When users attack

Being someone who works in software design, I found this Dilbert cartoon to be a good chuckle. They never know what they want until they see it.

John V. Horst, Sr. November 1, 1928 - January 29, 2006

As I previously posted, my father has been critically ill. He died on Sunday, about 4:30 PM. It was supposed to have been my shift, but the home health aid, Patti, was helping my mom watch him.

Originally I had a fear that he would die on my shift, and I didn't want that to happen. Now, though, I kind of wish I had been there.

The whole family was there Friday, all day. I had the Thursday night (11 PM Thursday to 9 AM Friday), and I hung around because the doctor was coming to check on him. Of course, it didn't take a degree in medicine to know he was slipping further away. Sometime on Wednesday or Thursday his kidney (he had only one left) shut down--no output at all, so we knew he wouldn't last very long. The doctor thought he wouldn't live through the day, but knowing my dad, we figured it could be as much as a week. I finally went home around 6 PM on Friday, exhausted.

My mom doesn't want to see him go, but for me, he's been gone for some time. We had said our goodbyes some time ago, so neither one of us (my father or me) felt we had uncompleted business. I am glad it's over. Watching the slow death of a loved one is very hard. Working an extra 40 hours each week (with some shifts over night) is very difficult. No matter how much you would have liked to think he was going to somehow recover, you know it's not going to happen.

It was his time, finally.

Thanks to everyone who helped up through this time. I can't say enough for Patti, the home health worker who has been helping us for the past 3+ months. She is a rare individual, indeed.

Well, I need to get some sleep, now.

Which letter are you?

I got this from del.icio.us--the A to Z of Programmer Predilictions. Don't mind the typos and the occasional missing word. This won't scan very well for non-technical types, so be warned.

I looked for myself in the list, and found about 4 categories that would generally describe me. I wonder if my coworkers would find the same ones? Let's see ... in no particular order:

Belligerent Brian. I intimidate some people, but usually only the weak ones. Unfortunately, the corporate world is full of weak developers. *sigh*

Generic George. Though I am in a 12-step program to curb this tendency. I'm up to step 8. I have been accused of over-engineering things, from time to time. I suffer under XP, somewhat.

Quiet Quincy. Someone has to get it done. That's always been me, though I'm not that quiet.

X-Files Xavier. But, really only Southpark and Beavis and Butthead in-jokes. (Heheh heheh, he said "jokes". Screw you guys, I'm going home.)

I think the author might have missed some types, as well. In particular, there's:

Cynical Cyrus. This would be me. I've been doing this too damn long. There's (rarely) anything new under the sun, and most of the time, the same lame methods and techniques fail, in exactly the same ways they have failed every other time. And I know it. And I also don't hesitate to tell anyone who will listen about it, either. Strange that no one seems to be listening. Fortunately, I've almost gotten to the point where I don't bother, anymore. And that's cynicism turned to despair. Enter ...

Negative Norman. Someone who's so disaffected and burned out that he can't find anything good in anything. I must not allow this to become me. Because if it does, I may as well quit and go sell T-shirts on a beach, somewhere. Quite frankly, I really need the money.

Really Smart Ralph. Similar to Arrogant Arthur, this guy thinks he's smarter than everyone else, and has nothing to learn from anyone. Even from those who may have significantly more experience. Ralph is absolutely sure his solution is the only correct one, and his interpretation of the requirements the only valid one. He is a real orifice to work with, since you can't tell him anything. A mind is like a book; it only works when it's open.

Dense David. Maybe he isn't terribly dumb, but since he never seems to understand your explanation, he might as well be a plumber. It's obvious he's from another planet, and that English is his second language (with Java, C++, C#, etc., being his first). Oddly enough, though, his solutions always seem to be (mostly) on the mark, bringing only the organization of his brain into question. That's right, he will come up with the same solution, but have a completely different explanation as to why it's correct.

There are probably more types, but we'll leave it at that, for now.

Hmmm, I wonder if I've violated my own copyright?

Got this via Slashdot. Freaking ridiculous, if you ask me. I have copyrighted (by me, of course) material posted to my website. Free for anyone to download and read. But I'm not worried about theft or plagiarism. Nor copyright violation, either.

Of course, should the RIAA should choose to sue me over my own stuff ... that would indeed be ironic. If by "ironic", you mean "stupid".

