In my last post, Hacker Mentality and the INTP (Jack of All Trades) personality, I left off with a quote about INTP's and the distinction of competency vs. proficiency. Recently I saw a job ad for a junior level systems engineer with a couple years experience, but what I found interesting was that the candidate "must have" experience with some particular system management software package, mentioned not just once, but several times!
How's that for pre-screening applicants? I would venture to say that more than a fair percentage of junior level system engineer types would have very little issue with using the package and becoming a valuable employee without having ever even heard of the software package before, but maybe my own definition of junior level or systems engineer is off. Anyway, this particular ad led me to thinking about a few things (being the INTP I am, I think alot and it doesn't take much to get me started down a track with a train-load of thoughts).
Is having a ton of experience and knowledge of similar software enough to override some HR keyword filter? For the average applicant without some type of personal connection, particularly given the current market, probably not.
At what point does the need to have experience with application X become irrelevant for any given position?
What's the average percentage of IT pros who have the ability to successfully work with practically any computer system or software package without specific prior experience or training and can be 'up to speed in no time,' anyway?
Where does the point of being an expert come into play and what really makes one an expert?

An Academic Definition of Expert

Interestingly enough the INTP traits cited in the quote mentioned above could also be called "self-assurance and confidence in their knowledge" and "capability to improve themselves," placing them among Marie-Line Germain's primary attributes in defining an "expert."

Relative to a specific field, an expert has:

• Specific education, training, and knowledge


• Required qualifications


• Ability to assess importance in work-related situations


• Capability to improve themselves


• Intuition


• Self-assurance and confidence in their knowledge

- From Wikipedia

While there has been a fair amount of research and speculation in defining 'what makes one an expert,' it doesn't seem there has been any real conclusive, definitive criteria agreed upon. I believe this is because it is a pretty subjective term and such a title is generally bestowed upon someone deserving of the distinction by others, rather than just one day stating "I am an expert." In fact, the Generalized Expertise Measure (GEM) pyschometric developed by Germain is actually made up of mostly subjective items. It's a somewhat philosophical topic.

Someone claiming to be an expert at something has either been called one enough times that it sticks, or to paraphrase from a blog post by Dustin Wax entitled How to Be an Expert (and Find One if You’re Not), is just an expert at passing themselves off as an expert. I think one defining trait of an expert is, along with the requisite knowledge and experience, that they can truly say "the more I know about [field of expertise], the more I realize how little I know about [field of expertise]."

Computer Expert?

An oft cited measurement for expertise I have seen is "10 years experience or 10,000 hours deliberate practice." For something like work-based experience considering 4 hours a day and 5 days a week for 10 years would be right around 10,000 hours give or take, depending on time off and such. Well, my first computer was a Timex Sinclair, later being replaced by a Tandy 1000. So that gives me about 20 some years worth of computer use with at least 15 years of that including work experience. Does this simple fact make me a "Computer Expert?" Hmmm.. Maybe, or maybe not. Just based on that information I could probably be called an "Expert Computer User" at least. If I've assembled, upgraded, repaired, and installed all the software on countless computers over the course of 20 years, does that make me a Computer Expert?

Internet Expert?

I first started 'surfing the web' when AOL was becoming big and used time-based access billing. I also started using internet connected email, Usenet, ftp, and a Unix shell account in the early 90's. That's over 10 years of internet experience under my belt. Does this make me an "Internet Expert?" Again, maybe an "Expert Internet User." What if I said that over those 10+ years I've used probably a dozen email clients, a handful of different browsers, a few ftp clients, and created and maintained some web sites? How about that I've setup and managed numerous different web servers, email servers, ftp servers, DNS servers, firewalls, routers, VPN connections? Am I considered an Internet Expert now? Hey, I got 10 out of 10 right at the Internet Expert quiz. That's gotta count for something, no? Still, I'm no Al Gore. You know, the guy that invented the internet?

Network Expert?

I began learning about Local Area Networks using LANtastic between two machines that I was in charge of for maintaining CAD drawings around 1993 and shortly after that assisted in setting up a Novell Netware network which I ended up inheriting the vast majority of administration duties and essentially all of the onsite tech support for. Since then I've been involved with computer networking in some form or fashion and for the majority of that time have maintained a home network of my own. Is this what makes one a "Computer Networking Expert?" Is it maintaining countless different networks ranging from a couple machines up to thousands of users, hundreds of PC's, and dozens of servers across multi-location WANs, for all types of entities? Starting to see a trend here?

Linux Expert?

In the late 90's I started playing with and learning about Linux, around the time of Slackware 3.2 and Redhat 4.1, which I still have on an InfoMagic CD set, BTW. For quite a while I used a machine with Redhat 6 as the firewall for my dial-up connection and for file sharing between my Windows machines. I've used Linux exclusively for my primary desktop machine for at least 5 years and prior to that I used a dual-boot setup as I migrated from Windows (the apps that kept a Windows partition holding out so long were games FWIW). I've either worked on or used myself a number of Linux distributions including Slackware, Redhat, SUSE, Mandrake, Ubuntu, CentOS and a handful of others over the course of 10 years. "Linux Expert?" Well, I've also configured/supported a number of linux based firewalls, setup dozens of VPN's between FreeSWAN/OpenSWAN and various other endpoints from Cisco routers to Windows client machines, setup/configured/supported things like BIND, DNSMasq, LAMP (Apache, MySQL, PHP/ Perl/Python), etc. I've done a basic Linux From Scratch build, recompiled kernels for optimization or other reasons so many times I've lost count, compiled countless software apps from source code packages, worked on customized Ubuntu builds, tested development builds in a virtual machine, resolved libc issues, been to dependency hell and made it back alive, found and reported bugs (including a couple fixes) in software packages, made modifications to open source software, created and maintained a custom router firmware based on OpenWRT. I have even completely screwed up an upgrade on my own machine by accidently formatting my home partition, not having made a recent backup, and had to resort to forensic recovery methods to salvage data. Does any of this qualify me as a "Linux Expert?"

Observations

I could go on pretty much the same way about databases, Netware, Windows, a desktop environment like KDE or GNOME, any number of particular software packages, or certain programming languages... but I've already digressed and traveled a bit too long down the road of my side tangent and should get back on track. Since you've made it this far, I will say congratulations - I didn't lose you along the way and we're over half-way to the end of this post.

So, I may have a much greater degree of expertise than the average Joe Computer-User and probably the vast majority of the, for lack of a better term, clueless Geek Monkey types for just about any given area in the Computer/IT field, but I'm no Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Linus Torvalds, Kevin Mitnick, Richard Stallman, Eric S. Raymond, etc. So what's the point? For any example such as I've given, some number of people would most definately say "Yes, now there's an expert if I ever saw one." Others might say "Well, I've been around the block a few more times, have more experience, dealt with more/bigger/etc., wrote the book, and can say there's potential but that person is not an expert yet." Then we get to the group that would say there just is not enough information upon which to make such a determination.

A few notable traits I've seen cited by others in my brief internet research on this topic include:

• Experimentation, Open-Mindedness, Creativity, or "Out-of-the-box" Thinking - I lump these together since they are all related and somewhat interchangeable. Basically the expert isn't bound by rules, tries new approaches based on past success, doesn't dismiss the input of others as invaluable (isn't a know-it-all resting on their laurels), etc.


