You don't get to decide that sir

(note: this video is from 2007, but the enabling legislation for the proposal is currently before congress)

My father has the same name as I do. He has been on the no fly list, because he is a convicted felon, drug smuggler, murderer, and was once associated with the IRA. He had to sue to have his name removed from the list.

I have had firearms transactions held up because of this. I have been held for "additional security screening" because of this.

I have every right to firearms, and that list is an unconstitutional infringement on peoples rights to freedom of travel, nevermind using it to restrict peoples access to firearms.

You know what that list actually is? It's names. Just names. Including the names of congressmen, and law enforcement officers, and thousands of other innocent people who HAVE been stopped for no good reason.

No probable cause. No process for putting people on the list. No process for taking them off the list. Thus far, the only disclosures about the list, or removals from the list have been at the direct intervention of federal judges, cabinet secretaries, and members of congress.

No, you don't get to decide that sir. You do not have that right. You WILL NOT have that right.

Civic Duty

So I've been really busy the last couple days, because tomorrow and possibly Friday (and possibly more but I hope not) I'll be out for jury duty.

Seriously, there is no lawyer on the planet that will want me on a jury... unless it's someone who defended themselves with a firearm; and then the prosecutors would get rid of me so fast my head would spin.

So I expect I wont be out past Friday.

Importantly though I will have no net access at all 'til after 5 tomorrow. No writing to be done over here.

The universal and inevitable consequence of "social democracy"

The Grand Unified Theory of Contact Numbers

So, Mel and I just got our invites to Google Voice, which used to be grand central.

Google Voice is a service that allows you to have one single number that people can call you on, and that you can call them back on; that will ring any phone number you want it to, on any schedule you want it ti; screen your calls and take your voicemail (and transcribe and email it to you); and in general act as a single point of contact for you.

Oh, and it's free.

Now, that may not seem like a big deal to someone who has say, just a mobile phone, or just a mobile and a landline.

That person would not be me.

I have a home land line, a work landline, two mobile phones (home and work), and two voip lines. Oh and that doesn't include Mels mobile, or work line.

I used to have a similar service called Webley, and I loved it. In fact I was once of their first customers. I found out about them because I set up their firewalls, and I stayed a customer until they stopped offering their service to individuals (they were eventually bought out and now you can get that service for your corporate voicemail, but not as an individual).

Google voice also has a feature the others don't: It can ring any phone you happen to be at, and then connect you to any number in your address book with the click of a web button; again, for free.

Of course, I already have free (actually very low cost because I pay for premium services from them) VOIP from skype; but this is an additional service that gives you a lot of extra flexibility aside from what skype gives you.

And of course, if you have a skype-in number (I do) you can add it to the pool, and schedule it like any other number.


The downside? Google gets yet more of your data.

Honestly, Google has so much of my data already, I'm not too worried about the rest. I trust Google more than I trust AT&T or QWest, who already have that data anyway.

Now if they would just let me port numbers to them, and offer 800 service, I can drop my virtual PBX provider entirely.

It's called Rent Seeking

Sadly, this is actually how many defense projects get funded.

Hubris

Robert McNamara died today. His epitaph should be just one word:

Hubris

Plain and simple, hubris. Bloody hubris.

A man was so sure that his fundamental concept was correct, that he would not accept any evidence to the contrary; even when that evidence was dead soldiers.

When your theory doesn't match the evidence, you don't ignore the evidence, you change the theory. Only he didn't.

He absolutely refused to even consider that he and his whiz kids were wrong. That people who actually had experience fighting and running wars, might have something useful to contribute to the conversation about say, running a war.

He was a great believer in metrics; and like so many others he confused metrics and methods with actual accomplishments.

He was a great believer in technology; but had no concept of how technology fit into tactical or strategic equations. How technology always came down to one thing: boots on the ground.

I don't even think he understood the difference between metrics and missions. The difference between technology, and tactics.

And so, America suffered.

So we never lost a battle, but we lost a war.

So 60,000 men died. Stupidly thrown away by politicians and statisticians playing at toy soldiers. Writing their numbers down in their copybooks, and declaring "I won", when some imaginary measurement was reached.

Hubris.

Perhaps god will forgive you.

History won't.

A Little Perspective

Hackers interpret idiotic government restrictions as damage ...

...and route around them

By the by, for those who don't get the reference, it's a paraphrase of a quote from John Gilmore - "The internet interprets censorship as damage, and routes around it"

Seriously, I was talking about Carlin...

But apparently this post:

http://anarchangel.blogspot.com/2008/06/shit-piss-cunt-fuck-cocksucker.html

Has made me the 8th highest search result in google for "Worlds Biggest Cocksucker"...

