Finally, they're shooting at our enemies

This just in, in a news update via CNN:

CBS News reports a cameraman and soundman for the network were killed today in Iraq; correspondent Kimberly Dozier critically injured.

I'd rather nobody was shooting at anybody, and I wish nobody was getting killed on either side, but this is, after all, a war. We're winning this war on every front except in the media, and CBS seems to be about the worst. Maybe if the war gets a little more personal, they'll start to remember that the insurgents are the bad guys and we're the good guys.

Pictures of James

Courtney just uploaded the first batch of pictures, starting just before delivery until a few hours ago.

Aji Keshi

I found this term on a wiki devoted to programming issues and terminology. The wiki itself is a delicious collection of both technical and cultural terms.

Aji Keshi is a Japanese term which means roughly "discarding potential". It derives from strategies in the game of Go (which I don't play, but I tried to learn once).

AjiKeshi is when B makes a move that eliminates the aji of the stone without taking full advantage of the two above possibilities. Inexperienced players are uncomfortable with the instability of the board. They prefer to play a locally advantageous forcing move so that W will capture, because it eliminates an uncertainty in a game that often seems just too damned full of uncertainties.

Experienced players, on the other hand, see the aji and let it sit, for as long as possible. (Sometimes they'll even consciously manipulate the flow of the game so as to make a small aji into a large one, knowing that ultimately they'll be able to reap the benefits using one of the two options above.)

Go masters teach that AjiKeshi is a bad thing. Eliminating the aji seems good, because it simplifies, it reduces uncertainty and instability. But when we eliminate aji, we sacrifice future gains to present fears.

This really strikes home with some of the complex design issues I deal with at work. It is too easy to try to design the system to be all things for all foreseeable purposes, and yet sometimes it is important not to make a decision, because that decision may eliminate future flexibility, or paint us into a corner which future needs may require us to work our way out of.

[via 43 folders]

It's my fault, really.

Courtney and Christina gave birth last night to their first. James Roland Conrad Barnes. 6 pounds, some ounces, some inches, ten fingers, ten toes. That's how much I remember from the 5:20 a.m. call.

This is much earlier than expected - the official due date was June 11. Unlike the doctors, I do know why the baby was so early, and it's entirely my fault.

You see, just yesterday I booked a three-stop trip through Sacramento (three days for a conference), Los Angeles (two days of client training) and El Paso (three days to visit the new nephew and my family who will also be out there). Trish and the kids are once more making the trek to New Mexico in hopes of arriving before James got here.

Anyone familiar with Murphy's law will recognize the variation which reads, "if you purchase a plane ticket based on the due date of a baby, the baby's actual arrival will move as far away from the dates of the trip as possible."

At least James came early, so we'll still be able to see him when we're there.

Game Over

This picture should give a good laugh to anyone who's played online multiplayer games. I keep giggling whenever I glance at it again. I would have said "anyone who's played online multiplayer games and has seen Star Wars", but didn't want to repeat myself.

For those who are somewhat farther from the online multiplayer gaming world, I provide the following translation guide.

Lag: "Someone's network connection introduced a delay at a critical moment, preventing both my instinctive dodge and brilliant counter-attack. Without said latency, you clearly would have lost. It is only right that you acknowledge me as the true winner, all things being fair and equal."

Crappy team: "My experience and skill, while massive, were insufficient to overcome the weaknesses of my teammates. Considering how close the game was and the obstacles I had to overcome, it is clear I have earned the win. It is only right that you acknowledge me as the true winner, all things being fair and equal."

Stupid map: "The scenario we were playing had insufficient resources, inequal positioning, and was not well suited to gameplay. Had we fought on an appropriate field of battle, the victory would clearly have been mine. It is only right that you acknowledge me as the true winner, all things being fair and equal."

0wned (variants: owned, pwned): "You are soundly defeated, both as a result of my immense skill and your incredible ineptitude. Do not anger me lest I smite you again."

