Happy Birthday to Me, Happy Birthday to Me...

So it is official, I'm now a whole 21 years old.

Ah, 21, the last of the "Almost Adult" birthdays, and the true last one in most people's mind. The age where the remaining doors to porn, booze, and adult oriented radio contests open. The only non-elderly services and privileges not currently open to me are reasonable auto insurance costs and rental cars (Both open at 24, and for the same reason.) So of my new privilege, which ones do I plan to use?

None. Not a single one. I don't participate in radio contests, I have no intention of drinking, and well, I'll plead the fifth on the last one. I AM - however - looking forward to being eligible to rent cars in 3 more years, so I can finally go on vacations without having to drive there (If I don't drive there, I have to take taxi or bus once I'm there, and that get expensive/difficult.)

But, on to the topic that is momentarily interesting: Drinking.

"So, you're legal now and you plan not to drink... Why?" you say, and I respond "Why should I?" For the past one and one score years, I haven't had a drop of alcohol. And although there have been tough times where things weren't perfect, I feel that I have had no trouble enjoying myself. So why would I need to drink to have fun? And besides, drinking is bad for you (and those around you) on so many levels. So why should I if I'm content with the way things are? But there are several, quite a few more finite reasons I don't/won't drink.

#1. Drinking to Relieve Stress and Cope With Troubles.
Many people drink because they feel they need to get away from their lives and their problems. However, drinking neither solves their problems or allows them for get away. It DOES however remove the few psychological barriers that keep these people from going crazy, or yelling at the people around them for no reason. When the morning comes, they have a horrible hangover, the original problem (Because drinking doesn't fix anything other than sobriety,) and possibly a few irritated friends. Oh, and no recollection of what kind of trouble they might have gotten themselves into the night before.

#2. Drinking to Ease Up Social Stress
This one I could ALMOST reason why people do it. Alcohol lowers inhibitions. In very carefully administered doses, this can be a very tool in helping a person who is normally a shut in be a bit more outgoing. Possibly as a means to ease up the conversation with women. However the key word is 'carefully administered'. Drinking not only lowers your inhibitions, it also impairs your judgment. The small amount you take to 'lighten up' may be, and often is, enough to cause you to think that either A) it's not working yet so you should have some more or B) More would make you even 'looser' and make this process even easier. In both cases you quickly careen into full fledged drunkenness. Yes, you will be looser, but unfortunately, with all you inhibitions tossed to the winds, you will probably also be loud, rude, and generally out of control. Most women find this to be a BIG turn off (And to a limited extent men do too, but many see an inebriated woman and realize that she's likely an easy score.)

However, I have a couple of special personal reasons I don't drink. The first, and most significant being that when I had my wisdom teeth removed, I requested that the doctor provide me with some means of keeping me under control for the operation, as I don't exactly deal well with the idea of being cut, hammered, or otherwise mutilated. So with his help, (and a couple of narcotics, also provided by the doctor,) I has more than a bit dazed when I went in for the extraction. However, I firmly remember that later, when I came home, I could not seem to operate properly. It was like my brain was turned on, but the cables connecting it to my muscles had been all messed up. I couldn't type, I couldn't traverse stairs without help, I couldn't speak. It was like living in a bubble. Being the egocentric control freak and individualist that I am, this INFURIORATED me. I was unable to function without aid, and had almost no control over anything. I SWORE that I would never put myself into that kind of situation again unless it was absolutely called for, like it was with the wisdom teeth, (I had heart palpitations every time I even thought about it for the three months prior to the extraction.)

The other big reason is drunk driving. I figure that no matter how responsible I may be sober, the whole point of drinking is bash your brain back into the state of a hormone enraged teenager. Because of this, the likelihood that I, or anybody really, will be able to make the right choice and not drive after drinking. And if you didn't already know, I'd rather have unpaid debts to the Russian Mob than see a drunk driver on the road, especially ME drunk driving on the road. So since I wouldn't be able to make a wise decision, I figure I probably shouldn't put myself into a place where I'll have to make it.

My 2 bits.

Mood: Older

E-Voting. The controversy and the apparent state of the problem.

(Hey, a REAL post...)

It's all a matter of trust. Complaints about hackers and viruses are easily addressed using isolated networks (i.e. NOT connecting the voting system to the Internet and using encrypted hard lines to transmit the vote tallies to the central office, maybe even a traditional phone call.

