Social Gaming Takes Another Step

Target will be the first retailer to sell Facebook Credits in its stores come Sunday. The Facebook Credits gift cards will be available in $15, $25 and $50 denominations at all 1,750 Target locations and at Target.com. (Mashable)

When I read this yesterday, my first question was why? The answer I received was "what do you mean, why? huge revenue potential. huge. holiday gift cards are big business. social gaming is big business." This caused me to pause a moment. And that moment lasted more than a moment.

Maybe it is because I come from a different generation. I grew up playing sports, on teams and as an individual, against other people, in real time on a field of grass, outside under a blue sky. Hey, we used to sweat on each other sometimes. Or, as a competitive swimmer, I would compete against them in a pool. To borrow a phrase, we could see the whites of their eyes. I grew up playing Dungeons and Dragons. Laugh all you want about geeks in a basement, but these geeks were socializing, using their brains. Sure it was not always as physical as when we were banging heads on the football field, but we were socializing, face-to-face. Even today, with all of the various on-line poker games that are available to me, I would much rather sit down at a table of complete strangers and play a few hands than stare for hours (OK, minutes) at a video screen.

I have a number of friends. Some I only know through the Internet and I have been on it a long time. And I can assure you that knowing someone on-line leaves a lot to be desired. You really do not know them. You do not know what they sound like, how they react, who they are. I have been fortunate enough to meet a number of them face-to-face and get to really know them better. I wish I had the opportunity to do that will all of my on-line friends, but because of cost, distance or other reasons, I know that I will not get to meet them all.

Almost a year ago, I wrote about Social Media, or more correctly, my increasing disillusionment with it, especially Facebook. I am more convinced than ever that closing my Facebook account was exactly the right thing to do. Target's decision to sell credit gift cards convinces me even more. I played Farmville, for all of about 10 minutes and all it did was convince me that I really should reinstall SimCity on my system.

I see two dangers with these cards. The first is people converting money into...I do not even know what to call it other than air (flushing it down the drain would be what our parents would say) without even the tangible benefit of something to show for it, just so they can purchase a virtual sledgehammer, or pig, or what have you. In Las Vegas, they convert your money into tokens (chips) because of the physiological impact losing real dollars at the tables tends to reduce the actually betting. But at the end of the day, if you win, you have the option of reconverting these tokens into dollars and taking your winnings home with you. Does Facebook intend to do the same thing?

The second thing that concerns me is that there are a number of people, so addicted to these games, that they will go out and spend the money on these gift cards. And more money. And more money. And in the end you have accomplished what? You have what to show for it?

In Las Vegas (and other places) it is called gambling and there are very tight rules and regulations, imposed by the State and Federal Government on what you can and cannot do. What do we call these social games? I mean other than a money making engine for Facebook. If this does not concern you, it should. And like me, you should be asking more than just why?

The Beginning Of The End Of Air Travel?

ROMULUS, Mich. (AP) - An attempted terrorist attack on a Christmas Day flight began with a pop and a puff of smoke - sending passengers scrambling to tackle a Nigerian man who claimed to be acting on orders from al-Qaida to blow up the airliner, officials and travelers said. (WTOP)

Before we start bashing the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), which you know I have very little trouble doing, we need to look at some facts:

1) The flight originated in Amsterdam. That is in Europe for the average, geographically challenged American, and they follow a different security regime than the TSA follows here in the United States. I would normally have said it is more stringent and in reality it probably is.

2) This nut job carried an explosive in a small quantity through a checkpoint. In actuality he could probably have carried it through a US checkpoint just as easily as they screen for metal and large concentrations of explosives, which does not sound like what he was carrying

3) It does not take even the most inventive mind to circumvent the security procedures. It is pointless to point out how silly the 3oz rule is and how easy it is to circumvent if you really want to. Similarly, it is easy, if you are willing to go down with the aircraft, to bring down an airplane with the basic tools on board. Again, I do not need to go into details - any good search of the web and a couple of episodes of Mythbusters can tell you all you need to know.

Now, if we follow the bouncing ball, I am afraid it goes to some pretty ugly places. To start with, if you are flying to anywhere over the next 48-72 hours, I would tell you to expect worse security procedures than you have seen since they banned liquids at the checkpoints. If you normally allow two hours for security, you might want to make that four hours. And if you are traveling with inexperienced travelers, might I suggest the train?

What is more depressing about this breach, is not that it happened. TSA has been dinged for security breaches almost weekly it would seem by the GAO and the Congress and their own Inspector General, but that it happened on a plane, coming into the United States and it made the press, so now not only does TSA have to do something about it in the way of making sure it never happens again, but so does every other security agency in the Western world. And what do you think they are going to do to prevent this sort of thing from happening again?

If past history is any indication, it cannot be anything that the traveling public will consider positive.

- Following September 11, 2001, the Federal Government decided that the minimum wage, minimally screened private security screeners at the Nation's airports were not doing a good enough job, so they were replaced with a brand new bureaucracy of minimum wage, minimally screened federal employees. Forget for the moment that the hijackers were, up until the moment of the actual attack not violating any provisions of the security checkpoints. Forget for the moment that in the late 1980s it had been recommended by the NTSB and the FAA that all cockpits be locked from take-off until landing and the recommendations where never implemented. But hey, it improved security so it must be a good thing!

- For Reed, the shoe bomber they took away our shoes. Now we have to remove them and send them through the x-ray machine. Not a real problem if you are in good shape and wear slip-ons when you travel (and frankly, can you afford not to be spry and wear slip-ons to travel anymore?). If you are slightly infirm, the process of getting out of your shoes and back into them can cause backups. But hey, it improved security so it must be a good thing!

- For the liquid bombers, in the UK they actually went so far as to ban carry-on baggage for a short period of time, but the end result was that you could no longer carry liquid of more than three ounces per bottle per gallon bag through the check point. Of course, this also resulted in higher food prices behind security for the vendors and the now irreversible checked bag fee that you could go so far as to claim is sexist because most men can travel with a tube of toothpaste and some shaving cream and call it done while most women cannot travel with less than three ounces of anything, and since most premium manufactures have not made travel sized bottles, women are kind of in a bind. But hey, it improved security so it must be a good thing!

