Cruelty to animals

What do you do with a teenage boy who has been arrested twice for cruelty to animals?

Why, you set him loose on his unsuspecting neighbors, of course.

Josh Howard is evil

Etc. etc.

But someone's got good sense.

Alonzo Mourning and Charles Chuck Barkley were on tv saying, "My brother was a druggie" and "What about the kids?" - idiots. Ask them why some drugs are ok (beer, wine, liquor) and others are bad (pot), and you'll only get the same pinheaded response:

Drugs are bad, m'kay?

When will we get past this stuff? Seriously.

Gregg Poppovich, Spurs win without honor

They're employing the Hack-a-Shaq strategy. Pathetic.

Poppovich and the Spurs have created their legacy. Cheaters - if not by law, then by subverting the integrity of the game in any way possible to get the W - much the same as the Italian national soccer team.

Free software projects can die overnight

It happens all the time. It's practically the primary definition of 'free software' and any honest free software advocate will tell you that straight up. It's why most people are smart enough to avoid free software.

"Free software? You mean, the stuff that kind of exists today and is gone tomorrow?"

Exactly.

Take Lyceum, for instance. Their last blog post happened 5 months ago.

Why did it die? Who knows? Who cares? William Hurley sums up open source software nicely when talking about a project he's been involved with lately ('Ozomoto'?), when he says (2:25):

So, it's a ruby on rails project that is, uh, basically, hopefully going to be one of the ruby on blogs that sticks around more than...after it works after nobody maintains it anymore, as soon as a developer gets a job or a girlfriend, then the project is dead.

Here's the thing - he's not kidding. Whether these two particular reasons are the most popular reasons for the death of projects or not is besides the point - anything can make a project go kaput in the night. Every free software project has a bum ticker.

In response, the host, Thomas Tucker, says:

It's dead. Totally dead. That tends to be the case sometimes which is not so great.

I praise them both for their honesty.

Of course, 'Ozomoto' appears to be dead and gone, if it ever really was.

What's the lesson, here?

Well, don't use open source software, of course.

The problem is that open source software is so conflated with free software that the two are virtually the same. It doesn't have to be that way, but it is.

So, if you want to build a website for yourself or your customers, and you want to be taken seriously, don't use free open source software - it'll end in disaster. There is open source, 'free' software you can use - stuff like WordPress that is subsidized by a corporate sponsor, but projects without a corporate backer are almost always doomed to fail, and fail hard when you most need them.

One topic we'd like to revisit, here, in the near future is the centrality of elitism, arrogance, ignorance, and selfishness to the free software movement.

New job site idea

So i'm looking for a job again, and most jobs suck, and most job sites still suck.

Everything I give out my email address I start getting spammed by more people - so why not provide job seekers with their very own 'job seeker' email address, so they can turn it on and off whenever they want? They can choose to keep their old address, or they can choose to get a new one whenever they want. All contact between the job seeker and potential employers is done through this email address, so the job seeker's personal email address is not compromised.

Companies like Emurse showed great promise, I thought, but then they seemed to just fade away. I wonder if I can convince them to make a go of it on their own, again - with my help, maybe. :)

Seriously -- that Monster and Dice and Taleo and these types of sites actually still exist is just an incredible failure of the market.

Most job sites are stuck in the stone age, and things are actually getting much worse for everyone involved. It's an incredibly inefficient process for myriad reasons, but I believe that technology can help make the process more enjoyable (read: less dehumanizing) for everyone.

Plant trees in Haiti

Everyone rips on Haiti for being deforested. They never mention how the U.S. government overthrew the democratic government of Haiti so that U.S. corporations could run roughshod over the country and its people. They don't mention the incredible history of exploitation of the Haitian people by the governments of the U.S., France, Canada, multinational corporations, etc. We're supposed to be a bunch of racists and just say, "Oh, those dumb Haitians - they're all black - they're all stupid - they knew they were deforesting the country and they didn't even care."

Don't be a racist.

We have enviros running around like crazy trying to plant trees all over the world, but none that I know of have ever suggested planting trees in the very country that the U.S. government destroyed. Sure, multinational corporations - some based in the U.S. - can be blamed for various forms of deforestation in Brazil and Africa and even Haiti, but the case in Haiti is clearcut - the U.S. government is responsible for overthrowing at least one democratic government that was showing real promise in the areas of social justice, including limiting deforestation. The U.S. government could not tolerate the 'threat of a bad example' - so Haiti is now in a bad way - not only deforested, but experience food riots.

If you want to do something that ends up planting trees in some foreign country - and you want to feel good about donating your time/money to such a cause - stop - think - and then start sending your money to projects that can help reforest Haiti. And if you are a citizen of the U.S. or France or Canada or any other country that fucked the Haitian people, then beg forgiveness while you hand over your money.

