Quotes: Isaac Asimov

Switching to Linux, What to expect and how to prepare.

The switch to a Linux based operating system is not as complicated and daunting as one may think.  Over the years this process has been streamlined.  The amount of technical knowledge that you need to have has also been lessened by critical pieces of automation during install.  

A good comparison would be Arch Linux vs. Ubuntu.  The difference in these installs is night and day.  Where Arch won't do anything that you don't specifically tell it to do.  Ubuntu will do what it feels is the best, allowing you to change these setting and choices later if you feel that another approach would be better. 

This is optimally what you want if you are going to be doing the setup yourself.  When you seek out someone to install and administer your system, you will likely be exposed to a user that has their own biases.  

You really need to make your own choices and see what companies are offering and define what your going to be using your machine for. 

There may be software that is critical to  your life that is not available on Linux, so this is something that you need to think about from the very beginning.  

To me, this is not a deal breaker.  Though it maybe a bit of a time suck for a few days.  If you have a professional that you are working with, or you are confident asking questions in forums, you will likely be able to fix or circumvent issues related to incompatibility and proprietary lock-out far easier than an initial review may infer. 

Just like building a custom car, you should know what you are getting into and how to navigate the possible challenges you will face.  Though it is impossible to prepare for everything, with DaaS you should be able to compensate for anything that you may run into, in the worst case.

For the most part you will find a bit of a different methodology, though many things will seem familiar, especially if you are using one of the more commercial distros, or an actual commercial offering from XFCE, Canonical, Redhat, or similar.

The thing that you will really want to concentrate on is hardware.  Take the time to go through what you have that is compatible, and sell what you can that isn't -- if that is an option.  If not, again, DaaS or a VB solution will give you the ability to use what you need and still be able to comfortably make the switch.  This is assuming that you have the required hardware to support such extravagance.    

Though you don't need a lot of what is out there. I would suggest to do things through web applications and, so-called, Cloud-apps.  This saves a large amount of time and cost.  Things that we can always use more of.  

Finally, I suggest that you get a notebook.  Yes, a notebook.  One of those ancient tablets, made from dead trees, that allows you to store information that you manually write into the system.  Keep it in a safe place particularly locked and fireproof if possible.

Write down everything that you do and change.  Now I am not talking about each file that you more, but major changes, like installing software, drivers, and kernel changes.  This can be invaluable if you ever have real system problems.  This could also be something that you just log in the system and then print each day, or before you log out, when you make a backup, etc.  

Linux is not hard, and usually doesn't suck.  Though sometimes you may find that one of your favorite vendors, or those more coveted, don't support it.  The only way to change this is show them that there is a market for their product in the Linux world.  

Hillary's Email Server, Right or Wrong?

Was it wrong for Hillary to have her own email server?  Yes, technically under the law this seems like it would be the case.  So if that is the only part of the situation you are interested in, then move along.  If not, feel free to continue on to my opinion of this matter from a logic stand point. 

The reason that this is silly feels fairly evident to me, she's the Secretary of State and in such capacity, she can do as she pleases.  Wait...Wait...let me explain before you begin to beat me about the face.  Feel free to go ahead and stop your internal dialog.  We are entrusting her with a fairly high position in government which, whether you agree with her or not, has a certain amount of executive privilege that comes with the position by default.  You get to speed, you get escorted almost everywhere you go(not sure if that is a benefit or a curse, never had the pleasure), and you get a lot of other comforts and privilages that others aren't able to take advantage of.  

Just like any CEO, CFO, etc. they aren't going to be following all the same rules that the mail-room guy, or even a senior account manager would be getting shown the door for betraying.  This is just generally SOP in this country, it's not written but implied by the way things work.  If you know this about society you need to know little else, though if you don't know this basically everything else you know is useless.  

So I would say that Hillary has a reasonable ability to diverge from SOP, because she has the level of clearance and knowledge of threats that one would need to make reasonable adjustments to policy from time to time.

To say that she has the ability to control security policies, embassies, facilities, etc. - but she isn't able to have her own server?   That is just not logically consistent with how flexible government needs to be to run. 

That is not to say that government is the most flexible institution by design. It is certainly not to suggest what transpired was is the most secure way of doing things, just that it is secure enough for the purpose for which it was being used.

In any security scenario it is really time that you are fighting against, not the cracker, criminal, etc.  Nothing is going to be impossible to break into, the real trick is how long and involved will be the process be compared to the return.  Just like anything else, criminal activities are weighed and managed by criminals, just as they would be by a corporation, probably better.  I believe the writers of Freakonomics have proved this point quite convincingly.    

It would be reasonably hard for an interested party to gain access to Hillary's email, especially since the server in question wouldn't be found where one would expected it.  Though I think any hacker would automatically assume she had her own, but likely would waste time with it unless paid, since it is not likely to possess anything of real value.  Whether that be militarily or politically. 

