Times Are Changin'

As Roxy Blue says, "Baby, I know times are changin'." And if you don't know who Roxy Blue is, that is probably because you aren't into obscure hair metal bands that only produced one album of any significance at all with a scantily clad female on the front cover that is no longer available for purchase.

Anyway, the Half Bad Boy Blog is coming to an end.

Yes, I am a little concerned about my readership. Hopefully both of them will see this post and follow me over to blog.mvryan.org, where the blogging will continue, hopefully a bit more free-form. See, the problem with having a themed blog is that it makes it hard to write about what you really want to write about. I want to write about whatever interests me and not a theme - even one as cool as half-badness.

I realized this in a couple of ways. The first was that I was feeling constrained in what I would blog about. For example, I might want to blog about technology or politics, but it didn't fit the theme. Lame! Then as I started poking around at other people's blogs, I found a lot of other themed ones, that seem really interesting in the beginning but after a while seem like they are just saying the same thing over and over again. Either that, or they really start to scrounge for stuff, like "Seven Tips For Reducing Stress In Your Life" (tip #1 - stop stressing) or "How To Simplify Your Life" (such as not using any technology at all - but this does not apply to the blogger who must use technology to produce the blog, etc.).

Uninteresting. The interesting blogs to read, if there are any, are more personal than that. And the interesting blogs to write are about whatever topics I care about, because by definition the categorization of something as "interesting" by my brain is entirely subjective. Suddenly my blog becomes the most interesting of all! If I can only cut loose.

Which I'm doing. Eventually. Not right away. But if you agree that stuff I may choose to blog about could be interesting enough for you to care, you should change your bookmark, or feed, or whatever to blog.mvryan.org instead. If, on the other hand, you are incorrect and don't find this stuff interesting, why are you even here? You should stay away. No offense. It isn't that I don't want you around. I'm just afraid I will have to moderate comments from people who wrongly think that my interests are not interesting. I believe I've made myself clear.

So. blog.mvryan.org. In case you missed it.

Legitimacy for the BCS

It's popular every year to engage in the debate about the state of the BCS and how lousy a job it does, or not, in determining a national collegiate football champion.  And since I'm all about being popular, I thought I ought to jump in here and add to the noise a bit.  Maybe what I've got to say is a bit different though.  And maybe not.

I'm going to start with a basic premise about any championship series.  That premise is that it is possible for any participant to become the eventual champion of the series.  That's the promise of participation.  At the beginning of the season, every participant starts out at the same level as every other participant, and every participant can believe realistically that they have a shot at winning the overall championship.

Notice, I didn't say an equal shot.  Equality is certainly subjective, and in many championship series, there are many things that are not equal.  Ferrari has a much better chance than Force India to win the Formula One championship, and the Celtics have a better chance than the Jazz of winning an NBA title.  A lot of this has to do with money, markets, buying power, superior athletes, etc.

Still, the series itself gives every participant a fair chance to win.  There is nothing about the nature of the series that will make it so that an inferior competitor cannot win the championship.  If the Utah Jazz win enough games, they will make the playoffs - and if they make the playoffs and keep winning, they can eventually win the NBA title.  The championship is completely within the realm of possibility, something that is realistically achievable.

This, then, is the fundamental problem with the BCS.  I maintain that, in the BCS, not every participant has a chance to win the championship.  More precisely, there are a number of teams for which winning a championship is not possible, no matter what they do, without certain lucky circumstances also taking place that are outside of that team's control.

The recent Sugar Bowl game between Alabama and Utah really brings this into light.  Make no mistake, Alabama is legitimately one of the top football teams in the nation.  They deserved the BCS berth they were awarded.  They deservedly spent five weeks at the #1 spot in the nationwide polls.  And they were soundly beaten in a square, fair fight by Utah.  Soundly.  Beaten.

Consider this:  The only other team to beat Alabama this year was Florida.  Florida did not handle Alabama as well as Utah did - not even close.  And no other team - not Clemson, not Georgia, not Ole Miss, not LSU - managed to beat Alabama.  Alabama is a good team.

Utah is a better team.

Hey, even I wouldn't believe it beforehand.  Oh, I wanted to.  I wanted Utah to win.  But I just didn't think it would happen.

So, here you have Utah, who soundly beat an Alabama team that was the top-ranked team in the nation for nearly half of the regular season.  How can they not at least be considered as a candidate for the national title?

The common argument here is a strength of schedule argument.  Actually, Utah's strength of schedule was not that bad.  But strength of schedule is just an excuse.  Penn State, who lost soundly to USC in the Rose Bowl, very nearly went undefeated in the Big Ten.  Had they finished their season undefeated, this year they would have been playing for the national title.  It doesn't matter that the Big Ten is a relatively weak football conference these days - an undefeated Penn State plays for the national title this year.

The same goes for USC.  Who knows whether the PAC-10 is any good this year or not?  What I do know is that the Mountain West went 6-2 against the PAC-10 this year.  That implies that Utah's schedule is even stronger than it initially seems to be.

This is why I say the BCS as it currently stands is running the risk of being declared completely illegitimate.  Any team from any of the major six conferences has a chance of playing for the national title - all they have to do is go undefeated.  Strength of schedule does not matter for them.  But a team from outside the major six conferences?  That team pretty much has no chance of winning a national title, even if they do go undefeated the whole year.  Strengthening their schedule is a crapshoot - they might schedule a team like Michigan, only to find that they are not any good and did nothing to strengthen their schedule.  And what incentive do the major conference teams have to schedule the mid-majors?  It offers them no upside whatsoever, and is not necessary for them to win a national title.

It's going to be an interesting next few days for the BCS.  If Utah is not awarded a shared national title, in my opinion the BCS will prove that mid-major schools don't have a shot at winning the championship, thus proving that the system is broken.  And they will have to break their current rules in order to do the right thing.  This should provide for some very interesting discussion.

Shanahan's Future

So a couple of days ago the Denver Broncos fired their long-time coach, Mike Shanahan.

I can't say I'm surprised.  I've liked Shanahan, so I personally haven't exactly been hoping for the Broncos to replace him.  But I've kinda been expecting this for a few years now.

