It's more rare these days, but I realized I had a total geek moment as I was walking back to my office after eating cheese and crackers for dinner because I was too busy working on reviving a 6 year old PC.

Nothing quite like a power supply sitting outside the case to let you know that you've geeked yourself out for the day.

As a side note: those Laughing Cow cheese wedges are pretty damn satisfying for 30 calories.

I'm in awe of Joe Louis at this moment and a little bit ashamed that prior to this evening, I'd known almost next to nothing about the man.  Joe Louis: America's Hero...Betrayed is an amazing documentary, telling the story of a man that every American should know and a story that is especially moving to minorities who can look to him as a selfless pioneer.

Selfless in the sense that no person should have to carry the burden of the hopes and dreams of millions of people that individuals like Louis, Jackie Robinson, Rosa Parks, and Martin Luther King Jr. did in their lifetimes.  Against the tidal waves of hatred, the threats against their lives and safety, and in times much different than the one that we live in today, people like Louis gave a nation of minorities hope and pride.  He was a man who didn't shy from his responsiblities and the responsibility of being the ambassador for the black community in a time when they needed him the most.  Perhaps the most inspiring aspect is that he shouldered all of that responsibility in a humble, soft spoken, and professional manner.

It is a must watch not only for minorities, but also for all of America.  Louis isn't merely a hero to the black community, but his story is one of a true American hero and a patriot.  Jimmy Cannon is quoted on the title page of the documentary's website, "He was a credit to his race -- the Human Race."

He is a hero, a role model, a champion, a patriot, and a pioneer.  I hope that he'll be remembered as such in American history for generations to come.

"Network Apologizes For Mocking Athol"

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/06/ap/strange/main3915750.shtml

(AP) A cable sports network says it no longer will make Athol the butt of its jokes. Comcast SportsNet said Thursday it would pull a newspaper ad that leaders of the small central Massachusetts town called insulting and offensive.

The ad featured two side-by-side signs that together read: "We can pronounce Worcester ... without sounding like an Athol."

I grew up one town over from Athol :P It was always a joke the kids would play: hold your tongue and say "Athol".

Chris Ballard has an excellent essay on the art, history, and mystery of the dunk.

Like a sizable chunk of sporting America, I remain intrigued by the dunk, even if I'm not always sure why. After all, I've seen a million of them, replayed on the highlight shows and casually dropped in on NBA layup lines and shoved down my throat by anthropomorphic mascots hurtling off trampolines. Yet I can't look away.  For men, it's like cleavage; we've seen acres of it, but that doesn't stop us from looking again. It's part instinct, part the lure of the unattainable and part the hope that we'll see something spectacular.

The dunk is the easiest shot in basketball, really, but also one that relatively few can make, requiring a combination of height, youth, leaping ability and coordination. A 60-year-old can run a marathon, and almost anyone can get lucky and hit a hole in one or a half-court heave, but no one lucks into a dunk. Either you can do it or you can't.

Julius erving once said, "When you feel yourself go up above the rim for the first time and put the ball through, there's nothing like it. You want to do it again and again and again." Wilkins says throwing down made him feel like a king.

...maybe that's the ultimate appeal of the dunk. Close our eyes, and all of us can imagine doing it. Most of us never will, though, so we live vicariously through those who can, reveling in their ability to make the impossible look easy. We wish we could become one of them. Inevitably, they will become one of us.

I tried to get my body back into shape about this time last year for a push at dunking, but I came up unsuccessful, utlimately.  Mostly due having a hard time losing weight and probably putting on too much mass with weight training.  It was fun training for it, however; it definitely helped by pick up game in so far as being better at grabbing boards and sending ill-timed shots back into the shooter's face >:) (there's nothing quite like the satisfaction of emphatically blocking somone's jumpshot, though I imagine posterizing someone to be equally, it not more, exhilerating).

Worth a read for any fans of the game.

Verizon FiOS is like:

Wow...

Screencap from FileZilla server...

Blogger demonbaby has an excellent post on the music industry spurred by the recent demise (and resurrection) of OiNK.

I myself have been having an ongoing debate with my veep regarding all things P2P taking various angles on the subject including legality, piracy, missed opportunities, and the general failure of the music industry to adapt to the digital revolution.

Rob emphasizes a point that I continually come back to in our discussions:

They had a chance to move forward, to evolve with technology and address the changing needs of consumers - and they didn't. Instead, they panicked - they showed their hand as power-hungry dinosaurs, and they started to demonize their own customers, the people whose love of music had given them massive profits for decades. They used their unfair record contracts - the ones that allowed them to own all the music - and went after children, grandparents, single moms, even deceased great grandmothers - alongside many other common people who did nothing more than download some songs and leave them in a shared folder - something that has become the cultural norm to the iPod generation.

They didn't jump in when the new technologies were emerging and think, "how can we capitalize on this to ensure that we're able to stay afloat while providing the customer what they've come to expect?" They didn't band together and create a flat monthly fee for downloading all the music you want. They didn't respond by drastically lowering the prices of CDs (which have been ludicrously overpriced since day one, and actually increased in price during the '90's), or by offering low-cost DRM-free legal MP3 purchases. Their entry into the digital marketplace was too little too late - a precedent of free, high-quality, DRM-free music had already been set.

Of course, this is no excuse for stealing or not rewarding the artists for their work, but it's clear that it is partially their own error in not creating the market conditions which would have prevented the massive outbreak of illicit P2P file sharing. 

I like to think it all comes back to Rodgers' and Jobs' assertion that a large part of the P2P network is enabled and driven by the music industry's reluctance to adopt "convenience" over "hubris" as the modus operandi.

Rob seems to agree:

Trying to innovate with a major label is like trying to teach your Grandmother how to play Halo 3: frustrating and ultimately futile. The easiest example of this is how much of a fight it's been to get record companies to sell MP3s DRM-free. You're trying to explain a new technology to an old guy who made his fortune in the hair metal days. You're trying to tell him that when someone buys a CD, it has no DRM - people can encode it into their computer as DRM-free MP3s within seconds, and send it to all their friends. So why insult the consumer by making them pay the same price for copy-protected MP3s? It doesn't make any sense! It just frustrates people and drives them to piracy! They don't get it: "It's an MP3, you have to protect it or they'll copy it." But they can do the same thing with the CDs you already sell!!

If intellectual property laws didn't make Oink illegal, the site's creator would be the new Steve Jobs right now. He would have revolutionized music distribution. Instead, he's a criminal, simply for finding the best way to fill rising consumer demand. I would have gladly paid a large monthly fee for a legal service as good as Oink - but none existed, because the music industry could never set aside their own greed and corporate bullshit to make it happen.

It's always puzzling to me when this discussion comes up because my veep is the ultimate entrepenuer.  I tend to believe that a large majority of people obtaining music via P2P networks would gladly pay for music if it were the case that the music came DRM free.  I see the legal assaults by the music labels as a missed opportunity to reinvigorate sales and reinvent the industry instead of waging a righteous battle for capitalism by suing small time thieves.