It would be rather unlikely for someone to get her private email that wanted it, and this would put her at just as much risk as would normally be associated with using public or private networks.  Certainly there would be little to no increased risk associated with the practice. 

The only conceivable increased risk that I could see possible would be if her and Bill set it up themselves, and even then anything they would be able to get running would likely have fairly good default security settings based on basic conventions.  Based on reports, the setup was as expected and had been upgraded to a hosted solution toward the end of her tenure, at what is classified as a secure location by the DOD.  

From some of the technical communications that have been in the news, it sounds as though her server had access to both the public and private networks, and the mail was being forwarded from her official account.  Which means that it was just as secure as the communication would have been otherwise, and all official internal communications should be copied on the internal government servers.  Other than those messages that she sent over any private networks she had/has access to, which would have still been an option regardless of where her official email was hosted.  

Though I don't know any of this for sure, as likely not many people do.  This is just conjecture on my part based on what I have heard.  Though my opinion would likely be the same even if the server was compromised and we were finding out that way.

At any rate, there exposure over the wire would be the same, the contents were likely encrypted so any intrusion would likely lead to scant results.    

The positioning of the system in the Clinton's home also seems to be a rather large topic of conversation that probably shouldn't be.  Mainly because computer equipment often ends up in the closet of normal folks, as it tends to be rather unsightly mess of cables at some point.  Only nerds proudly display there techno-mania, and it still will likely be in a closet. 

With all the secret service around, the equipment it's self was likely safer than it would be at any other facility, where more people than you think would have access.

Anyone that has ever worked in a government facility can tell you how relaxed procedures tend to be, especially as time goes on. 

Prisons are another place where you can see this happening regularly, but someone only gets in trouble things go wrong or are otherwise put in the spotlight -- as we have seen recently with regards to the NY prison escape and subsequent investigation alone.

The amount of security holes, not including the ones we don't have the ability to identify yet, if such a things was able to be accurately quantified, would be tremendously unsettling if mentioned to the average citizen.  Especially if that citizen didn't have any real technical knowledge with which to decipher the information, which is where we really find our culture now.  Things are complicated, and complicated things are scary when you don't understand the way these things fit together.

The lack of understanding with regards to technical concepts is also a thorn in the side of the progression and application of technology within the government.  Each time a new technology or methodology is introduced, adoption by the government is going to be especially slow.     

If you work with technology regularly, especially system administration, you know how hard it can be to plug every security hole and still have a system that is usable.  This is constantly an issue.  So the reasoning behind being slow to adopt new technology and techniques has a good bit of rational behind the practice.  Though I think most would agree that corporations go so far in the other direction that they are actually negating any advantages they may receive from such practices.

In this case, Hillary's server is the one that seemed like it wasn't getting hacked, unlike the rest of the government at the time, at-least I haven't seen any information to that effect. 

Government servers and facilities, both private and government run, have been getting hacked since hacking was a thing.  One needs to simply watch the multiple Kevin Mitnick documentaries to see how complex and futile security can be when you have a worthy adversary.  Now imagine how many of these types exist in countries around the world.  Don't forget also that our allies have had us hacked for sometime, this is the reason for encryption.

There is very little that is a secret these days.  The only thing that a country, business or individual can really do is make it hard enough for the bad guys to operate, that many things are not worth the trouble, therefor rendering it secure, even if gaps in security exist. 

It has been shown time and time again, that all the laws, procedure, planning, and alerts cannot stop the truly determined from doing bad things.  These measures simply align to mitigate the problems. 

Though the argument exist that technically a thing can be true. Technically one can break the law without knowing it, or being directly cognizant of the tragic implications that ones actions could have.  Either from a technical standpoint, or a theoretical one.  It is also completely reasonable that a policy could be actually causing a security flaw as an externality of it's application.   

It makes me think of a saying that I often hear,  "It is only illegal [if/when] you get caught."

While this may, on the surface, sound like bad policy but it is on of the many mantra's of our society.  The way that our culture functions, at it's core. It is not what we say, but what we do that defines who we are.

Most people speed, knowingly.  The difference between those persecuted for it and those that aren't, and to what degree vary greatly.  Some of them are doing it in a way officers find acceptable or are better at not getting caught, and some aren't.  Some have tinted windows, or a speedy color that attracts the eye.  There are all sorts of variables that go into each action and reaction in this world, and most are not fair.

Things are largely not even across the board, we say this is how we intend things to be.  Though our actions as a society tell a different tale.  The morality that we profess and the world as it truly is, are two very different things.  

In the end, our government officials should -- and it seems as though they have and do continue to utilize -- the ability to make adjustments where they see fit.  As long as they don't do something knowingly negligent or treasonous, this shouldn't be a problem.