• A Different Approach To Problem-solving - This one usually isn't so noticable and sort of falls into the above category, but I think it deserves its own bullet point. The novice will begin by using the basic rules of running through whatever standard checklist, much like any Level 1 tech support does over the phone, and move onto the shotgun method, drop back and punt, or any combination of what is simple trial and error. Whereas, the expert has a pool of deeper knowledge and experience to draw from and generally will go straight to the application of their depth of understanding regarding what the core of the problem might be or some past similar issue that matches the pattern observed. In the Wikipedia article, previously mentioned, can be found this quote regarding expert systems by Dreyfus & Dreyfus:
  

  If one asks an expert for the rules he or she is using, one will, in effect, force the expert to regress to the level of a beginner and state the rules learned in school. Thus, instead of using rules they no longer remember, as knowledge engineers suppose, the expert is forced to remember rules they no longer use. … No amount of rules and facts can capture the knowledge an expert has when he or she has stored experience of the actual outcomes of tens of thousands of situations.

  
  
• Communication & Knowledge Sharing - having the listening skills to gather relevant and sometimes very important information in order to provide an expert solution to clients, co-workers, peers, etc. and being able to communicate what many times consists of complex concepts without it being jargon-filled goobledeegook that means nothing to the layperson. Perhaps, more telling than the basic communication skills is that there seems to be agreement in saying that an expert actually shares their knowledge instead of guarding it. Of course we're not talking about proprietary company data, items of national security, or the secret formula for Coca-Cola here. The expert recognizes that their job is made easier by disclosing their knowledge and methodologies, giving them more time to invest in honing their skills.


• Dedication, Commitment or Simply They Love What They Do - This may go without saying, but I don't think I've ever heard of anyone being called an expert that didn't at least like their field of expertise and actually enjoyed it. If one claimed to be an expert but hated the particular field, or it was only a job/paycheck to them, I would seriously doubt their "expert status." How can someone be an expert without their heart being in it?

Learning & Practice

A theme that is fairly common throughout is learning. This brings me back to what I believe really defines an expert - they can truly say "the more I know about [field of expertise], the more I realize how little I know about [field of expertise]." Though it goes beyond just the "capability to improve" or learn, it requires participating in the practice of learning. It is within a process of learning which never ends that one reaches the status of being an expert. The point at which this actually occurs may be impossible to pinpoint with metrics, will undoubtedly vary from person to person, and may in fact be a moving target as who's to say that an expert today is no longer an expert tomorrow? This is certainly quite possible in technical fields that are in a constant state of flux such as computers/IT, renewable energy, medical science, and the like.

For example, quite a few years ago I may have been called an expert in say Paradox databases, Access databases, or maybe Novell Netware (not so sure that I would have really been an expert in any of these, but this is just an example). Does anyone still use Paradox as a database system? I guess so, it does seem to still exist as of the 2008 release of Wordperfect Office. I've heard that people still use Access quite a bit, though I still wonder why anyone would use it for anything more than something like an ad-hoc recipe or home CD/DVD collection database. Novell is definately still around and I'm sure Netware is still in use in many places because it worked and was a fairly solid NOS, but Novell has since embraced Linux and integrated their products with it.

So to wrap up this rambling example and what has turned into a rather lengthy post, I haven't used Paradox or even seen anything of it, with the exception of the books on my shelf that I refuse to get rid of and have moved around a bunch of times, in years. Access is almost the same, I found it to be a poor substitute for a 'real' relational database system and was rather disgusted when MS made a major change with what was it, the 2000 version? Netware itself likely hasn't really changed much since I last worked with the latest full version release and I was testing out some of their new Linux based apps, the first release of OES, etc. However, I just haven't kept up to date with Novell. So whatever expertise in these areas I may have had is rather obsolete now and I would very likely not be called an expert in such. Not necessarily just because I haven't worked with them for years, since the knowledge, experience, lessons learned are all still tucked away in my grey matter and if thrown into working on any of them I could do so probably just as well as, if not better than, any junior level pro, but I'm out of practice and haven't encountered the issues of how they work with other new systems, etc., etc.

So would it be safe to say that if learning stops with regards to a particular field of knowledge, or in the case of my example here - a specific software product, then the status of being an expert of the same has also ended? I think so. It would make sense that obtaining that status again would generally not take as much as it did originally, but it would still take some work.

Am I an expert? I don't know, maybe. It seems that I qualify based on the what the common attributes and definitions are, but I really don't know what I'd be considered an expert of/in. I usually just call myself a Consultant or IT Generalist.

A hacker is someone who thinks outside the box. It's someone who discards conventional wisdom, and does something else instead. It's someone who looks at the edge and wonders what's beyond. It's someone who sees a set of rules and wonders what happens if you don't follow them. A hacker is someone who experiments with the limitations of systems for intellectual curiosity. - Bruce Schneier

In the rather well-known, at least among certain circles, "How to become a Hacker", Eric S. Raymond lists the five attitudes that make up the hacker mindset (listed below). Eric expounds on the items at the link given, but I have also come across a commentary on this list over at SunTzu blog.

ESR's 5 attitudes

1. The world is full of fascinating problems waiting to be solved.


2. No problem should ever have to be solved twice.


3. Boredom and drudgery are evil.


4. Freedom is good.


5. Attitude is no substitute for competence.

Hacker vs. Cracker

One thing that Eric Raymond as well as many others have tried to do is distinguish the word "hacker" from the word "cracker." For quite some time I also tried to correct people regarding this particular distinction in the English language, but for the most part I've given up on it. It still tends to be a pet peeve of mine as I think it's simpler and more meaningful than the "black hat"/"white hat"/"grey hat" thing which doesn't seem to get used much other than in computer security circles. The general usage and understanding of the term "hacker" has become mostly that which the media has portrayed it as, at least among the general population. In the field of computer professionals it's a little more blurry, since it could mean anything from the traditional definition found in the Jargon File to the most diabolical media portrayal or anything in between depending on who's talking. At this point I pretty much agree with Bruce Schneier's view on the whole thing.

For years I have refused to play the semantic "hacker" vs. "cracker" game. There are good hackers and bad hackers, just as there are good electricians and bad electricians. "Hacker" is a mindset and a skill set; what you do with it is a different issue. - Bruce Schneier

What is the typical personality type of a hacker?

In terms of Myers-Briggs and equivalent psychometric systems, hackerdom appears to concentrate the relatively rare INTJ and INTP types; that is, introverted, intuitive, and thinker types (as opposed to the extroverted-sensate personalities that predominate in the mainstream culture). ENT[JP] types are also concentrated among hackers but are in a minority. - excerpt from: A Portrait of J Random Hacker

Some info on INTP types

My own MBTI personality type is INTP, which is a type estimated to comprise only 1-3% of the population, depending on the source. It is considered to be one of the rarest personality types. The most in-depth profile of this personality type that I have seen can be found at
http://www.intp.org/intprofile.html

A short highlights version from another source:

• INTPs are open ended, logical, analytical; focused on exploring possibilities


• Systems thinkers; see and create complex models and frameworks


• Flexible, resourceful and independent; seek freedom of action


• Summarize, integrate, and identify key issues and zero in on root causes of problems


• INTPs conceptualize and initiate long-term strategic solutions and opportunities

excerpt from Introduction to Type® and Communication, p 40 by Donna Dunning
Published by CPP Inc, ©Copyright 2003

The INTP individual is commonly referred to as a Jack of all trades, master of none. However, as an INTP, based on my own personal experience and observation it should be more like '...master of some' or somewhat along the lines of what is considered the complete quote "Jack of all trades, master of none, though oft times better than master of one!” which I have so far been unable to find the origin of.
Anyway, the love of gaining new knowledge, applying logic, and constantly solving complex theoretical problems combined with the general dislike of the boring, mundane, and repetitive tends to result in the general lack of mastery among subjects. On the other hand, being rather perfectionist and self-critical an INTP type will usually have areas where there is not just competence but proficiency as long as there is enough personal interest or opportunity for continual learning to warrant being a specialist. Something else I've noticed is that many times what is considered competence to an INTP tends to be closer to mastery than just plain adequacy which is frequently the insinuation behind "Jack of all trades, master of none." This is where the important subtle difference between competence and proficiency comes in.