There's a lot of talk about loyalties - questioning what two Superbowl wins should be worth, can you really fire a guy that won two Superbowls, etc.  I'd ask the same question of a manager at any business anywhere in the country - does phenomenal success ten years ago, based in part upon the makeup of that manager's team, excuse mediocre performance today?  Or would a business expect continued performance?

The Broncos, admittedly, have a pretty high standard.  Shanahan wouldn't be having this problem at, say, Detroit.  But a .500 record over the past three seasons is just not going to cut it in Denver, especially with the talent there.  Managers are responsible for the performance of the teams they manage.  It's true in business and it's true in sports.  If the coach can't get the team to perform, it is time for a change.

So it's the end of the Mike Shanahan era in Denver.  The bad part of this is, I'm not sure who Denver will get that is any better.

This is, absolutely, positively, good news for Utah State though.  Why?  Uh, really?  You actually need to ask?  Obviously, Mike Shanahan is going to be the new head coach of Utah State University's football program.  And I'm very excited about that.

Quarterbacks Are Football Players Too, I Maintain

So far this weekend I've seen at least two different occasions I've seen this happen:  Quarterback drops back to pass - defensive lineman breaks free and closes in on the quarterback for the sack - quarterback executes a pump-fake - as the defensive lineman is wrapping up he notices the pump-fake and releases, thinking the quarterback has passed the ball - quarterback actually keeps the ball and completes a play for positive yardage, having avoided a sack - defensive lineman is left in the backfield shaking his head for the sack he almost had.

In fact, in one case this weekend, the lineman had the sack in the opponent's endzone - a certain safety imminent.  But he released the quarterback, who ended up making a play for positive yardage.  I am almost 100% sure that in both of these situations, the defensive lineman released because he was afraid of getting a personal foul for roughing the passer.

This is football we're talking about here.  Last I heard, it was a contact sport.  People get blocked, hit, and tackled.  It's a rough sport for tough guys.  This whole protecting the quarterback thing has gotten way out of hand.

Even Troy Aikman agrees with me.  He expressed this opinion recently during a game broadcast - that the rules to protect the quarterback are being too strictly enforced.  Now I like Troy Aikman, but that dude was a pretty-boy quarterback if there ever was one.  If he thinks the rule is too strict, then it is really too strict.

When it is having an affect on the game, like in the cases I mentioned this past weekend, it is way too much.  I know that pretty much all the decision-makers in both the NFL and in NCAA football read this blog all the time, looking for advice.  So here it is:  Let's set the expectation that quarterbacks have to be football players.  They have to be able to take a hit.  Let's keep protecting them, like other players, from unnecessary roughness, but let's stop taking special extremes to protect these guys, for the sake of a decent game.

Programmers are Typists - And More

After reading Jeff Atwood's blog post "We Are Typists First, Programmers Second" on Coding Horror, I thought I'd better go see what my typing speed was.

I took the same online typing test that Jeff Atwood took, and managed to beat him:


We'd kinda hope that someone who writes software for a living could type with a reasonable speed. I'm curious to know if my mom, who types as part of her profession but is a non-programmer, could beat me.

Even more, I'm curious to know what my typing speed is when writing code. If you were to do a test like that, "mistakes" could be calculated by the number of syntax errors your code generates if you try to compile/run it. However, I'm not sure what a "word" would be, in calculating words per minute.

Surely your familiarity with the language would make a difference in your "speed." What I find a bit interesting about this discussion is that your typing speed in this case does not necessarily equate to your delivery speed.

For example, if you, like much of the computing world, are a Javahead, in my opinion you have a bit of baggage to overcome in order to attain a reasonable delivery speed. Java's mantra seems to be, "Why do something in one step when it can be done in two - or five?" Thus if you are a Java programmer, you've got some verbosity to overcome in order to attain productivity. Fast typing speed matters for you.

On the other hand, if you are a bit more sane and prefer a language like Python, the language is actually helping you out here. It is so easy to arrive at functional code in Python that perhaps the language makes up for typing shortcomings that a programmer might have.

What about a language like C? C is admittedly terse, but it doesn't do a lot for you because it is comparatively low-level. If you don't have libraries in hand to do what you need, writing them yourself kinda removes any advantage you may have gained because of the terseness of the language. Of course C is excellent based on other factors.

I do agree with the post though - typing is important to programmers. It is important for an additional reason - and that is because good software engineers should be expected to generate documentation - design documents, API documents, test cases, and SDK documents like tutorials and explanations of sample code. In short, there's a lot more typing to be done in a software engineer's job than just the typing of code.


Now, many of you are asking, so what does it mean if you type nearly 90 words per minute AND are not handicapped by a blind adoration for Java? What if you are a fast typist AND you prefer Python?
Well! That describes me quite clearly! And apparently, it means little. Sorry.

What's Kimi Thinking??

One of the most entertaining things about Formula One is the rules. There are many really dumb rules; new rules can be made up in the middle of a race, meaning that at any time a new stupid rule might crop up; rule enforcement is selective, meaning that depending on the driver or the team, the rule may or may not be enforced; and you never know what the penalty might be for breaking a rule. Every day is a new adventure in Formula One!

One of the dumb rules in Formula One is the prohibition of team orders affecting the outcome of the race (see the Formula One Sporting Regulations, article 39.1). How you prove this is another question, but there is no question that it happens, especially in obvious situations like last Sunday's Chinese Grand Prix, where Kimi Raikkonen allowed teammate and title contender Felipe Massa to pass him in the closing laps, trading second and third place. Since Felipe is in contention for the championship, and Kimi is not, obviously Ferrari would want the two to exchange places and allow Felipe to take second place, earning more points in his quest for the world driving championship.

The pass was admittedly a bit dubious. Massa, who was several seconds behind Raikkonen in third place entering the final stint, suddenly was making up several tenths per lap on his teammate, and passed him with ease on the back straight with just a few laps remaining. I suspect nobody watching had any doubt that Raikkonen slowed up and allowed Massa by intentionally. Although this appears to be against the rules, it is only actually against the rules if the team ordered Raikkonen to let Massa past (perhaps he did it out of the goodness of his heart?), and it is only enforceable if it can be proven, i.e. the FIA would need evidence that Raikkonen was ordered by the team to do so.

