Latest | Mon | Tues | Wed | Thurs | Fri

Thunder From Down Under

Sometimes you can say things that seem completely reasonable and logical but somehow, still create an uproar. Such is the case of the Australian Prime Minister John Howard.

According to the MorningPaper, PM Howard said,:

It stands to reason that if you believe that somebody was going to launch an attack on your country, either of a conventional kind or a terrorist kind, and you had a capacity to stop it and there was no alternative other than to use that capacity, then of course to use that capacity, then of course you would have to use it"

He later added that "there's no situation that I'm aware of at the moment that raises that issue."

The reaction from the usual suspects in Asia, i.e., Indonesia, Thailand, and the Philippines all are aghast that anyone would violate another's sovereignty. One Indonesian legislator commented by saying the PM "should learn to control himself."

On one hand, I can understand what they are saying. I don't think the U.S. would appreciate, for example, Mexico sending in troops because certain Californians were plotting to violently overthrow their President. On the other hand, the U.S. would probably be the first to send our own F.B.I. to stop such terrorism in the first place.

Conversely, I don't see Indonesia doing a whole lot to get rid of the terrorists within their borders. Further, doesn't a country, like a person, have a right to protect themselves? For example, if I am walking down the street and I see someone coming my way with a loaded gun, with the intent of doing bodily harm to me, am I supposed to wait until they shoot me before I can defend myself?

Change the situation slightly, imagine you are a battered wife and you've been beaten by your husband multiple times. Does there come a point where it is justified to take a gun and shoot him while he sleeps because you want to keep him from killing you?

I realize this is a slippery slope and that time and distance can play a part in deciding what is justified and what isn't. I further understand that if you have enough information, you may be able to stop the aggression as the plot is in action, thus catching them in the act. But in today's world, will we always have that kind of information, i.e., knowing when, where, and how?

If we don't have that kind of information, when do we have the right to act to protect ourselves?

This is not an easy question. Think about it, then decide.

Aloha!

Hasta Lavista, Norton

Readers of this site know by now I've become less and less happy with the Norton Systemworks/Utilities. It seems ever since they were bought out by Symantec, the quality and usefulness of the utilities have declined.

If my memory serves me, when the version for Windows 2000 came out, it said it was compatible with Windows 2000 (well, duh). Only, it wasn't. At least, not all of the utilities. Like Speedisk for instance. It had a option to move the folders and put them in alphabetical order. But it didn't work. What you had to do was wait for the first "update." That update then actually added in the functionality that the box and the program said it already had. To this day, the hard drive scan uses what already comes with Windows 2000. In other words, as far as I can see, you are paying for a link to what is already built into Windows.

One wonders what values are being displayed by a company when it ships software that says it will do one thing, but doesn't. Even worse, at the time, when I went to their news server to ask about this, they deleted the post soon after it went up. Eventually, they just blocked all of my posts.

So it should come as no surprise that when the "subscription" to the anti-virus portion of SystemWorks said it would expire this month, I decided to remove it and replace it with something else.

On the advice of several of the Daynote Gang, I switched to AVG (see their site here). I've only been using it for a day so please don't take this as the definitive word, but as far as I can see, it works just fine. In fact, it seems to slow my PC down less than Norton did. Which is not hard to do given how slow email scans were (both coming and going).

The next step is to find replacements for the other utilities. Again, some of the Daynoters recommend something from Ontrack/V.com (see the site here). The type of utilities seem similar but the price is literally half the cost of the Norton SystemWorks. As soon as I get a chance to pick up a copy, I'll let you know how things go but it seems like a no-brainer [something he is good at - ed.] to me.

Mail Call

From: JHR
To:Dan Seto
Sent: Monday, December 02, 2002 8:11 PM
Subject: Preemptive Action

Dan -

Quite simple, really - The Golden Rule of Survival:

"Do unto them muthas before them muthas do unto you."

Quite effective.