Intelligent design vs evolution

Why anyone would think that science (i.e.: observations made in and about the Universe) and religion (i.e.: observations made in and about the Spirit) can't coexist, is beyond me. The famous mathemetician Gödel postulated, among other things, that in any sufficiently complex system there will be some statements that are true, but that are unprovable.

I interpret the above, generally, as supporting the notion that we can neither prove nor disprove the existence of a creator. Just because we can observe the Universe and postulate certain "facts", doesn't mean the whole system wasn't set up (i.e.: created) just so we could make the observations. Nor does the complexity of the obvservations prove that they couldn't have arrived by accident.

The Universe is a complicated place

It seems logical to me that the creator would not have designed and set in motion a Universe that would require his/her constant attention. A creator would have better things to do than spend eternity providing online support for his/her invention. Designed robustly enough, the system should be capable of adapting and growing on its own. Dare I say: evolving as events transpire? Indeed, the evoluting (not-a-word, I know) ability is probably one of the finest design constructs he/she invented. Put simply: you design for success, and what's the best way to ensure success but to ensure constant adaptation?

So what if we see things in the Universe that are so beautiful and elegant as to suggest that they couldn't have arrived by accident? There are any number of things with the opposite qualities. I can neither prove that the Universe was designed, nor prove that it wasn't. Science, in its never-ending search for the truth about the Universe, isn't attempting to prove the non-existence of a creator, as this assertion is patently unprovable. The Universe is both more complex and more strange than we are capable of imagining it to be. By the same logic, religion isn't able to prove that a creator exists. Religious folk will argue that religion isn't about logic or proof, but about faith. They don't have to prove existence because they believe he/she exists. Fair enough. I think that's true. (Pun not intended.)

If the creator exists, and all of this was designed, then I am in awe. But in the meantime, let's not invalidate science's search for observable truth, nor invalidate religion's search for spirtual truth. Both paths are following after the creator. Both paths lead to truth. And more importantly, I believe both paths lead to the same truth.

I wanna start a new blog called "Snack Hamster"!

Enough seriousness. I think "Snack Hamster" is a cool name! Stupid, but just left field enough to be web-funny.

Therefore, I declare this name in the name of ... dipsh*t blog names everywhere. Beats "Dead Body Guy", any day, I think.

And here it is! Snack Hamster awaits you. Yum.

RIAA negotiates DRM with XM and other digital radio operators

OK. I have to comment on this.

First off, I am an XM Radio subscriber. I pay about $10 per month for the privilege of listening to high fidelity music without the bother of commercials.

I don't want the cost of my subscription to increase. It's expensive enough, though I really enjoy not having to listen to DJs blather on about thus and such. XM Radio has DJs, but they talk about the music, and not about news, sports, or sponsors.

Recording songs off the satellite isn't the same thing as taping songs off LPs or FM radio. The fidelity is vastly different. A tape just wasn't going to be as good as the original. At a decent bitrate, MP3 quality can be indistinguishable from the original CD. XM Radio, likewise, is of a similar quality: very good. You really could supplant your purchase of the CD with a timely rip off the satellite.

But, the real question is: does this casual recording harm or benefit the music biz? Enthusiasts, just as moi, believe it ultimately improves the profits of big companies. I will buy the CDs if I like the band, because I want the media. If someone gives me some pirated MP3s, I will listen to them, and I may or may not buy that particular album, but if I like the band (and probably 60% of the time I do not), I will buy their other albums on CD. In the case of a band I had not previously known about, that counts as a win for the music industry. They get incremental sales that they wouldn't have gotten any other way. If I don't like the music, then the whole thing is a wash: nothing lost, nothing gained.

Usually I don't buy music one song at a time. I'm from a different generation, one that thinks of albums as indivisible collections of art, and prefers to own the whole thing. I guess that means I don't listen to very much pop music, because pop is all about the hits. That's fine. But, would I record individual songs off XM Radio, if I could?

The short answer is, probably. Some of the music I want probably isn't available at your neighborhood MP3 source. But, if the songs were available and cheap enough, I would be willing to "buy" them. Just don't insult me with questionable quality. To my ears, 128K bits isn't good enough. I can hear the difference, and I insist on ripping all my CDs at 192K bits. And even that isn't as good as the CD. So, if I want the right level of quality, I would probably record my own songs.

