A shot of truth from the mouth of a dead man

You should know that I'm going to start this post with a quote from an atheist:

I have a foreboding of an America in my children’s or 
grandchildren’s time — when the United States is a 
service and information economy; when nearly all the 
key manufacturing industries have slipped away to 
other countries; when awesome technological powers 
are in the hands of a very few, and no one representing 
the public interest can even grasp the issues; when the 
people have lost the ability to set their own agendas 
or knowledgeably question those in authority; when, 
clutching our crystals and nervously consulting our 
horoscopes, our critical faculties in decline, unable 
to distinguish between what feels good and what’s true, 
we slide, almost without noticing, 
back into superstition and darkness.

Hits pretty hard these days. Here's some more frightening text, from an article posted just last week:

This Is How Your Fear and Outrage Are Being Sold for Profit

Our cable news driven "Sound Bite" mentality is starting to wear thin -- right through what might have at one time been the logic circuits of our brains.

Chances are you are not aware of your own tilt towards some kind of internal bias. Maybe you think all people of a particular party are wholesome while the rest are enemies of the state. Or of your own belief in Christianity for example. Maybe you stupidly think that everyone who professes a leaning toward say being a democrat is somehow totally in favor of all regulation, no matter how bloated or stupid that regulation is. Spoiler alert -- I lean left, I'm for more regulation of our financial / wall street institutions. Yet still, I'm not about to believe something stupid like "all regulations are great!". I'll leave that judgement for the idiots that have to simplify everything without getting a close look at the real problems.

I have a bias -- you have a bias. Sadly, our biases are not necessarily equal. Let's take science for example. I was describing the general theory of relativity to a Christian acquaintance one day and he interrupted me -- "I don't believe that." His bias toward accepting the general theory of relativity came from an inherent belief that things must be as described to him in the Bible or -- who the heck knows? I sure didn't have the ability to reach into his cranium and force his puny mental faculties into order. I tried though.

Me: Did you use GPS today to navigate anywhere?

Relativity Disbeliever Yeah, why?

Me: Good thing your GPS "believes in the theory of relativity", because it's kinda core science behind how it works...

The point is this -- a bias against scientific discoveries or science in general is forming in our country. People in power are able to set real policy regardless of what is being measured, and Sagan was right on with his prediction. Our biases are being used to build real political action, and it's not good. It's not good for our world today and it sure as heck isn't good for the world our grandchildren are growing up in.

I urge you to find more diverse news sources if you don't understand just how bad it is to "not believe" in things like Climate science -- hell, how about birth control for crying out loud? What just went down in Texas is a harbinger here -- they cut funding for teen pregnancy programs and -- guess what? Yeah, teen pregnancy is higher in Texas. The only good news out of this is that overall the nationwide trend is toward lower teenage pregnancy -- hardly comforting in the context of the desire for some to cut the funding though. So maybe you think people that make immoral decisions like having sex out of wedlock need to be punished? You think you're morally superior by forcing a new kid into the world with a teenage mom? Does that make sense to anyone?

Oh, that's right, we were talking about how the inability to distinguish between what feels good and what's true, weren't we?

Carry on.

-=FeriCycde=-

Peril Sensitive Sunglasses...

Long ago, there was this guy -- Douglas Adams was his name.

Don't Panic!

I learned about Douglas from my brother Dan. He talked about this crazy story called "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" (HG2G) I remember him telling me about it -- a story where the world ends and this one remaining human, Arthur Dent, has to hitchhike his way from there on out. He's one of only two remaining humans in the universe. Read the book (don't watch any of the movies, BTW -- just my opinion).

I remember it distinctly, because at the time I thought: "What a depressing story". Amazingly though, I would eventually read the HG2G. Adams would become one of my favorite authors and his work would have a profound impact upon me. If you haven't read it by now, I sincerely must prod you. You see, it was written before the Internet -- and it supplies cultural beacons and jargon that we take for granted today -- stuff that underlies much of what you perceive as the Internet.

Stuff like universal translation, wireless transmission of data and complete mayhem related to an ever-changing world are so broadly outlined (And more importantly, lampooned) in HG2G.

And then there's the Glasses

One of the characters in the book has a really neat pair of glasses -- they're sensitive to peril. You read that right -- they can tell when danger is near. The character (and here the reference is both descriptive and formal), Zaphod Beeblebrox, wears the glasses because he doesn't want to freak out when peril is near.

So, what do they do? When danger is nearby, the glasses black out the lenses. That way the wearer can't be alarmed by the imminent peril approaching. This works wonders for Zaphod. You'll have to read the book for more on the subject. I can vouch that the story and dialog are legendary.

And then there's this thing today...

I find that there's a moral equivalent to these glasses today. That there's a whole section of the population that's been willingly blinded by obvious peril. That they're wearing these glasses, ignoring the obvious markers for eminent collision with reality.

I just finished watching "The Big Short", for reference. If you get a moment, it's on Netflix, and very much worth the time. The main takeaway from the movie is that there were a very small number of people that could see the eminent collapse of the housing bubble (and all of the derivative instruments attached). No one around them wanted to see what they saw. Very few listened to them. They talked a lot in the movie about how it's very hard to believe in a falacy when you don't want think that the obvious (and depressing) outcome is possible.

The population around them were wearing their glasses. They were willingly closing their eyes and effectively wishing the big money monster away -- all the while, some people with calculators and a willingness to stare ugly reality in the face were bracing themselves for the obvious collision. In the movie, they end up making some cash by the way -- although they portray them as reluctant heroes.

What you have today is similar. You have a group of people that won't face the obvious. They want to believe that somehow the ugly monster in the room is just going to get tamed at the last minute. That the moral deficiencies are somehow worth it in the context of the greater good (to be clear here -- for one brand of belief versus another brand). That the day of reckoning will not come.

These people haven't taken the time to do some simple research into the past track record. They have willingly put their glasses on, ignoring the obvious peril -- hopeful for some magic to make it all get leveled out before the plane crashes into the mountain.

The problem with Peril Sensitive Glasses: They Don't Work

Like the vast majority of the people in "The Big Short", people are going to find out that willful blindness can lead to an embarrassing and surprising failure. As comic as the analogy is, it breaks down rather badly when applied to real-world situations.

Zaphod's Peril-sensitive glasses are about to fail. The light of truth is slowly uncovering more and more things these days. The false narrative that many hoped to project is being exposed. For some, it was a beautiful lie. So much power and promise from something -- just a few minor issues could be overlooked if everyone would just hang onto those glasses! Mind you though -- the glasses are about to fail, still.

I find it ironic, still. I wouldn't know about those darn glasses were it not for some curiosity and some prodding by my brother. I gave up on the notion that the plot lines of the story would be depressing (as crazy as it sounds, HG2G is extremely funny, albeit in a rather dark and chaotic way). I was willing to look past my expectations and I'm richer for it.

I stomped my own pair of Zaphod's glasses, in other words, and never really looked back.

There's more irony here, but I've talked enough. The world is set to make it's own chaotic and darkly humorous story, and that's enough, don't you think?

Is the Pope Catholic and Is There Such A Thing As A Moderate?

I know this is a hard question for some of you to ponder, but imagine if there are more than two sides to an issue. Imagine if it's possible to understand different points of view. That, even in 2016, there are some of us that are moderate in our point of view?

Is the Pope Catholic?

A recent facebook post by one of my more conservative friends made a rather hilarious point -- it showed Hillary and Sanders in graphic form and then said, in a nutshell: How come the party that's for more diversity does not have an African American guy and Woman on the stage, like the Grand Ole' Party does?

