Traffic School not what it used to be

I was a bad boy. 56 MPH in a 40 MPH zone.

Not that I believe I was as bad as that, but I'm not about to risk $500 on the possibility that I can convince the judge the officer had bumped the speed up a notch to make it more painful. I drive a fast looking car. I passed a slow-moving vehicle (which was in the left lane of a four-lane highway). And I can make all the excuses in the world.

I got caught. I got a ticket. And to avoid the biggest penalties in Florida, I have traffic school.

Quite a few years ago, I got nailed for 72 in a 55 zone. It was a righteous bust; I was remarkably stupid on some things, even when I was on top of my game as a pundit. I chose the traffic school route then as well. As the Internet had not yet come into its own, traffic school was a Saturday morning class at the only game in town - and boring. So boring, I'm sure someone had to make a B-movie about it, because it was so easy to parody.

Times have changed. Within days that had become obvious to me. I've received no fewer than a dozen invitations to enroll in a traffic school, and most offer options: classroom, of course, but also videotape, DVD, and even the Internet. Traffic school from the comfort of my living room or office.

And some of them even promise to be funny.

I'll drop names, but not links, because every one of them most certainly contribute to the spam problem in the blogosphere. I know this, because I went looking. I wanted to know what bloggers thought about each of these schools, and instead of well-composed opinions, I found countless ad blogs with no redeeming value. I wouldn't spend money on any of them, except that I do want the services of one of them. The only question is which?

• American Safety Council offers "the lowest price without hidden fees" ($18.88) and tells me of "fees" charged by others (ranging from $2.50 to $7.50) that they suggest are not legit fees. I believe them on the fees issue, just as car dealers charge fees that aren't anything more than efforts to boost profit. But that doesn't mean I have to buy from them.
• Sarasota County Technical Institute, an entity run by a local school board, will charge me $25 to go to school, or $32 to attend on the web. I know they're legit, but they're likely to be as boring as my first time at traffic school.
• CheaperinFlorida, a dot com, doesn't give me a physical or mailing address (unless I visit their site to find a classroom), and starts their price at $13.95, plus a "state fee surcharge" that American Safety Council says might be as much as $2.50. And who knows about other fees applied at the point of purchase. But they say they have comedy classes.
• Improv Traffic School certainly implies comedy, but doesn't come out and say so in their postcard. They claim they will beat any accredited traffic school by $2.00... probably before tacking on those fees.
• FunnyinFlorida is definitely comedy-oriented, with classroom sessions costing $25, video and DVD for $29.95, and Internet for $24.95. No mention of "fees" and they "guarantee" the lowest price.

These are only a few of my choices. With the clock running, I turn to you, my readers, and ask for feedback on these courses. Let me know your thoughts on who's legit, who isn't. Please help me from getting burned.

Google is only doing what Google knows best

Lately, I've been reading criticism of what some call Google's two-faced
attitude towards censorship. These critics can't understand how Google
can justify cooperating with the Chinese government in censoring search
results to Chinese IPs, and at the same time refusing to cooperate with
the United States government in their efforts to fight Internet pornography.

Some pundits aren't surprised by the behavior. When Google cooperates
with the Chinese government, it makes sure it can have access to the
Chinese populace - something Google has to find desirable - and Google
never promised to be a political champion. Meanwhile, Google's fight
against the U.S. government's request for search results appears to be
anti-censorship, pro-privacy, and a little pro-pornography, but to these
pundits it's really a matter of looking good to its customers.

I don't see this to be so complex. I agree with the pundits who look at
Google's decision to filter the Chinese market as a business decision.
As a public corporation, this really shouldn't be a surprise; Google has
to do what's best for Google. As for their struggle with the U.S.
government, Google must also continue to do what's best for Google. This
means resisting requests for information that exceeds the government's
legitimate need. If the U.S. government is trying to build a case
against Internet pornography, it doesn't need Google to provide a list
of every request for pornography that it received. Statistics should be
sufficient, as no court is going to want to review individual requests.
The government should be more interested in where the porn exists, and
for that, they should have to perform a search, just like everyone else
(a search would also tell them a lot more about how easy it is or isn't
to find the content they wish to find). So, fighting the request
protects the privacy of their users, prevents confidential information
from becoming public record, and protects the business interests of
Google... which is, of course, what Google is mandated to do by virtue
of its public status.

So, don't blame Google for its seemingly inconsistent policies. Google
is simply being Google. It isn't politics. It's business.

Pinch me - - Please!

It was one of those dreams.

You know the one. The one where you're in a video rental store, trying to rent The Ten Commandments and the clerk asks, "What format would you like it in?"

"BetaMax," you reply, thinking this kid is way too young to be renting videos.

"We don't rent betas of anything. What format do you want?"

And it keeps going like that. Then you realize the kid probably hasn't been keeping up, so the next time you add, "... You know, the format Sony is backing for movies?"

"Oh, you mean Blu-Ray! Let me check... Oh, I'm sorry, but the studio hasn't released your title in that format, yet."