If an INTP decides to learn a skill, then it is very important for him that he reaches a sufficient level so that basic errors can be avoided. Errors made by others are to be expected and can be criticised. But errors made by oneself attack the very root of the person, which is ultimately about rationality, logic and truth. INTPs hate to think of themselves being in any way inadequate, at least in areas that are important to them. So, as soon as he puts himself behind some task, then he must achieve competency. But that is as far as it goes. Refined competency requires too much effort and has little attraction. It would require practice and that usually bores an INTP. Hence, it is common to see INTPs dabbling at many things, achieving competency, just enough to prove to themselves that they could become more proficient if they wished, but rarely actually bothering to refine their skills further. - intp.org

And here is where I had planned on going into some thoughts on expertise, but I think that starts diverting a bit from this particular topic so I'll continue in another post.

I've finally gotten back around to a dual monitor setup. The last time I used dual monitors (besides having multiple machines each with their own monitor sitting in front of me) was years ago when I did CAD work all the time. It was great having one screen with an overview of the drawing and using the big screen for the detail work; or in another case, having the command line on a small monochrome monitor and using the good monitor for the graphics. The former was using Microstation, one of the only programs that supported such a configuration at the time, and the latter was with AutoCad (circa v10-11), which IIRC would only support the command portion running on a separate monitor, not graphics (though maybe there was an upgrade for that, but my access to budget for upgrades was pretty limited.)

Over the past year or so I've been doing more programming work and have on more than a few occassions wished I had more screen real estate available. I regularly have several programs open just in general, multiple tabs in my browser, my shell windows, and usually in whatever IDE (recently I've been trying out Eclipse) or text editor (Vim for anything serious) I'm using will have several files open at once. I use Opera and Firefox, but tend to use Opera more which I currently have about 50 tabs open in. This is about average and Opera will restore them whenever I close the program and restart it for whatever reason. I'm pretty sure Firefox can do this as well, just like it could also be set to use a shortcut in the URL input (address bar) for searching.

So I frequently have dozens of things that focus needs to be switched to and from. Putting certain things on different desktops in KDE helps with organizing a little and also makes time tracking using KArm (KTimeTracker in KDE4) a little easier for me, but switching desktops can consume a significant amount of time itself when I'm doing something that requires frequently doing so. Then there are the times when looking at two different sections of code (or some similar case) is just painful when it requires resizing windows in such a way that the relevant portions can be viewed simultaneously or particularly if there just isn't enough room on the screen to do it. I've run into enough of these situations that I had considered throwing a PCI graphics card into my machine and adding another CRT. However, CRT's in 17-19" range are rather bulky, not to mention quite heavy to be putting several of them on a desk which is only 5/8" laminated particle board. Since I acquired an Nvidia FX5200 card several months ago which has VGA, DVI, and S-Video output I figured I would hold off and just add an LCD when I could fit one into the budget.

Yes, I've finally upgraded to a video card that came out over five years ago, but most of the hardware in my AthlonXP 2000 system is also over five years old (hard drives are another story). I had used a GeForce3 I think it was until I replaced my motherboard with an Asus A7N8X (still the same one in my primary machine although I finally replaced the bad capacitors last year when they got so bad that it affected stability). Unfortunately, the A7N8X was not compatible with my GeForce. So rather than get a new card I used whatever 8x AGP card I had sitting around, which I believe was a basic SIS card which had very limited 3d capability. It was acceptable for older Windows FPS games and other LAN games I played at the time, but in Linux I was stuck with software rendering. I've since removed the Windows dual boot capability as I have no need for it (my laptop has an XP partition that I left on there for those times that I really need to use Windows).

So I've been watching prices on LCD monitors for a while and figured I should be able to get a decent monitor for less than $300. While it would be nice and probably ideal to have something like this, I'm not watching stock feeds all day, nor do I currently do the sort of work to justify something like this. Besides, I don't have thousands available to spend on monitors, on top of the thousands I would have to spend to create room for them, not to mention the thousands I would have spend on additional bedrooms, bathroom, etc. before my wife would even consider allowing thousands to be spent on monitors.

I ended up ordering a KDS K-2237MDWB 22" widescreen flat panel from newegg. It seems that the widescreens are more popular, more available and apparently are cheaper to produce, thus a better profit margin for the manufacturers and ultimately a lower price in general to the consumer compared to the standard square monitors. I payed less than $250 including shipping for the KDS which is close to what many 19" panels are selling for. The monitor only came with a VGA cable, no DVI, so for a week or so I ran it instead of the CRT until I got a DVI cable ordered from Radio Shack. It seems that straight DVI cables aren't stocked by anyone anymore as everywhere I checked only had DVI - HDMI cables.

I got around to connecting the flat panel via DVI to free up the VGA for the CRT and here's where I ran into a snag. I first tried using Twinview and wasn't thrilled with the result from that. It might be OK for use with identical or similar monitors where the resolutions can match, but I couldn't get an acceptable configuration in it with my setup. I'm not so sure that the benefit of being able to move windows between screens would be useful to me anyway. So I went with configuring separate x screens for each monitor. The clipboard for copy/paste works across the screens and it's not too big of a deal to open up a copy of anything on the second screen that needs to be viewed at the same time. The problem I had was that the driver would only allow a resolution of 1440x900 on the DFP after I had connected it via DVI. After some googling, troubleshooting, updating to the latest nvidia drivers, further fiddling and more googling I found out that the FX5200 (at least the one I have) could only support a Maximum 135Mhz pixel clock. However, I came across a post on the nVidia forums that indicated a workaround which has allowed me to have a 1680x1050 display on the KDS with my FX5200.

Use the following Modeline in the Monitor section of the xorg.conf

# cvt -r -v 1680 1050 60
# 1680x1050 59.88 Hz (CVT 1.76MA-R) hsync: 64.67 kHz; pclk: 119.00 MHz
Modeline "1680x1050R" 119.00 1680 1728 1760 1840 1050 1053 1059 1080 +hsync -vsync

And the following Option in the Device section.