Ah, so simple it seems. Let me explain what's going on here. Yeah, it's only my opinion, but after you read through it, I wager some of you will be nodding your heads.

The idea that's being presented here -- that the GOP is more diverse -- It's not a bad point were it not for the basic disingenuity, that the
biggest lump of supporters for the most popular GOP candidate are openly embracing racism and Muslim-o-phobia. And, while we're pointing that out, we may as well mention that the GOP is pretty much waging an open war on less advantaged women's access to health care.

Still, I'm sure my "conservative" friend felt really smug posting this idiocy. What gets under my skin here is that both parties have the tendency to simplify the discussion. Examples abound Dems: It's about race. It's about Wall Street vs Main Street. It's about the "Black Vote". Lets offer "College for everyone".

A lot of talk about making college free without addressing the simple truth that lately a lot of degrees are worthless. A lot of "politically correct" speech without addressing the obvious fact that the whole PC movement has gone way over the top. Face it, Donald Trump wouldn't be getting a lot of attention were it not for people being so tired of PC speech.

What's Wrong with Being Politically Correct?

People are tired of watching what they say. The general population wants someone who will "tell it like it is". Even if it means ignoring the basic reality that the speaker is a horrible person. More to the point, I really think Donald is speaking his mind -- and that his mind is unfortunately a maze of twisty passages that lead to racism and xenophobia.

Then, there's the so-called "other side" of the isle. The Clinton's are making outright shameful jabs at the Sanders' campaign that basically say he's trying to shame the Obama legacy. This is a great political stance -- by twisting Sanders' words on the subject, the veiled suggestion is that his complaints about the growing disparity between the poor, the shrinking middle class and the obviously glaring gap to the people in the top .1 percent -- those complaints are, like, dissing our "black" president. Without the PC movement, I suspect a lot of this would be spotted for what it is -- tripe.

The Pope as Anti-Trump

Then you have the "Anti-Trump" Pope comments.

Look, the first problem here is that for years the GOP has been courting the religious right as part of their voting strategy. This is extremely similar to the way the DNC courts the so-called minority and African-American vote. Similar, but way more dangerous as the following will lay bare.

First, if you're going to go after the religious vote, you're going to have problems running a Mormon candidate. It's going to make things sticky, is what I'm saying. It was great to get the good old church bump when it got W Bush elected -- I'm sure it felt awesome.

The problems this caused though, when Romney entered the fray were many. For one, a lot of hardcore Christians don't consider Mormons as religious peers. (Source: I'm a Christian.) By pandering in this manner the GOP had hobbled itself in unexpected (and wildly strategic) ways.

The we have the problem Pope, he's got some bad things to say about Donald Trump. Now, a lot of American Christians are not Catholic -- but that hardly matters. The Pope, he's a pretty popular guy these days. Pope Francis has been a very charismatic figure and has garnered a lot of admiration that extends beyond your everyday Christian for that matter. When he directly slammed the Donald it was a
subject of ire for a host of the GOP faithful.

"The Pope shouldn't be so damn political" was the general consensus. I have to point this out to those who identify with the GOP: Your party has been pandering to the religious right as part of its political strategy. Because of this, you need to seriously consider any negative statements regarding the holy figure for half of the Christian coalition in the US. That he should suck it up when it comes to his political views, after the GOP has spent all that time "winning" the church vote -- think about the problems this caused. To be fair, the GOP officially didn't really do this -- just a lot of their members who don't seem to "get" the general political strategy as it pertains to their favorite GOP brand.

But hey, you can kind of discount this by talking about how you're really dependent upon the "Evangelical vote". Note that they didn't say
"non-Catholic", since that sounds much more inclusive.

The GOP was playing with fire, and it got burned. They can't control the Pope (or even Trump for that matter). They're kind of in-between a rock and a hard place. This wouldn't have happened were it not for the incongruous religious strategy they pursued for years.

Time to take the lumps and think hard about simply pandering to the public good instead of loading the vote via artificial means. "God Votes with the GOP!" Is the related phrase. Does he really? "God's Own Party" Is it? If so, then probably your thoughts on how the Pope should shut up about political ideas are kinda misplaced.

Maybe take some time to read the verses in the bible about the Good Samaritan, and the parts where Jesus talks about how the meek shall inherit the earth.

Similar idiocy: "The Hispanic vote." Is there such a thing? The assumption is that the Democratic party is pandering to "The Hispanics". This lumps people from Puerto Rico with Cubans, Mexicans and a host of others that speak Spanish. Talk to a few different "Hispanics" though and you may find yourself confused a bit. Turns out that lumping everyone together like this is really not good except for when you're doing exit polling. I'd argue that it's a veiled form of racism, in an oblique way.

Full disclosure here, My Mom is 100% American -- born in Puerto Rico. Before you embarrass yourself, and ask if she's been naturalized, bear in mind that Puerto Rico is a US Territory. That means that my Mom was a US citizen from birth. She, like everyone else born in the US and Puerto Rico, or Guam and other territories for that matter, is a natural born US citizen.

So am I part of the "The Hispanic vote"? -- ask the Dems, and I am. Ask me though, and I'm likely to shrug. I never really thought about it much until lately.

What is this thing called Moderation?!?

Ask how I identify myself and I'm more likely to point out that there used to be this thing in our country called "a moderate" -- a person that has a balanced view of things. Someone who carefully weighs facts. Someone who tries to see more than "both sides" of issues. Note: There are often
many sides to an issue. Ask the right or left, though, and you will get a simplified view of just about any major issue. Often, in the act of this
simplification, the idea gets distorted till it doesn't align with anything in reality.

I'm hardly compelled to vote one way or another. I'm going to make a choice. I will say that I sincerely doubt that Trump is getting my vote, but it's not related so much to the whole "Build a Wall" thing as the fact that I just can't see him being very presidential. He certainly doesn't share my values. I've been married now for going on 3 decades to the same woman.

More to the point, I hardly see how insulting your opposition proves anything but that you make a great reality TV star, and (I hope) not a president.

These days, I'm often seen less as a moderate, but it's hardly due to any change in my political stance. Since the Democrats and Republicans have
both been taking so much PAC and special interest money -- since the Dems have slid so far to the right -- I'm now a "liberal" from most people's point of view.

I've had many discussions with my hard-core Republican friends about this. They can only see one side of a problem (oddly enough, it's often from the perspective of most Fox news pundits). If I point out the obvious logical fallacy of an argument, I get push back like "I don't
know if I agree with that." (when I'm quoting some hard statistic). Or, worse, I get a confused stare. Like "how can that be". They know their talking points -- they simply don't have any real data to back it up.

Half of Americans Are Moochers. Really?

Let's revisit an example from 2012: the whole Half of Americans are the "moocher class". Go and look about this one if you doubt me -- the biggest chunk of this so-called "moocher class" -- retired people on social security. That's my Mom and Dad who worked all their lives, in case you didn't know. The next biggest slice of "moochers" -- people serving in the US military. Seems along the way to building the whole "moocher class" lie, they left out that it was really about who was not paying net positive taxes, which is a bad way to slice things -- unless you're
doing a smoke and mirrors lie job to the public. In that case, it's great to quote stats like this over and over until no one questions it.

And, here's the kicker -- you get people saying this to you, and when you point out the most obvious fallacy about it, they always fall back to ignorance. "I don't think those numbers are right, but I'm not all that familiar with the data.", is the condensed version of what I get to hear when I start to push back on this.

