A new furor is starting over "Castle Doctrine" in the US due to the recent death of a foreign exchange student at the hands of a homeowner. I have seen what I consider scant coverage of the event, with coverage from NY based media, the BBC and Fox. Interestingly, Fox is the only one to show a picture of the young man inside the homeowner's garage at midnight. I would like to point out first that if the young man was not taking the opportunity to go through someone else's garage at midnight, he would still be alive. While the father of the victim can complain all he wants, he should have taught his son that going through other people's houses at midnight without their permission is not acceptable behavior.
That being said, the homeowner appears to have set a trap for burglars, having been victimized twice already. Now if the plan was to get the crime on tape, make a citizens arrest and have a shotgun handy just in case things went sideways, there would be no problem. However it appears that the homeowner was overheard by others well beforehand planning to set the trap and shoot him a burglar. That would be illegal, in the premeditated murder section of the book I believe, and is generally frowned upon. If this proves to be true, then the homeowner and his wife actually should both do jail time.
But, unfortunately for the Democrat loudly denouncing Castle Doctrine, this has nothing to do with that particular item, which I am sure the defendant's lawyer will point out before court. Much like the much maligned Stand Your Ground had nothing to do with Zimmerman, this was premeditated murder and had nothing to do with Castle Doctrine. It was just a poorly thought out plan by frustrated homeowners and a young man that had terrible consequences.
Friday, May 2, 2014
Monday, April 28, 2014
Tolerance... You keep using that word...
I do not think it means what you think it means...
I was searching the intarwebs for a nice Norman Rockwell item to use for my background today. It simply amazes me the output that this man had during his lifetime. Both quality and quantity is amazing for one man.
During that search I ran across two disparate threads to follow that led me to very different places. One led me to a blog by a gay woman who enjoys competition poker. The other led me to the Wikipedia page on Adolf Eichmann. Far sides of the coin by any estimation. However, after reading the entry that led me to the first and looking at a picture on the second, it amazed me that I could draw the same conclusion from reading both pages.
On the first, the writer was having a conundrum about an item posted on a friend's Facebook feed. The friend in question is very devoted to her religious beliefs and posted a meme saying basically that while they do not agree with or condone her lifestyle, they will not let that get in the way of their friendship, but that the other side should recognize the same right to belief and lifestyle that they are demanding from those of the various religious groups. And really, it is part of that whole First Amendment thing. You may not agree with it, as they may not agree with yours, but both of you have the right to have and follow your beliefs and opinions. However, this special snowflake failed to see the underlying message, and decided to write a long answer to the meme, doing exactly what she claimed the other side was doing to her side. She demanded tolerance of her lifestyle, while showing intolerance of the other person's beliefs.
So how does this relate to the second thread? The one about the unrepentant Nazi who assisted in the slaughter of millions of people? While I was reading that page and not really finding anything new about the man or his deeds, I saw a picture. It was a simple picture, but one that hit me more than any argument that I have read on either side of the gay marriage issue.
The picture is of an elderly woman walking with three small children, the oldest child appearing to be no older than five, the youngest a toddler. They have little but the clothing on them. The caption tells me that they are Hungarian Jews in the Auschwitz concentration camp, walking towards the gas chambers in the early summer of 1944. None of them would see another dawn.
It struck me that those claiming hurt in today's world, claiming to be the subject of horrible intolerance due to their sexual preference (or religion on all fronts in this country), really don't have a grasp on what intolerance is, nor do they suffer as have those that fought for civil rights before them. While I applaud their efforts for the recognition of same sex marriage and all the tax implications that come along with it, they seem bent on senseless fights, like forcing a bakery to sell them a wedding cake. While the blogger did acknowledge that lack of struggle on her part compared to that of Dr. King or Harvey Milk, I fear that those on her side really don't understand the gravity of the words they use to describe their struggle. Think of those in the picture above. Until you have walked in their shoes, you don't really have major problems with tolerance or the lack of it.
I was searching the intarwebs for a nice Norman Rockwell item to use for my background today. It simply amazes me the output that this man had during his lifetime. Both quality and quantity is amazing for one man.
