ReView: Checkeeper.com Cloud-Based Check Writing

Whew, it's been a while, hasn't it?

Truth be told, I ditched one of my Twitter accounts, then had a job change, a relocation (that technically still isn't completed) and a bunch of other life shifts.

As part of these changes I started looking into printing my own checks.  This is something I'd never done.  I hardly write checks.  It's only for those cavemen companies that don't take plastic and can't take cash where I'm forced to either pony up for a money order or write a check.  Well, the current account I have makes you go through an Act of Congress to get the first batch of checks, and after three botched checkbook mailings, I decided to just do my own thing.

After researching - and deciding I wasn't going to pay so much for Quicken again - I stumbled on Checkeeper.com.

Checkeeper.com is a cloud solution that offers the ability to either print and mail your checks for a fee, or allow you to create templates for printing your own checks.  Sounds excellent on paper, and the price is quite reasonable.  Unfortunately, the experience was much less than I expected.

When you register your account, you're presented with the window above, where you're asked to enter your checks.  There's also the templates area, which has one that is generic and can be tweaked.  The problem with this, of course, is that if you're planning to print your own checks, there's simply no way to get everything to line up clean.  There's a tool to upload a picture of one of the blank check pages, but nothing lines up.  It's off by roughly a quarter of an inch and there's nothing you can do about this.

As a result of this, you'll be spending a LOT of time and wasting a lot of check paper just to get things to print correctly.  Check paper isn't cheap.  I bought a box for $23 of paper I didn't really care about just so I could practice - and ended up wasting 10 of them, still not getting it just right.

The real issue is that:

1. The onscreen layout will never match your paper stock even if you upload an image.  So you'll have to align things differently and use trial and error to get it right;
2. The template designer layout will not match the print preview.  So while you might get it to a point that the template looks perfect, when you go to print preview it will look screwed up; 
3. The template designer was written with dynamic sizing.  This means that if you don't maximize your window, everything gets screwed up and the problem is even worse.  No multi tasking for you unless you have dual monitors, which I don't at home;
4. You can't control fonts of individual elements, only the template at whole.  So you can never make a check look like a check; and
5. Certain elements are size limited despite being smaller than the template.  So when trying to draw payee lines, for example, you can't draw them the full width of the template.  You have to build two lines and connect them.  That's fine on the template, but when you go to the print preview, it clearly shows them misaligned, and there's nothing you can do.

To put this in perspective, it took me 15 hours to get to a point a check was printable via a drag-and-drop UI.  That's simply unacceptable, since we're only talking about personal checks here.  (For the record, I not only work in IT, but I work with software development.  There had to be literally zero QA done on this before release.)

Seems legit.

Err, that looks terrible.

In summary, this is a tool that looked promising and was cost effective.  Unfortunately, there are just too many fine points missing.  Some fine points for the developer:

1. You offer a "Background" but it assumes a corporate check.  How about, create one for personal checks?  Since you know, most businesses aren't going to be using this type of service, they'd just use their ERP app?
2. Speaking of the "Background", why do you have a border?  Are you assuming that a person is printing this on blank white paper or something?  Most check paper already has bordering.  It's redundant and makes the line up process even worse.
3. I know there's no way you can calibrate to every type of paper possible.  I get it.  Which is why if you just fix your capture tool, we can capture the check paper properly.  It should auto correct, auto crop, straighten, etc.  These are standard algorithms.  Or at least pre-program the standard check paper stock that's out there.
4. Allow element-level font changes.  Again, this is standard assumption.
5. Allow image imports.  That way, I can just design the background the way I want as a transparent PNG, upload it, then I can align it without having to build lines or "MEMO" static text.
6. Why is there a field length limit?  There's too much wasted space on the left and right.
7. Why don't you have a horizontal rule line as a drag item?  Obviously lines are optional, but if we're trying these look official, surely this is a no-brainer?
8. Why can't we fill in the bank name and address data and then have those as drag items?  Same with my address, you already have it on my profile, why do I have to enter this manually as static text?
9. If you double click into a static text field too much it turns into its code equivalent.  Clicking out deletes all text.  You're forced to delete the field and rebuild it.

