Politics & Law - Aldoblog

Cancel Your Friendster Account

Well, OK, I won’t tell you what to do, but I’ll tell you what I just did: I cancelled my Friendster account (Friendster is a social networking company), because they fired an employee for blogging (participating in social networks).

Well, OK, I won’t tell you what to do, but I’ll tell you what I just did: I cancelled my Friendster account (Friendster is a social networking company), because they fired an employee for blogging (participating in social networks).

There’s been some coverage of the issue on weblogs and in more mainstream media

Frankly, I wasn’t using my Friendster account anyway; my LinkedIn account is more useful, and my Orkut account is more interesting. Friendter was trapped in-between being useful and being fun, which meant it was pretty useless. So cancelling my account to send a (tiny) message seemed like a reasonable thing to do.

After all, I have this blog, and someday I might be working 9-5 again…

Nighttime Excitement

Mom, don’t read this post. Seriously.

We just had a shooting on our block, directly across the street from our house. Both Rochelle and I were already awake, me at the computer, she in bed reading. Six to eight shots, at first I thought it was firecrackers. And then it was done. Well, the shooting part. The drama afterwards is still going on, an hour later.

Our neighbor, who is a bartender, had just come home and was out walking his dog. He was 10 feet from the guy who got shot. One other victim looked only lightly hurt, probably he was just in the way. But the other guy…dunno if he’s going to make it. Even across the street, we could see his bleeding…

I suppose we’ll hear more about it tomorrow. Rochelle commented that maybe this was a sign that we should go to the Mayor’s District 5 town meeting that is tonight (since it’s early Thursday as I write this)…

Foie Gras Madness

Tuesday’s Chronicle carried an article about a proposed ban on foie gras. That’s right, a new law banning the production or sale of foie gras anywhere in California. This is stupid.

Continuing our theme of ranting about idiotic legislation, Tuesday’s Chronicle carried an article about a proposed ban on foie gras. That’s right, a new law banning the production or sale of foie gras anywhere in California.

The reason is the supposedly inhumane treatment of the ducks who are the source of foie gras (which is duck or goose liver, specially fattened). Actress Bea Arthur called foie gras production “a nightmarish industry.”

Please.

Let’s face the facts. Meat production in the United States is a nightmarish industry. Go visit a cattle production facility one of these days, that’ll show you inhumane. Or pork, or chicken. Or read Fast Food Nation, that’ll turn you into a vegetarian, at least for a while. The factory-style production methods used to produce enough meat to put into supermarkets across the US would make most people vomit if they saw them first-hand.

Foie gras production is no worse than any other form of meat production, and — by the very nature of how the ducks are fattened up, and the product that is desired — it’s actually better than most. That’s one of the reasons foie gras is expensive, you actually have to treat the animal pretty well.

People like Bea Arthur, who want to pass legislation outlawing sale or production of foie gras, are one of three things. I suspect that most of them are just plain ignorant or stupid. Then there are the hypocrites, who think that foie gras production is somehow different, worse, than the rest of the meat industry. “I eat meat, but foie gras is inhumane.” Bullshit. It’s all or nothing.

Then there are the Radical Vegetarians, for whom this is the thin tip of the wedge. First they’ll get foie gras banned. Then veal. Then it’s on to hamburgers and bacon.

OK, maybe I’m kidding about the Radical Vegetarians…

G-Man!

Through the grace of a friend of a friend, I am now a Gmail user. I am only posting that so I can also rant on the so-called “privacy issues” that people have raised regarding Gmail, especially the moronic state senator Liz Figueroa, who this past week introduced legislation to ban Gmail.

Through the grace of a friend of a friend, I am now a Gmail user. (Gmail is the 1-gigabyte web mail service from Google that has gotten a lot of press lately.) I am only posting the news here so I can also post my thoughts on the so-called “privacy issues” that people have raised regarding Gmail, especially the moronic state senator Liz Figueroa, who this past week introduced legislation to ban Gmail.

First of all, Google is very up front and direct about how Gmail works, what information they will have about you, and how they plan to use it. If you do not like the way Gmail works, you don’t have to sign up for it. Gmail is entirely opt-in. (Indeed, it’s currently hard to get the opportunity to opt in.)

Why a state senator feels the need to “protect” people from something they don’t have to sign up for is beyond me. More proof that politicians are publicity hounds first, uninformed technophobes second, and advocates for genuine public good dead last.

