddam at all, but it is even clearer that this child was named after Hitler. To indicate that it is acceptable to name someone after Hitler because someone who is accepted by society coincidentally shares one of his names with Saddam Hussein is flawed logic of the worst kind.

If you still have a problem with Barack Obama's name then you should read this article by Juan Cole. He does an excellent job explaining why there is no good reason to have a problem with our President's name.

The Assumption About DYFS
Here's the big one. No one seems willing to let DYFS have any slack. Even the more analytical and understanding people I know have criticized the removal of the children because "it's just because their names."

I have a hard time believing this. From what I know about social services it is quite improbable that the children would be removed from their parents purely due to their names.

The more likely scenario is: The national news story sent one of their neighbors over the edge and they decided to make a report about abuse. DYFS is then legally required to investigate. Upon investigation some legitimate reason to temporarily remove the children from the home was uncovered. The children were removed.

Why would I assume that DYFS didn't do anything wrong?
The parents in this situation can offer no evidence that DYFS did anything wrong. They are merely throwing out baseless accusations that make us condemn the agency for our own prejudice against the family. This is classic behavior when a child is removed from a family.

Meanwhile, DYFS isn't giving us any reason to believe them. The problem here is that we don't need any more reason than we already have. DYFS is regulated and they cannot just go around removing kids for no reason.

Further, it is not easy to remove children from a family. Social workers take no pleasure in doing this, except maybe in the worst of circumstances. There is a lot of work involved and a lot of regulation. There is no joy in taking a child from their parent.

To insinuate that DYFS would remove children for no reason beyond their names, with no evidence aside from wild accusations by the parents in an attempt to start a media war, is ridiculous. However, it's beyond ridiculous for the social workers involved. Human beings, who obviously have more common sense than these parents, and are compassionate enough to take a thankless job so they can try to help kids, are behind these actions. These parents, and those who accept their claims at face value, are demonizing these faceless social workers who can't even legally speak for themselves.

I'll leave the fate of the children to the courts. Until then I won't assume that the parents are guilty of anything. I also won't assume the DYFS did anything wrong. Regardless of the outcome, I will continue to believe that Heath and Deborah Campbell are failures at life.

*I don't care about spell check, this word does not deserve to be capitalized.

Creditor Protection

2009-02-08T13:25:00.001-05:00

I was just reading this article and it reminded me of the time when I mistakenly bit on this trap. While there is a circumstance where you may not be covered by standard life or health insurance policies but you would under this protection, namely the loss of you job, it just isn't worth it. It's far too expensive.

The problem is the pitch. It only costs 1% of your balance, they say. So you may think that it will bump your APR up a percentage point. Wrong! It bumps your APR by 12 percentage points. It is 1% of your balance monthly. Your monthly interest is calculated by multiplying your average daily balance (on most cards) by one twelfth of your APR. If your annual number is 12% then your monthly number is 1%. In that case you would double your interest by taking this offer.

It just isn't worth it. If you carry no balance then this does nothing for you and it can make your debt balloon in a situation where you start carrying a balance. If you do carry a balance then you'll instantly double your interest owed. You're better off putting the money into your emergency fund.

The Courageous Middle Ground

2009-02-02T11:19:00.002-05:00

Do you have the courage not to take a stand? The ability to see things more than one way? The balls to admit that maybe the other side is right?

I'll admit that decisiveness is important. There are times where you must be able to make a clear decision and stick with it. Everyone should be exposed to tough decisions and allowed to have firm opinions.

What seems to be lost, especially in punditry, politics, and online forums, is the ability to have a mixed opinions. There are a courageous few who take the middle, often enraging those on either side.

The middle is a thankless position. It helps the arguments of both sides and hurts them at the same time. Occasionally it is recognized as the right position, but rarely is held as a brave position.

Too often the middle position is declared indecisive and cowardly. While there are instances where this is true, it is more likely that the middle is decisive on more nuanced points and they are brave enough to speak out against everyone while agreeing only in part. Rarely will the middle position earn you new friends. It takes far more effort to sustain this position, as you have to defend nuanced and expansive arguments while your opponents will lump everything together for their convenience.

If you are brave and decide to take the road less traveled you should be rewarded for any sensible views you may have. It's unlikely that you will, so take my appreciation now.

Check Your Accounts

2009-02-01T01:42:00.002-05:00

This piece of advice has been all over the place lately: Check your accounts. Do it now. Check your credit cards, redeem your points. Make sure your bank is still afloat, see if they lowered your savings interest rate. Review your expenses and see if there is a way to reduce them.