As a side note, I did email the developer telling them much of this, but then they just stopped replying to my email.  Most companies that really want to succeed, listen to feedback like this that's offered for free.  Oh well.

My recommendation: Until they advance this tool much further than where it's at, I suggest you just buy Versa Check or Quicken or go with a different online solution.

#KimDavis Is Just Highlighting Everything Wrong With America

Now, I'm 100% sure that when you clicked to read this, you assumed I was referring to Kim herself.  I'm not.

Let's be clear: I in no way feel that anyone should be able to refuse to do their job for any reason.  Jobs are a privilege, not a right.  However, I also don't think this whole nonsense fiasco has anything to do with refusal to do a job.   I don't.

Nope...this situation is the fault of America.  Or more specifically, the American government for allowing this to spiral out of control instead of locking it down early.

I use the term "Slippery Slope" quite frequently and have for years.  Why?  Because gay marriage was destined to be a slippery slope no matter which way it went.  It was a losing endeavor.  But first, a story.  Religious zealots should enjoy this.  Crack open your Bible, this agnostic is about to school you a bit.

1 Kings 3:16-28

Do you recognize this section of the Bible?  It's actually one of the more memorable from the time when I was dragged to church by my mother.  It tells the story of King Solomon when he was presented with a dilemma.

Two women approach the king.  They live together.  Each has a baby four days apart.  It's only the two women in the house.  According to Woman 1, Woman 2 rolled over her baby while sleeping, killing it.  Realizing this horror, Woman 2 replaced the dead baby with Woman 1's baby.  After waking up, Woman 1 confronted Woman 2 as the baby wasn't hers.  Now, they come to the king to ask his help in sorting this mess out.

Solomon, not knowing who's lying, offers to cut the baby in two.  One half for each mother.  Woman 1 pleads for the king not to kill the child (since it's hers); she would rather give him up than see him killed, too.  Woman 2, presumably still bitter at losing her own child, is fine with cutting the child in half so that Woman 1 suffers the same as her.  After thinking about this some more, Solomon orders the child returned to Woman 1, given her reaction vs. Woman 2.

The moral of the story isn't that you shouldn't sleep with your child (which is what I thought as a kid, to be fair).  The moral of the story isn't even that someone's always lying (which I learned to be true after I grew up, to be fair).  The real moral of the story is hidden in Solomon's initial proposition: cut the child in half.  In other words, if neither mother spoke out, the only way to make both sides right (given what's known) is to split equally, rather than show preference to either.  Fortunately, they did speak out.  But again, Solomon was willing to make a sacrifice rather than show any sort of preferential treatment.

America hasn't learned why this was an effective section.  Or rather, they don't care.

The gay marriage movement began as a government issue with civil unions.  Homosexuals could enter into a legally appropriate pairing, called a civil union, for many years.  The problem is that civil unions did not afford the same rights and privileges; they were written originally to support unions in states and regions that did not recognize common law marriages.  But when certain celebrities started to call to light the fact that they were gay, there started to be an uprising: people wanted to "say" they were "married".  They wanted to have a "wedding".  They wanted to "walk the aisle".  This steamrolled into a civil rights issue; one I won't debate here, but the thought was, why should gay couples be herded into a civil union category?  Why should marriage be between "one man and one woman"?  Why was there a limit at all?

Beyond movements in different states, the Supreme Court ruled that gay couples should be allowed to marry, which was followed by states such as Kentucky opening doors for weddings.  There was only one problem (this is the first mistake America is making):

There are truly three branches of government: Executive (The President), Judicial (The Supreme Court), and Legislative (Congress).  There are more entities in each branch, but I'm calling these three out make a point.

The Executive Branch approves (or vetoes) and enforces laws.  The key word here is law: the President can't make laws.  He can approve written laws, veto them, and/or enforce them if they're not being applied properly (think Bernie Madoff).

The Legislative Branch makes laws.  This is key: the Equal Employment Opportunity Act, which is the law that essentially ensures that you can get a job despite someone's bias against you, had to be created by the Legislative Branch to become a thing.  It didn't just show up out of thin air.