Look, if you don't know the "real numbers" then please do us all a favor and don't spout the repeated lies that you don't know for bullshit as well. If you're going to go on and on about how 50% of the people are not paying taxes and are mooching off the government, and you can't refute the reality behind the lie when it's presented, have the decency to apologize for being ignorant. And do me a favor, if you're in the military and quote this stat, have the decency to "admit" you're part of the "moocher class" you were complaining about. Note: I strongly don't think this to be the case, but then again, I wasn't the one spouting this lie -- a lie that most people now recognize was behind the last big GOP defeat. I say this because of the last few people to repeat this one to me, 3 of them were either in the military at the time or retired from it.

At least go back and study the reality of the numbers and either come back and argue with renewed vigor, or apologize for being wrong. It's called logic and reason -- we got really far as a race of people relying on this stuff for a long time. Maybe continuing the tradition will be a good thing for everyone is what I'm suggesting here.

Another example-- the Iraq war. A lot of people want to talk about that war these days. How it was or was not a mistake for example. I'd like to focus on something very few people seem to care about -- how it was paid for.

The fact is that we ran up a huge debt to wage that war. We did it mostly on the Chinese credit card. This has no bearing on prior wars where the funding was often discussed along with the war. So, for example, war bonds during WW2. God forbid you point out that the Viet Nam war had a "war tax" to pay for it -- that sounds preposterous!

But it's true. Go and look if you don't believe me.

More to the point -- Tell me I'm wrong! Older people reading this will nod their heads -- they had to pay the tax, so they know. No one wants to hear this. They want magical thinking. Wars apparently are free. Building up the military -- that's also something you don't argue about. The money to do that? Must be free.

Fact: Funding the largest military in the world, hands down -- that's not free. (That's the US Military, just in case you had any doubts). It's a huge bill. One that no one seems to think about. Universal health care? Too expensive. War? Free. No one in the media challenges a statement about increased military spending being suggested by the candidates on the GOP fence.

But suggest that you want to finance college tuition (like Sanders has) -- and the questions come out. What a socialist, he wants the US to be like other countries -- I get it. But let's be serious here, the cost of education these days is tanking a lot of kids coming out of college. It's hobbling their real chances of ever building a middle class lifestyle.

By a similar token though, on the left, the idea that a public education is an end-all ticket to success is not questioned.

It should be, because obviously there's something really wrong with the focus of a lot of the institutions. Note: I strongly believe in higher education. What I don't believe: It's for everyone. Another thing I don't believe in -- Higher educational systems that don't produce people that can get a job with their degree. If the school is simply turning out people with 4 year degrees that end up working at the checkout counter at Walmart, it needs to be Shut Down. It certainly shouldn't be getting guaranteed loans for its "students" on the government/
student-indentured-servant dime.

While we're on the subject, I don't believe that politically correct speech is doing anyone any good in this country (something that a lot of Trump supporters are very happy to point out -- and they're right on that one). Also: I don't believe that a lot of the degrees people are going to school for are in alignment with the needs of the market or industry. Somehow things have gotten unhinged and there seems to be no talk of rebooting our educational system and making it functional again.

These are two very different views of the complex idea that is "higher education" -- and get this -- they reside alongside each other in my head!

What about all that Republican Diversity?

So back to the beginning here -- so why, if it's not in the name of diversity was the GOP running Fiorina and Carson? There must be some reason -- what could it be? I gotta note here, the fact that Rubio and Cruz were Cuban Hispanic didn't get mentioned, that would go against the other message of the party at this time. Spoiler alert -- the woman and the African American both drop out of the race, so regardless of how it might appear for debate consumption, the GOP is back to pretty much old white guys in the end.

Here's a thought: There are just some things that Carson can say about Obama (like he's not raised "black" so he just isn't genuine) that would sound really a lot more racist coming from the likes of Ted Cruz or Donald Trump. There are things that Fiorina could say about Hillary Clinton that would sound really sexist coming from anyone else. IMHO -- There's your real reason. I don't believe for a second either of those people could make it to the top seat in the Republican lineup. Not even runner up for that matter.

I certainly don't believe anyone in the GOP establishment thought so either.

But they sure can get away with some really crappy attack material while they are on the "campaign trail" to be president. I'll bet some strategists saw this potential and said "Let's include Carson and Fiorina -- they can run interference and say lies that can't easily be spouted by anyone else.

Will we ever truly see a candidate that could change Washington from the seat of the Oval office? I seriously doubt it's going to happen in our
lifetimes. I wish otherwise. I want my grand-kids to grow up in an America where the Middle Class is not only growing -- it's something to be admired (like it used to be). A bunch of people these days are worshiping money and power, forgetting what an honor it used to be to grow up here in the Middle. The oligarchy that has emerged is dangerous, and it's not going to be a country of opportunity like it was more-so when I was growing up.

I have different views than most these days. I don't think we're in good hands and I don't see how we're going to succeed until we get the money out of politics -- anything else that talks about any other issue is just political pandering. Whether it's to the African American, Hispanic or Women "vote", or whether it's to the idea that it's all about what God wants on the GOP side, our Democracy really isn't one when at the bottom of both parties all you find is a big stack of cash.

Again, two radically different views of our political system. Again, guess what, they're alongside each other (happily) in my head.

Why? Because I'm --get this-- moderate.

My liberal friends are shaking their heads. I've said things that offend them, I'll bet. I'll also wager that my conservative friends are shouting "No, you're a damn liberal!"

Sure. And the Pope's not Catholic -- he's a member of God's Own Party.

Whatever Happened to the 15 Hour Work Week?

I came across an interesting thought recently, and darned if it didn't hit home as to what's happened to up-end our society. The author basically talks a great deal about "meaningless" or "worthless" jobs and the impact on our social well-being. While I don't agree with the term "meaningless" in this context -- lesser value is more likely the term -- I can't help but agree on a fundamental level. Below is the paragraph that hits the nail pretty hard on the head:

Even more perverse, there seems to be a broad sense that this is the way things should be. This is one of the secret strengths of right-wing populism. You can see it in Britain, when tabloids whip up resentment against transport workers for paralysing London during contract disputes: the very fact that the workers can paralyse London shows that their work is actually necessary, but this seems to be precisely what annoys people. It's even clearer in the US, where Republicans have had remarkable success mobilising resentment against schoolteachers or car workers (and not, significantly, against the school administrators or car industry managers who actually cause the problems) for their supposedly bloated wages and benefits. It's as if they are being told: ''But you get to teach children! Or make cars! You get to have real jobs! And on top of that you have the nerve to also expect middle-class pensions and healthcare?''

The piece that you have to understand is that productivity has been on the rise for decades -- and yet middle class compensation and benefits have been on the decline. I can't put it as eloquently as the author (I really have to recommend that your read this one -- the link is at the bottom).

I work with a lot of people who at the end of the day do such meaningful work -- and I see this same group demonized as if somehow their getting paid to do this work at a reasonable rate is a burden to our country. The truth is that their work is some of the most worthwhile work -- like a school teacher or a car mechanic -- because if they didn't do it, our nation wouldn't be what it is today and certainly wouldn't be strong. I think of my friends from high school (one in particular, you know who you are) who ended up as school teachers and how they're certainly not compensated for the value they've brought our lives -- and the difference in pay compared to say, someone who's an investment banker.

While the author of this piece may have not chosen his words carefully enough, he's certainly hit home on the front of the mismatch in value our society has at its core. The end effect is demoralizing and insidious. I'm again thankful that I'm paid to do something I love.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/public-service/the-modern-phenomenon-of-nonsense-jobs-20130831-2sy3j.html#ixzz2j6X6Lt2d

Tea Party legislators to enter Combine Demolition Derby

Fresh off the heels of their recent stunt to shut down the world economy, trash the US recovery and play roulette with the government, Congress has staged their next event: Entering the first annual US Congressional Combine Demolition Derby. 
Members of congress that comprise the Tea party coalition were quick to explain their reasoning. "Look, there's nothing like slamming some heavy metal together to de-stress after pulling billions of dollars out of the US economy."  Quipped Senator Ted Cruz, who will be judging the event.  "Plus, it's frickin' AWESOME." 