Then you wake in a cold sweat.

You've had that dream, haven't you?

It started for me when I heard there were two standards for high-definition DVDs under development. The first, supporting between 25 and 50 gigs of content, is called Blu-Ray, and is supported by the likes of Philips, Panasonic, Pioneer, Apple, Dell, various studios and... Sony.

The second, called HD-DVD, supports only 15 to 30 gigs of content, but it's supported by Toshiba, NEC, Intel, and... Microsoft.

So, we have two standards. The superior standard is backed by Sony. The inferior standard is backed by just about everyone else (where just about everyone else = Microsoft). Now, who's likely to win out?

Hint: in the First Video War, Sony backed the superior BetaMax against the inferior VHS. And that was before Microsoft ever entered the picture.

Sometimes this punditing job is just too easy.

I Could Tell You, But Then I'd Have to Kill You

In my last blog, I promised to tell you what I could about my new employers. Well, here we go...

I can tell you -- nothing!

My new employers are very tight-lipped about what we do. I can't even tell you what I do when I work there. Hopefully, some day they will lighten up and give me some room to talk (and maybe I can even score an interview with the CEO for a future blog), but for now I wouldn't hold my breath.

Just be happy someone is willing to pay me to do something on a regular basis.

Now, on other fronts...

About a week ago, I picked up a rumor that Google and Sun were talking acquisition. There were plenty of naysayers to that idea, yet the rumor persists. Rather than discuss how likely the event would be, I'd rather talk about what it might mean as a result.

Sun's biggest revenue generator is still its hardware. I was about to suggest that Google might spin off the Sparc business when it struck me that there was a reason for Google to want some hardware -- you might recall some loose talk about a Google PC? I'm not saying that SPARCstations would be ideal for the purpose, but if you wanted the software arm of Sun and was stuck with the hardware arm, there are worse ways to get to where you want to be.

But, as I said, it's the software arm that would be appealing to Google. Before anyone forgets, Google's top dog was a honcho at Sun once-upon-a-time, and big on Java. It might be that Google has some Java-driven projects that might be more practical if they didn't have to pay license fees on its use.

Then there's this thing called OpenOffice.org (and the less-open relative, StarOffice). Sun and Google had already entered into a cooperation pact that left quite a few people speculating about a web-based version of OpenOffice.org. Some recent, related, acquisitions suggest to me that Google has already bought the people needed to build a web-office suite; would Google apply that knowledge to a fork of OpenOffice.org? Might Google kill the StarOffice product, and force OpenOffice.org to go independent, giving its own web-office suite a chance to catch up?

Google clearly doesn't like Microsoft, so I'm inclined to think such a merger would be good for OpenOffice.org. I'd look for Google to offer more developers to the project, but I also think StarOffice might go away, as Google wouldn't have a practical use for it. I also think Google would then use it's new leverage to put serious development effort into a web-hosted fork of the popular open source office suite.

Of course, I have no inside knowledge of any of this. It's just speculation. Don't make any investments without making your routine investigations.

Oh, and have a nice day!

So honesty in interviewing is still the best policy

I take it back.

I last wrote about how much it hurts to be honest in a job interview, and I'm convinced there are cases when that is true. But there are times when honesty is still the best policy. The problem is, it's hard to decide when the time is right for honesty, and so, I'll have to default for honesty. It's in my nature.

See, the situation depends on the question, and on the interviewer. In the question of the other day, it should have been clear to me the interviewer, one of the owners of the company, would be concerned over the cost of training a short-timer. Since she couldn't offer any true incentive for me to stay, I was going to be expensive and not worth the effort. It was foolish for me to tell her I was a potential short-timer.

Today, I interviewed with another company offering an entry-level position. In this case, while the compensation is likely appropriate for the position, it isn't my ultimate goal. One might assume I'd be short-timing that one, too, but the difference is that this company has something to offer: a future. Where the previous company had no opportunity to move beyond what I would have been hired to do, this next company dangles opportunity tantalizingly under my nose. I'd take the low-end offer and stay, seeing opportunity for personal growth and later on I'll get to the financial goals.

So, where honesty cost me an opportunity with the previous company, my honesty with the second company may pay off, while being dishonest would likely hurt miserably.

When honesty happens to coincide with the needs of the employer, honesty is still the best policy. One only has to find the company that has the same needs you have.

Shouldn't be too hard.

Should it?

I guess it wasn't.

After I wrote the above, I had another brief, pleasant conversation with the interviewer, starting something like, "Can you start tomorrow at 10 o'clock?"

Looks like honesty did pay off. I'm again among the ranks of the employed, looking forward to the challenges that come with a new job. It wasn't what I was shooting for, but all told, it might even be better, as I have the chance to prove myself and become a valuable asset to the company.

I'll know more soon about what I can say and what I can't say about them, and eventually you, the faithful reader, will know more as well. I can say this, however: when you're a Former Pundit, you shouldn't be surprised at having to get back on the ladder from the bottom. If you like your work, you'll soon find yourself back where you belong... and I believe I don't belong on the outside looking in. I'm back on the inside, and I'm convinced it'll be an interesting, if not exciting, journey back to the top of the game.