The Judicial Branch reviews and makes decisions regarding law.  The key word here is review: the law must exist in order for the Judicial Branch for anything to really be done about it directly (and that is referred to the Executive Branch under the purview of law enforcement).  The Judicial Branch offers an opinion regarding an issue for which there is no directly applicable law (think gun control), and the issue cannot be resolved at the local or state levels.  That opinion might get written up by the Legislative Branch as a law (think Patriot Act) or a refinement to an existing law (think Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act).

Contrary to popular belief, the right to gay marriage is not in any Federal law as of this writing.  It's not.  We have a number of state and Federal courts who have ruled with opinions both supporting and rejecting the right to marry, so there is at least precedent for making a law.  But no law exists at this time.

What's this mean?  It means Kim Davis isn't breaking the law with respect to gay marriage because there is no law yet.  She is doing something immoral, but that's the long and short of it.  That was the point Gov. Mike Huckabee was trying to make at the debate.

I'll tell you why the government refuses to lock this down.  It's because if they do so, they will basically be writing laws that trample all over the rights of everyone else.  The result of that is anarchy; if you thought hate crimes were bad now, just imagine what they'd be if the government wrote some law that basically forces pastors to perform ceremonies.

Let's flip the script: suppose you  had some nut who was 100% adamant against gays...and this nut is a surgeon.  Or a dentist.  Or a pilot.  People who have lives in their hands and really could make deadly decisions simply because the government is forcing them to accommodate others despite their own beliefs.

I don't know about you, but that thought terrifies me.  Difference is, it's been going through my head for over 20 years.

The counterpoint then is, "well, we had to do something about blacks too!" Totally different problem, and I argue that to this day, racism isn't illegal.  Immoral, yes.  Not illegal.  While there are laws preventing you as a business from denying service to blacks, there's nothing preventing you from only setting up your business in areas dominated by whites (which achieves the same base objective).  But that's financially stupid: the real reason you don't see businesses discriminating against non-whites has nothing to do with skin color.  Segregation didn't end due to a kumbaya moment with everyone learning to get along.  No...it simply didn't make sense to turn down an extra source of income from blacks, extra labor from blacks, extra commercial traffic from blacks, etc.  Why make money from 40% of the US only when you could make money from 100% of the US?  Simple economics.

So Kim Davis shouldn't be applauded, but neither should she be criticized.  Throwing her in jail for contempt was a stupid move: She is voted in by taxpayers, who pay her salary, only to have her thrown in a jail that taxpayers pay for, plus attorneys and judges and police that taxpayers pay for.  It's a money pit, all to send a statement to her?  Who's the stupid one?

Then look at the two sides.

Kim Davis has made a very reasonable request: She doesn't want her name associated with any licenses issued from the office.  Frankly, it's ignorant that the license is required to have her personal name attached to it, but that goes beyond marriage licenses.  Birth certificates and other state forms are required to have a person's name on them, for accountability.  It's a stupid requirement that serves no real benefit (because if one is issued in error or due to fraud, it is an easy matter to trace records back by date to know who was responsible).  For this, I applaud her: she's trying to highlight a fundamental problem with a simple solution.  Stop putting people's names on things that associate them with something.  Make it a generic form that is certified by "the State" and no particular person.  If that means notary needs to be that witness then so be it, without calling a name out.

Gay couples want her to resign.  Frankly, I think it's ignorant that these people would rather have someone resign than to fix the underlying problem, but that's a side issue.  What needs to happen here, and what the state should say, is that these couples should go to a clerk that will issue them licenses without a problem (solves their primary concern), then ensure that voters follow due diligence to get Kim Davis out of office using the right channels.  Lobby against her.  Put the word out that she is discriminating against people.  But to take a lynch mob approach rubs me the wrong way.

Because the Supreme Court's opinion was that gay couples should be allowed to marry no matter what state they're in.  Because there's no law, nothing requires every single clerk in every single county to issue licenses, as long as there's at least one, the state is following the opinion and avoiding potential lawsuits.  If the couples choose not to go where they will be allowed to marry, that's a decision that will bite them in the long run, and likely why we haven't seen any additional Federal movement.  They could get married; they choose not to, instead preferring to force their belief down other people's throats until everyone is on board with their mission.