Congressman John Boehner was more descriptive: "Look, you get an adrenalin rush, playing chicken with large heavy objects that are normally meant to be constructive in nature -- there's nothing like it.   The closest we can come to the experience is combine demolition derby."  Sources familiar with his district claim he's chosen a bright orange Allis-Chalmers model, to best match his pallor. 

Others were quick to criticize the action.  "This is a blatant waste of tax payer dollars" quipped house minority leader Nancy Pelosi.  "Although it's obviously cheaper than watching them tank the economy, this is no excuse."

My only complaint with my new Ford ... and it's a Microsoft Product at the core of the problem.

In may of last year I bought a 2011 Shelby Cobra GT500.   It's been a great car with one glaring flaw: Microsoft Sync.

The irony abounds.   I have built my career on non-Microsoft products (Linux, if you must know, but that's hardly a surprise to regular readers of my blog).   All of the desktop and phone products I run have either Linux as their core OS or Android.

So why, after all of this, does my favorite car have to ship with a lame Microsoft product?!?   Ford, please do yourselves and your buyers a good deed -- and end your relationship with Microsoft.   Their logo on your product is tarnishing it.   I've even thought of ways to remove the stupid Microsoft sync logo off of the dashboard (one of my reddit /r/Mustang friends suggested buying a Shelby plaque that -- no joke here -- goes right over it).

The first thing I do when I get a new laptop is -- you guessed it -- remove the Microsoft sticker on the laptop, and find the nearest urinal to affix it to -- looks great on the vertical chrome post underneath the flush lever, by the way.

Seriously -- why Ford?   What the hell were you thinking?   People don't associate Microsoft with quality.   They are very much lately more than ever associating the Ford brand with quality -- this is not a step in the right direction.

Just last week, friends over from Australia -- took them for a ride in the Cobra.   Too bad I couldn't play any of the music I had on a thumb drive in the car -- because Sync was hung tighter than Dick's hat band (Dicks hat band, for those not in the know, is very tight -- something like 2000 PSI at last measurement).

So, some swearing, reading on-line forums, etc -- I finally figure out how to reboot the damn thing in my car so I can listen to some tunes on a trip.   It's the first and only thing that's ever gone wrong with my Cobra.

Ford -- I hope you're listening -- ditch this crap (or at least cover the damn logo) -- it's not rocket science here.   Playing music and picking up phone calls over bluetooth should be one of those features that "just work".

Note:  Microsoft stuff in my not-so-humble opinion here (and I know I'm not alone)  rarely "just works".

Oh, and Ford -- the rest of the car is frickin' awesome!

-=FeriCyde=-

Complifying Columbine

*Note: I updated this blog post almost 6 years later in Feb of 2018 to address my horrible grammar, misspellings and rampant ability to randomly compose thoughts.   It should be more readable now.   I did my best to stay true to my original thoughts.  

Recently I read with some interest Death wish: How did America become the land of the high school massacre? and its conclusions.

Besides this obvious (to me) fallacy, the article gets one basic fact wrong, and that's the venue for the shooting.So what if a lot of these shootings take place on college campuses (one of the main points)?  The article seems to leaves out work place shootings, for example. This problem (gun violence) is obviously not just about high school massacres or a simple choice of venue.

But hey, it's simpler to make the shooting seem to be just about one or two problems.  It makes the story easier to digest and it fits nicely on a page. What are a few deaths in a different country anyway?

In any case, I read the article and found myself agreeing with some of the points the author made.
This problem (Columbine-like shootings) has been making me think for years.  The Columbine massacre had a grave impact on me -- positive and negative. How it could have a positive impact I'll leave to the end of this post. It saddened me and immediately made me wonder just what had gone wrong with our society at the time.

Just like all of us remember where we were when important events went down, I clearly remember driving to work and hearing the story on the radio. I remember stopping my car in shock and listening to the story. I remember thinking that something was going gravely wrong with our society and culture.

Americans, like the author of this article, want simple answers to the questions that haunt them. Want to know how September 11 happened? It was Muslim terrorists who "hate our freedom". This has been further simplified: now it's just "Muslims".

I'm sure this kind of journalism sells advertising and attracts valuable eyeballs.   But the tragedies and the dead we bury deserve better than this kind of simplified hack job in my opinion. . This article, like others, offers the reader the satisfying whiff of sanctimonious truth -- but like a lot of seductive copy, it has obvious logical fallacies.

Truly Honoring the Dead

The dead deserve the truth.   Often when something big happens and our news media gets engaged things get simplified. The truth is very complex, but it gets compressed, simplified and dumbed down for mass consumption on the cable and other news networks.

Right after the Columbine massacre, the media kicked into high gear, citing the perpetrators as being a part of something called the "trench coat mafia". This was a story that petered out later as it wasn't all that relevant. Then it was all about how they were outcasts and bullied. Then it was the fact that they played violent video games. Lots of theories came and went as things progressed.  Each simple explanation fell over like a weak straw man as seemingly none of them could explain any of the brutality that had happened.

I myself wondered at the time how two kids could give up so much life.  They gave up their life and that of their classmates for such a short trip to the end.  Oh, and the joy of watching some pipe bombs explode (or not). They weren't all that good at making bombs it turns out.

I began to wonder about how this could happen.  What kind of community were they involved in? What kind of local support group was not functioning that they could get so far off track? What could have been so wrong to let such gruesome events transpire?

People at that time also pointed to our gun culture. For a great illustration of how far we've become desensitized to violence, check out Michael Moore's hack job on the event, Bowling for Columbine -- it's an entertaining piece that focuses on our propensity to violence as well.   Just like the author of the reference article that starts this post it's all about just one issue.

Unfortunately, despite a lot of witty observations, Bowling for Columbine offers very little in the way of conclusion. Or even plot, for that matter. It certainly doesn't do a good job of prescribing solutions.
I'd argue in deep retrospect, Bowling for Columbine makes Moore every bit as guilty of exploiting the tragic dead of Columbine as the rest of the media.

 No, the dead deserve a lot more thought than this. In my opinion the lost souls that result from mass shootings (like Columbine) should suffer no simple answers.  It's an insult that we lost them to such horrible carnage.  Let's not bury them under stupidity and simplistic ideas.

Complify, Complify, Complify

You see, I don't believe this is a simple problem.

I'm not getting paid to offer my opinion here.   My opinion is neither simple or authoritative.   The solutions I propose are (no surprise here) not cheap. This opinion is just something that comes out of my grieving for the dead, and my careful observation at a distance of many of these events. I do not have the credentials to psychoanalyze the killers. I don't have the journalistic background to report on the events. I am not a sociologist.  Full disclosure.  I'm a gun owner, but not a member of the NRA.

Still, I've thought about this for a really long time, and I've been paying attention carefully every time one of these has gone down. I think events like Columbine are the result of a complex collision of vectors. They are events that prove Murphy's law in my opinion.  They are, I believe, an example of the perfect storm of a complex cocktail of destruction.

Here are the vectors that I think contribute to a event like Columbine:

Gun Culture

America does have a gun culture -- it's had it for a long time. It was around back when I was in high school in the 70s, and that was a time of no events like Columbine. Some of my classmates even brought their guns to school -- and left them in their cars.  I don't think that it was a good idea then or now, but it's one ingredient. 

Without the rest of the ingredients, the fire of a shooting event can't ignite.