- Lately, they have introduced back-scatter x-ray technology at some airports. These are the x-ray machines that essentially render you naked for a group of observers in a back room somewhere and verify that you are not carrying some sort of unknown powder strapped to your leg. Of course, these devices have a number of people upset, especially those who are concerned about their modesty, among other things, and those that are wondering, with good reason what happens to the images afterwords. While TSA assures us they are not going to keep them, anyone who believes this should read up on what the State Department is currently doing with those who snooped on passport applications of celebrities and other famous people. How much for a back scatter picture of Angelina Jolie? But hey, it improves security so it must be a good thing!

So where do we go from here? Assuming the US federal government can find a couple of billion dollars, and the companies that make back scatter machines can churn them out fast enough, that is a very good question. But here are some scenarios.

Ban it all: This is perhaps the most extreme form of response, but I am not discounting that it is being discussed at some levels. This is the Aeroflot model if you will. All passengers will be prohibited from taking anything on board the aircraft, including but not limited to personal clothing. You will be forced to strip down to bare skin, put on some sort of modesty covering and proceed to the waiting airplane. You will be allowed, in fact, enforced, to carry your identification with you, but everything else, wallet, jewelery, pants, hats, and shoes will go via some other mode. Do not expect to receive them at the end of your journey. And do not expect the airlines to start feeding you again either.

Ban Carry On: It is more likely that you will be forced to undergo some form of invasive examination, like a backscatter with a follow up cavity search, but you will be allowed to wear your own clothes onto the plane. You will not be permitted any carry on however. While this is a likely scenario, it is also the death knell of the airline business. The majority of money made by airlines is in business travel, and business travelers, not permitted to take laptops and roller bags will not travel. And let's face it, there are things I would not entrust to the goons who load the planes either and would only take by carry on. If that privilege was taken away, I would be looking for other ways to travel, or I just would not do it. Imagine what would happen to places like Hawaii who rely on the airplane for their tourists? Or Alaska?

Tighter Screening: I cannot imagine how much tighter the screening can get. Really. It is about as impersonal as it can get. It has become so arduous to travel by air that I refuse to do it unless I am being paid to. It is not worth the pain and suffering, the constant waiting and the scoping as if I were a criminal and the person searching me was the good guy. Based on the IG reports from TSA, you would not let the screeners at most airports look after your children, much lest trust them to pick out the good guy from the bad guy.

You cannot kill an ism Terrorism is as old as man and will continue as long as there is a cause to fight for and people to fight for it. Sadly, while the world has shrunk to the point that data can circumnavigate the globe in a matter of seconds, it will be decades, if ever, before the human population is able to travel freely from point to point like they used to. And that is the sad result.

UPDATE: I had forgotten about the stay in your seat rule, since it was only enacted when flying in or out of National Airport here in DC, but even then it was thirty minutes on either end...not an hour.

WASHINGTON (AP) - Some airlines are telling passengers that new security regulations prohibit them from leaving their seats beginning an hour before landing.(AP)

TORONTO — New restrictions on U.S.-bound flights are causing "very significant" delays and headaches for travelers at Canada's busiest airport Sunday...Among the stricter regulations are passengers are to have nothing on the lap and no moving around the flight cabin in the final hour before landing and only one carry-on is bag allowed.CP 24

New Security Rules Could Limit In-Flight Laptop Time December 26th, 2009 | by Adam Ostrow49 Airplane WiFi might be getting more prevalent on planes, but the amount of time you’re actually allowed to use your laptop and take advantage of it might be about to take a significant hit....The TSA has not posted specific new guidelines publicly yet, writing only that they are “working closely with federal, state and local law enforcement on additional security measures, as well as our international partners on enhanced security at airports and on flights.”

However, it appears that at least one of those measures involves no personal belongings on one’s lap in the last hour of flight, as a statement on Air Canada’s website reads:

“New rules imposed by the U.S. Transportation Security Administration also limit on-board activities by customers and crew in U.S. airspace that may adversely impact on-board service. Among other things, during the final hour of flight customers must remain seated, will not be allowed to access carry-on baggage, or have personal belongings or other items on their laps.” Mashable

Let's be clear here. So far, these new rules are for those poor souls traveling into the United States from other countries. If you are coming in from Europe or the Far East, saying in your seat for the last hour of the flight, while annoying, is not that much of a hardship. You have already had your work time and the battery on your laptop is already dead. But from countries like Canada and Mexico, it will but a significant crimp in traveling. I have already heard comments from travelers with children who are rethinking their trips to American destinations. Let's face it - if you have kids under the age of 18, keeping them in their seats is a full time occupation. Keeping them in their seats and not allowing them to have anything in their lap for more than half the flight is a non-starter. And remember, keeping them in their seat means not letting them go to the bathroom. There are many in the traveling public that are over the age of 18 that cannot be held to that rule, much less newly potty trained toddlers.

The point here is this. If these rules go into effect, it will not improve safety one little bit, and will make an already arduous travel experience that more difficult, which will have people start rethinking how they spend their vacation dollars and where they spend them. Look at what the slumping economy and the fall out from the Wall Street Fat Cats did to Las Vegas. Now start looking at places like Orlando and Anaheim. Do you think Disney and Universal Studios theme parks can survive if people will not travel to visit them? And that is the sort of traffic that is easy to gauge. This will impact business travel, convention travel, which is already hurting as anyone who has been to a convention lately can tell you, and casual travel.

I can only begin to wonder how many phones are ringing this morning with the following dialogue:

"Hello, your favorite tourist destination."
"Hello, this is Bill Smith, I want to cancel my reservation for the week of the 12th."
"Certainly Mr. Smith, can we reschedule that for you?"
"No, thank you."
"Alright and why are you canceling your reservation?"
"Because I don't feel like putting up with the airline security."

If you think I am kidding, keep an eye on the attendance records for Disney World over the next few months, and listen to the deals being offered by the Chamber of Commerce in places like Washington, DC, Honolulu Hi, Los Angeles, Ca, and San Diego, Ca. I do not think it will take long to register.

I do not normally cross post my blogs, but I thought this one merited it. I have posted this originally on the Linux Journal site.

A startling development is being reported by the BBC in the UK. It seems that the Internet Watch Foundation which looks like a quasi governmental organization, has taken offense with an album cover on Wikipedia and is “blocking” access to it. IWF claims it is an issue of child pornography, Wikipedia is calling it censorship.

This is a controversial issue and hardly one that is clear cut. First, let us look at the facts, such as they are.

The IWF manages a filter list that British ISPs utilize voluntarily (I think – it is hard to get a handle on it) that block access to “illegal” content. In this case, the IWF says that this album cover and associated text is “potentially illegal child sexual abuse image.”