Da Vinci Code no masterpiece

The first round of reviews of The Da Vinci Code are in, and they're mostly poor.

Thoughts from 30,000 feet

Why are the "restricted area" signs on the cockpit door printed in English and Spanish, but not Farsi? Given what we know about the 9/11 attackers, wouldn't that be a wise precaution?

Murphy's law: If you have the middle seat and a laptop, and one of your two seatmates does not have a beverage, it will be the one on the aisle.

Corollary: People who prefer the window drink more fluids.

A glimmer of light?

I was very pleased to hear the president had selected Tony Snow to replace Scott McClellan as White House Press Secretary. Now in his first week of his new job, Tony isn't letting me down. He's stating the facts and he's naming the papers by name who have misreported the truth.

“The New York Times continues to ignore America’s economic progress,” blared the headline of an e-mail sent to reporters Wednesday by the White House press office.

Minutes earlier, another e-mail blasted CBS News, which has had an unusually rocky relationship with the White House since 2004, when CBS aired what turned out to be forged documents in a failed effort to question the president’s military service.

Another glimpse of hope: Democratic chairman Howard Dean is being called on the carpet for saying what people want to hear. The best part is this criticism is coming from an organization he (and many other democrats, for that matter) might actually listen to.

Dean told Christian Broadcasting Network News that the 2004 Democratic platform declares "marriage is between a man and a woman" just one of the points he made in reaching out to religious conservatives who are largely hostile to the party.

But the platform does not define marriage that way, and his remarks prompted the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force to return a $5,000 donation from the Democratic National Committee.

Dean later acknowledged his misstatement, but the group sent back the money anyway. "We need for Governor Dean to demonstrate real leadership on our issues," executive director Matt Foreman said in an interview, "not to equivocate depending on the audience."

Maybe he thought he could get away with it because his normal cadre of supporters wouldn't be caught dead watching CBN. Who knows?

It's clear to me he still doesn't "get it". He truly is trying to woo any group he can think of, as evidenced by this statement (which he did not withdraw):

He went on: "The truth is, we have an enormous amount in common with the Christian community, and particularly with the evangelical Christian community. And one of the biggest things that Democrats worry about is the materialism of our country, what's on television that our kids are seeing, and the lack of spirituality."

Did you catch it? The Democratic party has a lot in common with the Christian community. Not that many Democrats are members of the Christian community (though I'm sure many are). Dean seems to see them as pretty much mutually exclusive things. "We Democrats are pretty much the same thing as Christians, doncha know!"

This may be nothing more than the common misconceptions that Christianity is about being a good person, not being greedy, giving to the poor, etc. It seems clear to me that at least some of it was also a career politician doing what he does best – telling people what they want to hear, because the correction will never see the same coverage as the original quote, thanks to the MSM.

I think some of the same confusion overtook Katy Couric on Good Morning America, Tuesday morning. I guess it must be surprising to a New York resident that evangelical Christian values are as widespread as they are, based on the tone of her segment. She should get out more. I heard about the piece on the Laura Ingram (sp?) show, under the heading of "2000 years behind the curve", and I think Laura's about right.

Katy even had the nerve to quote scripture to Joel Osteen, pastor of a mega-church in Houston, and focus on how he can be rich and call himself a Christian. Point A: a reporter trying to outfox a pastor by quoting scripture is like a kid with a water gun trying to get a fireman wet. Point B: Katy Couric probably makes a lot more than Joel Osteen, and spends a lot more of it on herself. Point C: What exactly entitles her to unilaterally decide what makes a good Christian, and whether he fits that profile?

From what I heard, I was very pleased with Joel's answers. Whether she wanted to or not, I think Katy's interview was a good thing, since it gave him a chance to speak to a new audience, if even briefly.