Tell them what they want to hear

It's funny what a little honesty will get you.

I was interviewing at a not-to-be-named company that specializes in home PC repair for a simple field technician job. When the interviewer asked me what kind of work I was looking for, I was honest. I told her that, given my experience, I was really looking for something further along than a field PC tech position, but I did need to start putting bread on the table again.

She told me they commonly had techs who worked for them for a few months (to keep their skills sharp, she said) while they were looking for other work. She made it look like this wouldn't be a problem. I was so pleased. Finally, my patience and honesty was about to pay off - maybe not with the job I wanted, but with at least something to hold me until better work came along - and they were good with it!

How naive I was! Even though the rest of the interview was golden, my honesty about my intentions, any other day a virtue, had become a curse. When discussing my application after I left, the staff couldn't come to grips with knowing I did not intend to stay with them forever - as if anyone ever did! It wasn't that I was likely to bolt at the first sign of a decent job, as so many other technicians have done (and will still do) - no, the vote swung against me because I had the honesty to admit what I was going to do, while everyone else simply pretended it wasn't going to happen.

So honesty cost me an opportunity.

I could say I didn't learn my lesson, and that I'll still be a perfectly honest applicant next time.

But then, I wouldn't be honest, would I?

Real Professionals Make Interviews Pleasurable

While on my job search, I occasionally find people and places where things are done right, and I wish to bestow a few kudos this morning...

First, to the ITS staff of Eckerd College in St. Petersburg, FL. While their boss was away, they were tasked with interviewing for a new LAN Administrator, and so they did it in the most practical way I've found: as a team. The new employee was expected to work with three other staff members as part of a team, so the remaining team members collectively interviewed the candidates, discussing job knowledge, background, and indirectly learning how they would all get along. I'm given to believe I almost got that job, but still count it as a great interview. They even had someone personally call me with the results, as well as the slightly more common e-mail rejection.

I also wish to offer kudos to the recruiting team at Robert Half Technology in Tampa. In interviewing me for possible contract work, they were thorough, understanding, and practical, and even had me take a couple tests, the results of which they could use to make my case before prospects.

I'm still on the available list, but if I were lucky enough to encounter more professionals like those at Eckerd College and Robert Half Technology, I think I'd be back among the employed in no time.

Curbing auto tag theft

There are some really desperate (and despicable) people out there.

Last night, someone stole Bocona's license tag from her car.

Now, irritating as this was, it took her a little while to calm down from the personal violation she felt (any victim of theft probably feels the same way). Then we started speculating why the perp did it.

As any TV viewer would tell you, the perp probably wanted to disguise his/her involvement in a felony... right?

Well, probably not. It isn't like we have a lot of that kind of behavior going on around here, and putting a stolen tag on your car isn't going to make you stand out that much less as you get away from that bank robbery.

No, the more likely reason, in our minds, is that some undocumented alien wanted to drive a car.

It's like this. Being undocumented, the alien didn't have a U.S.-issued driver's license. Without a license, he/she could not buy insurance. Without insurance, he/she cannot register the car or get a tag for it. Without a tag, he/she runs a bigger chance of being apprehended and deported.

So, the perp steals a tag (and wouldn't it be funny if the tag that was stolen was one that someone else had already stolen?) to put on his/her unregistered car, expecting no LEO will run the tag if he/she obeys traffic laws... and that's probably the case.

Meanwhile, Bocona can't drive her car until the tag office issues her a replacement (on Monday, hopefully).

Bocona feels we can solve this problem by removing our use of the driver's license as a form of identification. In other words, had the undocumented alien been able to buy insurance and register a car, our tag theft problem would drop dramatically. While we're at it, by allowing undocumented aliens to get driver's licenses, we can probably reduce a number of traffic-related incidents.

I disagree. Allowing the undocumented to obtain licenses, insurance, and register vehicles only makes them a little more documented, which is something they don't seem capable of doing, or they'd do it already. A driver's license is supposed to prove the bearer's ability to drive according to the issuing state's laws. There has to be an identifying component to that. Likewise, it's hard to issue proper insurance to a pseudonym, and I'd rather not go back to having people driving cars without insurance (which the undocumented do... even when they're in their own country). Unless we're willing to give up those extra requirements, letting the undocumented get driver's licenses won't solve this problem.

To my thinking, they problem is only truly solved by eliminating the lack of documentation. Make it very distasteful to the undocumented to be undocumented. Take away their reason for being undocumented. And that leads to some very draconian measures.

I wonder if the U.S. Congress keeps backups

I just learned about an article in News.com that tells of a bill introduced to the U.S. Congress requiring every web site operator to delete information about visitors if the data is no longer required for legitimate business purposes.

I guess Congress hasn't learned anything about its own nature from the Can SPAM law. That, or our Congresspeople have such high opinions of themselves that they think they have a grasp of the technology their dealing with. How else can you explain how such a stupid idea could threaten to become law?