Option "ExactModeTimingsDVI"

The next thing was to set the flat panel to be the primary screen, which I did by simply swapping the relevant numbers in the conf file. So here's my current xorg.conf file for this:

Section "ServerLayout"
Identifier "Layout0"
Screen 0 "Screen0" 0 0
Screen 1 "Screen1" LeftOf "Screen0"
InputDevice "Keyboard0" "CoreKeyboard"
InputDevice "Mouse0" "CorePointer"
EndSection

Section "Files"
RgbPath "/usr/X11R6/lib/X11/rgb"
FontPath "/usr/X11R6/lib/X11/fonts/misc/:unscaled"
FontPath "/usr/X11R6/lib/X11/fonts/100dpi/:unscaled"
FontPath "/usr/X11R6/lib/X11/fonts/75dpi/:unscaled"
FontPath "/usr/X11R6/lib/X11/fonts/misc/"
FontPath "/usr/X11R6/lib/X11/fonts/Type1/"
FontPath "/usr/X11R6/lib/X11/fonts/CID/"
FontPath "/usr/X11R6/lib/X11/fonts/100dpi/"
FontPath "/usr/X11R6/lib/X11/fonts/75dpi/"
FontPath "/usr/X11R6/lib/X11/fonts/cyrillic/"
FontPath "/usr/X11R6/lib/X11/fonts/TTF/"
EndSection

Section "Module"
Load "dbe"
Load "extmod"
Load "type1"
Load "freetype"
Load "glx"
EndSection

Section "ServerFlags"
Option "Xinerama" "0"
EndSection

Section "InputDevice"

# generated from default
Identifier "Mouse0"
Driver "mouse"
Option "Protocol" "auto"
Option "Device" "/dev/psaux"
Option "Emulate3Buttons" "no"
Option "ZAxisMapping" "4 5"
EndSection

Section "InputDevice"

# generated from default
Identifier "Keyboard0"
Driver "kbd"
EndSection

Section "Monitor"

# HorizSync source: edid, VertRefresh source: edid
Identifier "Monitor1"
VendorName "Unknown"
ModelName "Gateway VX720"
HorizSync 30.0 - 96.0
VertRefresh 50.0 - 130.0
Option "DPMS"
EndSection

Section "Monitor"

# HorizSync source: edid, VertRefresh source: edid
Identifier "Monitor0"
VendorName "Unknown"
ModelName "Proview"
HorizSync 31.0 - 80.0
VertRefresh 56.0 - 76.0
Option "DPMS"
# 1680x1050 59.88 Hz (CVT 1.76MA-R) hsync: 64.67 kHz; pclk: 119.00 MHz
Modeline "1680x1050R" 119.00 1680 1728 1760 1840 1050 1053 1059 1080 +hsync -vsync
EndSection

Section "Device"
Identifier "Videocard1"
Driver "nvidia"
VendorName "NVIDIA Corporation"
BoardName "GeForce FX 5200"
BusID "PCI:2:0:0"
Screen 1
EndSection

Section "Device"
Identifier "Videocard0"
Driver "nvidia"
VendorName "NVIDIA Corporation"
BoardName "GeForce FX 5200"
BusID "PCI:2:0:0"
Screen 0
Option "ExactModeTimingsDVI"
EndSection

Section "Screen"
Identifier "Screen1"
Device "Videocard1"
Monitor "Monitor1"
DefaultDepth 24
Option "TwinView" "0"
Option "TwinViewXineramaInfoOrder" "CRT-0"
Option "metamodes" "CRT: nvidia-auto-select +0+0"
SubSection "Display"
Depth 24
EndSubSection
EndSection

Section "Screen"
Identifier "Screen0"
Device "Videocard0"
Monitor "Monitor0"
DefaultDepth 24
Option "TwinView" "0"
Option "UseEDID" "False"
Option "MetaModes" "DFP: nvidia-auto-select +0+0"
SubSection "Display"
Depth 24
EndSubSection
EndSection

I've only restarted X once since this config, but I had to change the resolution in nvidia-settings to 1680x1050 - it came up at 1440x900. Probably the autoselect, though there should be some option to force it, but I haven't bothered to figure it out yet.

The only other thing I may look into changing so far would be making the console default to the LCD.
Eventually, I may get around to taking some pics of my setup including the $600+ Ergohuman chair that I got for just over $200 (floor display on clearance). I just happened to come across this while shopping around for a real chair to replace my elcheapo task chair which the back broke on quite a while ago.

As part of the special "tax-grab" session of the Maryland Legislature, rather than doing something sensible like eliminating any unecessary spending or otherwise reducing expenditures to address an alleged budget problem, they ultimately went with just trying to increase tax revenue.

One of the things that was opposed by many constituents and companies was the inclusion of "computer services" into the sales tax increase bill. An amendment was proposed to remove the computer services portion, but that amendment was voted down. So as it stands, computer services will be subject to sales tax. Huh? :confused:

More details can be found at the MD Chamber of Commerce blog which has links to the bill text at MLIS.

The language of the bill that was accepted is as follows:

Article – Tax – General
11–101.
(C–1) (1) “COMPUTER SERVICE” INCLUDES:
(I) COMPUTER FACILITIES MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION;
(II) CUSTOM COMPUTER PROGRAMMING;
(III) COMPUTER SYSTEM PLANNING AND DESIGN THAT INTEGRATE COMPUTER HARDWARE, SOFTWARE, AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIES;
(IV) COMPUTER DISASTER RECOVERY;
(V) DATA PROCESSING, STORAGE, AND RECOVERY;

(VI) HARDWARE OR SOFTWARE INSTALLATION, MAINTENANCE, AND REPAIR.

(2) “COMPUTER SERVICE” DOES NOT INCLUDE:

(I) INTERNET ACCESS, AS DEFINED IN THE FEDERAL INTERNET TAX FREEDOM ACT;
(II) TYPING OR DATA ENTRY ON WORD PROCESSING EQUIPMENT;
(III) COMPUTER TRAINING;
(IV) THE INSTALLATION, MAINTENANCE, OR REPAIR OF TANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY OTHER THAN COMPUTER HARDWARE OR SOFTWARE THAT INCLUDES COMPUTER HARDWARE OR SOFTWARE AS A COMPONENT PART; OR
(V) A SERVICE OTHERWISE DESCRIBED IN PARAGRAPH (1) OF THIS SUBSECTION THAT IS PROVIDED AS PART OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH:
1. ELECTRONIC FUND TRANSFERS, FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS, AUTOMATED TELLER MACHINE TRANSACTIONS, OR OTHER BANKING OR TRUST SERVICES;
2. BUSINESS MANAGEMENT, ACCOUNT MANAGEMENT, PERSONNEL, PAYROLL, EMPLOYEE BENEFIT, OR OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES;

3. EDUCATIONAL, LEGAL, ACCOUNTING, ARCHITECTURAL, ACTUARIAL, MEDICAL, MEDICAL DIAGNOSTIC, OR OTHER PROFESSIONAL SERVICES; OR
4. TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES.

It seems quite ambiguous with regards to the list of "does not include". Does it mean that an outside vendor working on a problem with the accounting
software or any hardware involved in the accounting dept. is not subject to sales tax? Is outside vendor work on a companies' web or email server taxable because it's not related to business management? Is all in-house tech support excluded? One would think so. Is network security analysis or protection measures considered 'services'? Is any work done on a network or computer used for professional services, banking, or in business management excluded?

Apparently, web design is included.

I still have several questions myself on exactly what this law is supposed to apply to, besides the obvious why or how can a sales tax legally be applied to services. I think it is ridiculous and bizarre to say the least. The fact that such legislation even passed just goes to show how out of touch with reality, and their constituents, the MD legislature is. My biggest question is, as a DE company, do I need to collect sales tax for work done for MD clients? If this is so, I will very likely be refusing any such work once this goes into effect.

The Bill of Rights was ratified on this day in 1791. Arguably the Founders should have been more specific in certain regards, but the Ninth and Tenth Amendments should have cleared up any questions. However, these Amendments have been pretty well disregarded as not having any effect or bearing on anything, and most of the others have been manipulated to have little effect as well.

For more on the Bill of Rights and its celebration visit these links:
http://billofrightsinstitute.org/borday/
http://www.jpfo.org/smith/smith-bor-07.htm
http://www.lewrockwell.com/gregory/gregory49.html


Surprisingly, the President has even issued a proclamation.
I say surprisingly as the Bill of Rights seems to be largely ignored and chipped away by the fed.gov in general.

Hopefully this trend reverses.

