Assembler is not an easy language to write in. Writing realtime engineering models in assembler is especially tough. Those who can do it tend to be severely left-brained. That means the code comes out ugly, with little aesthetic appeal.
My job right now, 5 days before Christmas, is to re-write several thousand lines of such ugly code into C as a part of upgrading an obsolete system. Today, I came across an exception. The code in question was well written, handling some particularly tricky I/O functions. It contained no kludges, no unnecessary branches, no unused variables. The traditional niceties were all observed: Entry points and external references were all declared at the top, and at the bottom, the local terms were properly followed by the local structures.
At the bottom of the code was the following comment:

* THIS PROGRAM IS DEDICATED TO A *
* VERY SMALL SOUL, WHO WAS BROUGHT *
* INTO THIS WORLD WITH EVERY THING *
* AGAINST IT. HE WAS A BRAVE LITTLE *
* FIGHTER, BUT THE ODDS WERE TOO *
* GREAT. HE WILL BE MISSED BUT I AM *
* A BETTER PERSON FOR KNOWING HIM. *
* THANK YOU FOR THE CHANCE TO KNOW *
* YOU BITSY. *

The code is not attributed to any author. It has not been modified in at least ten years. My job for today was to eliminate this code from existence. But I will not eliminate the memorial for that unknown soul. It will remain here, and the new code will have the same dedication.

(Comment corrected by "copy & paste" on 12/22/2003)

When the courts (I forget at which level) recently made some decision regarding gay marriages (I forget exactly what they decided), someone at work asked if I thought gay marriages should be legal. I had a double answer that the person found so surprising they didn't really believe it. I said, "One, it is almost legal already, in all 50 states, and B>, Banning gay marriage is Unconstitutional"

I asked her, "What are the first three words of the Constitution?" She gave me a blank stare (Cut her some slack - she's foreign born.). I said "We the people". I gave her this thought experiment:

See that empty cubicle there? Let's say two people worked there. Every day they go to lunch together. They agree to do this, and they don't include us. Is it any of our business?
She said whose?
I said, you and I - is it any of our business if those two people in the next cubicle go to lunch together without us?
She said, no.

If they decide to go have a beer together after work every night, is that our business?
She said no again.
OK, If they decide to sleep together every night, is THAT our business?
Again, no.

OK, If they're sleeping together every night, and they're the same sex, is it our business then?
She said, but don't you think that...
I rudely interrupted - Is it our business, yes or no?
She said, well, I guess not.

I said, you and I, we are the "We The People" the constitution is talking about. And if it's not our business, we shouldn't be telling people not to do it.

---------

Now, a little anal-retentive blathering about the details of what the constitution says, and why I said the two things up at the top:

First, I'm just a blabbermouth, not a lawyer. Don't take this as legal advice, or even a good idea. It's just my IANALysis.

Almost legal? How's that?
Well, marriage has three main parts, in the eyes of the law: First, the social contract. That is, the moral, religious and emotional commitment. The law has nothing to say on this, and cannot. The heart is beyond the reach of the courts.

Next, the fiduciary responsibilities. In Texas, this means: What either obtains while married belongs equally to both. What either had BEFORE marriage still belongs to that one person. That includes both assets and liabilities. Gawd, you can believe I know this part. Well, nearly all of family law can be "cut and pasted" into a contract. After all, a contract is basically a law between the parties that agree to it and sign on the dotted line. So cut and paste all this into a contract. There ya go - it's now legal, between two guys or between two gals. Hell, why stop at two? Two of either and more of any...add anything but animals. (Animals can not enter into contracts)

Third, the kids. This is where gay marriages are left out. The law (of Texas, anyway, not sure about other states) recognizes only the blood kin or the legally adopting parents of the children when determining custody. There's probably some other provisions, but definitely, parents by blood or by adoption have first claim, and they must be proven incompetent before other people, including gay partners, can step in. This is my understanding, it may be wrong or incomplete! Until cloning is perfected, the marriage law must change for there to be anything like equal treatment for both parents in a gay marriage.
OK, so that's how gay marriage is "almost legal" already. Just write a contract in leiu of existing law. Include large chunks of the Texas family code, and you're there (almost).

Banning gay marriage is Unconstitutional? Huh? First, read the Const, Article 4, section 1:
"Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State."
This sentence in the constitution is why you can be single and drunk in Vegas and hungover and married when the plane lands back in New York. The public acts referenced here include marriage - if you're married in one state, you're married in the other 49. It's also why state decisions on gay marriage have such import - As soon as one state legalizes gay marriage, gay marriage will be legal in all 50. There have been too, too many court decisions making a deadbeat spouse live up to marital responsibilities for any conservatives to wiggle out of this one.

