Misc. Ramblings

I watched the fifth and, as it turned out, deciding match of the America's Cup race held off the shores of New Zealand this past weekend. And I guess I should not be surprised that the Swiss-owned team (as fellow Daynoter John Dominik correctly points out the teams are multinational - see his post here) won going away.

And as in two of the previous races, the Kiwis had an equipment failure when, in this case, their spinnaker pole (sometimes called a spinnaker boom - the pole used to extend the bottom of the spinnaker sail beyond the edge of the boat, and to secure the corner of the sail) broke on the fourth leg of the race.

Still, the Kiwis had a strange sense of tactics. It was clear that the straight line speed of both boats was very close, although the Swiss may have been slightly faster. But the Kiwis had a distinct advantage in maneuvering. That is, they could turn faster and come out going faster than the Swiss. Given this, you would think they would attack the Swiss by tacking upwind and gybing downwind - thus taking advantage of their turning speed.

But to a great extent they did not. Even though, when they did, they made impressive gains on the Swiss boat. Only to fall back when they stopped attacking. It is really beyond me as to what they were thinking.

Happy Girls Day - Aloha!

When is a clean water resolution not a clean water resolution? Way back around June of last year (see my post here), SWMBO and I attended the Hawai'i Democratic Party convention.

The business of the convention is deciding, among other things, what resolutions and rule changes will be in the party's "platform." To a great extent, the platform is ceremonial but many of the resolutions are eventually translated into bills that are introduced into the legislature.

One of the proposed resolutions was referred to as "pure water". It essentially provided that nothing could be added to the water that was not for the specific reason of making the water safe to drink.

On the face of it, this sounds like one of the those no brainers. I mean, who would be for adding anything else? That is, until you think about why something else would be added. It is at that point that the real reason for the resolution became apparent. It was specifically written in this manner to stop the fluoridation of water.

Regardless of whether you are for floridation or not, to try to get your way by hiding behind nice sounding words, while intending something entirely different is wholly despicable. I don't know of a more underhanded way of trying to slip something by people. Nowhere in the entire resolution does it refer to fluoridation of water. But when I questioned the supporters of the resolution, they admitted that in fact that is what they were against.

One specific person even made unsubstantiated medical claims about how she was debilitated by fluoride in the water while on the mainland. This, even though there is zero credible medical evidence of this occurring. The supporters of this resolution must have known they didn't have the scientific evidence to back their claims so, as far as I could see, they simply make things up. I tried to get the resolution voted down, using hard, scientific evidence from the US Centers for Disease Control (see the information here) to refute their misrepresentations but the sub-committee voted for the resolution by a vote of about 14 to 10.

While the resolution made it to the convention floor for a final vote by the general assembly, the sub-committee chair wisely used a procedural rule to separate out the resolution from the other approved measures and had a separate discussion and vote. Fortunately, when the spotlight of openness was shone on this bill, the supporters scattered like roaches when you turn the kitchen light on at night. Every person who spoke on this resolution was against it.

The resolution was soundly defeated and the world was made safe for democracy. Or was it?

Come forward to the present day and the legislature is in session. And what should be snuck through, using a procedural "fast tracking" mechanism that bypasses committee hearings and public review? You got it. The very same "pure water" resolution, but now in the form of a bill that would make it the law of this state.

I can think of no better word to describe these people other than political cowards.

Just an update on a couple of things I'm working on. My experiments with anti-spam software is at a standstill. It seems all of the *nix programs generally available assume you have root access to the server. For me, this is not true. So I'm kind of at a standstill while I try to figure out a way of installing these things. In the meantime, my web host, pair.com, is testing SpamAssassin so all is not lost. MWIKM (more when I know more).

I also have a review copy of CrossOver Office (see it here). They claim the ability to run MS Office under Linux. I don't particularly care if it does or not. What I want to test is whether Lotus Notes does. This is the mail system we use and so far, the only thing I don't have a Linux-based substitute for.

The first of three days of tests starts this afternoon. As noted earlier, it's called an MIBG scan. I started taking an oral solution of potassium iodide yesterday. The potassium is to prevent the accumulation of the radioisotope they will inject today from accumulating in my thyroid. This is so I won't get thyroid cancer from the radiation. Sigh. MWIKM.