Regards,

JHR

----- Original Message -----

From: Dan Seto
To:JHR
Sent: Monday, December 02, 2002 9:31 PM
Subject: Preemptive Action

This is true. The problem is how do you determine who will do unto you, as opposed to those who are building up a capability to act as a deterrent so you won't do unto them? Are we justified in attacking someone because they have the capability, but not the intention?

If so, I guess the next question is where do you stop? Is world-wide hegemony the goal of the US? I hope not. I kind of liked the US where we kept out of other people's business.

----- Original Message -----

From: JHR
To: Dan Seto
Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 12:05 AM
Subject: Re: Preemptive Action - Back

At 09:31 PM 12/2/2002 -1000, you wrote:

This is true. The problem is how do you determine who will do unto you, as opposed to those who are building up a capability to act as a deterrent so you won't do unto them? Are we justified in attacking someone because they have the capability, but not the intention?

Dan -

Methinks it would take a mind reader to determine what is in men's hearts - particularly when even they do not know at times. Rough rule of thumb: "If it quacks like a duck, waddles like a duck, and swims like a duck..." I would think it quite reasonable to make duck dinner of it.

If so, I guess the next question is where do you stop? Is world-wide hegemony the goal of the US?

What is the alternative? Building bunkers a la the '50s-'60s and wait for the missiles to rain down, to kill all us infidels?

IMO some entity has to take charge. Whom would you suggest? Russia? China? France? (Gods forbid the UN Debating Society!) IMO we are it - by default. We are by no means all good people in the US - but consider the alternatives, very carefully.

I hope not. I kind of liked the US where we kept out of other people's business.

Me too. Now if we could only persuade the rest of the world to make nice, and keep the Hell out of our affairs (1812 British press gangs, WWI U-boats, Pearl Harbor, WTC 9/11 for salient examples) I'd be happy as a hawg in tall corn. Unfortunately, however much the US makes nice (and we do, and have, throughout history), most of the rest of the world wants to see us as The Enemy. So be it. Their call - not ours. But we must deal with it, for self-preservation if for no other reason.

And consider: When has US intervention left the world worse off than before we intervened to order the chaos and restore some momentary semblance of peace? At great cost to US, in blood and treasure, each and every time. Thanks? Fageddaboudit! We are spat upon by the countries to whose rescue we came - with some notable exceptions.

As you may gather, Dan - your questions have touched a nerve!<BG>

Regards,

JHR

----- Original Message -----

From: Dan Seto
To: JHR
Subject: Re: Preemptive Action - Back
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 06:41:24 -1000

Well, I'm glad my questions get people talking and thinking about these things because I get worried sometimes that the Washington spin doctors do their best to keep debate down, if not out. So I appreciate your thoughts and, to a great extent, I agree.

We do have a right to defend ourselves. And in an era of weapons of mass destruction, perhaps we have to strike first. But we need to be clear, to do so is an act of war. We also need to be clear as to what our long-term goals are. I don't think I've heard a clear statement of what those are yet.

Aloha - Dan

I said it when the US went into Afghanistan (from the post here) and I'll quote it now before we go into Iraq:

Declare War? What are our objectives, for this war everyone wants to declare? Yes. Let's do. If that's what the majority of the people want to do. But before doing so, we need to define what are our achievable objectives and what criteria we will use to determine when the objectives have been met and we can declare peace.

Why do all that? Because if we don't, we may well get stuck in a never ending war of attrition. [A war that would drain our precious bodily fluids - ed.] A never ending war that wanders from place to place with no clear purpose. A war in which we chase ghosts up and down the mountains of Afghanis'nam (thanks Sjon), while spilling the blood of our youth.

Should we declare war? Absolutely. But only after we've figured out what we are fighting for and what "victory" will look like and what we are willing to give to achieve it.

For a better perspective on this whole situation, feel free to visit fellow Daynoter Dr. Jerry Pournelle. I don't agree with everything he has to say but he is a very wise man, and we are very low on wise men right now.

Aloha!

Mea Cuppa Joe

Sorry about the post for yesterday being up so late. I had it ready at the regular time but forgot to upload it. Doh!