White House Egg Roll 2006

This is pretty funny, and worth the download. Just a little news clip about the annual Easter Egg Roll event at the White House.

eggroll2006.wmv (1.05MB)

Thanks, Kevin, for the tipoff.

Email bragging rights

How many email addresses do you have? When I'm asked that question, my snappy answer is "an infinite number", since I can receive mail on any email address within my domain. The practical answer is somewhere around 10, with only about three really being used on a regular basis. I'm not usually one to brag (ok, just nod and smile at that), but I've been meaning to jot this one down for some time partly just so I can see them all in one place.

Top Level Domains
.com
rsmi	active	bruce.wilson
vtext	active	3126361212
fers	inactive	bwilson
interaccess	inactive	bwilson
.net
lasthome	active	bwilson
comcast	active	brucetwilson
distributed	inactive	bwilson
.org
getright	active	bwilson
wefcvalpo	inactive	bwilson
.mil
us.army	active	bruce.t.wilson
.gov
none yet
.edu
none yet
Well-Known Sites
yahoo	active	brucetwilson
gmail	active	brucetwilson
msn	inactive	bwilson
hotmail	inactive	brucetwilson
hushmail	active	brucetwilson
pobox	none yet
aol	none yet
pobox	none yet

To keep things simple, I've omitted my own domain. Suffice it to say I use two main addresses, plus about six aliases on an infrequent basis.

On a related note, the best anti-spam technique I can recommend is to own your own domain, and host the mail services with someone who makes it easy to set up new email addresses at a whim. Also helpful is if you can have all email at your domain come to you by default.

For example, let's say I visit the DevNull website and decide that I would like to download some software. Their website requires me to enter an email address to which they will send the unlock codes.

Now, I don't know anything about DevNull Inc. or their privacy practices, and frankly I don't want to invest a lot of time reading legalese to decide if it's worth the risk. I just want to download the software and get back to work.

Since all addresses at my domain come to me by default, I can enter "devnull@toomuchblue.com" in their email field, and forget about it. The license comes to me with my other email. I don't have to set anything new up for this particular address to work – it is created simply by naming it.

Later, if I discover that DevNull Inc. is sending me a lot of marketing material I don't want, or worse, they have sold my address to others, I can now take the time (about 60 seconds) to redirect the devnull@toomuchblue.com address into a blackhole. Email arriving to that address is discarded as soon as the sender finishes sending it. It never even occupies any storage space.

N.B. I have already blackholed this address, as spammers harvest email addresses from websites.

Rough Men

Putting it all in perspective. A few quotes that stir my blood.

"Throughout history, it has been the inaction of those who could have acted; the indifference of those who should have known better; the silence of the voice of justice when it mattered most; that has made it possible for evil to triumph."

— Haile Selassie

"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."

— George Orwell

Rough Men

There's a character trait that's decided by fate
Comes (sadly) to many, far too faint, far too late.
They won't face the aggressor, stand up to his ire
They have not the will to fight his fire with fire.
So they bend over backwards to see all sides as fair,
Till they're faced with dragon breath fire in their hair.
Like our brethren in France, who'd know better than we,
Yet seem never to learn, seem doomed never to see.

Yes, it seems there are some who're determined by fate,
To possess not the courage to step up to the plate,
Who shrink from all threat because nothing's worth war.
But how can they know lest they've been there before?
Thank God some have courage, the will, yes, the grace,
To stand for the shirkers, stand strong in their place.
Thank God we have stalwarts who'll stand for us all,
Who will rise to the challenge at their nation's call.

The faint-hearted, who fear, whose reaction is flight,
Have no comprehension of those who will fight.
To hide their own trepidation they attempt to demean
The rough men, who defend them, as barbaric, obscene.
Yet these rough men stand ready, hard weapons to hand,
To put placaters behind them, draw a line in the sand,
To preserve for the peaceniks what they won't defend,
So their own unearned freedom won't perish, won't end.