I suppose it might reduce identity theft (the intended goal), if there weren't already so many ways information is kept "for legitimate business purposes." But look at some of the ways such a law might impact the Internet.

First, remember this is a U.S. only law we're talking about. So, data accumulated by web site operators outside the U.S. would be exempt from the law. Result: a whole bunch of businesses can save themselves a lot of heartache by moving their sites to off-shore web hosts, and domestic web hosts, already steeply competing for business, will face possible extinction.

I've seen it said that web server logs, which contain host identifying information such as IP addresses and machine names, may be forced to become self-editing to remove that information. Without the identifying information in web server logs, security professionals would no longer have an important tool in tracing the origins of attacks.

Sites that accept feedback from participants, such as blogs, forums/bulletin boards, or chat systems, will be greatly impacted, since they will no longer be allowed to associate a name to an e-mail address (or likely even be permitted to display either one). Assuming they even could, they would then have to have all of these services heavily moderated to prevent the display of proscribed information.

And if the web sites can't hold all of this information, what does that say about the backup tapes for these sites? When the data is no longer needed for "legitimate business purposes" it must be deleted from the sites. Shouldn't that mean the data must be removed from the backups as well?

Then there's the webmail systems, which are expected to maintain personal communications for eventual display/delivery via the browser. How can one possibly separate personal identifying information from e-mail data being stored for delivery on a web site? Ban webmail?

Okay, maybe some of these examples are extreme, but it would take a lawyer to figure out what behavior is allowed and what behavior is not. If this bill is allowed to become law, you can pretty well say goodbye to the American web site, and with that comes the eventual demise of the Internet - not from over use, but from disuse!

On the other hand, if American politicians can't keep from creating Internet policy, maybe we'd be better off letting it die!

Just to be sure, let's get this straight...

I just want to clarify my position on the state of the U.S./Mexican border. My last few blogs display a degree of irritation toward the attitudes taken by both the U.S. and Mexican governments over the apparent involvement by Mexican soldiers in protecting escaping drug smugglers. I called for, and still call for, government authorization for the Border Patrol to intervene in future incursions by alleged Mexican soldiers with force, if necessary. If the soldiers are not genuine, they are still abetting drug trafficking, and if they are genuine, they are not only abetting drug trafficking, they are violating the sovereignty of the United States. There is simply no excuse.

Illegal border crossings, in general, is another matter, one not so easily addressed. The problem really isn't an immigration problem as much as it is an economic problem. For a touch of insight, I encourage readers to watch the movie "A Day Without A Mexican" (and forgive me for recommending a decidedly cheesy film). While the content is presented with a strong bias, it should make you think.

Both the American economy and the Mexican economy depend on Mexicans crossing the U.S. border to find work. The movie makes a point I haven't seen elsewhere in the media: if it costs x dollars to provide social services to illegal aliens, how much do illegal aliens contribute to our gross domestic product (GDP)... and is it worth the cost of services to lose the related GDP? And don't forget the cost to Homeland Security for chasing down these aliens.

Now, I'm not saying "open the borders," either. What I am saying is that the illegal alien issue is far more complicated than the drug trafficking issue, or more specifically Mexican military involvement in drug trafficking. We don't need new laws to deal with the latter. We only need to enforce the laws that exist a little more aggressively.

We don't need new fences. We simply need to teach the Mexican military to stay on its side of the border.

Such a clever explanation, Mr. Secretary

Can you believe it? Mexican Foreign Secretary Luis Ernesto Derbez suggested American soldiers disguised as Mexican troops may have been in the military-style Humvee filmed earlier this week protecting a marijuana shipment on the border. He says our boys had done it before.

Only I have a difficult time believing any American soldier would be willing to impersonate a Mexican soldier.

Let's see, Secretary Derbez, you say our guys snuck over to Mexico, donned Mexican uniforms (how believable would the impersonation be if they were wearing American uniforms?), came back across the Rio Grande to help some drug smugglers escape back to Mexico after a botched delivery, then changed out of the Mexican uniforms and crossed back to the U.S.?

Why?

I can see the money, but for what reason would any drug lord want to make the Mexican authorities look bad to the U.S.? Why pay American soldiers to look like Mexican soldiers? Wouldn't it be cheaper for the drug lords to dress up locals as Mexican soldiers? Or hire mercenaries?

He can't prove it, but neither can we.

I know! Let's go ahead an apprehend a few and really find out! Mr. Secretary, do we have permission to engage and detain your troops, if we catch them doing this again?

I didn't think so.

Maybe they thought we'd invited them for dinner...

Is it any surprise that Mexicans for the most part cross the U.S. border with impunity, when we have turned a blind eye as a government to incursions by Mexican soldiers (14-day link) into Texas?

Why do we even bother with border patrols any longer? Does Texas even have a border with Mexico any longer? There was a day when foreign troops crossing our border without permission was considered an act of war. Now, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff says many of the incursions could have been mistakes, blaming bad navigation by military personnel.

