Illusory Follies

Today on the way back from work I stopped at the wonderful oasis of Fry’s. I was kind of stressed out from a long and not terribly rewarding week of work and I figured that for once I’d actually just buy a game.

Well, I ended up with two games! I drove home, slightly faster than usual. After some much-needed mowing in the back and dinner I figured I’d get down to installing them. But wait, the computer I intend to install them on is in pieces after I’d tried swapping some parts around. 45 minutes later it’s all assembled (I had to reattach the motherboard and everything) and booted it up. But wait, I had Ubuntu on these disks, not Vista or XP so I’ve got to install the wonderful Microsoft product before I can start. Vista installs quickly (I was actually sort of impressed. But not that much.) But wait, although the video card is detected and installed, the audio drivers aren’t. A hardware scan doesn’t even see them I power off and pop in a spare sound card that I have lying around. The audio drivers get installed and the game begins. I start with the tutorial. Patrick (who has been very patient this whole time) is interested. He especially likes when the guys I’m controlling open fire on an opposing team. Explosions, gun fire, this is great stuff. We finish up the tutorial and start the first mission. Within 30 seconds the sound card starts crackling and 10 seconds later the sound dies. I check the connectors and then check the software settings. When I try to save the software settings, the game crashes.

So, despite being home by about 7:45pm, it is now 11:45pm and I’ve barely even started playing the game since I’ve been too busy working (again). How depressing.

The worst thing is that the game felt a little confusing and difficult (I’m sure it’s not — it’s just me getting old). I’m pretty sure that Patrick understood it. If I’d let him, I’m sure he’d be on there for the rest of night.

Or maybe the worst part is that I just spent the last 10 minutes writing this blog entry. So much for crazy wild 7+ hour gaming sessions. I’m lucky if I can clean out my inbox.

I’m exhausted. Time for bed.

Hmm… well this is kind of a blow for the security departments that have been relying on this. My “work” (notice the parentheses) laptop has whole disk encryption and it’s terrible. For some reason it usually (like 4 out of 5 times) does not ask me for my password anymore (and it really does seem random) and it takes noticeably longer to do anything on the machine (which is why I barely use it and didn’t even take it with me this trip). Now it’s revealed that it apparently doesn’t even really protect anything!

So much for “corporate security”.

I’ve been looking for a multi-function (print, scan, copy, fax) printer for the last few months. I’ve been really disappointed with what I’ve found.

What I want to be able to do is the following:

• Print documents from any modern operating system across the network
• Scan documents/pictures from an auto-document feeder or a flatbed and in some way have this data end up on whatever system on the network I want
• Copy documents/pictures by standing at the printer unit itself
• Receive faxes and send faxes from anywhere on the network

I know that there are problems with some of these — specifically Scanning and Faxing. I see multiple issues with these:

1. Storage (where does the scanned or faxed document get stored physically?)
2. Notification (even if a fax is stored, how does a user know when it arrives?)
3. Configuration (the above should ideally be accomplished without configuring anything on the end-systems)

I see a solution but I’ve not found a sub $1000 printer that accomplishes it. Some of the high-end “counter-top”-sized systems (that run $10,000 and above) have something similar but are usually way overblown.

• Storage would be provided by flash memory (something as simple as 1-16GB Compact Flash card).
  • Sharing of this storage would be accomplished by using a Samba server running on an embedded Linux kernel (similar to the sort of functionality that currently exists on home routers).
  • Samba shares would be exposed to Linux, Mac, and Windows systems by using something like Avahi (or whatever the Linux version of ZeroConf is that works best at the time). Bonjour could be used on the client end if you’re running Apple to easily see these auto-configured shares but it would have to be installed specially on Windows clients.
• Notification could be accomplished via email. If a simple SMTP setup is configured once on the printer unit itself, it could automatically route emails to a specific user, multiple users, or different groups depending on the fax number used or other variables. There are many other alternatives using things like the XMPP or even SMS for notification.
• Configuration — as mentioned this would work like magic on a Mac and slightly less magically (and unfortunately much less beautifully) on a Windows PC. Any system on the network could access recently scanned or faxed documents or perhaps be only restricted by a username/password (heck — even tie it into an LDAP server if you’ve get centralized directory services). Basically, this largely gets rid of the need for client software other than just the printer driver itself. In reality, I’m not clear why we even need a specialized print driver when a web interface (again, hosted on the device) could likely provide any custom features (software-based maintenance, looking at the queue, etc.)

