Software Jobs in Portland
Know any engineers in Portland? Jive is looking for two contract positions to fill immediately:
« October 2004 | Main | December 2004 »
Know any engineers in Portland? Jive is looking for two contract positions to fill immediately:
Given the amount of comment spam I receive, I've been thinking about different techniques to stop it. One of the more powerful approaches is to require users to enter text that they see from a visual image, usually a grainy or distorted picture representing various numbers and letters.
Of course, this keeps blind users from being unable to register for anything that uses this type of authorization system. This got me thinking about ways we can protect from abuse but also ensure that the disabled aren't shut out.
Searching on the web, I found Why blind users can't register at Slashdot and the PayPal approach definitely sounds interesting. Another idea that would work for even deaf-blind users is to introduce a Disabled Computer Users Registry and come up with some key-based system that could be used to bypass these abuse gateways.
Of course, if a key is leaked, the abuse can still happen, but that should be much easier to track down. Or maybe another technical solution could help out (such as something as primitive as a hardware dongle).
Anyway, I'm surprised that nothing like this exists. If anyone knows of something similar, please let me know. If not, I might try to pull something together in the coming months. It's unfortunate that technology is leaving more and more disabled people behind. I know we can all do better.
Last night I installed Half Life 2. The install was a bit of a pain in the ass. Not only because it was 5 CDs (hey Valve, ever hear of D-V-D?), but because you had to register online to play even the single player game. That wouldn't be a problem except that their servers were having a really hard time and so it took 45 minutes before the game would even start. That's OK though, I've been waiting over 3 years for this game anyway, so what's another 45 minutes.
It was worth the wait.
I started up the game and quickly realized that my computer wasn't really set up for gaming on my monitor. That is because my PC is actually in my living room and I run USB and VGA cables around the corner to my desk. Fortunately, my PC also outputs component output to my HDTV, and so all I needed to do was to try to play the game on that.
I was a bit worried because other games (ie: Doom3), don't support widescreen and so playing on on my TV was not only sucky, but the burn-in effect worried me greatly.
Fortunately, Valve wasn't as dumb as Id. They offered a widescreen (16:9 and 16:10) option, so all I needed to do was run the game at a beautiful 1920×1080 resolution. My video card was able to keep up fine (Radeon X800 Pro), and the game played flawlessly in an otherwise not-too-friendly PC environment (also known as my living room).
This is definitely the future of computers and home entertainment. "Convergence" may be a nice buzzword, but it really is the way of the future. After playing Half Life 2 in such high detail while on the comfort of my couch, it is clear where things need to keep moving. (Keep in mind I already use my Xbox's HD output, but very few games support resolution as high as 1080i).
To make a long story short: last night I probably enjoyed one of the finest moments in PC gaming history. I was able to play one of the most anticipating games ever (and one that has delivered thus far) while playing with the hardware and environment that can't be topped.
I feel special.
My brother and I have both decided that our blogs have become diluted due to our continuous rants about politics. Rather than try to make our blogs both about politics plus (technology OR music/screen writing), we decided we'd create a blog just for politics that he and I will share. Our normal blogs will then be just for our "other" stuff.
So, without further ado, I offer you: Lightbody on Politics (name subject to change).
Lorraine talks about why she supports civil unions, but not marriage, for gay couples. My response follows:
So we can't call it "marriage" purely because some people are unable to understand that marriage has multiple definitions and multiple meanings (state and religion)? Seems like we're catering to the ill-informed and education is a better medicine. It really seems to me that the majority of the population doesn't understand the difference between a state-recognized marriage and a church-recognized one.
Even fewer are aware of the supreme court cases that define exactly what separation of church and state is. I cite the Lemon Test in about every post about religion, but I'll do it again:
First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion; finally, the statute must not foster "an excessive government entanglement with religion."
Marriage is between a man and a woman.
Marriage also is the following:
"Heather has Twenty Mommies and One Daddy?" - you've got to be kidding, Lorraine. There is no way that gay marriage will lead to other marriages involving family members, animals, or multiple partners. It's so easy to define marriage as something that includes gay couples but excludes those other things that it's not even worth bringing that argument up (though if someone isn't able to do the critical thinking about it, I'll gladly help you understand).