So, all of that seems pretty hard to come by, and it seems that Ferrari should be in the clear. Which is why it was pretty surprising to me to hear Kimi's post-race press conference comments, wherein he pretty much openly admitted that he was following Ferrari team orders to let Massa take second place.

Whatever Kimi is, he's no dummy. He knows the rules; and even if he didn't, Peter Windsor very clearly, if indirectly, reminded him in a follow-up question. So the conspiracy theorist in me started thinking: Did Kimi actually do that on purpose? Did he intentionally "accidentally" let it slip out that Ferrari gave team orders in this case?

Consider: Kimi is the reigning world champion. Yet he's basically been shown up this year by Massa. Kimi has driven fairly well, but had a couple of off months mid-season, which were enough to convince Ferrari to put all of their weight behind Massa as the championship candidate. Perhaps Kimi is a bit upset about the way he's been treated; perhaps he feels a world champion deserves a bit more respect than he's received. I can't help but wonder if, during the press conference, he put on his nonchalant, innocent Finnish face and then delivered on-the-record the information that the FIA would need to enforce this rule against Ferrari.

The only real questions remaining now are, first, whether the FIA will actually enforce the rule, and second, what the penalty might be. It might be an interesting week.

Moral Obligations of the Socially Superior

I am obviously the smartest and most socially competent person I know, but that is not nearly so easy as one might think.  I'm constantly concerned about making sure that I am fulfilling my responsibility to society - giving back by helping people to realize how ignorant they are, pointing out their flaws and foolishness to motivate them to become somewhat normal.  Problem is, despite my towering intellect, I'm not always sure of the best course of action in certain situations.

Take, for example, the situation that occured to me today.  I was at the grocery store, ready to leave and selecting a checkout aisle.  As I'm approaching an aisle, I notice another guy walking toward me doing the same thing - looking for a checkout aisle.  As I'm eyeing the nearest aisle, he sees me considering it, and immediately launches into a jog so he can beat me to the checkout lane.  As he trots into the lane he looks at me with a look on his face that says, "And what are you going to do about it?"

So I acted like it didn't bother me, because it didn't.  In fact, the only thing I really felt was a great deal of sympathy for someone who is apparently not too bright.  I walked down to the next lane - one this fellow passed up so he could run in front of me into the lane he chose, keep in mind - and purchased my goods.  I gathered my bags and started walking out.  And as I was leaving, I walked past the other checkout lane, and saw said mentally disadvantaged fellow still standing in the checkout lane he had worked so hard to obtain.

So what is my societal and moral obligation here?  I'm not sure what I should be expected to do.  And this has really been bothering me ever since because I'm not sure I left that situation the way I should have, the way I am obligated to because of my superiority.  What I actually did was to grin a bit smugly at him as I strutted by, but I'm not sure that was enough.  Should I have laughed out loud?  Should I have pointed at him and told others around him what a dork he was?  Should I have asked him what his problem was, or taunted him mercilessly?  Will my actions be enough for him to realize his foolishness, or should I have done more to help him realize his lameness?

Since When Is A Correct Call A Controversy??

BYU eked out a win on the road against Washington last Saturday, 28-27. Lest we get confused, I would not wish to tarnish my half-badness in any way by conveying any semblance of support for BYU. So let's be clear about this: THIS IS NOT A PRO-BYU POST.

Now that we've cleared that up, I've simply got to talk a bit about how stupid the sports analysts are, pretty much universally, everywhere, even on other planets. Lest we forget, they make a point of reminding us every so often, when some type of controversy like this arises. It would be easier if they just said, "I can't actually think for myself, so let's just assume that my opinion lies completely contrary to common sense." That would be much quicker.

If you do not watch college football and are therefore not a half-badboy, I assume you are reading this blog because you are trying to repent. So for you folk, I will give you the basic rundown of the controversy:

• BYU played Washington at Washington on Sept. 6.
• Sports analysts are required to hate BYU, because they are not from a BCS conference and are therefore less of everything.
• Note - I do not have to like BYU. But seriously, how long do we have to put up with this BCS superiority garbage? Haven't we learned anything yet? Anyway.
  
• With time expiring in the fourth quarter, and BYU leading 28-21, Washington put together a heroic drive culminating in a touchdown with 0:02 left.
• After scoring, the Washington player threw the football up into the air. On TV it appeared to go some 20 feet or more into the air.
• Said throwing of the football into the air was clearly and without question an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty according to the rules (2008 NCAA Football Rules and Interpretations, Rule 9, Section 2, Article 1, Number 2), which state that
• After any play the player in possession must immediately return the ball to an official or leave the ball near the downed spot
• Among other acts, throwing the ball high into the air is prohibited (item c of said rule)
• As a result, the official flagged and penalized Washington 15 yards for unsportsmanlike conduct, as he is required to do by the rules.
• The ensuing 35-yard PAT try was blocked by BYU.
• Thus BYU ended up winning the game, 28-27.

Literally billions of sports analysts weighed in over the weekend, all of them blaming BYU and officials for the controversy. Well, maybe not blaming BYU per se, but definitely expressing disdain and disagreement for the fact that an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty was called at that point in the game. Anyway, the essence of the argument was threefold:

• The player was clearly overcome by exuberance, and was not in control of himself, as could be expected.
• No harm was done or intended by the player, who was only celebrating the great play made, and not attempting to be unsportsmanlike.
• A penalty or other call by an official should never determine the outcome of a game.

Let's attack these in reverse order.