So why isn’t it out there?

There’s always so much to do. Every task that is completed falls into the category of “repeating event” that will simply have to be performed again as entropy sets in (cleaning, cooking, personal hygiene — such as it is, etc.) or “nice try” which was simply an imperfect and increasingly simplistic appearing attempt at a solution. To some extent you’re stuck with the repeating events and must simply hurry and do them well enough to at least stay in place like the Red Queen in Alice Through the Looking Glass. For everything else, there’s a sense of struggle to churn out something that’s really superior. You want the best and you constantly strive for it. But you make imperfect relationships, imperfect software applications, imperfect decisions. As time goes by you can review (if you’re depressed) the imperfections that trail behind you. The farther away ones are usually laughable, considering that at one time that was your best shot. The closer ones still seem reasonable but somewhat lacking. But of course as time goes by and they recede into the past as well you’ll start to chuckle at them too.

So are things really getting better? Is the stress of “getting better” actually creating better results? The problem seems to be that the perception of your abilities on a continuum slides backwards at the same rate at which progress occurs.  The more you learn and grow and “better yourself” the more you realize that you had previously overrated your knowledge, experience, and skills.

I don’t think this means that we shouldn’t try. But we should try to keep in mind that perfection is unattainable (here on Terra Firma at least) and if we’re humbled by looking at our mistakes from 1 or 5 or 10 years ago, then consider that 1 or 5 or 10 years from now we’ll likely be just as humbled looking back to what we’re doing or thinking or speaking (or writing in a blog) right now.

I know this isn’t much of an “essay” but it made for a cutesy title. I’m sure I’ll think better of the idea later.

There have been a few Slashdot submissions here and here. They’re concerned with an article published by two professors from NYU that assert that Java (and similar high-level languages) are damaging to teach as the “first language” of a Computer Science education. Since I wasn’t a real CS major, I’m perhaps a little outside of this discussion. However, I cut my teeth on C/C++ at school before moving on to the high-level languages (really just .NET and some very high-level languages like Ruby and Python).

I tend to agree with the conclusions. It’s not that there’s no place for Java. It’s just that without the fundamentals of pointers, memory management, and basic understanding of the construction of complex data structures which are just handed to you with Java or .NET, it’s very difficult to fully comprehend what you’re doing

I had a very good professor that taught algorithms and data structures at school and although at the time, the experience was painful, I’m sure it has helped immensely. Despite my affection for things like Ruby on Rails which is extremely high level, I’m annoyed sometimes because of the indeterminacy of functions and the vagueness of the specifications. When you write a language that can do powerful things in one line of code, you’re taking a lot of shortcuts and it can be surprising when a function returns something very unlike what you expected do the complexity of the underlying code. Basically, you ignore things like sorting algorithms entirely in favor of the “built-in” sort routine. How does it work? Well, you can dig it up in the code, but most people will simply use it and assume that it’s the fastest for all of their needs. What happens is that writing code becomes an assembling of pre-built components. It reminds me of “building” Ikea furniture. Granted it takes a certain amount of handiness to put together your new desk but you’re not gaining skills that you can use to build anything yourself without first being handed the pre-built pieces.

I tend to think of myself as primarily a Software Engineer. I’m not just a programmer because I do a lot more than write code. But I’m also not much of a Computer Scientist because I spend very little time actually attempting to improve upon techniques and mechanics of processing information. These definitions are a little vague, but I feel that Software Engineering is more what I do because I apply creativity to the process. I think one can be a Computer Scientist and a Software Engineer but I don’t think my work normally falls into both categories. I’ve always found the role of a traditional Architect to be similar to Software Engineering. It’s an application of creativity (design, color, texture, material, etc.) to a field of science (physics) that results in [hopefully] useful buildings. There are some “cutting edge” Architects that attempt new and innovative projects but most Architects are working with existing ideas and applying them creatively.

I’ve heard that Frank Lloyd Wright’s buildings although amazing in appearance and remarkable in their artistic qualities are often problematic in simple ways. Flooding basements, leaking roofs, etc. were the result of a poor implementation of a great and artistic idea. It’s not enough to be artistic and creative; a good system like a good building works and functions as it should in addition to its aesthetic qualities (which make it unique).