With no law in place, I might add.

In summary, this whole situation is just getting worse, not better, and I refer people to Bryce Williams/Vester Lee Flanagan, a gay male.  You can read up on him, but I imagine his reasoning was just the tip of the iceberg for more hate crimes.

All because America doesn't understand how to fix a situation without alienating a different population.

#MH370: From The Outside Looking In

Some background.  I work in business consulting, but I can't stand advanced math.  So don't expect me to toss out a bunch of numbers and diagrams.  Gives me headaches.  I'm a "bottom line" kind of guy: What's the goal, what's the finish line?  Then I like to be the one to help get you there.  That's how my brain thinks.  It's why all of the Snowden leaks glossed over me largely until he did the interview where the guy used his phallus to build analogies.  Then it clicked.

But more importantly, I believe in four statements:

1. Anything that hasn't been disproved is possible.
2. While human tendencies and human nature can be predicted with some degree of confidence, they cannot be determined in advance with certainty.
1. better said: nobody can say for sure what a human would, could, or did do without seeing it, and nobody can say for sure why humans will, can or do things without asking them.
3. Once you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.  Sherlock Holmes/Spock
4. The simplest answer is usually (keyword: USUALLY) the correct one.  Occam's Razor

I have an unhealthy fascination with mysteries.  I still review Jon Benet Ramsey information to this day.  But Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 has fascinated me even more largely because of so many people from various arenas sharing information that, to a degree, is carefully pruned to prove their point, rather than give the factual account.  This is true even of Inmarsat and the governments.

Now, maybe you've been in my position: you saw all this stuff and it's still not clear exactly what's going on.  So here's the dirt simple.

Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 left Kuala Lumpur for a redeye flight to Beijing, that should have taken just under 6 hours to complete.  Straight arrow north.  No curves, no nothing.  It never got there.

Data released seems to indicate that the plane turned sharply left and started heading along a totally different flight path, even hitting flight waypoints.  Nobody knows why.

Certain transponders and equipment stopped communicating, which made the plane go "dark" - in other words, it'd be like it went into stealth mode.  After a point nobody knew where the plane exactly was and it wasn't responding to calls.

Military radar claimed to identify a path that led towards India, Russia, etc. from the last confirmed point.  This has been questioned as whether it was accurate or not.

Inmarsat, which is a satellite communication system company, provided data that seemed to show that the plane was still airborne for a long time (thus disproving a crash where the last known point was), and a trajectory of where the plane's last detect point was along two arcs - call them North Arc and South Arc.  The deep innards of satellite tech aren't important, but the Marco/Polo example is as good as any: A call is made, a response is provided, on regular intervals.  No response, no plane.  As long as there's a response, the plane is still in the air somewhere, and a general idea of where can be interpreted.  This "game" continued for 6-7 hours after the last known, so you figure a total flight of 7-8 hours.

The plane had just over 8 hours of fuel - thus an assumption the plane ran out of fuel and crashed somewhere shortly thereafter.

So that's the basics that I can parse, and I likely got small semantics wrong, but the gist is, the plane went missing, and based primarily on satellite pings, they started searching in given areas.

But there's been a LOT of theories as to what happened to the plane, from alien abduction to government cover up to terrorist hijacking.  I'm not going to bore you going through these theories, plenty have already done so over the past year and a half.  My intent is to share an argument that I think many are dismissing, and shouldn't.  So let's go through my numbered bullets above.

Anything that hasn't been disproved is possible.

I got a lot of flack on this one, but here's the thing and why this works.  Take the Loch Ness Monster.  

First detected in the 6th century and continued to be debated for many centuries after.  It wasn't until 2003 that a full-scale scan and debunk was done, which effectively disproved the idea of a Loch Ness Monster.  However, the 2003 scan does not disprove the possibility that a creature (of some kind) was in Loch Ness and sensationalized as a "monster", especially if said creature was at the time unknown to locals.  In other words, it's still possible that there was a Loch Ness Monster at some point, because we can't prove otherwise in the absence of time travel or some other means of detection.  It just doesn't matter if there isn't one now.