Right. Across the Rio Grande. Easy to make that mistake.

Mexico denies the incidents. Of course it does. It makes them look bad. It isn't enough to have your soldiers crossing the border without permission, but they are apparently doing so under the pay of some local drug lords.

Chertoff suggested the soldiers might be criminals in disguise. Well, Mr. Chertoff, why don't you tell your border officers to try to arrest them and find out? Any way you look at it, the border crossings are illegal, so for Pete's sake, act on it.

Look, we have known for a long time our borders aren't secure, but isn't it time we did something about it? No, I'm not saying walls... but I am saying we should give our officers the authority and ability to stand up to Mexican soldiers (on the assumption the Texas government won't dispatch the Texas National Guard to lend assistance, which, given Texas' history, equally surprises me).

I mean, enough's enough!

Getting the wrong job offers

Still on the job hunt, waiting patiently for the various interviews (how many people really need to talk to a guy before he gets hired, anyway?). Having not accepted any offers, yet, the resumes still go out...

And I get inquiries from people to whom I never sent a resume. I believe these come from the obligatory copies I have on file with CareerBuilder and Monster (no, I'm not linking them; everyone should know how to reach them by now). What gets me about these inquires is that they have nothing to do with the position I'm seeking. No, I don't want to be a:

Car salesman (used or otherwise).
Insurance salesman (three have tried, but different companies are still trying this; I'm a licensed adjuster, not a salesman).
Lawn-care salesman (this company has asked for me twice, and I said no both times).
Security alarm installer (at least this one comes kind of close to being part of the IT world).

Don't these recruiters bother to read the resume before writing me? I'd call it spam, but the line is pretty fine between soliciting me to apply for one of these jobs and asking me to apply for a real IT job. I doubt there are filters that good at sorting between them, and I dare not miss an opportunity for something I'd prefer to do.

After all, Bocona still reminds me that hurricane season is only a few months away. Funny thing about that: not too many insurance companies want to hire inexperienced adjusters who aren't fresh out of college. I guess even Bocona can be wrong on occasion... but I better not say that in her ear shot!

Driving without a license

It's funny, and sad, how Americans can be so resourceful and determined on one hand, and so lazy on the other. I can't be surprised at the level of disdain other cultures have for us, given the "we don't care" attitude we project.

The way we deal with personal computers is an example of this. We scream and holler about viruses, spyware, and spam, yet we're right up there with the worst offenders at its propagation. The expression about "one bad apple spoiling the bushel" doesn't apply here; we're a society of bad apples, with the good apples complaining about their plight.

In this case, I'm talking about the good apples being the minority who know enough about computing and the Internet to practice "safe computing" while the bad apples being the computer users who want to look at their computers the way they look at their telephones and televisions. The good apples are clearly outnumbered, but they are also reluctant to admit that they have little choice but to live with solutions that would keep the bad apples at check.

I've seen countless arguments over who should have the responsibility over keeping the Internet clean. One side wants the ISP to take more control, while the other side resents any efforts the ISP makes to take that control. The fact is, if the ISP only had good apples as clients, the ISP wouldn't need to place restrictions on their Internet use. We know this isn't the case, however, so the ISP should take on some responsibility.

Let's look at the highway analogy a moment. In the early days, anyone who had a car could drive it down any road. As more cars entered the picture, it became clear some rules would be needed to avoid disaster, and so governing bodies applied some basic rules (which only got more complicated as time passed, of course).

Since the car couldn't be made foolproof, the next best thing would be to reduce the number of fools behind the wheel. Drivers were required to get licenses, insuring they knew the basic rules of the road and could no longer use ignorance as an excuse. Those unable to demonstrate the knowledge are not legally allowed to drive. Those too young to make sensible decisions about driving are not allowed to get licenses. Those who disregard the rules eventually lose their licenses, and can no longer legally drive. Professional drivers have a more difficult test, and must follow more difficult rules, but also have some freedom in choosing the capabilities of their vehicles (an amateur driver cannot legally drive a tractor-trailer, for example).

To help keep the road running smoothly, the governing body developed rules for proper behavior, but they also introduced traffic control devices to manage the use of the roads.

There are plenty of problems with the analogy, as there are with just about any analogy, but it should give rise to thought. The lazy populace, the bad apples, get away with their laziness because the powers-that-be allow them to. If we (as a society) drove cars the way we operate PCs on the Internet, we'd find the roads too dangerous to use. Shouldn't we, then, have some mandated restrictions for the protection of the rest of us?

The road needs rules (not just the technical RFCs, but real rules), it needs traffic cops to enforce the rules, and the drivers need licensing to insure safety on the road. The ISPs are well-positioned to be our cops, and those who cry for freedom on the Net should only prove their competence to gain their improved access. Misbehave, and have your license suspended or revoked.