Regarding the "Gay Elite", I'm not sure who they are, but it sounds like you've been listening to the Republican talking points a little too much. Sounds quite a bit like the "Liberal Elite" and the "Elite Media" to me. You know, one of those phrases that when the new talking points come out you'll ever every talking head on the talk shows repeating ad-nauseum. Regardless, I lived in San Francisco and those "Gay Elite" never pushed for teaching anything other than the law (or their proposed law) in public schools. So I can tell you that "Heather has One Daddy and a 'Special Pet'?" is not what a those "Gay Elite" I know would propose teaching.
Lorraine, I have to say, I'm happy that you support civil unions for gay people and are willing to break from the Republican platform. You said yourself these people want to settle down, but then you go and say that they want to force their way on everyone. Well which is? Do they want to be covert or overt? And if there are a couple bad apples, as there are in every group, you've got to be able to distinguish them from those that really just want marriage, which is the argument at hand.
Under your proposal we end up with two names (civil union and marriage) recognized by the state which are equal in nature? Doesn't that seem both redundant and frighteningly similar to "separate but equal"? Of course, we can't just remove marriage from the state laws, because then married couples will get pissed off. But if we don't call it the same thing, we head down the path of "separate but equal" again -- this time separate definitions that are supposedly equal.
Plus, think of the overhead law-makers will have to go through now. Instead of writing laws for "married couples", they now have to use the phrase "married couples or civil unions". What a pain in the ass! We do want a smaller government right? Why should we have to administer two things that are exactly the same thing? If I were running a company that did that, I would fire the person who came up with that money-draining idea.
Give them their legal rights, but don't cause another chaotic scene in religion. Don't unhinge morality.
What does this mean? I assume you mean, "don't try to make religions accept marriage". I don't believe anyone has proposed that. This is a state issue and religion isn't really part of the argument (for gay people, at least). I agree that gay couples should take the battle with their church if they want, but it has nothing to do with state laws.
Check out my last post for a couple of good threads on religion and its place in the state.
I took part in a very good debate with several folks about gay marriage. This thread, as well as another on creationism was very nice because even though we had disagreements, we were courteous and I think we all gained a bit from it. We need more debates like this in the mainstream media. John Stewart is right, we can't have anymore crap like Crossfire or Hannity & Colmes. We need good, honest, intellectually satisfying debate.
PS: The blog that these threads came from is Ogre's Politics & Views. He describes himself below:
Lifelong Republican, but the party has left me. I'm leaning towards the Constitution Party, but still considering Libertarians.
I've finally decided how I can make WebWork's client side validation really work for you. Rather than relying on JavaScript code that is equivalent to the rules on the server side (such as regex, range matches, etc), let's just avoid JavaScript all together.
Huh? Let me explain:
Right now WebWork's client side validation library requires that code be written in two languages: Java and JavaScript. I propose that we stick with writing validators in only Java.
Rather, we use JavaScript and XmlHttpRequest to communicate with the server side and check for validation on any onChange event. This would allow for people to any validator they want, avoid worrying about JavaScript, and still give the effect of client side validation.
A sample scenario would be this:
This of course would only work for browsers that support XmlHttpRequest, but that's OK. For the browsers that don't, we'd just disable client side validation and let server side validation take place.
This would also be a great start for the future of WebWork: providing a richer set of server-side data binding entirely on the client. In essence, this begins to push it a bit more "even driven". What do you think?
Oh man -- I've never seen such beautiful use of the word fuck in a long time. Apologies to those who are offended, but the article, despite it's over the top language, actually does have a couple good points. But mostly, it'll make any of you liberals feeling down in the gutter feel just a little better.
I suppose it's a guilty pleasure.
Though -- if anyone wants to argue the points (re-stated below), please feel free to do so:
Sorry for the generalizations, but they were too good to pass up. If you don't like it, you can either ignore it or come up with some good counter arguments. But don't bother to flame, it's not welcome.
After an attempt at civil political discourse, I encountered a guy named Brian who posted recently this post. While I would love to try to understand the reasoning behind this man, I don't have the time or energy (or probably patience) to comprehend his post... at least online.
I can only hope that most of the 59,000,000+ people that voted for Bush don't feel this way.
(To be fair, I'm sure there is equally similar hate literature against all Christians and the "right wing nut jobs" -- I don't associate myself with those either)
My conservative friend who voted for a Democrat president for the first time ever just sent me an article in BusinessWeek giving an opinion on How Bush Widened The Wealth Gap.