The album is a 30 year old recording by the Scorpions called “Virgin Killer.” The album, released before the 1978 Protection of Children Act has already been modified once because the band was notified it might violate laws in some countries.

Wikipedia is upset because this is the first case where content on its site has been blocked in the UK and it feels it is being unfairly targeted because the album cover was still available as part of the band's box set and could be viewed on retail websites and When [Wikipedia] asked the Internet Watch Foundation why they blocked Wikipedia and not Amazon, apparently the decision was 'pragmatic', which we think means that Amazon had money and would sue them, whereas we're an educational charity.

I think Wikipedia has a case.

Let me state unequivocally that I am opposed to child pornography. There is no call for it. But we are in a sticky place with this cover. Is it art? Is it pornography? Is it legal? I am going to stay away from a discussion of the legal issues. That is way above my pay grade, and I expect that before this is done, the legal issues will have to be wrangled with. But I do need to address a couple of other issues, censorship of the net being only one of them.

As the representative from Wikipedia pointed out, this is a case of targeted blocking. As of the report, Amazon was not being blocked. Dozens of other questionable album covers were not being targeted, and he cited: Nirvana’s Nevermind, Eric Clapton’s Blind Faith, and Led Zeppelin’s Houses of the Holy as examples of covers that the IWF has not blocked.

The IWF, in its defense, said that it only acts on tips from the public and has to follow up each one. When questioned by the interviewer about why Amazon was not being targeted or why these other covers were not included, Ms. Robertson said that the IWF would have to review each case and would take up the issue each in turn.

Which begs the question. Either the people working at the IWF are clearly biased in what they consider to be pornography or they really are targeting those that cannot afford to defend themselves. To me this is another case of Big Brother stomping around and trying to dictate what I see and do not see.

For the record, I do not see anything particularly offensive about the cover. I do not know that I see anything particularly redeeming about it either. From the standpoint of blatant sexuality, I can cite a dozen different albums that are more pornographic. What disturbs me most however is that the IWF is starting to look a lot like the Moral Majority or the PMRC, trying to tell me what I can and cannot look at. And what is truly sad, is that we are talking about a record cover that is thirty years old, and has sold thousands of copies to date.

OK, fire away. I have my Nomex® on.

Who needs terrorists?

terrorism /0ˈtɛrərɪz(ə)m/ noun. [ORIGIN French terrorisme, from Latin terror: see terror, -ism.] Terrorist principles and practices; the unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims; the fact of terrorizing or being terrorized. [Oxford Dictionary]

Terrorism, of course, has two end results. The first is usually death or at least serious injury for a large number of disinterested or uninvolved people. The second is chaos and disorder.

Over the past couple of weeks here in Washington, DC, a city that has been identified by those that know better as one of the hot spots for potential terrorism, we have been going through our out level of chaos and disorder, brought on, not by Al-Queda, but by our own human frailties and general mismanagement of resources.

Over the past week, we have had massive storms, which have included micro-bursts and tornadoes, high, oppressive heat and humidity, resulting in temperatures around 100 degrees and a minor train derailment. All of these factors have lead to a week of long commutes in an area where commuting is a contact sport and people spend far too much time doing it, as well as scattered power outages across a while swath of the region. Sadly, many of the problems, resulting from this round of natural and man-made incidents could have easily been prevented with a little forethought.

For example. In the DC area, most of the wires that supply everything from power to Internet connections are above ground, surrounded by trees. As the first round of storms (and in fact the flooding rains we had last month) have show, trees fall down when subjected to sustained foul weather, whether that is rain or wind or both. When they fall, they tend to ignore everything that may be in their path between vertical and the ground, so as a result, they bring down power lines, many of which are secured to poles with little more than staples. Live power line on the ground cause injury and death and when they are severed, they case blackouts and failures. Sometimes this is to a house, a block or the city, depending on the grid and size of the outage. We also saw that trees, planted along the Metro (subway) lines (above ground) fell across the tracks, blocking train travel. In the name of cost savings, we continue to do it to ourselves.

If the last few weeks have proven anything, it is that Al-Queda really would not have to work all that hard to bring the Nations Capital to its collective knees. Whether that is a reflection on our shortsightedness or just our own hubris is yet to be seen.

This is not Iowa

On my way to work today, I encountered a new phenomenon. That of the lost tourist searching for the White House tours. Following September 11, the White House became a bunker. Only recently has it reopened to tours and only under some pretty strict rules. Today, I encountered people running (literally, in circles) around the perimeter of the complex asking everyone in sight (including the members of the Uniformed Secret Service, who, while polite, were not in the business of helping lost tourists) for help.

Now, DC is not all that tourist friendly. In fact, as the National Capital, it is almost hostile. The locals do not care that you are lost - despite the fact that most of them are lost too half the time and do not know where anything beyond their locality is.

The city is not really well marked. Sure, it has grand vistas (most of which do not exist any more because of building plopped in the middle, overgrown trees that either the city or the Park Service cannot afford to cut back, security bollards or fences that screen the view, or just the general lack of signage), so getting around is sometimes a challenge. But with all those faults, if you are coming to see the White House and have to be there at 0700 in the morning, would it not make sense that you should venture out the night before and find out exactly where you were supposed to go? They were all clutching letters that said which entrance and off of which street, so it was not a mystery, but it seems that looking up at signposts seems to be beyond their skill set.

In case you are wondering, yes, I pointed them in the right direction. No there is no sign that says "White House tours this way" and I only hope they had all the ID required of them in the letter, because some of them, frankly, looked like this was their first trip to a city of any size and in DC especially, if you cannot prove who you are, well, there are some imposing people with guns that will be happy to tell you to go away.

On Christendom

I wrote this in September of 2006...I still think it is relevant and I never posted it here.

I just read a very interesting (for lack of a better word) article (OnPoint) on a site that (no surprise) supports a sometimes radical view of the world. What struck me initially was this:

"The most critical question, and it remains an open question, is whether what remains of Christendom will defend itself or simply roll over and die."

While the author may think this is the most critical question, I heartily disagree. A much more critical question is: Is there a continued roll for religion, any religion, in its current form where the strong use it as a tool to dominate and intimidate the weak among the world's population?