But, I would still categorize this along with the occasional un-owned MP3. I would never subsist on singles, alone. I would always buy albums, because that's how I want to acquire (and enjoy) my music.

Many music fans listen only to hit singles. Many pop albums are mostly trash, so, how can you blame them? There will never be a way to eliminate the casual trading of songs between users, unless you outlaw all home recording. Perhaps that's what the industry biggies want, but because I do most of my listening at work or while I'm at my computer at home, the net effect would be to throw a wet blanket on my (and many others') listening behavior. I will never return to shuffling CDs, again--I would simply not buy. I think there are enough just like me that will keep home recording going. Give a geek a challenge, and they will always please you with the clever result. Throw up a barrier, and we'll just come up with another way of recording our music, that you can't control.

I think it's unconscionable for an industry to make a common practice of suing its customers as a way to stay in business. Stupid and counter-productive, too. The movie studios are having a hard time these days because of 1) crappy movies, 2) a crappy theater experience (shabby seats, that piss smell, commercials before the movice, and $20 for refreshments), and $10+ for movie tickets. I have to pay $10 just to be shown commercials?!? Give me a break. What kind of fool do you take me for? This is not a rant about movies, but it shows that if you take your audience for granted, and abuse them enough, they will go elsewhere. The movie industry is sucking wind. I'd rather rent the movie and see it at home than go through an expensive, uncomfortable ordeal just to have it on the big screen. My point? If they're not careful, the music industry will experience the same thing.

I am in favor of allowing music fans fair use of the media. That's the historical perspective, and that's what we (the paying customers) want. We will ultimately get our way.

However, it's also perfectly OK to sell songs online. There should be more of it, not less. But price is a sensitive point. $1 may be too little for some songs, but too much for most others. Make the price low enough and you will eliminate the barriers, especially if you can offer something of a value-added nature: better quality plus other goodies. How about embedding the lyrics in most commercially made MP3s? How about adding other things, such as album art and/or band pics? Cheap and easy to put together--and not something that most 14 year olds can do themselves. Certainly, not as well.

There are ways for big companies to make money in the digital world, but the old ways aren't working very well, and changes will have to be made. Smashing the users in the mouth, though, aren't the kinds of changes that will make things better, in the long run. Just ask your neighborhood movie producer.

Thanks for reading.

$1,000,000 home page now worth $750,000

Apparently the fool who purchased the last few pixels (via auction on eBay, no less!) on the so-called "Million Dollar Homepage" is suing the owner of the website (a poor fool) for breach of contract, because some evil hackers executed a DOS (denial-of-service) attack against the $1MHP and took the site offline for about a week. The hackers were blackmailing the website owner and took the site down in retaliation (but that's another story, for another time).

What's wrong with this situation? I can think of serveral things:

1. Since the owner of the website isn't an ISP, etc., writing any kind of performance guarantees into a contract with a pixel-holder, without first having the exact same kind of performance guarantees from the ISP is just stupid. It's why you should hire a good attorney before you consort with assholes.
2. Consorting with assholes. But it's inevitable. The world is run by money-grubbing pricks (excuse the strong language, but if it fits ...) who will sue your socks off at the drop of a hat. Or an Internet connection, as the case may be.
   
3. Thinking you could actually make a million with something as cheesy as the $1MHP. I hope the guy escrowed some of the funds for just this type of occurrance.
   
4. Thinking that you, as a pixel-holder on the $1MHP, are going really to get something of demonstrable value out of it. C'mon, get real. It's gonna only be popular and trafficked for something like ... 15 minutes, which may be the true source of the pixel-holder's beef: he knows he's only going to get value while the $1MHP is web-hot. The clock is ticking, and he ain't gettin' no traffic.
5. Just the very idea that this is something to be taken seriously. Seriously, this rates somewhere between the pets.com sock puppet and Jessica Simpson's official home page. No offense to the puppet, either. He has someone's hand up his ass.
   

The man that's suing the $1MHP needs to be careful. If he pushes too hard, the whole thing simply collapses and disappears. No hits, no value. If he's really displeased, he should simply ask for his money back and go buy his advertising elsewhere. If I were part of the many other pixel-space holders, I would be urging the latest member of the club to chill out, relax, and just let the suit drop. They have the publicity (viz: the new article), so now they should all just go along for the ride.