Wake Up and Smell the Kona Kafe Latte

Now that our new Republican governor has taken office, some Democrats are making noises about how she will be a one-termer. Perhaps. But I have news for these people. She will probably have two terms and what's more, the Republicans, in two years, may control the Hawai'i House of Representatives.

The changes that brought Governor Lingle into power will not soon be going away. More and more people who live here have come from the mainland. Typically, they are rich, white, and retired (meaning they have time to do stuff like campaign, or contribute to campaigns). For those living here, more and more of the second and third generation of immigrant parents are asking themselves what have the Democrats done for them lately, even while the first generation passes away.

No, the Republicans are not going away anytime soon. Especially, not as long as the Democrats have no message that resonates with the majority of the people here. The Democrats seem to think that the battle is against the Republicans and the way to win it is to be as different from them as possible.

In reality, the battle is to bring the Democratic Party into alignment with Joe and Jane Average. The Party must become relevant. The Party must realize that the concerns of this generation are not the same as the previous. The Party must embrace change, rather than trying to ignore it, or worse, resisting it.

The Party can start its journey back from the wilderness by accepting the fact that not all business is bad. In fact, business means jobs. Jobs for people who are striving to make a better life for themselves and their families. So lets get in front of this issue and bring Democratic values to it.

For example, some people on the island of Moloka'i want to keep cruise ships from stopping there. They feel the ships bring pollution and alien species to otherwise pristine beaches. While the daily news certainly points out problems with cruise ships, the visitors on these ships bring tremendous economic value to where ever they call. So rather than being obstructions to economic growth, let's welcome it, while at the same time ensuring that pollution laws are not violated, and if they are, vigorously prosecuted because one of the reasons these people come here in the first place, are those very same pristine beaches.

Another example is education. What we have been doing, i.e., spending more and more money on a lower education system that is dead, will not help. While at the same time, spending less and less on a higher education system that is, in fact, working. What we need to do is radically change our priorities. Let's keep the value of providing equal opportunity to all, because an educated citizenry has value, while at the same time providing a menu of choices as to which opportunity is right for them. One size does not fit all.

If parents want to home school. Fine. If they want to send little Johnny to a school that is educationally rigorous and successful, then help them to do so. For those schools that are not doing well, find out why and fix it. If the problem is administrators or teachers resistant to change, remove them. If the costs of a centralized educational system are higher than a replicated, but decentralized system, then go for the decentralized one. If not, lets not spend a lot of time and effort rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

Many of our problems stem from lack of the political will to change what needs to be changed. Most politicians know what is broken, but they are afraid of trying to fix it because it would mean changing how things are. And there is political danger in change because you will inevitably gore someone's ox.

But if Hawai'i is to move forward and provide a healthy place to live, work, and play, then we must vote for people who are willing to make the hard choices, not run away from. We need to vote for people who are in tune with the times, not people who only know how to shuffle along to the same old tune. And finally, we need to understand that change will require sacrifice on our parts too. That we can not have it both ways. That change has a price that we must be willing to pay because to do nothing, has an even higher price.

Aloha!

We are from IBM. We are here to help.

Due to perhaps sheer timidity, (if not stupidity - ed.), the Judiciary decided on upgrading from Lotus cc:Mail to Lotus Notes. Actually, to be clear, the problem was not that they decided to abandon cc:Mail, since Lotus had long since abandoned it themselves. No, the problem was going from cc:Mail to Notes, rather than something else.

Now, don't get me wrong, there are a lot of sites that happily use Notes and think it is the best thing since hot Krispy Kremes. If you find value in Notes, good for you.

My experience has been decidedly different. As many of you may know, Lotus is owned by IBM. And while IBM does may things well, selling software is not one of their strong suits (see OS/2). So it should not come as a surprise that IBM has its own spin on how to sell software.

Specifically, I'm talking about the new Notes 6 client. In olden days, back when software companies sold software (not subscriptions), when new versions of programs came out you would go to your friendly neighborhood store and buy a copy. Even IBM followed this model, at least for their PC-based offerings.

