Software Development: Old School or New School?

Since I started writing software when I was 5, I’ve been doing it a long time.  I’ve seen a lot of changes in the technology – from the BASIC language all the way to assembly, desktop to server, fat client to thin client, you name it.  But the trend I’ve seen over the last 10-15 years is troubling.

There is absolutely no question that the Internet has changed things radically.  Much of that change is good.  There is, however, an aspect of the Internet and the way that software is written that is disturbing.  Many of the time-tested, well-thought-out, efficient ways of coding are disappearing and are being replaced by junky, ill-conceived, incredibly inefficient substitutes.  People that are learning to code now are mostly coding for the web, and it is very upsetting how little they understand of the actual science behind computing, mostly because the software development tools in use today don’t even support the best, time-tested concepts.

As part of my job I do software development in both Delphi (a modern-day variant of Pascal, very similar to Microsoft’s C#) and PHP.  Delphi is extremely efficient, and has adopted most of the best ideas that have ever come along in computing.  PHP is at the opposite end of the spectrum – extremely inefficient, lacking support for many of the most basic tools that real high level languages offer.  If you start to talk about JavaScript (the programming language that powers web browsers) the situation is even more dire – it is far more basic than even PHP.  Yet nearly all of the hype you hear in development is around HTML 5, JavaScript, Java, and PHP.  All of which are, frankly, very immature, and are evolving at glacial pace.

One of the technologies that is falling by the wayside is object-oriented programming.  It allows developers to create virtual objects that you can copy, manipulate, and act upon extremely easily and efficiently.  Java is object oriented, but it has other problems of its own (efficiency and security being the main two) that are causing it to fall out of favor quite rapidly.  PHP has some support for objects, but frankly it’s pretty terrible.  HTML and JavaScript don’t even attempt to support it at all.  People that are learning to program now don’t seem to have any kind of understanding of how much easier their lives would be if they had access to object-oriented development tools.  And the situation is actually getting worse, not better.

Another concept that is lost on the web is code compilation.  Pretty much ever since the dawn of computing, developers take code and run it through a compiler to produce the set of instructions that are native to their computer so that they don’t have to be translated at the time the software is run.  Consider how much more efficient you are at speaking your own language than you would be at trying to converse in Korean by using a dictionary, having never heard or seen a word of Korean before.  Compiling does the translation ahead of time (just once) so that software runs as quickly as possible.  Yet again, web technologies don’t do compilation – they do the “translation” at the time that code is executed, making things incredibly slow in comparison.  In addition to that, since the translation is done at run-time, that means you have to distribute the actual source code (the original code you’ve written) to your software in order to run it… so anybody who wants to could take your code and modify and redistribute it… or in cases where you’ve got content you want to protect, like music, or a movie, everybody can see exactly how it is protected so that protection can be removed.  Java has the ability to do a sort of rudimentary compilation just before code is executed, but it is still far from true native code, and it still slows you down considerably.

It’s almost like about 15 years ago people said, “We don’t care about all of the research and learning that has occurred over the last 50 years.  We’re going to come up with a new way of doing things, no matter how good some of your ideas may be.”

As someone who works in both worlds it is incredibly frustrating.  Especially when I have to interact with people who have only ever spent time in the newer web technologies, because they don’t even have a remote concept of what they are missing out on.

There are a ton of other great technologies that seem to be falling by the wayside.  True code debugging (the ability to see what is happening internally inside of software as it is running, making testing much, much easier) is extremely rare.  RAD (Rapid Application Development), once considered the epitome of efficient design and coding, is almost unheard of today.  True integration with databases is pretty much gone too, and in its place are incredibly difficult-to-program, very bloated communication methods that making coding difficult, especially if it is to be done securely.  Forgive me if fname.value=’Frank’ is easier (and conceptually much more sound) than “UPDATE users SET fname=’Frank’ WHERE userid=56”, but this is exactly the sort of difference I’m talking about.  For the most part web developers aren’t even remotely aware that the tools we had for doing things were much better than the best of what they have access to today.  It’s really quite sad.