Some of us, dammit, want Gmail to do what it does: scan your e-mail to improve the quality and relevancy of ads served. Log on to Yahoo!’s or Hotmail’s web mail systems, and tell me you actually like the horrible Atkins and dating services ads they are serving up. Tell me that’s better than targeted ads that might actually be useful.

(Before you scoff about ads that are useful, read why I like Google’s ads. I’ve bought things from the ads placed on Google searches.)

The other response to these so-called privacy advocates is more technical. The concern is that Gmail will be scanning all incoming and outgoing e-mail. Well, so do all of the other web-based e-mail services. For that matter, so do most ISPs and corporations. They are scanning for viruses, worms, and spam, but they are scanning all your e-mail already.

As usual, Tim O’Reilly has a sane and forward-looking take on the whole issue. For my part, I’m happy to make the deal with Google, relevant ads for a great web mail service (and it is noticeably better than Yahoo!’s e-mail service, which I’ve used extensively for many years). My only real concern is, how do I get my archived e-mail (all 250,000 messages) into it?

On the Portability of Numbers

Rochelle and I recently tested the early waters on mobile phone number portability, by switching our mobile phones from AT&T Wireless to Verizon Wireless while keeping our existing mobile numbers, in the third week that it was possible to port the numbers.

We wanted to switch for a variety of reasons:

My phone (using AT&T’s GSM service) works well everywhere except in our house. According to the research I did, for a variety of reasons Verizon has the best coverage in the Bay Area and nationwide.
Rochelle’s old (and free) “stick-style” phone keeps dialing me from her purse. A new clamshell design should fix that.
Rochelle’s plan was killing us when she overflowed her minutes or roamed, which happened every other month.
Our old plans were old, and not getting us the features or minutes that were available today.
Rochelle’s company switched their preferred wireless provider to Verizon, and Verizon was offering killer discounts on plans and new phones.
OK, we admit it, we just wanted to get polyphonic ringtones.

I did almost a week of research, inputting our old bills into a spreadsheet to review our historical usage patterns, comparing different carriers’ available service plans, learning more about mobile phone technologies (e.g., TDMA vs. CDMA, 800MHz vs. 1900MHz, etc.), finding the right phone, finding software for the right phone that would connect it with my Mac, etc.

In the end, Verizon having an arrangement with Gap, plus the ringing endorsements and explanations of technical superiority, made it impossible not to go with Verizon. Picking phones was a little harder, but after narrowing the options to three phones and Googling around for reviews and other info, it became clear that the LG VX4400 was the way to go for us. I’ll write more about our phone selection in another post.

Once the decisions were made, Verizon’s corporate rep made it incredibly easy to place the order and get the ball rolling. During the order process he was very careful to caution us that, because of the very early nature of number portability, it could take between 2 hours and a week for our numbers to completely transfer from our old carrier.

It turned out that AT&T wasn’t happy with our decision to switch, and our phones were deactivated immediately after they were notified we were transferring to Verizon. Since this was a few days before we got our new phones, let alone activated them and the number transfer, it seemed a little harsh, but making do without mobile phones for a couple days wasn’t a big deal.

In the end, the number transfers were anti-climactic. When the phones arrived I charged them for a few hours, and then followed the two-step procedure to activate them. Instead of it taking 2 hours or a week, the phones immediately came up with our old numbers. Yay Verizon!

So far we’re pretty happy with the new service and phones. I still don’t get perfect reception in the house, especially not in the computer room, but the phone is definitely usable in what is apparently a very tough environment for mobile service. After hours of “dicking around” (Rochelle’s term for it) with BitPim, the phone sync software, I managed to get our contacts copied from my computer to my phone, along with a bunch of custom ringtones and wallpapers.

Those poly ringtones make it all worthwhile.

A Sad Passing: Seltzer Sisters Is No More

When I arrived at Rochelle’s house to pick her up for our very first date, she invited me in for a few minutes, and offered me a beverage. She took an old fashioned seltzer bottle out of the refrigerator, put a little vanilla syrup in two glasses, and spritzed in the seltzer, stirring to mix in the syrup. It was delicious, a retro luxury, and I knew then that Rochelle was supercool, someone whose tastes would complement mine. Less than three months later, we were engaged.