"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." -- John F. Kennedy

In what can only be called amazingly unbelievable, criminals have suddendly started to comply with gun laws to obtain their weapons.

"I don't wanna have to kill myself after I go on a shooting spree in a gun-free zone," said Joe Killaman, "cuz that's really the only solution. Otherwise I'd get nailed with all kinds of other charges and they'd put me away longer. The bummer is I can't get a gun legally since I been locked up and stuff. But I've got some other ideas for weapons that are legal, that way if I get caught they can't get me for violating all them gun laws."

Miscreants like Killaman are realizing that strict gun laws put a damper on their plans of violence. This amazing feat accomplished by gun control lobbyists and legislators led to high spirits amongst many. In one town gun control activists were partying in the streets and many were heard saying "See we told you so, gun control laws work."

However, their party was cut short by a disgruntled criminal driving a stolen SUV through the crowd, weilding a chainsaw. Witnesses say the man was yelling "I hate your gun laws." He stopped in the middle of the crowd, after running over several dozen and hitting many with the chainsaw held out the window. He proceeded to chase down people, attacking them with the chainsaw.

It's unclear whether the chainsaw was stolen or borrowed from a neighbor. There are still no numbers on how many were killed and injured. Police arrived about fifteen minutes after someone in the crowd had dialed 911. Several minutes before they arrived a concerned citizen, not involved with the festivities, showed up and shot the killer. The gun he was carrying is being held as evidence and police are investigating to verify that his carry permit is valid.

This is, of course, not a true story and is complete satire, but this is the sort of thing I think of when I see things like this from legislators and others:

Sadly, gun violence is far too common in American society. I believe it is important to put in place measures that prevent criminals from accessing dangerous weapons. As such, I support vigorous enforcement of background checks and other measures that prevent gun violence.

I'd like to understand how such a rationale works. Do the people that say things like this really believe that criminals obtain firearms by legal means? Did I miss the news report on criminal types all of a sudden obeying laws?

The latest tragedy is the Westroads Mall incident in Omaha, Nebraska. This is a sad event. However, I think it's also quite sad that this will be, and already is being, used as fodder for gun control.

A spokesman from the gun control lobby, Peter Hamm, said Nebraska had some of the laxest firearms laws in the US.

"It's not a state that has very progressive gun laws and it doesn't have a very active gun control movement because, luckily, it hasn't had a huge gun violence problem," Mr Hamm said.

What gun laws the State has on the books has nothing to do with it. But this is done after pretty much any such mass shooting.

The interesting thing pointed out in an opinion column by John Lott is that the Mall was a "gun-free" zone.

Surely, with all the reporters who appear at these crime scenes and seemingly interview virtually everyone there, why didn’t one simply mention the signs that ban guns from the premises?

Nebraska allows people to carry permitted concealed handguns, but it allows property owners, such as the Westroads Mall, to post signs banning permit holders from legally carrying guns on their property.


The same was true for the attack at the Trolley Square Mall in Utah in February (a copy of the sign at the mall can be seen here). But again the media coverage ignored this fact. Possibly the ban there was even more noteworthy because the off-duty police officer who stopped the attack fortunately violated the ban by taking his gun in with him when he went shopping.

Yet even then, the officer "was at the opposite end and on a different floor of the convoluted Trolley Square complex when the shooting began. By the time he became aware of the shooting and managed to track down and confront Talovic [the killer], three minutes had elapsed."

There are plenty of cases every year where permit holders stop what would have been multiple victim shootings every year, but they rarely receive any news coverage. Take a case this year in Memphis, where WBIR-TV reported a gunman started "firing a pistol beside a busy city street" and was stopped by two permit holders before anyone was harmed.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,315563,00.html

Did the Nebraska law which allows property owners to bar guns on their property stop this horrible act of violence?
Of course not.
If a law allows for prohibiting gun carry in certain areas, it should also require that this policy be enforced by whatever entity makes that prohibition. So if a mall says no guns, they also have to provide controlled access (install metal detectors at every entrance, have guards to man them, etc.) just as most, if not all, courthouses do now. Otherwise the policy stance of "gun-free" is useless and is a threat to public safety.

One question that arises in my mind is - if the mall had signs stating "every store in this mall contains at least one employee carrying a firearm for your safety" (with a small print legal liability disclaimer of course) instead of a "No Guns" sign, would this incident still have occured? Possibly, though it may not have been at the mall. Whether such a policy was actually enforced or not, would it matter? The message that any store employee could foil any criminal intent would still be conveyed.
"Driver carries no cash."
"Store clerk does not have key to unlock safe."
"No more than $xx kept on hand for change."
Are such notices true? Not always. Do such notices work? Yes, they are effective at reducing robbery. They certainly don't eliminate the possibility and there are still people that will rob a convenience store plastered with security cameras for the $26.83 in the drawer.

Have "Gun Free Zone" notices reduced the occurence of guns used to commit violence in such an area or has it contributed to an increase of it? I haven't heard of a rash of shootings in courthouses or airport terminals, nor at police stations, gun shows, gun shops, or shooting ranges. They have been at malls, schools, universities.

The measures pushed by 'gun control' groups and like-minded legislators simply do not work. The words "shall not be infringed" come to mind. However, reasonable regulation does have its merits. It seems to be more a problem of enforcing laws against violent acts and crime in general that is the issue. Why do there need to be more laws relating to guns when there are already laws against theft, assault, murder, etc.?
Why are these not good enough? I think has already been answered with "you can't legislate morality."
I also think "an armed society is a peaceful/polite/friendly society," for the most part.

One thing that always gets me is the idea, frequently promoted, which states in some varying form - "only the police and military should have guns." There are several problems with this argument, but I will only expound on one. That one problem being that of personal responsibility. To state that only police/military should have guns removes one's responsibility to protect themselves, others, and State and projects it onto the government. This brings up two points.
1. Everyone or every family cannot have a personal protector provided by the government. It's just not possible financially or logistically, just to mention two reasons.
2. Courts have repeatedly stated that it is not the governments' responsibility to provide individual protection.

"...there is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen. It is monstrous if the state fails to protect its residents against such predators but it does not violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or, we suppose, any other provision of the Constitution. The Constitution is a charter of negative liberties: it tells the state to let people alone; it does not require the federal government or the state to provide services, even so elementary a service as maintaining law and order."
Bowers v. DeVito, U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, 686 F.2d 616 (1882)

An individual must be responsible for their own protection, but seeing as how personal responsibility in many other areas are lacking amongst many today it's not surprising that people think someone else, namely government, should keep them safe. Figure out how to legislate personal responsibility without infringing on rights and you may be onto something, let me know.

For quite some time I've wanted to run an electric vehicle and have been interested in renewable energy solutions and self-sufficiency. I had originally posted something similar to what follows in a thread on the EV Forums.

In the past year there have been a couple concept vehicles that utilize in-wheel hub motors. One a Mini Cooper and the other was done by Mitsubishi.

The in-wheel motors are still very expensive [read - they aren't really that expensive to produce, but oil companies/interests still have a major share of the companies/technology that currently make them - yes this is non-researched speculation on my part, but I don't think it's too far off], that's if they are even available to mere mortals.

A more affordable solution, which I started thinking of years ago when I had a Nissan Pathfinder and revisted my idea again about a year ago for application in a Mitsubishi Eclipse Spyder, is using in-board motors hooked directly to CV half-shafts. Here is where motor design becomes a big factor. Ideally a motor should run within it's designed optimal RPM range. A small single gear transmission might be a better solution here.
The multiple motors (48-72V?) could be smaller than what is necessary for a single motor and shouldn't take up much more room than standard axle/diff drive components. This would cost more than going the single motor route, but wouldn't be as expensive as hub motors. I would think these could be whatever a single motor spec would be for the vehicle in question divided by two for driving two wheels or four for four wheels.