Violent Guy Culture

Rambo, Arnold [Get Into Da Choppa] Schwarzenegger, James Bond -- the action hero flick where the guy with the gun solves the problem. Yeah, this has gotten more and more intense every year. Now TV is loaded with shows that glorify shooting. And yes, it's desensitizing. I watch some of this crap myself. I loved the FX show "Justified", for example.   It's great TV. The hero's gun is one of the stars of the show. Video games? I love first person shooters and I, as a guy, am not alone. Still, after all of this, I'm about as motivated to go to work packing a revolver as I am to own a new Country Music CD (sorry Country Music fans -- I just can't get into it).

Breakdown of Community

Somewhere along the way to leaving no child behind we've become a society where school is more about containment and making statistical quotas than it is about raising children to be functional adults. My observation is that kids today don't feel connected to their society and local community. I watched this in my own family and have talked to many victims here -- our schools are far less community places than they used to be.

There are exceptions -- some schools are better than others. A lot of schools simply don't deal with bullying the right way. Even the fact that we have this term on the tip of our tongues points to the fact that community is severely lacking in our classroom experiences. Kids don't feel connected to anything. Something at a crucial community level is simply falling apart and collapsing.

The kids are being ground through a process -- not connected at all along the way. The idea that they're a part of something is foreign. People somehow point out problem students like the issue is on the outside of their control space. Parents that should be a part of this same solution point to the school and their kids in the same fashion. Which brings me to the next vector.

TV (Observer) Culture

Our society lacks participants. It lacks people that truly are willing to dive in and solve problems. Teachers think that education just happens. You (as a teacher) go to school, learn a process, present the material like a PowerPoint slide deck, and somehow the result is people on the other side of the school desk learn something.  I'm not saying all teachers are like this.  I'm saying this is a general trend in our society for everything.  I see it as an IT professional.  I see it when I order food at the local fast food joint.   People aren't engaged.  They're performing their jobs the same way they watch TV.

I had some extraordinary teachers. Some very fortunate people these days have this joy as well, but it's less common. I had Teachers that got involved. Teachers that sensed I was lagging or even soaring and could go higher. Teachers that got to know me.

I don't think this kind of involvement in student success is all that common anymore. I don't think it's being rewarded. I think in the haze of statistics and the idea that we're separated from the show (the TV show -- get it?), or in this case, the classroom experience, that idea has become so pervasive that it's part of our cultural disease.

How many times have you been amazed at the bad service you've gotten at a fast food restaurant? The person behind the counter is on auto-pilot. Their minds are not engaged -- they're hitting buttons and observing, when they should be interacting (but I'm cutting them some slack here, it's a job I've done, and it sucks, and it's mindless in its own right). No, the problem that I'm driving home here is that our teachers are doing something similar -- and that it's another vector in the complex mix of potentials that lead to a Columbine-like event.

Drug Culture

I'm not talking about the illegal stuff -- how about anti-depressants? Studies of some of these drugs show that a common side effect is "Thoughts of suicide".

It's this last ingredient that I truly suspect is one responsible for ignition.

Sure, all of the others are present -- they've been here in various states of attention abandonment for years. I've been suspicious of the drugs from the day I heard about Columbine.  I remember listening to the story in my car and thinking "What the hell?, were these guys high on some new drug or something?", but quickly, like most adults, writing this thought off.

What if it wasn't that they were high? What if one of them was in a state of deep rage? A rage like the one experienced by Charles Whitman. This event took place long before Columbine and the broad application of anti-depressants.  It was just as deadly though. It too, was on a college campus.

Whitman had issues as well -- divorce in the family, failure at school and drug abuse (amphetamines). Charles even knew that the rage was wrong, but somehow was so beyond anger that all logic circuitry was disconnected. He was lucid enough to leave a note behind to the coroner.  It was a note asking them to conduct an autopsy to determine how to prevent people like him from going off. As it turned out, he did have a brain tumor.

That kind of rage is hard for most of the rest of us to fathom. What's hard for me to understand is how he was able to be so functional while at the same time being so ruthless as to kill over a dozen people.
I'm starting to get suspicious that it's linked to the "Thoughts of Suicide" "side effect" of the anti-depressants our doctors so readily toss out like aspirin these days.

These "Thoughts" which are likely connected to drugs that weren't so broadly applied just a few years ago (like when I was in high school, for example).  Drugs that are now being passed out by doctors that are part of the TV generation -- and very much a part of our legalized drug culture. One that says there's a pill for everything that ails you. A culture that says these drugs are awesome at addressing our every symptom -- they just might have some minor "side effects".

If you go back over every one of the events in the reference article, and do some minor research, you will find a preponderance of drug prescription to go along with them. One of the two shooters at Columbine (possibly both). The Virginia tech shooter. It will not surprise me one iota if the 43 year old guy in the recent event was on anti-depressants.

Closing down this thread: I don't think it's just the legalized depression drugs that are the cause of the shootings.  It's the mix. Mix access to guns with powerful anti-depressants, a really lacking sense of community (so the person doesn't feel as connected to the people being shot), a sense of rage for [insert injustice here], a guy culture that worships the idea of shooting things as a solution -- all of these things put together are likely the true recipe for a school or workplace shooting event.

To fix this we'd need some sense of the gravity of this problem.

And don't forget:  this is always a problem for someone else. We'd need our government to work properly -- yet Congress can't easily legislate the solution here. We would need big the Pharma establishment involved.  You can bet the big drug companies are going to fight the idea that their profitable anti-depressants are involved. We're talking about a huge a cash cow after all. Don't forget how many commercials they buy on our news networks.   We would need the NRA to stop reflexively saying "no".  We would need to work with mental health networks.  

To truly fix this we need to make going to school akin to being a part of something. Workplaces and schools would need to be turned into places where interactive and constructive dialog with students and employees is rewarded. We'd truly have to have a culture where no child (and employee) is left behind.

I think our violent culture doesn't have an easy fix. Feel free to suggest your own ideas in the comments here-- I'm happy to entertain the ideas.   As Americans, guns have been with us for quite some time.  While I think the idea of letting a teenager bring one to school is crazy, it went on in my high school years without incident. I think in this climate (with these vectors), it's obviously not a good idea. Any attempt to address the gun vector will be met by the NRA and news pundits that will make the problem out to be something simpler than it is and pander to the dumbest minds in the audience.

How Columbine Changed Me

As for myself, sitting there in the car, along the side of the road, I began to look inward. I had lived in a community for nearly 5 years and didn't know my neighbors. I hardly knew anyone except a couple of people from work in the area. That evening, I walked over to my (future buddy and unknown at the time neighbor) Dean's house. Dean had invited me over many times to hang out. That night, I got to know him and his family -- and I didn't stop there.   I worked hard to become a part of my local community. 

Yes, a high school shooting made me a better person.

How could I criticize a culture that was isolationist when I myself wasn't becoming engaged in my own local community?  How can you, dear blog post reader, help this situation? It seems like an intractable problem, after all, and one we're helpless in changing.

I suspect that the first part of solving this complex issue is going to be in realizing that it's not something that can be contained in a 5 second sound byte.  I know that our dead deserve better than simplified sound bytes aimed at making people feel disconnected from this problem. Even more important, by distancing themselves from the issue, the writers of these pieces exploit (and dishonor) the dead by making you, the reader, feel disconnected as well. With this cheap sense of disconnection, you too can feel that it's "someone else's problem" and that it's surely not a part of anything you have control over.

Sure, it's that simple.
-=FeriCyde=-

Want more Free / Open Source Software in Your Work Life?

If so, you should read my series (part I published today) entitled Being a Free/Open Source Software Catalyst : Part I.