First of all, it is the job of the officials to attempt to enforce the rules of the game in a fair and unbiased format. They do not weigh the gravity of each individual play and take that into consideration as to whether or not a rule was violated. If a rule is violated, it is their responsibility to enforce the rule. In this case, the ruling was clear. The rulebook clearly describes the inappropriate behavior, which obviously matches the actual behavior in this case. It is the responsibility of the official to enforce the penalty in this case.
At any rate, the plays at the end of the game are not the only ones that can determine the outcome of the game. If not so, then please let me know at what point in the game do the plays become relevant to the outcome? I'd say, potentially all plays are relevant from the opening kickoff onward. Officials should not be expected to guess or determine whether a play will be a determining factor in deciding the outcome, let alone allow this to factor into any decision regarding rule enforcement.
Furthermore, this is all based on the assumption that the ruling actually affected the play. Are you trying to convince me that a college-level placekicker in the PAC-10 does not have sufficient strength to reliably kick a 35-yard field goal with sufficient altitude to avoid a block? Or that BYU (am I actually saying this) is not capable of blocking a field goal except under extreme conditions?

Next point. What exactly was the player's intention is unknown and irrelevant. Intent is not a factor in determining whether to enforce a rule, at least not in NCAA football. If you are tackling someone, and you grab the face mask and turn the head while tackling them, that is a 15-yard personal foul penalty. Whether you meant to do it is not relevant. The same is true in this case. Whether the player intended to taunt the other team or otherwise exhibit unsportsmanlike conduct is not the issue. The issue is that the player did violate the rule, regardless of intent, and it is the job of the officials to enforce the rule.

Finally, the issue with the significance of the play and the resulting excitement meaning that the player obviously was overcome with emotion and could not control himself. Man, how I love that phrase: "Could not control himself." "Yes, Bob, the player is literally not in control of his own self! He cannot make responsible choices! His freedom to choose has been revoked due to extreme excitement!"
Give me a break. Let's suppose the penalty was more harsh. Suppose that he is told, "Look, go out there and score a touchdown. But if you do not hand the ball to the official after the play is over, I am going to cut your index finger off with this here old rusty wood rasp." Do you really think he would score, forget that his finger was in jeopardy, and throw the ball into the air anyway? And then come back and say, "Sorry! Please don't cut my finger off with that there old rusty wood rasp! I was excited and lost control! I literally could not choose otherwise!"

This last one actually gets me more than any of the others. This is not the first time I've heard sports analysts defending the players because they lost control. This is probably because a lot of them used to be players also, which also probably means they don't have much education, and also think they are better than everyone else. Well, in this little place I call "Realworldia," we are expected to maintain control of ourselves and make correct choices, even when it is hard.

In case you were wondering, this is a non-rusty wood rasp. Source: Wikipedia

Another Reason DRM is Bad (In Case You Needed Another Reason)

Ars Technica wrote "DRM Still Sucks" in this article that you should read at least briefly.

Saying that DRM still sucks is not exactly news - pretty much everyone knows it by now. Hopefully you are not still buying your music encumbered by DRM. This isn't about being able to do something illegal - I love music and yearn for more good music, and am willing to pay a fair price to support people who produce good music - rather, it is about being able to listen to the music I buy. What happens to your music when the provider of the DRM technology disappears? Will you lose your ability to listen to your music, or have to buy it all over again?

That's why I'm buying all my music from Amazon.com now. Yeah, I still think it is more expensive per song than it should be, but it's worth it to me to support their anti-DRM venture. Buying from Amazon.com sends the RIAA a message that Napster and AllofMP3.com were not about piracy, but rather about DRM-free music. Perhaps if enough of us buy there, they will eventually come around.

Yeah, I know, it is a lot to hope for - probably unreasonably so. But I'm going to be optimistic and use my money to vote for DRM-free music. I hope you will also.

Provo's "Freedom" Festival

It came to my attention today that the America's Freedom Festival (in Provo, Utah) committed has chosen to recognized Jack Thompson as a Freedom Award Recipient at the Freedom Awards Gala on July 2.

I live in Utah and generally like most things about it. I do not agree with the giving of an award to Jack Thompson for any reason, primarily because I think he is preying upon a frantic conservative populace in order to enrich himself personally for a cause he would otherwise not care about. However, I am willing to concede to any other organization the right to recognize Jack Thompson for things he's done.

What is ridiculous, however, is that he is being recognized at what is presumably a celebration of freedom. Jack Thompson is not about freedom. He is about government censorship of free expression as guaranteed by the First Amendment. Furthermore, in the opinion of at least Judge Dava Tunis of Florida, Jack Thompson is guilty of 27 different charges of inappropriate conduct from the Florida Bar, including such things as knowingly making false statements to a tribunal. In fact the Florida Supreme Court will no longer accept any filings from Mr. Thompson unless signed by another lawyer.

It is hard to believe that a festival of freedom, held in Provo, Utah, which is probably the most conservative city in the United States, holding a gala to recognize champions of freedom, would have a committee, presumably made up of locals, that would select such a person as being deserving of this award, if in fact they are aware of what Mr. Thompson is really all about. My guess is that they really aren't aware of anything other than the fact that he fights against video game companies for releasing and distributing video games that include nudity, sexual content, graphic violence, and adult themes.

I'm not advocating such games nor am I championing the cause for even more games of even more extreme natures to become available. I do find it interesting, however, that we have such strong, organized opposition to video games when there is no similar opposition of this magnitude against other media, such as books, magazines, music, or movies. I suppose each of those media went through their own battles as well earlier in their history. But I do find it interesting that we basically do nothing to prevent or curb pornography, which has a documented association to sexual deviance and violence, but some would raise Jack Thompson up as a champion of freedom for fighting against video games, which as yet have not been shown to cause violence.

It is especially surprising on another front. Consider the case of CleanFlicks, the DVD rental company that rents edited versions of mainstream movies. At least it used to; I'm not sure what their business model is now and how it is different from what it was in 2006, when they were ordered by court to cease their business model. You probably know that CleanFlicks is a Utah-based company, and you can imagine how many upset people there were around here when this ruling came down.

Apparently people don't see these issues as two sides of the same coin. Apparently, the Freedom Festival folk don't realize that it is the same line of thought that took CleanFlicks away that they are championing by honoring Jack Thompson. One cannot simultaneously champion the cause of someone to take freedom of legal expression away from one group and lament having a similar freedom removed from them.