$1 for Wikipedia?

If every one of us who use Wikipedia regularly donated $1 per year to its continued, non-advertising funded existence, is that enough? Could Wikipedia get by on that?

If we each donated $25 for a 'lifetime membership/supporter' designation, would that be enough? Maybe the money goes into a big interest-earning foundation/trust thingy - virtually gauranteeing it's continued existence forever?

I'll be back with some calcs.

Google to save OLPC?

That's what i'd like to see. OLPC is a disaster, due in no small part to the fact that Nicholas Negroponte is a criminal just like his brother.

So, what company could both save and directly benefit from the project - thus making it possible?

Google, of course.

The primary work Google could provide? An operating system.

We've already speculated on the possibility of Android replacing Windows on the desktop. And, if need be, Google.org could pay for the development.

Also, Google could make sure the project stays in the spotlight and open to scrutiny - starting with the replacement of Negroponte as the leader of the project.

p.s. I think providing computers to Africans and small villages and all that might be a dubious proposition. I'd like to see more on the supposed benefits of the program.

What is Mozilla?

Some people now know what Firefox is - some - but nobody knows what Mozilla is. Even if you asked me, my answer would be something like:

uhhh, it's some kind of foundation-type thing, it's kind of like the remnants/leftovers of what Netscape was, but now it's kind of different, they release all this software - like mail and whatever - and some of it is half decent. or, actually, Mozilla actually is Netscape, and vice-versa, but not really. Mozilla's best-known software is Firefox, the browser, which you may have heard of. and they release all of this other software, a lot of which is kind of a duplicate of each other, and none of it is very good. it's kind of a meandering, direction-less organization. they did force Microsoft to support tabs, which is good. but the foundation itself - mozilla or whatever - it's kind of a nothing. It exists mainly because the only other game in town is Internet Explorer, and everyone is forced to use IE, so people resent it, and try to use something else - anything else. That's where Firefox comes in. Nobody really knows what Mozilla is, or who controls it, or where it gets its money. They get some money from Google, so they're kinda like a subsidiary of Google, but not really. they're kind of like these hangers-on - way past their prime. They need to just hang it up. Every time they gain a touch of market share from IE - a horrendous browser - they congratulate themselves and convince themselves it has something to do with Firefox being a good browser, when in fact is it because it is the only other browser.

Branding matters.

Now, all the rage is RIA - rich internet apps. Flash-based desktop apps. Because people like to install and maintain buggy desktop software, apparently.

But we have to have someone to blame. And that someone is Firefox/Mozilla/whatever-it-or-they-are-called. If they bothered to actually provide a real API for Firefox, then Firefox addons would have taken off, people would have started using Firefox, Opera would have been left in the dust, RIA would have been dead in the water, and we would have a real chance at using some decent software for a change - software called 'Firefox'. Instead, we're left with a mish-mash of non-standard technologies that lead to the current situation - a plethora of non-standard addons that are not good enough because they take forever to develop and maintain. No amount of creativity and determination can overcome the incredible technological roadblocks that the Firefox team have put in place.

It's a very high profile example of how free software has failed us yet again.

Tentative recommendation for this blog, which is generally more intelligent than most other tech blogs in the web2.0 world.

And here's a good presentation on free software from the Ruby dude - also a good blog, in general, and one that may very well piss you off.

...unsurprisingly, Maxthon is still terrible. With so much bad software out there, it makes you wonder why there aren't more millionaire software engineers. Well, in any case, I have found some software recently that appears to be decent. It's not perfect, but it does a lot of things competently. Wild Apricot. I'm not actually using it commercially yet, but I woudln't doubt if that happens soon.

So, now there are exactly three entities in the world which produce software that does not completely suck:

1. Google.com
2. Highrise (37Signals)
   
3. Wild Apricot

You're welcome. :)

p.s. The list above is correct. It is not a popularity contest between droves of developers who love to install and fix plugins in their spare time. The list above can be counted on. It is reliable. The choices - legitimate. They will help you, not hinder you. They will make you a more productive, healthier, happier, better person and lover.

Unstructured wikis not useful

Just gonna spit the obvious - a blank page where a bunch of people just come in and write a bunch of text on a page - almost completely useless.

Wikipedia, on the other hand, is highly structured - and with each incremental step of structure it's added, it's usefulness and popularity have skyrocketed.

Wikis also need a tremendous amount of process - much of which can be inferred from the wiki's design, if the design is done correctly.

So, for all the individuals/organizations/companies that continue to release wiki projects/pages/sites that do not include a lot of structure/contstraints/process - just stop. It's a waste of time.