Aloha!

One reason keeping people from converting from Windows-based applications is the difficulty finding MS Office interoperable versions in Linux/KDE/Gnome.

Presently, there are two general options. Use semi-compatible office suite software such as OpenOffice, Sun's(tm) StarOffice or semi-compatible individual applications like AbiWord or KWord. For those with fast processors and lots of RAM (and lots of patience - ed.), you can try to use an Windows emulator such as WINE.

Each has it's problems. The Linux office suites are, at best, at version 1.0 levels of compatibility and stability. It is not unusual to find documents created in Windows appearing very differently in Linux. From simple things like bullet lists to complicated tables, the Linux version will look amazingly horrid. In many cases, trying to use a Linux based office suite in a production environment is an exercise in frustration as they continually segfault. And running an emulator is a slow, bug filled process.

While the long-term solution is to let Linux-native applications mature, for those that can't wait, an interim answer is to run MS Office in Linux via an emulator. Codeweavers' CrossOver Office tries to do this using WINE as a base.

I installed CrossOver version 1.3.1 without problems. The interface is a simple list of applications that they have install scripts for such as Office97 or Office2000 (sorry XP fans, no version for OfficeXP yet. Neither is FrontPage supported), Visio, Lotus Notes R5, and Quicken. Obviously, to install these applications you still have to have the software, but CrossOver emulates a Windows environment into which you can install, although not necessarily run as we shall see later, the above applications.

First up, I installed Office2000 Professional (Excel, Word, PowerPoint, Outlook, Internet Explorer, and Access) without problems although there are times when nothing seems to be happening. Conversely, running the applications found several problems. As of this writing, Access is not supported and IE has several problems (such as not being able to save favorites). A show stopping bug I had was printing which, through their own WINE PostScript driver, doesn't work.

But over and above problems in running MS Office in Linux, there are questions such as how do you download and install security fixes and updates? If you have Linux and Windows on the same drive, and Office already installed on the Windows partition, can you legally install it on the Linux partition without buying another license?

But the bottom line is you can install and run most of the MS Office applications which removes compatibility as a barrier from moving to Linux. This is a Good Thing. But do not expect things to run as smoothly (who would have thought to use the word "smoothly" when referring to Windows?) or as fast (ditto) as they do under native Windows.

As interesting as installing MS Office was, my main objective was to install and run Lotus Notes R5 since this is the mail system we use here at work. While the install went smoothly, I can not get Notes to connect to the Domino server. However, this is more a problem with the underlying operating system than CrossOver. In our environment, Notes is running on a Novell Netware server. And while Novell is switching over to using native IP, our Netware servers currently run IPX. Now as many of you know, IPX is not compiled into the Linux default kernel. And without IPX, and a bunch of betaware kludges, you can't log into a Netware server.

So, before I can even test how well CrossOver emulates Windows for the Notes R5 client, I have to get Linux to connect to our Netware server. Under Linux, this is not a trivial task so I will not be doing this until Red Hat 8.1 is out. Note that under Windows, it is a trivial task to connect to a Netware server.

But for now, if you need 100% compatibility with MS Office products, one way of doing that is to run Office in Linux. Just don't expect things to run as well as they do under Windows (heresy I say! Heresy!).

Aloha!

In the continuing story of the triumph of the geeks comes this link here to a guy who decided to get high. Or more accurately, send a camera, transmitter, and assorted other hardware high into the sky via a weather balloon. The result is some pretty amazing images.

For those interested more in kitchens than the sky, comes this guy here or this one here who has a PC toaster. No, I'm not talking about the Mac software, I'm talking about a PC in a toaster.

Thanks to jwz (yes, that jwz - Jamie Zawinski of Netscape Navigator and Mozilla fame) for the pointers.

I leave work early today for the first of two days of medical scans and lots to do before I go. So I am out of here [he needs more here, so feel free to send all your here, here - ed.]

Aloha!

I spent my time this morning editing a letter our graduate school group is sending to the head of the Employees' Retirement System so I am out of time. Here are a few Fark links:

Hooter's Air May Go Bust

Top 10 Scientific Discoveries of 2002

BMW: New and Improved, Now Grenade Proof

And this last link here from jwz leading to all kinds of case mods. Enjoy!