Now read on to The 14th Amendment:
"...nor shall any state ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. "

Equal means all persons treated the same. Laws against gay marriages are saying, in effect, "Persons WITH these combinations of characteristics can legally marry, BUT persons WITHOUT these characteristics CAN't legally marry". See how this law treats people differently? Separate but equal, is that the way it should be? It don't work for race, it don't work for gender.

Now don't post or email any flames about being gay or a gay lover. I'm neither. I love the constitution, though, and I hate seeing it get twisted because of some people's personal needs to control others unjustly.

OK, so you've read my posts, but you're wondering, "What's this guy really like? Is all that stuff he put down just a buncha baloney, or is he really the one?" So here's my own made up questionaire (and answers marked with '*') so you can get an idea of what my problem really is:
Social Awareness:

1. When serving prime rib:
   A> The defibrillator goes on the right
   B> * Invitations to PETA should be sent "RSVP"
   C> The plate should be made of metal to hold a steak big enough for me.
   D> How dare you kill that poor defenseless cow!
2. You're dancing the Lambada to Lawrence Welk's rendition of "Wild Thang". Someone bumps into you and knocks your partner down. You should:
   A> Fall down with her. (And continue dancing horizontally)
   B> Switch partners with the clumsy oaf.
   C> * Steal the oaf's shoes and wallet.
   D> Step on your partner.
3. You receive a wedding invitation from your Ex's new partner, but your Ex isn't one of the two people getting hitched. You should:
   A> Go into a jealous rage.
   B> Send a gift to your Ex's address, clearly marked to the happy couple.
   C> Take your Ex as your date.
   D> * Offer to be the entertainment at the Bachelor and/or Bachelorette party.

General Knowledge:

1. Who Is George W Bush?
   A> A naturalist who likes small plants so much he changed his name.
   B> Soon to be a part of history...
   C> An unsuccessful match from Match.com
   D> * Member of the Jamican Olympic Luge team
2. I think the Iraq War was/is:
   A> Entirely justified
   B> Entirely unjustified
   C> An inescapable nightmare no matter how you look at it.
   D> * All of the above
3. What color is brown?
   A> Chartreuse
   B> * 42
   C> Between giraffe and the orbit of Mars.
   D> Uh....

Professional Skills:

1. When it comes to computers:
   A> Yeah Linux! Go Penguin! Death to Microsoft!
   B> I really wish the cupholder didn't automatically slide in when I reboot.
   C> I had to install a new 60 gigabyte harddrive when Napster started up again.
   D> * I have a USB port installed under my left ear.
2. My career:
   A> * Is completely and accurately documented in "Dilbert".
   B> I am the ruler of all I survey (I work in a darkened closet)
   C> I slept my way to the top.
   D> Stuck at the "Fries" station.
3. My job is:
   A> * Technical.
   B> Medical
   C> Menial
   D> Dreadful
4. I am:
   A> Really good at what I do.
   B> Really confused about what I do.
   C> On my company's "rehab probation" program.
   D> * an alien on vacation.

Miscellaneous:

1. My favorite video game is:
   A> Duke Nukem Forever Whenever
   B> Laser tag
   C> * Shopping for new electronics
   D> Pong
2. My favorite outdoor activity is:
   A> * Camping in a state park
   B> Camping under a state bridge
   C> * Sex
   D> Loud but not sex.
3. I want to:
   A> Mash lips with you.
   B> Win the lottery
   C> Win the lottery again.
   D> * All of the above.