But then we come to the trust of the software. It seems relatively obvious to me that E-Voting is a good way to sure up the election. For all of the failures that can be found in computers (Crashes and lost data), an equal number of failures can be found in hand counting the ballots. But how do we know for sure that the ballots cast are legit? How can we prove that the writers of the software didn't write the winner into the software? 'Use Open Source' many say. Well, we're talking embedded systems here, how can we PROVE that the software on the machine is actually made from the published source? The answer is 'we can't' . But then again, how can we trust the current vote tallies? We can't. As it stands, we know now, 4 years later that Bush won as the result of a supreme court ruling in the state of Florida. Individuals may unfairly represent the votes they count, etc. Now in the human counting method, the bias is adjusted for by the fact that each person has a different view. This means that, roughly, the cheaters are themselves a fair representation of the populace, and as such, convey the will of the masses. In e-voting systems, this distributed network is removed, especially if only one manufacturer is used. This is where the ultimate solution has to come in.

So allow me to propose a complete handling solution. First it should be obvious that, "to promote competition" (and evenly distributed biases, *wink wink*) at least 3 different manufacturer's products must be used in EVERY district. Each manufacturer must publish their source code, as well as the MD5 sum for their roms which must be displayed by the machine (Not that we actually trust that number, since it could be saved and displayed. But if the companies make it actually generate that number, then it can be used to detect viruses and the like.) The device must be designed so that the GUI software is encoded onto true ROM modules. EEProm modules may not be used for the GUI. The subjects being voted on will be encoded onto a flash ROM module along with a public key provided to the voting district by the central voting authority. The flash rom module will be secured into the device using a unique head screw holding a cover over it. If at any time this cover is removed, an audible alarm MUST sound. The format of this flash ROM module will be defined by a UNIVERSAL STANDARD and as such will be usable in ALL manufacturer's designs. The votes will be encoded using the public key found on the flash, and the votes will be written onto the flash module along with the card's checksum up to that vote. Some mechanism (preferably standardized) will be used to control voting frequency, such as a single use mag stripe card that is encoded with a card ID number, and automatically wiped when used. The card will be provided by the voter management clerks at the voting center (similar to how ballots are managed today.) The ID number will be written to the flash module and DOES uniquely identify a voter. As an added precaution, the ID code will NOT be associated with the vote, just stored in a list of voters who have voted. NO other network devices, including wireless transmitters, Ethernet cards, alternative removable media, or built in flash ROM devices may be incorporated into the device. The device MAY NOT have the ID of the voter and the vote outcome ANY portion of RAM at the same time. Once the voter is authenticated and his/her ID written to the card, memory must be wiped before voting may commence. A thermal or other inkless printer will be integrated with the device which will print out votes (WITHOUT the voter ID) and cut them into individual slips, which the voter will then place in a ballot box. This is to provide a paper backup while simultaneously ensuring voter anonomy. The paper backups will be handled with the care necessary. (Such as being stored in a cool, dark place in the case of thermal paper) After voting is done, the flash modules, and the ballot box will be transported to the central voting authority who will then use the appropriate private key to decrypt the votes and tally them up using the decryptors of EACH of the different manufacturers. Thus, if 5 manufacturers devices are used, than each card will be decrypted and compared in EACH of the 5 devices (Thus why the flash module's format is standardized) If the results come out different on even 1 machine, ALL of the manufacturers will be investigated. This will keep at least the decoder devices honest. Before the beginning of the voting, each voting machine will be tested to ensure reliability by the voting booth clerks, this includes posting several votes and verifying the results using a decoder. At least one device, from each manufacturer, selected at random, will be tested by submitting a COMPLETE vote load to it. This means if the machine can be expected to see 1000 votes, then at least one will be tested 1000 times and the results verified. ABSOLUTELY NO BATTERY BACKED UP DEVICES OF ANY SORT MAY BE USED.

These measures will almost assuredly guarantee that the voting machines themselves are clean, so all of the 'cheating' would have to be done by humans. The measures are a bit extreme, but they do address the issue.

Fascist security... I wouldn't be surprised if those machines where less likely to make a mistake counting a million votes than a human counting 10.

Mood: Accomplished. That's a lot of planning there...

Junk Used Twice Still is Junk

Since the discussion seems to continue, I'm going to post the current comment chain for the Comunalisim post here to orginize it in a better form. That, and I havn't posted in like a week, so I figure I probably should do something... :)

---

Not that there aren't people who try to force one or the other system to stop existing. Despite being completely within our rights to set up a communal system, some folks (aka Microsoft, and also SCO which made some ridiculous claim about the GPL being unconstutional or some such) try to stop us.