Have a Great Weekend Everyone - Aloha!

I'm at home today doing some work around the house. I have to trim one of the closet sliding doors, paint the front house steps, and watch while a couple of workman move one of our air conditioners from the front house to the back.

I'll be back tomorrow.

Aloha!

I have lots to do, both at work and for class so I gotta' go. [MOFW - Men Of Few Words]

Aloha!

One of the Daynoters had a recent column on creating and editing sound files. The columnist recommended the Ogg format because it is royalty free and creates smaller files than those saved as MP3. The first part is definitely correct and so may be the second, but I have not found this to be the case.

Long time readers will remember I did a unscientific file-size comparison between Ogg and MP3 (see it here) and found Ogg created a significantly larger file size. So I decided to give it another try, this time using one of the applications, Goldwave, noted in his column. To be fair, Goldwave is not the one he apparently used, but the one he did, Sound Forge, has only a limited use downloadable version. It is so limited use (see the limitations here) that I could not do a comparison that would be of any use. Hence, I used the other application - Goldwave.

In either case, this is the configuration:

Ogg Vorbis version 1.0, 44,100Hz, stereo, 128kbps
MP3 LAME 1.32, Engine 3.93, 44,100Hz, stereo, 128 kbps
MS WAVE, 16-bit stereo

And here are the results of ripping Dave Koz's "Can't Let You Go":

WAVE: 44,441KB

Ogg: 14,637KB

MP3: 4,032KB

Obviously, since this is just a couple of instances, I can't extrapolate these results very widely. But I'm really confused as to why everyone seems to be saying Ogg gives a smaller file size when, so far, I've found otherwise. I know that ripping a few files is hardly an exhaustive investigation but you would think the difference would be closer. As it is, it's not even in the same ball park. In fact, Ogg is over in the next county playing soccer.

Whatever is happening, be clear I am not impugning anyone's reputation. Rather, I am simply reporting the results I have. If you do your own testing and find differently, please let me know what your configuration is so I can change mine to match and re-run the test. Your mileage may vary.

Aloha!

No one can predict, with 100 percent accuracy, when the war will begin, how the war will go, nor what will happen after it ends. But these things I do know.

We will go to war - only the time is yet to be revealed. And if anything, when the attack comes, after all the delays in the United Nations, it may be past the optimum date of readiness.

All organizations can hold the fine edge of optimum readiness for only a short time. Once they reach that state, things soon begin to cause a reduction in readiness.

Some are psychological. People can not stay 100 attentive to a task forever. They have to stop and do something else, otherwise, the mind wanders. Mistakes are made. The mind can become overloaded at a heightened sense of awareness.

Some are operational. Men and their machines need maintenance. Engines need to be torn down and serviced. Gun barrels have to be replaced.

People need rest. The adrenal system was not designed to stay on alert for long periods of time. It was built for three responses - fight, flight or stand down. If it's at the fight or flight mode for too long the body begins to break down.

I wish we weren't going to war but if it is to be war, I wish it to be done as quickly and safely as possible. To our troops, wherever they may be, God speed and may the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Moses bless America.

I'm in the middle of re-doing our intraweb page from the buttons on the left configuration to one that looks like your standard Yahoo portal. The reasoning behind the change is to reduce the number of mouse clicks required to get to the information the customer wants/needs. The goal is to find what they need in one or two clicks.

Of course, creating a page that literally has links to every document on the site soon becomes very messy and difficult to find what you want. So the Yahoo model of efficiency has to be balanced against the practical matter of having too much information to sift through.

Part one of the project was to create a page with all the links on it. Part two will be to organize the links in ways that people will find easy to get to where they want. As tedious and slow going as part one was, part two will be even more challenging because people deal with information in different ways.

Some people are visceral. They go through life as a mass of emotions, feelings, and impressions. They solve problems in a round about way that seemingly has no rational process to it and is characterized by leaps from start to conclusion.

On the other hand, some people are rational and logical. They analyze life by breaking down the whole into manageable problems, studying these problems, generating hypotheses, establishing objective criteria, deciding on a solution, and then evaluating the results of the solution. To these people, problem solving is a straight line process.

To create a web page that satisfies both is difficult, if not impossible. But as far as I see it, a web site with a logical system of folders and sub-folders would drive the visceral person to distraction. Conversely, a portal site where everything is everywhere will frustrate the logical person.