In the end, what good will the industry have gained by alienating customers and offering an inferior product (DRM'd MP3s)?  Surely, they will have gained the allegiance of a generation of lawyers whose pockets are being lined by an industry too foolhardy to recognize an opportunity when they see one.

I've been in a somewhat heated debate with my once CEO and now VP regarding the effectiveness (or rather, the ineffectiveness) of DRM and how the media companies are really just screwing themselves (whilst also screwing customers) by not adapting and accepting digital as this generation's radio.

I've always held the stance that DRM is a useless encumbrance to legitimate users of the content while providing merely a false sense of security to the copyright holders; those who want the content bad enough will circumvent the DRM somehow.  In the end, regardless of how good the DRM is, the simple fact is that the end product must be output at some point in time.  The content can always be captured as output from some trusted system (though some quality may be sacrificed).

Time and again, we've seen that the application of DRM is a fruitless effort in the cat and mouse game with hackers that the hackers have won every time.  Witness:

• DeCSS: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeCSS
• AACS crumbles: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/05/04/aacs_crack/
• QTFairUse: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QTFairUse

In his open letter, Steve Jobs comments on DRM and states:

Imagine a world where every online store sells DRM-free music encoded in open licensable formats. In such a world, any player can play music purchased from any store, and any store can sell music which is playable on all players. This is clearly the best alternative for consumers, and Apple would embrace it in a heartbeat. If the big four music companies would license Apple their music without the requirement that it be protected with a DRM, we would switch to selling only DRM-free music on our iTunes store. Every iPod ever made will play this DRM-free music.

Why would the big four music companies agree to let Apple and others distribute their music without using DRM systems to protect it? The simplest answer is because DRMs haven’t worked, and may never work, to halt music piracy. Though the big four music companies require that all their music sold online be protected with DRMs, these same music companies continue to sell billions of CDs a year which contain completely unprotected music. That’s right! No DRM system was ever developed for the CD, so all the music distributed on CDs can be easily uploaded to the Internet, then (illegally) downloaded and played on any computer or player.

I tend to think that a technology visionary like Jobs "gets it".  He understands that it is quite likely that no perfect DRM system can ever be created but in an effort to use these imperfect DRM systems, the only people that are being punished are legitimate consumers of the media by being locked into proprietary stacks of players, online stores, and digital media.

He also touches upon an oft ignored point: the CD, a digital source, itself does not contain any form of DRM.  It's true that the designers of the format perhaps did not foresee a world digitally connected and able to distribute 650MB worth of data in mere seconds (BitTorrent),  but that does not absolve the fact that they're plugging the crack in the dam while ignoring the gaping hole.

It is my view that the actual number of people who actually rip and distribute music from CDs and DVDs are a very small percentage of all consumers.  Meanwhile, there is a much larger percentage of consumers who get their copies illegally from these sources via peer to peer and file sharing networks.  And yet a larger percentage of people are actual legitimate consumers who plunk down the full price of the CD or DVD in stores and take it home with them.

What the music industry should be concerned about is not that marginal percentage of sources (those who hack the DRM systems or use the resultant software to rip and distribute the content - this group will continue to do so, indefinitely), but the much larger portion of the consumer population that illegally downloads the output of these providers even in the face of the minor threat of legal action.  The question of course is how they can reach this consumer (or at least a large proportion of this consumer).

The secret seems to be offering a "fair deal" to the consumers.  I can still remember the days when CD singles cost $5, 6, 7, even 8 dollars!  Of course, what is "fair" is arbitrary and, as my VP would say, "determined by the market" (what he seems to disregard is that the music industry was guilty of price fixing to artificially inflate the cost of CDs instead of allowing for the market to decide the fair price), but clearly, this price seems absurd!  Of course, then the question is, what is fair?  Is iTunes' $0.99 model, "fair"?  It's difficult to say since "fair" is relative to the consumer.  To some, $25,000 is "fair" for a cell phone while to others, $250 seems absurd for a cell phone (obviously different products, paying for brand, etc.; but the essence is that they are functionally equivalent in damn near every way).  Price is not the only factor: consumers, as Jobs noted, expect that once they've paid for the content, they can reuse it (not redistribute it) in their cars, on their cell phones, on their portable music players, and so on.  In the consumer's eyes, DRM is but a nuissance driving them to find DRM free, illegally distributed versions of the content.

Today's news that's buzzing around the Internet community is the upcoming release of Radiohead's next album.  Most of the buzz centers around the fact that this is the first major artist/group to release their music completely independently...no music labels involved.  Not only that, this is the first mass live experiment in determining "fair" pricing in terms of music and media:

From Time:

There's no label or distribution partner to cut into the band's profits — but then there may not be any profits. Drop In Rainbows' 15 songs into the on-line checkout basket and a question mark pops up where the price would normally be. Click it, and the prompt "It's Up To You" appears. Click again and it refreshes with the words "It's Really Up To You" — and really, it is. It's the first major album whose price is determined by what individual consumers want to pay for it. And it's perfectly acceptable to pay nothing at all.

It will be an interesting experiment indeed; the results of which, if shown to be successful, will shake the music industry to the core as other artists start to adopt the model.  The music industry has been put on notice: adapt or die.

Will Radiohead be successful?  Will they earn a dime?  One thing is for sure, they will gain a new audience of listeners who would otherwise not have been willing to purchase a CD for $16.00, but will surely download and sample the new tracks for free or for a nominal price.  But from this, it's easy to predict that Radiohead will surely increase sales of their previous albums as a new set of listeners discover the group because they've opened their content to the consumer.

It is the same with Internet radio stations, where the absurdity over the proposed rates to be paid by Internet radio stations was just recently put on hold.  In the age of HD radio broadcasts and radio-to-computer devices, what sense did it make to treat Internet radio any differently from traditional FM radio and even satellite radio?  Like traditional broadcast radio, Internet radio serves the same purpose in that it allows consumers to discover artists that would otherwise not have been given a glance (every CD I've purchased in the last 5 years has been a result of hearing the artist or group on an Internet radio station first).  It's simply that I'd rather listen to music from my computer than from my stereo.  To the consumer, the nuances of distribution and control of the media are irrelevant: the consumer just wants to listen to the music and it's really no different than an HD radio broadcast.

The media companies need to adapt and embrace technology.  They need to study how consumers want to use the content.  They need to understand that the old models won't work anymore in a connected world where content is expected to be transferrable with little hassle and reusable by the consumer (just as a CD should play in your car, in your desktop stereo, on your computer, or from a portable CD player (do people still use those?)).

Another day, another couple hundred lines of code packed away.

It's been kind of painful these last few days without my ergo keyboard and 24" LCD :-P  It's also been kind of slow going and there have been lots of frustrations as we try to get more pieces working. 

But occasionally, when we do align several of the components for a small slice of time, there are moments of sheer joy as you watch the whole of the machinery move.  I am reminded of a passage from Mythical Man Month by Fred Brooks:

Why is programming fun? What delights may its practioner expect as his reward?