Tonight I received an email that my statement from AT&T Wireless was available. I logged in to check what was due. No overages, tons of roll over minutes, but that data plan price tag is a bummer. Then it clicked, we haven't been with AT&T for very long, yet we already have 2,400 roll over minutes accrued. Two clicks later I reduced the bill by $10 per month by lowering our plan to 550 minutes each month. Even if we have a busy month our roll over minutes will make up for it but we never came anywhere near the 700 minutes we were paying for.

If I can save $120 a year with 20 seconds of effort then you can probably save too. At the very least you'll know if anything has changed.

ABC.com Streaming Video Review

2009-01-30T23:33:00.002-05:00

I have officially given up my DVR. This helps my pocket book, but I still want to watch certain shows without being tied to a set schedule. One of those shows is Scrubs, which I love despite it's reputation (and maybe because of it). Without a DVR I must either program myself to follow a TV schedule again, dust off the archaic VCR, or find it online. I found it online at ABC.com. This is my experience...

As you may know, I am a Mac owner and a Firefox user. So I was dismayed initially when ABC.com content would not play in my browser of choice. I was unsure whether it was the browser or the operating system, because some sites only work with Microsoft products. Fortunately everything worked when I tried later in Safari. I'm not sure what the difference is but my main concern is that it works.

Once that was sorted I was able to watch my show. To watch you select "free episodes" from the site's main menu. This displays a list of shows with streaming episodes available online. Click on the one you want and it will launch a new window. In that window you can select which episode of which season you want to watch. Tonight I watched episodes five and six of season eight.

The video quality is reasonable. It's about the same as Hulu's standard definition content. I don't think the experience is as polished as Hulu's though. Like Hulu you can pause, seek, and play the video full screen. There are advertisements, too. It's fairly run of the mill for streaming sites, but at least they didn't miss anything.

Something I noticed is that the player will begin displaying the show while it is buffering, opting for severely degraded video quality instead of a pause while it downloads. This is annoying. My knee jerk reaction to it was that the content must be unwatchable and I would have to look elsehwere. It's good that I stayed because it soon cleared up, but it still happens at the start of every episode.

The ads aren't too bad. In fact, they have a great feature about them: you don't have to sit throught the whole thing. When the player switches to the advertisment, "ad mode," it reverts from full screen, showing the browser window with a graphic ad that has an embedded video in the top right corner. You have to watch the first 15 or 30 seconds, after which most of the ads keep playing but you can choose to go back to your video. The biggest problem is that your show won't automatically continue after the ad is done. You have to click to continue which is quite annoying if you don't have your pointer at your fiingertips. Most of the ads are for other ABC shows, but they have a few for other things.

Overall I was satisfied, if not impressed. I will definitely hit up this site for my Scrubs fix, and I might check out some of the other shows if I get bored. Since I will now get the bulk of my entertainment from online sources, I plan to do more of these reviews. Watch for them.

Cutting the Cable

2009-01-27T17:30:00.000-05:00

Enough talk. This weekend I took action. I cut my cable service back to basic cable. This means my cable bill will be roughly $13 per month for television. I still have to return the DVR/cable boxes, though, so currently the television part of my bill is around $40.

The number porting process seems to have canceled the VOIP service for me. That part of the bill has already gone away. I am not going to cancel Internet service, so that will represent $50 of my bill. The final cable bill should be ~$63, the actual number depends on what taxes apply.

Here's the breakdown of the old bills:

Cable television, Internet, and phone: $164
Netflix: $15
Total: $179

The new bills:
Cable television, Internet: $63
Netflix: $18
Phone: $15
Total: $96

Savings: $85

After a few months of savings in the entertainment budget I will probably buy another antenna to see if I can get a good enough signal. If I can make that happen then I can save almost $100 per month over the old plan. We already used the first month's entertainment budget to buy Kevin some DVDs. I hope he won't miss Moose, but at least he can still watch a show or two.

One last note: Cablevision's customer service was top notch during my interactions with them. I'm unhappy that they misled me when I switched to their service but at least they were pleasant about everything. Most importantly, I never once had to speak to a customer retention specialist. No one tried to talk me out of my decision. No offers with strings attached. They just did what I asked while treating me politely.

Debt Based Budgeting and Saving

2009-01-19T11:03:00.006-05:00

This is an idea I've had floating around in my head for a while now. It should work for people who have credit card debt, but that debt only takes a portion of their budget each month. For this to succeed you will need to be able to budget your money without resorting to using separate accounts or using cash for certain purposes. Also, you'll need to have available credit, you won't be able to do this if your cards are over their limit.