Now, the catch is, we must be able to disprove it.  Time travel is a concept we don't understand, but we assume it's not possible.  However we continue to try to do it, thus someone believes it's possible.  Should time travel become a possibility (and I fear that day), we can then (dis)prove the Loch Ness Monster once and for all. That dependency keeps both in the realm of a possibility greater than zero, no matter how small.

With MH370, for example, we haven't disproved alien abduction.  I know how outright silly it sounds.  But realistically we have not disproved extraterrestrials.  We're trying, in the form of sending rockets to other galaxies.  But that's a lot of ground to cover.  So despite it being a minuscule possibility, it's still possible, as it has not been disproved (and won't be until we find the plane, at which point it will have been 100% disproved if it's located on Earth and not affected by elements or damage scientifically unknown to us).

None of the theories put forth about MH370 have been fully disproved, thus I consider all of them possible, with varying degrees of probability based on other factors.  It is this that bothers me about some of those who are releasing their opinions: they're ignoring this basic tenet.  (There are quite a few sites that speak to this notion, to be fair.  I'm targeting the ones that are blatantly ignoring it.)

I wish I could do a beautiful table with these probabilities, but again, I'm not an advanced math guy, and I couldn't back any of it up with significant data.  It'd be totally subjective, and thus useless.  I'm just saying we should not ignore any of these scenarios until we have disproved them - which unfortunately for the greater majority of these theories, can't be done until we find the plane.

While human tendencies and human nature can be predicted with some degree of confidence, they cannot be determined in advance with certainty.

Picture this:  You're driving on a freeway at midnight.  It's a single-lane two direction freeway with no barrier.  In the extreme distance you see a pair of lights that appear to be swerving in and out of your lane, headed your way.  What's your first instinct?  This 'something' will hit you if you don't do something.  So you pull off to the side and wait it out.

As the 'something' gets closer you see it's a truck.  It stops swerving after a minute and stays in the opposite lane, eventually passing you without incident.  Confused, you get back on the road and keep driving.

After a few miles you see that there's something in the road.  It looks like debris is scattered throughout the road.  There's a clean path through the debris and it zig-zags both lanes.  

In that scenario you initially made an assumption that this was some sort of nut driver, drunk or otherwise who was going to hit you because of careless driving, when in reality the other driver was extra alert to a road hazard and took steps to avoid it.  But you couldn't have known that, because it was too far away to make that decision.  Hindsight then kicks in telling you that your initial assumption was wrong.  You might even have been affected by bias telling you that some drunk kid was out late night, rather than remaining neutral until you could verify what was going on.

This is where we see that you simply cannot make a leap about what a human would, could, or did do, without specifically seeing the activity first hand.  You can assume, but you must accept that your assumption has a 50% chance of being wrong, and thus, the opposite remains possible.

In MH370, theories have surfaced that imply possible hijacking, suicide, mass murder, etc., all as human motivating factors to explain what happened.  The data from satellites and radar have also been criticized as potentially being intentionally faulty and/or outright misleading.  These have been criticized by so-called "experts" whose only rebuttal is that these are trained professionals, and that this somehow makes these impossible suggestions.  Why?

• Doesn't mean they retained the knowledge. They may have forgotten, had a lapse in judgment, etc.  Unless you were on the plane - which of course, is impossible - you can't disprove this as a possibility.
• Doesn't mean they followed the rule book when in the air, whether intentionally or not.  Again, the only way to disprove this possibility is for that person to have been on the plane.
• Doesn't mean they were actually trained.  You assume they had to have been, you might have even been given data from the airline/satellite/radar company stating they were.  But were you in the classroom with that person?  Did you see them go through the motions?  If not, it remains possible they really weren't trained.
• I know a natural rebuttal to this is, "but they'd get in trouble for falsifying!" to which I would respond that it doesn't matter.  Especially because the punishment is extremely light anyway.  Said company would just absorbed by another company (see Trans World Airlines fka TWA) with the old C-level execs getting golden parachutes.