The computer makers will not make foolproof computers, as that makes them liable for the fools who find ways around the protections. So, rather than look at Microsoft, Apple, or the Linux distros for relief, we should be looking at ways to govern the use of the Internet, keeping the bad apples from ruining the bushel for all of us. Make the ISP become responsible for the actions of its subscribers, and you'll see some very dramatic changes in how the Internet is used. License the Internet users, and you'll see a dramatic improvement in the quality of Internet users.

These Things Won't Go Away

I admit I'm surprised at the lack of feedback after my last blog. I was certain that the Linux fans would crawl out of the woodwork to defend their favorite distro against the thought that they would be forced to play second fiddle to Microsoft on the desktop forever.

I also expected some comments by the staunch Windows advocates, either in agreement, or to show how I was right for the wrong reasons.

Lacking that feedback, I'll apply some of those aforementioned observations to another issue, and offer a principle to explain it:

There have been some very good writings on the subject of PC security (or the lack thereof), and why we'll never get a handle on the problem of viruses, worms, spyware, spam, and the like. If I could remember where I saw them, I'd provide the links, and I encourage readers to share the links if they have them.

My take on it is simply that the average PC owner simply can't be bothered with the effort to secure, and keep secured, his or her PC. It isn't that they don't want to know, but that they simply don't care. Even those who suffer from the slowdowns and other minor effects of infection aren't concerned for it beyond a grumble. I've personally seen cases where computers contain 100s of spyware intrusions and pop-up problems, left uncorrected. The owners often say they don't know why it happens, but they are unwilling to spend the money to have a professional clean it up and they have no interest to learn how to do so themselves, even when told they can do it for free.

I've cleaned those machines, installed preventive measures, and watched the machines get re-infected because the owners fail to perform routine maintenance to keep up with the problem.

I call this "the Laziness Factor" and the application of this is widespread (personally observed in the United States, and may exist elsewhere). That principal reason why Linux can't catch up with Windows on the desktop is the same reason why we'll never keep malware off the home PC. The owner is simply too lazy to do or learn what is needed to maintain the system. In an age where we want our cars to be low maintenance (maintenance-free batteries, high-mileage tune-ups, delayed oil changes), we can't expect the PC owner to want a high-maintenance PC. So, if it doesn't take care of itself automatically, a problem won't get fixed unless the PC stops working entirely. No matter if the cost of later repairs is greater than the cost of regular maintenance; if the repair costs more than a few hundred dollars, the common reaction is to either put it off, or replace the computer. The funny thing is that, with Linux being a lower-maintenance operating system, it still misses out - because the learning curve is just too steep to climb!

How many machines sit at home running the factory defaults? Anti-virus subscriptions expire, and are allowed to run without updates. Machines go for months or years without being scanned. Heck, I've seen Windows machines that have never been defragmented!

Watch for a discussion of solutions in an upcoming blog... if anyone cares to discuss it!

Linux will never beat Microsoft

I know you've been waiting for me to say something profound. After all, I'm a former pundit, right? That means I should have some earth-shattering opinions, right?

Try this on for size:

Linux doesn't have what it takes to beat Microsoft on the desktop.

Not all that earth-shattering, I suppose, unless I also mention that I'm a big Linux fan. Yep! Got it right here, dual-booting SuSE with Windows 2000 Pro on my notebook. Been playing with it for about two years.

But, see, I'm being realistic. As much as I'd love to see Linux kick MS around, I don't think any distro of Linux has what it takes. And having said that, I'm duty bound to explain.

There isn't any one thing that makes the difference. Oh, if only it were that simple. And it isn't all technical, or it would probably already be done. In fact, it isn't even something entirely in the Community's control. It'll take maneuvering by a bunch of people and some dreadful mistakes by Microsoft to displace Windows.

It can be done. But I wouldn't hold my breath.

It's been said that Linux needs a killer app, or that Linux needs a decent e-mail client. I don't necessarily agree or disagree. The terms "killer" and "decent" are subjective; one person's "killer" app or "decent" e-mail client is another person's "ho-hum" development. Here's the truth:

A killer app can create a market for an operating system, but the operating system goes a long way toward making the killer app. Before Windows, we had DOS, and we had DOS apps. We also had hardcore computer users, and tossed in a group that depended on menus, being totally uninterested in learning/using DOS. Windows came along, but Windows didn't catch on with most computer users of the day until Microsoft provided Microsoft Office (particularly Word and Excel) for Windows. The killer apps, one might say.

Yet, was the advent of Microsoft Office sufficient to switch DOS users to Windows? No, of course not. It required finding other publishers to bring their software to Windows, or reasonably competitive substitutes, so users could give up their DOS applications in favor of the aesthetically nicer Windows.

And even with a growing library of applications, Windows wouldn't have caught on, if it weren't for one more thing.

The manufacturers, who were pushed by Microsoft into putting a copy of Windows on every PC they made.

Now, if you're a new home computer user, clueless to the realities of the world, and you just bought a new computer, are you going to look for an operating system to replace the one the computer came with? Of course not! You'll leave Windows in place, then look for programs that run on your brand new Windows computer.

