Britney's concert performance would have been impressive if she were paraplegic

She may well have been, as far as I could see from her concert performance tonight in Vancouver. There were so many different props and mobility devices onstage it looked like James Bond getting an equipment demonstration by Q in the basement of Walter Reed Medical Center. A moving sidewalk. Various suspensory harnesses, chairs, swings, rising balconies, elevators, carried chairs, motorized vehicles, and strapping porters to carry her from place to place. If she took 200 steps during the entire performance I'd be surprised. She did climb two staircases and walk rapidly across stage a couple of times, so if she is paraplegic, she uses those nerve induction thingies you see on the discovery channel.

Needless to say, singing was not on the menu. I was surprised when she showed up without a corset, as she looked pretty good. Then later she stopped sucking in her gut and, well, it didn't look so impressive. On the whole it was a disappointment, and the sad thing is I didn't expect much.

Whether the test or the code is more important depends solely on who has to write the tests

In the world of open source development, automated tests are like gold. They're the glue that makes it easy to maintain projects with hundreds of collaborators. When they don't exist, code dies, and nobody knows about it - that would be a bad thing, so preventing it is job one. Unless of course, it means you actually have to write tests for your code, in which case it's delegated just as far down the food chain as possible. And nothing's further down the food chain than a paying customer who's already paid you.

Let's say you paid the author/owner of an open source project to add support for something you need. Let's just say that it's something you need, but that would be useful to him/her as well as others. And let's just say that s/he puts that code in his/her distribution. And you pay him/her for his/her time and effort. All is good.

Then, about six months later, you discover a bug in his/her library, in the very code that you paid him/her to write. You fix the code, and that's a good thing, because you really need it to work. It really should have worked in the first place, but oh well. Shit happens, right?

So then let's say that the code is all hosted on Github [because this hypothetical case happened in 2009/2010 and anything worthwhile is being hosted on Github], that you branched the main project, made your change, and committed it. Then you send a pull request to the project maintainer explaining the situation. Beautiful, this is exactly how open source is supposed to work. Git is wonderful, Github is fantastic, and everything just works because of it.

And you get the answer back from a minion of the author that you paid: "well, no, we can't accept this change, because you see, there is no test that was broken in the first place, and no new test has been written to prove that this change is a good one. So go write a test and then we'll think about it."

Which strikes you as a bit odd, because hypothetically, if s/he wrote the code in the first place, and s/he/they is/are such [a] holy motherfucking test-first code ninja[s], s/he would never write a line of code without tests for it. Except the evidence is in the code that never worked in the first place (despite your having, er, paid for it).

So now you have to maintain your own branch of this stuff in perpetuity, because they have rules, you see, and standards, and these rules and standards say that they won't accept changes that don't fix tests. Oh, and by not accepting your fix they're actually hurting your reputation, because the fact that the stuff they wrote for you doesn't work with their library might look like it's your fault, not theirs. But you paid them, and it's all over now. Unless you want to try to write a test for them, which they'll consider accepting.

What you might expect from the maintainer would be an apology, a gracious acceptance of the fix, and for him/her to write the test s/he should have written in the first place (if that's what makes him/her so goddamn happy).

Purely hypothetically speaking. I mean, it would be totally inappropriate to name names if this actually happened.

Greenspan gets a clue after the damage is done

From Greenspan Concedes Error on Regulation in today's New York Times:

Facing a firing line of questions from Washington lawmakers, Alan Greenspan, the former Federal Reserve chairman once considered the infallible maestro of the financial system, admitted on Thursday that he “made a mistake” in trusting that free markets could regulate themselves without government oversight.

Whoopsie!

Referring to his free-market ideology, Mr. Greenspan added: “I have found a flaw. I don’t know how significant or permanent it is. But I have been very distressed by that fact."

Oh no, he's *distressed*. Well, fuck me with a chainsaw, it sounds like the poor man is suffering! Everybody should be so concerned about Alan Greenspan's legacy while we pick up the ruins of our financial system and economy. I am not sad to see that irrational cult of personality come to such an ignominious end.