In other words, human error, human malfeasance, human oversight, human judgment, are all considerations that can't be ignored.  In fact, even after finding the plane, we still can't ever know for certain what happened in the human part of the equation.  We can speculate, or even derive from whatever evidence we locate.  But in the end, it's still not 100% confirmation.

Once you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

This one pretty much speaks for itself.  

If I threw 5 hammers into a lake, waited 2 weeks, and told someone to go and retrieve them, I can't expect they will find all 5.  If they find 6 hammers, I know that at least one of them cannot be mine.  But if I look at all 6 and only 3 match the hammers that I threw, there are only a few possibilities:

1. I'm lying about not being able to match the other two hammers.
2. I'm lying about how many hammers I threw in the lake.
3. I forgot which hammers I threw.
4. I forgot how many I threw.
5. It's not the right lake.
6. Two of my hammers were taken from the lake before the search.

Recall my #2 statement above.   

We can only disprove possibilities 1 and 2 if someone were there who watched me throw hammers.  5 can be proven if and only if I didn't recognize at least 1 hammer, given possibilities 1 and 3 are disproved (i.e. assuming the hammers were the same, I should be able to identify them).  6 can only be proven if someone saw this happen, given possibilities 2 and 4 are disproved (i.e. I truly did throw 5 hammers).

So we know that 5 and 6 are fundamentally impossible, because it's the right lake (by virtue of me recognizing at least 1 hammer), more hammers were found than the number I threw (which implies that no hammers were removed) and nobody saw anyone take any.

We know possibility 3 is improbable (remotely possible) by the fact that I was able to identify at least 1 hammer.  We can consider it impossible (not possible at all) if all hammers were the same.

We know possibility 4 is impossible if I was able to determine that 1 out of 6 couldn't be mine.

Given that, it can only mean I'm lying somewhere.  Either I threw more than 5 hammers, less than 5 hammers, or I recognized a different number than I threw.  It seems improbable (especially if people don't consider me a liar), but it can only be the case if all others are impossible, based on all other known facts.  

What makes this tricky is getting to a point that the rest is rendered impossible.  This is where the #1 statement above comes into play.

With MH370, we can't rule out a situation where pilot and/or co-pilot killed the other and then set a course to oblivion.  We can't rule out a situation where a plane was flown to a covert base in the Indian Ocean and somehow prevented from communication, with pieces of the plane creatively placed to divert suspicion.  We can't rule out that another Boeing 777 was actually lost but just never reported by Boeing or other airlines.  And we certainly can't rule out the so-called "false flag" scenario. 

The reason we can't rule these out is because, while these scenarios are highly improbable, we've nearly eliminated all other scenarios as impossible.

The simplest answer is usually (keyword: USUALLY) the correct one.

Which brings me to the most controversial of them all. 

Given statement #3's conclusion, what else is there to consider?  Well, that the plane crashed.  We don't know why, but that seems to be the simplest answer, right?  Problem is we can't prove - or disprove - this.  A plane part found on Reunion Island gives us hints, but the problem is a mysterious one: the single piece of evidence that would definitively tie the part to the plane...a stamped plate with a serial number...was missing.  I find that mighty strange - and convenient.

The other mysterious factor is that the plane continued to fly for an additional 6-7 hours.  Or more apropos, the plane continued moving within the satellite range for an additional 6-7 hours.  This time delta has caused people to dismiss the notion of a suicide hijacking, because they assume that anyone who would want to kill a bunch of people on the plane would just crash it into the water or into a mountain.  In truth I agree with this logic.  But that conclusion doesn't disprove the alternatives, either.

That the transponders and recorders were cut off, led people to assume intent (i.e. hijacking/suicide), or some other sort of event happening on the plane.  But that these happened so early in the flight seems to debunk these theories, especially if the plane kept going for so long thereafter.

That the plane apparently climbed to 45,000 feet (well outside of its upper range, a key factor) led people to assume intent (i.e. depressurization to kill everyone) or an event such as a fire.  But that the plane then went quickly back down to just under 25,000 feet and continued happily (?) on for so long seems to debunk these theories.