My plan is to cover as much of the social components of this situation as possible. I have a lot of experiences in this arena to share. Stay tuned!
-=FeriCyde=-

Time for Linux on the Door Stop

I've written my first editorial for 2011 and Posted it on LXer.com.

It's basically a decade in review piece, and it talks very much about how Linux has not taken over the Desktop -- and that it doesn't really matter any more, because in many ways, Linux has arrived.

Enjoy!
-=FeriCyde=-

Obama back speaking to the kids!

Looks like Obama is back speaking to the school children in the US, likely in an attempt to force them into his socialist point of view. Well, that, or possibly our president simply would like to do something leadership oriented, and speak to the kids in our country, and encourage them to do their best.

Being the positive kind of guy I am, I'm pretty certain it's the latter. The former opinion was how it was being cast at about 6:30 or so this morning when I surfed past the anchors at Fox news as they told the story.

But honestly, I have a link to a letter to the editor from last years speech that sums up the situation much more clearly.

Quoting:

" Let's thank Bennett and others who had the ability to foresee Obama's school speech "as an attempt at political indoctrination of the youth ... similar to the Hitler youth movement or the Soviet Union." And let's appreciate that they took action so that the threat was averted. "

Before you get your panties in a bunch over this, bear in mind that the above text is sarcasm, and nearly a year old.

If you read it closely you'll see that the author is none other than my old man. Now you know the source of my sarcasm as well.

Dad, I love you man.
-=FeriCyde=-

How to report an unauthorized call to the FTC ...

First, if you have not done so, you should register your phone number in the "Do Not Call" national database. Kind of sad that we have to worry about such things, but lately there have been a lot of scams running that (besides soaking up valuable cell phone minutes) are potentially quite expensive and damaging.

One involves someone saying they will sell you an extended warranty for your car. I've comically accepted the calls before for entertainment value (and to understand the scam a bit). Honestly, if someone calls saying your warranty is just about to expire a lot of things should set off alarm bells. Some of my favorite responses: "This is great timing! The transmission just went out in my 1954 DeSoto! Can I buy coverage to get it fixed?" Better: "I have a 2000 Hudson Hornet... You can insure that? Awesome!" The scams are well documented and the primary offending company was recently shut down. Hopefully the people executing the scam are doing jail time now.

Another scam involves someone from "Cardholder services." I've had a few of these end recently rather abruptly -- before I could say the phrase "Please take me off your list." The more generic the call -- the more likely it's a scam. Cardholder services to what card? What interest rate range are they talking about. Do they even know who they are calling (let me answer there -- no, they're doing robo-calling through a range of telephone numbers hoping to hit a live body).

In all cases, reporting these things to the FTC is a good idea. Here's the web site:

https://complaints.donotcall.gov/complaint/complaintcheck.aspx?panel=2

You'll find a link on there to also register your phone number in the do not call database.

Do your civic duty -- if you get a call like this, report the idiots and help the FTC shut them down. And if you're not pressed for time, it doesn't hurt to waste a little bit of their time (the scammers) in the process.
-=FeriCyde=-

Android Fragmentation

Disclaimer: I'm a long-time users and enthusiast when it comes to Linux -- and I own a Motorola droid.

Recently, there have been a few articles that talk of something called Fragmentation in regards to the Google android operating system. These articles talk about developer-centric problems and the general lack of stability as compared to other operating systems, such as Win Mobile and Apple's operating system for the iPhone.

This is my humble opinion: none of this crap matters to anyone but developers and technical journalists. The Android is for the most part, from what I see, unstoppable. It has recently taken the mobile operating system space by storm, spawning multiple products from multiple vendors.

It will continue to do so, despite any kind of stupid fear, uncertainty or doubt. Here are the reasons why:

1. Android phones work acceptably for the vast majority of smart phone users.
2. Unlike the strategic mistake that Apple made -- the Google android operating system is available from a host of carriers.
3. Unlike Apple, the android store is far more open to developers.
4. The operating system and the underlying development components are transparent. They are truly open in most respects compared to Apple.

Sure, developing for a moving target of device capabilities, APIs and "fragmented" operating system versions is going to suck. Sure, the interface is no where near as smooth and polished as Apple's. Sure sure sure, lot's of things compared to other proprietary vendors.

At the end of the day, the decisions that Apple made will continue to make their product the Cadillac of phones. The Droid will be the Chevy.

And the real reason it will continue to sell will be obvious to the end users: Most times, all you need is a Chevy.

Those of us in the Free/Open Source community will wax onward about why people should choose freedom over tyranny and all that important stuff that's right -- and I wish that these things mattered to a lot of people. Sadly, most people haven't a clue. At the end of the day, Apple will still have a huge market share -- but over time, I'm willing to bet that Linux (Android) will take a large or similar percentage.

More carriers, a good product, more choices, less cost. It's a simple equation. It reminds one of the bad choices Apple made in the 1980's to single-source their own hardware and sue the crap out of anyone that tried to establish anything close to a competing hardware platform. I'm not saying that mobile devices will be exactly the same as that territory -- the devices are replaced much faster and cost far less. But it sure is similar.

Fragmentation though? No one on the receiving end will really care all that much. The market physics pretty much dictate the outcome -- Android will march on, more or less unstoppably, regardless of any kind of FUD around the platform.

Because, most times, at the end of the day, you just need a decent phone that works at a reasonable price. Android definitely delivers that.
-=FeriCyde=-

Google Goggles

Rocks!

I was sitting down chatting with my Aunt and Uncle over the weekend and they were asking about features of the Android phone I'm using -- and I had recently loaded google goggles -- and hadn't tried it.

Sitting in front of me is a picture on the wall. My Aunt says something like "That picture is so old, it probably won't recognize it."

Well, conversely, that's not exactly the case -- stuff that's been around a lot, it did really well on. It instantly recognized (and brought up several links related to) a Norman Rockwell painting on a nearby calendar. It recognized a DVD I had brought over to watch with them. It was darn impressive, actually.

If you have a 'droid -- you need to try this thing. It's supposed to someday recognize plants from their leaves, and is supposed to recognize bar-code (it failed, unfortunately, at that task ever time I tried it).

Entertaining at least! Give it a whirl:
Google Goggles
-=FeriCyde=-

My Letter to my Congressman May 10, 2010

It's that time!

Time to Write Your Congressman!

Dear Mr. Boccieri,

Please fight to strongly regulate (or eliminate banking usage of) derivatives -- basically my view of the banking industry of today is that they want this form of legalized gambling so they can continue their reign as American Royalty.

Without solid regulation we're going to be back where we were in 2008 -- I've been reading about some people saying things like "we don't need to regulate, we just need to let these institutions fail. Hey -- I'm all for that, but I know that when the time comes, without some solid regulation and change, whomever is on stick flying the plane of Congress that day will very likely do what's been done in the past.

I see the bankers lobbying Congress like crazy (it's in the news today). Of course they are -- they get all of the rewards of taking risk with none of the accountability.

Please do the responsible thing here -- regulate these overpaid non-capitalist leeches while the opportunity presents itself. End corporate banking welfare. Make them accountable for the incredible damage they've done to our economy. The lack of sympathy for America is illustrated by the incredible bonuses they gave themselves this year -- basically fiddling while our country burned.

End American Royalty -- be a part of strong derivative regulatory change. Restore some sanity to the financial markets. Make banking a less risky venture for the health of America. Add some kind of regulation that ends the role of our government in bailing out these idiots when they fail to do their job (managing risk is part of the role of a financial institution, and clearly that's where they failed).

Thanks for Listening,
--Paul Ferris

Hardware for the Holidays

It started with my disgust of Xandros on Lisa's netbook...

