Smell the Irony

In West Bank attacks on churches, Palestinians used guns, firebombs and lighter fluid, leaving church doors charred and walls scorched by flames and pocked with bullet holes. Nobody was reported injured. Two Catholic churches, an Anglican one and a Greek Orthodox one were hit. A Greek Orthodox church was also attacked in Gaza City.

ABC News: Pope Stops Short of Apology to Muslims

This was in response to the Pope having quoted a 15th-century Byzantine emperor who decried the violence of Muslims. The Vatican secretary of state, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, said the pontiff sought in his university speech to condemn all religious motivation for violence, "from whatever side it may come."

The attacks were perpetrated by a group calling itself "Lions of Monotheism". Way to prove the Pope's point, morons.

Never Forget.

Five years ago, on September 11^th, 2001, the World Trade Center towers collapsed after being impacted by two hijacked airliners. On this same date, the Pentagon building was impacted by a third airliner, and similar damage to a target in our Capitol (likely, the White House) was averted by the heroic passengers of Flight 93.

This was not the result of some US government conspiracy, as is suggested by some, including the conspiracy lunatics who supplied this photo. Should you click through to read their retarded fantasies (which I invite you to do, since this sort of idiocy needs to be exposed), kindly click through to the devastating debunking available at skeptic.com

This damage was done by radical Islamic fundamentalists. They are terrorists and cowards who preferred to attack unwitting civilians to choosing legitimate military targets. They hide in mosques and schools and hospitals, and cry about human rights violations if they're discovered there. They demand rights and considerations that they would never in their most compassionate lapses grant to others. They have earned their deaths. It is our duty to deliver them.

Testing Windows Live Writer Beta.

Don't expect much from this post; it's a simple test of the Windows Live Writer program. To be perfectly honest, I like the idea of it. I'm not terribly enamoured of "web apps" (what these days are called RIAs, or "Rich Internet Apps"). I'm generally much happier with desktop apps that are capable of publishing to the web, of which this is an example. I've got a minor issue with the licensing at the moment, so I'm simply uploading an innocuous post with a picture of me staring intently at the screen.   I will say this: I like the preview capability. It's faster than Blogger, and I'll know in a moment whether it uploads correctly.

The Next Generation

I just have to pass this on, from Randy Cassingham's Jumbo Joke website: The Next Generation

A Nation of Cowards

A nation of cowards. That's us -- Americans.

The more I think about it, the more I see it's true, and the more it burns me up. Though it simmers in the back of my mind, this particular rant was touched off by a conversation on George Ou's ZDNet blog. It wasn't anything George said... as a matter of fact, he's completely right on this topic, which happens to be on energy. George wrote:

Even more importantly, our country as a whole needs to rethink its energy policy and look at the energy debate with an open mind. Patrick Moore (the founder of Green Peace) along with a few other courageous environmentalists has eloquently stated his position on clean, safe, and abundant energy.

Here George is talking about nuclear power. And as usual whenever the subject of nuclear power comes up, somebody's going to complain. I won't go over the myths and the answers because they're more than adequately addressed by Patrick Moore. And -- please -- look over the Wikipedia article on pebble-bed reactors before you offer a knee-jerk argument on the subject based on obsolete technology from 30 years ago.

But the nuclear power debate is only what set me off. It's symptomatic of something larger. We've turned into a nation of irrational alarmists, fear-mongers, and superstitious cowards. And when I say irrational, I mean it. I was among the last of the Baby Boomers. When I was growing up, not just anything was possible... everything was possible. In those days people didn't just dream of things, they did them. Jack Kennedy said, "Go to the moon!" and you didn't hear a bunch of whiners wondering if it was safe enough. Instead you saw a bunch of men with the "right stuff" go to the moon!

We threw money into the sky because it was exciting and it was bold. That money fell back to Earth as advances in food preparation and storage, medicine, communications and GPS satellites, weather prediction, orbital surveys, computers, farming... the rewards for bold action are myriad.