In the end, the best way may be a dual site and let the user pick which path to follow.

Aloha!

I understand that fellow Daynoter Doctor Keyboard's site and email are down. I don't know when they will be operational again but if you have an urgent need to get ahold of him, you can do so at chriswj at tiscali dot fr

Have a Great Weekend Everyone - Aloha!

There have been various schemes to reduce or stop the number of unsolicited junk e-mails we all receive. But if it were something easy to do, it would have been solved by now.

Many people think passing laws against spam will stop it but fall silent when asked how US laws would be enforced in Nigeria, Russia, or China. But as PBS columnist Robert X. Cringely (see his column on spam here) says, the most efficient answer (other than shooting a few spammers - ed.), is an economic one.

For example, you don't get as much unsolicited snail mail (other than from credit card companies) because it costs a lot of money to have it delivered to your door. Hence, marketeers have to focus their mailing to people they think will actually buy their product or service.

Cringely argues that we could setup a system in which e-mail is filtered and held unless the sender is either in your address book (thus having your explicit consent to send you e-mail) or is willing to pay, through PayPal, some amount of cold, hard cash. The money received, if any, could be split between you and the service performing the filtering.

As with all schemes, there are problems. Suppose you buy something from sharperimage.com and they send a confirmation e-mail to you. How would you know what the e-mail address they would be sending from would be (so you could add it to your address book in advance)? Yes, you could set the amount that they would have to pay to some small amount, perhaps equal to the cost of a stamp, but what if they don't want to pay?

Well, okay, this problem could be solved by companies indicating the address they will be sending from so you can add them to your list but that solves only half the problem. What if you want to send an e-mail to someone that doesn't already have your address in their list - for example, a governmental agency that you need information from, would you be willing to pay to have your e-mail delivered? Maybe. Maybe not.

The net effect of this solution is to transform the Internet from being free to something you pay for. Perhaps this is a Good Thing and perhaps it isn't. But I can't think of a more efficient solution to reduce spam. The question is, is the solution more onerous than the problem? You decide.

Mozilla 1.3 went gold last week Thursday. Got get it at mozilla.org.

Opera 7.03 slipped out the door to fix a security hole (get it here). I don't know if the pace of security problems is increasing because of a loss of focus by Opera or because more people are taking a serious look at it and finding things that have always been there. It may be both, but I think it's more the former than the later.

Ever since 7.x first came out, I've been wondering if Opera is experiencing financial problems. No, I don't have any insider information nor am I claiming any kind of expertise. But it seemed to me that Opera shipped a product that was not ready and was obviously so. If this is true, then the question becomes why would you do that and the answer is economics. If you don't ship, you don't get money. If you don't get money, you don't exist. Obvious. What is not so obvious is that shipping product before it is good enough will, over time, decrease sales.

The Internet operates by word of mouth and good will. Ship a product before its time and the word of mouth will be bad and the good will evaporates. Now, in a monopoly, this doesn't matter. But in a world in which other browsers are available for the price of a download, you can not afford to operate with impunity.

Aloha!

During the last gubernatorial campaign, the education unions abandoned the Democratic party because they believed the Republican voodoo economics plan could cut revenues while increasing spending (especially on them). The Republican candidate promised that she could do that without raising taxes or laying off employees. So it should come as no surprise that the morning paper indicates there will be no pay raises for educators and in fact, there may be pay cuts or lay-offs.

Shocked, I say. Shocked. I guess it just goes to show that even highly educated people can be fooled.

I understand the President will address the nation at 3:00 p.m. Hawai'i time today where CNN, among others, is saying there will be another 72-hour ultimatum announced. If it were me, the cruise missiles would be in the air at 2:55 and the bombs dropping at 2:59. But then, that wouldn't be playing nice now would it?

I am no great supporter of President George W. Bush. I campaigned against him in the election and felt then, as I do now, that he is not the best person for the responsibilities of the President of the United State of America. But whether you or I agree with the march to war, know these things:

• Unlike what Russian President Vladimir Putin says, going to war with Iraq does not destabilize the world. Rather, the coming war is a response to an unstable leader of a country and is a way to bring about stability. Doing nothing would be the most destablizing thing possible. Appeasement, as we saw before World War I and II does not lead to a just a peace. All appeasement does is postpone and make worse the war that follows.