First is the sheer joy of making things. As the child delights in his mud pie, so the adult enjoys building things, especially things of his own design. I think this delight must be an image of God's delight in making things, a delight shown in the distinctness and newness of each leaf and each snowflake.

Second is the pleasure of making things that are useful to other people. Deep within, we want others to use our work and to find it helpful. In this respect the programming system is not essentially different from the child's first clay pencil holder "for Daddy's office."

Third is the fascination of fashioning complex puzzle-like objects of interlocking moving parts and watching them work in subtle cycles, playing out the consequences of principles built in from the beginning. The programmed computer has all the fascination of the pinball machine or the jukebox mechanism, carried to the ultimate.

Fourth is the joy of always learning, which springs from the nonrepeating nature of the task. In one way or another the problem is ever new, and its solver learns something: sometimes practical, sometimes theoretical, and sometimes both.

Finally, there is the delight of working in such a tractable medium. The programmer, like the poet, works only slightly removed from pure thought-stuff. He builds his castles in the air, from air, creating by exertion of the imagination. Few media of creation are so flexible, so easy to polish and rework, so readily capable of realizing grand conceptual structures. (...)

Yet the program construct, unlike the poet's words, is real in the sense that it moves and works, producing visible outputs separately from the construct itself. It prints results, draws pictures, produces sounds, moves arms. The magic of myth and legend has come true in our time. One types the correct incantation on a keyboard, and a display screen comes to life, showing things that never were nor could be.

Programming then is fun because it gratifies creative longings built deep within us and delights sensibilities we have in common with all men.

It's kind of like any sort of addictive drug: you have short, blissful highs with grinding, intellectually anguishing lows when things just don't work right or the picture is murky.  Most of the time is kind of spent in a middle ground between intellectual orgasm and hair pulling aggrevation (not that I can pull my hair, but threading errors will do that to you), but there's always that moment when things are finally working in unison that makes all the work worth it.

No pictures yet but we did our regular Hooters lunch and had a special treat, Brazilian BBQ for dinner (excellent, excellent, excellent).

While I've been working 12-16 hour days these last few days, I have been kind of keeping up with the whole Ahmadinejad situation.  To tell the truth, I really don't understand what many of the haters (yes, I did just use that term) are ranting about.  Whatever happened to diplomacy?  What ever happened to listening to all sides of the story?

I am starting to seriously wonder just how much our perception of right and wrong is shaped by what the government, and consequently mass media, wants us to believe.  The core problem is that for many Americans, the level of independent thinking is severely lacking.  It's how we got into the mess in Iraq in the first place.  It's how we could have possibly elected a total dimwit as a president...twice no less.

Contrary to what our current government would have us believe, Ahmadinejad has shown himself to be more of a diplomat and thinker than just about everyone in our current administration.  Unlike our president, Ahmadinejad has shown that he isn't afraid of the tough questions and harsh criticism and cheap insults that he received from people who should have shown more respect to the leaders of one of the most influential countries in the Middle East today.  Ahmadinejad has indeed shown what it means to be a president and a diplomat (I'm not saying I agree with Iran's human rights policies or laws, but I can respect a man that calmly steps into the heart of the enemy's domain and wishes only to speak and open dialogue).

Scott Adams has a wonderful, tongue in cheek, blog post airing out his thoughts on Ahmadinejad's visit.  He emphasizes the double standards that we have set, the arbitrary usage of "terrorism" these days, and tries to emphasize that there are always two sides to a story.  This tends to be my view of the whole situation as well; I'm just not ready to believe that Iran deserves its infamous "Axis of Evil" membership designation.

Senator Mike Gravel also wrote a wonderful opinion piece as well:

Let's be clear -- a war with Iran will further isolate the United States in the world. It will unify the entire Middle East against U.S. forces that are stationed there. And worst of all, it will precipitate attacks on America that will far surpass the horror of 9/11. It's time to step away from the brink and begin finding common ground. Let Ahmadinejad go to Ground Zero and honor our dead. And together, let's all acknowledge that neither war nor terrorism will solve our problems.

We can only hope that our leaders aren't stupid enough to get us mired down in a decade of conflict and war that will cost the public hundreds of billions of dollars when there is an opportunity to air our differences in a diplomatic and political fashion.

A Republican leader with some balls, some heart, and most importantly, lots of humanity.

Well said, sir, well said:

Mayor Sanders: "With me this afternoon is my wife, Rana.

"I am here this afternoon to announce that I will sign the resolution that the City Council passed yesterday directing the city attorney to file a brief in support of gay marriage [with the California Supreme Court].

"My plan, as has been reported publicly, was to veto that resolution, so I feel like I owe all San Diegans an explanation for this change of heart.

"During the campaign two years ago, I announced that I did not support gay marriage and instead supported civil unions and domestic partnerships.

"I have personally wrestled with that position ever since. My opinion on this issue has evolved significantly -- as I think have the opinions of millions of Americans from all walks of life.

(Sanders with lesbian City Councilmember Toni Atkins)
"In order to be consistent with the position I took during the mayoral election, I intended to veto the council resolution. As late as yesterday afternoon, that was my position.

"The arrival of the resolution -- to sign or veto -- in my office late last night forced me to reflect and search my soul for the right thing to do.

"I have decided to lead with my heart -- to do what I think is right -- and to take a stand on behalf of equality and social justice. The right thing for me to do is to sign this resolution.

"For three decades, I have worked to bring enlightenment, justice and equality to all parts of our community.

"As I reflected on the choices that I had before me last night, I just could not bring myself to tell an entire group of people in our community that they were less important, less worthy and less deserving of the rights and responsibilities of marriage -- than anyone else -- simply because of their sexual orientation.

"A decision to veto this resolution would have been inconsistent with the values I have embraced over the past 30 years.

"I do believe that times have changed. And with changing time, and new life experiences, come different opinions. I think that's natural, and certainly it is true in my case.

"Two years ago, I believed that civil unions were a fair alternative. Those beliefs, in my case, have since changed.

"The concept of a 'separate but equal' institution is not something that I can support.

"I acknowledge that not all members of our community will agree or perhaps even understand my decision today.

"All I can offer them is that I am trying to do what I believe is right.

"I have close family members and friends who are members of the gay and lesbian community. These folks include my daughter Lisa and her partner, as well as members of my personal staff.

"I want for them the same thing that we all want for our loved ones -- for each of them to find a mate whom they love deeply and who loves them back; someone with whom they can grow old together and share life's wondrous adventures.

"And I want their relationships to be protected equally under the law. In the end, I could not look any of them in the face and tell them that their relationships -- their very lives -- were any less meaningful than the marriage that I share with my wife Rana. Thank you."

Touching, well thought out, reflective, compassionate, and sincere.

A hand for Jerry Sanders.

This is probably the most sensible an informative bit of commentary on the current market conditions (DOW -387):

I love how 90% of farkers don't understand exactly what the crisis is right now.

It's not the fact that the housing bubble "burst". People aren't jumping out of skyscrapers because their house value went down by 5%.