So do we really need to have legislation that controls things at such a micro-level?  I am sure that most Conservatives and Libertarians would have a dog in that fight.

 How can we demand that people be responsible for the results of actions if so many of their decisions that lead to any number of situations have been mandated by law?  Which is a valid argument in regards to all sorts of legal situations that can arise.

At what level of education, experience, etc. are people able to make important decisions that effect others?  Doctors have such freedom, too a point, but then restricted by the insurance companies and other regulation with regards to many areas of care -- that often seem to be the areas that need the least restriction.  So it seems like even those that we look too the most for advice are largely constrained by a body of individuals with far less knowledge and experience in the area of concern than the one's they are constraining.     

So on one hand we tell everyone that they are responsible to follow all the regulations, though know one knows them off hand.  Only after a team of aids, researchers and some personal research do we see politicians take questions about even the most obvious areas of policy, and one would be hardpressed to get solid legal advice even from ones lawyer.

Really I think one of the main questions we should be asking is: If we can't trust these people, at this level of power, with general logistical decisions, perhaps they shouldn't be the people that we have in government in the first place? 

Moving to Windows 10, Politics, and Other Things

Some things that have been on my mind and in the news this week.  As well as some thoughts that are just generally related to my measly little life

Windows 10 Update:

Windows 10 will no doubt be a blight on the cultural landscape, as is the custom.  To do otherwise would be a far to strenuous a task for the drones Microsoft employs.  

The initial security concerns should have, and were for the most part, were expected by the community.  If you have a 'professional' -- which is a whole other conversation -- setting up your machine, don't be overly concerned -- you make the choice -- they make it work -- that is what you are paying for.  If you are setting up your machine; be especially concerned.(ie. lot's of reading required.) 

Technology changes. Expect this. Though Windows 10 won't be a huge change in the end, it doesn't add anything that I would say is significant other than Xbox and PC integration. (one source, though there are many: Search Much?)

So should you upgrade?  I guess, if you want.  If you don't, Windows 7 will be supported for a while yet.  Probably far longer than it should be in fact.  

Why is anyone talking about Donald Trump?

Getting beyond the hair, and just the general silliness of someone so transparently privileged being president: there is his lack of any sense of consideration for cultural, geographic or social differences, either in his comical attempts at speaking and certainly not when he is dreaming up policy.   Also, his obvious lack of any depth of knowledge in any particular area of study, Including, but certainly not limited to, business.  His complete lack of ability to utilize anything even closely resembling forethought when speaking in public or private, should --alone-- disqualify him from being president, in the mind of rational beings.  

Just because you know a bunch of lawyers, does not then mean you are making correct decision based on their advice; a deliberate and unabashed use of false authority to gain some level of political agency.  Anyone that has ever been faced with making legal decisions can tell you just how contrived and obtuse lawyers 'advice' can be.  Similarly: just because poor people work for you, does not then mean you understand the level and depth of their despair surrounding or have any insight on providing relief from their privation.  

Trump should be the new Hitler  of conversations.  Meaning: once someone mentions him in conversation it is a clear sign that nothing positive can further be extracted from its continuation. 

Oracle doesn't want your help.  Well yeah. 

First it is important to say that this isn't a person that is saying that they don't want help.  Not that I agree with her in the least -- though, in an attempt at full disclosure, I am not a fan of corporate cultures.  She is saying that she doesn't want bad help.  This should be an expected response from programmers in general.  It should be understood that she is talking about the license agreement, because that is the sort of thing you have to do as opposed to calling people stupid and useless, which to be fair, she does a bit of as well.  As per the community, she is supposed to be stating policy instead of calling people useless, which most of them are. 

As we have all come to know, in the tech industry, many times a bug is just the software highlighting someones stupidity.  

So she is saying some things that people may not like, but frankly, I am sure they get sent on a lot of wild goose chases, as well as the occasional real security hole.  Perhaps it may have been a smarter move, both technically and politically for her to focus her time on finding a solution to the problem on there end.  Where perhaps she could have employed a group of interns or created a lower-paid/entry-level position to monitor such traffic; filtering the noise.    

Though she choose the more aggressive approach, and it is hard not to stare and wonder if, at least in part, the response from the tech-public isn't more rooted in her being a woman, then it is in her being wrong.  

Often women get labeled as a bitch, just for stating a case.  Which essentially means that they are not being as approachable as is expected.  Which is clearly an admission that they should act in a way appropriate to their sex, which is clearly sexist.

It seems inappropriate not to mention that the people that often say such things just happen to be women.

I say this because it has been an awful harsh response when you consider how Apple, as a company and a culture, thinks about and acts toward their users and those that choose alternate directions.  Especially when it comes to reverse engineering, or in any way changing/adding-to/debugging their software.

