Slashdot

There was recently an article describing Pirate Bay's wish to encrypt all traffic by default. After writing a comment about how to solve the privacy problem presented by application ports, I got to thinking: Why would I want to facilitate the distribution of illegal material by making it technologically more difficult for police to prove their cases?

The thing is that, right now in this article, we're talking about copyright violation and how Pirate Bay wants to help its users avoid getting sued. However, the term "illegal" applies to much more than just copyright violation or kiddie porn.

I think my doubt came out of the idea that legality is somehow confused with morality -- an idea that must be summarily rejected on principle. After all, here in the US, we have laws that go against certain religious principles. An example would be anti-polygamy laws and polygamist sects of major religions. Polygamy, for those people and people in other nations of the world is a perfectly acceptable and harmless part of society. So just in this one example, we have a case where the morality of a very large number of people would be in opposition to a certain set of laws.

Another huge example has to do with dictatorships and authoritarian governments who restrict the flow of ideas and information by making them illegal. Take for example the Great Firewall of China, which is used to restrict the flow of potentially subversive ideas into the country. Should the Chinese people be subject to these free speech restrictions? We in America and most of the West consider free speech as paramount in our cultures, but in China, free speech is illegal. We in the West would encourage Chinese to visit a blog where "subversive" democratic and capitalist ideas are discussed, but the Chinese government would probably arrest these people. So again, another disconnect between morality and legality. Whose morality? Whose legality? It depends on your perspective.

The point is that it's in the best interest of humanity to ensure that communication channels are as open as possible, regardless of "legality." Does this mean that some of them will be used for some sort of "universally immoral purposes"? Yeah, it'll always happen that way. However, the pros will always outweigh the cons when it comes to protecting the privacy of communication channels.

The inalienable right to free speech is absolutely required if you want to avoid the exercise of the right to bear arms. Oppressive governments making immoral laws should never be able to subvert the free exchange of ideas through use of threats to the person. To that end, technology and technologists must do their part to ensure that technology remains as neutral to "legality" and "morality" as possible.

For the police's part, they are still free to use other methods -- seizing specific computers, subpoenas of server logs, etc. However, the transport should never be subject to mass violation of privacy. It's too easy to spread a net over an entire population.

When I'm not working for someone full time, I run a small consulting business. To keep my records straight, I've been developing a books and records system in Postgres and PERL, with a dash of Ruby. It currently supports, to varying degrees of completeness:

• Bank account records for multiple accounts (works very well)
• Expense report tracking
• Customizable CSV generation from any table in the database using arbitrary SQL filters in the form of a quick-n-dirty extract script.
• A data loader that can load schedules of days worked, invoices, and bank transactions using a CSV file. This makes it easy to format everything in a spreadsheet and then just load it all into the system.
• Simple PDF invoice generation.
• Multiple concurrent contracts at daily or hourly rates.
• Multiple employees
• Running calculation of bank account balance by posting date
• Simple time clock web app that can be hit from mobile phones to "punch in" or "punch out". This page can be put on a public web server, and there's a script to download the punches from the server to the main database.
• Automatic categorization of income and expenses based on patterns. As bank statements are loaded, the description is scanned for patterns, and a category is assigned if the pattern is recognized. For example, if the description contains "Shell Oil", the category would be assigned to "Fuel Expenses".

It's not complete by any stretch, but what it does, it does pretty well. The core functionality, invoicing and tracking bank accounts and credit cards, it does very well. There's no user interface apart from scripts, and parts of it definitely need some TLC.

That said, I think it's a great start for someone who's running a services-based shop who wants to have a books and records system that is totally open and expandable to their needs. If you think you'd be interested in trying out some software along these lines, please let me know. I can put the code up on Google Code for you to try out.

I read an fairly entertaining article today that coincided with a line of thought I'd had just hours before. The relevant part of that page is as follows:

Classic Handshake

Ah, the defacto male greeting. Yes, females use it too, but it's usually JUST a greeting if done by or to a female. The male handshake, however, is rife with subtlety and subtext, depending on point of contact, grip, pressure, length of duration, and the stature and status of the two parties involved.

This could really be an entire article unto itself, and probably one day will be. But for now, I'll touch on some of the more prominent components of a male-male handshake and their associated meanings:

• Hand Placement: Deep-set hand placement, where the webbing between the thumb and forefinger is set as close as possible to the same on the other male's hand, indicates a general respect for people. It shows that one's father showed them how to give a proper handshake. The further back the hand is set when the grip is closed, the less respect you apparently have for the person you are shaking hands with (and for most people in general).
• Pressure: Pressure equals confidence. The more pressure applied to a grip, the more confience the male is presuming to communicate they possess. Not enough pressure, and you are seen as weak. Too much pressure, and you are seen as overbearing and boorish, overcompensating for something. A firm handshake, where pressure is applied by both parties so as to create an equilibrium, indicates confidence on both sides.

I don't know whether it's just the people I interact with, or whether it's the area in which I live, but it seems that the importance or significance of a handshake has been completely lost on an entire generation of people. Most handshakes now are limp-wristed, two-finger versions that give the impression that it was a waste of the other person's effort, and that I should be honored that they even bothered.

Maybe it's old fashioned of me at the wise old age of 28, but when I meet a man who can't give a proper handshake, I write them off almost immediately. I'm not talking about those screwed-up handshakes where somehow you don't connect properly, I'm talking about the ones where you can see the other person couldn't have cared less and put zero effort into a simple show of respect. It says a lot about a person, their upbringing, and their attitude on life.