• Unlike what one local socialist university professor said, going to war with Iraq is not an act of terrorism. Going to war is to hold accountable those who would sponsor acts of terrorism. What is being done by the U.S. is in full compliance with UN Resolution 1441. To say the coming war is a terrorist act cheapens the meaning of the word and all of the people who have died as a result of such acts.

• Unlike what some fuzzy brained individuals are saying, our men and women in the armed forces are to be admired for what they are about to embark on. Regardless of your position on the war, the people serving our country in the military deserve to be supported and treated as the heroes that they are. I will not accept, nor will I defend, those who feel otherwise.

As WWII fighter pilot Quentin Aanenson said: "If a person has no cause for which he is willing to give his life, he stands for nothing." I hope and pray that this war can be avoided by Saddam leaving Iraq. But if he chooses not to, a line is being drawn and it is time to take a stand.

Aloha!

All is not new. It is hardly an original thought to say the war on terrorism is a new type of war. A war not against nations, but against men. Men who move from nation to nation pledging allegiance to none while gathering support from all. And therein lies the part that is old about this war.

Money. Wars run on money. Without money there are no weapons of mass destruction just as there are no bullets, or tanks, or ships. From our own history, George Washington to George "Gulf War I" Bush, we had to deal with this. You have to have the money.

But what about the costs to our economy? Let me say right here the cost will be willing paid by our nation, state, and counties. But we must remember that there is a cost. In a zero-sum game, any dollar spent on the war means a dollar less is spent on education, or health, or welfare.

The immediate secondary economic effect locally is the 30 to 40 percent drop in revenue from visitors afraid to travel. I bear no ill will against anyone who decides the place to be during a war is at home, not gallivanting somewhere in the Pacific. But this revenue shortfall will mean many business, already weakened from the September 11th attacks, will go bankrupt. Hardest hit will be the airlines, followed by the thousands of small businesses that support the visitor industry here.

From there it will ripple out to the services that touch these businesses. Even if this is a short war, thousands will be laid off because the damage is already done. People are already canceling travel plans. It will be months, after fighting stops, before a recovery can begin.

As I've noted before, it took our state 10 years to recover from Gulf War I. And while I have no way of knowing if it will take that long this time, I reckon the time frame will be measured in years, not months.

Aloha!

We still live, I hope, in a country in which we have the right to freely speak our minds. However, as with all rights, there are limits. You can not, among other things, defame someone, you can not incite riots, you can not yell "fire" when there isn't one.

In times of conflict, different people will have differing opinions. But our country can not survive if we do not adhere to the limits of our laws and Constitution when we wish to express these opinions. While politicians may be fair game when it comes to disagreeing with them, I do not believe it is acceptable behavior to assault our members of the armed forces or their families.

I hear from someone, who I have no reason to disbelieve, that there has been as least one incident in which the spouse of one of our troops was verbally assaulted at a grocery store, I assume, off base. "She was wearing an "T" shirt with an Air Force logo. A white female approximately 40 years old approached her and asked if she was in the Air Force. The woman spat and cursed at her when our troops wife indicated that she was not in the Air Force but that her husband was."

Folks, this is not acceptable behavior. It is also disrespectful to the sacrifices that all members of the armed services have made, do make, and will make in the future.

This must stop. If you have a problem with the policy of our country, direct your words at the politicians who make the orders, not the people who have to carry them out.

Aloha!

Communications is a tricky process, I'm talking here about the interpersonal kind. Many of you have been part of school exercises in which students are lined up and then the person at the start of the line reads a short message to the next person in line. This next person then, without the aid of having the message written down, orally repeats the message to the next person in line. And so on down the line until the last person has heard the message. At that point, everyone gathers together and the last person tells the group the message he or she heard.

Everyone has a good laugh when what the last person says has very little relation to what the first person in line said. If you've been part of this exercise you know that I'm not kidding when I say the last message has very little in common with the original.

Likewise, one of the tricks in managing organizations is getting your message out to those who have to implement it. If it helps, think of it as the captain of a ship navigating though shallow waters and having to relay messages to a helmsman situated at the opposite end of the ship. If the captain says to turn in one direction, but the message relayed to the helmsman is to go full speed ahead, there will be problems. Such is the challenge to managers in organizations.