This is also an argument that could be made about Nvidia, or Adobe as well.  I guess you can hold whatever opinions you want, as long as you do it in the right way, and your not a woman?   

Cutting the cord, kinda. 

Since I am moving, I am changing cable companies.  In doing this, I am cutting the proverbial cord.  Well kinda, but not really.  The TV that I do watch is all available through direct or third party services online, but this doesn't mean that I don't pay for it. I pay for cable to get access to it, although I don't watch it live.

I pay for the basic subscription, plus the internet access.  What I don't do is hook the TV up to the cable or box, other than using an antenna to get weather and emergency updates when needed.

The media center, basically a Linux box with some extra packages, is hooked up to the TV so that we can watch the handful of shows that we like and record those that we want to watch at some point(Usually well after the season and/or show itself has long ago ended.).  We get movies through a bunch of services.  Total, we probably have an expenditure of $65.00+/-$20.00 or so, per month for this, most of which $39.00 is the cost of the internet connection.  The rest is Amazon $38.00 per year, and HBO, $10.00 per month and the occasional movie rental($2-$7 or so.).   This is still rather expensive, based solely on my opinion, but I think it is the best that you can do and still get most of the live entertainment and TV shows that one would like from time to time. 

This works well for us, basically because we spend the majority of our time reading or doing something else that is more hands on (gaming, chess, model_building, etc) - so really the amount of time, and therefor need, is far less than some have grown accustomed to.  The only reason that I have TV services at all is because I like to be able to get access to a few shows, online, from the publisher or watch the occasional event(Olympics, football, rugby, bbc specials, and such.).  This it is fairly cheap and the least restrictive way of doing things, I've found. 

Especially since we are already paying the cost for the internet.  I don't have any real need for most live TV programming, especially since I don't take part in cable news but in only the most rare of circumstances. 

This has not been a smooth transition for the cable companies, mostly because they are losing shit tons of money.  Which, if you anything like me, the mere though of such a thing, just made you crack a smile.

I think they are starting to realize that  they can't stop the bleeding, no matter what they do.  Ultimately, the only step now, that should make sense to them from a profits and margins, is to slow the transition.  While they are trying to find new revenue streams and refine the current ones, they can make you pay a little more here and their to buffer their portfolios.  This won't be something that will scale well.  In fact, it is already starting to break down, since a lot of people, like me, are just starting to say that we just don't need it. 

They are reaching for relevancy right now.  A relevancy that is beginning to be all the more hard to find.  Not that this has not always been the case.  The suits are not particularly good at spotting something that will be popular with anyone other than their corny friends, who are almost by definition, not very popular -- even with those that like them.  

The door has been propped open for the amateur directors, DJ's, broadcasters, podcasters, artists, and makers.  Many have started stepping through it.  

Not to that we should forget about the professionals that have started their own, personal multimedia empires.  Like Adam Corolla, Dr. Drew, Joe Rogan, Marc Marion, Joey Diaz, and Ari Shaffir, just to name a few.  

These changes will likely have drastic effects on the spread of not only wealth, but also greatly affect the direction of the conversation in world.   We are in a time where a lot of people that didn't, and some that arguably shouldn't, have the ability to challenge the general consensus, and speak freely on the issues where their passions reside, now have that ability.  Almost at a level that is unchecked.  

So I would say that what entertainment that you choose, and the methods in which you choose to consume it, are equally important. 

Related links:

• http://linuxfonts.narod.ru/why-windows-10-sucks.html
• http://techcrunch.com/2015/08/16/microsoft-drops-another-windows-10-update/
• http://wonkette.com/588547/here-are-12-of-the-stupidest-things-ever-to-come-out-of-donald-trumps-mouth-hole
• http://wiki.killfile.org/projects/usenet/faqs/godwin/
• http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/03/godwins-law-mike-godwin-hitler-nazi-comparisons.html
• https://youtu.be/gjUBJRb7p7Q
• http://www.thedrum.com/news/2014/10/20/we-re-changing-guard-you-had-your-time-now-it-s-our-time-vice-ceo-shane-smith-s
• http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffbercovici/2014/03/04/vice-news-launches-promising-changing-of-the-guard-in-media/
• http://egbertowillies.com/2015/02/10/jon-stewart-slam-msm-brian-williams/
• http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/05/05/sheriff-david-clarke-mainstream-media-has-become-propaganda-wing-far-left
• http://ringoffireradio.com/2015/05/sanders-slams-mainstream-media-let-hillary-and-me-have-a-civil-debate-on-civil-issues/
• http://www.echo.net.au/2015/07/byron-filmmaker-slams-mainstream-emdia/
• https://www.shortoftheweek.com/news/has-hollywood-lost-its-way/
• http://www.raindance.org/what-mainstream-cinema-can-learn-from-independent-film/
• http://www.clipd.com/movies/1842/15-biggest-movie-failures-that-lost-millions#slide/0
• http://www.denofgeek.us/movies/17901/the-10-biggest-problems-with-modern-day-cinema\
• https://blog.cloudmark.com/2015/08/13/oracle-scolding-the-customers-who-try-to-help-them/
• http://thenextweb.com/opinion/2015/08/11/oracle-drinking-the-kool-aid/
• http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2015/08/oracle_cso_mary_ann_davidson_doesn_t_want_to_hear_about_software_vulnerabilities.html
• http://www.quora.com/When-people-say-mean-and-hurtful-things-to-you-when-they-are-angry-do-they-really-mean-all-those-things
• https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/2skeam/linus_torvalds_on_why_he_isnt_nice_i_dont_care/
• http://falkvinge.net/2013/10/21/acknowledging-the-important-value-of-hate-speech/
• http://blog.valerieaurora.org/2012/03/10/what-free-speech-really-means/
• https://youtu.be/n-IgqiTD4XA