I'm willing to grant that some video games today are inappropriate or even evil. It is one thing for an individual to make personal choices about the type of entertainment they will pay for, or that they will allow into their home. It is another altogether to attempt to circumvent the constitution in order to stop something you feel is evil, and yet another thing to decide to take the freedoms of others away for the purpose of stopping evil. Choosing to keep content that I find inappropriate out of my home is my right and responsibility; even Playboy would not argue with that position. It is when I determine that since something is wrong for me, I have the right to take away the freedoms of others to stop the evil that I'm standing on a slippery slope.

We've fought too hard to obtain freedom to treat it so lightly. And there have been too many champions of true freedom for us to so tarnish it that we would choose Jack Thompson, of all people, to honor at the America's Freedom Festival in Provo. What a shame. What a disgraceful, embarrassing shame.

Belgium vs. Australia

The other day I was talking with my dad on the phone about the recently concluded AMA Supercross championship, and my pleasure that the Australian Chad Reed had managed to claim the championship (if you read this blog you already know that I'm a big Chad Reed fan).

Dad was trying to be supportive but he just wasn't really showing the love. Finally I asked him about it, and he said, "Well, I know you really like Reed, but I was kinda hoping that Windham would win it. You know, since he's an American. I just think since you are an American you should cheer for Windham over Reed."

Well, Dad's entitled to his opinion. So I thought about this for a while. Then I realized: This is the same man who had posters of Roger DeCoster on his workshop wall when I was little.

Roger DeCoster. The Man. The legend. The Belgian.

Hey Celebrities - We Don't Care What You Think

I've got some news for all you celebrities out there:


We don't care what you think, about anything.


You know who you are. Athletes, musicians, actors, socialites, etc. You hold these press conferences, or get these TV spots, and get in front of the country to give us your opinion on some topic that matters to you. You do it all the time. I can only assume that you believe we want to know how you feel on these issues.

Well, we don't. Just because we, as a whole, may show our appreciation for your talent with our dollars does not mean our appreciation extends to you or your opinion on matters that are not directly related to what we do pay you for. Take Sheryl Crow for example. She is a great, talented musician who has written many songs that I personally enjoy listening to. How she got the idea that this therefore meant that I care what she thinks about current events is beyond me.

Take a note - we don't care what you think. You don't identify with most of us anyway. Your everyday life is like a fantasy tale for most of us. We are aware of that. You don't know what it is really like to work a full day to make ends meet. Stick to what you are good at, and quit trying to push your opinions on us. We really could not possibly care less.

The BCS - An Intentionally Self-Defeating Organization

Well, here we are, January 2 2007. The NCAA College Football bowl games are almost over. Also almost over is the BCS's annual "prove why we are stupid" campaign.

Boise State proved me wrong in my predictions, and I couldn't be happier. They are the deathblow in a volley of shots lobbed at the ridiculous BCS. Bowl Championship Series? Try Bowl Comedy Series.

Let's see how I've faired so far in my predictions:

1. BYU v Oregon - Hit. Oregon wasn't exactly the tops of the PAC-10, but not considered child's play either. But BYU handled them 38-8.
2. Cal v Texas A&M - Hit. The PAC-10 may be overrated, but so is the Big XII. Cal wins 45-10.
3. Tennesse v Penn State - Miss. Tennessee should have won, but maybe there's some karma involved here. Penn State wins 20-10.
4. Auburn v Nebraska - Hit. Two fundamentally great teams, but Auburns superior defense and 2nd half adjustments prevail. Auburn wins 17-14.
5. Arkansas v Wisconsin - Miss. What can I say? Arkansas should have won this game but just did not play well enough to get it done. Wisconsin wins 17-14.
6. USC v Michigan - Miss. Memo to Michigan: When something isn't working, DO SOMETHING ELSE. Michigan was committed to their gameplan come hell or high water, and it sank them. USC wins 32-18.
7. Boise State v Oklahoma - Miss. And I couldn't be happier. This is one of the best football games ever. Boise State wins in overtime 43-42.
8. USU v ND C&D - Hit. USU was destroyed by ND C&D in the Toilet Bowl, 3267 to -21.
   

What does all of this mean for the BCS? Who knows? #1 Ohio State barely beat Michigan, who got trounced by USC, who got beat by both UCLA and Oregon State, UCLA was beaten by Florida State, etc. etc. etc. What it means is: WE NEED A PLAYOFF.

Otherwise, next year the BCS will spend a lot of time and money to prove, on national TV, to millions of viewers, that it is stupid again.

Upset About Microsoft/Novell?? Take A Pill!

Sorry to write a technical article on the Half Bad Boy Blog. I hope you can bear with me. Its just that the general reaction to this whole Microsoft/Novell agreement is so baffling that I really need to talk about it.

I'm assuming you are familiar with Open Source and Linux, the freely-available and freely-created operating system which is one of the flagship open source offerings. The community of developers and users behind open source are a particular and idealistic group, not necessarily all of the same mindset, but with some generally common goals. Among them: The idea that the rights of a person to use and even modify software should be unrestricted; the passion to create high-quality, great, useful software products; and the belief that the movement is ultimately unstoppable.

And when you think about it, it is unstoppable. Linux is truly a great operating system - secure, stable, powerful, fast, versatile, and actually quite easy to use. It is a strong competitor to Microsoft Windows - better at Windows at some things, not better at others. Yet. But there are only really two main ways for a company like Microsoft to compete with Linux - on price and on features. Since Linux is free, Microsoft cannot beat Linux on price - unless they start paying people to use Windows. And with thousands of developers around the world working on Linux for free, there is ultimately no way that Microsoft can compete on the basis of features.

The effect of open source is the commoditization of software. Interesting projects will draw more developers, leading to better software, making the project more interesting, etc. The process snowballs, and once it gets to a certain size, it is pretty much unstoppable. The licensing and intellectual property laws protecting it ensure that this is the case.

Linux is beyond this point. It is not better than Windows, yet. But there is no stopping it. Eventually the computer operating system will become a commodity, and we can thank Linux for it. Microsoft won't be able to make money there anymore.


Those of us involved in the open source movement know this. We have foreseen this for years. We understand the effect of the movement. For years people involved in open source have viewed Microsoft as the enemy, because they are the antithesis of everything the open source community stands for (with the possible exception of quality software - and some would even disclaim that exception). Those involved in open source have for years said that the movement would ultimately mean the demise of Microsoft's business models, and the death of Windows as we know it today.