I’ve always seen this distinction between implementation-focused approaches and theory-focused approaches. Implementation is desirable for the production of new applications and system but will always be held back by advances in theory. It seems that Computer Science has largely lost its way in North American schools by focusing too much on implementation without teaching theory. Programmers are cheap. It doesn’t take a lot of brains to assembly code from pre-built components and creativity often is the only difference between a good programmer and a mediocre or poor programmer. Without new advances in theory, applications and systems will simply have to stand on their desirability of implementation (i.e. how easy is to use?). New ideas must be infused into the process for real advances to be made.

The use of so-called AJAX seems an interesting example. The ability to use things like the XMLHttpRequest object were available for quite some time before companies like Google began using it to do amazing things. This is entirely focused on implementation. Web 2.0 applications (whose primary distinction seems to be AJAX technology) are an innovation in implementation only. Many “hard-core” programmers find the terribly sloppy and inefficient results that often result less than satisfying. It does cool things but isn’t there a Better Way? I use AJAX quite a bit these days and it’s handy. However, I have only a bare understanding of how it works and what might be a better design. I don’t tend to concern myself with the next evolution of the Internet– I focus on building things that work with the technologies that now exist. But AJAX really isn’t a huge advance — in fact its “magic” often results in massive security holes, odd and unpredictable behavior, and hugely increased server overhead.

At the same time, a Software Engineer who truly understands the science of the code that he writes is likely to make far fewer mistakes and write much more efficient code. Even without much creativity, a programmer who can optimize code is a desirable catch for any software company. I think that everyone should understand the underlying details of code even if some end up focusing on the creative, implementation focused approach or the theoretically, algorithmic approach.

I mentioned security in regards to AJAX and this seems important. It’s well and good to provide applications that do the same things in easier ways but without a strong cadre of Computer Scientists, developing faster, more secure, and more reliable ways of doing business, we end up with applications that are never properly tested (it’s difficult to test code that just does magical things!) and never adequately secured.

A little rambling of a post — hopefully I’ve managed to convey something. Your comments welcome.

I’m not a big fan of government (see Ron Paul posts below). I’m also sick and tired of the police state. Today on my way to work I was pulled over for using the HOV lane. Foolishly, instead of letting the officer write the ticket and getting it dismissed (it was before 5:00am and the HOV lane was open to all traffic) I pointed it out. He paused, looked annoyed and told me that I was speeding at 72 miles per hour ALSO. This is a little silly because I always cruise at 68-69. Yes, it’s speeding and still technically ticketable but I’ve found that it’s the speed that everyone cruises on that stretch of road. I’m very consistent with my speed and always use cruise control. If he had given me a ticket for 68 or 69 I would have grumblingly accepted it.

Anyway, I told the officer this but he ignored me and told me to “have a good night”. As I tried to decide whether I should tell him it’s morning or hand him a Ron Paul flyer (I had a bunch on the front seat) I realized that he had already scurried back to his car. A little vexed, I continued to drive to work. I was annoyed but figured I’d live with it.

Upon arriving at work, I realized that the ticket I had received said that I had committed a traffic offense on “N/B I-5 at S. 200th”. This is plain silliness. I never take I-5 to work (I use the Valley Highway and then take I-405 around Seattle). He had neatly signed the area that read “I certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of Washington that I have issued this on the date and at the location above.”. Ironically, the form was automated (actually printed in his car) and I think the only fields that he had to manually enter are the citations themselves and the location. My only conclusion is that the officer was delusional. Everything fits.

I think I’ll take a softer approach at the hearing but since I clearly didn’t speed on I-5 on January 7 at 4:49am I think I have a good case. We’ll see what the courts say.

Update: By the way, because I know I’m “near the edge” on the speeding thing, I think I’m going to make the assumption that the new, super-secret, real speed limit of the Valley Highway and I-405 is 65 instead of 70. I don’t relish more run-ins. These guys have tasers and they’re not afraid to use ‘em!

It’s 2008 and about time I say! I have high hopes for this year. Having resolved to not make resolutions I don’t intend to carry through with (keep up with the double negatives there) I simply intend to continue to improve in every way possible this year. If I gained 10 lbs this last year, I bet I can double it this year! Wish me luck!

While it’s fresh in my mind, I would like to mention that the word gift as a verb meaning to give as a gift is irritating. I’m a bit of a stickler for proper English, while realizing that of course languages do evolve. I also don’t mind the use of new words for fun or for poetic/literary purposes. Obviously if the word gift was never used as a verb it could be a rather powerful bit of poetry that chose to use it as such. But what bothers me is the common use (and it really is getting common just in the last few months it seems) of gift as a verb. What irks me is that perfectly good words already exist that mean the same thing. Most often the verb give works well. When it doesn’t, the words endow or bestow seem appropriate (maybe they feel a little too old-fashioned). I find it commonly used in church circles, especially in reference to what I think should be called making a donation, tithing, or giving.