I’m not saying for a minute that these newer tools don’t have a place.  They do.  But very little, if anything, is being done to improve the tools and incorporate the lessons that 70 years of computing science have taught us.  There’s almost a wall there where anyone who works in the newer tools will automatically dismiss ideas from the old school just because they are old school, not because there is any real reason to do so.

So I have to admit that I don’t really having to work with HTML and JavaScript and PHP.  They all seem incredibly antiquated to me.  Almost like I’m stepping back in time 30 years.  In many cases it is much harder to do things in the “modern” tools than it was in the contemporary tools of the early 1980s.  Things that I’ve taken for granted in what I would call a “real” development environment just don’t even exist when working with their “modern” counterparts. 

Would you enjoy having your Ferrari swapped out for a Model T?  And somehow I’m expected to like it.

The result of all of the backwards ways of doing things with “modern” tools is that it takes forever to get anything done.  I can easily write “equivalent” code in Delphi five times faster than it can be done in PHP even though at this point I probably know PHP as well as anyone could.  And, on average, it takes about half of the lines of code in Delphi to accomplish something as it does to do the same thing in PHP.  And yet the Delphi code literally executes more than a hundred times faster, and provides a better user experience.  Yet somehow people are critical of my decision to continue to use such a tool.  Only because they don’t understand it, and in most cases refuse to even try.

Much of the stagnation in web technologies is due to the bickering and in-fighting that happens between companies that build tools for the web.  HTML 5 is, in reality, very poorly suited for what we are asking it to do today.  And everybody involved wants their own ideas for improving it to become the standard, but nobody else is willing to adopt those ideas because they aren’t their own and they can’t profit from it.  In the 1990s and early 2000s, for example, Microsoft tried to extend HTML 5 with new features in Internet Explorer and they got shot down by everyone else, because they weren’t “following the standard.”  Well, yeah, they didn’t… because there wasn’t a way of doing the things they wanted to in the standard.  Yet when people do actually get together to try to improve the standard, nobody can agree on anything so nothing gets done.  We’ve been talking about HTML 5 for nearly ten years, and it is still so poorly supported across different browsers that you almost can’t use it.

Trying to creating interactive web pages is a an absolute disaster – programmers have to take care of every low-level event (click button, move mouse, release), and those events differ from browser to browser.  Want to play music or show video on a web page?  Nobody can even agree on how to do that so you have to produce three separate versions of every file, then figure out which version to use when you view the page.  HTML wasn’t ever even designed to handle any multimedia other than graphics, either, which is why so many web pages use Adobe Flash, despite the fact that everybody hates it.  Want to do things like drag-and-drop?  Good luck.  It’s really hard to do, and usually has to be coded multiple different ways to work in all popular browsers.  But in my ‘old school’ Delphi drag and drop doesn’t even require writing a single line of code.  Just set an object property saying ‘yes, you can be dragged’ and ‘you can accept dragged objects.’

Adding database interactivity to a web page is an exercise in patience and frustration.  There still isn’t an official way for a web page to pull data from (or insert data into) a database.  It’s still a very tedious and time consuming thing to do.  Don’t even get me started on how nobody does it securely because that’s even harder to do.  But we’ve had databases for 50 years so basic interactions like this should be a cakewalk.  In Delphi, all I have to do to retrieve record 56 from the users table of the database is users.FindKey([56]).  The same thing in PHP is at a minimum of 4 lines of code – much more if you do proper error checking.  And in JavaScript?  Well, don’t plan on working on anything else that afternoon.

It goes on and on.  Want a web page to interact with a Joystick on the web?  Not happening.  Or generating output for a printer with full control over how it looks?  Again, not really possible.  How about photo editing?  Not very plausible in HTML.  How about a page that uploads a picture to your cell phone over USB?  Nope, HTML doesn’t allow it.  And it will likely be at least a decade before such things are actually possible and usable.