Is the situation really any different today? The family that has never had a computer before and knows nothing about computers will have the choice between Windows and... Windows! (Apple users are actually in a similar boat, but by choice.) To my knowledge, only Linspire has had the foresight to get their distro of Linux pre-installed on a brand new PC, but you have to work to find those machines.

And even though PCs have been popular appliances for many years now, how many of the principal owners of the in-place home PCs actually know how to use them to their best effect? Not many, as evidenced by the proliferation of viruses and spyware on these machines. Do you think Microsoft wants to correct this shortcoming? Of course not, as knowledgeable users can choose to change, and that isn't in Microsoft's interest.

So Microsoft makes Windows so smart that the home users can remain computer-illiterate. When a Windows user wants to install a new program, what does he or she need to do? Buy a CD containing the new program, set the CD in the tray, close the tray, and follow the prompts that magically appear on the screen. When a Linux user wants to install a new program, what does he or she need to do? If your answer starts with "that depends...", you've demonstrated my point. Can a computer-illiterate comfortably use a Linux PC? Even one running a distro as dumbed-down as Linspire? Only until he or she has to perform any non-menu-based maintenance.

The question isn't one of killer apps, decent e-mail, easy availability, or even cost. The question isn't even ease-of use, although this is the biggest single obstacle in my mind.

No, the question is all of the above. Simply put, there isn't enough reasons for the mass market to justify changing operating systems. Microsoft got there first, got entrenched, and barring some serious errors, will be there for some time to come. The public is in their comfort zone, and the only way for Linux to supplant Microsoft on the desktop is for Linux to become more comfortable than Windows and its successors. Linspire is closest, but comfort is not defined as look and feel. Comfort is a state of mind. Microsoft has achieved it. Linux hasn't, and Linux will play second fiddle to Microsoft until:

1. Linux is comfortable to use (and maintain) by the computer-illiterates,
2. Linux is as easy to find, pre-installed, as Windows is today, and
3. Linux has a sufficient developer-base as to guarantee each person's own subjective killer app is available for easy installation (per #1, above).

I still like Linux. I'm still a huge fan of open source. But there isn't any way Microsoft's monopoly over the desktop can be broken unless these three conditions are met.

I don't see it.

And I'd love to be proven wrong.

Spam: No one said it had to be in English

I haven't written lately (as you can plainly see), in part from being busy, but in part from simply not feeling motivated to do so. This is a benefit of the "who cares" nature of blogging. If this were a true column, I'd feel pressure to write (and burn-out is on its way), but with a blog, no one is paying me to write these thoughts, and having read little feedback, I can't even say anyone is reading these thoughts (one day I'll have to add a hit counter).

So, what have I been up to?

Most of last week was spent making preparations for the career change Bocona wants me to try. I've earned my Accredited Claims Adjuster (ACA) designation, and have applied for my license. This means, in effect, I'm no longer allowed to offer an opinion on insurance matters, unless it is directly related to a claim I'm working. Bully. Not that I've had anything to say about insurance, so far.

But preparing for a career change isn't the same as making one. While the applications have started going out for claims adjuster positions, the resumes are continuing to fly in the PC world. I'm looking at it like a race; let's see which career will come through first.

Meanwhile, a comment on the not-unexpected feedback I got from the last posting. Remember when I offered an only-slightly disguised e-mail address to write to if you know of an IT management position available? Well, I got some replies. Unfortunately, I can't read them... they're in Arabic and Hebrew (I can tell them apart, but can't read either language). Frankly, I'm amazed. What's the sense of sending spam to someone if the recipient can't even read it, much less act on it?

Then again, who said the spammer(s) even bothered to attempt to read my blog. They simply found an easy to translate address and fired away. I wouldn't be surprised if the spammers couldn't even read English. It's not like understanding the blog is relevant to them!

A note to the spammers, potential and otherwise. My e-mail (even the job account) is plenty filtered, between gray lists, firewalls, e-mail client-based spam filtering, etc. It's not worth the effort to add me to your list, so why don't you simply pass my e-mail address over and move along?

And wouldn't we all be surprised if that request actually worked!

Things That Make You Go "Hmmm..."

As my readers should know by now, I've been involved in a bit of career searching, and of course that means some time digging through Monster.com. I've had a tendency to stay away from the larger outfits, but their offerings still appear on the radar, so when a single company starts showing an abnormal collection of openings, something seems to be afoot.

I have to admit having heard rumors that Jabil Circuit in St. Petersburg, FL was an uncomfortable place for IT workers, so when I saw an unusual string of positions open up there, I had to look a little deeper (the following links are to Jabil Circuit's web site, and were valid as of 11/30/2005):

Manager of Information Systems
Technology Architect-Client Services
Enterprise Solutions Specialist II SD
Enterprise Solutions Specialist II HR
EDI Application Support and Training Specialist
Business Systems Analyst I

These all appeared at the same location (St. Petersburg) on the same day... quite a turnover, from where I sit, given that some of those positions are pretty high on the local totem pole.