Still reading? Good.

Here's the idea: Pay down your credit cards instead of putting money into savings or keeping it in your checking account, then use those cards for your purchases instead of debit/checks/cash.

This seems to go against most advice to only use credit when you have to. It can work to reduce your debt, or at least lower the interest you pay each month. Since credit card debt is likely your highest interest debt the more you can pay towards it the better. If you budget your expenditures, especially basics like food, and pay that money to your credit card as soon as you get your paycheck then you will lower your average daily balance, and possibly your period ending balance as well.

This uses the Average Daily Balance in your favor. To understand this let's look at an example. Say that I have $1000 in credit card debt at 10% yearly interest. My monthly interest rate will be 0.83%, and that will likely be calculated against the average daily balance on my card. If I pay nothing that month (let's not count any late fees) I would be charged $8.30 in interest. If I do pay something, but I wait until the last day of the billing cycle, my interest will barely change. For instance, if I pay $100 on the last day then my average balance is still $996.67 and my interest will be $8.27. Not much savings this month, it would help the next, though.

To calculate your average daily balance you need need to multiply what your balance was by how many days it was at that balance, then add it to every other balance over the period, and divide the final number by the days in the period. If I bought nothing on that $1000 balance card during a 30 day period, but I paid that same $100 on the 15th day of the period then my avg. daily balance would be calculated as such:

((1000 * 15) + (900 * 15)) / 30 = $950

With the earlier payment I would save almost 50 cents. Now that you see how it works, perhaps you can imagine what it would look like with bigger numbers. Unfortunately, that is about as easy as it gets to conceptualize because normal use will cause fluctuations in the balance that make calculating your average a chore. The important thing to walk away with is that the earlier you pay a credit card the less interest you will pay at the end of the period.

Now we need to apply this to budgeting and savings. The idea here is that if you have money budgeted then you should immediately pay that money to your credit card, lowering your balance immediately, then use that card to buy the things you've budgeted for. During the time between the payment and the purchase your balance will be lower, positively affecting your average.

This works great for groceries. We can continue to use our $1000 debt card to show this. Assume that you budget $50 for groceries each week and you're paid every other week. You use $100 of every paycheck on groceries, but you pay with debit each time. Your money isn't working for you. Instead, pay the $100 immediately to your card (above any normal payment you would make) and use the card for those purchases. Here's how it would look if you were paid on the 1st and 14th day of the period and you bought groceries on the 7th, 14th, 21st, and 28th days:

((900 * 6) + (950 * 7) + (900 * 7) + (950 * 7) + (1000 * 3) ) / 30 = 933.33

Notice how even though our ending balance is the same as it was at the beginning of the month our average daily balance is far lower. In fact, it's actually lower than if we paid $100 on the 15th and never used the card. The interest for that period would be slightly less than if we made a substantial payment in the middle of the month. What happens if we combine the two and make a $200 payment on the 15th ($100 for each, the groceries and to pay down the debt)?

((900 * 6) + (950 * 7) + (800 * 7) + (850 * 7) + (900 * 3) ) / 30 = 876.67

By rolling your budget for monthly expenses into the money you pay upfront to credit cards you dramatically lower your average balance. Think about how much of a difference that could make if you applied it to your food budget (which is likely more than $50 per week, especially if you have a family), your gas budget, and anything else you can pay using your card. If your interest rate is higher then you get more benefit as well, and 10% is a fairly low rate. The other aspect that is hard to quantify is just how much you will save over future periods, because the interest charged this period will accumulate more interest every period until you pay it off.

It works for savings, too. Actually, it works better for savings. If what you are saving to buy can be purchased via credit then you should consider this method. Think about the difference in interest rates between your savings account and your credit cards. I can imagine that the difference is stark. I should note that the better savings accounts compound interest on a daily basis, which will generate more interest than the same rate compounded once a month. That isn't enough to overcome the difference between most savings and credit rates. So, financially you may be better served by paying off your debt instead of saving for purchases.

Even if your savings interest rate is fairly high and compounds daily you should save more money by paying off higher interest debt. In our previous examples we used a 10% interest credit card, which is on the low end, so let's go to the high end of savings and compare a 5% savings account (you can't get these right now, but it will prove the point). Using those accounts if you saved $50 per month, at the beginning of the period, towards a $300 TV you would double your return by paying off the credit card. I'm going to spare you the math, but my calculations showed a credit interest savings (money you don't owe in interest) of $8.84 and a savings interest return (money you earn in interest) of $4.32.