During that search I ran across two disparate threads to follow that led me to very different places. One led me to a blog by a gay woman who enjoys competition poker. The other led me to the Wikipedia page on Adolf Eichmann. Far sides of the coin by any estimation. However, after reading the entry that led me to the first and looking at a picture on the second, it amazed me that I could draw the same conclusion from reading both pages.
On the first, the writer was having a conundrum about an item posted on a friend's Facebook feed. The friend in question is very devoted to her religious beliefs and posted a meme saying basically that while they do not agree with or condone her lifestyle, they will not let that get in the way of their friendship, but that the other side should recognize the same right to belief and lifestyle that they are demanding from those of the various religious groups. And really, it is part of that whole First Amendment thing. You may not agree with it, as they may not agree with yours, but both of you have the right to have and follow your beliefs and opinions. However, this special snowflake failed to see the underlying message, and decided to write a long answer to the meme, doing exactly what she claimed the other side was doing to her side. She demanded tolerance of her lifestyle, while showing intolerance of the other person's beliefs.
So how does this relate to the second thread? The one about the unrepentant Nazi who assisted in the slaughter of millions of people? While I was reading that page and not really finding anything new about the man or his deeds, I saw a picture. It was a simple picture, but one that hit me more than any argument that I have read on either side of the gay marriage issue.
The picture is of an elderly woman walking with three small children, the oldest child appearing to be no older than five, the youngest a toddler. They have little but the clothing on them. The caption tells me that they are Hungarian Jews in the Auschwitz concentration camp, walking towards the gas chambers in the early summer of 1944. None of them would see another dawn.
It struck me that those claiming hurt in today's world, claiming to be the subject of horrible intolerance due to their sexual preference (or religion on all fronts in this country), really don't have a grasp on what intolerance is, nor do they suffer as have those that fought for civil rights before them. While I applaud their efforts for the recognition of same sex marriage and all the tax implications that come along with it, they seem bent on senseless fights, like forcing a bakery to sell them a wedding cake. While the blogger did acknowledge that lack of struggle on her part compared to that of Dr. King or Harvey Milk, I fear that those on her side really don't understand the gravity of the words they use to describe their struggle. Think of those in the picture above. Until you have walked in their shoes, you don't really have major problems with tolerance or the lack of it.
Friday, March 21, 2014
So many options, lets use 'em all!
My company is working on a push to get various social media type communication tools as well as video conferencing solutions in place. Now, we are famous within the silicon valley for two things: Using technology for a decade past its prime and using technology so new that its bleeding edge and usually not ready for prime time. One of the items that has dogged us for years is the ability to have a live video stream of the quarterly company meeting to all of the offices outside of the silicon valley. Usually this is a failure because they don't want to spend any money while still producing a Hollywood production. On several occasions I have improvised for a small meeting, usually using WebEx, and someone mentioned this to executives. So suddenly they are wanting to use the WebEx platform to steam the video of the meeting, not realizing that it has limits to the picture it will show. The VP wore a brown outfit for the big meeting and really just looked like a brown turd moving back and forth across the video. The best part was that I recorded the meeting for later playback in the other time zones. The VP looked at the playback and made that observation of a dancing turd over my shoulder. I said nothing.
So now I have spent the last two weeks spinning my wheels testing a new video streaming solution for this project. In order to see if this will work, we are running a test meeting. So right now I have a speaker standing in front of a camera run by a professional production company. The camera is running back to to their bank of equipment, which is then feeding a point to point video meeting solution that we have installed as well as a laptop feeding the new video streaming solution. The audio is going out over the Point to point system and through a conference call bridge. We are also tying a WebEx into the presentation to make sure that those who just want to see the PowerPoint presentation can follow along with it. We are also having to make changes to the firewall across the whole infrastructure to allow this solution to work. Oh, yea, we also had to implement a virtual server, which did not work at all at first. All in all, I am looking at a production team of 12 in the room, plus at least 6 in outlying offices running the systems in those offices, and this is just for the test. We will have twice as many production team and twice the equipment for the actual big meeting. So many points of failure its ridiculous. After it is complete, we will still have the production company process the recording to put up on our intranet for playback in other time zones. And somehow, this seems to be the best solution...