Now, look at this snippet of the job description for the Manager of Information Systems:

Recruitment and Retention:
-Recruit, interview and hire Information Systems Reporting Manager.
-Communicate criteria to recruiters for Information Systems Reporting Manager position candidates.
-Coach Information Systems staff in the interviewing/hiring process.
-Monitor team member turnover; identify key factors that can be improved; make improvements.

I put the emphasis on that last line.

Might it be that some of those rumors I heard was true? Does Jabil Circuit have such a turnover problem sufficient to place retention a priority for the job description, and particularly that aspect of learning why people are leaving and fix it?

One can't begin to know the whole story, or even a significant piece of it, from a list of job openings, and so my speculations here are entirely my own. I would like to say, however, that I wish the new Manager of Information Systems at Jabil Circuit in St. Petersburg the best of luck in his or her new job, and hope he or she doesn't learn the problems come from someplace out of his or her reach!

On my own search...

Bocona isn't pleased with my progress so far, and wants me to explore new career opportunities outside my comfort zone. So, while still digging around, I am also preparing to become licensed as an insurance claims adjuster... just in case something better doesn't materialize before the next hurricane season.

Personally, I'm still rooting for the IT industry, so if you seriously know of a small business in the Tampa Bay area that would like to interview me for an IT management position (and isn't Jabil Circuit ;-) ), please drop me a note at career [at] frayernet [dot] com (please no spam - serious inquiries only).

Hey Verizon - It isn't the money!

In case you're wondering where I've been the past few days, please allow me to explain. I'm a bit of a pack rat, which annoys Bocona to no end. Over the last year I've collected a fairly large pile of magazines, most of which I have no use for, but never took the time to read. When Bocona decided to do some holiday cleaning, she targeted the magazine stack, and shifted the stack to my desk... right on top of my trusty notebook computer.

"You don't even think about using that computer until you deal with those magazines!" Bocona can be persuasive.

So, for the last few days, while suffering the pain of computer withdrawal, I was sorting through my magazine stack - a task consisting mostly of shifting the stack from point A to point B one magazine at a time, discarding enough to show serious thought had gone through the culling.

Somewhere in there I encountered a statistic I felt worth sharing. It seems 38% of American Internet users choose to exclusively use dial-up access. Please note the word choose. These aren't necessarily financially disadvantaged people. These people don't cite cost as the reason. No, within the United States, price is not why people aren't using broadband. And yet AOL, NetZero, and PeoplePC all market their dial-up service as if that were the case, and Verizon markets its DSL the same way.

No, 38% of American Internet users choose to use dial-up because they don't see why they should upgrade. They don't use any Internet service that is so speed sensitive that they can't simply be a little patient and wait for dial-up. As marketers, the web developers have been so sensitive to the needs of the dial-up users that they are literally removing the incentive for the dial-up user to upgrade.

Remarkable. Even more so that some folks have talked about pushing the US government to subsidize broadband access to help the lower classes join the fast set. Look at the stats, people! It's not the money!

Now, if someone needs subsidizing, turn to the Internet users outside the US. I've heard stories about speed/billing issues that would have kept me offline had I been forced to use them. But if you're building content for American visitors, do them a favor. Don't over-optimize the site. Give them the reason to join the rest of us!

And hope I don't have any more housecleaning chores lined up for the near future.

On Rudeness...

Add to my list people who set appointments, then fail to keep them. Rude! Don't build a candidate's hopes then avoid the contact when you change your mind. If you intend to be a boss, be one, and start with getting up the backbone to call the candidate and explain that you changed your mind, and you no longer wish the interview. Candidates will be less likely to hold a grudge if you cancel the appointment than if you stand them up!

Digital TV, Courtesy of... Cisco?

One of those days... plenty of newsworthy events, but little I feel the urge to comment on. It was days like these that probably contributed to my burn out a decade ago, taking me off the charts. So I won't push it. I'll keep today's blog short.

Tonight I notice, as I'm browsing through the AP newswire, that the line separating TV from computing is growing a little fuzzier. I've about come to the conclusion that only time stands between us and the consolidation of anything remotely data related. On one hand I revel in the knowledge that I live in a time when so many technological events foretold in the science fiction novels I read back in the '70s are coming to pass. On the other hand, I feel like Alvin Toffler understated things when he wrote Future Shock.

The latest indication that TV is encroaching on computers (or computers are encroaching on TV, take it as you will) is the announcement that Cisco plans to purchase cable-TV equipment giant Scientific-Atlanta. Since I'm a DirecTV subscriber, it was easy for me to forget all about Scientific-Atlanta, but they've been around forever - I once helped some friends sell SA satellite receiver systems back when it was techie-cool to have one of those monster dishes sitting in your yard. Now all Cisco needs is a TV programming source and they can set up their own cable network, without laying any cable! Just pump the programming across our already congested Internet connection to a set-top box that sends digital television to your HDTV receiver and (through the magic of routing technology) Internet data to your in-house PC network.

Imagine Comcast's screams as Congress tells them they have to allow Cisco to use their broadband network to send TV signals to their digital subscribers homes. This is going to be fun!