All of the above problems had already been pretty much solved by traditional development tools long ago. 

And somehow many of the companies that have produced the strongest tools and environments for software development in the past are abandoning the more mature technologies.  Microsoft is trying to force everybody to the write Windows 8 apps, despite the fact that this environment, too, is missing some of the best things from their traditional desktop environment.  Apple invests very little in desktop technologies.  And Linux stagnated years ago.

It’s really pretty sad.  If people were smart they’d take the best ideas from wherever they come from instead of trying to reinvent the wheel over and over.  And as it stands today, the technologies that power the web – HTML, JavaScript, etc. – are more of a wooden, square wheel than most developers realize.  The traditional ways of doing things don’t have to be left behind – they could easily handle the same tasks that the newer technologies are doing, and in most cases do a far better job of it.  Or, some of the concepts from traditional development could be added to the newer tools.  But, for some reason, never the twain shall meet.  It’s frustrating having to choose between high functionality, quick development, and high performance, and working on the Internet.  It would be really nice to be able to do both.

Being Scammed

I don’t get upset very often, but every once in a while something pushes me over the edge.  I have blogged about this before, but it has really gotten under my skin again.

Imagine the following completely hypothetical conversation…

Government Official: “It has come to our attention that you are driving a 2008 Honda Civic.”

Me: “Yeah, that’s right.”

GO: “Well, it’s my duty to inform you that in four months it is going to be illegal to drive your car.  You will have to dispose of it before that time.”

Me: "What?  Is this some kind of a joke?”

GO: “No joke.  This is absolutely real.  If you continue driving your car after June 12, you will be breaking the law, and will be arrested and fined.”

Me: “I don’t get it.  My car is still new. It only has 1000 miles on it.  It’s working perfectly. And it is totally safe.  What gives?”

GO: “Well, the rules of the roads have changed.  Your car is now illegal… to drive on the road you have to get a new car.”

Me: “Why? What kind of car can be driven on the roads?  How is it different than what I have now?”

GO: “You’ll have to talk to the car manufacturers about that.  There are 6 models that comply with the new laws.”

Me: “And what am I supposed to do with my old one?  Nobody will buy it if it isn’t legal to drive it!”

GO: “Whoa, there!  You can’t sell it.  Selling your car is against the law because it doesn’t comply with new laws.  If you try to sell it you’re violating the law and you could be fined or arrested.”

Me: “So what the heck am I supposed to do with it?”

GO: “There are many recycling programs available.”

Me: “Okay… let me get this straight… I’m supposed to recycle a car which works perfectly, only has 1000 miles, which I can’t sell, and buy a new car just because the rules of the roads have changed?”

GO: “Yes, sir.  I believe you’re starting to get it.”

Sound unbelievable?  Well, yeah, it does.  And it should.  But this is exactly what is happening with wireless microphones in a few months. 

Starting June 12, 2010 it will be illegal to use any wireless microphone that operates in the 700 MHz radio band.  Unfortunately, this includes nearly every wireless microphone manufactured before about two years ago.  And still a pretty large number of mics sold in the last two years as well.  And very much unfortunately for me, every wireless microphone I own.

I have just over a dozen wireless mics that I have spent literally years acquiring.  Some I purchased brand new, others I found on eBay.  Some are for live audio events, others to use when shooting video, etc.  It took a really long time to find a few models that are reliable and have good sound, and even after I found the right ones, it took about 6 years to get my hands on enough for my needs.  Sure there have been plenty of cheap models available, but they have all sorts of problems.  And lots of extremely expensive ones that actually do work well.  But VERY few models in between that work well and are affordable.  I managed to find a few models in that “in between” range and bought up every one I could find.

And now they’re all being made illegal, even though they work perfectly, and in many cases only have a few hours of use on them.