To appeasers, rough men are coarse government tools.
To rough men, appeasers are dumb delusional fools.

Russ Vaughn
2d Bn, 327th Parachute Infantry Regiment
101st Airborne Division
Vietnam 65-66

[via Michelle Malkin]

Illegal!

As excited as the mainstream media seem to be about this "day without immigrants" boycott today, it should be surprising that a few things aren't being covered. It should be, but it isn't.

• The people who would be affected by any new border-security rule are illegal immigrants. They are here without permission. The word is conspicuously absent from the stories in several major news sources.
• Illegal immigrants have no right to go to a job in this country in the first place, so walking off the job is rather meaningless.. Some of their children have the right to attend school, however, having citizenship by being born here.
• Many of the illegal immigrants are not "undocumented", as the politically correct term would suggest. Of the illegal immigrants who enter the country each year, about 140,000 are documented felons.
• The involvement of the Communist Party of the USA in building these demonstrations. Commies? Yup. I have seen multiple reports of eyewitnesses to various "immigration" rallies, who said they saw "a sea of orange banners" by the CPUSA, but were shocked when they didn't appear at all on the evening news. Note well that CPUSA has two big articles on their front page about immigrant rights.
• Meanwhile, the Dow Jones Industrial Average is approaching record territory, an event which had the media almost wetting their pants with excitement when it happened during the Clinton presidency.

I don't get it. What is it that makes these people think that gathering all in one place and waving banners is going to change anything? FYI, folks, if you aren't a citizen, and you aren't here legally (work visa, passport, etc.) then you aren't protected by the first amendment or the rest of the U.S. Constitution. I love the way Scrappleface said it a few days ago.

(2006-04-28) — As May 1st draws near and America prepares for the hardship and suffering of “A Day without Illegal Immigrants”, the Justice Department announced today plans to mark the protest movement with its own act of civil disobedience.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said he’ll encourage federal, state and local law enforcement on Monday to respond to illegal immigration rallies by observing “A Day without Miranda Rights” followed by “A Month without Habeas Corpus” and “A Year without Bail.”

Really, wouldn't it be nice if the INS could just encircle a few of these rallies and check the IDs of some attendees? They've self-identified as being either an illegal immigrant or a sympathizer, and it should be pretty easy to let the legal folks go. But then it would be a "government shakedown", and we'd hear comparisons to Tianamen Square and Nazi Germany.

On the other hand, how about the businesses who are closing down for the day, either out of necessity or to show support? If Perdue Chicken can't afford to keep more than a third of their plants open because so much of their workforce is attending a boycott somewhere, what does that say about their hiring practices? Is this really a company you'd like to keep supporting?

The other possible positive outcome, and the more likely (darnit!) is that the boycott will have less effect than they hope. Lets see, they're not buying and they're not selling as part of the boycott. Assuming that at least some of the buying and selling is to and from others taking part, won't they cancel each other out? If a tree falls in the forest and nobody's around, does it make a sound?

Furthermore, if they're not buying or selling, does that include things like healthcare? Welfare checks? So that the illegal immigrants might perhaps be less of a burden on the legal, tax paying citizens of this country? Where exactly is the downside of this?

P.S. Politicians: Illegal immigrants probably don't pay taxes, since they don't have a Social Security number, and they can't legally vote, either. So why exactly are you so worried about their opinion?

P.P.S. Watch out for the term "undocumented citizen" being used in some of the mass media. If you aren't here legally, you are not a citizen. Period.

Can anyone here pronounce sovereignty? I sure hope so.

[via ]

Shrug-detection

Newly developed technology allows a computer with camera to read a person's body language, within some limits.

The detector tracks the movement of a person's face and shoulders and tries to spot "relative fast movement of the shoulder toward the face". That's a shrug to you and me.

Other work on motion tracking has provided new ways to play games and even methods to detect boredom.

No word yet programming the computer to feel guilty for being so boring.

[via engadget]