I am not a big believer. Like Martin Luther, I see no value in organized religion. It serves me no purpose to go and sit in a building once a week and ask an icon for help that I am myself unable or unwilling to provide. I find little purpose in believing in something because someone tells me that I have to without producing a large degree of tangible evidence. The scientific method has stood the test of time (Aristotle's observations being some of the more well documented proof of this) and the ability to evolve and change ones mind based on new information is something that all humans share. But to take on faith the claptrap that surrounds modern religions is stretching the bounds of credulity.

Another sentence in the article that I have a problem with is this:

"It is improbable, to say the least, that any Western political leader will rally Christendom to defend itself."

Is this the job of a political leader? If Christendom is going to defend itself, a point that I would question, as the failure of the First and the Second Crusades pointed out quite strongly some 1000 years ago, it is not the job of a political leader but the Church, the soldiers of 'God' to defend it. The problem, however, is that most of the strongest of the soldiers have little power to convince the people in the decision making seats that defending Christendom is actually something worth doing. Now, it can be argued that the Religious Right in the United States is making great strides in dictating to the United States Government how they would like to see things done, but it is clear that the United States is rapidly becoming not only a pocket, isolated from the rest of the world view on this matter but also it is becoming clear within the country that the the goal of religion are not the goals of the American society in general for the very reasons that there is little value seen in defending Christendom.

It can be further argued that many Americans have abandoned all but a few hand selected tenants of the dictates that pass as the Christian religion, choosing those parts that make sense to them and abandoning those that do not. For the most part, the pieces that are selected are those that also tend to survive a strong philosophical examination as well. So the idea that murder is wrong is generally accepted while honoring your father and mother is less well accepted. What is strange about the current trend among those that consider themselves to be staunchly in the fold is the ability to completely ignore direct teachings (the "Golden Rule" jumps to mind) while misinterpreting others and we will not begin to discuss the whole coveting thy neighbour's wife (or thy neighbour). This then begs the question - Which form of Christendom are you going to defend?

War between culture have been occurring and will continue to occur long after the artificiality's of the state concept have faded into antiquity. Any scholar, whether historian, geographer or military leader will tell you that wars between cultures are not new, so to classify them as a Fourth Generation is simply misleading at best. They will mean as much or as little as the states and the citizens involved in the wars want them to mean. A state that is united can be as powerful or more powerful than any culture. It is when the state does not enjoy the full support of all of its cultures that it begins to have problems. A state that is comprised of a single culture will always be stronger than an agglomeration. Again, this is not new and this is a problem that the United States, despite its rhetoric of being a melting pot is going to have to come to grips with if it is going to continue to exist as a state able to wield influence in the world.

Talk Like a Pirate Day Mate!

The good captain must still be in his cups as to almost forget such a fine day as this. So hoist yer sails and turn yer back to the wind and don't forget m'harties to plunder first then burn! Arr. Hoist the Black Jack and lay in for Tortuga.

(Yes, it is Talk Like A Pirate Day again :-) Now wheres me wench and me rum?

September 11 - Are We More At Risk Today?

Today is September 11, 2007.

In 2001, I reported to work. It was not a normal day. I had my infant daughter in my arms and we were scheduled to perform a series of network tests. Otherwise, I would have been at home on my couch. When I arrived at the office, the first plane had hit the towers, but I was unaware of this because I had been listening to silly songs rather than the news. The IT team was glued to the web feed. The CIO was not amused about it and wanted us to get back to work. I was not sure what all the excitement was about either having just come in the door, but I was looking out the window from the sixth floor and could see what I later learned was the smoke from the Pentagon on the horizon. By lunch time, I was in my driveway with multiple radios. the county having lost phone service, my daughter playing in the grass under the tree. Four days later, I was down at the Pentagon, ready to lend my aid. Ironically, it was determined that my presence at a management seminar was a more important use of my time. This was not a determination I made, but was made for me by my employer. This was, perhaps, the first indication to me just how little the attacks truly meant to the county and explains why the nation as a whole, even today is not ready for another incident, but I will discuss that in a moment.

In August 2002, I went to Seattle, Washington to attend a friends wedding. While most of the East Coast was still talking about the events of the previous year, it was not even a topic of conversation in Seattle. What was ironic is most people associated Washington, DC with the Cherry Blossoms, not an airplane hitting the Pentagon. It was almost as if they did not even know that the Pentagon was near Washington, DC.

Today, six years later, the nation seems to have gone from a state of readiness to a state of laissez faire, more interested in what their government is prepared to do for them than the state of their own plans. And, sadly, the state of the government's plans is more interested in preventing things, in the name of security than they are about working towards effective preparation. It reminds me a lot of the sage wisdom in Frank Herbert's Dune. The United States has become very much like House Harkonnen while Al-Qaeda is following the path of House Atreides and their Fremen allies. When the Harkonnen go to ground, Paul Maud'Dib and Gurney Halleck are talking about the events.



Says Gurney "They say they've fortified the graben villages to the point where you [Paul] cannot harm them. They say they need only sit inside their defenses while you wear yourself out in futile attack."

"In a word," Paul said, "they're immobilized."

"While you can go where you will," Gurney said.

"It's a tactic I learned from you," Paul said. "They've lost the initiative, which means they've lost the war." (pg. 415)



While I am not saying that the United States has lost the war, it certainly has adopted a bunker mentality that seems to be more focused on preventing than it is on being prepared for it to happen again, which is most assuredly will.

In Sunday's Washington Post, in the Opinion section, Messrs. Keen and Hamilton, the Chairs of the 9/11 Commission Report asked the question "Are we safer today?" Their answer, which I happen to agree with, is no, but I think a better question is "Are we more at risk today?" This is less clear cut.

Clearly, many of the issues addressed in the 9/11 Commission report are still issues that need to be resolved. There are still a large core of young, predominantly male, Muslims that have no job, and no hope of betterment in the near future. This is further compounded by the power vacuum created by the United States invasions of both Afghanistan and Iraq and a failure, as pointed out by Michael Scheuer, of the intelligence community to check the checkables. The United States has invested large amounts of money into questionable policies and procedures that, while on the surface look like positive steps, begin to show cracks and serious failings as you dig deeper.