Worse yet, it’s illegal for me to try to sell them.  A handful of manufacturers are offering rebate programs, but not for the models that will work for my use.  At least not ones that I could possibly ever afford.  Since I can’t sell them the only legal thing to do is to recycle them.

Wireless mics are kind of a funny thing.  If you walk into a musical equipment store there will be a bunch available for sale.  But not a single one you see in a retail store is actually worth owning.  Between dropouts, noise, poor sound quality, and other problems, there isn’t a wireless mic worth owning for less than about $450.  The “good” ones start at about $2,000 each… and go way up from there.  Those mics you see on American Idol and other TV shows, they easily cost over $4,000 apiece.  Maybe big television networks or bands on tour can afford stuff like that.  I can’t.  And neither can a lot of other people that need them.

I sat down and made myself a spreadsheet to figure out replacement costs.  To replace the wireless equipment I use regularly, it’s going to cost just under $10,000 for “barely adequate.”  I don’t think that “barely adequate” wireless microphones are worth owning.  To get something that operates at least as well as what I already own, that figure jumps just north of $20,000.  I’m sorry, but I don’t have $20,000 to blow on microphones.  Especially when I already own a bunch that work perfectly.  And these numbers are just for the stuff I use consistently, not to replace everything I already have.

Some of the ones I have haven’t been used much at all.  In a few cases, purchase price divided by hours used would approach $75-100 per hour.  And in nearly all cases I used them for charity or public events, or other events where I was providing my audio services at no cost.  (The number of events I do where I ask to be paid is very small.)  Some thanks I get, huh.

At the time I bought the ones that I have now I had the advantage that they had been out for a couple of years, so used ones would come up for sale on eBay from time to time at a significant discount.  But because this transition to new models is so recent (many manufacturers have just started offering compliant models within the last year, and in some cases, just the last few months) no used gear is available.  So not only is the newer equipment not going to function as well, it has to be purchased at a full price (which is higher than it was before).  No deals here.  Not for a long while.  And many of the compliant models are out of stock and can’t even be purchased.

I know the number of people that are affected by this is relatively few.  But it does extend farther than you might think.  It isn’t just audio guys like me that are being forced to replace our gear.  This includes theaters, schools, churches, etc.  And most of these operate on shoestring budgets (or no budget whatsoever).  If any of these groups bought their wireless mics more than two years ago, they almost definitely are going to have to buy new ones.  Less than two years ago and the chance goes down, but that chance doesn’t go away entirely unless a mic has been purchased in the last 27 days.  Yep, infringing equipment was still available for sale (and quite common) less than a month ago.

If you go to the FCC web site and read up on the issue they really emphasize the need to stay out of the new radio bands being reserved for public safety agencies.  Fine.  I have no problem with that.  My mics don’t operate in those frequencies anyway.  If that was the only reason this was happening, I wouldn’t be affected.  (Well, one of my mics is in that band, but I can replace one without too much complaint). 

The less emphasized part of the transition is the spectrum that was purchased by Verizon Wireless.  So we’re being forced to buy new wireless mics to make way for laptop data cards.  (Which, incidentally, are supposed to detect interference and work around it.  I’m just sayin’.)  If all in this world was fair, Verizon would be forced to pay at least a portion of the costs of replacing equipment it was invalidating because they’re invading what was our turf.  But, this world isn’t exactly fair, now, is it. 

The radio band that we are being moved into has to coexist with television broadcasts.  Yes, the same frequencies that all TV stations were forced into a year ago.  A part of the radio spectrum that is becoming very busy.  Yes, mics were in TV frequencies before, but there were a whole lot more of them available, and fewer stations to compete against.  Things are going to get really messy.

Get this… the most expensive piece of wireless audio gear I own is my in-ear-monitor system.  (You’ve seen them… the earpieces musicians wear when performing so they can hear themselves.)  Mine is a “barely adequate” model (I couldn’t afford a “good” one) that cost me $1300.  It is included in the devices that have to be retired, as it is also in the 700 MHz band. 