This would be ideal for making an AWD vehicle, which was my original thoughts for this, as each wheel could be controlled independently (think super traction control) and wouldn't have the compromises that are made with axle differentials (open, LSD, locking). Plus I think with AC motors and regen it would make for a pretty effective braking.

This type of system would need some type of central controller, which I would think could be rather simple if independent motor controllers are used. My thought is to use a linux-based central computer that handles several functions, one of which is the interface with the multiple controllers. I can certainly handle the computer side of things - programming, OS setup, etc. but I'm not so knowledgeable with the hardware side of things.

At this point I would like to use the Spyder as a test bed for this, but without some funding or sponsorship I'm thinking I will end up going the old single DC motor route as funds allow and work on developing a central computer for system monitoring, optimization, logging, etc. which could be adapted to an AWD system later.

I think the Spyder is a good platform for this - the chassis is the same as the AWD Eclipse, it's a small aerodynamic car, and would make for a great demo vehicle proving that EV's don't have to look like the ugly Hybrids (Insight, Prius, etc.).
Of course, the Tesla Roadster does this already, but they are a still at least couple years away from putting out a model that is affordable to the average person and I predict the market for EV conversions will grow considerably.

Most vehicles get retired due to mechanical failures, and I'd guess that a vast majority of such failures are related to a lack of, or poor, maintenance. The rest of the vehicle is typically in very good shape. An electric propulsion system consists of much less parts, requires considerably less maintenance, and costs less to run (gas and oil products aren't getting any cheaper). I won't get into the argument of "but you're just changing where the oil gets used and the source of pollution". I will say that I think it's a poor argument that lacks facts. Now if we consider the idea that practically every home could provide it's own electricity supply by using solar and/or wind this argument disappears. If at the very least, every home provided some portion of it's own electric and was still tied into the grid the argument is still pretty moot.

Back to development of an EV central computer. I have sent out some inquiries to try and identify the components for such a system, but have yet to receive any responses. If I had the funding available, I would just start buying what I think would be suitable and go the trial and error route, but with AC motors and controllers suitable for EV applications being so expensive, I can't justify the potential cost of such an endeavor. My preliminary guesstimate is that a conversion system utilizing four motors with independent controllers and a central computer control would cost in the range of five to ten thousand. Ideally it should be able to be done for $5000 or less for the drive and control system, batteries being another matter of varying cost.

This just came to my attention. I don't keep as up to date with Slashdot news as I used to.

http://www.itnews.com.au/News/65213,hushmail-turns-out-to-be-anything-but.aspx

Hushmail uses PGP encyption but apparently what allowed such a thing to become a news issue is in the way their system works, and the fact that a court order was involved.

Phil Zimmerman defends Hushmail in their actions, see: http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/11/pgp-creator-def.html

This also does not indicate a vulnerability in PGP. I have seen it stated that Hushmail had the private keys which enabled the snooping and that the Java process used puts the correspondence to the server side in unencrytped form. I don't know really what process allowed it, but one would think that any implementation of PGP that was not fully in control of the user could be compromised in a way such as this.

One of the latest ideas in the mainstream medical community is working third (graveyard) shift can cause cancer.

What remains to be seen is just how far they will ride this new wave of fear to collect money from government grants for more "studies" and how many useless new drugs the Pharma-Industry will profit from.

The American Cancer Society Web site notes that carcinogens do not always cause cancer. The cancer society doesn't make its own assessments of possible cancer-causing agents, but relies on analyses by the IARC and a U.S. agency.

Of course. They have to acknowledge that carcinogens don't always cause cancer because just about everyone is exposed to carcinogens every single day. What they won't acknowledge is that it's the human body's capacity to destroy itself, or allow carcinogens to become cancerous cells, that is the 'cause' of cancer. There are numerous doctors, scientists, and such researchers that have made discoveries with regards to cancer that don't agree with mainstream medicine. They are blackballed and discredited as a result. Granted some of them have been genuine quacks, but others have solid positions. One good example of this phenomenom is the story of Patch Adams. There are several resources on the net and in books that detail the stories of such doctors/researchers like Dr. Hamer of Germany, whose research was supposed to be tested to prove it's reliability.

'On December 16, 1986, Professor Voigt, Dean of the Medical Faculty of the University of Tübingen was asked in court, whether Dr. Hamer could be right with his 'New Medicine'. Prof. Voigt affirmed this, adding: "Conventional medicine knows practically nothing about cancer." The Dean was also asked, if it is correct what Dr. Hamer claims, that the New Medicine could be scientifically reproduced and tested within just one or two days. Prof. Voigt: "If in one, two or three days, I am not sure, but in principle he is right." Asked if he could remember that he had promised Dr. Hamer back in 1981 that the New Medicine would be tested as to its scientific accuracy, Prof. Voigt answered: "It is correct that I promised that, however, the Medical Faculty rejected the evaluation of the thesis. That is why I could not keep my promise" The committee rejected his work (150:0 votes with no abstention)!


Judge Dr. Iber asked the Dean:

'Professor Voigt, you are saying that Dr. Hamer could be right and you also admit that it would be possible to scientifically test the accuracy of his findings within one to three days! But if his New Medicine is correct, then you must approve it'
Prof. Voigt: 'Yes'.

Dr. Iber: 'Now I am at a loss. Professor Voigt, you are saying that Dr. Hamer could be right and that you could test that within a short period of time. So why don't you test his findings.'

Prof. Voigt: 'We don't want to know, whether Hamer is right.'

Dr. Iber: 'What. You don't even want to find out, whether Dr. Hamer's 'New Medicine' is correct? This is a post-doctoral thesis. You are legally obliged to test it.'

Prof. Voigt: 'That is incorrect. We are only obliged to perform the proceedings. We are not interested in whether Dr. Hamer is right.'

Dr. Iber: 'In other words, you don't want to find out, although it would be an easy procedure to do so and although you are bound by law to test his findings and although it would have far-reaching consequences.'
Prof. Voigt: 'No, we don't want to know. And I will always vote against Dr. Hamer, no matter what he writes.'

There are also hundreds of quotes like these:

"A study completed in 1993 by a German biostatistician named Ulrich Abel found that the overall success rate for most cancers treated with standard allopathic treatment (chemo, radiation, & surgery) was just 4%. That's right. Statistically averaged, 96% of cancer patients treated conventionally died of cancer or from complications related to their 'treatment'. The only group of cancers treated conventionally that had a higher batting average were some blood cancers such as leukemia or Hodgskins which approached a 35% success rate."

"...Irwin Bross, a biostatistician for the National Cancer Institute, discovered that many cancers that are benign (though thought to be malignant) and will not metastasize until they are hit with chemotherapy. In other words, he's found that many people who've been diagnosed with metastatic cancer did not have metastatic cancer until they got their chemotherapy.
For many cancers, chemotherapy just does not improve your survival rate. Some of these are colorectal, gastric, pancreatic, bladder, breast, ovarian, cervical and corpus uteri, head and neck."