So now I have spent the last two weeks spinning my wheels testing a new video streaming solution for this project. In order to see if this will work, we are running a test meeting. So right now I have a speaker standing in front of a camera run by a professional production company. The camera is running back to to their bank of equipment, which is then feeding a point to point video meeting solution that we have installed as well as a laptop feeding the new video streaming solution. The audio is going out over the Point to point system and through a conference call bridge. We are also tying a WebEx into the presentation to make sure that those who just want to see the PowerPoint presentation can follow along with it. We are also having to make changes to the firewall across the whole infrastructure to allow this solution to work. Oh, yea, we also had to implement a virtual server, which did not work at all at first. All in all, I am looking at a production team of 12 in the room, plus at least 6 in outlying offices running the systems in those offices, and this is just for the test. We will have twice as many production team and twice the equipment for the actual big meeting. So many points of failure its ridiculous. After it is complete, we will still have the production company process the recording to put up on our intranet for playback in other time zones. And somehow, this seems to be the best solution...
Monday, March 17, 2014
I'm just trying to help...
I have recently become more frustrated with my company's helpdesk. Despite the promise of a new day with them being brought in house and staffed by actual employees, the expected improvement has not been entirely successful. One of the big frustrations is in their ticket writing skills. You see, when receiving the trouble tickets from the helpdesk in the past, my group has had to deal with poor spelling, absent punctuation, a poor grasp of the English language and one phrase that popped up repeatedly: "Google did not find the answer." We also apparently fell down on "doing the needful", tho we're still looking for that in our procedures.
Our new helpdesk promised to erase these issues, and in some cases I see that they have. However, I can't say that the solution is better. Now I get tickets with no troubleshooting information at all. Some have contact info, but that is even a stretch and often incorrect. What is better is when I reach the end user and find that they were on the phone with the technician for 1 to 2 hours and a variety of changes were made but not documented. In an effort to improve the situation, I exchanged emails with people above me and above the helpdesk, communicating the issue and requesting a better job in providing the troubleshooting already done. When asked for an example of a properly documented ticket, I provided one that I created specifically for a user that bypassed the helpdesk and came straight to me.
_________________________________
Number: 42172
Status: Completed
Entered By: Irishdoh
Customer: Tom Smith
Description: Computer not authenticating to the domain.
Initial Troubleshooting:
The machine has long ago fallen off the domain. I will endeavor to work feverously through the afternoon to correct this unfortunate mishap. I will further toil to educate the user on the proper methods and procedures to ensure that this unfortunate situation does not occur upon the morrow or thereafter.
Update:
I have found the following issues to be detrimental to the proper operation of this computer:
1. The computer is not running our image.
2. The computer does not have our standard Administrator password.
3. The computer does not have our standard backup IT login.
4. The computer name is too long and will not properly authenticate to our network.
5. Lunch is not sitting well with me and this is making me a bit cranky.
I am working to correct these issues. However, number 5 will likely not fixed until after I go home.
Closing notes:
The following steps have been taken to rectify the unfortunate situation that was created with the improper use of the laptop:
1. I disabled all forms of communication to the laptop including semaphore and smoke signal.
2. I logged in using Tom's cached credentials and corrected the administrator password to our company standard.
3. I have added the it login and set the account to use Administrator privileges.
4. I removed the computer from the "domain" and put in into the "schmuck" work group.
5. I logged into the computer as the local Administrator and corrected the name to allow proper joining of our impressively secure domain.
6. I restarted and logged back in as the administrator to enable the Network Interface Card and test the semaphore communication. Smoke signal is still disabled.
7. I added the computer to the impressively secure domain.
8. I restarted yet again, as this is Windows (Land of a Thousand Reboots!), and logged in as Tom.
9. I checked that everything but smoke signals were working properly and then impressed upon the user the grave and stern language that I would use if he again decided to impair his computer in this way.
10. Success! Drinks are on the house! Huzzah!
________________________________
I later in the day received a note from my director thanking me for my input and politely requesting that I keep my suggestions to myself in the future. I recall a hole and my ability to jump into it were mentioned in the conversation. The next ticket assigned to me had no notes...