Surely these people don't think they knew something that Microsoft didn't. Right? Right???


Come on, people. You had to know that Microsoft would know this. Whatever you may think of Microsoft as a company - ruthless, shady, cutthroat, etc. - you surely don't think they are stupid. They realized the same things you did, long ago. They must have figured out, long ago, that eventually they will have to adjust their business plan to align themselves with this movement. They would have to do that or die.

You would think that any step that Microsoft would take in such a direction would be a sign of a clear victory. It should be viewed as a sign that the day finally came - the day when Microsoft realized they had to figure out how to play nicely with open source in order to survive. This should be viewed as the day open source won - the day when technology works on open source's terms, not the other way around.


That is what I find baffling about the reaction to this deal. The most logical explanation for this decision, on Microsoft's part, is that they realized that they needed to do this to remain relevant. Why else would they be willing to pay Novell $348M to enter into this deal? Many so-called open source experts have said that Microsoft is doing this in order to take over Linux. Hello, people! They can't do that, because of the licensing of Linux. For so-called open source experts, you sure don't understand open source very well.


Some people were initially upset about this arrangement because they were sure it violated the GPL. They were sure of this despite the fact that both Novell and Microsoft have many experienced, paid intellectual property lawyers on staff to make very sure that no such violation existed in the agreement. Now, they are upset because they think the arrangement should be a violation, even though it apparently isn't (IANAL).
I find this pretty interesting because of prior experience I've had with people regarding the GPL. I can't recount how many times arguments I've had with people over the GPL have included them saying some variant of the phrase, "Well, that is not what the GPL is intended to mean."
If you want to play in the realm of law and intellectual property, you have to play by the rules of the game, and one of the rules of the game is that a copyright license covers exactly what it states that it covers. Intent is of no significance.


I could go on and on here, but I won't. To summarize, my point here is simply twofold:

• This agreement should be viewed as a win for the open source movement. Novell's stated objectives are to promote and protect open source. Microsoft's stated objectives are harmony and interoperability. The most logical explanation for this is that Microsoft needed to make this move to remain competitive.
• Any parts of this agreement that you think violate the GPL are more likely a) your incorrect assumptions based on information you don't have, or b) your misunderstanding of copyright law such that the GPL should mean what it is meant to mean, and not necessarily what it says. Frankly, you pretty much need to just shut up and deal with it. You are being pretty presumptuous to assume that you know more about law than paid corporate IP lawyers.

I'm still waiting to see an argument against this that actually holds any water. Until then, I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt. The principle of Occam's Razor implies that the most logical explanation is likely the right one - and the most logical explanation is nothing but positive for the open source movement. Take a pill and relax.

Some Rich People are Still Stupid - But I'd Rather Be Smart

Just because you are smart doesn't mean you will be rich - and just because you are stupid doesn't mean you can't be rich. As evidence we need look no farther than this article which tells how Ben Roethlisberger recently crashed while riding his 2005 Suzuki Hayabusa. Without a helmet.

Riding a motorcycle without a helmet is stupid.


This story hits home to me because my father, who is smart but not rich, was also recently injured in a motorcycle accident. My father has been riding motorcycles for over forty years. I have never known him to be injured in any way in a motorcycle accident prior to this one. In fact, I don't think he's ever even received a traffic citation during all of that time.


He was taking a corner on a highway at a very reasonable 25 miles per hour. Who knows exactly what happened next. Apparently, the front tire lost traction as the bike high-sided and threw my dad into the rocks that were piled next to the side of the highway.


Here's what happened:

• Broken right ulna near the wrist, and multiple fractures to right radius near the wrist, requiring surgical repair
• Broken left humerus and severely dislocated left elbow with ligament and tendon damage, requiring surgical repair
• Broken left tibia and fibula beneath the knee, and torn left patellar tendon, requiring surgical repair
• Broken left ankle in multiple locations, requiring surgical repair
• Burst fracture to fourth thoracic vertebra, which has not required surgical repair - yet

He is in the midst of a two-month stint of laying on his back, waiting for the bones to heal, and meanwhile not ever getting up - EVER.


Here's what didn't happen: He didn't die. He didn't split his head open and die. Because he's not stupid.

For those of you that are stupid: Can you see the scratches on this helmet here? The impact cut entire sections out of the shell. Some of those scratches, like those more horizontal ones on the side, are about 1/8 of an inch deep. The impact was so hard, it burst the face shield completely off the helmet.

I love this helmet. Without this helmet, my dad would now be dead.

If you are stupid, like Ben Roethlisberger, it is time for you to wise up. You might be a great rider. Unfortunately, it isn't always about you. You might be riding properly until you get cut off by some idiot driver in an SUV. Or you might be involved in some freak accident, high-siding into the rocks unexpectedly while going carefully around a corner at only 25 miles per hour. Don't be stupid.

TLC Life Lessons - Don't Be Fooled

Maybe you've seen these new TLC Life Lessons commercials on TV lately. They advertise these figurines with "life lessons" printed on the bottom. They are admittedly kind of funny, but I've come to the conclusion that they were all written by women as a subtle message to try to change men into what they think they want.


Take this one for example. The text on the bottom of this one says "When she asks for a backrub, sometimes she just wants a backrub." Of course, all of us half bad boys know this.
We also know that the caption is not complete. The complete caption should read, "When she asks for a backrub, sometimes she just wants a backrub. And sometimes she wants more than a backrub. In either case, she lets you know by saying, 'Would you give me a backrub?'"
Now, check out the guy on this figurine. Does he look like a half bad boy? Does a half bad boy wear silky boxers with hearts on them? Give me a break! This guy probably listens to Barry Manilow.

Women don't get this quandary. I even explained it to my sigoth and she didn't seem to understand the problem: If "sometimes" she only wants a backrub, how are we supposed to know which of the "sometimes" she only wants a backrub?