Also, reminds me of something or other I read once... about gift cultures and such... Probably Raymond...
Posted @ 3:47 PM on Apr 14 by Geoff

---

SCO is just grasping for anything because with the exception of their "unfair busines proactices" claim against IBM (which is quite valid BTW), the rest of their suit is absolutely frivilous. As for Microsoft, they are the epitome of what capitolistic view is and since the two views are incompatible, they have to. Remember the communalistic view also has people trying to destroy the capitalists (The anti-SCO virus and the whole of the music sharing community.)
Posted @ 8:12 AM on Apr 15 by JimTheCactus

---

They actually aren't incompatible... And it's rather unfair to say that simply because some people (who often, I might add, don't have a good grasp on the concepts involved [which, I admit, is occasionally me as well]) who have the same viewpoint as others try to destroy the "other side" doesn't mean 1) that they are representative of the whole of the viewpoint 2) they are the epitome of the viewpoint or 3) that the two (or more) can't co-exist... just that some folks think that way. (Both your examples: anti-SCO virus and m$)

Would you want me to lump you with Timmothy McVeigh, because he's American and so are you? Or to lump you with Fred Phelps, because he's a white middle-class american "christian" (though I know you aren't christian... but otherwise)?

Also, I think you'd be hard put to prove that the music sharing community was sharing music for the purpose of destroying capitalism. Were they engaging in communal practices? Yes. Did they do harm to the music industry? Depends on who you ask. Were they doing it either in protest or as a way to harm the music industry? Perhaps some were, but most weren't.

And, yeah, SCO is grasping at anything because they WAY overextended themselves and needed any excuse to make their fight seem worthwhile instead of the waste that it is. _There's_ capitalism in action. There's no justice for those who can't pay for it.
Posted @ 5:01 PM on Apr 15 by Geoff

---

I'm not sure if you and I are working from the same definition of "Capitolisim". I'm working on the oe from Websters dictionary: "An economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market."

Communalisim puts no value on investment, but capiolisim lives and dies on investment value. This is where the two systems are incompatible.

And unless you're trying to rationalize a crime (And it is one), music sharing has, on the whole, harmed the sales of CDs.
Posted @ 12:50 PM on Apr 16 by JimTheCactus

---

But in communalisim, the fact that the person that recorded the song doesn't recieve any payment isn't an issue. The premise is that they will recieve another product of equal value eventually as well. The way we ensure that this "fair trade" in a capitalistic society is by the accumulation of "money" to show, roughly, how much the society in general ows us to pay up that exchange debt. The reason that communalisim sprouted in our society is that the "Money" became more important than the fair excange of goods, so people began to do things that helped them "cheat" the fair exchange, like the record companies screwing with prices till they got an "unfair" share of the value. This process grew quickly out of control with information, things that could be easily created but where being sold for prices 100X or more over the actual cost of development. Things like software, music, videos, etc. The idea of communalisim, as implemented today, suggests that only the cost of the media itself, (which means the full cost of food, and about 100th the cost of music/videos when distributed on cds or dvds, and no cost at all for stuff sent across the Internet.

That's why they're incompatible. And I understand that lumping people together is unwise, but if you consider the basic premise of microsoft, they are persuing to increase their wealth through free trade, which would the show them as being the "perfect example" or epitome of capitolisim.
Posted @ 1:11 PM on Apr 16 by JimTheCactus

---

Okay, firstly: yes, for the music sharers to have done absolutely no harm then you'd have to somehow magically prove that not one of them forwent buying a real CD because of being able to download the song online, which would be extremely difficult to prove and is (most likely) untrue anyway.

So perhaps I misspoke. Now, on the other hand, you would also have a hard time proving that the sharers _significantly_ negatively impacted the sales of CDs. Is it true that some folks stopped buying CDs because of the filesharing? Yes. Is it also true that some purchased CDs they would otherwise not have because they had a chance to listen to some of the tracks first? Yes. Is it true that during the past few years the economy has been on the downturn, leaving less money available to purchase CDs? Yes. Is it true (or at least possible, I haven't done a study) that much of the music being purchased on CD was being purchased by an aging boomer generation, and that as they finished replacing their tape/record collections with CDs, the demand slacked off? Getting farther, but yes, certainly possible. I know my parents haven't bought any CDs for a few years... and even my sister isn't quite as rabid as she once was (and she doesn't have any illegal copies of songs either).