The vast majority of the problem is that the credit market for certain types of bonds has tightened up, to the point that it's almost not even trading at this point. To those that are newbies, the bond market is roughly 10x the size of the stock market in terms of dollar value. It is huge. Bonds get traded back and forth every day, and billions upon billions of dollars worth.

What happened is that mortgage-backed securities are farked up. During the housing boom, lenders would give mortgages to people, then they would package them up and then sell a whole shiatload of mortgages to things like pension funds, hedge funds, mutual funds, etc. The lenders like this because they reduce their risk, and the funds like it because it's a reliable source of income, at least mortgage-backed securities are. Well, it turns out that the lenders were selling the funds investment grade mortgages, when in fact they were more like junk bonds; the people who got these mortgages not only faked their income, but in reality could only afford these mortgages under the best of conditions. Now that short-term interest rates have spiked up, many people have defaulted on these loans. More importantly however, the price of the mortgage-backed securities drop because their price is in part related to how reliable they are as an investment.

Now, many hedge funds invest in MBSs on margin, which really screws them up, because all of a sudden they owe a huge amount of money on worthless securities. This is why 2 Bearn Sterns hedge funds got screwed over and a 3rd one is in question. It's like owning stock in a gold mining company with a certain reported amount of gold, and then finding out that there really is no gold. The price will plummet, and if you bought that stock on margin, you will get a margin call.

The same thing happened with the French hedge fund that this article is talking about. What is worse, however, is that if the markets aren't trading, you can't tell how much the stock is worth, so the French stopped trading the funds until it can get better clarity as to how much their fund is worth.

The submitter's headline is misleading because the govt isn't injecting $12 billion, it's $12 billion more than they usually inject. They are always buying and selling bonds to create liquidity. This is what they mean by the US or Euro governments injecting funds into the bond market. They are going around buying bonds to create an artifical market because regular traders aren't buying them anymore. They are buying these bonds to create liquidity, so that traders will have confidence they can buy and sell bonds again, and once the market recovers they will turn around and start selling them back to replenish their reserves.

This is the real danger here. This MBS contagion has spread throughout the world because every one around the world has invested in US MBSs. We have no idea how bad this contagion has spread, but if this MBS problem takes down funds around the world, and the credit market really tanks and there is a flight to quality, making things like MBS fall even further, it could literally evaporated trillions dollars of peoples investments around the world.

From poster tstoneman.

Warning: massive brain dump ahead...

As I was laying down to sleep and having a discussion with my wife - much to her dismay - the topic of her current graduate class came up and she mentioned how much she enjoyed just sitting down and writing for 45 minutes each class.  I found it strange that she should put it in such a perspective.  I mean, there's nothing preventing her from taking the time to sit down and write for 45 minutes each day (and she did keep a journal up until maybe 3 or 4 years ago) as surely, countless minutes of her day (and any average person's day) is spent doing mindless things like watching television or eating or something else equally useless.

The idea of commitment chains occurred to me as I was using an analogy about exercise and trying to convince her that writing for 45 minutes each day is relatively trival compared to working out.  Think about it: in exercising, one starts a chain of commitments which can seem unconsciously daunting.  To exercise is to sweat, to sweat is to necessitate an immediate shower (well, unless you don't mind body odor or the salty stickiness of sweat), to exercise necessitates a larger load of laundry, and most importantly, in this proposition, is that it necessitates a healthy lifestyle lest that exercise went for naught. 

It is a relatively large commitment chain to make simply by exercising and perhaps this is why so many people find it so difficult to maintain a healthy lifestyle: the weight of this commitment chain is simply too heavy.  On the other hand, writing for pleasure carries little commitment of any kind.  You write if you want to, you don't if you are not in the mood.

What's the point?  No point, really   I guess if there was a point, then perhaps it is that very often in life, we don't really take into consideration how little commitment it takes to do what we want to do and do what we enjoy.  We also fail to realize how these low commitment activities have a profound effect on our lives as they help us feel like we've done something.  Simple things like taking a stroll around the block, watering some flowers, laying down and watching the clouds pass, sitting with a cat on the grass, drinking a cup of lemonade on a hazy summer afternoon.  Perhaps that's the secret to finding balance in life: to have a healthy mixture of tasks with long commitment chains (work, family, health) mixed with activies of low commitment (I'm mixed on whether blogging is the former or the latter, but I do find it constructive to put thoughts to text some times).

Shifting gears now.

Prior to this discussion, we had another discussion about how we visualize dates.  I was thinking back to something that I had once read about how to interview tech candidates: propose that some object typically comes in a set of 14.  Now 5 additional elements are introduced...ask the candidate how he or she would organize the new elements.

Some people, like my wife, would tend to place the 5 elements "below" the 14 elements and line them up and start to form a multidimensional array - or a matrix, if you will.  Some people like me, would visualize it as a separate block of elements, but in a linear manner...more like containment where the first set contains 14 elements and the second set contains 5, but they are part of yet a larger set.  It is less of a repeating pattern and more of a general grouping.

This manifested itself clearly in the way in which we think about and visualize dates.  For her, as day of the week is important, she tends to organize her events and key dates in a typical calendar fashion and in fact, she can visualize it so well, that given one event in a month, she can probably tell you the day of the week of any other date in the month nearly instantly.  She views the set of 7 days in a week as a part of a matrix much as a calendar is typically visualized.

In my case, as day of the week is generally not that important, I visualize date and time as linear and quite abstract (I think the most natural way to think about it since it really is linear and absolute...it is only the incidental cyclical nature of our orbit around our Sun that defines constructs like seconds, minutes, hours, days, weeks, years and so on).  In my case, I am terrible at remembering dates and I am terrible at remembering order; I only roughly index that I have something to do some time in the future.  Ask me what I'll be doing two weeks from now, and it'll take me a good amount of time to figure that out whereas my wife's response will be nearly instantaneous.  I tend to think of time in blocks where I have commitments (meetings, errands, and so on) and blocks where I don't have commitments.

When you really think about it, time itself is completely abstract (what is it? will it end? when did it start? how much of it is there? what does it look like? what is the absolute unit of time?  can it really even be counted?), but the organization and demarcatinon of time into units seems...weird and useless to me; I am fine thinking about it in the abstract (i.e. "some time in the future, I need to do this") and not as an absolute (i.e. "on such and such date at such and such time, I need to do this" or "x units from now, I need to do this").  

There is a parallel in my profession: as a software developer, there is nothing tangible about the constructs that I build; the contructs that I build are purely abstract in nature: every GUI, every construct in software, is but an abstraction of numerous lines of code - or, is it the other way around?  Software is but one layer of abstraction on top of another...modern day software could not exist without the huge levels of abstractions that have been built to allow programs to be written efficiently.  Buttons are not buttons, they are rectagles.  Rectangles are not rectangles, they are arrangements of lines.  Lines are not lines, but merely a linear set of pixels.  But in essence, there is nothinig to grasp and to utilize to visualize proportion, all of it is purely hypothetical and kind of "uploaded" into my brain as a set of objects, relationships, and other abstract constructs when I sit down at my desk in the morning. 