Animal research does not work, as every species of animal is a different biomechanical and biochemical entity. Non-human animals are different not only from humans, but also from each other: anatomically, physiologically, immunologically, genetically and histologically.
Animals react differently to different drugs, vaccines and chemical substances, not only from humans but also from each other. Aspirin kills cats and penicillin kills guinea pigs. Yet guinea pigs can safely eat strychnine - one of the deadliest poisons for humans but not for monkeys.
Human diseases cannot be recreated in animals because once a disease is 'recreated' it is artificial and no longer the original, natural disease that the body itself produced.
Our environment - air, land, water and food supplies - is being systematically destroyed by thousands of pesticides and toxicants that no matter how destructive are routinely and conveniently found safe and thus allowed to be marketed based on inherently invalid and misleading animal tests.
1999 Cancer Research Review

It is estimated that in the United States of America 33% of people will be diagnosed with cancer during their lifetime. The incidence of cancer in USA has gone up 18 percent and the death rate 7 percent since President Nixon declared the "war on cancer" in 1971. After spending billions of dollars and decades of massive effort not only has cancer not been stopped but also its incidence has increased.
SUPRESS, "Cancer: Losing a war that could easily be won", The Vanguard, reprinted in The Guardian Newsletter (Australia), Vol. 3, No. 10, Spring 1997.

Everyone should know that most cancer research is largely a fraud and that the major cancer research organisations are derelict in their duties to the people who support them.
Linus Pauling Ph.D. (1901-1994), two times Nobel Prize winner

I was contacted by a lady who successfully dealt with her breast cancer from 1994 to present. She refused all conventional medical procedures. Last year her conventional oncologist convinced her that she was a fool not to get a needle biopsy. This lady now has new tumors growing at each puncture site. Of course her oncologist now has detailed information to help decide which chemos to use for this now rapidly metastasizing cancer. I repeatedly make this same observation with prostate cancer. I rarely see distant metastasis until after a biopsy -- and then it rapidly goes everywhere including the bones.
Dr. Vincent Gammill, Center for the Study of Natural Oncology (CSNO) Solana Beach, California (non profit)

Compare this observation of metastasis, which by the way is an unproven theory, to Dr. Hamer's conclusions. Sir James Paget came up with the "seed and soil" theory in 1889 and James Ewing, MD, an American pathologist, proposed his circulation theory in 1928. These theories are still being relied upon, although recently they have come up with this idea:

Metastasis is a highly inefficient, multi-step process that requires cancer cells to jump through many hoops. The cells first must invade a nearby tissue, then make their way into the blood or lymphatic vessels. Next they must migrate through the bloodstream to a distant site, exit the bloodstream, and establish new colonies. The entire operation involves so many steps that it raises an obvious question: How do cancer cells cobble these behaviors together and acquire the ability to do all this? According to the new study, they don't. Rather, they hijack an existing cellular process and use it to disperse throughout the body.

Reporting in the June 25 issue of the journal Cell, the research team headed by Weinberg describes how a breast carcinoma in mice misappropriates a protein called Twist. Twist is a gene regulator, meaning that it tells genes when to turn on and when to turn off. But Twist is mainly active in early embryonic development, where it enables cells to move from one part of an embryo to another and allocate these cells into different tissues. As an embryo develops, Twist's functions no longer are necessary, and it soon becomes dormant in most tissues throughout the rest of an organism's life.

Through a process that still is somewhat unclear to researchers, tumor cells reactivate this long-dormant protein and thereby acquire the ability to move throughout the body.
- http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2004-06/wifb-nii062104.php

And there is also this rather bold stance:

Metastasis--an alternative hypothesis.
Freireich EJ, Kurzrock R, Estrov Z.
Department of Leukemia, The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas 77030, USA. efreirei@mdanderson.org
The currently accepted models of metastasis are inconsistent with many clinical observations of the natural history of cancer and its response to therapy. Specifically, the authors suggest that it is time for a "paradigm shift." It is time to reject the "local, regional, systemic hypothesis" of cancer and replace it with a hypothesis more consistent with the clinical facts, specifically, that cancer exists in many different forms (i.e. localized disease arising from locally acting carcinogens, which can spread locally and should be treated locally, and cancer that arises as localized disease but evolves to more malignant invasive disease [the current model of metastasis]).

My expertise is in computers - networking, security, databases, programming, etc., etc. - not medicine. However, I'm a person of above-average intelligence, or as some have called me - borderline genius (there's a fine line between genius and insanity, and I dance all over it).

From a logical and evidential standpoint metastasis seems to be a physical/biological impossibility which the medical community largely acknowledges but chooses to ignore. If we compare/apply this theory to the computer world we would have a worm or virus which affects windows machines with certain software. This worm takes advantage of some security hole in a particular version of IIS for example and does all sorts of nasty things to the machines that have it. Now it may be possible for the code to morph and include some vulnerability in Apache web servers with insecure PHP setups and start attacking them, for the sake of example we will say that there is a similarity. It could morph and start attacking other windows machines through various vulnerabilites, they are part of the same 'system.' But let's then say that this same virus/worm attacks Linux and MAC desktop systems that don't run any internet services or that it attacks cisco and other routers, or it starts destroying motherboard components and physical transmission lines. It can't happen. The code would have to be completely different in order to run on different systems. Something could be done with a cross-platform running virus, say it programmed to do its dirty work by running in JAVA. Here again, not all systems would have this and almost certainly this would include all routers. Then hardware is another animal altogether... This is the absurdity of the metastasis theory.

The theory of metastasis is the most often cited excuse used to justify chemotherapy. Frequently such treatments are not covered by insurance and must be paid by the patient out of pocket. The issue is that profit and greed is what runs the system, moreso or rather than a concern for patients' well-being and good health. And with that I will end this rant with the following quotes and urge the reader to take on the responsibility of deciding for themselves what is best for their own health and well-being:

Over 75% of the oncologists polled said that if they had cancer they would never use the same chemotherapy [conventional cancer treatment's main weapon in the 'war on cancer'] they prescribe for their patients on themselves because of the ineffectiveness of chemotherapy and its unacceptable degree of toxicity.
Los Angeles Times report

If I contracted cancer, I would never go to a standard cancer treatment centre. Cancer victims who live far from such centres have a chance.
Professor Georges Mathé, French cancer specialist

...as a chemist trained to interpret data, it is incomprehensible to me that physicians can ignore the clear evidence that chemotherapy does much, much more harm than good.
Alan C Nixon, PhD, former president of the American Chemical Society

As a retired physician, I can honestly say that unless you are in a serious accident, YOUR BEST CHANCE OF LIVING TO A RIPE OLD AGE IS TO AVOID DOCTORS AND HOSPITALS AND LEARN NUTRITION, HERBAL MEDICINE AND OTHER FORMS OF NATURAL MEDICINE. Almost all drugs are toxic and are designed only to treat symptoms and not to cure anyone. Most surgery is unnecessary. In short, our mainstream medical system is hopelessly inept and/or corrupt. THE TREATMENT OF CANCER AND DEGENERATIVE DISEASES IS A NATIONAL SCANDAL. The sooner you learn this, the better off you will be.
Dr. Allan Greenberg on 12/24/2002

I'm still debating on where to put select Y!A answers I've given, but I'm leaning more towards including them in blog entries. I'm not so sure about the FAQ format. So here's one about spellchecking:

Question

Can I somehow put a Thesaurus and dictionary and spellchecker simultaneously in my sites where composing is d?
how about just in my 'answers' page,..or in my emale page,..
I know i have asked this awkwardly,..i am new to computers.. sorry

Answer
With firefox YA has a check spelling right above the compose window.

http://spellbound.sourceforge.net/index

There are several plugins for firefox.