So, you see whether the music sharers have _significantly_ harmed the sales of CDs or whether it was a combination of factors wherein music sharing played a minor part, it depends on who you ask.

Now, for your remark about it being a crime. Firstly, I never said it wasn't a crime. Nor was I trying to rationalize it in my earlier statement (or, in fact, just now). I was pointing out that the actions of the filesharers was not some act of protest or an effort to bring the music industry toppling down. Their actions were to get "free" music. Or at least for the vast vast majority of them.

As for criminality, one can point out many things in the past that have been crimes which aren't now. But the topic of criminality in a philosophical discussion is irrelevant, since laws change. Tomorrow the congress _could_ do away with copyright. They probably won't, and would be in violation of the Berne (I think) convention, but they could.
Posted @ 6:02 PM on Apr 16 by Geoff

---

By "investment," do you mean simply the money that is put towards creating the product (including research etc.)? That's what the dictionary entries I'm reading seem to point to. And in that respect you're certainly correct. The money "invested" in communalism has no financial return to the investor, and so you say that communalism doesn't value investment.

But, like most people, I think you're taking it a bit too simply. You fail to take into account non-monetary expenses and benefits. Reputation (benefit) is one of those (and does play a major factor in "gift" cultures). Time is an expense. Expertise and knowledge are benefits. Certainly, in a system with money, money can be an expense as well. But, the biggest benefit of being in such a culture is the culture itself. As a participant in the culture, investing your time and effort into it, you gain access to all the "tangible" benefits of the culture (ie, in the music-sharing example, the music [putting aside, for now, issues of legality]).

I'll write more on the topic of how the two aren't incompatible later; I have to get dinner and go home.
Posted @ 6:29 PM on Apr 16 by Geoff

---

But look at the trends in sales, CDs have steadilty be FALLING not rising. Fewer and fewer CDs are bought per year, and this trend has been running since about 2001. If piracy, which is what happens when communalisim and commercialisim meet, is 'helping' the commercialists by providing some kind of advertising or what not, the numbers sure don't seem to show it. Not that I trust the RIAA (essentially I consider them the ultimate evil and prime example of the slime that is the unethical commercialist), but they are the best represenitive source of information for record sales. The information I'm working from comes from their report on annual sales, which can be found at http://www.riaa.com/news/marketingdata/yearend.asp

Since the MP3 format was introduced, and music file sharing became popular, music sales have fallen off their general rise and gone into a downspin. Unless there's some other legitamate media other than CD, Vinal, and Audio Cassette tape availible in 2001 (Which predates ITunes) then I would venture to say that piracy has hurt, and hurt BAD, the recording industry. Remember that live preformances are the property of the artists not the record companies, so higer concert sales can't be considered a fair comphensation (and you can't increase sales to sold out shows like Brittney Spears or Metallica anyway.) So I'm failling to see your point. (Plus they're already veterans of the recording business, I don't think that they really gain all that much experience...)
Posted @ 9:58 AM on Apr 26 by JimTheCactus

---

And that's where we're at so far. Let the commenting Continue!!!

Blog Filler... How sad...

Mood: Self-Dissapointment

Gibberish on the Whole

I had a really srong minded post for today, but my reasearch into the matter kinda changed my view... Seems that what I was going to rant about was unrelated to what The actual matter was... So I'm abandoing the post and instead posting the disjointed remains of what I had before (With the edits from my research, see I started off thinking that the ban trans fats thing was about weight loss, but it turns out that it's only remotely related to it...)

So here's what's left of my post...

---

Well... Not that I'm a shining example on the matter, but I would like today to discuss dietary radicalisim.

Specifically this is a bit of a remark of shock and amazement at this post on the blog blogkini, blogheels. I did a bit of research into the matter of tran fats. Seems that the regular process of cooking with "healthy" fats can actually harm them and make them into the "trans" fats (Which are nothing more than regular polyunsaturated fats altered by changing the general entropy level in the molecule, i.e. heating it up, and as such, it will bind in your metabolic processes, but can't do it's job right. If you hydrogenate it COMPLETELY then it doesn't matter because you render the molecule inert, but partial hydrogenation leaves some of these corrupt molecules.) The reason that the matter even comes up is because you can use a cheep oil (Like vegitable oil), heat it up and hydrogenate it, then use it as an inexpensive substitute for butter or lard in cooking.