As an example, let us take air travel. For obvious reasons, this was one of the first targets for "improvement" following the events of September 11. The problem, and a question that still to my mind has not been answered satisfactorily, is how did the hijackers get into the cockpits in the first place? Remember that following the CIA shootings in Washington in the early 1990's the FAA ordered all cockpit doors to be secured at all times. This, to me raises some very serious questions about how seriously the current regulations are being taken if previous directives were ignored. Further, while the traveling public is all but stripped searched (and with the new back scatter devices being installed in select airports, you might as well be naked) before being allowed on an airplane, the cargo being loaded into the belly of the very same plane is barely looked at, besides making sure it is actually getting on the right aircraft. For those of you who follow this stuff, I am sure you are jumping up and down to point out my error. Sorry, but I am one step ahead of you. In August, what was HR-1 became Public Law 110-53 and ordered the screening of all cargo. As of today, that is not happening and under current TSA guidelines, most of that "checking" will be done by the air cargo carriers with random "enforcement" checks by TSA rather than formal TSA procedures. If you think for one minute this is an improvement over the current set of procedures, I have a genuine piece of the Pentagon to sell you. And it will be years, if not decades before the United States is capable of examining every rail, road and ship borne cargo brought into the United States.

On the home front, the Department of Homeland (In)security started several programs to enhance safety. These include the Ready program, RealID, National Incident Management System (NIMS), and HSPD-12. With the exception of NIMS, these programs are close to being outright failures.

The Ready Program is a great idea. While I think it tends to focus too much on terrorism rather than being an all-hazards approach (after all, why should we worry about bird flu and bio-terrorism. Treat them as a hazard and mitigate the risks). The problem is that in the years since September 11, like my friends in Seattle, the memory has faded and most people are less prepared today than they were prior to September 11. Further, more are looking to the government to be prepared for them rather than taking the responsibility themselves. Yes, this is a problem because when the next incident occurs, whether it is domestic, foreign, weather or illness, the country will again be wringing its hands and asking what more could we have done when the answer has been spelled out clearly and repeatedly.

I have documented numerous times the problems with RealID. From the costs, to the inability for most citizens to qualify for the documentation, RealID is nothing less than a National ID card, and frankly, the United States already has too many forms of identification for too many purposes, some of which are crossed. Until there are real discussions about the privacy of this information and who is going to bear the costs of the program, RealID is dead on arrival.

Along the lines of RealID, is the HSPD-12 initiative. There are dozens of little things in HSPD-12, but the major focus is the attempted establishment of a single, federal ID card. Like all things in the United States, single is a word that is a difficult concept to grasp. The goal may be to archive a single ID card, but at the moment there are no less than three competing standards for what the card will encompass. To add insult to injury, the costs for moving to this single card systems are borne by each agency out of their operating budgets (as compared to separate and distinct appropriation) which must compete with a forced move to IPv6, data center relocations and other routine issues that every agency deals with. Without a single, enforced standard, the mandates of HSPD-12 are doomed to failure.

The National Incident Management System (NIMS) has a lot of good qualities. It attempts to establish a single model for incident response, a unified plan and a process for interagency cooperation. Many parts of the program are good and it is nice to see that many agencies are beginning to adopt the core concepts. That being said, there are large sections of NIMS that are "to be decided," or worse, can never be decided because of the sheer size of the implementation project. A single (there's that word again) data network for passing information just is not realistic (I would argue that several already exist, why re-engineer, but that is just me), especially when each jurisdiction has to buy its own gear and train its own people. Interoperations in communications have come a long way but there are still monumental hurdles to overcome, least of which is cooperation between the various first responder agencies and their local, state and federal counterparts. When it comes to human interaction, there is not much you can legislate, as much as you would like to.

The other piece of NIMS that has a long way to go is the National Response Plan (NRP). There seems to be a disconnect between the writers of the NRP and the writers of NIMS. A disconnect that I understand is being rectified, but will take some time. As we saw with the response to Katrina, the NRP is so new, that even the federal government did not follow it, which of course, begs the question, why should I follow it when the federal government does not? This will bear further examination as the next revision of the NRP is released.

I asked earlier if we were anymore at risk? Frankly, I do not believe the United States is any more at risk from a terrorist attack than it was prior to September 11. What I do believe is that the risk of damage from such an attack is significantly higher and that the ability to execute an attack is significantly higher. Man, as an animal, does not like restrictions generally. Ask any security expert who has thought about it and you will discover that the more stringing the security measures, the more man will try to work around them. While this is particularly true in computer security, we are beginning to see it as an issue in immigration, transportation and economics. This becomes even more critical when you consider the patchwork of enforcement or just following the policy. Again, as any air traveler will tell you, TSA enforcement is haphazard. In some airports you have remove your shoes and belt, take your electronics out and submit to a cavity search. In other airports, you can walk through with nary a glance at the magnetometer. It is this sort of enforcement that really makes most of us upset rather than the requirement for enforcement to begin with. As a result, in the words of Michael Scheuer:



"This dire lack of discernment - few senior bureaucrats will discount a threat if there is a one-in-a-billion chance it might occur and cost a promotion - results in a massive misapplication of manpower, computer time, and national-level intelligence collection systems against a mass of threats, most of which are palpably absurd. As a result, like a fire department plagued by false alarms, analysts, spies, equipment and police at all levels are worn out chasing nonextant threats. In doing so, moreover, an atmosphere is created where the constant crying of wolf dulls our analytic edge and increases the risk of the career-ruining oversight senior bureaucrats fear." (pg. 85).



Finally, there is the "sense of national grief" that seems to pervade the whole incident and has gotten progressively worse as time goes on. Yes, some people died. But the people that died on September 11 were a minority. To put it in perspective, if you assume 2000 people died, that would still be less than then number of people who died on the road in the United States in one month! So far, only one other person seems to get the irony, and that is OpEd cartoonist Jeff Stahler who's rather poignant piece appears today. So if we are going to grieve as a nation, perhaps we need to be looking a different statistic. Further, as pointed out in the 9/11 report, some 600 of those who died did not have to because they violated their own procedures and self-deployed without proper gear or following safety protocols.

Is the United States safer? No, absolutely not. Is the United States more at risk? From another attack? No I would argue that the United States is at no more risk than it was prior to September 11, 2001, but the United States is certainly at more risk for damage and death from an attack when it next occurs. Whether it is from Al-Qaeda, the Illinois Nazis, or Mother Nature. So go and get prepared. It is not up to the government. It is up to you.