Much has been made of Vivendi (or CNet's ) decision to scuttle the contents of the MP3.COM archive when it is sold to CNet. Some claim it a great loss, CNet says they don't have the space, etc. One must examine the Darwinian aspects of the event and its environment to understand why this decision is absolutely necessary for the survival of Download.com, MP3.com's eventual destination.
Darwin tells us that we only survived because some ancient hominid realized that pointy hand-held rocks equal sharp fangs when applied in the correct manner. Further, some of those hominids themselves failed Darwin's challenge when other hominids trumped the pointy hand-held rock with a pointy hurled rock.
Time went by, and the hominds (Gutenberg, to be exact) invented an information revolution with the invention of the printing press. Unloosing data in this way attacked the very foundations of the existing economic system. Trade secrets became public knowledge; warezs that had once been valuable proprietary products became cheap commodities. And ultimately, laws were created that established the public commons, copyrights and patents to protect the new economic system from chaos. It should be noted, however, that the new economies had to win the war before legal protections were put in place. Power had to shift from the old to the new.
Where ... Oh, yes, the RIAA and the information revolution. Not that one, the current one. We are beginning to see the same effect here, as other more able writers have explained before. This is not news to any of us, by now. The RIAA is hurling their pointy lawyers at their enemies. Darwin's theory is still in effect, however. Other hominids have invented pointy sticks that can be thrown much farther, in the form of globe-spanning information sharing.
Which brings us to MP3.com's huge pile of pointy sticks. The RIAA's pointy lawyers are of course still potent weapons, and can be used if any of the MP3 pile is not solidly encased in the modern era's legal protections. The quest to vet one million files for hidden pointy rocks is both impractical, and pointless. Since CNet has not had control of the process of obtaining the mp3's, CNet can not be sure that legal accountability has been correctly assigned to the uploader. In all likelihood, the pointy sticks are all of different shapes and sizes, having been uploaded under a set of rules that evolved over time. This increasing risk of liability, along with the RIAA's rabid rampaging, may have been a factor in the decision to sell mp3.com in the first place.
So the hominids evolve a little bit, and invent a new method of making RIAA-killing pointy sticks. But the ones already in place are at risk; they were not made correctly. The RIAA's sharp pointy lawyers may be able to use them against the new owner of mp3.com. Destroying mp3.com, whether the old or the new, would be a key victory in the RIAA's war to prevent the information revolution from moving forward. As has been said elsewhere, this database is the largest collection of digital works ever assembled. Destroying it would be akin to the burning of the Library of Alexandria. And it would assure the RIAA of considerable more time to evolve a better pointy rock.
By emptying the database preemptively, CNet assures that the new pointy-stick-making method (New upload procedures and legal waivers) will assure that the next one million works will be proof against the RIAA's attacks. Darwin will rule, mp3.com will survive, and the RIAA will be one step closer to extinction..

When the US constitution was written, there were many rights taken away from the government and given to the people. The founders were wise to the ways of government, and did their level best to make sure the government would not take them away, using words like "inalienable" and "shall not be infringed".
Most these rights have finally been fully eroded away. The US is no longer under the control of its people, or of its constitution.
Examples: "The right to keep and bear arms...shall not be infringed". Keeping and bearing are two different things. "Bearing" means carrying. I can't carry any weapons without being imprisoned. How can anyone say this right hasn't been "infringed"? It's been REVOKED completely. Why do I want to carry a weapon? Because the US courts have decreed that the police are NOT responsible for protecting people, that "law enforcement" means trying to catch the guy that killed you, not preventing your murder in the first place.
"Secure from unreasonable search"...but now the police can monitor all my activities, online or off. My house can be searched without a warrant. Where does "reasonable" enter into this?
But what I'm really worried about - big business in the US is exporting its totalitarian ideals to every industrialized nation. Stupid, unconstitutional laws like the DMCA have their counterparts being pressed forward in any country with equivalent industries. China loves us for this - we're developing the legal and digital technologies that will enable them to finally, once and for all, obliterate any dissension within their borders. And we're testing it out on ourselves first, then freely exporting it to any interested parties.
Within five years, the US will be a police state equal to or worse than any envisioned by the darkest political writers of the twentieth century.
The twenty first century will be the century that re-introduces corporate-backed slavery to the US.
And like the slavery of old, it will taken centuries and bloody warfare to win our freedoms back again.

{Begin political RANT:}
Someone commented to me: "I wonder what he's done that so bad really" about Saddam Hussein.
First, on a side note - a pet peeve about the way the US is treated in foreign affairs. We're blamed for screwing up Vietnam - but the Chinese invaded first (even before the French, then again after!). We're blamed in part for the mess in Afghanistan - but the Russians invaded first. We supplied weapons to the natives to throw out the invader. But somehow, now, we're responsible for how they screwed up their country once they got it back. We're blamed when we get involved. We're blamed when we don't get involved.
And now, finally, because we let them express their hatred their way, and we left them alone, 3000 Americans are dead. Well, if the problem won't stay over there, if it comes over here, we'll go and solve it - our way.