There are a couple of ways of communicating well. One way is to call a meeting of everyone who would need to hear the message and tell them all at once. Hence, there is no repeated tellings and no immediate way that your message could be altered. That does not mean different people will interpret what you said in different ways but it does mean everyone starts with the same message. The problem with this is it is very inefficient to gather your workforce every time you want to say something because the work comes to a stop while everyone gathers.

Another way is to use written communications. The written word does not change. You can copy it a hundred times and the last copy will be the same as the first. As above, how it is interpreted, if it is read at all, is greatly dependent on the reader. The problem is, many people won't even read it, much less remember what it said. And even if read, many people have problems interpreting and understanding written communications.

The bottom line is different people learn differently. So if you want to communicate effectively, you have to use multiple vectors to that end. Which vector to use will depend on what needs to be said and who it needs to be said to. Only you, as a good manager, can decide the best way to communicate what you need done. But you must remember to provide multiple opportunities for your message to get out and depending on how large an organization you have, you may have to repeat the message multiple times.

But don't be surprised if what you said and what is heard are two very different things!

Have a Great Weekend Everyone - Aloha!

There is a time and place for everything. The Oscar ceremony is not the right place to make a political statement. While I agree with much of what Michael Moore had to say regarding the President, I don't think the telecast was the right place to say it. Yes, it definitely got his message out to more people than any of his documentaries, but if the purpose of his rant was to change people's opinions, then I think he failed. Maybe he should get a blog or something. Oh wait. He has one. Be warned that he is extreme in the way he puts things but as long as we live in a free country, he has the right to say what he believes in. I just wish he hadn't said them when he said them.

Aloha!

There are two critical objectives of this war. The first is to get Saddam. By get I mean kill or capture. Right now, it is too early to know one way or another the status of Saddam but be assured the US is holding back no effort to find him. This is because one of the lessons the current President learned from the elder Bush is that it was a mistake not to continue on to Baghdad in Gulf War I.

The second is to find weapons of mass destruction. While the President, his administration, and his military commanders try to but on a brave face about how world opinion does not matter to them, if the US does not find such weapons, whatever little international support they have will evaporate. But more importantly, domestic support will also substantially decline.

So what if either or both objectives are not met? No one can say for sure, but I think in the first instance, we will end up fighting Gulf War III to finish the job. In the second, domestic support will erode enough leading to the President losing the next election.

Sorry for the late post but Internet access was down again. It's probably just as well as I don't have much to say this morning.

However, I have decided to create redundant access to the Internet by signing up for DSL in addition to the Road Runner cable modem that I have. That way, even if one goes down, I'll have the other to fall back to.

Yes, it will be expendisve but I think access to the Internet has gotten to the point where I am much less productive without it.

So, I'll give DSL a trial and see how well that works.

Aloha!

Internet access was down again this morning so who knows when you will be reading this.

The more the war progresses the stranger the strategy being employed seems. It appears the US has made a political decision to avoid inconveniencing the Iraqi people. By that I mean the US has avoided hitting the Iraqi infrastructure, at least in Baghdad, such as electricity, phone, water, food, roads, and air fields.

In addition, there appears to be an effort to supply humanitarian aid to Basra. Even as Iraqi troops are doing everything they can to stop the aid - up to an including using classic tactics such as ambush and hiding among the populace.

With all due respect to the Iraqis, the sooner the fighting gets over the better for everyone. Hence, to the extent that US troops are put in harms way because of these political decisions, is the extent the war could take much longer. I know it seems paradoxical, that by acting like barbarians we are actually being more humane, but war is like that.

We must not fall into the trap of loosing focus of the objectives and become distracted by side issues that do not directly lead to successful conclusion of the war. If focus is lost, events will spiral out of control and they will dictate the course of the war.

Aloha!

In relation to yesterday's post, some people are saying the reason Baghdad's infrastructure, up until recently, had not been targeted was because the President and most of his advisors felt that they could get Saddam's officers to surrender without a fight.

