The Context of Israeli Military Action

One valid argument Palestinians have made against Israeli practices is all about settlements. Israel has, over many years established "Kibbutzim" or "Clusterings or Gatherings" and other settlements all over the West Bank and Gaza. This seems to be an attempt to change the facts on the ground and perhaps expand Israeli land claims.



For there to be peace, the right thing to do would be for Israel to unilaterally halt settlement expansion and even withdraw from existing settlements. This would be a painful and dramatic process, removing Jews from their adopted homes and forcibly returning them to Israeli lands.

This moving process was begun in the Gaza strip. Israeli soldiers, in their largest Peace-time operation, gathered settlers and removed them from their homes, lands, greenhouses, neighborhoods, gardens and synagogues. This web site shows the process:

Israeli Exodus from Gaza

This was a painful, humbling process which was the right thing to do. The removal of Israelis from Gaza by their own military was carried out with love, concern and patience but with a determination to reverse the settlement trend in this first test case.

Once Israel had conceded that they should leave settlements as part of the peace process, how did the Palestinians respond? By allowing a foreign (Syrian) terror gang to take over and begin to fire rockets into Israel.

With this as a result, Israel cannot progress to the next logical step, which would be an exodus from the West Bank settlements. Israel is compelled to close crossings and invade Gaza to put a stop to the madness of Hamas rocket attacks.

Palestine will never become a state (comprised of the West Bank and Gaza) while the insanity of Hamas continues. Hamas militants bring down death and destruction upon their own people, their own families, by firing Rockets or participating in suicide bombing. That is all they are achieving. They are not accomplishing even a step toward a Palestinian state. Israel has to fight their ideology, there is no other reasonable choice. Although, Hamas can prevent more harm.

Wise Palestinian leaders could turn back the Israeli tanks and shells with a short declaration. It is not even that much.

Simply express a desire to have a viable Palestinian state, recognize Israel's right to peace and security and claim that right for yourselves by abandoning violence.

Teach your children to love their neighbors and they will have a future.

Turn your anger and indignation against radical militants among you. See that they are the cause of the suffering. When a militant fires a rocket from near a school, he is designing the death of your children as a feeble attempt to discredit the just actions against them. Israel would never fire weapons on Gaza were it not for militants firing rockets.

Hamas are not heroes loyal to the Palestinian people. They are the enemy of a Palestinian state and the enemies of Palestinian peace and prosperity because, in their minds, Israel should not exist.

Militants will never have their unjust desires fulfilled. Their attitude only leads to more pain, more suffering and the destruction of their own people. Eventually Hamas and other radical militants will be put down. If not by Israel, but Israel's allies. Even the Arab countries must concede Israel did the right and noble thing withdrawing from Gaza and they are justified in stopping the rocket attacks.

Palestinians and Arab nations that can influence events in the region must actively reverse the culture of suicide bombing and rocket attacks. Teaching violence and hatred to generation after generation is no way to get peace.

If the best we can get from Palestinians is rockets, suicide attacks and an endless culture of hatred and irrationality then what is so bad about Israeli settlements? They may even change the character of the lands enough to stop the madness.

Eventually, civilized nations will reluctantly exercise the power needed to end the evil ideologies of Hamas as they have against other evil ideologies in the past. It is possible to put an end to evil cultures, designs and ambitions, no matter how insurmountable Hamas may seem, they can be absolutely and utterly defeated should that be the only way to stop their attacks. The Nazi Third Reich and the Japanese Empire seemed utterly insurmountable and had conquered vast regions of the world. Their ideologies were utterly defeated, though not their peoples.

Just as a peace loving Germany and Japan are welcomed and embraced by the world after the defeat of their former regimes, it is not Palestinians that need to be defeated. They are long over due for having a Peaceful, stable status. It is the ideas of the militants that must be defeated.

=sw

CNN video problematic

Shifting in a lurching way from serious international conflict to domestic internet annoyances, I have to complain about CNN video.

They deploy an HD-shaped window on their site then proceed to STRETCH content that has a Standard Definition aspect ratio (4:3) to the 16:9 shape of their window.