It will all be over, soon enough.

As if I was wondering

The Top 10 Reasons Why Nobody Reads Your Blog. Actually, I consider myself lucky that anyone reads this. My plan of improvement, though, is simple:

1. Write more/more often
   
2. Have something to say (the hard part!)
   
3. Say it well
4. Be funny when it's called for
5. Be serious when it's called for
6. Be honest

We'll see how it works.

Digital Television, Part III: Device pr0n!

Third and final Engadget entry, just for completeness.

"Make You Happy Tonight"

Found this by way of Scobleizer. I have gotten in trouble for being at the computer too long, but not for playing games.

This gets at least 4 chuckles out of a possible 5.

I guess if you can't afford the real thing

... You buy the Ferrari® MP3 player, instead.



Lame. Indeed. Lame.

Digital TV facts, part II

As promised, the second part of Engadget's assessment of the state of digital TV.

It's both scary and very sad

My friend Guy, who blogged the text of Al Gore's recent speech, knows my position with respect to George W. Bush. I think he's an idiot, and that America deserves someone smarter as president.

Of course, now I learn he's a dangerous idiot. Dangerous because he's listening to the counsel of evil men and women who are not idiots, and who do not have the best interests of America or the American people at heart. And I am worried.

This is not about empty, squishy platitudes. We are at war with those who have vowed to destroy us, but the very last thing we need is to lower ourselves to the level of our attackers--thus proving we are no better! We absolutely must take the high road. Whatever the cost.

Freedom is expensive. It has taken the lives of countless Americans since people in this land began calling themselves Americans. Sadly, it will take more, but we must believe it's worth it. Freedom is our best and most valuable asset; it's what everyone in the world looks up to. Once we back away from that, no matter how secure we think we are, we've lost.

Everything you wanted to know about digital TV

... And more. I have to admit that I learned a few things, and I pride myself on my geek status, too. Here's the link to Engadget, and their article: "Digital Television, Part 1: Making Sense of it all".

This is useful information for everyone, and not just the geeks (and geek wannabes) out there in the wild & wooly. So, in the spirit of good public service, I pass this along and in some small, insignificant way, improve the world.

You're welcome.

Concept Camaro looks like a Hot Wheels car!

All right, this is incredibly off-topic (as if there was a topic), but the 2009 Chevrolet Camaro concept car looks to me like a case of life imitating art. Er, well, as long as 'life' includes the 2009 Camaro, and 'art' your average Hot Wheels car.



Whatever.

Are teachers who sleep with boys getting off?

*Ahem* Here's the link to the Slate article with the above (unintentionally?) humorous title.

Who knew?

Seems this particular fractal image:



is quite popular among the pre-18 female blogger set. They use it as their blog background, so I'm getting lots of hits from it.

Lots of hits.

So, look for some of these images to be updated with watermarks mentioning my web site, where surfers may find other interesting images. Dare I say it? I might actually be "cool"?

Web site updates

Today I'm making updates to many pages on my web site. In order that my house design pages actually do come up when one searches for "house designs", I am making sure that that key phrase is included on every page. I am also making sure that every image has an alt tag that also mentions "house design" in it. This should improve recognition on Google Images (as well as on Google proper).

When I get the chance, I plan to update all my fractal images with watermarks identifying the copyright holder (RLA Enterprises) and also mentioning where one might find other interesting fractals (RLAEnterprises.net).

Of chickens and road-crossings

We present, for your approval, Why Did The Chicken Cross The Road?

Actually, the chicken stood still, and the road moved under it.

Why the terrorists will never win

This article came from Engadget: Wal-Mart employees expose terror cell's bulk phone purchase

"The price of freedom is eternal vigilence."
-- Thomas Jefferson

Or Wal-Mart, as the case may be.

And now for something completely different ...

Boing Boing has an article: "Satanist runs for governor in Minnesota"

Ya gotta just love it.

Whatta ya wanna bet he's also a gamer, too? (I shall impale you with my +2 sword of The Beast! +17 to hit ... I roll a 15 ... I hit armor class 32.) All but the most powerful shall be destroyed!