In actuality, I find this process of uploading and unloading quite unpleasant (particularly the unloading part).  I have been told by my coworkers, wife, and family members that I can become quite unruly when I'm involved in my work.  The reality of it is that when I'm in my groove, unloading and then loading so much abstraction and so much data causes some sort of mental instability...I just get frustrated at the individual forcing the purge or I just lose my groove and have to kind of veg for the rest of the day...I simply cannot be constructive.

From an observer's perspective, I think this makes me seem like a loner or anti-social or if a colleague is coming to me with questions, it may seem like I'm impatient or uncooperative.  In reality, my bitter reaction is more of a defensive mechanism to kind of keep myself from having to go through these periods of derailment as in my case it's not a temporary derailment...it's like a long term derailment once it happens as there is simply too much data to store and reload that it's taxing on my mind.

For this reason, I think I've recently been in some hot water with some coworkers.  I simply don't take afternoon interruptions very well as that is the time when it is hardest to recover from derailment at that point.

Of course, the whole reason that this discussion and train of thought came up was the movie Stranger Than Fiction (it's an absolutely brilliant screenplay with an absolutely excellent performance by Will Ferrell (everytime you think he's going to break into his "normal" genres, he surprises you and keeps his acting true to the character...a brilliant perfomance)). 

This movie draws my attention on various levels: it is at once a deep inspection of what it means to live and to be alive, it asks what exactly is the scope of one life in the grander scheme of the universe, on some level it is a movie about religion (I haven't really fully formulated this part of it yet), and of course, it's a touching romantic comedy .

I also found the specials (and this isn't the first time) to contain some very insightful information on teamwork and project management that would apply to almost any field (but that's a discussion for another day).

What also caught my attention was how director Marc Forster and the visual effects team realized how Harold's thoughts were visualized with these planar "screens" with metrics, text, and data layered together.  It's much the same way I visualize data, code, structures, and tasks, all on virtual screens that I slide around, stack, layer, and intermingle.  I now realize that there is no organization to how I think about these constructs and abstractions...I simply see them in my mind as if before me was a stack of cards strewn about and yet I am able to reach out and pluck the ace of spades at will with no effort.

Maintaining such mental order requires a lot of effort and a lot of concentration.  I think it is because of the amount of effort required to work the way that I do, that I am so unpleasant when interrupted (much to the dismay of my wife, mother, and coworkers).  And believe me, it's not that I don't like to help others with the development issues or educate other developers and team members, rather such tasks are not my primary concern and shifting gears is extremely difficult when you have to maintain such large abstractions and structures in the mind.

So of course, the question is, what is the solution?  Well, perhaps I need to invest some time in some organizational books.  Perhaps I need a whiteboard to help unload some of the data and make it easier to reload as well.  Perhaps I need a bigger desk so I can scribble more and keep better notes.

Well, I think that about wraps this up.  Possibly not the most coherent or well organized entry, but it contained data would have kept me up all night if I didn't unload it

There used to be a time, decades ago, when there was only one telephone carrier and everyone was forced to use it, regardless of whether the service or price sucked. 

Nowadays we have a much greater variety of choices from AT&T to Verizon to MCI for local and long distance calls.  We also have some new comers to the game such as Comcast and Cablevision who offer telephone service over cable.

For the longest time, my mother was using MCI for her local and long distance.  For whatever reason, she suddenly decided (as she is oft inclined to do) that it cost too much.  We decided to switch to AT&T as she felt that it was a trustworthy and reliable brand.  Little did we know that the new AT&T seems to outsource its customer service, charges a hefty connection fee (even when no physical connection setup was required), and she ended up spending exactly the same each month as she did with MCI...

Jump forward a few months after the AT&T debacle (they were still trying to get her to pay a connection fee...).  After a year, her promotional rate with Comcast for Internet connectivity jumped dramatically.  At this time, her best option - of course - was to switch over to the Comcast Triple Play.  We were assured that the cable telephony was a good choice and that the battery backup on the modem meant that even when the power went out, we would still have dialing capabilities.

Of course, what they failed to mention was that if the Internet connectivity gets flaky (as is oft the case with Comcast), so does your ability to use the phone...D'oh!  Well, it should have been obvious to me, but I dunno, I was thinking that maybe the modem had special capabilities that allowed it to operate indepenently of the Internet connectivity.  Turns out that every once in a while, we'll pick up the phone and there will be no dial tone because the modem loses connection or the DNS servers are down somewhere on the grid or some other issue.  It also turns out that the special telephony modem that we have to use is noticeably slower at servicing Internet traffic compared to my previous Motorola (blazing fast); there is now a noticeable lag when frequenting some of the web pages in my daily queue.

For the time being, the promotional price is great: about $33/month ($99/month for Triple Play for one year) for unlimited long distance to anywhere in the US.  This is much better than what Verizon or AT&T charges for the same features (about $50/month).  What they don't always make so clear is that after a year, the price jumps dramatically to $140.95/month or roughly the same price for telephone service as with Verizon or AT&T...except without the reliability of the good old PTSN.

If you really sit down to think about it, that comes out to roughly $600/year for phone service.  That's PS3 territory.

But there is an alternative, there is a brave new world in telephony: Skype (okay, it's really not that new, but I don't personally know anyone who uses Skype exclusively of landlines (although I know a few who use cellular lines exclusively)).

I signed up for a free trial at the end of last year that gave me 30 days of SkypeOut for free.  I found the service to be generally acceptable and convenient (since I spend almost all day in front of the computer anyways).

But what makes Skype even more compelling are the new accessories which are being developed around it: standalone (no PC requried) devices which allows one to use Skype as a total replacement for landelines.

The two that I looked into were the Netgear SPH150D and the Philips VOIP8411B.  Both of these phones sport the following features:

• The latest DECT technology
• Multi-handset capable (up to 4 each)
• Dual mode (supports PTSN and Skype)
• Don't require PC to use

What seals the deal is that SkypeIn, which allows you to get a number that any landline or cellular line can dial and features unlimited calls anywhere in the US to landlines and cellular lines (and of course free calls to any other Skype user), costs only $60/year.  So for a tenth of the cost of traditional landlines or cable telephony, I can get roughly the same quality services and I can call from my computer.  I also think that the portability is also cool as hell...I can answer my phone anywhere in the world as long as I'm connected to the Internet.

I convinced my wife that when we move this time (just about 20 days to go), we're gonna try to go cold turkey with Skype (we're went with the Netgear phone) and see if it'll work for us.  We both make long duration long distance calls pretty regularly for our jobs so it'll be interesting to see how it works out.  For us, 911 capabilities is not an issue as we both have cell phones.  Dependency on the Internet connection is also not a problem as it's no worse than Comcast or Optimum and whenever we tend to be on long important calls, we also tend to be in some sort of net conference...so having the reliability of PTSN is kind of pointless if the net meeting is down. 