If this is true, then to say that idea is a non-starter is to be generous in the extreme. Does the U.S. continue to think everyone thinks the way we do? That "awe and shock" from the air would win the war without having to fight, on the ground, in the sand and mud? Do they think that the Iraqis would throw down their weapons when the obviously superior firepower of the U.S. military was displayed?

If this is what the planners thought would happen, then this is a flaw going back to at least that other old Texas wrangler President Johnson's strategy in Vietnam where he thought he could cut a deal with anyone.

This is not Gulf War I. The Iraqi are fighting for their country and their way of life. They are fighting foreign invaders on their own territory. Of course they will fight. Of course they will use classic guerrilla tactics against a larger, better equipped force. What do you think the early New England colonial irregulars did against the British?

Is this so obvious that no one wanted to acknowledge it?

In the end, the result will probably be the same, but how many U.S. forces will die because of a strategy based on fairy tales? If I've said it once, I'll say it again: If you are going to make war, to use a local phrase, Go for Broke. Use everything you have. Assume anything that moves is the enemy and kill it. To do otherwise is to place our forces in harms way for no reason.

Aloha!

Dog Bites Shark. If sharks could read, they would know it is not a good idea to attack an Australian dog. At least, not when there's another Australian dog ready to dive in and attack. It seems a man was walking with his dogs along a beach when a shark attacked and dragged one of the dogs under the water.

The second dog, seeing the attack from the beach, came running into the water and attacked the shark. Both dogs emerged from the surf unharmed. See the story here. No word on the shark's condition.

Speed Saves. This is hardly definitive, although I have seen similar reports, but raising the speed limits along certain Norwegian highways has resulted in fewer accidents.

"We think drivers drive better and more steadily at limits they themselves are more satisfied with," Finn Harald Amundsen of the state highway department told newspaper Aftenposten.

See the story here.

Dick Tracy. Yes, it's a watch with a built in cell phone and a 96 X 64 pixel 256 color screen. Electronics giant Samsung announced the watch at CEBIT 2003. See it here. Not to be out-done, Seiko also announced their own wrist-based cell phone. See it here.

Have a Great Weekend Everyone - Aloha!

Congratulations to local golfer Michelle Wie. The thirteen-year-old 8th-grader played in the final group of the final round of the Ladies Professional Golf Association (LPGA - see their site here) Championship yesterday. The youngster finished in 9th place overall and first for amateurs. If you saw her amazing 285-yard (~261m) drives you know how she did so well. Unfortunately, her short game needs a lot of improvement. But if she can stay focused and continue to play, without getting burned out over the coming years, she will do very well one day.

Aloha!

It looks like it may be a never ending war against unwanted commercial e-mail. But my web host, pair.com, has finally gotten half-way serious about SPAM by installing SpamAssassin to filter out spam. I say half-way because there are other filters that can, after a period of time, reach a 99 percent accuracy rate, which SpamAssassin doesn't come close. I've talked about those filters before (see it here) so I won't bother recounting it.

Suffice it to say I am happy just to have something. Time will tell whether this service is useful.

For those using pair, and probably everyone else, you must first enable the filter by going to your server account and editing your mail settings. There are fairly clear instructions on how to do this by going to here. Once you have the server side setup you need to create a filter in your email client. The instructions for the common clients are here.

As the process suggests, SpamAssassin does not delete spam. What it tries to do is identify what may be spam and adds something like **JUNK** to the header. What happens to these e-mails are then up to you to decide. It is suggested that you set-up your mail client to filter on the keyword **JUNK** and automatically have them moved into a separate folder that you can check at your leisure.

Why not just automagically delete the e-mails identified as spam? Because no filter is perfect. Some e-mail that is not spam will be misidentified as such (Type I error). If you automatically deleted all such mail you would be loosing mail you actually wanted to read. Of course, if you try to avoid Type I errors, you tend to increase the probability of having Type II errors. That is, more spam could be let through the filter. As in many things in life, it is about balance.

For the first 10 e-mails I got after enabling SpamAssassin, seven were correctly identified as spam, two were correctly passed through, but one legitimate e-mail was misidentified as spam. I added the sender to the list of acceptable domains and all should be well. Depending on how many mailing lists you are on, it may take awhile to "train" the program to let through what you want.

Is it worth it to use SpamAssassin? Well, that's something only you can decide but one error in ten ain't bad. YMMV.