Well, I'll tell you - it is part of a plan to trap and frustrate you. Don't be fooled. These and other messages are intended to confuse men and women and to complicate the relationship between us, not sweeten it. Believe me - as much as women complain about men vocally, they have been created to be attracted to men, and vice versa, by our very natures. If you believe in God, then you can believe we were created that way; if you don't, then you must believe that millions of years of natural selection have led us to this point as a species.

Don't get drawn into this. Be a manly man. Be a half bad boy. Respect your sigoth and support her, but don't give into this societal attempt to turn a man into a demasculated, hypersensitive, feminine version of his former self. She might complain that you don't cry with her in that chick flick you suffer through for her sake, but trust me - she will appreciate you being a rock when her emotions are all shot to hell. She really wants a man, despite what society tries to tell her. Hang tough my friend.

By the way, the figurines are funny, and you can buy them online if you are so inclined.

Response to Congressman Cannon

I have to admit being rather impressed that Mr. Cannon would write back to me specifically (or more likely, that he would instruct one of his office staff to write back to me specifically - either way I feel somewhat heard).

Still, you can't help but love some of the comments in the e-mail. Such as, "This legislation is designed to address the generally held concern for the 'Analog Hole Problem.'" "Generally held concern?" I hadn't realized that the general public was deeply concerned about the fact that they can legally record copies of their favorite shows. More likely, I suspect that the "generally held concern" would be that this freedom would be taken away.

I also love this phrase: "usage rights negotiated through voluntary agreements." Tell me - when was the last time you negotiated a voluntary usage agreement for a CD, a DVD, or a television program? Where is the contract you signed or the license agreement you agreed to adhere to?

Another good line is: "there is nothing to prevent manufacturers from taking advantage of the Analog Hole and allowing unrestricted copying and redistribution of content." Agreed. And there hasn't been since the start. And this act is not going to stop people from making and redistributing copies of protected content, trust me. But at least now we are getting somewhere.

Here's the point - this is a law that takes freedom away from the law-abiding citizens and does nothing to really prevent the criminals from committing crime. If we assume that people are not idiots, the only other assumption we can come up with is that those promoting this bill know it won't prevent piracy - instead, it is about greed, power, money, and control, primarily that you and I have less of these and give more of these to the government and to wealthy corporations.


Anyway, here's my response to his e-mail:

Dear Congressman Cannon:

Thank you for your response to my concern. I can tell by reading your response that it is tailored to my concerns, as opposed to a general-purpose form response. I was impressed to see a response that was tailored to my concerns.


I appreciate that you would take the effort to explain this problem to me. As a professional, senior-level software engineer with over ten years of experience, you can be assured that I have a pretty firm grasp on technology, digital rights management, patents and copyrights, and other issues surrounding intellectual property.


I have argued both sides of these issues in my career and have seen many valid points on both sides. I have many concerns about intellectual property administration and policy in general in our country; much of this has to do with our country's future in a world economy and our ability to continue to compete.

I won't get into all of these issues because it will take even longer than what is already stated herein. Instead of delving into the issues of this bill at hand, I prefer to keep the details out and discuss what is happening in general terms.


What is happening in general terms is that certain corporations have identified a means by which people COULD steal from them. The capability to steal their property is not new (people have had this ability for decades), but the ability to prevent it IS relatively new. Thus, they are asking to pass a law that makes it so people cannot choose to steal from these companies.

This is my key area of concern. My problem with this is that, at a fundamental, moral, and religious level, I think it is wrong to enact law that takes away an individual's freedom to choose, even if it is to choose to commit a crime. Do I think that people who steal should be let free? No; on the contrary, I depend upon the laws of our country to uphold penalties for stealing intellectual property, or I would otherwise lose my livelihood.

But what we are talking about here is passing a law so that people won't be able to commit a crime. This is a different case, and I think it sets a dangerous legal precedent. You said that you have "always tried to outlaw piracy." Congressman Cannon, piracy is already outlawed. This bill is not about outlawing piracy; it is about removing freedoms from the law-abiding majority in order to prevent some people from committing piracy. What comes next? Disallowing people to host their own blogs because they might post child pornography? Outlawing the ownership of firearms because someone might use one to kill someone else? Revoking all driving privileges because someone might use a car to get away from a bank robbery?

In addition to these moral concerns, I do not think that such laws will work out as we believe they will. If the innovation to legally circumvent such restrictions or provide alternative solutions doesn't originate within the United States, I believe it will elsewhere, which will be worse than having to deal with the stolen IP in the first place.


It is better to let these corporations learn how to adapt to a new market and to new consumer demand. If the economy is like a natural ecosystem, then corporations in that ecosystem are like animal species. The ecosystem becomes more robust only if natural selection is allowed to run its course. Corporations that can't innovate to meet new consumer demand shouldn't be able to rely upon the government to save them from having to evolve.
Imagine if the wagonmakers of 100 years ago had successfully rallied together and lobbied Congress to enact laws making automobiles illegal. They may have stated a noble premise (say, because automobiles are more unsafe than wagons, which is probably true, or that they would make it easier to commit crime, which is probably also true), but you and I know what the real reason would have been - to preserve their line of business.
Imagine if they had been successful. Not only would we still be using horse and wagon, but there are many other ways our society would have changed as a result. Our cities would be smaller and more crowded, since people couldn't live more than a mile or two from employment. And how many hundreds of thousands of Americans are employed today because of the automobile industry, either directly (manufacturing, design, testing, etc.) or indirectly (parts, petroleum, highway construction, tire manufacture)?
We can see that this would have been a devastating step to take. More likely, this innovation would have occured in another country, and we would have cars today, but we would not have had the economic benefit like we have had.

This situation is no different fundamentally. Corporations are asking for law to be passed so that they don't have to compete or evolve. This is a short-sighted view that is detrimental to our long-term viability. It is wrong on an economic as well as at a moral level. I urge you to help our Congress understand the danger of such laws and to cease consideration of this bill. I appreciate your consideration and responsiveness to my concerns thusfar.

Warmest Regards,

Matt Ryan

Letter From Congress On the Digital Transition Content Security Act (DTCSA)

If you read my blog you'll remember this earlier post on the DTCSA. I fear that someday we will all be rolling that acronym off our tongues as slickly and contemptuously as we say DMCA today.