Tropicana: How not to run a loyalty campaign

Tropicana has a long-running loyalty campaign for their orange juice: you get 10 Aéroplan miles for each bottle of sugar-water you buy. They print a little code at the top of each carton, and you go to their website and enter the code to get your points. Sounds great, right?

The problem is that Tropicana can't seem to print the codes legibly. Every single time you try to enter a code, there's some problem or other: either the code is completely illegible, or the code isn't recognized, or a cosmic ray strikes their server, but whatever it is, you don't get your points. Furthermore, if you're trying gamely to puzzle out the code, the system locks you out, figuring you're trying to guess the code randomly. Check out these beauties:

Although I don't like to ascribe to malice what is more easily explained by negligence and sheer incompetence, this has been going on for years. I can't help but suspect at this point Tropicana's behaviour is willfully fraudulent: they print the offer on the carton to influence buyer behaviour, but they make it too irritating, difficult and time consuming to actually get the points. They could easily prove me wrong by fixing this problem, but something tells me they won't.

WebEx is watching you, and won't stop

WebEx on the MacBook turns on the camera for no good reason, and doesn't let you turn it off.

I had a conference call yesterday, and as usual with these corporate time-wasters, there was a powerpoint deck intended to distract the audience from the carbon-14 decaying in their bones. I fired it up on the MacBook which I use for WebEx, because it doesn't work on Ubuntu and I've already wasted more than enough time trying to fix it. So it was going on (and on) repeating previous presentations, and I proceeded to try to get other work done.

When I proceeded to fire up Photo Booth to take a picture of an error I was getting on my iPhone I was told "The camera is already in use." That's weird, I thought. Sure enough, the little green light was on next to the camera. So I proceeded to close down apps. Finally nothing was left but WebEx, and when I shut that down the light turned off. Hmmm. So I started WebEx back up and started searching for the option to turn off the camera. And I kept searching. I couldn't find it, and that made me feel kind of dumb, so I sent in a support request to WebEx. Their response:

Hello Chuck,

Thank you for choosing WebEx.

Since you are using a built in camera, it starts automatically in the meeting. WebEx does not have any control over this and there is no option in the Meeting Manager to disable this feature.

However, if you are the host, you can uncheck the "Video" option while scheduling the session. You can uncheck this option even in the middle of the meeting.

To disable the webcam, please contact Mac Support or check in Mac Forums. For your convenience, I have provided a link which discuss about turning off webcam.

Disclaimer: The URL below will take you to a non-WebEx Web Site. WebEx does not control or is responsible for the information given outside of WebEx Web Sites.

http://osxdaily.com/2007/03/26/how-to-disable-the-built-in-isight-camera/

Please let me know if there is anything I can do to further assist you.

Regards
WebEx Technical Support.

Waitasecond. "WebEx does not have any control over this"? What the hell is that supposed to mean? Do they not have the flipping source code? WTFH? And then they recommend that I go into a console and hobble my operating system's camera support? Are they high?

Of course, that's just bullshit. They allow the host of the meeting to control the cameras of the attendees, but they don't allow you to control the camera on your own flipping machine. This is a backassward privacy policy. I have no idea or control over where my video is going – it could be recorded, it could be broadcast: millions could be watching me absently pick my nose.

There is now a piece of tape covering the webcam on my MacBook. When I first used the iPhone I thought that the camera warnings when using an app that touches the camera were silly, but now I greatly appreciate them.

Bad WebEx. I'm still waiting for you to go out of business, you silly $3.2B behemoth.

Dell laptop has crappy construction, visible wires

I got a new Dell Latitude D630 laptop at work, and it is a piece of shit. The quality of construction is as bad as a 1979 GM vehicle. The parts barely fit together. You can see actual wires through the hinges.

Not only does it look like crap, it continually locks up, losing keyboard and mouse (at least once a day). A co-worker with the same model has the same issue.