You can add the merriam-webster dictionary or dictionary.com to the search box:
http://www.m-w.com/downloads/firefox/firefox-searchbox.htm
http://dictionary.reference.com/tools/firefox.html

There's a dictionary tooltip plugin:
http://downloads.zdnet.com/download.aspx?scid=3270&docid=265524&part=rss&tag=rss&subj=ZDNet+Downloads&promo=100112

For a list of quite a few of the available plugins for mozilla on windows:
http://plugindoc.mozdev.org/windows-all.html
http://www.extensionsmirror.nl/

This also may be of interest:
http://www.hyperwords.net/

There's also this for IE, but I don't recommend using IE at all.
http://3d2f.com/programs/22-507-ielanguage-download.shtml

I actually started thinking about this sort of thing about a week or two ago and a post on the Maryland Shooter's Forum about the proposed Real ID and RFID guidelines brought it up again.

I was thinking of keeping this hush and actually developing a system for this and obtaining relevant patents. However, searching through patents and the whole application process can be rather costly and consuming, not to mention the difficulties in enforcing patents. Besides, I tend to agree with the philosophies of Open Source Software and Creative Commons licensing of works. There's some discussion on this over at the instructables.com forums that covers this topic as it relates to patentable works. So since I've posted my idea to the MD Shooter's forum, I figure I'll also post it here with some more details.

Based on my brief research I have concluded that this is overall an original idea, though pieces, or general concepts, may have been previously proposed. So, if this idea, in whole or in part, is stolen and shows up on the market before I get around to fully developing it and selling/marketing it myself, I expect to be credited, consulted and receive fair compensation. I still have the opportunity to apply for patents and if anyone sees any of this in a patent application let me know. In the recent past I had an idea that I believe very well may have been stolen from me which I'll get into another time.

On with the show...
Some of this is related to security/privacy policy which I think should be implemented regardless, but the system would require it.

All databases are to be devoid of personal identifying information.
There may be certain exceptions to this based on reasonably justified need, but any personal ID information should be kept out of all database systems to the greatest extent possible such that it cannot be used for things such as ID theft or other nefarious purposes. This would make the data relatively useless if compromised by crackers or to any unscrupulous employee or other person that normally is allowed access to the data.

I'll go off on a little side tangent here and throw in that SSN's should only be found in databases at the SSA, they don't belong anywhere else (well the IRS hijacked SSN's as TIN's but that's another story), they make bad database keys, and are completely useless and unreliable for identification purposes (it even says so right on the card). I'll leave my arguments and opinions on why SS shouldn't exist at all for another time. The misuse of SSN's by companies and, probably to a lesser extent due to pertinent laws, government agencies has become so common that now it's finally being realized how vulnerable to abuse this practice is. For too many reasons, an SSN cannot be trusted for verifying or authenticating a person's ID.

In place of this should be something like a PGP public key. The only way to get the personal info is directly from the individual. An alternative is to encrypt the stored data with the public PGP key, but this could make for some messy and/or more resource intensive database systems.

The individual whose personal information is stored controls their own personal ID information and decides who can access what pieces of it.

How it Works
The system requests the info from say an RFID chip (I'm not sure these would really be suitable for this application, but possibly as RFIDsec has come up with secure RFID devices with privacy features which I haven't fully looked into).
My first thoughts were of something like a USB memory stick, such as the SecureStix, (but not a Sony product) with a fingerprint reader to represent the passphrase for the private key, though something a little more sophisticated may be necessary.

Anyway, the request is encrypted with the public key on file and signed with the requester's key, the individual accepts the request with their passphrase (fingerprint?) and the allowed data for that particular requester is provided to them encrypted with their public key and signed by the individual's key. The pertinent data shows up on the requester's screen but does not get stored in any way. This could still potentially be abused, I haven't thought through all of the details far enough yet, but the system would work something like this. Maybe some reliable auditing certification could be part of ensuring that the ID data is secure, but it should be possible to do this within the program. It would have to verify that the OS isn't compromised in such a way as to allow for grabbing the data as it's routed from post-decryption to the video display. Hmmm... there's of course other issues as well.

Trust of the ID
As long as the individual's key is signed by some acceptable authority it is considered to be trusted valid information (ie. the person is who they say they are), no need to worry about what two or three forms of ID are acceptable for which entity that requires ID because the ID info for that key has already been verified either by that entity itself or a valid third party (eg. the local courthouse, state police, State Dept., etc.). Additionally, the key/passphrase info is almost impossible to forge and the primary ID (ie. name) is tied to the PGP key and cannot be changed. Some good info on PGP and the web of trust theory, which I haven't bothered to get into, can be found at David Ross's site and of course at GNUPG and PGP.com.


There are still some points that need a little work in this idea, and the .gov would probably never adopt such a system fully without it's own exceptions (there's still too many control-freak--nanny-state--power-trip politicians in office), but with wide usage it could certainly cut down, or eliminate for the most part, ID theft, and many other crimes which are facilitated by the improper use of personal data. Plus maybe it could restore some sense of privacy and security in a world where there isn't much left without removing oneself from at least most of civilization and technology.

Maybe I've watched "The Net," "Enemy of The State," and similar movies too many times, or maybe I've just been involved in computer networking and security too long.

Well I've finally decided to mess around with blogging. One thing that sorta led me to this is that I've participated in Yahoo Answers for almost a year and have answered quite a few questions, over 1600 really. One thing that has always been rather amusing is that people ask alot of the same things that have already been answered previously. Why can't people use the search feature which is clearly pointed out as the first place to look before asking a question? I guess for the some of the same reasons they don't use google or wikipedia to find things.

Actually there was a similar question on Y!A that I answered that went like this:

Question

If you are using a computer to post your ? why dont you look up your ???? at ask.com?

Answer
1. Because people are lazy.
2. Because people are ignorant of how to conduct internet research. (see #1)
3. Because people don't know what a search engine like ask or google, etc. is (See #1)
4. Because people don't know how to use a search engine (See #1)
5. Because people don't understand the internet (See #1)
6. Because asking other people is more real than asking a search engine that just doesn't understand (See #1)
7. Because questions are answered faster when other people look up the answer and relevant links (See #1)

etc. etc.

Or maybe it's just plain ignorance in general.

A better question is why do we answer the questions, like this one for example?


Anyway, a while back I tried figuring out how I could pull all the answers I had submitted from Yahoo to compile them into my own archive for using on my own site as FAQ's, just to have on my own machine, in case I wanted to publish a book, whatever. I mean they are my words after all and I don't see anythng within the TOS that states I waive all rights to any content submitted. I can't sue Yahoo for its use of or any profit it may make from my content, but I haven't granted them ownership of the content I've submitted. The other thing is that using the Y!A interface is rather cumbersome to lookup or search through all the answers I've provided.
So when I first looked into some way of accomplishing my goals, I didn't really find anything. I tried using a scraper, ripper, whatever those things are that crawl through and save html data, but it had issues dealing with the Yahoo authentication and I gave up. Then recently I started looking into it again and came across info on the Yahoo Answers API, which doesn't seem to provide a whole lot more than the advanced search feature does. Directly, with a simple syntax it wouldn't give me what I wanted, although with some additional programming control and manipulation it can be quite useful and meet my needs. However, Yahoo wants one to register with them for an API ID to develop applications. Though they do allow demo access and since I don't really plan on developing any applications, other than maybe a simple script just for getting my own entries, I don't see the point in registering if the demo access can suffice.
This leaves me with where to put this data. As some of it is quite useful (some just silly or sarcastic) and much of it is recommending free software which I have quite a few links to on the T3 main site, I figured a blog might be a suitable medium. I could go through and post them as entries with the date/time from the original, or I could put them in as FAQ's... decisions, decisions.