We dreamed of space exploration and universal cooperation. The world would be like Star Trek. IDIC. I went to work in technology before it was sexy. Back then you had to be a first-class nerd. But I chose computers because I have a built-in desire to make those dreams come true. Here is a field where -- at least in my general vicinity -- I can make things better. I can help make that world happen.

And this is what bugs me: nearly everything we dreamed of, we can do, if we want to. But everytime something comes close to fruition, people get scared. They back off. They kvetch and they moan and they complain about the things they thought were really, really cool back when the work started.

• Nuclear power, we've talked about. Clean, dirt cheap energy that leaves the environment better than you found it. Reliance on nuclear power is the single best way to slow global warming. Yet you can't say the words "nuclear power" over the sound of knocking knees. Irrational.
  
• Whenever we invest in space it rains technological benefits. Space is a dangerous place: it's not really for tourists. It's the most extreme thing you can do, ever. Yet we expect a trip to Earth orbit to be safer than a ride at the county fair. Irrational.
  
• On the Starship Enterprise you could just ask the computer, "Where's the captain?" and darned if the computer didn't know. That's good security; that's good safety; that's convenience by the bucketload. Wouldn't it be great if we could do the same with our kids? The technology exists. We could use it if it weren't blocked by people who think that the privacy of little children trumps their parents' and guardians' concerns for their safety. The same people who give more weight to their fear of the evil uses some third party might put it to than the good uses they themselves can certainly put it to. Irrational.
  
• Genetically engineered crops and beasties could feed millions. We've been actively engineering genes since before recorded history, but we've called it "breeding" up until now. Do you think those huge ears of maize or the fluffy coats on sheep are natural? Wrong. People made them. Do you think clones are new? Wrong. All identical twins throughout history have been clones, and we've always known to treat them as individuals. Yet there are people that want to mull over the "ramifications" of this technology. Irrational.

This goes on ad infinitum. Christians who have an irrational fear of science. Athiests who have an irrational fear of true religious freedoms. New Agers who have an irrational fear of rationality! And everywhere, people who are irrationally obsessed with safety. Today, nothing is "safe enough" to satisfy alarmists. George W. Bush said, "Go to the moon!" and this time there immediately came the chorus of, "what for?" and "we've done that!" and "it's too dangerous!" Just today I watched an interview with Buzz Aldrin, who noted that the Moon landing in 1969 would have been impossible if they had the attitude prevalent today. We have no concept of acceptable risk. When they built the Space Shuttle they overbuilt due to the interference of... well... everybody. Now the pendulum is swinging predictably to an absurd extreme. The next generation of NASA spacecraft will quite likely be a re-tread of the 1970s Apollo technology. Sigh. You can bet it'll be "safer" though.

What do people dream of today? Grunge, cell phone ringtones, MySpace, and video games? They want to be non-conformists, just like all their friends. They risk their lives in extreme sports because they're not allowed to risk their lives for the growth of humanity. Today's movies are full of cynical anti-heroes. What interest could I have in anti-heroes when I've met real ones?

Yet there are a handful of people out there who still have the right stuff. When SpaceShipOne won the Ansari X-prize and Richard Branson immediately announced Virgin Galactic, that was lump-in-the-throat time. Not because of the achievement. Remember, anything is possible to those who want to achieve. Not because Burt Rutan and Paul Allen trumped NASA. It was because that flight was proof that there are a few people left who understand what it is to make big dreams happen. People who aren't afraid.

Rant's over. Go dream something.

New Download: Jedi Chess

In keeping with my latest post about empowerment, here's a little bit of empowering fun. While driving home with my kids the other day, we thought it would be a good idea to write a Jedi Chess program. Since I don't like to duplicate effort, I first Googled the web to see what others had done. What I found was horribly disappointing.

I found that a little hard to believe... here it is, 30 years since filming began on Star Wars, and there's not a single "Jedi Chess" game out there? There's no "Sith Chess" either, and the only "Star Wars Chess" was a knock-off of battle chess that played under standard rules. Obviously this has to be rectified immediately! So, after 30 years of waiting in darkness, you can finally download and play Jedi Chess! (cue the appropriate fanfare, preferably written by Johnny Williams).