So overall, I'm excited to stick it to the man

I'll keep this site posted with my review and experiences as I spend more time with Skype and the Netgear phone.

Update:

Argh!  Chalk this one up to poor product description, packaging, or something like that, but it wasn't clear at all that one needs to purchase SkypeOut/Skype Unlimited to receive the unlimited outbound calls.  In essence, $60 only buys an inbound number and unlimited inbound calls...outbound calls with SkypeIn are still charged at local/long distance rates. 

I'm kind of conflicted...on the one hand, dude, it's $90 for a whole year.  On the other hand: Damn these people for not clearly advertising their services and costs and using sensible bundles to do so.

In describing my approach to software development, I like to use the term practical artistry.  What does this mean exactly?

Well, the practical part of it is that the class libraries, interfaces, and components have to work the way that tey were designed.  They should also be easy to use, easy to understand, easy to integrate with.

The artistry portion of this term is much harder to quantify.  Just what is artistry when used in the context of software development?

Art Tatum offers a very compelling definition:

Art is a method of communication which unifies surface details and form while taking both the intended meaning and aesthetics into account. This requires significant amounts of problem solving. The artist is constantly asking, "How can I best express this idea without ruining the proportions of the work as a whole."

This ties in with Fred Brooks' principle of conceptual integrity for it is the artist alone who sees the proportions of his work and the artist alone who shall ensure that the work abides by the guidelines of the orginal design intent.

Another term that I like to use is exemplary craftsmanship.  This concerns the little details that make code aesthetically pleasing, readable, and well crafted.  Many small details affect this quality of code such as consistent naming schemes, using extra keystrokes and not abbreviating non-standard terms, ensuring that spacing is consistent, formatting code in a consistent manner so as to make it more readable, and commenting public APIs.  On a higher level, it concerns the organization of code and the clear separation of domains (not in the Fowler sense, but in a more abstract sense) in a manner that enhances the extensibility and orthogonality of the code.

It's not just code, it's any trade.  A panel and house wired by a master electrician will certainly be different than a panel and house wired by an apprentice.  The cabling will be neat, the runs will be well thought out, the circuits will be well labled, the panel will be well organized, little details will have been considered, and the artistry of the finished work is apparent even to laymen.

With this in mind, I consider myself to still be an apprentice; I still seek to learn the trade from a master craftsman and I still seek to hone my skills and develop my artistry so that I may also craft software of a high caliber.  But I work hard to ensure that some sense of practical artistry and exemplary craftsmanship is apparent in everything I do.  From simple tasks like ensuring proper indentation in my source files, selecting the right margins in my documentation, and using the right fonts to more complex design issues like organizing libraries in proper dependency chains, achieving orthogonality in modules, and organizing objects in consistent and well defined fashions (i.e. utilizing design patterns).

Unfortunately, in my short career, my interactions with other developers have left me disappointed on this front for the most part except for three individuals whom I didn't have nearly enough time to interact with (this is not to say that I haven't worked with many fine developers, but three stand out as practicing these principles of craftsmanship).  These three were true craftsmen in the sense that the little details mattered to them.  Improving their skills as developers was an important aspect of everyday development.  Writing good code and following well known guidelines and principles meant something.  The naming of every class, of every variable, required at least some passing thought so as to ensure that each construct was congruent and aligned with the whole.

Of course, such discussion of artistry as it applies to software is not just frivolous academia, Maarten Boasson writes in The Artistry of Software Architecture:

Designing software is not very different from designing any other complex structure: Few people are good at it; no single recipe always produces a good product; and the more people involved, the smaller the probability of success.  On the other hand, a design produced by someone who is good at design provides an excellent basis for long, reliable service.

Software engineers consider the artistry of the design not only evaluating aesthetics but also the practical results of such a design such as orthogonality and added extensibility.  Boasson further comments:

In exceptional cases, a good software design is no less valuable than the great masterpieces that have been created throughout our rich history.  Examples of both bad and good designs can be found all around us, in almost every engineering field; practically everyone recognizes a piece of art when they see it.

So I often wonder why it is the case that I encounter and, of much greater concern, find high degrees of tolerance for bad design.  Not just bad design, but bad development practices like inconsistent usage of formatting elements (spacing, newlines, tabs), naming namespaces and classes against well established guidelines and practices, and other details like inconsistent casing.  Leadership just doesn't seem to care for the most part and it requires the rare and truly inspired individual project manager to understand the long term value of encouraging practical artistry and exemplary craftsmanship.

Bear in mind: it's not that I approach writing software with any sort of artistry or snobbery in mind...indeed, a good portion of it is the grunt work - simply putting the hammer to the nail, or putting the brush to the canvas, so to speak.  But at the end of the day, there is a personal satsifaction that is achieved from not just writing any code, but writing good code.  There is a satsifaction that comes from recognizing and implementing a superior system design.  Of course, it goes beyond personal satisfaction, good design, as Boasson writes, can provide long term value in the form of extensibility, maintainability, and reusability.

In almost all cases, as the majority of developers are not self motivated to write such code, it takes strong leadership, clear definitions or design guidelines, and enforcement of the policies to ensure that quality software - not just working software, but quality software - is crafted.

To me, it is the little details that go towards creating a better product.  There is certainly a time and place for prototyping and RAD - and certainly, I utilize these techniques all the time, but there is also a time to formalize the lessons learned from such exercises and to create a masterpiece...to write code that you would find have no qualms about showing to the world and exposing it to critique.

It is with this in mind that I find myself currently flustered.  Is it just me?  Am I being too uppity about all of this?  It's hard to say...I am truly conflicted about this as I cannot see how I can work productively and cooperatively in a team with people who do not honor the same sense of craftsmanship and artistry.  I awake and find that someone has scribbled on my canvas in a weak imitation of my style using colors that clash with the existing palette.  Analogously, I open the electrical panel to find that someone has stuffed some low grade wire haphazardly into the panel without any clear labeling.  I cannot help myself but cringe at the thought of integration - yes cringe.  I don't want to deal with ugly code and yet the leadership doesn't seem to care one way or the other and I am powerless to affect change (partly because I am a blunt edge and possess no sense of finesse whatsoever in dealing with these situations)...*sigh*

I can only hope that some of my desire to achieve practical artistry in code and design inspires others on my team, otherwise this will be painful to endure.

1. Cut veggies into large sizes.  This makes it easier to work with them and not have them fall through the grate.
2. Put small items onto skewers.  Items like shrimp just won't work on the grill without a skewer.
3. If you're making chicken or other meats low in fat, brush the grilling surface with some oil first.
4. Make bigger fires.  Charcoal is surprisingly difficult to light without lighter fluid.  Do it right the first time and make a big-ass fire.  Put some newspaper under the coals.
5. Enjoy yourself!

I just finished watching the documentary 49 Up.

There's something quite moving in watching people mature from 7 to 49 in a matter of minutes and to see the change in their ideals, dreams, and their lives.  It was fascinating watching these individuals age and see how their lives took shape.