The manufacturer offers a “trade-in” program.  I can trade in for the exact same model with a few tweaks inside to make it legal.  And the cost?  Full price.  No discount.  Nope!  If I want to keep using it I have to buy a brand new one at full price.  And according to their web site it is “illegal” to retrofit the old ones, so I shouldn’t bother asking. 

Everything about this whole situation stinks.  And it’s all pretty crazy when you think about it.  If this affected a larger group of people the American public would be up in arms about it.  But because our group is relatively small nobody else knows a thing.

Deserving

One of my absolute least favorite words is “deserve.” I know, it’s not a word that people frequently think of as being negative, but to me it is, and very much so. With very few exceptions, I usually cringe when I hear people say they “deserve” something.

Let me back up a bit. I believe that everything we are given in this life is a gift, either from God or from our fellow human beings. We can’t really earn anything because we aren’t guaranteed anything. If someone gives us something it is because they want to, not because they are required to do so. When someone says that they deserve something, they are ignoring that whatever they are being given is a gift, and is something to cherish.

Imagine two scenarios… If someone believes that they deserve something and they do receive it, it often results in them not being grateful for it. They believe that they have been given something of their own merit, ignoring the fact that someone has been gracious with them. We don’t look at things as gifts, but as an exchange for something we have done.

On the other hand, if someone believes that they deserve something and they don’t receive it, it leads to resentment and hate. They feel slighted that they haven’t received something they believe they should have. This not only shows a lack of gratitude, but in fact the opposite, creating negative feelings towards another.

In either case, we lose. We’re either ungrateful, or resentful. There are no good outcomes here.

To say that we deserve something also shows a lack of humility. If I were to say that I deserve more money for my job, what I am really saying is that my needs and wants are more important than those of my employer, or its other employees. I am in effect saying that I am better than everyone else there because my needs are more important than theirs. A truly humble person is grateful for everything they are given, and they don't have expectations of anything.

Feelings of deserving create a never ending cycle. If we believe we deserve something and we continue to receive it, it either escalates to belief in deserving more, or a stronger expectation the next time, and thus stronger disappointment and resentment if we don’t get what we believe is due.

The cycle can be broken, though. Once we stop believing that we deserve something we start to become grateful for anything that we do receive. We recognize and appreciate anything done for us, or anything given to us. On the flip side of the coin, if we don’t receive something, our feelings aren’t hurt, and we don’t have resentment because we aren’t expecting it. It’s a win-win situation.

If we learn to change our attitude so that we begin to look at everything we receive as a gift our lives are happier, and we treat others better. Others can see that we are grateful and are more willing to share with us. We are also then more gracious with others as well. Everybody wins.

Digitally Transitioned: Really?

So the Digital TV transition happened today at noon.  Uh, yeah…

Only the major mainstream network stations disappeared here.  I’m still picking up analog TV from 6 stations.  So that means we only lost about half of the analog stations previously available in my part of Utah.

Supposedly exceptions to the digital transition requirement were going to be pretty hard to get.  If half of the stations here got them, what makes them so hard to get?  And why did we bother?

The main reason for the transition was supposed to be so we could free up some frequencies (TV channels 52-69) for other services like digital communication (“mobile internet access”) and emergency services (homeland security, etc.).  In truth adding those services only required that SOME TV channels go away.  Okay, I’m fine with that.  The frequencies allocated for TV years ago occupy far more space than we have been using, and they are considered “prime real estate” because of their ability to travel long distances with relatively low power.  Taking some of that away sounds logical and reasonable.  But taking away those frequencies really had nothing to do with digital TV at all. 

You won’t hear me complaining about the fact that we have added digital TV.  Not at all.  High definition is a wonderful thing, and our picture quality is vastly superior to anything we ever had via analog, not to mention some of the other added benefits.  My complaint is with the way that this has been pushed by the government as a “need” to discontinue analog TV.  That’s really a lie.