Why Microsoft Can't Change the Windows Interface; Too Much

Microsoft has long been the operating system of choice for many to write software.  Though not all industries count on it they way they once did, most still do.  And here lies the problem.

With lots of software come lots of responsibility.  This is one of the many places where Linux and it's variants have troubled enterprise and residential clients in the past.  If your software worked yesterday, you would expect it to work tomorrow. 

Since most people aren't very fluent in computer, even the least little change can cause great confusion.  To expect one thing and get another is a frustrating thing even if you are used to speaking digital.  This is why enterprise IT departments don't like untested software, changes or devices.  

So you can surely understand the reasons for people being unhappy with Microsoft's changes to the desktop and it's function in the Windows 8 release.  

Well we can look forward to similar changes with the Window's 10 release.   This insistence to make such major interface changes seems short sighted and possibly led to the decision to make the release free for valid, current users.  The possibility also exist that Microsoft was simply concerned about the market share that other OS's have been gaining, though it's still a small portion, the numbers are significant enough to warrant paying closer attention. 

The heart of the interface change is with regards to current software.  Windows is far larger in size than it would otherwise be based on the backwards compatibility it offers.  Far more so than Linux, Mac or other choices offer.  Macintosh forces this issue far more than other operating systems and it works for them.  The difference being that Mac customers want the latest and greatest.  Where there are far more people on the Microsoft and Linux side that tend to run older software.  This is especially prevalent in large companies, where software changes are not looked upon favorably.  If it ain't broke, don't fix it. 

Though they have back tracked from the travesty that was Windows 8, I imagine there will still be a fairly, large segment of Windows users that will want to wait as long as possible to make the change.  

There are many more reasons to be confident in Microsoft's products than skeptical, but that doesn't mean that people will be accepting enough to take the chance with their personal data.  

People tend to feel lost and uncomfortable when things don't look familiar.  The advantage of change it that you can introduce new features, implemented in a unique way.  The downside: people will be confused at first and may not adopt the changes.  

Apple seems to think that people will like whatever they will do, which they tend to.  There is an overall advantage to forcing upgrades, mainly that you don't have to continue to support your mistakes.  There are always going to be bugs, I guess that question is then, old bugs or new bugs.  

New bugs may be mysterious, but this option gives you the ability to fix the old nagging bugs that you don't like.   Continuing to support the previous system means that more of the bugs are known and you tend to have better security.  So like everything else, you must decided what your priorities are. 

It is obvious that Microsoft has wrestled with these things and we shall see if Windows 10 is a better mixture of form and function than Windows 8 was.  Taking money off the table was, I feel, a good move, and may lead to a bit more adoption than if people were expected to be paying for what seems to mostly be an upgrade and ultimately a revision of the Windows 8 fiasco. 

Restructuring the way we look at computer service

The fact is, computer service as we knew it at one time is dead.  The conditions and the environment has changed, and unless you have a ton of enterprise clients that are supporting the majority of your business costs, it is hard to make a living at it.  If you are a freelance IT person it is likely you are working for temp service/s, finding work on BBS sites, poor, in debt, or all four.

Some Mom and Pop stores have been able to stay open based on a fairly large amount of repeat business, but usually if you fix the machine right, it will be a long time before you see them again.  There just aren't that many people that have complicated and dire enough problems that they would need to pay one to take care of things.  Not enough to be counted on as a steady income at-least.

Generally speaking, you can buy a computer and just keep adding things to it until it becomes too full or too broken, and then go buy a new one.   It used to be that one needed help to build a computer and install stuff on it.  For the most part today, most people that need powerful machines either buy them from Amazon or similar, or they build them on their own.  With Google and YouTube there is not much the person of average intelligence couldn't setup or do on a computer or related; reasonably.