That the plane's flight path and altitude changed at all seems to debunk the theory that everyone was knocked out, at least at that time.  Autopilot, to my knowledge, cannot adjust altitude without pilot intervention (for example, to commence landing procedure), but would just head to the programmed destination.  That destination can of course be changed, but again, to my knowledge, that would require pilot intervention.

If the plane wasn't heading for any airport, it would seem to imply that autopilot was disengaged after a fashion.  Again, that's assuming it wasn't heading for an airport, which is unverified, of course, but the data seems to point that way at least on the surface.

If the pilot and/or co-pilot were trying to head back due to some sort of disaster, there were at least 4 airports I can count that would seem to have been better alternatives than the known flight path.  Additionally, one would assume that either would have contacted air traffic control (intent) to inform them of the situation.

I express one concern:

Stop speaking in absolutes, and remain objective about possibilities - even remote possibilities - until those possibilities have been 100% disproved.

I know some people are just quick to ridicule those conspiracy theorists that think the passengers of MH370 were beamed up to some ship and have been getting probed for the past year and a half.  I know it's fun to make fun of people who swear the plane must have landed at Diego Garcia.  I know it makes you feel good to debunk suggestions by throwing a bunch of random numbers and charts at people designed to prove why you're right and they're wrong.

Grown ups should be equipped with enough maturity to accept the four statements I started this post with, as I have accepted them.  Once they are accepted, learn how to address each one in an orderly fashion.

If you asked me, I would say that everything points to something between the pilot and co-pilot that resulted in a ghost plane situation.  But I'm not qualified to give any evidence to back that up.  I can only say that I'm open-minded about the possibility that one of the two human beings reacted to something, something that cost nearly 240 people their lives.  When the plane is found we likely still won't know whether I was right or wrong for sure.  But we can hopefully quiet those with superiority complexes.

#ChristianTaylor Is Not The Same As The Others

The situation has grown well beyond any semblance of control at this point.  Even Serena Williams is just adding fuel to the fire instead of quelling what is, in this case, a totally different situation that requires a totally different view of the facts.

If you've been missing news, Christian Taylor was killed at Classic GMC, in Arlington, TX.  He was caught on their external surveillance tapes walking freely around the dealership, vandalizing cars and ultimately crashing into the dealership showroom.  When police arrived, there was an "altercation" (I'll get to this later) and Taylor was shot 4 times by one of the cops.

This of course sparked media outrage over the fact that a "white" cop killed an "unarmed black" teen.

Unlike Brown and Bland and others, what makes this different is that we don't really know what happened.  All we have to go on is the surveillance video (which I'll get to later) and the statements from the Arlington Police Department.

The police chief, a Mr. Will Johnson, has been almost completely transparent from the start with what information he does have.  Unfortunately, the media at large has poured fuel on a situation that, when you analyze it deeper, isn't anywhere near what Bland or Brown were and still has gaps in the equation.

First though let's talk about what we know.

1. Christian Taylor broke into Classic GMC.  This can't be refuted, it's on record.  That's breaking and entering private property, trespassing.
2. Christian Taylor vandalized at least one vehicle that we can see.  There might be others due to the way the security camera system works (more on that later) but on tape, at least one.  He crashed his SUV into the dealership, shattering doors and walls.  That's vandalism and major property damage.

Normally these are just situations where you arrest the perpetrator.  However, there are exceptions, and most any police officer will rattle off more official versions of these.

1. If any other person is in danger due to these actions and the only way to save that person is to shoot.
2. If the police officer feels their life is in danger or they feel otherwise threatened (this is the subjective one that has triggered almost all of the recent deaths, by the way)
3. If a person flees.  (this is not subjective, but it's controversial.)

Now, let's talk about what we don't know.