I have complained about televisions doing this, but this is a web site... there is absolutely no excuse for this kind of stupidity in visual rendering.

I believe it calls their journalistic integrity into question. It would be offensive if they animated mustaches onto faces or digitally altered images to include animated digital hats or logos. What they actually do is distort every single pixel of the image, stretching it out of reality.

Here is a captured image from their site:



Here is my digitally corrected version, restoring the real inherent aspect ratio of the video content:



It's clear that the corrected image is far more true to life and real than the stretched one. This lovely woman's face is stretched to pancakoid by CNN's flawed video deployment.

Try opening those two images into separate browser windows to their native resolutions and comparing the look and sizing of them.

I doubt they do it on purpose, it's just that they don't care enough to deliver the best. They are just too lazy to care.

That is a shame, since their business is producing video content and deploying it!

I hope they "find the side bars" for their non HD content and stop stretching the truth.

=sw

About Israel in Gaza

I think it can be seen by everyone that Israel's air strikes and invasion of Gaza appear to be disproportional to the amount of death and destruction caused by the thousands of rockets fired into their territory in recent months by the Hamas "defacto" authority in Gaza.

Looking at this conflict as it is in one moment is not adequate. On the face of it Israel is killing many more people with its response to the scourge of rocket attacks than the rocket attacks killed. First, numbers are not the best way to see this and secondly, Israel is fighting something much more serious that is only represented by the rocket attacks.

To my first point, every life is valuable. The quality of those lives is valuable in a way that cannot be counted. I feel the pain of the losses on both sides. I don't blame the children who are killed in Gaza for the politics that led to their deaths. Every Israeli life is precious as well. The Israeli people must also live in constant anxiety from rocket attacks.

Secondly, Israel is not fighting a legitimate group. They are fighting a bunch of thugs and terrorist gangsters who, no matter how organized, how religiously faithful to their beliefs or how elaborate their clothing and weapons, are just like their counterparts in Lebanon (Hezbollah), an illegitimate, violent, hate-fueled band of bully-thugs whose only goal is the destruction of the tiny minority of Jews in the world and the negating of Israel in its entirety.

Jews aren't just any group. They have been conquered and pressed like olives to make oil over thousands of years. These are they who suffered at the hands of the tyrannical racist Nazi regime a holocaust of death greater than the entire population of Palestinians living in the Palestinian territories. Those lands only seem exclusively "Palestinian" because of an insult to Jews by the Roman Empire where upon conquering the Jewish lands renamed the whole area "Palestine". Note how remarkably Roman the symbol of the Palestinian Authority appears:



The Palestinian Authority is, by the way, the group that should be in charge in Gaza and be well on its way to being a state that peacefully co-exists with Israel.

Suppose a violent race-based gang took over a populous county in the United States. How long would we let that stand before the military was sent in to stop the nonsense? That's exactly what's happening in Gaza. A violent gang has wrangled control and is attacking Israel, inciting violence and calling for Israel's destruction.

The British defeated the Ottoman Empire in World War I and therefore took control of those lands. They wisely preserved one of the traditional and few places that can be called a Jewish homeland. The response of a number of the Palestinians living there at the time (already among many Jewish settlements) was to be a bad xenophobic neighbor.

America welcomes thousands of refugees from war torn countries. Imagine if I turned on the new arrivals and spat venom and hatred about them and even attacked them in the streets. In the case of Israel, Jews fought back and empowered themselves to preserve the new nation the UN mandated for them and the Jews weren't all refugees. Some Palestinian "bad neighbors" who didn't have to lose their homes under the treaty, responded to the circumstances ignorantly and with xenophobic rage and not a little Islamic pride and made war with the Jews instead of living in peace.

There are still Palestinians living inside the borders of Israel. It's not impossible for people of different faiths to live in peace even inside the Jewish state.

The gangster war-makers must be shown that their methods are madness. The Nazi's were defeated for the same reason and it was awfully violent and required overwhelming force exerted from all sides. 20 million enemy Germans died. Their losses numbered greater than the Jews they killed. The same lesson is in place now. It's not the small numbers of deaths caused by Hamas rockets that should be the focal point. It is the evil of their ideology that must be defeated and their losses will be far greater until their world view is fundamentally defeated.