Is there a conspiracy between PC manufacturers and Microsoft to destroy the PC industry? Between the bad design of today's commodity hardware and the utter crappiness of Windows Vista, there's no hope for this market to save itself. It'll be overtaken by cell phones and web tablets.

Sorry Dude, you got a Dell.

Vicious garlic press designed to slice your palm

This garlic press pinches your palm when you squeeze it, making it painful to use. Did they try using the damned thing even once before they started manufacturing it? So much for German engineering.

Amazon not sure if DRM exists

Audible.com, a subsidiary of Amazon, is "agnostic" on the topic of DRM (Digital Rights Management). I wrote them to ask them to follow through on their pledge to remove DRM if people complain, and this is the response I got:

Hello from Amazon.com.

Audible is DRM agnostic -- our primary goal is to offer a great customer experience. Audiobooks purchased on Audible.com can be played on over 600 AudibleReady devices, including Kindles, iPods and most other MP3 players, Tom Toms and other GPS devices, Sonos and other in-home systems, and all PCs and Macs. Unlike DRM-free MP3 music files designed for songs, audiobook files must deliver a unique multi-hour listening experience. Customers have recognized and appreciated Audible's unique listening experience since the company's inception in 1997. Audible is committed to maintaining and improving the features that drive this experience. [Paraphrase: Shut up.]

Audible recently announced that it is working to provide the option of DRM-free spoken word audio titles on Audible.com for content owners who prefer this method and are committed to working with Audible to maintain a great customer experience.[Paraphrase: We're thinking about it.]

Thanks for your interest in Amazon.com and Audible.

Sincerely,

Customer Service
Amazon.com
http://www.amazon.com/

So, being agnostic, they presumably do not deny the existence of DRM, but they have no evidence it exists? Maybe they are just so tied up in the "customer experience" that they haven't thought about it. Well, if there's anything worse than annoying, dangerous and abusive DRM for the customer experience, I can't imagine what it might be.

Not your PayPal

Sometimes the best service can be ruined by greed. I find it particularly insulting how PayPal continually defaults to direct debit from chequing instead of paying through my credit card. I've been burned by this, trying to make a purchase quickly and realizing after the fact that I've just hit my bank account instead of my credit card. I have repeatedly set my primary method of payment to credit card, yet PayPal continually and consistently ignores this preference and requires me to override chequing at every purchase. This practice is misleading and dishonest, and illustrates the lack of respect that PayPal has for its customers.

When you set it back to credit card, PayPal tries to convince you not to, stopping you in your tracks:

Paying with your bank account offers the highest level of PayPal protection and security, plus these advantages:

• No Fees -- Payments made using your bank account don't accrue interest fees
• Instant Payment -- Bank account payments are processed instantly
• Convenience -- Paying with your bank account means that your payments always go through -- instantly.
  Note: Sellers with Personal accounts cannot receive credit card payments. Any PayPal user can receive bank account payments.
• Safety -- Your bank account information is kept safe through the highest grade commercially available encryption and is extensively covered against unauthorized use

Do you still want to make this payment with a credit card?

Fear, uncertainty, and doubt. PayPal tries to muddy the waters here, raising the spectre that the recipient might not be able to get the money. Um, if they have a personal account you can't even send them money with a credit card, so there's no danger of them not being able to receive their money. They also try to give the impression that using a credit card might delay the payment, when actually they use the credit card to guarantee the slow bank account transfer. They even flash the terrorsafety card, implying that the terroristsmafia will get hold of your credit card number, when in fact the merchant has no idea which method you're using. (If the merchant were able to find out, they'd probably avoid PayPal like the plague.)

See, this is how PayPal makes money. They withhold 2-3% from what they pay the merchant for the transaction whether it comes from your credit card, your bank account, or your PayPal balance. So of course they want to take it from your bank account – ACH fees are much cheaper than credit card settlement fees. But don't worry about poor little PayPal. They also make money from foreign exchangefees, transaction fees, and float.