Obligatory warnings and clarifications: If you do this you must be careful about it. Monitor your spending carefully to be sure that you stay within, or at least reasonably close to, your budget. That may limit the usefulness of this plan, because if you are deep in credit card debt you may have issues with monitoring.

This should not replace your emergency fund. The last thing you want in case of an emergency is to run up tons of debt. You may run into problems with that debt down the road. If nothing else, cash is infinitely more useful in emergency situations.

The idea should be that you use this in place of saving to spend or use already budgeted money that you will spend during the course of the month. Don't use this to replace other savings such as retirement, emergency funds, or college funds. Obviously, if you're in debt you should think about discretionary spending carefully. I like to think that this makes such thought easy, because you don't have money burning a hole in your pocket, it's working for you to dwindle your debt.

Lastly, I'd like to apologize for the ugly equations. I tried to keep the math simple and clear. I realize that there are better ways to express the equations I included, but they would be less clear and probably more confusing.

That's it. I'd like to know what you think or if you've done something like this before. Let me know in the comments.

Personal Finance

2009-01-14T17:35:00.000-05:00

Now is a great time to start a personal finance blog. If you know enough about it to advise others then you should. Over the next few years you're likely to have some success. I'm not going to do that, but it does weigh on my mind a lot so I will probably be writing about it.

Here's the story: I am the sole provider for my family of three. I make slightly less than average for my field and we have a slightly below average income for our area. We do have some debt in the form of school loans, a medical loan, and credit cards. We rent, but the area is expensive so our rent is higher than most of my family members' mortgages. Both of us have a car, but we owe nothing on them. My son is in day care twice a week so that my wife can attend school on those days.

That's the setup. My issue with this is that we are living slightly beyond our means with the school related expenses. Now, that does not mean that my wife should stop going to school. School is an investment, so the debt we incur today will lead to prosperity tomorrow. Instead, it means that we should be frugal wherever we can in an effort to avoid unnecessary debt on top of what we already have, and what is needed to accomplish our goals. At the same time I want to avoid a significant hit to our quality of life and be sure that we can provide my son with a fun and loving childhood.

I plan to make a few posts about what I'm doing to set my finances straight and how it's going. I don't think this will hit the same level of output that my political blogging did leading up to the election, though. I hope to have a few unique ideas, and maybe share some experience that can help others. At the very least I may bug my wife less about it.

Cancelling Cable Update

2009-01-14T07:49:00.000-05:00

Last time I wrote about canceling my cable service. Since then, I tried an antenna and I received my new VOIP package. I also investigated a little bit and found that I may be able to significantly save on my cable bill without completely canceling television service.

First, the VOIP. I haven't tried the new service, but I am impressed that it arrived so quickly. They are already processing the number port and they say it should happen this Friday.

Next is my disappointment with the first antenna experiment. I walked into the local Circuit City and bought an RCA ANT146. I was able to pick up two PBS channels in English, one of them HD, and around nine foreign language channels in standard and high definition. The major networks from New York were mostly static, and high def. was out of the question. I'm thinking of buying a Winegard SS-3000, which is highly rated on Amazon and seems to be made for the sort of situation I have. (My windows face away from the direction of the signal origin.)

Finally, I learned that the cable company still has a basic cable package for a mere $12 per month. That's $12 more than I want to give to the cable company, but it may be worth it to cover sports, news, and prime time. According to the cable company I need a cable box to receive the HD version of the broadcast networks, but I was able to pick up those channels without the box on my HDTV when I tested last night. If I have to settle for this package then I will be eating a quarter of my entertainment budget, but it may be better than antenna frustration and it's still almost $90 cheaper than the package I have now.

Canceling Cable

2009-01-08T17:02:00.001-05:00

The special package price on my cable service expired in November. Suddenly I'm faced with a $165 per month cable bill. That includes Internet and phone service, but it's still a big bill for entertainment and communication. Especially when you consider that I'm also paying around $100 for a few cell phones and $15 for NetFlix.

My first order of business is to cancel the phone service they offer. After the introductory period it now costs $35 per month. I only take a very few inbound calls using that phone. I'm going to go with BroadVoice's In State Unlimited plan, which is ~$15 per month after fees and taxes.

Next up is the television service. This one is interesting. I like TV, and I think it is possible to consume it without becoming a zombie. It's just not worth the $100 per month that I'm paying for basic ($55 or so), digit/HD ($10), and two DVRs ($35). Don't get me wrong, I think I have a great setup and as far as cable goes I think Cablevision does pretty well. It's just that I don't want to pay $1200 a year to watch it, not anymore at least.