But this is just one example of dietary radicalisim. As it turns out, the biggest problem with the obesity of americans doesn't come from their diets, instead, the fact that life has become much easier than it was before, and thus requires us to do less manual labor, is almost entrirely to blame. Yes diet needs to be controlled and not intentionally thrown to the winds, and fitness radicalisim is equally messed up, but we do need to get out more.

The only question I have is, why? It's extreamly clear to me, (And the scientific community) that diet and exercise are correlated. If you have high chloresterol, you're supposed to adjust your diet AND your exercise. Why is it that everyone does one or the other? Keep in mind, if you have a #1 from McDonalds large size with a Coke (My personal favorite) it's worth 600 (Big Mac)+ 520 (Large Fries) + 310 (Large Coke) or about 1430 calories. Now, what does this mean to you? Well, in my case, if I where to go out walking at 3 mph (Or about 20 minutes per mile, good for a swift, but not stressed pace) I would burn about .027 Calories per pound per minute, or about 8 a minute. This means I have to walk at that pace for 3 hours to burn off a #1. We could up the pace to my hastened walk (Gym walk/late for the bus walk) which doubles the burn rate, and I only have to walk for an hour and a half. Or, if I wanted to be able to burn off the meal in only 30 minutes of a light walk, I could eat only 240 calories (Which is less than the soda by itself.) But what if we where to balance the process out? What if instead we took a smaller portion AND increased the exercise? We could acomplish the goal with less work than all exercise and less starving than dieting.

(It's important to note that your body burns off more than half of the average person's diet in just doing body things. Digesting food, fighting off disease, rebuilding damaged and ageing tissue, all of those kinds of things use energy from your food, and a lot of it. But it leaves you to wonder, why do fat people not get fatter? Well, since this extra energy is proportionate to the amount of tissue, and the type, as the fat person gets fatter, the 'idle' consumption rate increases and eventually matches their chaloric intake + their exercize, and what exercize they DO do is more significant...)

In my reasearch on the matter, I still found some real gems from the scientific community, like: We discovered exercise to lead to more calorie consumption than just the exercise would have caused. DUH! If you change the average level of activity you engage in, your body adapts to be ready for it more quickly. This means that it's going to pick a higer 'idle' rate, and thus burn more calories, and on top of that, the 'idle' consumtion rate of muscle tissue is giger than everything else, so if you build muscle mass, you increase your 'idle' consumption.

But now I'm rambling... So I think I'll shut up...

---

End disjointed post.

3800 Cals a day for me to meet idle, Cool!

Mood: Conflicted

Because Every Blog has to Talk About it at Least Once

Ok, it's time once again to poke society in a tender spot. Today's controversial topic: Abortion.

First things first: I believe in Pro Choice.

Wait!!!! Don't tune me out yet, it's not your mother's "I can kill my baby if I want too" pro choice. To me there's a lot more to the problem than just mothers killing or saving babies (if you look at it from the right perspective.)

To explore the matter, let us begin with a little thought experiment. I, as a single, sexually inactive male will not ever be subject to the circumstances where I would have to make the decision. In court, this would make me unable to file any kind of claims. So can I fairly make any claims to this matter? I would say no, but that doesn't prohibit me from analyzing the problem and coming up with what I believe; It just prohibits me from trying to force it onto someone else. So along those lines I'm going to discuss the matter at length, although we're going to assume that there's a need for abortion in some rare medical situations where even a planned pregnancy may endanger the life of the mother that is irrefutable (Which it isn't, but work with me here...)

First of all, let's take a glance at all the steps (And label the for future shorthand) involved in bringing a child from nothing through birth and into adulthood. Step 1 in the process, and by far the best place to control the matter, Conception. From conception we move into Step 2 the pregnancy, the most discussed part of the matter. Then Step 3 Birth. Then Step 4 early childhood, Step 5 The Teen Years, and lastly Step 6 adulthood.

Now, as with any problem, the best method for discussing it is to find the source and start there. Technically, this problem actually starts long before we even get to step 1, but complaining about character and upbringing and yelling at the parents of the adults today is pointless. So we'll just skip to conception. This is the place where choice is easiest. There are several options that are available at the level that prevent the need for abortion, like abstinence, contraception, and planning. Obviously, the best method for avoiding abortions is to not conceive, and the best way to not conceive is to not have sex. "Not have sex?! Blastphemy!!!" many say. Some people are just the kind of people who absolutely have to pleasure themselves, despite the consequences.