Since I have Zillions of Games I didn't have to do the bulk of the programming. Instead, I provided Zillions with the rules and it grokked what I wanted and plays a really good game. Actually, I've recommended Zillions of Games before, but I can't say enough good things about it. Here are the rules:

1. The game pits a standard chess army (the Jedi) against one Sith Lord and his Apprentice (the Sith). Of course the Sith take their places at the Dark Side of the board.
2. You can play as either the Jedi or the Sith.
3. The Sith Apprentice moves the same as a chess queen.
4. The Sith Lord has the moves of a chess queen PLUS a chess knight. (This is commonly called an "Amazon" among chess variants). Needless to say, he is powerful in the ways of the Force.
5. The Jedi win when both Sith are destroyed.
6. The Sith win when the Jedi Grand Master (a King) is checkmated.

For fun, and as an homage to the game's inspiration, the game uses images of the characters from Star Wars: Episode II. Of course there is the Sith Master (Darth Sidious) and his Apprentice (Count Dooku). The Jedi are as follows: Yoda as the Grand Master (King); Mace Windu as the Master (Queen); Obi-Wan Kenobi as the Adept (Bishop); Ki-Adi-Mundi as the Knight (Knight); Annikin Skywalker as the Padawan (Rook); and Clone Troopers as pawns.

The game includes an "Episode IV" variant that pits Rebels against a less powerful Sith Master who combines the moves of a chess King with a Knight. The Sith Master is Emperor Palpatine and his Apprentice is Darth Vader. The Rebels are Luke Skywalker (King); Princess Leia Organa (Queen); Han Solo (Bishop); Obi-Wan Kenobi (Knight); and Chewbacca (Rook). Rounding out the Rebel side are Droids as pawns.

Overall, the game is similar to Maharajah and the Sepoys, except that there the death of the Maharajah is a foregone conclusion, assuming that the Sepoys play carefully. The addition of an Apprentice (Queen) in Jedi Chess makes the Dark Side formidible indeed.

(Shhh...Kaaah...Shhh...Kaaah...) Now, my description is complete.


Well, the description is, but this post isn't. This is one of the examples of what you can do when you aren't constricted by your software choices. You have a need, can't find an existing solution, and with a little empowerment you have a solution in an hour or so.

Jedi Chess is free to download and use. Obviously, all images are the property of LucasFilm, but I'm calling dibs on the game rules. They're mine, and I'm granting you a non-exclusive free license for non-commercial use.

Download Jedi Chess here. It requires a licensed copy of Zillions of Games, but don't bust a gut... Zillions only costs about $25, and you get... well... zillions of games (and you can also play my implementation of Qui-Vive). It's a bargain.

Want to Get Rich? Sell to the Poor.

In today's ComputerWorld, we see this article: WinHEC: Microsoft to test pay-as-you-go PCs.

The upshot of it is that Microsoft is testing pay-as-you-go PCs for sale in underdeveloped countries. You'd buy the PC for about half price, then buy time on it using the Internet or prepaid cards, much as you do with cell phones today. The theory is that with the lower cost of entry, more poor people will have access to computing, and Microsoft will open a brand new market for expansion of their software and services.

It's a valid theory, and it may actually work. I hope it doesn't, because there are better options for the poor than to purchase their computing at a much higher cost than the rich spend.

I know. You're thinking, "How can it be a higher cost when they're charging half?" Simple. Microsoft loves to tout "Total Cost of Ownership" (TCO) and here's a place where it most certainly applies. By selling the hardware cheap, then eeking out the use of that same hardware as a pay-as-you-go service, Microsoft stands to make many times more on each computer than they would if it were sold outright. It's the same theory that allows them to sell each and every Xbox at a loss, hoping to make up the loss with the sale of games. It's a common tactic when dealing with the poor. You use a low cost of entry to slowly bleed a huge sum of money.