As for the Internet service, I will keep it. It's $45 per month if you have their cable service, and it will be $50 per month when I get rid of it. Cablevision's Internet service is very good, and FiOS isn't available in my area so there is no competition for it here. I'll need it for the VOIP service anyway.

In case you've been keeping a tally, $35+$100+$45 != $165. I know. I get a whopping $15 discount for having all three services. Good thing, because $180 per month would be intolerable. Glad I don't have HBO.

Next up, I have to figure out what to do instead. I don't want to miss out on sports and I do enjoy a few sitcoms. My son watches a few cartoons, most of which we record on the DVR so he can watch them according to his schedule. My wife occasionally watches the news and the weather channel. Otherwise, our television viewership consists of random stints, almost entirely by me. I still want to have access to some of that, and I've come up with a bit of a plan.

I can sum it up in three words: Antenna, Netflix, Hulu. There are other aspects to this but those are my main weapons. Other factors include purchased DVDs, video games, and probably turning the TV off.

Antenna - I have to purchase an antenna for my HDTV. I've yet to do this, and it may be the most crucial element here. If the antenna doesn't work well then I will miss out on sports, something I really enjoy watching. Even with the antenna I will be forgoing ESPN, I'd rather not lose everything else. The antenna will also provide access to local news and primetime television.

Of course, I haven't purchased an antenna yet. I don't know how well it will work. I'll have to mess with it and I may have to make multiple purchases before I'm satisfied. That's fine, because I live in a major television market so I'm confident I will be able to find something that works.

Netflix - I already have Netflix, and most of the movies I watch are Netflix rentals. I'm a fan of the service. Right now I have the two out unlimited service. Under my new strategy I will return to at least the three out unlimited plan, but I may increase that. I plan to try to take advantage of their streaming content, a library that seems to grow constantly. It will be a great way to spend a boring night if I don't have a movie at home or I'm not in the mood to watch any that I have. This leads me to the third part of my plan...

Hulu - Have you tried this service yet? They offer DVD quality streaming content and they have a wide variety ranging from obscure crap to some of the most popular shows on TV. Hulu has commercials, but they seem to have less than TV and so far they aren't mixed such that they make you pee your pants when they come on. Obviously this isn't the only service to offer streaming video, but right now they're the best option to directly replace television viewing. Veoh, Netflix, and in some cases the show's website offer similar streaming content. Another option is iTunes, where I may be able to purchase episodes of shows. So far there are no current episodes of any show I like available there, but who knows what the future might bring.

There you have it, my three pronged attack at the rising cable bill. I anticipate that this will save me at least $100 per month. I will save part of that money toward an entertainment budget that I will use to buy electronics and content. I hope to buy or build a media center PC sometime later this year so that I can record off air content and watch digital content on my TV.

Will this be as convenient as cable? Of course not. There is a reason why cable costs money and people pay, because it's easier than doing something like this. I won't get as much content, either. With my current package I get around 300 channels. Many of them broadcast 24 hours a day. Having a DVR attached to this opens the door to countless hours of content, more than I can consume. It's like the Golden Corral of entertainment.

Instead, I will use my entertainment budget to target my viewership. I will focus on things that I am more likely to enjoy, instead of whatever the networks decide to put in my viewing window. It will take more work to find these things, and sometimes I will have to pay for them, but I will be saving far too much to mind. Besides, I'm sure a little less consumption is a good thing.

Speed Camera Woes

2008-12-26T19:36:00.001-05:00

I'm strongly against automatic traffic enforcement. Not the least of my complaints is that the guilty until proven innocent procedure that most of them use is unconstitutional. The systems are sold to communities as a fund raising program.

So, it is with great pleasure that I read about high school students in Montgomery County, Maryland gaming the system. They've exposed a huge flaw in camera based systems with no human review: you can cheaply fool the system with fake plates.

Originating from Wootton High School, the parent said, students duplicate the license plates by printing plate numbers on glossy photo paper, using fonts from certain websites that "mimic" those on Maryland license plates. They tape the duplicate plate over the existing plate on the back of their car and purposefully speed through a speed camera, the parent said. The victim then receives a citation in the mail days later.

Unfortunately, I can already guess what the county will do about this. They'll increase patrols to catch a few kids with fake license plates. They have to spend money to protect their investment.

Still, we can sit back and laugh as pranks like these increase the cost of automatic enforcement all over the country. Spread the word.