I mean, I'm flattered and all... but I wish it was at least for a post about Clinton.

This just warms the heart

Video Games - E3 2009 - Attack of the Show

Sadly true, Funny as hell...

and a perfect illustration of why I'm a Minarchist, not a conservative.

It's a rare thing...

But I am genuinely, severely, angry; and it's because of something at work.

Normally I don't let things bother me that way; but this one really got to me.

Obviously I can't talk about it in great detail, but suffice it to say I'm fine, he's fine, and we're both going to remain employed.

I do want to talk about it in some very general ways, as an illustration of inappropriate conflict resolution.

Someone who I generally have a good relationship with is under a lot of pressure. We have a critical project, on an emergency basis, with a very short deadline.

Unfortunately, not particularly uncommon; but this issue involves us being sued for an enormous amount of money.

This person has been directed to make sure the project isn't held up by our organization (not my team in particular, the organization of our SVP as a whole. He is on a different team from me, but we both report up to the same SVP and CIO).

His directive is to insulate our group from liability and clear the project out as quickly as possible. Mine is to provide a solution for the project that meets the requirements set for us by the judge. We both need to keep the legal and technical side separate.

So, perhaps you understand the degree of pressure here.

We have been having problems finalizing the design and costing, because we have several conflicting sets of requirements, several conflicting statements, and conflicting diagrams etc...

Today, we had a meeting with them to specifically discuss only the specific questions and issues we need to complete the design and sizing. Prior to the call, I discussed what we needed to know with the person I'm in conflict with, who I would be asking, what I would be asking, how I would be asking it, and how we would keep the legal side separate from the technical side.

There's the setup.

While we were on the call, I began asking questions about how data would be exchanged between systems. The person I'm in conflict with immediately interrupted and stated that I didn't need to ask that question.

Well yes, actually, I did. I attempted to explain what we needed to know and why, and he cut me off and said that I needed to focus on delivering the solution.

I again attempted to explain what we needed to know and why, and he kept insisting that we didn't need to know this, and couldn't ask these questions.

He was saying this, in front of the customer we're delivering the project for.

After several times back and forth, futilely attempting to get this person to listen to me, he said "If you can't stop asking these questions, you can't be on this call".

Well... never mind that this is my job, it was my call, and my project... Ok, that's secondary to the issue...

I responded, "All right... I'm going to hang up now, and we're going to talk about this later".

Ok, now, first of all this person is not in my management chain, he is my peer. Second, even if he were not, that isn't his job. He is effectively customer relationship and account manager for our internal customers (we call them enterprise planners). It is MY job to analyze business needs, develop, and deliver solutions. It is HIS job to manage projects, budgets, timelines etc... I manage the technical side of the relationship, he manages the business side.

But really, I'm not one to stand on titles and roles. That bit doesn't bother me so much.

Honestly, I think he panicked when he didn't understand exactly what I was asking, or perhaps how I was asking it; because he was paranoid about encroaching on the legal side, and had tunnel vision on just clearing the project out.

That bothers me.

This panic caused him to behave towards me in an inappropriate and unprofessional way. He shut off his input processing, stopped listening and reasoning, and simply reacted.

That saddens and irritates me, but what happened next is really why I'm angry.

He called me up immediately after the call, and apologized for HOW he did what he did, but he still believed it was necessary. He STILL wasn't listening. I then very quietly, and calmly explained to him again (as I had before we ever got on the call) why we needed to get that information, how we needed to get it, how what I was asking WASN'T doing what he was afraid it was etc...

And he didn't listen at all. He is sorry he behaved inappropriately, but he still thinks it was necessary. Meanwhile, one of the guys I lead was asking the same questions, making sure we got the answers we needed to complete the project.

Before we talked the first time (before the call), it seems this person fixed in his head that I was going to ask inappropriate questions; and he was incapable of perceiving otherwise.

Flat out, I said to him "Look, I DO understand what the concerns are, and I agree with you that certain areas were off limits before the call when we were talking earlier. Do you not trust me to, once we were on the call, follow through with what I said? I'm an experienced professional, and an expert in this field, including the legal side of things. I know what to say, what not to, and when."

He said that yes, he respects me and trusts me but I needed not to do what I was doing.

The thing is, he really meant that... but his own panic, and need for control overwhelmed his reason to the point where he couldn't see the disconnect.

Not only that, but he has destroyed our credibility with our internal customer, and showed that protecting the group, was a higher priority than providing a successful solution.

And THAT, is why I'm angry right now.