OpenID is a Disaster; Seriously

It's actually much worse than you could possibly imagine. If you think we had security problems up until now, you ain't seen nothing yet.

OpenID was already the most confusing thing about surfing the web (help us Common Craft!), and now that I've actually successfully used it twice, I'm absolutely convinced that security experts the world over are going to shit a collective brick when they see what a disaster the actual implementation of this 'technology' looks like.

You start at some site - click a button - then you get sent to some other site - which doesn't look like any site you've ever been to, before - then you get asked some more questions - some of which seems to be semi-required to proceed - then you check a few more boxes and click a few more buttons, and 15 minutes later you end up back where you started - and the action that you performed 15 minutes ago is now magically completed. Or you get an error message like the one in the screenshot at top.

It's difficult to know who to blame in this catastrophe. Really, there is far too much blame to go around - no one corporation can possibly withstand the onslaught of criticism (and litigation) that we're about to see. This 'technology' is good enough to bring down entire economies.

OK, more realistically, this technology is such a strong contender for 'Worst Invention of the Century' that we don't have to worry about it getting any legs - not in the next decade, anyways.

Sometimes you just wish the grown-ups were in charge.

Lacrosse is a stupid sport

Yes - I like to make highly-intelligent, succinct pronouncements on this blog.

Lacrosse has always irked me. It's a lame attempt at being useless. It's boring. The 'twirling of the stick' routine, while obviously the most annoying aspect of the game, also appears to be the only potentially-enjoyable part of the game. Centripetal force? Wow. Pretty exciting. When you're five.

But, since it was invented by the victims of genocide, we'll let it stick around for a while longer.

Save the Children

I wonder if there is a Web2.0-style 'Save the Children' campaign?

So, we know all about those creepy tv commercials where some child-molesting church leader gets on tv and pleads for our money - then they zoom in on some bloated, dying African child who has flies all over their face - and then the child-molesting church leader says, "Please.....little Jonah needs your money now or else he'll suffer a brutal death than you can possibly imagine". We now know that these churches spend the money on their fancy cars and private jets and their private hookers and cocaine habits, so most of us don't pay attention to those ads anymore.

My question is, do we have any legitimate organizations that can do this 'sponsor a child' stuff, now? New, non-church-based organizations that aren't led by criminals and child molesters?

There are lots of companies out there now doing 'social giving' stuff, and they're certainly more transparent than any of these criminal church organizations ever were. So maybe it's time we can look at this again?

I'm all for giving money to 'social entrepreneurs' to build water irrigation projects and all that, but sometimes it can be helpful to think of helping one child.

But, thinking about it a bit more, now - it may just be a bit too anti-human to give money to just one child. So, maybe that idea does deserve to go away.

The potential transparency of giving today, with feedback from the people who are actually using the money, is definitely a good thing.

One thing I'd like to see more of, is helping people right here in America - in particular, African Americans. So that's one part. The other part is picking the right kinds of projects, the right kind of help. If you watch some TED talks on aid to Africa, you'll see how destructive aid can be. We have to be smart about it.

Google Docs Still Sucks

I dunno - I guess I just find it interesting that Google can do all this crazy stuff - like their search engine, but then the produce 'products' like Blogger and Google Docs.

Docs doesn't even pretend to work.

Not a big deal in the grand scheme of things, but interesting.

So, you have to wonder, if Docs is still so bad, even after having been released for months/years now - when will it ever get up to the level of, say, Wordpad, or something similarly functional?

My guess is that they should just scrap the word processor completely and go to a Flash-based app that actually works.

Cornel West on Al Jazeera

Al Jazeera is cranking out like 10 videos a day, but I'll be darned if I have any way to get notified of any of them. YouTube says I'm supposed to get one email a week. WTF? And YouTube offers no useful RSS feeds.

Every time I start watching Al Jazeera again, I feel like I've been living in a cave. Of course, they're only on YouTube because American 'free market' companies won't carry the channel.

Man - I love Brother Cornel. And I've seen him do a bunch of speeches and a few interviews, and I think he just kills this one - just totally crushes it - couldn't have been better.

Just posted this directly from YouTube. It kinda sorta seemed to work, almost. You lose all ability to format. Anyways, be sure to watch Part 2, also.

But seriously, though, how could Blogger exist for what, now, ten years or something? and still not be able to update a blog post with a simple <embed> object without getting an error that you have to fix manually? Seriously - blogger has been the biggest piece of shit for how long now - years? How is that possible? It's not like I want it to be reliable or anything, I just want it to work at the most basic level. Too much to ask? Google? I've been thinking of dropping this blog on WordPress. I just got one step closer.

...here is the Al Jazeera RSS feed!

Facebook is ugly

As are all the other successful social networks.

Facebook. Orkut. Friendster. MySpace. They're all ugly as sin.