Juxtiposition - Hurricanes and Genetics

Felix could become Category 5 hurricane By ESTEBAN FELIX, Associated Press Writer Forecasters said Tuesday that Hurricane Felix could strengthen into a Category 5 monster just as it makes landfall near the Nicaragua-Honduras border, home to thousands of stranded Miskito Indians. Meanwhile, off Mexico's Pacific coast, Tropical Storm Henriette strengthened into a hurricane, the National Hurricane Center said, with winds of 75 mph. It is on a path that would take it near or over Mexico's southern Baja Peninsula by Tuesday afternoon. (Yahoo News)

Mom's Genes or Dad's? Map Can Tell. One Man's DNA Shows We're Less Alike Than We Thought By Rick Weiss Washington Post Staff Writer Tuesday, September 4, 2007; Page A01 Scientists have for the first time determined the order of virtually every letter of DNA code in an individual, offering an unprecedented readout of the separate genetic contributions made by that person's mother and father. (Washington Post)

On first glance, these two article have nothing to do with each other. In fact, they are probably more directly related than you might imagine, especially when you consider that I am reading Darwin's The Origin of Species (Literature.org) and Project Gutenberg). How? There is some body of evidence, greater even than that of climactic change and global temperature fluctuation that indicates that some 95% of all the species on earth are extinct. Wiped out. Destroyed. Those in the Intelligent Design camp would have us believe that some one up there is responsible for making us, us. Frankly, it is a long stretch of faith (and it would have to be based solely on faith) to put any sort of stock in that belief.

One of the more reoccurring reasons, simply, is nature herself. As we are about to witness, another, potentially dangerous Category 5 (as we currently measure them) storm is about to roll over an area of dense vegetation, poor (by our standards) living conditions and marginal soil base, which will result in devastation, loss of life and a long period of regrowth and renewal.

Now, before we boo-hoo the loss of life, which is expected to be substantial, I want you to think for a moment. Hurricanes, tornadoes, tsunamis, earthquakes, biological plagues and other assorted nastiness have bothered this planet for most of its existence. During that time, ecosystems have been altered or destroyed and the loss of life has been significant. With six billion people on the planet, loosing a couple thousand in a hurricane is bad day, but we will go on. When there were not that many people, loosing a couple of thousand could have had, and is estimated to have had a dramatic and significant impact on what comprises the human species today, especially given the current results that there is as much chance (mutation) as there is parental lineage to our genetic make up.

We, man, have currently expended large amounts of energy to prolong life and make a better place for ourselves on this planet. As a result, we have affected her climate and her ecosystems. This is not something we can change. Regrettably, we cannot wind back the clock. We do need to make some substantive changes though. We need to reduce the amount of energy we are using, not because of so called global warming (sorry, as a Geographer you will need a lot more evidence to convince me that a couple of hundred years of man-made effluence is even close to equal the output of a couple of very large volcanic eruptions, which we have strong evidence did more to alter the earth's climate) but because of the effects of the exploration and exploitation of the surrounding environment that is being explored and harvested. We need fewer malls, fewer things, just fewer. Obesity is just symptom of a much greater ill. I guess Mother Nature, in her twisted way, figures if she cannot kill us with pain, she will kill us with pleasure.

Now, if you will excuse me, I have to go an prepare for the next hurricane.

Beckham Injured....again

Beckham could miss 6 weeks with sprained knee Associated Press LOS ANGELES -- David Beckham could miss the rest of the Los Angeles Galaxy's season after being diagnosed with a sprained right knee Thursday. (ESPN)

OK, so sports news normally does not even catch my interest, but this one did, and I certainly hope the LA Galaxy has a hefty insurance policy on this guy.

He may be a good soccer player. Frankly, soccer is just not a sport I follow much. I used to play it, I understand the fascination it has for people but it just does not rock my socks. I put it on par with cricket for entertainment value. I would rather watch golf or NASCAR and would prefer to watch neither. But I do not understand why the Galaxy, with so many really talented players available both in the United States and abroad would even take a flier on a player with the injury record and flat out poor reviews for the way his personality affects the clubs he has been associated with.

Until he married a Spice Girl, he was just another player. Now he has wrenched his knee and even he is saying it might be time to hang it up. OK, he is said he is going "...rest,' and get it right and don't come back until it's right." Sure sounds like that is it for him.

A Brief View From The North, eh?

Conrad Black , People doing "too much by plane," Pickton Trial , Dave Williams (not the hockey player) are some of the lead stories on the news in Canada today, while the issues of Karl Rove, failed banks and the damage to the US stock market and other urgency for those inside the Beltway just are not even making waves. Sure they are being covered as little more than a footnote to the other events of the day.

It is interesting to see that there are other things going on. One of the other international topics being covered is the Korean Aid Workers being held by the Taliban in Afghanistan (and interesting twist on the story is being blogged). Regardless of why they are there, there is little expectation that many more will be released alive. Ironically, the coverage of this event is fairly sparse in the American media.

I was wandering through Canadian Tire a couple of days ago, looking for plastic cups of all things and wondered how Wal-Mart can even make money in Canada. Canadian Tire is an installation in the Canada long before Wal-Mart even went national in the United States. It has been said that if Canadian Tire does not have it, you really do not need it. While not entirely true, Canadian Tire is "more than just tires" and it is a solid institution in Canada.

A number of the "big US" names are here. Home Depot, Wal-Mart, Starbucks, but not in the same visible quantity that they are in the US. While there is a Second Cup or Tim Hortons on every street corner, you have to look hard to find a Starbucks. There are as many independent grocery stores as there are major chains. There are plenty of non-affiliated shops and retail organizations, something that seems to be missing, at least in Washington where homogeneity is more the norm. Perhaps that is why things are so polarized in Washington. With little choice, we are constantly fighting over trivial things.

Illegal Immigration is Complicated

US businesses fear illegal foreign worker crackdown by J.D. Riviere Thu Jul 26, 3:58 AM ET AUSTIN, United States (AFP) - US businesses are bracing for a possible major crackdown on illegal foreign workers, as the government seeks to give immigration authorities more power to punish companies hiring undocumented workers. (Yahoo News)

There is a segment of the population in the United States that is just delirious to hear that there could be a crack down on illegal immigrants. These are the same saints that have never broken the law or been forced to do whatever was needed for their family's well being. These are the same individuals that have money to burn and feel the government is taxing them too heavily and too often. I would call these people deluded, but I think even the residents of Oz would find them too far "out there" to be considered normal.

When businesses begin to feel threatened, especially when the markets are at such stratospheric levels and unemployment is so low, yet oil is close to a record high and defaults in the mortgage market seem to be looming like a repeat of the Savings and Loan scandal of the late 1980s, it is time to really take a look at the realities.