You have to sign up for a free membership to read it, but I'll outline a few points below (I don't think I can copy the entire content):
The tax cuts have boosted the aftertax incomes of the top 1% of households, with average incomes in excess of $1,000,000, by 10% -- compared with a 2.3% increase for middle-income families with average incomes of $57,000 and a 1.6% increase for the bottom 20% of families, with average incomes of less than $17,000. The tax cuts for millionaires alone have reduced government revenues by $90 billion a year, more than the lost revenues from tax cuts for the 80% of families making less than $100,000.
I think the most telling quote is this:
As an intended consequence of the Bush tax cuts, the share of federal taxes paid by the bottom 80% of taxpayers has increased, while the share paid by the top 1% has dropped.
So for all those people that think Bush's tax cuts were for the poor -- think again.
When it comes to taxes, I tend to first jump to the flat tax idea. Why shouldn't everyone just be taxed 20 cents on the dollar? Isn't that fair?
But then I think about the fact that I make a lot more money than a McDonalds worker who is trying to improve his life. If he earns $15,000 a year and we take $3,000 -- that really hurts him. But if I make $200,000 (I wish!) and we take $40,000, I'm still doing really well. It just seems "right". As a successful person, I'm more than happy to offer up my taxed income in place of those that need their share to purchase essentials things like warm clothes and food.
The flip side of the argument is: what incentive is there to work to keep doubling your income if you don't actually double the money you take home? For example, going from $25K to $50K might net you 30% more relative income than going from $50K to $100K. So why should I bother to do it? I'll tell you why: because money isn't everything. People who want to kick ass will do so even if the rewards aren't monetary. Don't underestimate the value of power and self-satisfaction.
While wandering the blogosphere, I came across American Lady. I asked her to write about why she was a Republican and Bush supporter given Bush's feelings towards abortion as well as his dismantling of Title IX.
Instead of replying via the comments section in her blog, I'm hoping she and I can have civil political discourse via our personal weblogs.
Rather than getting bogged down in tearing apart each others entries line by line, I'd rather focus on the overall message in effort to get above partisan politics. I'll just jot down some overall thoughts after reading her first entry.
Lorraine, you didn't discuss Title IX, but I can assume how you feel about it. I too believe in self discipline and hard work. I am 22 years old, I'm consider myself extremely successful thus far, I have a published book, and I am extremely happy. I definitely understand what hard work is all about. But I also have known people who have faced adversity much greater than I have. Some were able to overcome it, some were not. All of them worked as hard or harder than I have. I'd be more than happy to explain why I think hard work isn't enough and why government should help out (to some degree) to bring equality to all. But we can save that for another day.
Right now I'd like to ask you to discuss your feelings on gay marriage (after all, it is the big social issue of the day). The Republican platform is pretty clear where it stands on this issue, and I'd like to know if you feel the same way, and if so, why. You can read my previous posts on gay marriage here and here.
Economist.com | America's next president
With a heavy heart, we think American readers should vote for John Kerry on November 2nd.
The summary of the article says it best:
Furthermore, as Mr Bush has often said, there is a need in life for accountability. He has refused to impose it himself, and so voters should, in our view, impose it on him, given a viable alternative. John Kerry, for all the doubts about him, would be in a better position to carry on with America's great tasks.
I was given this article by a friend of mine who is a self-described "flag waiving Republican" and just a few days ago planned to vote for Bush. Yet today I learned he will indeed, with a heavy heart, vote for Kerry. Before I learned about this, I sent him this email:
I just realized why you should vote for Kerry -- Congress! Let me
explain:You worry that Bush will harm America more in foreign relations, but you want to support him because you believe Republicans will pursue Free Trade and direct the economy in the right direction. You fear that Kerry could set up an economic situation where your children will suffer economically.
But -- take in to account that Congress will be Republican-controlled (between 52 and 54 Senate seats will be Republican). With Kerry in office, you'd have the chance at restoring the image of America globally, but you'd have a safe bet that a Republican House and Senate would ensure that Kerry's policies wouldn't get too far and that Republican policies would get plenty of attention.
It seems to me that voting for Kerry is a great position for you. You get the best of both worlds. Besides, I'm not sure if Bush is really a conservative when it comes to the economy either. He's spent so much and has no plan to curb the costs, and his administration has overseen the largest increase in government jobs since in the last 50 years (I'm making that up, but it sure feels like it).
Anyone who is Republican out there and is having a hard time deciding between Bush and Kerry -- please think about what I said and read the article on Enconomist.com. I believe that it is possible for most US citizens to win this election if John Kerry is elected.
I finally convinced my brother to get off his butt and start writing again. And, not surprisingly (because he is a great writer), he put together a great piece on why John Kerry needs to win this election (hint, it's not about John Kerry at all).