For those people there's a second, 99.5% effective way of preventing the need for abortion, contraception. Protected sex, although not ideal for birth control, and never perfectly reliable, reduces the risk of pregnancy (if used for such a purpose) and STDs (Again if used for such a purpose) in those people that just HAVE to have sex with people other than themselves (For the non catholic abstainers, masturbation is still a viable path to pleasure, and with proper technique is almost perfectly safe for everyone. ;) However, condoms, diaphrams, and contraceptive pills are not always effective, and there is a small cross section of people who absolutely HAVE to have sex who also have some religious concerns with contraceptives.

Which brings us to the final point of choice: planning. If you're going to have sex (protected or otherwise) then planning is required. Every time you have sex with someone else (obviously excluding same sex relationships in which case the whole abortion point is kind moot...) you have the risk of pregnancy. In some cases this is desirable (duh...) But before you just go off and do the dirty dance, you should sit down and discuss with your partner whether or not you are ready to have a child. Can you provide it a loving, caring, stable environment? Can you provide for it's monetary needs? Can you make the sacrifice to care for it when it's sick or sad? If you can't, then you're just going to have to take a cold shower and get over it. It's not like you can't live without sex. Once you make the choice to do the deed, then you full well accept the consequences of your actions. Your decision is made and you're just going to have to live with it.

But there are some exceptions, 2 big ones I can think of at the moment, Rape and 'Moment of uncontrolled passion'. For rape victims I would say that early process abortion is reasonable, as their choice has been removed. But if they don't report the crime and seek treatment, then they are making the choice that they feel capable of raising a bastard child. (Ya, this seems a bit harsh on the poor victims of rape, but part of the process of adulthood involves dealing with life as it comes to you, and not letting things get in the way of what needs to be done.)

As for people who find themselves in 'moment of uncontrolled passion' situations a bit of pre-planning is necessary. Since you can't anticipate these situations, then sexually active people need to take steps in advance to reduce their risk of pregnancy, and be ready to accept the consequences as they come. This means packing condoms and going on birth control. Both men and women should carry condoms, and ideally, both parties should also have diaphrams on hand, 'cause you never know if your partner did any advance planning. And since you're effectively play a game of Russian Roulette with your career, lifestyle, and just about everything else, you don't want to have more than one bullet in the gun if you don't have too. Also, have a plan laid out for what you're going to do if you become (or make someone else) pregnant. You're going to have to be ready to satisfy all of the normal planning concerns in 9 months or less, and women are going to need some mad cash for prenatal checkups in only three months. And if you seem to find yourself in a large number of these 'Moments' you may want to reassess your life. You're probably intentionally putting yourself in these situations, and should consider adjusting your activities to reduce the number of situations where you won't be able to control the outcome of your life.

*WARNING!!! STIFF OPINIONATED VIEWS FOLLOW*
But if you get to the level of pregnancy (Or got someone else there) then you've already made your choice. If you've been a responsible adult and planned ahead (like you should be doing with taxes, health care, auto insurance, etc) then you should not be surprised or unprepared for the challenges ahead of you. Killing off a new budding life because you thought that sex was fun and didn't feel like being ready for what comes of it is roughly equivalent to buying a puppy, playing with it for about an hour and a half, and then shooting it when you get bored and disposing the corpse in the dumpster in back (And with the "no new stem cells" thing, we can't even use the liver from that puppy to save another, but we'll save that discussion for another post.)

Um... I guess it's actually kinda pro life, but not in the traditional sense...

Mood: High and Mighty (Y? 'Cause I can be!)

On Free Software and Communalisim in the Minds of Gamers

Long title, *whew*. Anyway, I was sitting there, thinking about the service that Blogger and Live Journal offers, and got to thinking: "Why would I ever pay for this? It's not something I would expect to have to pay for." And at that moment it hit me, BAM!: "Wait a second... This service they provide me isn't free to them, it costs money, just like running Motoko. I don't collect a fee for my project, mostly because I don't see how I could anyway. But that means they spend money on it too... So why should I feel so important as to think that they should GIVE me this service." So I stopped and though about all the things that I expected SHOULD be free: search engines, blog systems, online comics, etc. And I realized that NONE of those things are free to the people that run them. Now most search engines sustain themselves on "preferred listings" and banner ads, and blog systems do it by having at least some paying costumers who support a louse like me who uses the software and storage for free, and web comics sustain themselves on "fanboy" items (tshirts and the like) and I realized that I really should contribute to these companies and individuals who are providing me with these services. Especially blogger since there are absolutely 0 ads ANYWHERE on my blog or on the blogger main page.