Idea: Your Credit Card is Your Room Key

2008-12-18T09:00:00.001-05:00

Hotel chains such as Extended Stay America have limited check-in hours. They save money by eliminating the need for a third shift. This is a great idea because they pass on some of those savings to the customers. Unfortunately, this also means that a late arrival can leave you out in the cold.

I believe that these businesses could benefit from an automated check-in process that allows you to gain entry to the hotel and room using the same credit card you used to make the reservation. This would allow the hotel to continue to operate without a third shift clerk, yet a guest could still check-in.

The biggest problem that I see with this would be that problems often happen during check-in. Automated systems often require babysitters for when problems occur. The management would have to implement a way for customers to receive help for problems at check-in without undue burden on employees who don't work third shift, including management itself. It's a case where the biggest problem is managing customer expectations.

The Hungry Truth

2008-12-14T00:49:00.002-05:00

I'm going to be contributing to a new blog about cooking called The Hungry Truth. I'm not sure how much I will contribute, but it should be interesting. There are some really talented people working on this project and I'm excited for it.

Windows Vista: The Multilingual Must Pay

2008-12-12T08:15:00.001-05:00

I have a Colombian friend for whom I occasionally perform some basic computer maintenance. She, and her whole family, are relatively dumbfounded by some of the chores required to keep their systems working in a usable fashion. They rely on me perhaps more than I would like, but they're good people and these are the things friends do.

Last week her mother bought a laptop. As I write this she and her new computer are flying to Ecuador. Since I was unavailable last week, I had to do some last minute work yesterday. They needed anti-virus software, the kind that doesn't require ridiculous yearly fees, and to have the language switched to Spanish. The first issue was a five minute ordeal to download and install Avast!, my current pick for AV. The second issue took two hours and required a hack.

You read that right, you cannot switch an English version of Vista Home edition to another language without using a hack. At first I thought it was annoyingly difficult, but when I found out that it was impossible without paying to upgrade to Ultimate edition I was floored. I'm not the only one, check out the anger and confusion at Microsoft's TechNet Forums over this issue.

The solution, as I mentioned, is a hack. Vistalizator, though it has a ridiculous name, was able to change the language in a few minutes. After that, I could barely work with the context menus. Since much of the software was developed in English it turned the laptop into a Spanglish mess. Something tells me that is a perfect result.

Wonderful Apple Customer Service Experience

2008-12-10T19:55:00.001-05:00

My iPod Touch was having problems. It would randomly crash, displaying a vomit-like multicolor display of failure that was inescapable until the unit ran out of batteries. I restored the software, bought a couple of upgrades. Nothing fixed my problem.

I had another issue. I won that iPod and didn't have a receipt or service contract or anything. Still, I was fed up with the shenanigans so last week I walked into the local Apple store and asked to see someone at the genius bar.

If I'd made an appointment I may not have had to wait a half hour. So I wandered around the mall. Thirty minutes later, back at the store, I was able to go sit up at the bar. There I listened to some poor fellow that was going to have to wait for his custom MacBook Pro to be shipped to the store, replacing the old one that died.

When it was my turn I handed over the device. The tech plugged it in, looked at it with a magnifier and a light (I think he was checking for water damage), then proclaimed that he'd give me a replacement. ...Wha?

That's right. I walked in with no receipt, no warranty contract, no explanation of what happened, and he simply replaced it. He even gave me a receipt this time. His explanation was that he thought it was a software issue but he saw something going on with the hardware and he'd rather give me a new one than potentially force me to come back in two days when it happens again.

That's good service. Actually, that is pretty much the best customer service experience I've had with small electronics. Not only are my problems solved, but the new device is shiny and free of scratches from before I bought an iPod case.

Free Trade: Why Don't You Get a Job?

2008-12-09T23:39:00.003-05:00

A coworker sent my department one of those junk emails with crappy jokes today. This one was about a guy looking for a job. It went down a list and mentioned all of the things he was wearing and using and where they were supposedly "made." The punchline was that everything was foreign and he wondered why he couldn't find work.

Welcome to global economics with free, but not fair, trade.

The problem I have with sentiments like those insinuated in the email is that they blame the wrong thing. They blame everyone else, but especially the foreign workers for having the audacity to import their goods.

There is a distinct failure to blame the politicians for opening up free trade without ever imposing the slightest bit of human rights, workers rights, or environmental regulation. More importantly, there is the failure of our mindless consumerism to ever think of the consequence of blind shopping for the lowest price in a category with little actual understanding of how that price is achieved. In short, the reason we don't have manufacturing is because we exported it willingly and then refused to buy local.