In theory existing stations could have been allowed to keep their analog transmissions in parallel with their digital transmissions.  The channels they have been using aren’t even being reallocated for any of the new services that are going to be offered.  This has just been an excuse on the part of the broadcasting industry to not be required to transmit two signals simultaneously and equipment manufacturers to sell more equipment, and doing it by pressuring government officials to mandate that by law.  If we truly “needed” to move away from analog, nobody would have been granted an exception to keep using it.

Most of the frequencies being vacated in the VHF band are the sort that they aren’t really considered to be that valuable any longer.  They won’t carry the large amounts of data that higher frequencies can, and they require larger antennas (though the signals will travel longer distances).  The FCC is discouraging (but not disallowing) their use for digital TV, yet they’re still allocated for television broadcast, so nobody else can use them.  Nobody wants to put their digital signal there (for good reasons) but these frequencies are still reserved for television.  I don’t think this whole thing was very well thought out.

To sum up:

• We made this transition to add new services on existing higher TV frequencies (52-69).  Fine, I guess.
• Existing wireless microphones use channels 52-69, so they are no longer legal, and those that own them have to buy new ones.  Stupid.
• Analog broadcasts are being shut down, except when they aren’t.
• Digital transmission is being made a requirement, except when it’s not.  Huh?
• The frequencies being vacated by shutting down analog transmissions are going to be unused. 

Like most government-run programs, the whole thing has turned into a big mess.

Anyone else see any problems in this?

Please forget the lettuce

I’m not sure if people just don’t listen, or if they aren’t too bright.  At least when it comes to filling food orders.

I can’t eat lettuce.  It makes me sick to my stomach.  I also can’t stand the taste, texture, or smell of it.  So I always ask for “no lettuce” when ordering sandwiches.  Some food service establishments are pretty good about honoring the request, others not so much.

Taco Bell is the absolute worst offender I have ever been to. At LEAST half of the time they’ll go ahead and put lettuce on whatever I order, even after they have repeated back my “no lettuce” request to me.  It’s bad enough at my closest Taco Bell that I have pretty much given up on ordering anything that normally contains lettuce, which doesn’t leave a lot left on the menu.  So I definitely don’t go as often as I might otherwise.  (It also doesn’t help that it takes 48 minutes to service 6 cars in the drive-thru line.  I timed it.)

Burger King is usually okay, especially if I ask for some sort of other customization on the sandwich… extra ketchup or tomato, for example.  But even though they claim I can “have it [my] way” it seems as though about one time in five they’ll mess it up.

Wendy’s has been better with a roughly 15% screw-up rate.  I can’t speak for McDonalds, as I don’t eat there often enough to get a feeling for how well they are doing, and almost never order anything that normally comes with lettuce anyway.

I was shocked today to find that Gandalfo’s messed up on my lunch order.  Usually when you pay a premium for a sandwich you’ll get premium service.  Today not only did my sandwich have lettuce on it, it had virtually no sauces of any sort, leaving it very dry and blah.  Disappointing.  I expect much more of them.

The worst of the worst are the ones that use shredded lettuce, as it is next to impossible to remove.  Some folks, like Wendy’s, use whole lettuce leaves, so it’s much easier to remove.  But even the remaining items have been tainted by the flavor of the lettuce and it really ruins the experience for me.

If you happen to work at a fast food joint, please pay attention to your customers’ requests.   Having to remove an unwanted item from their food is sure to annoy, and it’s bad manners.  People will be much happier if they just get what they ask for.

It's a Sad, Sad Day

November 4, 2008 will go down in history as a very sad day in American history.  After months of many heated opinions and exchanges of harsh words, it is official.  One voice has silenced another, at the peril of those that aren't as vocal.