Rochelle’s seltzer came from Seltzer Sisters, a local small business that provided home and commercial delivery of seltzer all over the Bay Area. Rochelle had been a customer of theirs almost since she moved to San Francisco 15 years ago.

Today we learned that after being in business for 20 years, Seltzer Sisters has ceased operations, due in large part to the wildly escalating costs associated with workers’ comp. insurance.

I don’t know who’s to blame for the horrible workers’ comp. situation, but it’s clear it’s killing businesses I care about. Here’s hoping that the new governor of California, whom I didn’t vote for, can fix it, and that Seltzer Sisters can find a way to make a comeback.

To Craig and the rest of the crew at Seltzer Sisters, we wish you the very best of luck. We will miss you terribly.

Update: They’re back, and as good as ever.

Pete Wellborn for Senator

Pete Wellborn is the attorney representing the defendants in a recent nuisance lawsuit filed by a group of spammers against some of the better-known — and more effective — anti-spam resources and groups, such as Spamhaus and SPEWS. His motion to dismiss the case was so effective that the plaintiffs are now trying to back out of the case.

His motion to dismiss the case was so effective that the plaintiffs are now trying to back out of the case, so they can avoid having to pay opponent’s legal fees, which they’re likely to have to do. Pete’s not going to let them do that.

Wellborn has been so effective at racking up successes against spammers, to the tune of multi-million dollar judgments, that he’s called the “Spammer Hammer.” And after defending on this lawsuit, he’s switching to offense, to run down the toads behind it for their spamming activities.

Go get ’em, Hammer!

Security Insights

From a recent interview with Bruce Schneier, one of the U.S.’s premiere security experts, comes one of the most understandable and insightful comments on recent security changes that I’ve read: “Of all the measures instituted to improve airline security, only two have had any positive effect: Reinforcing the cockpit door and teaching the passengers to fight back. Everything else is window dressing.”

From a recent interview with Bruce Schneier, one of the U.S.’s premiere security experts, comes one of the most understandable and insightful comments on recent security changes that I’ve read:

There’s a common myth that security and liberty are opposites, that increased surveillance is necessary for increased security. This is wrong. Of all the measures instituted to improve airline security, only two have had any positive effect: Reinforcing the cockpit door and teaching the passengers to fight back. Everything else is window dressing — “security theater,” as I call it in my book. Notice that neither of those two things have any effect on personal liberties.

I’m sure that so-called “homeland security” will continue to be a major political lever used to introduce more government control and oversight into our lives. Perhaps Bruce’s new book will at least inject some common sense into the discussion.

OK, Enough Goofing Off

Ok, it’s been two weeks of sleeping in and doing nothing (much) more than web surfing in my underwear. I should start doing some real work. So today I’m putting together a weekly schedule for myself.

Ok, it’s been two weeks of sleeping in and doing nothing (much) more than web surfing in my underwear. I suppose I should start doing some real work.

This isn’t the first time I’ve been unemployed. Rochelle and I both left our jobs about two and a half years ago. It was a coincidence, Rochelle taking a planned leave of absence to find her dream job (which she’s now doing), and my dot.bomb suddenly going under. That time we spent our days together, doing cheap stuff around San Francisco, and taking cat-sponsored naps every afternoon. For three months we basically spent all of our time together, and had terrific fun.

This time Rochelle is still employed, thank god. It’s not possible to stay afloat in SF on unemployment insurance payments, which are $370 a week, before taxes. (Yes, you pay taxes on unemployment. Tax cuts on stock dividends, paid for by the unemployed. That’s an economic plan that makes sense!) With Rochelle in a good job, we can tread water almost indefinitely.

Getting laid off is “winning the time lottery.” All of a sudden, I have time to work on the literally dozens of projects that have been building up around me. But in two weeks, I’ve accomplished nothing on any of them. Everything I’ve read or heard about being unemployed in today’s economy says that you have to come up with a routine, something to keep you on track, driving forward to the next job, or at least keeping busy and not frittering the time away. Certainly, when I took the job at Persistence after three months with Rochelle, I looked back and decided I hadn’t accomplished much with that time beyond improving my relationship with my wife. No small thing, that, but still…

I need this time to be different, in no small measure because I don’t want to do marketing in my next job. I’m planning to go back to hands-on technical work, probably software development, and that means rebuilding a number of skills that have gone fallow, as well as acquiring skills for the technologies that matter today. I have a lot of work to do!