Our new helpdesk promised to erase these issues, and in some cases I see that they have. However, I can't say that the solution is better. Now I get tickets with no troubleshooting information at all. Some have contact info, but that is even a stretch and often incorrect. What is better is when I reach the end user and find that they were on the phone with the technician for 1 to 2 hours and a variety of changes were made but not documented. In an effort to improve the situation, I exchanged emails with people above me and above the helpdesk, communicating the issue and requesting a better job in providing the troubleshooting already done. When asked for an example of a properly documented ticket, I provided one that I created specifically for a user that bypassed the helpdesk and came straight to me.
_________________________________
Number: 42172
Status: Completed
Entered By: Irishdoh
Customer: Tom Smith
Description: Computer not authenticating to the domain.
Initial Troubleshooting:
The machine has long ago fallen off the domain. I will endeavor to work feverously through the afternoon to correct this unfortunate mishap. I will further toil to educate the user on the proper methods and procedures to ensure that this unfortunate situation does not occur upon the morrow or thereafter.
Update:
I have found the following issues to be detrimental to the proper operation of this computer:
1. The computer is not running our image.
2. The computer does not have our standard Administrator password.
3. The computer does not have our standard backup IT login.
4. The computer name is too long and will not properly authenticate to our network.
5. Lunch is not sitting well with me and this is making me a bit cranky.
I am working to correct these issues. However, number 5 will likely not fixed until after I go home.
Closing notes:
The following steps have been taken to rectify the unfortunate situation that was created with the improper use of the laptop:
1. I disabled all forms of communication to the laptop including semaphore and smoke signal.
2. I logged in using Tom's cached credentials and corrected the administrator password to our company standard.
3. I have added the it login and set the account to use Administrator privileges.
4. I removed the computer from the "domain" and put in into the "schmuck" work group.
5. I logged into the computer as the local Administrator and corrected the name to allow proper joining of our impressively secure domain.
6. I restarted and logged back in as the administrator to enable the Network Interface Card and test the semaphore communication. Smoke signal is still disabled.
7. I added the computer to the impressively secure domain.
8. I restarted yet again, as this is Windows (Land of a Thousand Reboots!), and logged in as Tom.
9. I checked that everything but smoke signals were working properly and then impressed upon the user the grave and stern language that I would use if he again decided to impair his computer in this way.
10. Success! Drinks are on the house! Huzzah!
________________________________
I later in the day received a note from my director thanking me for my input and politely requesting that I keep my suggestions to myself in the future. I recall a hole and my ability to jump into it were mentioned in the conversation. The next ticket assigned to me had no notes...
Monday, March 3, 2014
You should question those elected...
Most people complain about their elected representatives when they do not act according to what the constituent wanted. However, they also fail most times to put this complaint in writing and send it to said elected official. While I have seen elected officials participate in meet and greet events, generally unless you are donating money to a campaign fund you will get lip service at best. I am sure that there are exceptions to that observation, but I bet it is correct about most elected officials at the state and federal level. So when you see an elected official actually expending effort to get that feedback from his constituency, it is always interesting to see who complains.
This brings us to the lovely area of Kent in the UK. A local MP has decided to poll his constituents regarding the oft mentioned "UK in/out EU Referendum" as to their views on the subject. Using only money donated for this purpose and volunteers to assist, he is asking his constituency (about 450K people) if they would vote yea or nay on staying in the EU. Simple enough, not legally binding, but would yield data on the subject not currently to be had. This is not a random poll at a supermarket or train station, this is a question sent to every household in the constituency.
What is amusing is the response by the various politicians. One party complains about the "publicity stunt" while the other compliments him because they feel that it will only bolster their argument and eventually, their cause. Either way, they fail to see the point. The point is that the politician is actually asking the people what they think about a fairly important subject. It is something that should be done more often, especially in our new digitally connected world.
This brings us to the lovely area of Kent in the UK. A local MP has decided to poll his constituents regarding the oft mentioned "UK in/out EU Referendum" as to their views on the subject. Using only money donated for this purpose and volunteers to assist, he is asking his constituency (about 450K people) if they would vote yea or nay on staying in the EU. Simple enough, not legally binding, but would yield data on the subject not currently to be had. This is not a random poll at a supermarket or train station, this is a question sent to every household in the constituency.