So, things being as they are, what do you need the IT guy for.  He now has to go get a job at a company that can support thousands of users and get paid a lot less than he would have 20 years ago by opening up his/her own store.

This is not to say that people that specialize in technology aren't useful, skilled, or necessary.  Or that one couldn't open up a shop and do well, just that it isn't as easy as it once was, the specifics have changed.  The market has become smaller, many people are too poor, and still more just are not going to see enough value to pay for help.   In the enterprise and small business space there is a lot of noise and it is very crowded.  It is not enough to simply design web-sites, build computers, or install operating systems anymore.

If people were able to work on their own cars, without ensuring a catastrophe or death, they would do that at the same frequency.  This is a bit harder and generally more expensive then it once was when a tuneup solved most problems, this is also changing fast.  Perhaps at some point, with 3D printing and similar technologies, we will see the death of the auto dealer and other similar consumer sale companies.  If you can just purchase a variety of raw materials and actually produce the product on your own, inexpensively, and consistently most people will likely choose that option.


As technology moves forward it is obviously going to adversely affect some industries.   What is important is how we respond to these challenges.

Change is part of any successful system and must be dealt with; the sooner the better.

One way that the tech industry has continued to evolve is through the creation of the tech consultant.  In an effort to save the mid-level skill and experience positions, by the professionals themselves.  Similar to the way radio and entertainment personalities have transferred to the pod-casting platform as radio stations, newspapers and other forms of traditional media have been eroding.

This has been a great start, but we shouldn't see this as the limit to the transition, rather a stepping stone to the next step.

In order to employ people you need to be in a position to fix a problem.  This is not to say that you should build in externalities that force the problem to continually replicate it's self.   There still needs to be a concerted effort to clearly estimate market-size, demand, and possible scaling issues.  It is impossible to plan for every eventuality, but we can try.

You can not force a particular technology to stay relevant.  So you need to be far more diverse than one was once forced to be.  This is no easy task and shouldn't be seen as something that is just going to be apparent from an initial survey.  

This is a good position for the nerd to be in, since they are in their element.   For the average Joe, this may prove to be a challenge, but then again they probably should choose their career path according to their skills and interests.

In order to transition to new areas of technology you have to be flexible -- not in the dirty way, thought that may help in certain circles -- and find joy in the technical details of a project, though you may not be passionate about the content.  This is true in everything, but based on the amount of time you tend to spend with the content in tech, it is especially important to identify things you may not be able to stay focused on or work with creatively.

This is basically a verbose way of saying that you shouldn't necessarily limit yourself based on your dogma, experiences, or interests.  Some of us tend to do this as an almost defensive response.

Also, it is important to stay apprised of what is happening in industries that you may be abstractly connected to.  For instance reading avionics publications and white papers even though you work in web design.  Since there are applications for certain aspects of web technology in the aircraft and marine sector.

Ignoring this parallels may not necessarily hurt your chances of maintaining a good career, though you never know, you may also just learn something unique to one industry that you can use to make yourself invaluable in another.

Lastly, expand your interests in other completely unrelated areas.  Both for the networking possibilities and to make sure that your concepts and ideas don't become a victim of the environment they were conceived in.

Studying history, sports and rock climbing for instance may lead you to discover a way  you can implement a service to aid people in these areas.  Whether it be an actual technology related improvement, or if the information simply aids in your ability to connect with people socially, it is worth the time investment.

It is important to remember and be comfortable with allowing change to come in time, and to allow your ultimate concept of self to be detached from what you are working on.

Law Reform: Why are we continuing to do the wrong thing?

For some reason it seems near impossible to get politicians to work in the interest of the people.  Each time we go through an election cycle, we get told what we want to hear, and then as soon as all the confetti has been cleaned off he floor, it is right back to business as usual.

This is not to say that this is an easy job, at each turn, there are many things to consider.  Though I think it is fairly clear that our money and their time is not going to the places that we think it should go.  This is also a precarious position to take, since the mob mentality often ends up being misplaced.

So let us not assume that we should take the Group Think and run with it, but rather we should be looking for the true and factually based solutions to the problems we face.  For the most part every one seems to agree on the basics, but we have gone far off the reservation with the sheer amount and complexity of the law.

One of the most troubling things I have witnessed is the way private company policy is treated as law.  Combined with the blatant way that politicians do what is good for the few that own large companies and do little to help keep the playing field even for the workers.  Please don't confuse my compassion for the workers with a plea for unions, since they rarely place interest of the workers at the center of  their interest either.  My argument is simply that the overall good of the people should come before the profitability of the company in all circumstances.