Anyway, I thought you might be interested to read the correspondence I have had thusfar with Congressman Chris Cannon, who is the US Congress representative from where I live.


Here's a letter I received back from him on this subject:


Dear Matt:

Thank you for contacting me about H.R. 4569, the Digital Transition Content Security Act (DTCSA). It is good to hear from you.

This legislation is designed to address the generally held concern for the "Analog Hole Problem" that occurs when the usage rights negotiated through voluntary agreements that are applied to high value digital content basically disappear when that digital content is converted into analog form. Content is "in the clear" once it has been converted to analog form. Unlike encrypted digital content, where access to the decryption keys can be subject to particular content usage obligations, there are no keys, licenses, or contractual obligations required to access and manipulate unencrypted "in the clear" analog content. Currently, there is nothing to prevent manufacturers from taking advantage of the Analog Hole and allowing unrestricted copying and redistribution of content that originated in a protected digital format.

The purpose behind the legislation is to preserve the same usage rights when video content is digitized as would have applied had the content not been stripped of its usage rights information in the format conversion process. For my part, I have always tried to outlaw piracy while trying to maintain fair usage rights for consumers. My position on the Judiciary Committee has given me the great opportunity to advocate for technological advances while working to clarify copyright law.

I am weary of government mandates on technology, believing that manufactures should do most of the negotiating. I do not believe it is the role of government to pick the winners and losers among different technologies. The preferred method is always private sector solutions to\ncontent protection issues. The market is generally well-suited to deal with the usage issues surrounding digital content, and it is doing so on many fronts.

Thank you once more for expressing your concerns. I will examine this bill, desiring to leave to the market what can be solved in the market while ensuring consumer choice and a level playing field for manufacturers. You raise legitimate questions that I will keep in mind as this bill and other Intellectual Property issues are addressed in the House of Representatives.

If I may be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me. For more information on issues currently in Congress, please visit my website at www.house.gov/cannon.

Warmest regards,

Chris Cannon
Member of Congress

The Half Bad Boy DVD Review - Batman Begins

Summary: This masterpiece of moviemaking shows why Batman is a worthy hero, and teaches the movie industry how a movie should be made in the process.
Grade: A

About This Movie: We learn about the origins of Batman as he assumes a secret identity to try to bring peace and order back to his Gotham city home. And he also gets to kiss Katie Holmes.

The Best Part About This DVD Is...
...how everything ties together. These days, it seems most movie makers don't even take the time to tie their own movie together. Batman Begins not only ties together logically from beginning to end, but ties in with the whole Batman story. After watching, I understood how he became who he is, how Gotham came to be the way it is, why he is always fighting so many quirky characters, where he gets all of his neat gadgets, and many other things that were previously unanswered questions. This Batman is a worthy hero. Unlike other Batman portrayals, he is an admirable, good-doing man most of the time (not a sniveling nerd or snobby jerk), but a truly terrifying, yet human, crime-fighter. He chooses to fight crime because he wants to make the world a better place, and chooses to use his money and his life to do this instead of basking in the luxury of a billionaire lifestyle. This Batman (not the others) is my favorite of all superheroes.

The Worst Part About This DVD Is...
...um, I'll have to get back to you on that one.

The Bottom Line
This is how movies should be made - great acting, great casting, great stunts, great special effects, great character development, great cinematography, great plot and theme - no stone was left unturned. Everything made sense in this movie. Even Bruce and Rachel's scene at the end was very satisfying - it was neither cheesy and unbelievable, nor was it disappointing. Not only is this hands-down the best superhero movie of all time, it may be one of my favorites of all time, period. Buy this DVD. You will be glad you did.

Another Stupid Congressional Bill

You might want to read this bill, which is currently being debated in the US Congress. Or, you can let me summarize it for you. The bill will make it illegal to manufacture a device that can record analog signals unless the device complies with whatever DRM accompanies the signal.

This completely destroys my new way of watching TV. I watch the TV programs I want to watch when I want to watch them. This new bill has the potential to make it so that I cannot record my shows, or that I can only view the shows the way they were originally broadcast (potentially no fast-forwarding, rewinding, or pausing), or only view them within a certain time period of when the original was broadcast.

Are people really this stupid? Do the producers of the content think that imposing restrictions on how I consume their product will increase my use? Hardly. I am less likely to watch if they do this than before. There are TV shows that I watch quite regularly, but I never watch them at their broadcast time because that time is not convenient for me. Imposing restrictions like these will cause them to lose a viewer. It's that simple.

What I want to know is, who are the genius lawmakers that are sponsoring these things? Are they a bunch of old geezers, jealous of the young whippersnappers that know how to use technology, and dead-set on punishing the youth of the world for having a more comfortable life than they had? Or are they just ignorant? Why would someone sponsor a bill that only makes life worse for the general public?

Some might say, "Well, they have a reason, because this technology can be used to create pirated copies of movies [or whatever]." Hey, just because something can be used to commit a crime doesn't mean that it should be illegal. Should we outlaw kitchen knives because they can be used to stab people? How about gasoline, since it can be used to burn down a building? Should we outlaw water because people can drown other people with it? Just because I have a DVR and a CD burner doesn't mean that I am a criminal. I use these devices, quite a bit, but for perfectly reasonable and legal purposes. And don't get me started on the whole protecting-the-artists argument. Give me a break.

So, who do the lawmakers care about? Obviously not you or I. They seem willing to entertain obviously stupid laws that don't even benefit society. And don't think for a minute they are doing it for the poor artists. They are doing this for their own selves, at the expense of the future of our country and the freedom of future generations.

And what is it they are doing, exactly? What is their agenda? Their agenda is to pass laws that are so ridiculous that they make criminals out of normal, law-abiding citizens. Pass so many obscure and silly laws that a normal person living a normal life and conducting what seems to be logical, harmless acts is actually breaking laws all the time. This way, the government can have the right to subdue and control citizens, because those who are not criminals are still predisposed to crime.

Come on, US Congress. The average American is generally law-abiding, honest, and upright. The government is supposed to be for the people. Can we stop passing laws that make life worse for the average American? Can we stop taking away freedom in the name of security and safety?