But as the high tech boom busted, inventive people tried different business models. One of these models is to sell subscriptions. That is, you have the right to use their software for a period of time. After that period, if you choose not to renew, while the software may or may not function, you would not receive any updates, bug fixes, or support of any kind. Well, fair enough you say. But read on.

If, sometime down the road, and after deciding not to renew, you decide you want the newest version of the software, you would have to resubscribe. The catch is that your would be resubscribing at a much higher cost structure than if you had renewed earlier.

Such seems to be the case with IBM's Passport Advantage Program (PAP). Starting with the Lotus Notes 6 client, I must subscribe to their PAP (no pun intended). Said PAP is based on a corporate model in which one centralized entity will do all the buying of software, I mean subscriptions, for that entire organization. Nowhere in this business plan is their acknowledgment of end users. Everything is geared to centralized control and procurement by organizations. And all sales of subscriptions shall be directly from IBM or one of their business partners.

This last part means you will no longer be able to purchase Lotus Notes clients from anywhere else. Not CompUSA, not Amazon, not anywhere except IBM or one of its business partners. This means competition is non-existent and prices shall be as IBM says it shall be.

Why would IBM do this? I can't say for sure, but I assume it is because of the value they add, or at least they think they add. Why else? Surely they would not be so obtuse as to think they can do a better job of selling than a store designed specifically to do that? Surely they would not be so opportunistic as to try to lock you into proprietary software and rent it at outrageous monopolistic level prices?

Surely what is good for IBM must be good for you. Right? You decide.

I'm working on finishing up our Masters in Public Administration Capstone (i.e., thesis) proposal so I gotta run - Aloha!

It's Friday!

Unclear on the Concept

Some people do some really strange things. For example, I've talked before about how I get email misaddressed to my domain all the time. Usually, I try to be nice and send it back telling them they have the wrong address.

But yesterday, I got one from someone saying they had the wrong email address and asked for the right one. Unfortunately, the address they were sending that to was the wrong address they were trying to correct.

Hmmm. This person realizes they have the wrong address. They realize they need to get the right one. But for some reason, they think they can get the correct address by sending it to one they know does not exist.

I will be forwarding all of their mail to /dev/null and I'll be back after my blood pressure comes down under 180.

Bigfoot is Dead, Long Live Sasquatch

Speaking of strange things and people, the man who created the "Big Foot" hoax/legend has died (see the story here).

There's an old saying about fooling some of the people all of the time. Well, a lot of people wanted to be fooled and this man helped them see what they wanted to see.

People's Republic of California

Sometimes I'm glad I don't live in California anymore. Yes, the Golden State has Disney Land, the Norton Simon museum, and beautiful clear winter days where you can see everything from the San Gabriel mountains to Catalina Island.

But I can't figure out what the California Supreme Court, and the San Francisco based Federal 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which, unfortunately, also sits over Hawai'i cases, was thinking when they opined that the Second Amendment to the Constitution, the one about the right to keep and bear arms, relates to the right of states to maintain militias, not to keeping and bearing arms of the general public.

I'm the first one to say that no right, including the second amendment is absolute. But I find it hard to understand this opinion (see it here in pdf format) and the way it almost cavalierly dismisses any claim that citizens have the right to keep and bear ANY arms unless it is related to their duties as part of a state militia.

While I agree the states have the right to limit the types of weapons for sale, and who can own them, this ruling, intentional or not, is sweeping in its broad claims. Further, to a great extent, it uses minority dissenting opinions to bolster its case.

By definition, minority opinions, while certainly illuminating in their discussion, are not dispositive because, right or wrong, they are not the majority view. That is, the opinion is from the side that lost.

I must respectfully disagree with some of the reasoning used for this opinion, while at the same time agreeing that the states can pass laws that limit ownership (insert Disclaimer here - ed). Oh well, I'm not a lawyer or judge so what do I know?

We are still working on out capstone proposal, now 20 pages long, so I gotta run. Have A Great Weekend Everyone - Aloha!

© 2002 Daniel K. Seto. All rights reserved. Disclaimer