Regifting is commonly used and makes good sense as a new word in my opinion. It has a highly specific meaning and purpose and doesn’t replace an existing verb. Perhaps the recent increase in usage of gift as a verb is as a back-formation of regift.

I think also that one of the reasons I reject this verb so much is that it’s very pretentious. It’s redundant to say that I’m “gifting my son a present for Christmas”. Of course it’s a gift if it’s for Christmas! Well, what if I am “gifting a tool to my neighbor”. If you use the common verb “giving a tool to my neighbor” it means something slightly different. I may simply be handing it to him and expecting him to return it later. So you could argue that the use of gifting in this second example is in fact providing clarification to the verb give by showing clearly that it is a gift. But what’s the real difference? I see it as a weasely way of drawing attention to your act of generosity. It’s similar to give but just different enough that people notice it. For example, saying that “Mr. X gave $10,000 to the church” is not really different than “Mr. X gifted $10,000 to the church” except it really does sound like he was somehow more generous in the second phrase. Of course our fictional Mr. X isn’t going to ask for the money back either way but with the second form it’s rubbing it in.

When I was a kid, I remember using the phrase “for keeps” and tacking it to the end of statements such as “I’ll give you my firetruck” (I was more of a police car guy). I would feel absurd saying, “I’ll gift you my firetruck” and I have the hardest time imagining this ever becoming regular, non-pretentious English speech. As I’m writing this, I’m feeling more and more that this is really about culture, not grammar. If I randomly present someone with something, it’s proper in Western culture to say something like “Here, you can have this angled, cordless DeWalt nail gun. Go ahead and keep it when you’re done with it.” It’s rather immature to say “I’m giving you a gift — this angled, cordless DeWalt nail gun”. You don’t call gifts “gifts” just like you don’t call your own generosity “generosity”. If it’s Christmas or a birthday where a gift is expected, then it’s redundant to gift rather than just give. It creates far too much ambiguity between the phrases “gifting Ted a present for his birthday” and “giving Ted a present for his birthday”. I don’t see a clear difference except now the presence or use of the first phrase creates odd connotations in the second. Maybe Ted has to let me borrow his present now.

So, in summary, it’s bad. I encourage one and all to pretend to be confused whenever you hear this word used as a verb. “Do you mean give?” is a good response.

And if I do get a DeWalt nail gun I’m not gifting it to anyone!

I just moved all my archived email going back to 1998 (when I really first started saving emails) into my Gmail account. There are probably two standard ways of responding to this:

1) Cool

2) Oh knows! Google can read all your private emails now!

I happen to be one of those people that actually take private property rights seriously and am concerned about privacy laws and so on. However, in this circumstance to those who hate the idea of storing email on Google’s servers I can only respond by saying that I:

1) …Have nothing that’s too “secret” in my email. It’s mostly boring stuff to others and interesting because it documents aspects of my life which flood me with memories that go way beyond the words and paragraphs of the emails themselves. I’m sure there are things in my emails that would be embarrassing if they were revealed but I should be able to live up to the mistakes I’ve made and the bad things I’ve said and been party to.

2) …Realize that if the Feds want my email, I think they’ll find a way to get it. I don’t appreciate their nosiness but I don’t think that Google is going to let Joe Shmoe into my email account or simply offer my email records to the Feds. I could be wrong, but then again, I could accidentally lose a hard drive that had a copy of the same emails and run into the same problem.

3) …Think that instead of the common response of “don’t let anyone online know anything about you”, that I should attempt to embrace (ahh, the warmth) the future of broad information sharing with the full realization that everything that’s out there including my blog, my resume, my family photos, my emails, my forums entries, etc. are potentially available for exploitation. What does this mean? It means that if you have secrets, stop recording them! If you must record them, encrypt them using a non-trivial encryption method and at some level, protect it with information that is (again) NOT RECORDED anywhere but in your brain.