If PayPal provided some incentive to use direct debit over credit card (like, maybe, a discount) that would be another story, but instead PayPal presents bogus benefits of direct debit that just don't make sense. Because they cannot legitimately convince someone to forgo thirty extra days to pay to have the money sucked immediately out of their bank account, instead they engage in this sort of chicanery.

Believe it or not, I use PayPal quite a bit because it is convenient. As annoying and opaque and arbitrary as they can be, they almost always beat the banks for immediacy and limited hassle. For example, they make foreign exchange relatively cheap and easy – heck, they make it simple as hell. But the little touches sometimes colour the whole experience, and I think PayPal suffers from contagion from its prematurely sclerotic and abusive corporate parent.

Yahoo! Microsoft is dead.

It is with a six-pack of schadenfreude that I consider the collapse of Microsoft's attempt to eat Yahoo. Particularly hilarious is this zinger from Steve Ballmer:

At the heart of our strategy is a commitment to bring the benefits of competition, choice, and innovation to everyone who uses the Internet.

Competition? from a convicted monopolist? Hollow laugh. Choice? Only until they use cross-subsidy to wipe out their competitors. Innovation? Microsoft has never had an original idea other than Microsoft Bob.

The yellow press is full of speculation that Ballmer's job is on the line. As a replacement, let me be the first to recommend former SCO head Daryl McBride. He has lots of experience that will help in Microsoft's probable new line of business: threatening people with lawsuits. The RIAA route is the last avenue of the irrelevant.

Glass hosting

Google's recent release of App Engine and Amazon's success with EC2 and S3 are apparently bothering the kind folks at Joyent, who pushed out a press release extolling the root access they provide to their virtual machines, and decrying the lack of choice that the competing platforms provide.

Which is kinda funny, because Joyent requires that you run on Solaris. I have nothing against Solaris – I'm sure it's a fine operating system – but I also have nothing for it, and few people who are aching to work on it. EC2 gives you a choice of linux distros, and lets you control image deployment yourself in realtime (without waiting days). And yes, you do get root. So, what's the point again?

All of that having been said, Joyent provides a good, stable service, and I'm a customer. They could instead do a good job of pointing out what is special about their service. But Joyent's flackish attempt at PR differentiation is an embarrassment, a failed attempt to get some press in the firestorm surrounding the Google App Engine release.

Note: I left a much nicer comment along these lines on Joyent's blog, but I guess they didn't think it was too funny, because they deleted it. So why have a comments section at all? Cowards. If they want PR Newswire, they should use it – not a blog. (Besides, maybe they'd spell-check for them.)

---

Turns out they probably didn't delete my post, but their blog has a cute feature: you post a comment and it appears immediately, but if you refresh the page it is gone. Then later (maybe after moderation?) it appears again. No "moderating your ill-considered flames" or "standby while the gerbils spin": comment is there, then it's gone. Then it's back, apparently.

Kudos to Kristie, the nice salesperson who responded.

Extreme Conservative Makeover

Kudos to the staff of Diane Finley. Somebody in her employ finally noticed that the top Google search results for "diane finley glasses" ranks my loving commentary on her rather highly. Now there is a nice picture of her smiling, with glasses that look considerably more chic.Excellent, folks, now that you've shown that you can use & respond to search engine results, you might want to think again about using a picture with the background stressing English on the front page of the French version of the Ministry website. Sigh. You can take a woman out of Hamilton in a limousine, but you can't take the sense of entitlement out of a politician.

TurboTax blows

U.S. citizens are taxed on their worldwide earnings, which means expats are supposed to file their taxes twice. Mostly this isn't an issue unless you live someplace with ridiculously low taxes (Isle of Man, anyone?) since foreign tax paid is usually higher than it would be in the US. Unless they get smacked by the AMT, it is usually just a paperwork headache for expats. But that's just assuming you are using something simple like manual paper filing. If instead you are unlucky enough to choose software by Intuit, you're in for an aneurysm.