So today I’m starting to put together a weekly schedule for myself. I need dedicated, scheduled slots for networking, job hunting, exercise, e-mail, socializing outside my house, technical development, home clean-up, blogging, bathing, naps, reading for both pleasure and research, web surfing, cat petting, going to the movies (matinees only), etc.

Some of these need to be done every day, but it’s impossible to do all of them in a single day. So I need a weekly, or even a bi-weekly schedule of activities. I’m sure I won’t get it right the first time, but with the economy the way it is in SF, I’m sure I’ll have time to perfect things. In any case, look for my first schedule draft on Monday.

Uh…Is This Microphone On?

I subscribe to a mailing list for Linux news, called LinuxGram. The writer, Maureen O’Gara, has a writing style that could be described as “feisty.” It comes out once a week, and manages to entertain as well as inform. This week I was quoted in it, under a “Bite Me” headline!

Last week Maureen broke the story that SCO planned to expand their frivolous claims, and use their copyright on a particular branch of Unix source code to levy a tax on Linux users. It’s SCO’s latest move in their campaign of deception to extort money from IBM and other Linux supporters, by pouring as much FUD around Linux as news editors will publish, until somebody cries “uncle” and sends SCO a big check.

I called it McCarthyism here a while back, and when this particular story hit my Inbox, I posted those same thoughts onto the discussion board for the story. I did it without much thought, and — no thought requiring less time than thinking — ended up being the first post to the discussion. Ah, fame!

Little did I know! This week it would seem I was writing the news, instead of reading it: my posting was the lead in a special “reader feedback” issue. The e-mail graphic to the right is pretty much exactly what I saw early this afternoon (click for a larger, readable version), with zero warning that my name would be in bold print underneath the story heading “Mr. McBride, Bite Me!”. Yikes!

For the record, it’s the next guy down who actually wrote “bite me”. I don’t know if my posting was more rational, but at least I won’t get teeth marks on my butt because of it.

Quotation of the year candidate

From the ever quotable JLG: “The Tax Code: the statement of our true values.”

From the ever-quotable JLG:

“The Tax Code: the statement of our true values.”

Especially apropos with the permanent repeal of the inheritance tax currently on the legislative agenda. (This is the bill that will let the wealthiest 2% keep the all money in the family when they die, instead of just most of it.)

Software McCarthyism

Reading an article on CNet today, about the SCO Group’s latest moves in their infringement case against IBM, I came to a sudden realization: the SCO Group is engaging in “software McCarthyism”. And Microsoft is paying them to do it.

Reading an article on CNet today, about the SCO Group’s latest moves in their infringement case against IBM, I came to a sudden realization: the SCO Group is engaging in “software McCarthyism”.

For those that don’t know the details, SCO alleges that IBM misappropriated trade secrets and other intellectual property from SCO and added them to Linux, thereby ruining SCO’s business. They want $1 billion.

Their lawsuit is not much more than a series of wild accusations, none of which is backed up with substance. Their senior executives have been giving quite a few interviews, where they talk of “clear evidence” of “hundreds” of infringements that they will “reveal soon”, but can’t right now.

In reality, the evidence is overwhelming that SCO didn’t have anything worth stealing, and that IBM hasn’t stolen anything. But that’s not stopping SCO from pounding the drums. It’s textbook McCarthyism, wave around wild claims but keep changing the specifics, so people are wondering, “Are there 232 infringements or 487 infringements?” and not “Is there any merit here at all?”

I don’t understand SCO’s motivations. They wanted to be acquired, and thought the lawsuit would put pressure on folks to buy them out. But IBM has stated publicly that they will “blacken the sky” with lawyers, and the lawsuit itself is riddled with factual inaccuracies, to the point where some are suggesting that SCO’s suit is knowingly deceptive to a degree that they should be sanctioned under Federal civil procedure. The industry-wide (excepting Microsoft) resistance to SCO can only be toughing their opponents’ resolve. So there is no way this is going to work out well for SCO.

It is working out well for Microsoft, who is using this opportunity to continue to sow the seeds of FUD around Linux, in the hopes of slowing down the erosion of their server business (which is getting killed by Linux). Microsoft recently paid SCO a bribe to continue the lawsuit. I wonder if there is an appropriate metaphorical link from their role here to the original McCarthy.