Why?

Everything is completely boxy, and rigid. In short, it's just not pleasing to the eye. It's not easy to look at.

Well, it seems Bebo put at least a modicum of design into their site. Props, mates!

Does 'bad design' ==> 'relative social networking success'?

I'd been messing around in Facebook for a day or two, now - trying to figure out their wacky APIs - and it's pretty terrible to have to look at that thing for any extended amount of time. I don't think I can take much more.

Will anyone take up the challenge and design a social networking website with a Web2.0 visual appeal?

Only 40 hours? Yeah, right

I've been talking to potential employers. I'm looking for a bicycle advocacy gig, but I'm keeping my options open - looking at customer support engineer roles, too.

Talked to a couple of companies in the past couple of days on the engineer front. I'll spare you the details, but they both expect copious amounts of overtime. They actually act shocked when I ask them what the hours are like.

"Don't you know? This is modern-day America, son - there will always be people looking for work - looking to take your job. You want to ask me that question again, now?"

That's the sentiment.

I told the first crew to go stuff it, but I'm holding onto the second set as a backup. Felt kinda bad about the first one because the guy was real nice, the company is here in Austin, and the work seemed like it could be very interesting - but I knew that once I started working there - with full time+ hours, I wouldn't have the time or energy to do anything that was actually useful to society, so I had to bag it. My last company was very good - get your work done, and be out if you like. Or, if you wanted to be a superstar and spend your life shuffling papers at the office - you could do it. It was totally up to me. I chose to do the best I could in 40 hours a week, and I think it worked out very well for everyone.

In this day and age, companies expect someone to work more than 40 hours a week. I don't know what kind of crack you have to be smoking to ask me to do something like that. Don't these fools know I'm trying to do no more than 30 hours a week of industrial work?

I may get desperate enough to take a job and then have to quit it. We all need to eat. This 40+ hour work week stuff has to stop. People need to have time to do useful things like take care of their kids and plant some food at the local community garden and volunteer and create music and art. That stuff can't happen if we're all stuck on freeways and behind computer screens - killing what's left of the planet's ecosystem.

MLS Quality Sucks

It's orders of magnitude worse than EPL. Scottish soccer sucks, too. Why would anyone pay to see this?

I don't expect to see something good. But I don't expect to see something amateurish and pathetic, either.

That is all.

Google.com does *not* suck

Google.com is ostensibly free - that is, there's essentially nothing out of pocket for me to use this search engine.

I just realized how good this software is - it almost always finds what I want, when I want, and faster - really - than I ever would have expected - faster than I ever imagined or thought possible.

I just did like 20 searches over the last five minutes. Type. Search. Found. Type. Search. Type. Search. Type. Search. Found. It's so fast.

Each 'Found' is 'Found exactly what I was looking for'. Google search results, as you know, are almost instantaneous. They're ridiculously fast.

Google.com is ridiculously good software. Ridiculously good free software. Ostensibly free.

Android to replace Windows on the desktop, too?

Android (wiki) is going to be using the 2.6 Linux kernel. The only reason Windows hasn't been replaced in desktop computers yet is that free software sucks - and part of what has sucked so bad about Linux for....forever...has been the Linux desktop - or, lack of Linux desktop. Don't even say 'Ubuntu'.

I don't know what all Android can do yet, but it does a lot - and basically seems to include everything you could ever want in a desktop operating system - well, minus some print drivers.

We could have been rid of Windows a decade ago if Apple had decided to license their OS to other hardware manufacturers, but Apple sucks.

So, can Google do what no free software has been able to do yet - provide a real alternative to Windows?

Technically, I guess Android is an 'open' platform that could be licensed to the likes of Dell, Gateway, Toshiba, etc.

I'm partially kidding about the 'free software sucks' stuff. Obviously it doesn't all suck. Really, I would just rather pay something for software that is less buggy, supported, etc., than go with free. I spend so much time writing, re-writing, configuring, and fixing free software, but I'd rather it just worked. Take Firefox, for instance. 'Awesome', right? No - 'not awesome'. It's difficult to say 'completely sucks' when it's free and it's better than the alternatives, but that seems to be where the market is at right now. I have to restart Firefox - and always have - every hour or so. Open 20 tabs and you're s.o.l. - restart city. Folks like Apple and 37Signals and SmugMug continue to pump out decent or better software - they can do this because they charge for their software - i.e. their developers can afford to eat.

Would anyone want to support Android on the desktop? Could someone commercialize Android? Will Android be a quality product when it is absolutely free to the end consumer? Or will it be absolutely free to the end consumer?

...Android on the desktop? Google says no. But with the rise of computers like the eee, you really have to wonder. Why run Android on an iPhone-like computer, but not an eee?