But then I thought: "Ok, so I take a bunch of free, non-free stuff for granted, but why?" This is when I realized what it was; the society, at least the part of it that I belong to, has been tainted by the extreme commercialism of the '90s and formed a communalist system. Not that it's really all that noble or anything (since it's driven by personal greed and rationalization,) but people in my generation typically work on the premise that anything non-consumable and easily duplicated should be shared. This includes music, software, ideas, etc. This would explain why I expected the Blogger and Live Journal systems to be free, why music/game piracy is so rampant, and the entire open source community (of which I am both a giver and a taker.)

But this poses a problem, as with any social revolution, the communalist viewpoint is the exact antithesis of the commercialist view, just like the prudishness of the '50s created the sexual revolution in the '60s. The problem is that both systems, at least for the moment, must coexist. So what can we do to help these two differing view points cooperate until one of them becomes the dominant social viewpoint? I think that answering that might be the biggest challenge facing our generation. And as for me, I have no good ideas.

P2P vs. 401(K) in an all out battle to the Bank!

Mood: Contemplative.

The Problem with the Dot Coms, From the Other Side

Ok first things first... See that link there in the links section of my blog? Ya, the one labeled NQIG News? I may not update it often, but it would be wise to check it at least once a week. Oh, and if you want to be able to post to it, JUST TALK TO ME. No strings attached. It's purpose is for communicating NQIG news to NQIG members (Although anyone can view it.) I would like similar content guidelines as the forums to be upheld, but beyond that it's ripe for the taking!

But enough plugging the blog, let's move into today's topic of interest: "If I was free to do anything I wanted in the future as my primary income source, what would it be?" And, and many would suspect, the answer is "Run my own ISP". But I don't think I could do it, not without some venture capital, so I'm going to do the next best thing, write up the business analysis and plan here on my blog. ;)

OK... Let's consider what an ISP is: An ISP is a company that provides access to the internet to some group of users. Technically I kinda run my own little free ISP at home, but we're looking for a way to turn it into a business. The question then becomes, what kind of service do I want to provide? Raw network access? Traditional business class service (Web site, E-Mail, Internet Access, custom domains)? Open home access (E-Mail, Internet Access), Firewalled Home/Business access (Users behind a NAT firewall(s), E-Mail, maybe website and domain)? Collocation services? Server cluster services?

Well... I think I would probably target 4 markets Ultra Cheap Access (NAT only), basic home user access (e-mail, NAT), gamer access (Single Static IP, e-mail, broadband only), and general access (Dynamic IP, e-mail). This means that I need at least 1 master router, 1 high bandwidth switch (Gigabit), 1 dialup/nat router (Preferably 2 for redundant dialup), at least 2 servers (For e-mail) preferably 3, at least 1 office, preferably 2 (A small one for the secondary server on a completely different provider to make e-mail fault tolerant,) at least 1 net link (Preferably more, and to different sections of the internet), office furniture, and staff.

For the bare essentials we're looking at about $6000 in network hardware $5000 in network setup fees and $20,000 in non-network expenses (Furniture etc) up front. Then I need a staff of at least 3 people (3 * 8 hour shifts = 24 hour monitoring) besides me who all have expertise in maintaining the system at $15-$25 an hour, and at least 3 people for costumer relations at $6 to $15 an hour. These numbers will need to grow with our client base. Then I need advertising. I could easily blow $100,000 on that, but we'll keep it small and say I need about $20,000. Then we have office rent running at about $1000 a month if I'm REALLY lucky and can find an office with 2 rooms; an ISP doesn't need that much space (A funny point about them is that you really only need 1 room, but people get worried when your networking hardware and your secretary are in the same room. Plus, it's bad security.) Then I need $1000 a month in bandwidth and $300 in telephone service.

What does this boil down too? Well, assuming the business doesn't fail before it becomes profitable, you need (for 0 revenue for the first year and profitability after that): $88,000 in wages, $51,000 in physical stuff and setup, and $30,000 in month expenses money. This comes to an initial investment of $169,000. A very possible business proposal. Remember though, the owner of the company was assumed to make no salary and be able to do both network maintence and secretarial when their normal employees call in.