Basically, I bought Lisa a netbook a while back and although it's capable, honestly the OS was a smouldering pile of crud for the most part. The touchpad stopped working properly, it was slow and likely someone else would have given it up for dead. Digging around a bit, it looked to be a no-brainer to put Ubuntu remix on the thing, so I set about making it happen. Seriously 30 minutes into the experiment it became obvious that the folks at ASUS are either asleep at the wheel, need their heads examined or are taking payola from Redmond. Why? Because Ubuntu remix on this netbook feels more polished and stable than any out of the box OS experience I've had to date.

And Lisa is happy so I'm happy with it. I've been able to throw a lot of extra hardware configuration at it with literally no issues. i-Pod nano [x] Check. Canon MP620 (network, wireless, no less ;) [x] Check. Digital camera [x], Scanning over the network [x] -- some of the configuration took place while she was using the darn thing (apt-get is so nice over ssh). Xandros was almost completely out of disk space. It's running at about 70% space right now and happy as a clam.

The old Kodak DC215

While looking for a memory card I stumbled across an old digital camera I had in a drawer from 1999 (my old LinuxToday days). Hmmmm. Will it blend? ,I thought, mischievously. The Kodak DC215 was dead thanks to it being dropped and the battery tray getting slightly damaged. It was a pretty decent camera in its day, though. And I just couldn't bear something with such sentimental value being tossed out when it might make a really sweet web-cam. Soooo...

It turns out that Graham Crawford's SDK for the DC210 series cameras is still available. It's last update was in 2005, built for Red Hat back in the day. I needed a serial cable for the camera. Googling around a bit, I found a pin-out -- and a matching cable that probably came with the camera. So I had a serial cable, the software, and a broken battery tray. I needed a power supply. I have a drawer where I toss old out-dated power supplies ... found a matching cable for the lug on the camera, and the power-supply for a Netgear hub was close (7.5 volts -- hey, that's near 7 volts, right ;). So, some electrical tape, the cable, a Dell PC running Ubuntu -- we're all set. 30 minutes later I'm taking photo's with a shell script.

The photo's are available via serial (albeit a bit slow). It would be nice if I could pull them off the SD card directly from the Canon network printer -- it's one of the few devices I own that still has a Compact Flash (CF) reader. Is it possible? Turns out that you can use:

$ smbclient -I [IP address of Printer] /foo/canon_memory/ " "

And the "foo" above could be anything, for what it's worth. I'm mainly interested in the utilitarian value here of being able to have a nice, easy spot place in the house where the photo cards can be plugged in and the data sucked down to the central photo repository (where they're backed up, cataloged, etc).

Broken Digital Picture Frame

It's over 2 years old, and as far as comparing to the latest digital picture frames, pretty lame. On the balance side of the equation, though, we're not (Lisa and I) heavy digital picture frame users ;)

The pictures from our latest camera simply would not load on the thing. -- for one, it has a brain the size of a walnut, so the 8 mega-pixel shots were only going to load, one at a time, sometime in 2011 -- for the first one. That is, if it could read the Jpeg file format, which for some strange reason, it couldn't. I located the factory PDF manual for the thing, and it was about as clear and concise as raw enigma machine data. So I did what any decent hacker would do -- I started looking at the difference between the Jpegs from the old camera (the one from 1999) and the new ones. It turns out to be something missing in the EXIF data, a part of the Jpeg file format. If this sounds like something you've never heard of, my guess is that you're not into digital media much. I know I wish I could forget what I've learned about it all, because it took some digging around to discover all of the nasty stuff you can do to Jpegs to make them behave.

The digital picture frame isn't huge and has a really lame display -- like about 6x4 inches with an over-square rez of something like 900x250 (yes, it's really that bad). Meaning that 320x240 would look just fine on thing. The down side is that this kind of resolution is really pretty pathetic and it's not likely to win over anyone who is looking at the pictures for detail. On the plus side, however are the following facts:

  1. We're not looking at the frame for the quality of the pixels -- just for sentiment.
  2. It has a brain the size of a walnut; 320x240 images load very quickly.
  3. With the rez of the frame, 320x240 looks about as good as anything else, anyway.
  4. You can cram quite a bit of 320x240-sized, compressed Jpegs on a 2Gig SD card.
  5. My eyesight isn't all that great up close anyway ;)

Sooo, off to the races -- could I find a way to?:

  1. Shrink our catalog of photos easily.
  2. Fake out the EXIF header such that the frame would read it.
  3. Not interfere with the normal operation of the SD card otherwise.

And the answer is, of course, with Linux, just about anything is possible. The key operating lines of a script (which ran for about 3 hours total on about 1/3 of our catalog of digital pictures) are:

        [ $DEBUG -gt 0 ] && echo From $J to $DIRNEW/$FILENEW
        /usr/bin/convert $J -resize x240 $DIRNEW/$FILENEW
        [ $DEBUG -gt 0 ] && /bin/ls -l $DIRNEW/$FILENEW
        /usr/bin/jpegtopnm $DIRNEW/$FILENEW > $P1
        /usr/bin/pnmtojpeg $P1 -exif=$EXIF > $DIRNEW/$FILENEW
        [ $DEBUG -gt 0 ] && /bin/ls -l $DIRNEW/$FILENEW

The EXIF header being inserted in the pnmtojpeg line above is completely bogus. It's not even the right resolution -- the digital picture frame simply doesn't care (Lisa's iPod nano is a different story, by the way -- it worked for all of the pictures taken landscape). The pictures ended up tiny -- 2500 pictures taking up a whopping 80 Megabytes -- literally pennies on the dollar, space-wise. This means that I can simply put the script in the root directory of the flash card and make it execute upon insertion on her netbook. Imake a directory called "DFRAME" next to the "DCIM" directory, and clone files into there. Works like a charm. I'm fairly certain that I can simply pull an EXIF header with the right proportions to fix the script so her iPod nano can show them properly.

Through all of this, the joy of having an operating system that behaves (and can run software from literally a decade ago) is something to behold.

Happy Hardware for the holidays!
-=FeriCyde=-

Flight of the Penguin, er, Phoenix

Dear Diary --It's been too long...

I'm in full-blown Phoenix mode. For those of you who wish to understand what I mean here(Reference Wikipedia):

A phoenix is a mythical bird with a colorful plumage and a tail of gold and scarlet (or purple, blue, and green according to some legends). It has a 500 to 1,000 year life-cycle, near the end of which it builds itself a nest of twigs that then ignites; both nest and bird burn fiercely and are reduced to ashes, from which a new, young phoenix or phoenix egg arises, reborn anew to live again. The new phoenix is destined to live as long as its old self. In some stories, the new phoenix embalms the ashes of its old self in an egg made of myrrh and deposits it in the Egyptian city of Heliopolis (sun city in Greek). It is said that the bird's tears contain healing abilities of pureness, and their cry is that of a beautiful song.

I'm starting a new practice around what I've done in business for the past decade or so: Changing culture and embracing Free / Open Source Software. I'm also doing a bit of recruiting and sales. This is a natural extension and progression but in many ways it's a re-birth. I'll be blogging more about Free Software (big surprise) in the near future.

My thoughts have been consumed lately on all of the things that consume a startup -- my time has been sucked into a large void in some respects, but that doesn't excuse my blogging absence (it just explains it).

In my new role I'm truly getting to know the movers and shakers in the Free/Open Source (FOSS) space. It's a wonderful re-engagement, because I was far more connected in 1999 than I have been in 2009 (that is, lately). The happy surprise for me is that, unlike 1999, the world is happily embracing FOSS -- it's all over the place now. It would be laughable for people to ask questions like "Is Linux ready for the enterprise?"