Also, the Votemaster finally came out of the closet. I have copied the text of his entry below because the site is so overloaded (not surprisingly):
In a nutshell, because living abroad I know first hand what the world thinks of America and it is not a pretty picture at the moment. I want people to think of America as the land of freedom and democracy, not the land of arrogance and blind revenge. I want to be proud of America again. The U.S. media do a spectacularly bad job of informing Americans about what is going on in rest of the world. After Sept. 11, the U.S. could do no wrong. The entire world was on America's side. The invasion of Afghanistan was seen as completely justified. After all, the Al-Qaida leadership had to be decapitated. No one questioned that.
But Iraq was a completely different matter. Bush, Cheney, and Powell said they had conclusive proof that Saddam had WMD and could attack at any instant. The rest of the world wanted to see the proof. No proof was forthcoming. The answer was "trust us." We now know there were no WMD. There weren't even factories or labs to produce them. Saddam was an evil dictator with evil fantasies but he was no threat to America. Yet former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill said that the planning to invade Iraq began the day Bush was inaugurated. The administration simply misused the horror of Sept. 11 as a convenient excuse for doing something that was already in the works.
Let me tell you a short story. When I was in elementary school, the school was plagued by a bully. He was the biggest, strongest kid around and would beat up anyone he didn't like. We were all exceedingly polite to his face, but hated his guts behind his back. One day he was chasing some poor kid and he tripped and skidded a considerable distance, scraping his face on the rough asphalt of the playground. He was bleeding and in pain, screaming for help. But nobody came to help him. We all just walked away. George Bush is the world's playground bully. The world sees him--and by inference, America--as arrogant, self-centered, and mean. I spoke to Americans from dozens of countries at the DA caucus. Everyone told the same story--the world hates America. When talking to foreigners, I can tell them about the Bill of Rights or freedom or World War II, or whatever I want, but all they see is this big, stupid, arrogant, playground bully and a stolen election in Florida last time. I think America deserves better. I want America to be respected in the world again, and John Kerry can restore the respect America deserves.
Don't believe me that the world hates us? The Guardian, one of Britain's most respected newspapers, ran a column by Charlie Brooker last week ending with this paragaph: "On November 2, the entire civilised world will be praying, praying Bush loses. And Sod's law dictates he'll probably win, thereby disproving the existence of God once and for all. The world will endure four more years of idiocy, arrogance and unwarranted bloodshed ..." Then it gets so bad that I refuse to quote it. Maybe Brooker is a nut and maybe it was a joke, but the fact that a serious newspaper would publish this piece shows how deep the hatred of George Bush runs. And this comes from our closest ally. Imagine what people in Spain or Indonesia or the Arab world think.
Now you might be thinking: Who the hell cares if America is the world's pariah, along with, say, North Korea and Zimbabwe? Well, I care, for one, and I think most Americans want to be respected for being a democracy rather than simply being feared because we have more nuclear weapons than anybody else. You can't make the world love you by running commercials full of snarling wolves on worldwide TV.
But there are some practical matters to consider as well. If you look at British and Canadian publications, such as The BBC, The Guardian, The Economist, and The Globe and Mail, you get a picture not colored by partisan electoral considerations. You sometimes wonder if they are reporting the same war as the U.S. media. The situation in Iraq has deteriorated very badly. Over 100,000 Iraqi civilians have died in the war, mostly women and children. Well over 1000 American soldiers--many of them just kids who signed up for the National Guard and never expected to go to war--have been killed there and thousands more have been maimed for life. Americans are being killed daily in increasing numbers and unless there is a radical change, this will go on for years. Reenlistment rates are way down and manpower needs are way up. With a President Kerry, there is hope that other countries might contribute serious numbers of troops to help stabilize Iraq. With a second Bush administration they will just say: "You broke it, you fix it."
If other countries won't help out, Bush is going to be faced with an unpleasant choice: accept another Vietnam-type quagmire lasting for years or reinstitute the draft. There is no way we can win in Iraq with current troop levels. Something has to change. More of the same won't work. And it is an open secret that after the election, Bush is going to ask Congress for another $70 billion down payment on Iraq. Who is going to pay for it? We are.
In addition, the U.S. needs the help of other countries to gather intelligence about terrorists, cut off their funding, and track them down. Trouble is, when the playground bully comes asking for help, everyone just walks away. A new president who shows respect for the world instead of arrogance will get a lot more help. And we need help, believe me.