The vast middle class may not realize exactly how much money can be extracted from seemingly broke people, but it's lucrative to the max. Take, for example, payday advances: You're poor, you're a couple of bucks short on your electricity bill, and your power's about to be shut off. So you run down to your local paycheck advance store and you can borrow up to $300 until your next paycheck, at which point you pay back the $300, plus $45 interest. These places can legally get an APR of 1200% or more on these short-term loans. A rich person, charged similar rates by his bank, would sue for usury and win. The sad part is that, once locked into an off-sync cycle between bills and paycheck, the poor client is back for more next paycheck, and then again, and again... dumping $90 or more a month on finance charges he can't afford -- and ironically he's paying the charges because he can't afford it.

Other "low ticket" finance companies wind up with similar windfalls. Someone with money will just go out and buy a lawnmower at list price... let's call it $600. Someone without money will hop down to a finance company, pay $50/month until he's plopped down a couple of grand for the same model. Even high-ticket items. If you don't have money for a down payment, you rent a house for $1100/month and never, ever build equity. If you do have money you cough up a couple of grand, finance the rest at $700/month, and wind up owning it.

This is the way things are. The most lucrative markets cater to the poor. Do you think Wal-Mart got to be the largest company in this star system because they're servicing the Fifth Avenue crowd? Hardly. They're the richest because they sell to the poorest.

Lest you think I'm engaging in some class warfare here, I'm not. The poor need affordable products, and there are more poor than rich. No one would argue that you shouldn't sell to the poor, for cryin' out loud. But here's the part where we as a society do ourselves a disservice. The poor have been brainwashed to act on class envy... they see themselves as being entitled to those things that the rich can afford. Note that it's not that these things are attainable... it's an entitlement. Thus, every child needs a laptop, or an iPod, or a new pair of Nikes. People have been trained to not have the patience to save and "make do." They've been trained to be ashamed of anything not new. In this country people do not limit themselves to what they can afford, and they enslave themselves for life.

Is it the fault of the vendors? Not entirely, no. They saw a need and filled it. And often they look at the lowered cost of entry to justify their feelings that they have done something good for the underprivileged... that they're "giving something back," without ever stopping to consider that the long term burden on their customers is onerous. Others are just rip-offs. "Blue Hippo Funding" comes to mind. (and no, the link isn't to them, but to a story about them).

Obviously the moral of this story is that if you're poor you can't afford credit, so don't use it. But if you save and make do, you'll advance to the point where you can easily afford the credit you won't need. There are only two things that most people in the U.S. need to buy on credit... a house and a car. For everything else, there's green paper. But that's enough social ranting... let's go back and look at the Microsoft story.

Are they evil for offering the pre-paid plan? No, they're just trying to fill a need and open a market; albeit presumably without the indignity of lowering their prices in accordance with the normal laws of supply and demand. They see something that works for the telecom industry and in true Microsoft fashion, they're going to copy it and see if it works for them.

The pre-paid model works well for cell phones because the service is required for the operation of the phone, and because you can choose to moderate your use of the phone. Limit it to emergency calls and it can be an excellent deal. Let's face it, you have to buy service to use the phone. If pre-paid service lowers your cost of obtaining the phone (because the costs are absorbed by the vast majority of callers who don't limit their use) then you benefit.

Will it work as well with computers? I'm not so sure. Unlike a cell phone, a computer is normally useful even if it's not connected to the 'Net. Microsoft's plan would change that: these machines would disable themselves if the computing time is not paid for. I tend to think a user would have to be crazy to take them up on the offer when he could pop on over to the Salvation Army, get a decent used machine with Linux and OpenOffice.org (Mandriva's very good for the purpose!) for a $150 or so, and use it until it falls apart. If he wants Internet access, then it's available for less than $10/month. Together, owning a used machine and cut-rate Internet service is much, much more affordable than this open-ended rental agreement. But are people smart enough to make the comparison? Not all of them, I'm sure (just look at the folks suckered by Blue Hippo!)

I'm interested to see how this plays out.

In the meantime, if you're one of the "haves" you can feel good about being able to help someone in an underdeveloped country more effectively than Bill Gates. Just donate your obsolete computer to a non-profit organization that reconditions and recyles this equipment, such as Youth for Technology.