It's equally fascinating as you start to reflect on where you've been and where you shall be in  more years.

If there's one thing I've taken from the movie, is the importance of being happy in your circumstances and making the best of your lot in life.  Dreams come and go, as do opportunities.  Mistakes are made and there trying times are a certainty, but in the end, it's important to realize the brevity of your existence.  It is easy to blame circumstance and others for one's misfortune and hardships, but ultimately, the life is your own and you must do with it what you will.

The Dalai Lama writes in The Meaning of Life:

Shantideva reasons that if something can be done to fix a situation, there is no need to worry.  Whereas on the other hand, if there is nothing that can be done, there is no use in worrying.

If there is one person in the series that embodied this the most, I think it would have to be Neil, who, for a good part of his adult life, seemed to wander aimlessly.

Neil turned out to be one of the most interesting of the entire group. At seven he was funny, full of life and hope. At 14 he was doing well in comprehensive school but was more serious and subdued. In one of the biggest shocks of the series however, by the time of 21 Up he was homeless in London, having dropped out of Aberdeen University after one term, and was living in a squat and finding work as he could on building sites.

At 35 amazingly, he had turned his life around to a great degree and found his calling in politics.

For some of the kids, like Andrew, life turned out exaclty as scripted (either by themselves or by their parents).  For others, it is a meandering journey where childhood dreams are often crushed by the realities of the world.  The key, I think, is to be able to accept these defeats, take a lesson from them, and to see the opportunities ahead instead of the failures in the past.

The thread that struck me the most about the lives of each of the individuals in the documentary is the common importance of family and how it is a driving force in finding that peace.  Of the subjects, only Neil did not marry or have children; at 49, this lack of a family of his own and the troubled relationship with his parents, was perhaps one of his own greatest regrets in his life.

In reflecting on my own thoughts on this subject, I find that today, I'm much less enthused about the idea of being a father then I was when I was a teenager.  Not because I don't like kids or that I don't want the experience of being a father - one day - but it just feels like I'm still a bit too selfish to my own needs to be a father.  I like living my life on my schedule.

49 Up is an excellent documentary that I think all young adults should watch and study.  I think it reveals a lot about how fleeting one's perception of the world is and how it evolves over time.  It gives insight into what it really means to find happiness and to find purpose in life.

Came across an interesting article on Yahoo today on how finger lengths/ratio can be used to predict SAT performance.

Specifically:

Kids with longer ring fingers compared to index fingers are likely to have higher math scores than literacy or verbal scores on the college entrance exam, while children with the reverse finger-length ratio are likely to have higher reading and writing, or verbal, scores versus math scores.

To me, what's interesting is that palm reading - or chiromancy - is centuries old and has been derided as being nothing more than a pseudoscience or even worse, a sham. So it's interesting to discover that perhaps there is some legitimacy to chiromancy after all.

Indeed, in my case, my ring finger is longer than my index finger - which indicates that I'd be more proficient at demonstrating spatial and mathematical skills - reflects the 100 point differential in my SAT verbal and math scores in favor of math.

The article goes on to mention that:

Exposure to testosterone in the womb is said to promote development of areas of the brain often associated with spatial and mathematical skills, he said. That hormone makes the ring finger longer. Estrogen exposure does the same for areas of the brain associated with verbal ability and tends to lengthen the index finger relative to the ring finger.

This makes me wonder what other parts of our personalities, skills, and abilities are manifested in our appearances and physical attributes.

Very interesting indeed.

Just some random stuff for today:

I came across an interview on CNN.com with Scott Adams that is a good read. Especially insightful is:

I start at 5 usually, 5 in the morning. I just walk across the street in my flip-flops and pet my cat for 10 minutes so she won't bother me for the next few hours. There's kind of a toll you have to pay with a cat; if you don't pet her for 10 minutes she'll bother you for six hours.

Truer words of wisdom have never been spoken.

I also came across an awesome little tidbit on MSNBC the other day:

In a whale-sized project, the world's scientists plan to compile everything they know about all of Earth's 1.8 million known species and put it all on one Web site, open to everyone.

Sounds completely awesome...I could totally see myself spending endless hours just browsing through it.

It has been raised in various discussions on the topic of the 2008 presidential elections: just how important is a candidate's belief in the theory of evolution? Should the people even care?

I say yes.

It shows that one has a respect for the sciences and scientists. It shows that one has an understanding of the scientific method and how a large majority of respected scientists have arrived at the conclusion that evolution is an established and accepted scientific theory. It shows that one can objectively evaluate the data and evidence that has been produced that show evolution to be undeniable.

This is the information age. We are in an era defined by the technological and scientific advancements that have been made over the last century. Antibiotics, the personal automobile, nuclear energy, peering into the depths of space via the Hubble telescope, the Internet...all of these discoveries, inventions, and conveniences are the direct result of science, not faith. Religious faith would have one believe that prayer alone will overcome a serious infection. Religious faith would have had us believe that the Earth is the center of the universe. Religious faith would have had us believe that the Earth is flat. Religious faith would have us believe that "because that's how God designed it" is an acceptable answer to anything we do not yet understand. Faith is a cop-out of an answer.

When our scientists and engineers are shunned (e.g. re:stem cell research), when peer reviewed results are discarded or deemed irrelevant (e.g. evidence of human driven global warming), when generally accepted scientific theories are questioned (e.g. evolution), then you know that the leadership of this country has failed to put a premium on knowledge and grant respect to those in our society who seek to enrich the collective knowledge of the Humankind.

If one cannot fathom evolution, even given the consensus of the world's leading scientists, If one cannot accept evolution, even given the large amount of evidence (on a micro and macro level), if one cannot objectively make a decision based on unbiased data without the interference of personal faith/beliefs, then such a person is not of the mental capacity and certainly not of sound judgement to lead the United States of America.

You know, I found it quite humorous to hear these candidates babble on about the manufacturing sector and how we simply cannot compete with China, Mexico, and other countries where low cost labor is abundant.

I ask, why the **** would we even want to compete with them on such a level? The promise of the future lies not in manufacturing, but in knowledge, information, and the ability to innovate. These are all things that Americans excel at. These are things that science excels at. We should be glad to have this opportunity to continue our transition from an industrial economy to a knowledge and service driven economy.

Instead, the leadership has taken us backwards.

As energy costs soar in the next century due to increases in demand and decreases in the raw resources, alternative energy sources will be the only option. Instead of embracing this ideal, the US is letting the opportunity to innovate and lead slip away.

Instead of embracing the promise of stem cell research, our leadership views such science with disdain because of the uneducated masses that support them. Instead of taking a leadership position in this vital field, we force some of our brightest scientists in this field overseas to countries like China, Singapore, Japan, and various European nations where such pursuits are embraced because of the financial and medical promises of such research.

As we move forward, it will be the global alliances and friendships that we form that will help drive our markets and help drive demand for our knowledge and unique capability to innovate. And yet, instead of reaching out to allies and trying to mend torn relationships, instead of diplomatic solutions and dicussion, instead of dialogue and sound governance, we seek to take a bully like stand on the global stage with strong talk like a young child throwing a temper tantrum (or an e-thug).