Outside Consulting Services Considered Harmful

I read this entry on my good friend Guy's blog today, The Threat to India's High-Tech Sector. The threat of Trojan Horse "timebombs" in the code that US corporations are contracting, IMHO, is tremendous, and should scare the socks off every IT manager who thinks they're getting a good deal by having their project developed "cheaply" by an off-shore consulting firm. Any consulting firm, for that matter.

Personally, I am of the strong opinion that mission-critical, competitive advantage software (the kind that my company is having me develop right now) should never be out-sourced to non-employees. Ever. For any reason. Whatsoever. It's hard enough to be sure that your employees have the company's best interests at heart, but I'd say the chances are 1000% better than with some over-worked (hi Dave!) and money-motivated outside contractor. That person only wants to 1) get the damn thing done, and 2) get paid for it. Once paid, they're "outta here".

Bad pizza. Very bad pizza.

As an employee of the company, I know I'm going to be around later. Either I will get the credit, or I will be in the line of fire to get the blame. Either outcome motivates me to do the best job possible, and quite frankly, I'd much rather get the credit. F*cking up only means I get to update my resume and begin looking for a new job. Nah. I'd rather not.

The contractor isn't worried that someone will vilify him later. So what? The client will still hire his company for more work, probably still hire him for more work, so he doesn't suffer the same consequences. In the case of off-shore contracting, the problem is worse, of course.

Not only do the developers not have the client's best interests in mind, they've never even met anyone from the client company, and may not know anything (beyond the most rudimentary things) about the company. So, just how close will the software match the customer's requirements? From my experience, little to none. During development, most of what you must apply as "requirements" isn't written down. But, that's just one problem.

Once the code is delivered, the customer simply runs some tests and then puts it in production. I would be very surprised if they took the code and submitted it to a thorough code review, especially if we're talking thousands of lines of code. As a result, there could be anything in the code. Anything at all. The Marcus J. Ranum article said it quite well, though:

"I don't know. We don't know. In fact, we can't know - if we were to try to audit all those jillions of lines of code we're buying from India, we'd need so many talented programmers it'd be cheaper to write it ourselves in the first place."

But wait, there's more! If the code is run in an untrusted environment with no access to outside resources, then the exposure for information theft (read that as: Very Bad) is small. But, I know how these things are often done. In the Microsoft DNA environment that our company used to use, all components ran as system administrators, which means that the code is run trusted. Then, if the proper firewalls aren't in place, etc., etc. ... well, you've just given the keys to the kingdom to a piece of software written by someone whose political views you don't have a good handle on.

This post isn't a treatise on this subject. These are just a couple of things that I can think of that might be wrong with the move toward out-sourced development. Personally, I'm not worried about my job, at all. I think I can compete with bozos from ... Someplaceistan ... quite well. Some US developers should be worried, though, because if they aren't on their toes and ready to move quickly, they could get run over in the stampede. But, I'm not naming names, or anything.

Zoe Radio

Boing Boing posted an entry about a 15-year old California girl, Zoe, who has her own online radio show on Little Radio. The story is that she has amazing tastes in music, and listeners appreciate the breadth and variety of what she plays.

So, I took a listen, being one embroiled in a strong, lifetime love-affair with music. Here's my report.

Zoe is a pretty typical kid. Her on-air talk is about what you would expect. The music she chooses is very fresh, and for that reason alone it's worth listening. Otherwise, she is a kid and an amateur DJ. But of course, who really would expect otherwise? What most of her newer listeners are asking for are playlists of the bands, albums, and songs so they can go to Amazon (it was specifically mentioned) and check out these bands, themselves. When (and if) Zoe and her dad Ian do this, that will certainly be worth checking in with her, occasionally.

Check it out, if you want some education on the really hopeful state of new music. I, for one, am relieved, because it means rock is alive and well, and continuing to grow and change. Growth and change are both essential to all of us, if we want to stay young.

And I do.

While on the subject of innovation ...

Guy Kawasaki (fascinating blog, BTW) had this to say on the Art of Innovation. I especially like his comments:

"Indeed, the more innovative, the more barriers the status quo will erect in your way."

"Don't let the bozos grind you down."

My takeaway is that being innovative is hard in the same way that pioneers got arrows in the back, so I suppose I need to decide if it's worth it, or not. You wanna lead, or do you wanna smell the other guy's ass?