Take for instance the laws surrounding a parking space.  If you pay for a space, you are in the act of renting a space from the city.   Now without going in the direction of allowing all out gatherings or other stretches of the imagination in the space, I think it is fair to argue that if you are using the space for it's intended purpose, parking a car, then that should be the limit of the control the municipality should have over your actions within that space.  Again, within reason.  This, however, is not the case.

There are any number of things you could be ticked for while in the space depending on what city or town you have rented in.  From smoking to license plate offenses.  Similar to the laws regarding what you can do in your car.  My feeling is, if you have rented the space, anything you do in that space that is not infringing on the rights of another to peacefully enjoy their space, is not a crime or violation, and shouldn't be made such.

Say for instance that I am not wearing my seat belt.  Should I really be ticketed for this?  This is equipment on my car, that effects no one other persons safety.  Yet, there is a penalty if I choose not to follow this rule.  Penalizing me for my own behavior that effects only me, is simply a tax -- and an especially prejudicial one at that.  This is not a public safety issue (which is what the state sites when it makes such laws), like say not having headlights. So this is not an area that should be legislated or one that should be able to be enforced by the court, since it is not violating the rights of another. 

Now I am sure that I will hear the argument about texting and driving as and argument against my point.  Shouldn't the government be able to make laws that prevent me from acting negligent?  I would say that you are exactly right.  There are things that one could do that could end in others being injured.  Though that is a very slippery slope.  Next you could say that drinking coffee while driving can cause and accident -- as the German's have.  Should I be able to be ticked for this as well?  This really makes you question the thought process of a drive through window.  I would say that someone eating a meal is far less able to react to an emergency situation at high speed on the highway, then someone that is reassuring their wife that they are indeed stuck in traffic.

The fact that something bad could happen, shouldn't determine whether or not you have the right to do something.  Though there is a possibility for me to be neglectful in this capacity, it should not be assumed that such a thing would occur.  And I definitely shouldn't be fined or otherwise sanctioned for such an assumption.

Now the situation completely changes if I cause an accident while watching Youtube videos while doing 90mph on the highway.  Since I would be, in such a case, negligent -- as most reasonable people, and likely a jury, is sure to determine.  There are plenty of methods of evidence collection for such crimes. That is not to say that it is not a tragedy for such an event to occur in the first place, but simply to say that we already have laws for such an occurrences.  There is no need to add complexity.

The fact that you have to wear a seat belt, in the same world wear you can buy a motorcycle and launch yourself through the air at twice the speed allowed on most highways, should cause all to question the system we are living in. 

This is not taking a stance alined with chaos or anarchy, simply one that regards personal responsibility as the barrier against crime; not simply the law.  The law should be reasonable and logical; following a natural progression.

For instance, if I can use my radio in my car, then I can use my cell phone(or other such device) in my car; or both should be deemed illegal or against best practices.  Since the argument that something is a general distraction from your duties as a driver can be made, reasonably, in both circumstances.

The fact should remain that if I am doing something that a reasonable person would consider negligent, and I cause injury or property damage to another, then I should be held liable as such -- but not before an offense has been committed.  That is a clear violation of personal freedom.  The responsibility to know of, accept, reject, or mitigate the risk of an activity should be solely the responsibility of the individual.  Looking at things this way, we are able to adjust far more easily to technological and social progressions.

It is not as if the prosecution of thought crime -- whether by public opinion, through corporate policy, and/or by way of judicial decision -- has been a rare occurrence or a recent invention in the United States.  This should not stand to mean that it should continue unaddressed.

Private companies, groups, and organizations have been allowed to influence politics and public policy for far too long.  Especially in regards to religious and various other political groups, while untaxed as a group, they continue to affect personal rights.  This is not uniquely an American problem, but a world wide epidemic.  You can point to any society in history, and see how it's government functions directly opposed to and constantly fights against the will of the people; rarely in a crusade to help a disadvantaged group.  If this occurs, it is usually an externality.

From slavery to the bank bailouts, rarely are the items the government are focused on something that is going to be good for the people as a whole.  The governments actions often, if unintentionally, subvert the needs of the population.  Change that is good for the people is accomplished, more-often-then-not, by forcing the government to change by dragging it along -- usually loosing some additional freedoms along the way.  Progress would be immensely faster if the government was a body that could anticipate the needs of the people, while protecting their rights against infringement, even if that were to mean allowing some to subvert system (which is already happening anyway, mainly for the rich.).  This is a natural occurrence in any system, and usually leads to the best results;  ie. the internet.  The time rights are most needed is when they are in direct opposition to the majority opinion. 