There are exceptions, I guess, mainly to do with other cultures. I've noticed that Indians and Latinos don't seem to put the same stock into it. I don't know if their cultures place the same significance into the gesture, or if it's even a part of their culture at all or simply something they learned in dealing with Americans. That said, any man who grew up in America should know and understand this simple gesture and what it says about him.

Anyway, I'd be interested to hear the opinions of other Slashdotters on this topic. Is it a dying gesture that shouldn't carry the weight I give it? Does it convey exactly what I think it does: a total lack of respect and effort on the part of younger people? You tell me.

I've never understood banks. I work in banks, I'm a customer of banks, and I guess I have a fairly good understanding of the banking industry. Here's what I don't understand, though, with this mortgage crisis/banking crisis thing going on.

1. Banks do stupid things, like lend money to people who can't possibly pay it back (By the way, it's not just mortgages. See "credit cards for illegal immigrants." now that many of them are packing up and going home voluntarily or otherwise.)
2. Banks get surprised when they don't get paid back.
3. Banks start worrying about the quarterly report and lay off workers to compensate. Bonus points for doing it during the holiday season.
4. Banks raise interest rates on adjustable mortgages to try to compensate for their losses.
5. Laid-off workers now can't pay their mortgages. Go to 2.
6. Homeowners with massively higher-than-expected payments now can't pay them back, even if they weren't particularly "high risk" to begin with. Go to 2.

Maybe that's a little oversimplified, but seriously, WTF?

Is it just me, or are banks making a bad situation worse by pulling down people who were otherwise doing fine and making them part of the problem instead?

We've seen the ripple effects these bad mortgages have on the industry. Fixed income instruments like bonds and mortgage-backed securities are supposed to be the tree when you're going out on a limb. They've turned out to be a tree that's dead and rotting, and a lot of people find themselves out on that limb holding termite-ridden sawdust. The ripple effects happen when one party is legally (contractually) obligated to cover someone else's bad bets. Chances are in times like these that they will be obligated to cover a LOT of bad bets. If they're unable to pay, everyone starts losing money.

For the car analogy, think auto insurance. You fully insure your $80,000 car: liability, collision, comprehensive, act of God, the works. You go out driving and total it while doing 110 in a 35. You walk away without a scratch, thinking "Damn, I'm glad I'm fully insured." When you make your claim, you find out that, unbelievably, 25 million other careless, drunken bastards crashed their $80,000 car that very same day, and they all have the same insurance company. Your insurance company now needs to pay out $2,000,000,000,000 ($2 trillion) within the next month. They file for bankruptcy and refuse to pay.

You and 25 million others are now out $80,000 for that car, even though you thought you were paying to be covered against exactly this situation. Worse, because 25 million people are now out looking for that same $80,000 car, the price has gone up to $110,000. If you want to buy that car any time in the near future, you're out $30k more due to market forces. Some people are actually paying this premium, but to do so, they can no longer put in that heated pool they were planning. There's your ripple effect. The market for pools was affected by a bad car insurance company, AND the cost of fixing the original problem has also gone up.

To make matters worse, the banking industry is now selling significant stakes to China and the Arab countries (See Morgan Stanley, Citibank, Bear Stearns, Merrill Lynch, for example). Not only does this put the country's financial system at risk of foreign influence, it also means that larger percentages of profits will be flowing overseas to these countries. That means less money (investment, employment) here at home.

All of this has detrimental effects on the overall economy, and it causes itself to get worse. When will people who call the shots decide that they need to stop exacerbating these issues by looking short term? Laying people off by the thousands doesn't help medium or long term, nor does selling controlling stakes overseas. It only buys short-term solutions at the expense of creating future problems.

Some analysts are calling what's happening as the makings of another Great Depression, Dust Bowl style. Only time will tell if that's true. For now, it sounds a bit alarmist, but we haven't yet been treated to the sheer selfishness of modern Corporate America. If you think they're bad when times are good, or even just "okay", wait til you see 'em when the excrement really hits the ventilation device.

This has got to be one of the more insightful AC posts I've read in a long time.

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=299321&cid=20628891

While he was ok through the first half of the post, I really keyed in when he started talking about politics and the total apathy of GenX and GenY. He's right, really, and he's the first one to put to words what I've been noticing.

• All politicians are old. Even Obama is no spring chicken. He just looks it compared to the rest of Congress.
• Gen X/Y tends to despise politics. It's not only apathy, but total disdain for the political process.
• Most politicians do not represent me. I've never identified with Democrats. I used to be a Republican, but I'm totally disgusted with them. They don't represent me anymore, and I have very few other choices. I vote, but it's a protest vote thrown to Constitutional and Libertarian candidates if I can find them.

I think politics have gotten too political. I know that makes no sense at first, but what I mean is that politicians have stopped trying to solve actual problems and have begun just trying to stay in power and take as much money as possible while there. Dems and Reps don't work together or see any common ground -- even where there is some. It's Us vs. Them in all things. We've forgotten that Us and Them are all "Us". We're all Americans, and this internal bitch-fighting is getting ridiculous.

Certainly in a country as powerful and rich as this, there will never be a lack of people who want to take the reigns. But, when the time comes, how much experience will they have? What will be their motives? Will they have any track record at all when every baby boomer in Congress retires?

I'm just disgusted with the state of politics, and, being born in 1979 and technically an X'er, I can understand why many of gen X and Y just stay the hell out of it. It's gotten stupid, and we've got more interesting things to do. Unfortunately, that attitude only guarantees that we'll never be adequately represented in government, and that we'll always be run by our parents' generation until they've all gone on to their respective nursing homes.