It's not so much how they wish to worship, though their predominant religion is exploited and intertwined in their hateful message, it's their attitude that "the Jews don't deserve to exist and have a state". That's what puts the Palestinians on a losing side, no matter their over-breeding to compensate for their losses.

I can think of almost no level of Jewish aggression that is too high when their survival as a people and their sole refuge in the world, that they can call their own, is threatened. The death toll on the Palestinian side is as individually tragic as that of every Nazi father lost to his children fighting for a flawed ideology. I feel all the human losses, but there is no doubt that the internationally recognized sovereign state of Israel is justified in this conflict while Hamas is a criminal organization on a mission of genocide. It is only lucky their rockets are not bigger and more deadly, because they would surely use them.

If it were up to me, Lebanon, Syria and the Palestinian territories would become vassals to another more powerful nation who would rebuild their culture to be residents, not refugees and reconstruct proper education, political institutions and economies. I know some would say that these militant gangs take on this role in the absence of stronger leadership, though I know that they behave more like children having a tantrum. Children with access to explosives.

The militant gangs like Hamas and Hezbollah are wrong and must get their crying done and comply with civil living. They will only hurt themselves banging their childish heads against a wall and fretting over what they think they are due. Meanwhile, they miss out and grow poorer and suffer, behaving like victims. They are truly victims of their own violent hateful ideals. The moment Palestinians become good neighbors, their lives can begin to be rebuilt and improve. I know of no rogue Jewish gangs firing missiles into the civilian neighborhoods of the Palestinian Territories. All the Jews want is to control their own peace.

Every dead child, parent, sibling or loved one in Gaza and Israel must be placed at the feet of the ignorant and futile ambitions of Hamas (and Hezbollah, to say nothing of their probable backers in Iran). They are the cause of the suffering. When a child is hurting himself and others, he first must be made to stop. Hamas is like that child.

=sw

Population Arguments

I have been reading some population debates online and it has caused me to reflect on it yet again.

So many people like to shout about "getting yourself fixed" or "not having children in this climate" or "stopping breeding" or how responsible it is not to reproduce.

There have also been comparisons to bacteria in a petri dish exponentially expanding their numbers blissfully uninterested in the finite nature their "sugary-gell" resources.

In that model, where we are a bacteria and the Earth is the dish of finite resources, our population is ultimately limited. It will not grow exponentially forever, as the Earth's resources are not infinite, even though one can see that human population can grow at an exponential rate (while the resources are not yet exhausted).

So, at some point the growth curve will round off. I just finished reading Carl Sagan (and Ann Druyan)'s book "Billions and Billions" from which some of my thoughts on this are derived.

The point is this: an individual deciding not to breed will never limit or reduce the potential population of the Earth. The population will march forward so long as even 2 people and their offspring breed exponentially. Their descendants will eventually fill the whole earth. So the only thing to stop it is a die off due to failing resources. We can become more efficient and try to become more just in the sharing of resources, but ultimately that upper limit is where the population cannot grow any more because of hunger, thirst and exposure.

The only decision those who choose not to reproduce are deciding is, how many of the future Earthlings will be their descendants.

To control population we must get everyone on board...EVERYONE. If we can disable reproductive powers and hand them out at a controlled rate we can then control the future balance. It's like polio, you must vaccinate everyone or you have not solved the problem.

Right now, it is a contest between you and me as to how many of the future humans will resemble me or you. The end of expansion will come in all cases, all you can do is lay hold on more resources. This is how many people are thinking who try to out-breed others.

Groups are conscientiously using Natalism to compete for the Earth's limited resources and space. The Palestinians are breeding with wreckless abandon to try to "outnumber" the already small (in a planet wide sense) group of Jews.

Mormons have a culture of pushing breeding to try to out strip the world population growth rate. Although they are noticeably failing to increase the Mormon percentage of the Earth's population. They are being strongly out done by the other groups. Making Mormons a smaller and smaller percentage of Earth's population even with their growth rates and missionary efforts.