I am referring, of course, to a compound mandate from the Federal Communication Commission that effective this next February it will become illegal for nearly all wireless microphones (and wireless in-ear-monitor systems) in existence today to be used.  (Did you think I was talking about something else?)  And then, as the second part of the double whammy, the frequencies they opened up after making the current frequencies illegal are now open for use for wireless Internet access and other wireless digital services. 

So first they are making existing microphones illegal by making it illegal to transmit in the frequencies currently in use.  And then, after they assigned a new radio band for microphones, they decided to allow other services onto that same band, creating interference.   Just think of how hard it is to have a conversation at a rock concert and you begin to understand the implications of this.

The first part is frustrating enough.  Existing microphones shouldn't cause significant interference with any devices on the current radio bands because of their very short range, so there wasn't really a need to make their use illegal.  They have co-existed with UHF television just fine for years.  A grandfather clause would have been perfect.  Then the FCC pushes us into a radio band that hasn't been used in the past, so no equipment is even available for purchase.  And then they are allowing that radio band to be used for other things, creating a huge potential for interference.  The only way to combat this new interference is to invest in new, much more expensive equipment, if you can even find it.

Those of us that currently own wireless equipment have had virtually no warning, and we haven't had any time to prepare to phase out and replace what we already have.  In the past when the FCC has made changes like this it hasn't affected low power equipment, so we haven't had to worry about replacing equipment.  And because it will become illegal to use what we now have, the stuff we have invested thousands and thousands of dollars in is officially now becoming totally worthless -- nobody will buy it because it isn't really legal to use it. 

Since the government is now offering coupons to make the transition to digital TV easier for people with analog televisions, maybe they ought to offer subsidy coupons to wireless microphone owners.  Okay, I'm not really serious about that... I am very much opposed to the "something for nothing" mentality, and I have always felt that it was wrong for the government to use tax revenues to benefit a small group of people.  But it sure would be nice if this were handled differently, because if I were to replace all of the wireless microphones I currently have with models with roughly the same level of performance, it would cost me roughly 12 x $2,500 = $30,000 or more, plus another $1,500 for my wireless in-ear-monitor system.  Ouch.  And I'm not one of the ones hit hardest.  Performing groups with more wireless systems have to use computerized, even higher end equipment to make sure that none of the microphones interfere with one another, so it will cost them a lot more.

D'oh.

Convenience

I have to laugh a little bit inside whenever I see the word “convenience” used somewhere these days. Or maybe cry. It seems that some people using it seem to misunderstand its intended definition.

For example, in two of the Little Caesars stores running our POS software, they don’t accept credit cards for payment. Instead they accept debit cards. A sign listed on their window, another on the counter, and yet another on each register says, “For your convenience there is a $1.50 fee for debit card transactions.” I’d like to know in what universe it would be convenient for me to pay an extra $1.50 for a service offered for free just about everywhere else.

Another example at a bank… “For your convenience we will be closed on Columbus Day.” That isn’t the least bit convenient for me; in fact it is quite the opposite; it is a wasted trip if someone doesn’t know it is closed, and forces them to come back another day.

What’s next? “For your convenience we will be performing a full frontal lobotomy on you when you go to bed tonight.”

The other kicker is from web sites that sell tickets to various events, like movies and concerts. There is a “convenience fee.” What is that about? They’re charging us more money because it is more convenient for both them and me? What kind of screwed up logic is that?

In conclusion (as if this is a formal paper, heheheh) whenever the word “convenient” shows up anywhere now it sets off alarm bells. Unless the word has been redefined as “another way to empty your bank account” without informing either myself or the fine folks at Merriam-Webster. To those that have redefined this word in this way, here’s another word for you: bogus.

P.S. Reminder: Movie night featuring Iron Man is tonight at 8:30pm.

1st Political Post - Taxed to death!

I've tried to avoid posting on political issues, since they seem to be a huge hotbed of disagreement and fighting. However, one big issue for me that I simply must post on is tax rates.