TurboTax does such a tremendously lousy job at handling foreign earnings and tax credits that it is unbelievably easy to get it wrong: as a matter of fact, it might not even be possible to get your taxes right while using it. Apparently this is considered just a minor corner case by the geniuses at Intuit, provided they've even tried to accomplish this task at all. I hope the IRS writes its own tax software and puts them out of business. And I hope all of the perpetrators of this software starve, that their entire communities collapse, and that they walk the desert highways, wailing, their cries lost upon the wind.

Serbia on a downer

Last year, Montenegro voted to break it off with Serbia. Last Sunday Kosovo decided to call it quits as well. Serbians are so upset they decided to trash their own country, and today I watched people marching through downtown Vancouver in protest, waving flags and chanting "Kosovo is Serbia" and holding signs saying "Kosovo = Québec", fearmongerimplying that if Canada recognizes Kosovo as an independent nation it will encourage Québec to secede. I didn't see any pictures of Radovan Karadžić in Vancouver, but they certainly were in evidence in Belgrade.

Call me bemused. Serbians are doubtless annoyed that it doesn't have Albanian Kosovars to kick aroundmurder anymore. But they should look at it on the positive side: next time they can have the thrill of an invasion and then throw another genocide. Even at the best of times nationalism looks like a load of hooey, but these guys really take the cake. Greater Serbia indeed.

Faux News parodies itself

A comedian decided to speak his mind at the end of a Fox & Friends segment, saying "What is Fox News, it's just a parade of propaganda, isn't it? It's just a festival of ignorance." He rambled on a bit, and the flustered host responded "you get all the news you can at Fox News," and then cut to a teaser for the next story: a promo for Captain Kirk's Guide to Women, with four buxom models.So there you have it: that's all the news you can get.

Jaded

I find myself increasingly inured to the constant stream of animal cruelty cases ( slaughterhouse this, research lab that, teenage kids the other). My own intermittent vegetarianism is about gastric distress, and not about a conviction that animals don't deserve to be eaten: I don't see that. I consider it largely unnecessary, but not unethical, to eat animals. It is wrong to torture them. But why is it happening, and who bears responsibility for this?

Watching something like this video doesn't lessen my opinion of humanity – I have few illusions on that score. But it does strike me that our orgy of corporate greed, demanded by a billion avaricious investors intent on an ever larger return on investment, impels people to torture animals in this manner. The meat produced from downed animals is declared unsafe for human consumption, but the market's appetite won't stand still for safe and ethical practices. The cows' last hours of pain are stupidly cruel, but the people that are paid $8 per hour to brutalize old, dying factory-farmed cattle must suffer psychological problems, as must their families.

So, an aged cow screams; substandard meat is served to hungry schoolchildren; a worker becomes increasingly jaded to inducing eye-rolling bleats of agony; an extra eight percent of profit allows a better return on investment to a private equity fund managing the assets of the increasingly rich (but ever unsatisfied) ruling class, which eats free-range orgasmic Kobe beef and congratulates itself on being so very responsible.

Are you getting enough return on your investment? Maybe it's time to re-balance your portfolio. Call now.

Jesus Takedown

The NFL is going after churches for copyright infringement for showing the "Super Bowl" on a large-screen TV. As much as I favour the elimination of organized religion, I really wonder what the hell the NFL thinks it is achieving by pissing off their fans this way. Have they learned nothing in the past ten years about pointless copyright enforcement actions which garner bad publicity? This is much like when the ASCAP went after the Girl Scouts for singing songs around the campfire. My hope is that those devout Christians have realized that this "sport" is a vile gladiatorial spectacle with no appropriate role in their lives, and leave them starving.

You see, choosing one's battles unwisely could make one look like a greedy bastard. The Immanuel Bible Church's 200 members are unlikely to fork over cash for a special use permit. The NFL's argument that large groups "shrink TV ratings and can affect advertising revenue" doesn't hold water: what exists there is a counting problem, not a viewership problem. I fully support treating churches like any other business (including taxing the holy fuck out of them), but most people don't feel that way – so the NFL has bought itself some really bad publicity. Hopefully it will prompt some pious souls to sit out this year's mammon-fest.