So, if its the jobless man's fault that he can't find a manufacturing job, or his father's or his neighbor's, where's the joke? I'll rewrite it for you: All he needs to do is wait for the economy to collapse to the point where he can't afford any of those things and the capitalists will gladly pay him $0.12 per hour to make them instead.

Post Election Break

2008-12-09T23:38:00.001-05:00

Well, that was a nice month. I think I'm boiling over with the need to broadcast a few things, so it's time to resume blogging again.

Race and The Race

2008-11-03T12:00:00.000-05:00

Ever since the Democratic primaries were pared down to two people, I've been thinking about just what it will mean to have a non-white President. I think it says a lot about where we're at as a country. Probably not as much as some would want to believe, but we still have to give ourselves credit.

Early on, I maintained that it was possible for us to elect a non-white President, even a black one. Doubters, especially Hillary supporters, claimed that it was impossible for a non-white to win in this country. Their claim was that racism is too strong, and the racists too plentiful. I think they sold our country short and overstated the problem. I also argued that they were proposing to empower the racists if they let that fear alone prevent them from voting for Obama.

Here we are, less than a week from the election and every major polling agency and aggregator has the race for Obama. Most of the projected leads are statistically significant. The aggregate lead appears insurmountable for the Republican, whose only chance appears to be a belief in the Bradley Effect.

I find myself particularly swayed by the arguments that the Bradley Effect won't play any roll in this election, at least not a significant one. If it appeared in the primaries all it did was keep Clinton afloat in a couple of states, but Obama outperformed more polls than he underperformed. If anything, it would seem that various sector of Obama's support are being vastly under polled. I think we're set to see a landslide and he will win at least one state in the South that was thought to be an impregnable Republican safe haven, probably Georgia if any.

That doesn't mean racism is dead.

The racist reaction was strong, if not as strong as most feared. There have been so many overtly racist events surrounding this election. Every side is guilty, but none more so than the Republicans. No one is more complicit than Sarah Palin.

All over the country the Republican base was fired up over Governor Palin. Almost universally for the wrong reasons, although we must admit that she does appear to have a decent record against corruption, even if she just replaced old corruption with new corruption. They supported her because of her subtle bigotry, her religion (in all its extremist Christian glory), and her gender. Even the gender issue is for the wrong reason, she's not a feminist, nor a ground breaker, she's trying to ride Hillary's coattails in the most offensive way possible. The message was clear: If you want to vote for a minority you can still vote McCain. Don't worry about whether your vote is for or against feminism or if it will positively impact the institutional racism and patriarchy in our society, you're voting for a ticket with less penises than the other.

Once the honeymoon faded Palin's supporters had a hard time drumming up enthusiasm. She failed to connect with anyone but her narrow base, shy of a few old perverted men. So she fell on America's current worst racial issue: Our public acceptance of racism toward Arabs and bigotry against Islam. It didn't take long for her and her supporters to complete the circle back to the early whisper campaigns. The insinuation is that Obama is a radical black Muslim, the image they painted in the minds of racist Americans (this is a subset, not an indictment of us all) was that of the Black Panther with their fist in the air. It was just shy of screaming, "C'mon, people, he's black!"

Weeks later and the Republicans have not seriously censured this group of racists. They maintain their claim that Obama is "different," even as the differences between Palin and the average American become more and more clear. Recently in Iowa, Palin spent a solid minute merely talking over the crowd's growing anger and shouts of "he's a nigger!" Has she ever stopped to tell the crowd that she won't tolerate that, that it's not right and it's not how Republicans should act? No. That is why it keeps happening, that's why it has gotten worse.

I believe that what is happening is that we've flushed the racists out. They can only think to rally around Palin as their last bastion of hope against a black President. They are scared, because racism is born of fear and stupidity. These rallies are a support group for the racists. A last effort for them to vent their anger and fear before the coming unknown. In that, I believe the results we're seeing manage to slightly overstate the true weight of the racism problem in the Republican party, America, and the individual locations that host the events.

At the same time we can't give too much credit to the Democrats, or Obama supporters in general. The ability to ignore race due to the gravity of other issues does not signify the absence of racism. Indeed, there are plenty of voters who are simply voting "for the nigger." It's dangerous to ignore what this means. This indicates that racism is still a very real problem in our country, but even racists have their limits and very few people are shallow and stupid enough to allow race to be the most important issue.

So, if he wins what does it mean?