1) The population, illegal or otherwise, fill a needed niche in the economic structure from a labor perspective. Further, it is unlikely that the jobs they occupy could be filled by the average American today, either because of the low wage or more importantly the lack of skill set.

2) The population has become increasingly integrated into the economic fabric of society, with everything from cell phones to cable TV contracts. Defaulting on those contracts could cause more of an economic problem than the perceived burden burden placed on the society they live in.

3) Rounding them up and deporting them is an expensive and unrealistic option.

4) When the fines begin against businesses, those costs will be passed onto the consumer, in the forms of higher prices for goods or worse, the loss of jobs if the company is forced to close. Some would argue that this is not a significant issue, but the reality is that every business is tied to the economy and there are a few that are just barely hanging on. That would increase defaults in a shaky banking industry, but it would also displace workers and leave companies that depend on the labor (office buildings, construction sites to be stereotypical) without the labor to get things done, delaying or risking ongoing projects etc. like a string of dominoes.

I get that they are here illegally. As someone who has gone through the byzantine process of naturalizing, I get that. I also get that they are as integrated into our society as any other economic element and you do not just pull a thread out of a tapestry without knowing what it is connected to. The results could be catastrophic

MySpace, Again: Bang Head, Repeat Step 1

MySpace Finds 29,000 Sex Offenders July 25, 2007 - 4:32am By GARY D. ROBERTSON Associated Press Writer RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) - MySpace.com has found more than 29,000 registered sex offenders with profiles on the popular social networking Web site _ more than four times the number cited by the company two months ago, officials in two states Tuesday. (WTOP)

This is not the first time I have written about MySpace and I am sure it will not be the last. So there are sex offenders on MySpace. So what? This is an issue how? Other than getting some press by spreading more FUD around, AG Cooper really does not have a point that I can see. AG Blumenthal may be "astonished and appalled," but again, so what?

There were sex offenders on the Internet long before MySpace and they will be there long after MySpace is a distant memory. If you are concerned (and as a parent you should be) then you need to be monitoring your child's Internet usage. Just like you monitor the phone calls, their TV viewing and who their friends are. Nothing has changed. To expect MySpace or the government to act as nanny or gatekeeper to keep them from harm is an unfulfillable dream.

What these AGs should be doing is reinforcing the lessons that were taught by our parents and their parents before them. You do not talk to strangers and you do not trust what you read on the Internet, especially on something like MySpace. I have talked about the futility of laws preventing children from creating these sorts of sites. If they do not create them on MySpace or where ever, then they will do it on their own personal web site, something that most 10 year-olds with a copy of HTML for Dummies can do without a lot of effort.

Cooper's argument "All we're doing is giving parents the right to make a choice whether their children can go online" does not hold any water. Parents already have that right. It is called the right of parenthood and comes with the ability to turn the computer OFF for as long as needed. No right to appeal. No need for more government red tape. And certainly, no extra work for the engineers at MySpace and other organizations who have enough real work to keep them busy.

Label Definition: FUD

FUD: Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt

Fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD) is a sales or marketing strategy of disseminating negative (and vague) information on a competitor's product. The term originated to describe disinformation tactics in the computer hardware industry and has since been used more broadly. FUD is a manifestation of the appeal to fear. (Wikipedia)

This term has been around a long time, but not since September 11, 2001, has the United States been gripped by it at almost every level of society from the most basic (we are all going to be blown up in our beds if we do not catch the bad guys!) to the most ridiculous (Iraq has weapons of mass destruction and they are selling them to grandmothers in Iowa - that was the pitch to invade Iraq wasn't?).

President George W. Bush, who will go down as the worst President the United States has ever seen, uses FUD on a daily basis to distract and obfusticate the illegal actions his administration continues to execute. Whether it is in speeches he makes or are made on his behalf, never before has there been so much, sprinkled before so many and consumed with such zeal as there is right now.

Remember, the only thing you have to fear, is fear itself. Way back, Frank Herbert wrote this about fear in the book Dune:

I must not fear.
Fear is the mind-killer.
Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.
I will face my fear.
I will permit it to pass over me and through me.
And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path.
Where the fear has gone there will be nothing.
Only I will remain.

The Death of Productivity

Steve Pavlina shows how to make a distinction between the important tasks and the urgent tasks on your to-do list. Examples of important items on your list could be learning new skills, finding a new relationship (or working on the one you have), or starting a new project. Note that these items are for you, not for someone waiting for a response to your e-mail. Steve calls this paying yourself first. (Yahoo Finance)

On Yahoo this morning there was a section about how to improve your productivity and in there were six tips that you can use. One of those tips, above, is Do important tasks instead of urgent ones. While I am all for doing the important things, the reality of the modern business world just is not that way. There is nothing so important that it cannot be displaced by something more urgent. And it is usually urgent because someone else dropped the ball and now things are in peril.

And I say this, both as a cynic and as someone with fifteen years of watching it happen. We would all agree that improving our own skills or starting a new project (and seeing through to fruition) is a good thing, but most of us, particularly those in IT are interrupt driven any more. It is almost impossible to carve out a solid fifteen minutes of uninterrupted time to eat, much less the hour or so needed to properly plan a new project or research a new topic. In the modern world, that falls under the heading of other duties which, sadly, tends to translate to on your own time. Even training, which every company I have worked for pays lip service to (we will pay for a week of training), comes with caveats and oh by the ways. (The training is on your own time, so while the company will cover the cost, you loose vacation, or the old chestnut of "we had to cut the training budget this year" or my personal favorite "you cannot go to training for a week, you are needed here.") And then, even if you get to go, you spend more time checking your electronic leash for what is going on back in the office.

The tips for improving productivity are interesting, if only to show how much we have lost in terms of control over our lives to this thing we call work.

Doctor Who

Just watched a really interesting episode of Doctor Who. Now if you live in the United States, Doctor Who is a phenomenon that most of you probably have never been exposed to. For those of us that grew up somewhere else, The Doctor is part of our culture. I will admit that I came in around the time of the third Doctor, Jon Pertwee and we are now up to the tenth Doctor.

Like The Prisoner, Doctor Who is a mind bending series that has been studies, reviewed and analyzed for decades. But, unlike The Prisoner, the Doctor continues to evolve and is always a fun romp.

Long live The Doctor!

Sport Coats and Suit Coats

A couple of days ago, I talked about shorts, especially on woman, as not being proper business attire.