You can't stop Central Americans from breeding at ages far closer to the onset of fertility than is culturally acceptable in the United States, so in that sense, the future will be more of them and less of us. Their time-span for a "Generation" could be half that of ours. That's a "survival of the fittest" strategy where they are winning. Not to mention the highly successful Asians.

Even if many humans die off at an alarming rate when the "sugary-gel" (Earth's life sustaining resources) vanishes, those left will resemble the current proportions of groups that had both wealth and large numbers of offspring.

So, is it irresponsible to reproduce? The upper limit is already set to stop our exponential growth. That limit is set by the finite availability of food, shelter, water, warmth and wealth. Choosing not to reproduce, even if MOST of us chose the same thing, is only a way to subtract your genetic heritage from history and quit the contest. It will not reduce the march upward, it will happen as fast as it can with or without your genes. All you are deciding is how many of the left over humans will be like you.

All it takes is one non-compliant group and over a few generations they will exponentially fill the space you leave by not having children. Self-selecting your own unfitness to propagate seems remarkably self-defeating.

If we disable reproduction and manage it, allowing a balanced mix of people to procreate, then we can control the future by our actions. Until such a freedom limiting method is instituted by an awful sounding regime, individual choice will not reduce the world population. Others will just grow more.

=sw

OnStar and Freedom of Movement

In the current economic situation we are in, I would like to think I could plan to buy an American car the next time I go shopping. Maybe in a year or so. Shopping for a new car is always a year away somehow.

I would not want a vehicle with OnStar. All the wonderful features it provides cannot overcome the one troubling drawback. The actual prospect that a networked car can be disabled.

I don't believe it's a conspiracy. It's just a potential opportunity for corruption that trouble me. One of the things dictators do is inhibit freedom of movement. This is something that, intentionally done, hacked or abused is possible in a car that is on the grid the way an OnStar vehicle is.

My car has a governor that means its speed is limited to 135mph. It doesn't cut out, it just doesn't accelerate any more beyond that speed (don't ask me how I know). This never limits my movements. I don't have a need to drive that fast anyway.

OnStar is capable of slowing a vehicle to 5mph or less. This is very nice when someone has stolen a car and is causing a high speed chase to take place. Peoples lives are put in danger by high speed chases. The lives of my fellow citizens are important to me, though I still think I should be the one to log in and kill the car with my own credentials. I don't think someone else should ever be sitting behind a kill switch on my own car.

In the wrong hands, this is a tool of dictatorship.

What did we think would never happen that has surely happened? The current American government has given itself the power to declare anyone an enemy and to detain the person without charge or habeas corpus rights (the right to seek relief for unlawful detention).

I find networked cars unnecessary for law abiding citizens. Accident detection and communication are helpful. Remote access to a kill switch (or even a "slow down" switch) is not acceptable to me. It will deter me from buying a GM product.

=sw

How I Chose

When I saw the woman at a McCain rally step to the mic and say "The Lord says care for the poor". I knew where my vote should go.



It struck me as entirely inappropriate for her to speak as if in church, when at a political rally in America. I respect her freedom to do so, It just made me concerned that some people don't understand the separation of church and state doctrine that keeps claims about unseen beings from directing our public and civic policy.

Even my right wing christian friends agree with all this so long as the unseen being is not their unseen being.

I realize I voted for a church going christian. But I also voted for an eloquent rational thinker.

While thinking about who I wanted to vote for,I saw the movie Religulous and I watched Bill Maher on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno on NBC October 7, 2008.



He used scathing wit and humor to totally trounce the irrational right and mock their appeals to ignorance and bigotry.

He also reflected many of my beliefs and values on his own show in his New Rules segment. He said, "You can't be president if you practice a violent middle eastern religion and worship a genecidal desert god, which is why Sarah Palin cannot be president".

Funny then sobering...


I saw Sarah Palin's crass jingoistic comments about there being "a patriotic" part of America as a comment that appeals to credulous people driven by emotion to believe whatever best conforms to the majority and fears diversity. She used the phrase "those that are fighting our wars for us" to refer to her small town America constituents. That says it all about right wing elitism.