To drive us towards a better, more prosperous future, we need leadership that will respect science. We need leadership that will respect dialogue. We need leadership that will look at subjects and look at the data objectively and not let personal faith muddy the waters of clear and sound judgement. It is innovation in the sciences and engineering that has made America the country that it is today. It is innovation in these areas that hold the greatest potential to drive us forward tomorrow and we need leaders that understand the importance of leading a global economy driven by information, technology, innovation, and science.

I saw Thank You for Smoking over the weekend, a great movie, and I wasn't planning on writing anything specific about it, but an article that I read this morning (and I guess thinking about the current circumstances of my life) changed my mind.

In an article on SI.com, Chris Mannix discusses how Jason Kidd, perhaps the greatest point guard of this generation (even though Nash has more MVPs to his name), has made a career or making his teammates better.  The most interesting observation that Mannix makes is:

For his part, Kidd relishes the idea of not only making his teammates better, but also serving as a human lottery ticket.

Well, what exactly does this mean, "human lottery ticket"?  Quoting Jason Kidd, he writes:

"I loved playing with all those guys," says Kidd as he walks down the tunnel towards the parking lot. "Rex Chapman. Shawn Marion. Kerry Kittles. Scalabrine. K-Mart. When you can help a guy make a better life for his family, it's the best feeling."

To go off on a tangent, for a moment, at some point in the last year, I was considering leaving Zorch as there were other opportunities available to me with better compensation overall.  But of course, there isn't that satisfaction of being a core component of a small startup.  At some point, the CEO of the company came out for a meeting with a client and had some time to meet me for lunch.  Perhaps the most interesting concept that I took away from this meeting was his statement that he's not in it for himself, he's in it to build the wealth of those around him.

And indeed, our employees are all a close knit bunch with one of our developers having been with him for over a decade through at least two companies.

In a sense, he has a Kidd-esque quality about him.

In quoting Lawrence Frank on what makes Kidd so great, Mannix writes:

"He takes away the thinking process for his teammates. He gets the ball to them on time, on target, so they can just go into their move."

Similarly, I like to think that our CEO (and any good leader) does the same: he creates the conditions for success by taking away the barriers for individual success; he makes it easy to do what you know how to do.

Okay, so back on the topic at hand.  So what does Jason Kidd have to do with Thank You for Smoking?  Well, Nick Naylor (Aaron Eckhart), the protagonist of this movie, is asked how he can do what he does, knowing that the entity he fronts produces a product that kills thousands of people a day.  His justification?  He's effortlessly good at it and it pays the mortgage.

In a sense - and I know it's quite cynical - life in the modern world (especially for my generation) boils down to doing everything you can to make that monthly payment; mortgages are a painful reality for the vast majority of us. 

So what is the conclusion to draw from all of this?  I guess this is really a post on career advice: find someone to work for or work with that will be your "human lottery ticket"

Seems like someone knows the answer.

Talking good.  Shooting bad.

Why can't we all just be adults and stop this posturing?  Whatever happened to dialogue (at least give it a try)?  In the end, we're all human beings sharing the same planet with the same goals in life right?  We all want to live a happy, healthy life and to be surrounded by friends and family.  What does it matter our other differences if we all have this in common?

Sometimes, diplomacy at the highest level of our government seems like simple name calling and schoolyard taunts/threats.

Yummy.

I think I need to drive into New Brunswick.  Right now.

Damn you, MSNBC!

Yet another reason?  You can give the "one-fingered salute to Verizon totally painless to you ".

The timing couldn't have been more perfect...

This post is completely off topic, but I feel like I have to get it out there for people who are just sick of looking at $$$$ cell phone bills.  If you think about it, a family of four will probably spend upwards of $2500/year on cell phone service! 

So I've been on Sprint now for about 2 months.  At first it was a bit scary jumping ship after having been on Cingular for several years and of course no one in our area had Sprint (that we knew) so we had no idea how well Sprint would work out for us.  But I knew I had to switch since we were paying $180 for myself, my mother, and my sister (Cingular) plus another $140 for my wife, her dad, and her sister (Verizon) at a total of $320+ which was just insane.

I ended up eating the cancellation fees of $175 with Verizon to bring my wife over to Sprint since I figure that I would make that up over less than a single year just by switching to Sprint (I would only have to save $15/mo over 12 months by switching, but I'm saving more like $40/mo).  With 4 lines now on Sprint, TWO of which have unlimited data, insurance, and 300 text messages, the total cost is $180 after all taxes and surcharges.

So here's my two month conclusion: Sprint is the real deal (okay, maybe it's a bit early to proclaim that until I get my rebates back for my phones).

• When I've called, I've always been able to reach a live customer service representative within 3 minutes (just have to navigate through the menus, maybe 4 deep). 
• Customer service has been top notch in my opinion (I mean, no worse than expected).  I was promised a credit for my activation fees by the salesperson in the store, but it wasn't reflected on my first bill.  However, a single call to customer service cleared that up right away. 
• The online tools are also well done, useful, and complete. 
• Phone service is okay - no better or worse than Cingular in my house (there is a weird dead spot around my house).  I have noticed that where we do get a full strength signal (which is pretty much anywhere but my house), the voice clarity is exceptional.
• Did I mention unlimited data (fast, too) for only $15.00 a month?

The thing that seals the deal for any family thinking about this plan (up to 5 phones) is that extra lines cost pretty damn close to the advertised $9.99.  For someone like my mother, who doesn't use text or data services, after surcharges, she comes in just a shade over $14.00, which is awesome.

On the other hand, I'm still getting raped by Verizon on my sister in law's and my father in law's Verizon bill: $110 this month!  No overages!  And my father in law didn't even make one call from his cell phone!  What?!?

Not everyone can appreciate the simple elegance of the ethereal structure that we know as the Internet.  It is not the average person that will sit and contemplate the transmission of data from one node to another, thousands of miles away in mere milliseconds, and be impressed and appreciative of the amazing times we live in (I mean, just 20 years ago, you had to actually walk into a store to buy porn (*aherm*...not that I know anything about that)).

Most people are just happy that they can log on in the morning and get their mail in Outlook or check the weather on their local news sites, never taking a moment to bask in the glory of the immense amount of data that flows through copper, fiberglass, and the very air that we breath (isn't it weird to think that right at this moment, several megabits of data are probably bouncing off of me (or worse, passing through me (and you!))), each picosecond.

But then again, not everyone is a software engineer. 

Via Gizmodo.

Just a few days ago, I was praising Microsoft hardware and support after calling to get my broken IntelliMouse replaced.

So today when I got back from lunch, to my surprise, I found a huge package sitting on my front steps.

Awesome!  They sent a whole new set.  Now I have an extra wireless keyboard.

I'm heading out to Utah in 5 hours, so I'll leave this week on a random note:

For those of you who have been following along, this is my lizard Quincy, who just a few months ago, was the size of my pinky.