I'm sharing some of my findings from the perspective of a sales person -- I'm getting to do that kind of duty now. I get to talk to a lot of people that are pondering the FOSS question.

The question is now turned the opposite direction -- the real question is "Is your enterprise ready for Linux?" There are still some hold-outs, in other words, that still see heavy value in proprietary infrastructure. A lot of these companies are now looking at FOSS with a far more serious gaze. The money is driving the activity, unfortunately.

The "Free" in Free Software is still about the cash for these companies -- and that's a crying shame. It's sad, because it's not about the cash at the end of the day (although a serious bundle is often on the table when these choices are made). Rather, it's about liberating the IT of your company -- it's about having real choices, flexibility and freedom as it pertains to using the technological underpinnings of your business solution.

My Phoenix is an intentional "burn-down" of the old Paul Ferris. I'm far from done on the technology side, by the way -- my time has been spent doing architecture and development for the past couple of weeks, so it's not like I'm going to ever shake that ability. The bird that is rising is one of new ventures, planning and entrepreneurship -- very exciting stuff.

For those friends who've been asking -- thanks for the gentle prodding. I'll write more often and you posted.
-=FeriCyde=-

Linux on Netbooks

You'd have to be living under a rock to not have heard about the current "netbook" craze. Basically, there is not really solid definition (in my not so humble opinion) of what a netbook truly is -- my definition is this: A laptop that has superior battery life, reduced features and that is so small and convenient that it fits in your purse (if you're of the proper gender to be carrying one, or if you're purse/gender agnostic -- don't get me started on this topic).

Anyway, I bought one for my wife recently -- running Linux, of course.

Now, there's been a lot of misinformation about Linux on desktops/laptops and netbooks. It's too hard to use, it's not familiar -- it's not Windows -- people return them at a higher rate than Windows.

But, not according to Dell, it seems. There are many reasons that this is news. Dell is the quintessential user computing device vendor. They have a well recognized brand and off and on, have courted Linux on the desktop. Linux has a lower acquisition cost for a hardware vendor -- and on a $300 computing device, there isn't a lot of margin.

Barring all of that strategic schpew -- the fact is, my wife uses an Ubuntu laptop and seems to have taken to the netbook with a minimum of fuss. I use her viewpoint as an indicator of sorts. She doesn't hold much back in terms of criticism -- if it sucks I'm going to hear about it in short order. She's not a technology lightweight -- she uses facebook, email and web browsing as good or at a higher competency than all but my tightest technological contacts -- but she's not a programmer or IT type.

In short, if she can take to a Linux device without a lot of training on my part, I assume that the general public should have few to little issue.

And this describes her experience -- the Ubuntu laptop has been a terrific device, and she's used it for a couple of years now without issue. The netbook has a simplified interface, in comparison. It's an SD-based device (no hard drive) and so far so good, it has worked well.

I've always been skeptical of the claims that people can't use Linux as a network computing platform. My own experiences with my family (Mom and Dad use Linux these days as well) tell me that the market is fragmenting. I won't get into all of the technical reasons why Linux on the desktop is a good thing -- I could, and I've done so many times in the past -- all I'm going to say is that I'm happy to see that it's not hard to acquire a device running Linux these days.
-=FeriCyde=-

Ebert Discusses Discussion

Roger Ebert's latest blog posting hits upon one of my favorite topics with the strength of a sledgehammer and the aim of a laser. His main point -- that our news has degenerated into a swill of yelling and uncivil discourse. That this lack of civility has become dangerous -- especially compared to times past.

I've spent a lot of time talking on this blog about this very issue. Whether or not you agree with the likes of Keith Olbermann, Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly, is irrelevant (and not the focus here). It's their technique -- their polarizing speech and the way they make the news more about propaganda than about level, balanced discourse. Our society is in danger of being polarized into groups of people that are more and more informed by people who are less and less informative. The anger is obvious. Keith O spent miles of airwave ranting against Bush. Bill O is now doing something similar -- his party didn't win, so he's going to spike the punch, that's my opinion. Spend some time (it doesn't take much effort) searching on YouTube for "shut up" video with Bill in it -- what he's doing is unpatriotic by his own measure. We're supposed to support our president, etc, etc.

I've had enough of this kind of partisan stupidity. Dialog -- quiet, carefully thought through actions, serious planning and lucid introspection of America is now in order. We're in a crisis of massive proportions, and these people and their obviously hate-mongering methods are not helping.

Roger Ebert says it better than I do. Read his blog for a really good breakdown of the present news break-down.

No, I don't know the fix to this problem. Given the fact that things like Rush and Bill sell really well these days, it's hard to imagine what fix is in order. I do know, however, that what we have is broken. Our media and the lack of local news coverage, the lack of independent voice and the popularity of junk news is a disease. We need the balanced clear voices of a truly moral news media to balance our democracy.

I shudder at the thought of a media run by the government (or even regulated). The fact is that somehow our society needs to come up with a way to pay for truly "fair and balanced" news reporting (in the strict, true sense here). The fact is that I don't want the government to do this for us. The fact is that corporate media has illustrated, really well for that matter, that they're not up to the task either.

How might this be accomplished in a democracy where free speech is supposed to be the order of the day?

Thoughts welcome,
-=FeriCyde=-

Paul Krugman and Staying the Course

If you get a chance, read Paul Krugman's latest op-ed in the New York Times.

Basically, there are people that want to call off the recovery. They're wanting the US economy to be as responsive as say, a TV remote. Sadly, it took years of failed trickle-down economics to get us here, and it's going to probably take a lot of changes to pull us out.

Paul Krugman has my respect for a multitude of reasons. His lucid insight and eloquence surrounding the economy has a strong history of accuracy to boot. This article is more of the same.
-=FeriCyde=-

A Glimmer of Hope for GM

I've blogged a lot about GM and American auto makers in general of late.

A lot of negative press, for most of that. It's only fair that I post something positive. Over the weekend, I got a chance to drive a 2010 Camaro. It was Saturday morning, and through some really strange coincidences, I have a contact at a Chevy dealer that has been keeping me posted as to when the new cars would ship.

Complicating matters, I wasn't feeling my best, so it wasn't the most pleasant time for me, but I drove out to the dealer and took a look anyway.

It was a silver V6 and automatic -- not the car I would choose, but it turns out, quite a bit to whet my appetite.

The long and short of it is this -- the 2010 Camaro is a beautiful work of art. It's everything a pony car should be and more. The V6 version lays down over 300 horsepower and everything about it was right. Drop dead gorgeous, quick, solid and the only time I've seen a GM product in real life that looked as good (in this case, better) than the prototypes I'd seen at the Cleveland auto show.

If GM can make things like this happen, pull some electric vehicles out of their past and put them back on the road and return to the creative force they were (even half of that), they can make it. This car was amazing. Of the three pony cars out now (Challenger, Mustang and Camaro), this one is the most beautiful in my humble opinion. The Challenger is a close second. I have to say that my impressions of the Challenger are similar, but that the thing is huge. It's been designed (the Challenger) to make this less obvious -- to get an idea, take a look at the size of the tires, and things begin to swing back into focus.

Bringing up the tail in terms of style, the latest Mustang is not quite there. Somethings' wrong with the back half of the car -- the prior attempt was very true to heritage, and yet somehow always kind of left me feeling like it wasn't all there from a styling perspective. The new Camaro and Challenger make it really clear what's missing.

It's nice to have choice, though, at the end of the day. Who would have expected this -- at this time, no less.

Let's raise a toast -- Here's to there being enough gas at a reasonable price in the near future to sustain some decent burn-outs ;)
-=FeriCyde=-