It boggles the mind that the Republicans want joe sixpack to believe that the system is not set up to concentrate wealth away from him and to rob his retirement accounts for ceo mansions.

There seems to be a rash of ignorance on the right, driven by irrational belief and fear mongering. When the stupidity of the American religious extremists reared its head, McCain actually had to correct his own party members and assure them that they need not fear an Obama presidency.



Obama was of course born in the United States of America (Hawaii) and raised with American cultural values.

In this world of ever increasing enlightenment about natural law, science and knowledge, I don't want to be ruled by a whacky cult that believes in witchcraft and longs for the end of the world.

=sw

Net Books and Smart Cars

I see a silly trend. When companies run out of ideas they try to pitch something that is "less" as something "new".

Everyone keeps trying to get rid of the personal computer platform. Because what we want is less power, less accessibility, less capability right?

That's of course just wrong. What people are looking for in a "net book" is a small and light personal computer. That's why Apple got it mostly right. They did not try to make an incapable dumbed down machine, with the Mac Book Air. They designed a personal computer making compromises only to achieve weight and size limits.

These stupid concepts like a "dummy terminal" or a "dumbed down" laptop called a "NetBook" are marketing ploys that are trying to mask the failure to produce a smaller size Personal Computer.

No one wants a less useful machine.

It reminds me of the Mercedes "Smart Car" which is an idiotically small car that is supposed to be a compromise for fuel efficiency without actually providing much better gas mileage than many larger, more convenient vehicles from Honda, Toyota and even BMW.

These things like the Smart Car and Net Book are silly marketing games being played by companies who are trying to convince you that you don't want the real thing and I think they are wrong.

=sw

Not an Atheist

This is a little commentary on why I do not wish to be called an Atheist.

I have some religious friends. These are people I like with whom I occasionally have philosophical discussions that usually end in agreeing to disagree.

One of my friends likes to casually refer to me as an Atheist. I understand that when religious people come up with a 5 point test of what makes an Atheist I may qualify on all five of them, however, I do not define myself in terms of other people's perspectives.

Atheist sounds like "Anti-something". I believe there probably isn't a God, especially that meets any of mankind's popular definitions. If we are not alone in the vast universe, there may be powerful beings we would find godlike out there, only because they are more advanced...or maybe we would realize that the difference was simply growth, know how and experience.

I think there probably isn't a God (and I capitalize it just so christians know who I am saying probably doesn't exist). I cannot prove a negative. I can't demonstrate to you that there is no God just by showing you silent moments or unanswered prayer. In the same way faith is required to believe in God because the proof is not there.

I am certainly not anti-"something I don't even believe in".

It's like the when I filled out the e-Harmony forms. Yes, they let me in somehow! On their form they have ethnicity choices. The closest one for me, as a caucasian, was "White (Non-hispanic)". Well pardon me, but I am not used to defining myself by how "hispanic" I am or am not. No insult to hispanics of course. It's just not a notion I am associated with. Calling me "non-hispanic" puts way too much focus on hispanics. I don't even wish to make a statement about anyone else's ethnicity or how it differs from mine when simply describing myself to someone.

It's like considering how "Un-Australian" I am. I am not defined by what I am not. That's illogical and really awkward to me actually.

Likewise I will never wish to be labelled by what I do not believe in.

Imagine this unlikely introduction: "Ladies and gentlemen, the non-car thief, Mr. So and So"... With me saying, "I have never even thought about car theft much less do I want the phrase in my title!"

Or "Mr. So and So, the Non-Santa Clause believer"...what do I say to that, "um...yah..I gave that up when I was a kid, my non-santa clause belief status is really not even a part of who I am anymore."

In the same way I am not an Ex-believer or an Atheist. I am simply me. I am a rational thinker, a skeptic, a doubter and someone who loves knowledge, science and evidence.

I am finally a grown up human being who wants to see his place in the Universe as it really can be known with the best knowledge available. I don't want fantasy stories or religious dogmas anymore. I find no comfort in the quaint and violent scripture myths.