What is amusing is the response by the various politicians. One party complains about the "publicity stunt" while the other compliments him because they feel that it will only bolster their argument and eventually, their cause. Either way, they fail to see the point. The point is that the politician is actually asking the people what they think about a fairly important subject. It is something that should be done more often, especially in our new digitally connected world.
Friday, February 28, 2014
But... but... She's a Kennedy...
It appears that another Kennedy family member has gotten away with what would generally have put anyone else behind bars. Kerry Kennedy accidentally took an Ambien instead of her thyroid medication and later got in her Lexus and drove erratically before sideswiping a truck. Now for the rest of us, the law would really have been in the "your actions, your responsibility" area and we would have been slapped with the fine and likely jail time. But, although it wasn't about pulling the family name into the picture, we apparently had to hear mention of her father's murder while she was on the stand. As that happened 46 years ago and the defendant is in her fifties, I would say that despite the "not seeking advantage because of the family name" claim goes right out the window. There was absolutely no reason to bring it up other than to remind the jury about where the defendant comes from. Then again, I expect nothing less that this for driving infractions involving family members of the Frogman of the Chappaquiddick.
I have beachfront property in Arizona to sell you...
All kinds of people have gotten really excited about Bitcoins and the "revolutionary" changes it can make to modern financial transactions. Also excited were the criminal element, which apparently took no time at all to not only analyze how to make profit off the new currency, but also how to separate truckloads of it (well, virtual truckloads...) from the rightful owners.
I have always hated how modern monetary systems work. I don't like the fact that if the government wants more money, they can basically print it. When the US first printed money, it was so worthless at one point that it was pasted to walls to cover cracks. Its not nearly that bad now, at least not in most countries, but it does happen from time to time. I recall reading an article about Argentina (if I recall correctly, it was 25 years ago) where its currency was so worthless the lowest denomination bill could only buy foodstuffs by weight on a pound for pound basis. That is the kind of instability I fear, and that was in a currency backed by a government.
Now we have Bitcoin, a currency backed by no-one, generated by a computer program and without any protection for those that use it. One of the largest Bitcoin exchanges was cracked by criminals and is now filing for bankruptcy. Located in Japan, the government there is playing the "not my issue" game. The best they can recommend is the Consumer Affairs Agency, which is a product safety agency and likely not really able to help. The government of Japan does not consider the currency a real currency, thus will not spend any time or money assisting those affected by the collapse. Nor should they. The flip side is that they will also likely not be pursuing the thieves, so they will generally get away. The level of autonomy in the transactions are why the Silk Road website used Bitcoins. While I am all about privacy, I really can't jump on the Bitcoin bandwagon. And I can't feel sorry for those that have lost money in this venture.
I have always hated how modern monetary systems work. I don't like the fact that if the government wants more money, they can basically print it. When the US first printed money, it was so worthless at one point that it was pasted to walls to cover cracks. Its not nearly that bad now, at least not in most countries, but it does happen from time to time. I recall reading an article about Argentina (if I recall correctly, it was 25 years ago) where its currency was so worthless the lowest denomination bill could only buy foodstuffs by weight on a pound for pound basis. That is the kind of instability I fear, and that was in a currency backed by a government.
Now we have Bitcoin, a currency backed by no-one, generated by a computer program and without any protection for those that use it. One of the largest Bitcoin exchanges was cracked by criminals and is now filing for bankruptcy. Located in Japan, the government there is playing the "not my issue" game. The best they can recommend is the Consumer Affairs Agency, which is a product safety agency and likely not really able to help. The government of Japan does not consider the currency a real currency, thus will not spend any time or money assisting those affected by the collapse. Nor should they. The flip side is that they will also likely not be pursuing the thieves, so they will generally get away. The level of autonomy in the transactions are why the Silk Road website used Bitcoins. While I am all about privacy, I really can't jump on the Bitcoin bandwagon. And I can't feel sorry for those that have lost money in this venture.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)