Considering that $1000 monthly accounted for a T3 link and IP junction with Level 3, that means 672 64K channels. Allocate 10 of them to the PBX for your secretary, set aside 24 for your server, and place the rest on the network backbone. 2 channels = 1 dialup user (One for the phone line and one effective channel for network), 10 channels = 1 640K DSL user, and 24 = 1 T1 user. If you then oversell your channels by about 100-200%, depending on the distribution of your connections (you can oversell dialup more, DSL and T1 less) then for most of the situations, you'll have more bandwidth that will be requested for 90% of the time. If you charge for bandwidth by channel count (Don't tell your users this, tell them your selling by the Kilobit) and tada. 672-24-10= sellable channels = 638 channels. If you charge $5 a channel subtracting $1 for every 5th channel, then you can turn a monthly revenue of about $8000 . $2300 in fixed costs + $18,000 in salaries....

Wait...

Ok... Well that doesn't work. If you're paying $18,000 in salaries just for babysitters... You'll never be able to survive... Hmm

I guess the ISP thing doesn't work...

*Sigh*

Mood: Depressed

WIKI!

Ok... So I started off with the question: What in the heck IS Wiki?! Well... Turns out that Wiki isn't a piece of software or anything like that, Wiki is actually a collaboration methodology that has led to the production of software and communities. Specifically, Wiki suggests open collaboration between UNREGISTERED users on a self linking website. Basically envision this. You create an article and call it WhoCaresAboutWiki. The you write a bunch of stuff. Then someone else creates an article ReasonsToLikeWiki. In it they include the word WhoCaresAboutWiki. This word is automatically linked to the article you wrote. Now what makes Wiki different from other methods is the fact that ANYONE can edit the articles. Or delete them! And I mean anyone. There is not supposed to be any kind of user authentication on any level.

As a sys admin I worry about those kinds of things. It sounds like a great idea in a utopian society, but it only takes 1 person to mess up the whole thing. Oddly enough though I'm not worried about someone deleting all the posts. A simple forward looking DB could easily handle that. I mean, create a base file from the original post, and every time someone edits the post, create a differential file that is Huffman or Run-Length encoded and then only keep the most recent post in the DB's main file. This way you can "rebuild" the post up to any particular date by "replaying" the differentials. Then every so often, when everything looks ok, update the base file up to some number of edits from present to minimize wasted overhead. What I worry about isn't content deletion, trolling, spamming, etc, I worry about overflow. What happens if you have an innovative person trying to overwhelm the DB server?

In my comment program I control this with maximum post frequency and maximum post size, but would that be practical in a Wiki? I would say yes on post frequency, but unsure on max post size. Maybe if you allowed them to post 10,000 characters once every 30 seconds... Naw, because of the "repost the whole page" thing, they would really have to keep the whole page under that limit...

Well, anyway, I like the ideal case, but feel that Wiki is just not practical in the modern day. However, the forum effect is quite desirable because at the very least you make an individual responsible for their own content by associating it with a username.

Still doesn't mean I don't mind posting on other people's wikis...

Mood: Inquisitive

The Oddesy of the Ruby

A tale of hardship, companionship, and the lives of small squishy creatures

Ok, so I knew it was coming, but none-the-less, I have begun the hunt for the Carbuncle ruby. For those that have undertaken this task, you can sympathize with me on my plight. 4 hours and I still haven't found one to call my own. The scary thought is that 4 hours is a drop in the bucket compared to what most people spend trying to get it. Ironically, Etheralith and I found one just 20 Mins into the search, but thanks to a poorly timed IM, I was forbidden to have it (Stupid Fates... Just wait... One day I'll find you guys and put a pointy stick through that eye of yours!!! You'll See!!!)

So I have continued the search. The time passes better with a team, but unfortunately the possibility that I'll find one and actually get to keep it is smaller. And if I'm not the one who gets it, they'll probably leave without helping to find another one for me. *Sigh* 'Tis the dynamic of people in groups.

As for the leeches themselves, I would have to agree with Ether... They are actually kind of cute. Cute in that 'I expect to find a Bennie baby Poison Leech named Floppy one of these days' kind of way. I personally wouldn't buy it mind you, but it would be a good canidate. I've also found them to have a terribly annoying set of special skills that seem to proc unreasonably often. It actually kind of bugs me. Regen, Attack down, Blind, Stun, and both TP and MP drain all used in the same fight would get on anyone's nerves. But the fact that soloing them I can take about 5-7 of them between resting is quite assuring of the power of my char's design. I could take more if I could learn the ninjitsu that gives me the copy image effect, but that's either really expensive or really time consuming to get. *Sigh*

Maybe Ether will help me find a ruby tonight.

Mood: Kinda sad, kinda anxious, kinda proud. A virtual stew of human emotion. :)