It means that we're less racist than almost anyone gave us credit for. Or, at the very least, that we do not let our racism affect our most important decisions. What is equally important is what it doesn't mean: This is not the end of racism in America. There is still a lot of evidence that we have a long way to go, and we need to seize the moment to make things better.

This does send a message to the world. I don't think it says that racism is dead. Instead, I think it says that we're growing up and we're moving on. It says that the slack jawed ignorant self-identifying redneck is no longer acceptable as our representative stereotype. We are more complex and diverse. Most importantly, I think it signifies that we care about how our country is perceived.

The worst possible outcome here would be if we declared victory prematurely. There isn't an exit strategy for the war on racism yet. Equality does not exist in our society, and what little equality there is has not yet reached a proper level of sustainability. Having an African American President does not invalidate Affirmative Action. This country is still a patriarchy ruled by the whites. The social systems that enforce that are still in place, let alone the governmental ones. We cannot throw up our hands in victory and give up. We cannot be complacent.

Now is the time for increased vigilance. This election has forced the dormant race issue to the surface. It is within our reach, we can grab it and attempt to fix it. We're 90 percent there, we just have the other 90 percent to worry about.

Dora Fitzgerald

2008-10-15T21:04:00.002-04:00

Dora Fitzgerald of North Charleston, SC, 93, died last week. She clung to life so that she could vote for Barack Obama.

She made her mark, and we put it in the envelope, my brother and I walked to the mailbox, it was 11 o’clock Wednesday morning and I said ‘Mom its in the mail, you’ve done your thing, Barack’s going to win,’ and she kind of smiled and it was kind of a deep sigh, a sigh of relief, and in less than an hour later, she died

Subtle Bigotry: Hockey Mom

2008-10-14T21:31:00.003-04:00

We've heard about the racism that the McCain campaign has stirred up, but few people have addressed when it started. I believe that it started as soon as Sarah Palin was named as his running mate. Specifically, the first time she claimed that she was "just one of [us]" and a "hockey mom."

Why is that racist? To answer that question we have to look at who hockey moms are. So, that's just what I did.

Luckily, I already had an idea of who they were, at least in this area. For a few years I helped my brother-in-law with his little league photography business. Among his clients were a few of the local hockey leagues. He also had football, baseball, basketball, soccer, and wrestling leagues for clients. He worked in communities on all ends of the income spectrum. As far as Northern New Jersey is concerned, I know the sports demographics well.

From this I tell you that hockey moms are earlier risers, able to tolerate prolonged periods in freezing temperatures, financially comfortable, SUV drivers, and as white as possible. Don't take my word for it, here is what MinnPost's Jay Weiner had to say about it:

[T]he sport is predominantly Caucasian and, of course, extremely Northern in its geography. Among hockey, soccer and basketball, those who participate in hockey have the highest household income of $80,540. It's a more affluent sport and, perhaps, more Republican, although Minnesota hockey has a blue-collar strain to it.

Slate's income numbers are different, but they tell the same story:

[T]hey're almost certain to be largely Caucasian. Just 2 percent of National Hockey League players are black, despite the work of a "diversity task force" for both the professional and youth leagues. (The task force has held special camps in Wasilla, Alaska.) USA Hockey claims hockey-playing households earn nearly twice the U.S. average, with a median income of $99,200. According to polling by the Pew Research Center, a slice of registered voters that might be roughly equivalent to hockey moms—comprising white married women with kids under 18, incomes over $75,000 and living in the prime hockey-playing regions

If you read the full stories accompanying those quotes you will start to realize who the "us" is that Palin is one of. It doesn't encompass people of color. Nor does it include the poor, actually it mostly excludes the middle class. It does include someone who can afford thousands of dollars every year for their child to play a sport. Very few hockey moms are worried about how they're going to afford their next meal.

When Sarah Palin says that she is one of "us" and that Barack Obama isn't, in the same breath that she claims to just be a hockey mom, she is making a classist and racist statement. She is saying that we can't let a non-white person who had to work their way through school into the White House. She is professing her disgust for someone who would waste their time as a community organizer in low income areas.

It is a subtle attack, but one that should not be overlooked. At the very least, not anymore. Once her attacks became more overt, and her attempts to provoke a passionate racist reaction became more obvious, we had to look at just how deeply this runs in the campaign. It isn't merely a ploy that started a week or two ago, it's built right into the VP pick.

I Agree With Bill Kristol?

2008-10-13T11:32:00.002-04:00

Bill Kristol now thinks that McCain should fire his campaign, something I called for in July. Not that I agree with Kristol on much else that he's saying, especially that a stunt like this could work this late in the campaign.