The sanctity of Food.

As an organism we require a thick slurry of nutrients to sustain our active lifestyle. A regular infusion of proteins, carbohydrates, sugars, salts and water to satisfy our hungers. In this age of tight schedules and taut abs such sustanance is a bother and a nuisance.

Good food takes so much time shopping and preparing and cooking and presenting. Fastfood goes right to tummies, toochies, thighs and hips.

As a culture we have turned the most elementa, intimate, sacred practice of eating into some behavior to be shunned and spurned. When we have vilified food (the preparation and eating) we have fractured the very foundation of human values. Almost every human or social process, with the possible exception of procreation or religion, originates in the hunting, gathering, cooking and consumption of food.

Why then are pantries and refrigerators barren?

Why are kitchens often the smallest room in a living space? Often smaller than the bathroom.

Why do people ritualistically partake of food in much the same way they attend church, only once a week?

Americans are afraid of the dark...

The local utility company installed new electrical service in our rural neighborhood. When all the utility poles were placed the last one ended up in the middle of our next door neighbor's front yard. High up on this last pole is an extra electrical instrument, a street light.

The utility company convinced our neighbor of the value and economy of a street light in the middle of their front yard. Accepting the promise of personal security our neighbor will push back the darkness. Employing a sodium-vapor torch our neighbor will seek to defeat the night.

The light that combats their feared darkness will spill into our yard. It will contaminate the night shade of our yard. It will pollute our night sky. It will obscure our view of the night time heavens.
-----
Fly anywhere in the continental United States and be impressed (and frightened) by the number of street lights illuminating HUGE expanses of our nightscape.

We are a nation of such riches that we can afford to buy off our fears and paranoia.

How much energy could we save as a nation if we were not afraid of the dark?

When a good GUI goes bad.

(Rant)A Graphical User Interface is supposed to provide the user with an intelligent means of navigating a given program or Operating System.

Developers have an obligation to be consistent when building a user interface. Navigation "buttons" should be layered so that they provide both full access and full egress. Just like an elevator, there should be buttons to go UP and DOWN at every floor. The only exceptions would be at the very bottom or the very top.(/Rant)

It is easy to stay up all night and be tired all day.

It is better to get up early and be tired by the end of the day.

Coming Blog Attractions

We are so rich we can drink our own water.

Should users be held responsible for the function of the program?

When a good GUI goes bad.

The sanctity of Food.

Freedom isn't free, but dumb is really dumb.

Frank Paynter may not be the originator of the idea but he has stated the case most eloquently.

Please save us from our current leaders who would use any method available to further their own agenda. Do not let the sitting government prevent the free people of this great country from exercising our right to democratically elect our leaders.

...and people look at me like I am crazy when I tell them I feel disenfranchised when it comes to politics.

Honest officer...I was just walking his dog...

You are out walking the family hound, a happy puppy. Suddenly a stranger appears and snaps his leash on to the collar of your precious pup. Your are astonished when the stranger claims that "Rover" is his dog and you should relinquish your claim immediately. Steadfast, you hold your leash. Equally staunch in his position the stranger holds his leash. The dog cannot follow two masters.

Being civilized and knowing that violence is no answer all three interested parties patiently await the arrival of the civil authorities. After taking confidential statements from the two humans the authorities are at an impasse. Each human appears to have a valid, albeit verbal, claim on the pooch. What is to be done? Impartiality rules, the family dog is remanded to the custody of the Animal Control office. The humans are encouraged to seek legal counsel and resolve the matter in court.

Ok, so this is a far-fetched story about a hypothetical circumstance and a made up family pet. What if this scenario is played out with an young child instead of a theoretical canine? Oh, I/we/she/he could tell who is the parent and who is the stranger. In this day and age of blended families it might even be possible that the stranger was in fact one of the parents.

How many days would I be willing to wait while authorities straightened out a mess like this. How many days should my child remain in the custody of the civil authorities before a determination can be made?

Joi's Slippery Slope is a persuasive argument. I however disagree with the concerns about privacy and freedom. I submit that we have completely surrendered our privacy. Any concern voiced regarding freedom or control is make-me-feel-better rhetoric. Enter into a protracted custody battle that is predicated on identity theft and possession-equals-9/10ths-of-the-law and see how much real freedom and control we actually have.

You gots to be putting us on...

Here Mister John Q. Public, stand right here between these steel guides and wait for the bright light. It will only appear to get closer. Pay no attention to the increasing rumbling noise. Now just wait for it... the sound of your govenment being here to help.

DON'T HACK!


Call me callus, unfeeling, lowlife scum. I say that hacking is wrong! All hacking is wrong! No amount of do-good rationalization will change the fact that a hacker enters (illegally) a given system. Beyond that initial infraction, any changes that a hacker makes is then an act of defacement. (Excuse me Mr. Da Vinci but I think she needs just a bit more of a smile. There, that's better.)

Hacking is wrong.

My contention is that the offending site should be boycotted, avoided, shunned. 'If thy right site offends thee, pluck it out!' to paraphrase good advice. Hacking a bad site is giving credence and support to an otherwise offensive content provider. Let the offender die of starvation. Let their business suffer from a serious case of bad judgment. Let the laws of natural selection take their inevitable toll.

We get what we want...

As a loooooooong time advocate of Linux I was recently dissappointed when I ended up putting my DVD reader into my W2K system. I was not dissappointed by the fact that my DVD reader worked perfectly* in my W2K system but rather that W2K runs my DVD player better than Linux. Now there is some subtle distinction. Please allow me to clarify, both my findings and as a result, the title of this _rant_.

Sweeping generalization to follow...

Microsoft users want music, games, video and fun. Microsoft (MS) users (IMHO) do not want system security, open standards or interoperability.

I don't dare use MS e-mail products for fear I will compromise not only my system but the systems of people that I know. I cannot use a number of MS products because the resultant file incompatibilities will prevent me from sharing the necessary information. I can however use MS products to view my favorite DVDs (The West Wing - The First Season). I can use products developed specifically for MS to view online content, I can play games that are developed specifically for the MS platform.

It is evident that the money follows those things that MS users really want. Microsoft, in response to market pressures, advances those technologies which have the highest profit margin over those technologies which do not. There is evidently little profit in security. There is little profit in interoperability if MS can keep gamers and vid-heads locked into their insecure boxes. (Irony: Locked into insecure boxes.)

Microsoft gives us what we really want. What we are really willing to pay for. Shame on us!
Evidently we are unwilling to pay for security, open standards and interoperability. Shame on us!

------------------------------------------------

* Perfectly... Try as I might I was unable to get this particular DVD reader to "play" my West Wing DVD's consistanly under linux. I took the reader out of my linux system, installed it in my W2K system and turned it on. I loaded the 3rd Party drivers and player software. Reader, player and West Wing all work perfectly. This is _NOT_ a slight against linux developers - this is an affirmation that we want Microsoft to play DVDs and we are willing to pay for same.