Americans for Tax Reform is an independent, non-partisan group that monitors the tax situation in the US, and tries to push for lower taxes. The group has posted a chart of tax rates as proposed by the two Presidential candidates on their web site:

http://www.atr.org/content/html/2008/june/0616-obama_mccaintaxes.html

Most of Obama's numbers are pretty scary, but the number that is most alarming to me is the Self-Employment Rate... 54.9%. Can you believe this? MORE than half of my income would go to taxes if Sen. Obama had his way. It's already way too high as it is, but jumping to over 50% is just outrageous. This is the United States, not the USSR! It isn't even Europe!

Obama also has the worst possible record when it comes to taxes. He has voted FOR virtually every tax increase proposed since he was elected Senator:

http://www.atr.org/national/ratings/109th-1/109-1-senate-final.htm
http://www.atr.org/national/ratings/109th-2/2006Senatevotes-prelim.pdf

I'm not a huge fan of either current presidential candidate, but I've got speak out against Obama with his track record, and if he is proposing a 55% tax rate on self employed individuals. I simply couldn't afford to run my own business with the government taking more than half of it. And I don't think anyone else could either.

The Arrogance of Science

I don't know why this has really caught my attention the last little while, but it is beginning to get under my nerves.  What I'm talking about is the arrogance of some in the scientific community, especially those in publicly visible positions with loud voices.

I read an article the other day about evolution, intelligent design, and creationism.  The author of the article attempted to take a neutral stand through most of the article, but the then at the end basically proclaimed anyone who believed anything other than evolution, as currently accepted by science, to be an imbecile.  The following discussion (if it can be called that) in the site's forums was quite heated, with supporters of all theories vocalizing their beliefs vigorously, with maternal insults being more the norm than the exception. 

Another topic that keeps coming up is global warming.  It's pretty trendy right now.  Those voicing their opinions about the subject tend to be very loud and in-your-face, proclaiming that anyone who doesn't share their beliefs is just plain wrong.

I'm not here to get into a debate of evolution vs creationism or to debate the existence of global warming, or its potential effects, but rather to call to attention the arrogance of those making these claims.

In both cases, the people making claims (claims going either direction, though those supporting the more scientifically accepted beliefs tend to be much more common) are unbelievably arrogant. 

The problem here is that we can't really be completely sure of anything in the scientific realm.  None of us was around to witness the creation of the Earth; science is going off of evidence and theories, so to state evolution as absolute fact is kind of a feeble argument.  We don't know with 100% certainty whether global warming is real, let alone whether it is manmade or not, because we can't really even begin to understand how the planet's climate works.  The trouble is that in both cases we just don't have enough knowledge to make a definitive call one way or the other, so assumptions have to be made, and when assumptions are made things can go very wrong.  Yet many, many "scientists" claim to be able to state absolute fact. 

If we have learned anything from history, it is that science is constantly changing.  The scientific principles held as fact at any point in time are later disproved by some new principle that comes along in the future.  People in the 15th century knew that the Earth was flat, yet this was proven wrong later on.  Scientists in the past believed that objects in motion tended to slow down "because they got tired," yet that was proven to be false as well.  The Sun once revolved around the Earth too.  So how can we, even with our "advanced technologies" now, proclaim anything to be scientific fact?  Weren't the technologies of the time considered "advanced" as well?  And won't science 50 years in the future look upon things differently than they do now?  Even scientific principles from 20 years ago are being disproved or rescinded all of the time (anyone remember Global Cooling?).  Isn't it a little arrogant for those making these claims to say that they know these things with certainty?  We just don't have all of the information that it takes to make decisions, and we can't ever assume that we do.

Everyone is free to make any claim they wish, but it ought to be done with a caveat: "as far as we know," or "as the evidence suggests," and those making them ought to be willing to at least hear out their ideological opponents, consider their arguments, and even consider that there might be answers other than those on the table.   People have the right to view others as morons if they wish, but for new policies and laws to be put into place based solely on one side of an argument, where the opposing argument is dismissed without being entertained, is just asinine.