Today I saw something that I thought every man knew, but since I saw it on several different men, I thought I should point it out to the male population in general. To whit:

You do not wear your suit coat as a sport coat

Suit coat material and styling is very specific and looks terrible as a sport coat, no matter how you try to dress it down. It looks really bad when you mix a fine worsted wool suit coat with a pair of never pressed Dockers and boat shoes, especially when the suit coat is a fine window pane pattern. Guys, besides looking silly, you shorten the life of an already expensive set of clothing and replacing a suit is not something any man wants to do more often that he should have to.

If you have to wear a jacket to the office, go get a blazer and a proper sport coat. Then you won't look like you tried to match those light blue stripes in the window pane with that sport shirt from Abercrombie and Fitch.

But is it a good phone?

10 things you must never do with a friend's iPhone: There are worse things than greasy fingers BY Gregg Keizer July 15, 2007 (Computerworld) -- You're one of the lucky ones. Because you didn't shell out hundreds for an Apple Inc. iPhone two weeks ago, your bank account still shows a positive balance. But since you know someone who did buy the $599 phone, you have access to one, if only temporarily. No need to rub elbows with the hoi polloi at the Apple store, or heaven help you, an AT&T Inc. store, to try out the gizmo. No need, either, to spend the money to impress that certain someone, you cheapskate. (Computerworld)

I have a couple of friends and former associates that were positively salivating over the release of the iPhone. Unfortunately, many of them were unable to purchase their dream toy because of a sharp down turn in their personal finances on the day the phone was released, so, as far as I know, none of those that were dripping on their keyboards has actually procured one. But at $600 a unit, plus monthly charges, that is close to 1/4 of a mortgage payment, so I am sure they are happy about this.

Personally, I do not understand what the big deal. Sure, it looks good, has a snazzy user interface and can play video games, and can be pureed to a creamy texture, but how does it work as a phone?

I ask this question after almost two years as the user of a Palm 650 Trio. I have been a fan of Palm's devices ever since I traded in my Sharp Wizard (which oddly enough they still make but it looks nothing like the black cased organizer I used to have).

My first Palm was a Pilot III and I loved it. Grey screen and all, but when the Model VII came out, I was in heaven! Here was an organizer with email (years ahead of the crackberry I might add). Sure I had to have a subscription, but so what? Sure I had to learn to use Graffiti to send my emails, but again, so what (I will admit to liking the keyboard to send emails with rather than doing it with Graffiti, but I did get very good at quick responses with Graffiti.). I upgraded over time and then I stopped using my Palm when I really had no need for it day-to-day (when you are laid off, there is no need to keep an electronic schedule) and reverted to paper.

Flash forward to 2005 and I am looking to replace my cell phone. Now at the time, I did not do a lot of text messaging. In fact, because of the clunky interface and auto word feature on my cell phone, I did almost none. It was faster to write down a message and send it by carrier pigeon than it was to use SMS. But I did need a new phone and was actually looking at a BlackBerry. The biggest negative to the BlackBerry at the time was the form factor. I just could not see it being comfortable to use as a phone. The newer models are getting better in that regard. The Treo, however, was comfortable, not to big and not to small and it was a familiar interface and user experience (and that is sometimes half the battle). The cost was reasonable and so I put down my money.

I am not sure now, if the issue of a phone can be thoroughly tested without dozens of hours of use. And you cannot do that unless you use it. I am not a big telephone person. If you want something from me other than to tell me you are running late, send an email (and if you are running late, send me a text message). Along with some subtle hearing loss I am finding that the phone speakers on these smart devices while great at playing MP3, do not seem to do so well at transmitting the human voice. Especially after it has been compressed, packetized and shoved through a bunch of devices never meant to carry it. I find it increasingly difficult to hear people on the other end of the line, especially if there is ANY ambient noise (like you are standing outside and a car goes by). I have a bluetooth head set and that does not seem to help. I think I am going to have to revert to a wired headset. But in the end, the question still remains. If you are going to spend $600 for a "smart phone," I would expect the vendor put as much effort into making it a good phone as well as making it a good technology replacement. Is that too much to ask?

On Summer Fashions

Happy Friday the 13th to you all. No, I am not going to talk about paraskevidekatriaphobia (that being, specifically, the fear of Friday the 13th, not just the number 13 which is tritidekatriaphobia). Today I want to talk about summer fashions. Specifically, women's summer fashions.

Now, before you get the wrong idea, I am not one of those people that advocates everyone should wear a suit and tie every day. In fact, I have a hard time justifying the costs of a suit and all the trappings, whether you are male or female, to sit in a cubical, talking on the phone, answering email and writing memos (or cutting code or whatever it is you do to make money). And 80% of the workforce today does just that (sits in a cube or an office if you are really lucky). As long as you are neat and presentable, there is no reason why you should not be able to wear just about anything.

Again, the key here is neat and presentable. I could make an argument that a t-shirt is appropriate in an office environment, but I will not because I do not think it is. And I do not care if you bought it at Target for $9 or Tommy Hillfiger for $90. I am not opposed to jeans that are a uniform colour and not ripped. Again, I do not care that you just bought them for $300 and acid wash with four inch slashes are the in thing. They look sloppy. And that is the key.

Now, with all this being said, you can imagine I am not a big fan of people that wear shorts to the office, male or female. This is not Bermuda (which is the only place I can think of where you can get away with shorts in the office and then, there are some strict guidelines as to how). Getting off the train today, I saw several women wearing very nice shorts. They were knee length, nicely tailored, but to my mind, they were more for a backyard bar-b-que than a work environment. Yes, I know it sounds hypocritical and perhaps it is. Again, I do not think I have ever worn shorts to work where it was not part of the uniform (Disney's Animal Kingdom is a perfect example of where shorts at work is not only a good idea, it is expected). Most modern offices today have air conditioning, so the need for shorts to be comfortable just does not fit my right meter.

Of course, you could argue that shorts are no different than skirts and I admit that you would have a point, sort of, because a skirt, with few exceptions, has always been acceptable for women (yes, I know, it is sexist that men generally cannot wear skirts, but then, most men that I know do not have the calves for it either). I am also not sure that I am a fan of these designer "flip-flops" Call them sandals if you want, but to my eye they are really just beach wear (not only that, but when you have to walk a significant distance, I would think your feet would get tired. And in this post-September 11 world, you should always be prepared to walk!).

So there you go. Keep the shorts on the beach (or the golf course, or the tennis court or Animal Kingdom) where they belong and get back to work. That email will not answer itself you know.