End side note, now on to the main Rant:
I am not advocating war against Iraq. IMHO, there's probably no way to do it that won't lead to WW III. But I'm also not sure that NOT going to war will avoid a regional war. The Arab countries are full of hate towards us - and realistically, most of it is based on THEIR unwillingness to live in peace with culturally diverse indigents. It's not the Jews fault - The Taliban destroyed Buddhist shrines in Afghanistan too.

And So-Damn-Insane is a particularly nasty example of this kind of character - He's psychotic by any rational standard. He has committed murder in front of witnesses for political reasons. He also had his own brother in law executed (also political). These events have been documented by the UN - hardly a US-friendly group when it comes to human rights issues.
What So-Damn-Insane has also done that is so bad:

• Invaded two neighboring countries (Iran and Kuwait) on trumped-up excuses.
• Attacked a third country (Israel) in order to expand his war against Kuwait into a wider regional conflict (with the US on the "bad" side).
• Very nearly attacked a fourth country (Saudi Arabia), also with provocation. I've seen the satellite photos that were declassified from late 1990. If they are to be believed, most of Iraq's forces in Kuwait, immediately after the invasion, were massed at the border to Saudi Arabia. It certainly appears US forces, as a deterrent, got there just in time.
• Used poison gas on the Iranians and on his own people.
• Assassinated many political and military leaders in his own country.
• Sponsored with money, facilities, equipment, land, transportation, logistics, and paper deniability a BUNCH of terrorists.
• Like the Saudi and Egyptian governments, he gives money to the families of suicide bombers. Not just a tithe to help console them - he makes them RICH (by the economic standards of the region).
• He has stated again and again his wish to destroy USA, and has encouraged in his speeches attacks on Americans worldwide.

The "Pearl Harbor" analogy to Sept 11 is very valid - those who attacked us were almost certainly supported by a soveriegn government bent on destroying Americans - and that is an act of war. In a very real sense, we are at war whether Congress declares war or not.
Evidence is slowly being made public that implicates Iraq, Iran and Saudi Arabia. (Opinion: I suspect these last two countries were supporting the organizations responsible, but had no information as to the extent of the attacks that were planned. My guess is that Iraq is in it up to here.)

In short, the number of Americans that Saddam has killed is limited only by his ability to get at us without facing the ultimate reprisal. Which it looks like he may be facing pretty soon, anyway.

Another side note: Given that Congress has passed the War Powers act, and the executive branch has not challenged it in court. The president is currently considering something that would have been unspeakable before 9/11: He is considering the premeditated, preemptive overthrow of a sovereign nation using US military forces. If this does not require Congress to declare war, then the Constitution's clause that says only Congress may declare war is meaningless. If Congress does not either declare war or stop the war from happening, then Congress is derelict in its constitutional duty, and the duty self-imposed by the War Powers Act, in controlling the president's unlimited use of military force. A "resolution" won't do: Congress must support the Constitution and declare war, or enforce the Constitution and pass legislation or file a lawsuit and stop the war before it starts. What Congress appears to be gearing up to is fence-sitting by "supporting the president" but not actually declaring war. Yes, this is all moot to the situation now, but it allows a dangerous precedent to escalate - if Congress sits on the sidelines on this one, then Congress is admitting its has no teeth in limiting the president's use of force.

What's changed, not to put too fine a point on it, is Sept 11. If we don't go to war over this, we're just inviting everything from purse snatching to foreign invasion. We must act overwhelmingly because, to terrorists, negotiation is for the weak. "Negotiation is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until your hand finds a big enough rock." (I forget who said that). Violence is a language the terrorists DO understand.
Anti-US rhetoric has been used by totalitarian regimes ever since WW II - we've been blamed for everything that goes wrong around the world. True - US is no innocent, just by the fact of having the biggest economy. If you're an 800-lb gorilla, you're gonna step on toes no matter how careful you are. But the US hasn't had the time or resources to do everything bad we've been accused of by govt's like Cuba, Libya, etc. (One time, Kaddhafi said we might invade Arab countries because we wanted their high quality camel's milk, sand, and watermelons. Quite frankly, until he said that, I had never thought of camel's milk as a critical commodity. Maybe I'll have to try some and see what's it all about. Anyway, This was YEARS after we bombed his terrorist training camps.
See the exact text translated to English: Turkish Daily News) This is just one example how dictators blame the USA, or "the West" as a way of externalizing problems that are really self-inflicted.

I just pray that Dubya's as good a diplomat as his daddy was - and has a team of diplomats that are able to prevent Dubya's war from becoming a world war.
{End Political Rant}