I think 1000 years from now some whacky sect will believe in "Captain Picard" as their God and will even have "real" pictures of the man (unlike the Christian faith). They will not admit to their basic misunderstanding that this was a character in a performance. While there may have been a moral to the story, it was always a story. I see the Bible in the same way. They were myths meant to inspire, socially control and politically manipulate people or challenge rulers.

I thought the other day of the meaning of "Rational Belief" to which I lay claim. Rational is a word about a ratio. A ratio of claims to supporting evidence. If claims exceed a 1:1 ratio with evidence, you'll find me skeptical. I did not say I would automatically reject all such notions with confident authority, that's what an Atheist tries to do, also without evidence. I am far more curious and am willing to try ideas and listen to reason. The experiments, evaluation of data and conclusions are all part of the scientific method. Being skeptically curious leads to new experiments and new knowledge.

I am not against the ideas of justice and reconciliation taught by some belief systems, nor am I anti-God. I am just me and I think religion has done incredible amounts of damage to the world.

I just saw "Religulous", the Bill Maher documentary about religion. It was a great film that really reflected how I feel about how problematic belief can be.

He said one great thing near the end:

Religion tries to make a virtue out of not thinking. -Bill Maher

I agree with that and will continue to use my mind, grow my understanding and increase my knowledge while refusing to end all thought and consideration by quickly resorting to a label.

=sw

Why I am Against the Bail Out

At first I thought a bailout would resemble socialism. Now I think it would more closely resemble a wealth grab in an economic dictatorship.

The market leading managers and CEO's abandoned the basic rules of economics by obscuring worthlessness with complexity and then tried to abdicate all responsibility for their exploitation. They want to siphon off wealth with reckless disregard for their fellow citizens and then want tax payers to be burdened with their golden parachutes, bad debts and recapitalization of their banks and "investment/ financial institutions".

Lincoln looks angry!


Capitalism is not a dictatorship where wealthy people may irresponsibly give loans to people who can't afford them then sell those loans as commodities as if they are guaranteed valuable assets then expect everyone to reward them for their failure.

In Capitalism, when people fuck up they should fail.

If the average citizen messes up and gets fired, they walk away with no severance pay, no help, no bail out or promises. Not even a silk parachute, or some kneepads.

Many of these failures are of the Enron "Criminal" variety and will result in jail time. I think such prosecution should also result in the seizure and sale of the assets of these criminals. Where is your retirement? It's in some 24 million dollar Florida mansion to which some CEO will happily resort when his 2 year sentence is commuted to 6 months for time served and "good behavior".

Or worse, it's over seas where you will never see it again.

Will the IRS put a lien on that CEO's mansion for the taxes you owe, that you spent to heat your house while you were unemployed? No! They will come to YOU for that, as if the failure of your employers company was down to your job skills or behavior.

Lots of work isn't worth what people are paid. Alan H. Fishman of Washington mutual did not contribute enough to the society by holding the wheel of a sinking ship for 3 weeks to earn $11 Million dollars in a "Golden Parachute". Fuck that! You fail, you get fired. Learn something, move on. Hopefully some other CEO didn't rape your 401k for his beach house.

Maybe a better society is possible, one not based on greed and destroying wealth and resources for one's own over-consumption. I don't think any of the communist dictatorships of the world got it right either.

Though sometimes, a more socially aware society seems like a better way. If you sew and reap you may eat. If you cannot reap but you can make something someone needs, or serve them in some way they need, you may be compensated to a reasonable proportion with food and shelter. If you are too helpless to contribute, your basic needs will be provided.

Capitalism is sometimes so cruel and ignorant to the plight of humanity occupying a 7,926 mile diameter space ship (Earth) with limited resources. It's not all about one person having every luxury. It's about the survival of us all (arguments against over-breeding in another posting).

The wealth of the planet belongs to all! This system of veiled theft is bad enough. We are already on the hook for 500 billion or more in bailout money for the banks and mortgage firms we plan to save. The 700 billion on top of it would just reward the crass, corrupt wealth sucking machine on Wall Street for failure. It would represent the largest imaginable burglary of tax payer, citizen wealth to private already corruptly wealthy banks, managers and CEO's.