The reason I make point 3 is that so many people I know are totally paranoid about the Internet and the potential for identify theft and other things. However, they don’t live their life day-to-day in the knowledge that much of their information is in fact still leaking out and becoming available (dumpster diving, data theft and loss at financial companies, disgruntled — heck, even gruntled employees stealing information). If it’s leaking anyway and we must (or at least MOST of us must) rely on things like imperfect financial institutions and garbage companies then it’s silly to pretend that you’re protected. Instead, I think the better approach is to be aware that in the “digital age” information is incredibly easy to collect, extract, and decrypt. Put price tags on information (like your bank passwords) and be aware of policies that your bank has with regards to “insuring” you against loss should your account be compromised. Stop thinking it won’t happen but start thinking about ways that it CAN happen and your life can still go on. People put far too much faith in things like SSL (for secure online transactions). Don’t think that it can’t be broken or that the NSA doesn’t have a dedicated real-time SSL decryption method for something like that. Never believe it when people tell you that something is “unhackable”.

I’ve heard people tell me about how posting pictures of your kids on the Internet could result in them being Photoshop’ed by child pornographers. I don’t really know how to respond to this… It just seems a little silly. Of course they could — but why does this matter to me? For that matter, how would I find out…??!? There’s always a risk of having people find your personal information (like your address) but I just don’t understand the obsession about trying to hide it. It’s available! It’s out there already! If you have a secret that no one else knows (at all) then maybe you should keep it “off the grid”. But for things like your name, address, email, phone, etc. live with the realization that it’s not private anymore. If you want it to be private, prepare to not use them for anything.

If you need anonymity, there are certainly some good ways of covering your tracks. However, the difficulty in doing this even one time is high — I think it’s likely impossible to do this routinely and still effectively communicate. If you’re reading this post, you’ve left some trace of your presence. Yes, you might be using a proxy, but you left a trace at the proxy also. If you’ve accessed it via a proxy from a coffee shop,well, you’ve left a trace on the security camera there. It never really provides total anonymity — it just makes it difficult and expensive to find you. Don’t get me wrong, I think it’s excellent that people develop attempts at anonymity on the Internet (like Tor) but it’s not providing TOTAL anonymity any more than a password will ever provide TOTAL security. If all your doing is attempting to stop marketers from bombarding you with ads or targeted marketing, then great. I do the same (often, but not always).

So, that all said, I guess my philosophy could be summed up by saying that I’d rather wait up for trouble, ready to deal with it than fall asleep thinking that I’m safe. If it’s worth securing, realize that you’ll have to fight hard to keep it secure and that trivial things like emails are probably not worth the effort.

I just found the following in a local church’s bulletin for the prayer of confession:

God of the future, You are coming in power to bring all nations under Your rule. We confess that we have not expected Your kingdom, for we live casual lives, ignoring Your promised judgment. We accept lies as truth, exploit neighbors, abuse the earth, and refuse Your justice and peace. In Your mercy, forgive us. Grant us wisdom to welcome Your way, and to seek things that will endure when Christ comes to judge the world. Amen.

And now, from another church that will remain nameless.

Almighty and all holy Father; we confess ourselves unworthy of Your unspeakable Gift. We have not loved You as we ought; nor have we always been loving to one another; kindhearted, forgiving one another; even as You, for Christ’s sake, have forgiven us. We have lived in selfishness and worldly pride, and the good gifts You have bestowed upon us, we have not used to relieve the burdens of others. Pardon and blot out our offenses, we beg You. O merciful Father, who in compassion for Your sinful children did send Your Son Jesus Christ to be the Saviour of the world: Grant us grace to feel and to lament our share in the evil which made it needful for Him to suffer and to die for our salvation. Help us by self-denial, prayer, and meditation to prepare our hearts for deeper penitence and a better life. And give us a true longing to be free from sin, through the deliverance wrought by Jesus Christ our only Redeemer. Amen.

One mentions redemption and the other doesn’t. It’s very weird to me. The first excerpt is a little mystical as to why we bother to obey and why what we’ve done is wrong (other than it’s not part of His “way”). It seems that the author(s) of the first prayer seems to think that we should be on the winning side when Christ comes again. The second seems personal — a real offense has taken place, a real sacrifice to appease the wrong has been offered, and a real act of reconciliation has been brokered.

I’m obviously extremely biased to the second, but I do think that the above shows how the mainstream church in America has become “drained of its blood”. It’s not that it’s wrong, but just incomplete. Could moves like this, be one of the reasons that the mainstream church is falling in membership and attendance, and lacking purpose? The odd thing about all this is that it probably was designed to make things more palatable to visitors. But really what it’s doing is watering-down the Christian faith so much that a Buddhist could jump right in and participate without changing any of his beliefs. When something lacks a unique identity, no one will be interested in any depth or for any length of time.