It is critical to fairness in any social system, that logical connections be made, and held against bigoted opposition.  Which unarguably the most crucial part of personal liberty.   So is every system designed to be fair? No.  Inherently, there are going to be things that favor one group or another slightly.  The amount of disparage that is clearly evident in our laws ans policies is the what I am arguing.  Naturally there is a financial focus, though that is designed into the system.  Evidenced by congress voting themselves pay raises at a higher rate than those of the average worker.   There is inevitably going to be times that a situation is just unfortunate regardless of how good our intentions or how well we plan for every inevitability.  There is no chance that we will react without flaw in every situation, though that isn't an excuse to go completely in the opposite direction.

To say that a lawyer is someone that has to go to school for 12+ years in order to gain proficiency in one or two areas of practice, but then to force the rest of the untrained population to know such a complex system, is unconscionable.

It is not possible for one to know all of the particulars of each of the laws in each of the towns, cities, and states they plan to live, do business, or travel.  Proof of this?  Lawyers need to take a bar in each state in most cases, even though they understand the overall mechanisms that govern the workings of the law, and they are relatively similar, most attorneys that I have spoken with would suggest that you speak to an attorney in the specific state in question. 

Along with all of the federal laws that may be applicable depending on the situation you will have recent decisions and definition of terms to contend with. Do not forget, also, that the law is ever evolving, so much so that lawyers must subscribe to an expensive service just to keep up with the  recent changes.  How accessible is the patent system to the small business man, who's ideas it was designed to protect?

So would you then assume then, that it is reasonable that the average person be held to account for all these variables?  Is it reasonable to expect each citizen to consult a lawyer for each decision they make in their daily life?  If so, we better start talking much more seriously about significantly increasing the minimum wage.


________________

Related:
http://www.stupidlaws.com/
http://www.dumblaws.com/
http://www.businessinsider.com/most-ridiculous-law-in-every-state-2014-2 
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/394022/yes-stupid-laws-help-kill-people-david-harsanyi
http://www.usattorneylegalservices.com/stupid-laws.html




  

Are we really still arguing about the Linux Desktop?

I have written on this before, and I feel slightly bad for speaking on the topic again so soon.  This is far more out of frustration then a need for things to be further clarified, or points to continue to be pounded into oblivion.

After reading some recent stories it struck me how much people don't understand about using a computer as a tool. I think it is agreed, by all authorities on the matter, that there is a pronounced learning curve associated with Linux.  This is because things that make the computer happy, are rarely easily understood by the average user.

To reiterate a point further, Linux mimics the community around it.  If you compare the CentOS and Ubuntu distributions one thing that you should notice immediately, if you are looking in the right places, Ubuntu has far more available packages out of the box and far more diverse offerings installed from the start.  This is due to the community surrounding Ubuntu.  They are people that like to tinker, but may not yet have an in-depth knowledge of the system. So those that support the system spend their time thinking about what their users need to be happy with the OS.  

I have noticed quite a bit of the college classes that use Linux, use Ubuntu.  So this means that most of the scholastic packages that one would find useful have a binary built for Ubuntu, and in most cases, other distros based on Ubuntu and/or Debian.

In contrast the available packages for CentOS are focused around server and business productivity software, as that is the most common tasks associated with it's user-base.  I have added extra packages and built software for my particular CentOS 6 install, most of which would not contain useful functionality for those that are not working with the particular use-cases that I am.  Any one who would be using CentOS in the same way I am (media, file, and mail server with some rather persnickety scripting ) would install the needed software themselves and be capable of doing so and configuring it as needed.   Those that aren't would no so, and choose an out of the box solution. 

Though this may be bad for their freedom, it does give you a working product with a very small time investment, and in reality that is what people want. 

The really damaging thing to Linux on the desktop is the fact that anyone that is incapable of using the system in it's current form, for all but the most simple applications, wouldn't find the additional functionality that these systems offer useful -- since they wouldn't understand how to use it. 

Even the nerds among us download the easy to use application to get some work done and save time. This is not to say that is would be impossible for the average user to find value in using Linux as opposed to a proprietary solution -- especially if they are a student -- though they should seek out help from the community before they run into problems; a rarity.

In a perfect universe people would be interested in computing for the sake of using it as a tool, and would have the time to take such interest.  Though, again, this is not reality.  Rather people want to get a specific job done with as little understanding as possible.   So while Windows* is available and is the easier solution, that is what the majority of people will use.

So is Linux/Unix a better operating system than it's proprietary partners, of course!  Evidenced by the fact that it is harder to use.  It is like comparing a Formula1 car to the average minivan.  The level of knowledge/skill that you have to have to drive the Formula1 car is appearent, if not immediately by it's appearance, it is abundantly clear once you attempt to drive it.   Then again, you wouldn't want to be charged with modifying the Formula1 car to pick up the kids or do the shopping.

“UNIX is an operating system, OS/2 is half an operating system, Windows is a shell, and DOS is a boot partition virus.” — Peter H. Coffin.