CEO pay is justified by returns, so it actually rewards exploitation and law-breaking if the increase is good

What they couldn't get by gouging my 401k they'll get from the investment IRA I rolled it into, beautiful!

Wasn't most of America's wealth already confined to a small percentage at the top before this crisis? What do they want now, the rest?

Where will it come from?

You and I will be working our asses off without reward for years to pay these bastards even more money from the taxes on our labors. If you ask me, It's a goddamn coup de états and we just became serfs, to one degree or another.

=sw

A Broken IT Culture that is Doomed to Fail

I predict that the concept of disabling the usefulness of a computer by not allowing users to install software will become a failed IT policy.

The policy was born of Microsoft Windows security deficiencies. Instead of demanding a properly developed and secured operating system, IT managers simply find it easier to essentially disable and handicap Windows users to help resist virus vulnerability and security flaws that are built into Windows by poor design.

The qualifier is that no machine is invulnerable, but you don't put a horse down before it gets sick. Disallowing installation of software crimps off the innovation and flexibility blood supply of the user and I will show, could even lead to physical injury.

Based on many real world scenarios that have come to my attention, here is short story:

Carla wants a portable computer. It would give her new capabilities as a field rep for her company like being able to access office documents and spreadsheets, maps, contracts, pdf field manuals and up-to-date weather info etc. Also very important to her well being, it would allow her some personal access to music, email, instant messaging and entertainment sources while she is on the road. She has not been issued a computer to do her job, but having access to one would make her more capable and efficient. She plans to buy her own laptop, but mentions her plan to her boss.

The Boss promptly sees the benefit of her vision and assures her he would gladly supply the laptop.

One morning she heads into the main office and voila, there it is:



A new laptop with Windows XP installed!! Woohoo! (because Vista is completely useless, but passes the "really pretty" test, sure)

[*Note: For the purpose of my blog I photographed a Dell running Debian/ Gnome because I don't have any crappy Windows machines in my life to even take a picture of.]

Aside: The new Vista commercials should be more realistic..."WOW"..at first then "WTF...???" and "SHIT!"...soon after.

Now she can fulfill her vision of having the benefits she sought. So she immediately seeks to install some widget software to get weather, Google Earth for her work real estate and mapping needs, Apple's iTunes for her iPod and store account to get her favorite music, movies and TV shows etc. She also likes to download her favorite I/M clients and OTR encryption tools (for security!).

Well, she can't install any of that, and the IT (idiotic trance) department is too mortified by Windows' reputed bad security and vulnerability to malware to give her the magic "Admin access" (which on any other machine is "regular user trying to do ANYTHING useful with a computer" access).

What can she do? Of course she could drag around 2 laptops, one for work and one for herself!





That's only 10-20 pounds of machine, carrying case and accessories. She could actually physically injure herself carrying two computers around. It's a ridiculous notion.

No way! That is not a solution!!

Oh I know, she will drive all the way to the home office every single time she even wants to evaluate any new software (or even run an update script for her third-party apps) and plead with a dense Microsoftie IT manager to please just allow her to do her job and have what she needs on the road.



All that driving back for every stupid thing makes Windows machines bad for global warming. Never mind the cost to the environment of the manufacture of a useless device. Now we need 2 machines made for each person because of inherent software flaws and the obtuse policies used to work around them!?

Forget it!

What will she do instead? Buy ONE machine that does everything she could possibly need including run Office software and if absolutely needed, emulate that one stupid app made only for Windows by idiots. And she will have a machine she can actually use, upon which she can install anything and not fear a highly unlikely virus and it will meet all her business and personal requirements with ease. Then she'll only need to carry around just that one lightweight brilliant computer:



The idea that effectively disabling a computer from being used is a "good security model" will utterly fail. This will benefit Apple or Linux or any other platform with a clue. Withholding Administrator Access from a user on their own machine is a failed IT policy which is a blatant direct descendant of Microsoft software flaws. It is a losing proposition in the long run, where better computers with superior operating systems are clearly a preferable option.

=sw