Oh, and I also liked the “Let a hundred flowers blossom” notion. And along that line of reasoning, I had considered posting something about the bloggers who are linking to my fractal images, and thus driving my web site stats through the roof. (Pesky users! What a bother!) Perhaps, instead of being proprietary and parochial, I should simply do more fractals so that even more users will find my site, and find it interesting.

More vists are, after all, more visits.

Innovation

Where I work, the latest management buzzphrase is "Have you had an innovative idea today?" So, innovation has become the latest cool, necessary thing.

Let's think about that, a moment. "Innovation" is defined as "The creation or introduction of something new, especially a new product or a new way of producing something." (Google define:innovation if you want to see more.) The newness aspect is plain. Innovation is doing something new, or in a new way. However (and I have not found a definition that mentions it specifically), I believe inherent in any innovation is an element of risk. Doing something new or in a new way involves the risk that it won't work, or won't work in the way you intend.

Sometimes you simply cannot know beforehand whether a new idea will work. Change is never one-dimensional. The universe is not a tube where, if you push something in one place, you know exactly where something else will be pushed out. The full impact of change cannot be known without trying something out and seeing if it will be successful. And sometimes even the best-sounding ideas fall flat on their face.

At this juncture, and before I make my point, I want to mention anecdotally an experience I had at my previous employer. Back in the mid-90's they embarked on a "quality" initiative, specifically CQI. CQI is centered around manufacturing, and involves various teams identifying how they can make their processes more efficient, resulting in fewer mistakes and ultimately--better quality. But, we were a software company with a reputation for providing superior service to our customers. No one said our software was the best quality, but everyone said our service was great.

I thought that teams should be identifying their customers, and finding out what their customers thought of the quality of their output, rather than just jumping right to processes and attempting to make them more efficient. Service does not improve by mucking around with how you interact with your customer, unless you have first asked your customer what changes would make your service better. Your customer is the arbiter of quality--always.

My anecdote on "quality" ends with a blurb I saw in the company house rag some 2 years after the quality initiative was introduced. Someone asked whatever happened to the quality movement, and they replied: "The quality movement is alive and well. We saved over $8 million [in costs] last year." So, it becomes apparent that it was never about quality, but all about saving money.

So, this brings me back (if you are still reading) to my discussion of innovation.

My company is saying that we should be innovative, but just try to introduce something new! There are multiple levels of approval committees and management just waiting around to tell you why we can't do what you propose because 1) we don't know how to do it, or 2) there's a risk that your idea won't work, or 3) it costs money.

The first objection might have validity, on the face of it. After all, companies should strive to stick to what they know. Not all innovations need to be large, but even small ones probably involve something that's not been done before. "New" sort of implies something not done yet, methinks.

The second objection simply sounds ludicrous (ask me about that word, sometime!), because intuitively everyone understands that you can't predict the future with perfect precision, so innovation most definitely implies risk. So, tell me how we can innovate without involving risk?

I'll come back to #3 in a moment, but first ...

I work in IT--information technology. It used to be called data processing, but we've graduated to a higher plane in the 21st century. I develop software for a living, and I very definitely want to be highly innovative. I don't innovate simply to try something new, I innovate to solve serious business problems, and if it happens to involve doing something new, then so be it. But, in order to innovate I have to navigate up the salmon streams of our management in order to get my ideas/innovations accepted. It's been quite frustrating, indeed.

This is where I link these 2 stories together. I suspect that the current innovation initiative is only about saving money, and not about being truly innovative. Their objections to change and/or doing something new seem to suggest that they're only interested in innovations with obvious an immediate payback. That way, even if those "innovations" fail--at least they can say we saved money. But of course it isn't about that.

It doesn't take much pushback against one before one decides being innovative isn't quite worth the effort. After all, we are not but wage slaves to "the man", so innovation is really his problem solve. But yet, they are all asking us to be innovative. Since I work in software development and not software maintenance, I can hardly think of a way that I can be innovative that doesn't involve spending money as opposed to saving money. I'm always suggesting that we spend money now so we can both grow and save money, later. The only way I (acting in the role in which they hired me) can actually save money is to not do anything. That is, make no changes, develop no new software, not upset the current operating environment.

So I ponder this question, and wonder how I can innovate without creating risk or spending money. I'll let you know if I figure it out.