1. We don't know why Christian Taylor went to the dealership.  The police statement indicates that Taylor held up keys and admitted trying to steal a car; but there are holes in this story (not necessarily intentional ones.  More later)
2. We don't know why Christian Taylor picked that Mustang.
3. We don't know why Christian Taylor decided to drive his SUV into the dealership.  Police statement seems to imply that he was trying to get keys, but again, there are holes in this story.
4. Christian Taylor walks the length of the dealership, as if totally oblivious to all of the various security cameras in plain view.  Why?
5. Christian Taylor is wearing sunglasses at night.  Why? (I don't want to hear the "tweet" theory)
6. Christian Taylor pulls out the windshield with his bare hands, even cutting his hand at one point.  If his intent was to get keys, why bother?  If the car is locked the key is not inside.
7. Why was Christian going to steal a car yet drove a vehicle to the dealership to steal said car?  (more on this later)
8. We don't know why a rookie cop was sent to this assignment.  
9. We don't know why a rookie cop was fully armed.
10. We don't know why a rookie cop was allowed to be in the position to shoot Taylor (more on this later)
11. We don't know what really happened inside the dealership (more on this later)

There are too many unanswered questions; true.  But what really burns me is that a lot of people online only care about feeding their already fragile emotional states with more hatred of white people.  All the while, they don't realize that their reactions to the situation aren't helping the matter, and the greater majority of them are not focusing on what really matters: the truth.

Many are falling back to the simple, easy excuse: "but did they have to kill him doe!?" not understanding (because they've never put on the uniform) that in all but one case I can see, we're not dealing with total racist cops here.  Stereotyping has been status quo across the country for decades.  The idea that Mexicans and Blacks must be criminals and thugs; that Asians are nearly perfect and do flawlessly in school; that "white privilege" surpasses all; and that females are "not suited" for certain jobs like stock room.  It's all the same thing.  A person passes judgment based on a trait of a person that has nothing to do with their capacity to do something. 

The cops are in many cases making a decision in their head that someone of a given race is going to do something.  Good or bad, right or wrong.  You can't scale equivalent the incident with Dylann Roof (White) versus Michael Brown (Black).  The decision isn't "well, this white kid shot a bunch of people, so we need to shoot him".  The decision isn't, "Well this kid broke into X so we need to shoot him".  The decision is almost always, "I told him what to do.  He didn't do it.  I got mad and reacted."

This has a name: resisting arrest, a very subjective term implying that a person is given instruction that they don't follow, thus allowing the officer to increase their measure in order to "control the situation".

Dylann Roof was taken without incident and without getting killed not because he's white, but because he did not resist.  He complied after he did his deed, allowing the officers to do things their way, rather than his way.  If you look at nearly every black person ever killed in the past year and a half by a police officer, they resisted in some way.

Let me be clear.  I don't care about scale.  I don't care whether it's right or wrong.  I'm stating a fact.  They resisted in some way, which unfortunately opened the door for the police officer to do whatever.  

Sandra Bland, as an example, got "uppity" with the officer.  It didn't matter that her stop was not routine and was really silly.  It didn't matter that she was in her own vehicle.  You get stopped, you're told to exit the vehicle, you do it.  Don't argue it.  You're told to put a cigarette out; do it.  Don't argue it.  Answer their questions directly.  Don't get smart with them. Don't validate the "ghetto black" mentality by acting a fool.  Don't give them a reason.

As an African American myself I used to get stopped by police on many occasions, some suspicious ("weaving freeway lanes"), some not ("failure to stop completely at a stop sign").  I don't fight the police, I don't argue the police.  Let them use their power however.  I show no fear of them and they know it.  But I don't purposely pick a fight just because I feel the stop is unjustified.  

I was once temporarily restrained due to an alleged domestic issue, cuffed and put in the back of a squad car while the officer talked to the claimant.  Mind you, at the time I was 160lbs soaking wet, this gal was easily over 250, had self damaged her face (think "Thin Line Between Love and Hate"), and claimed I "tossed her around".  The police officer, as white as white can be, laughed in her face and said, "really?" then released me and allowed me to get my stuff so I could leave (which was what I was trying to do at the time she called police).

The difference with me and those killed: I was not committing nor have I ever committed a felony.  Those killed committing felonies just gave the police reasons to react.  Good bad right or wrong.

With Christian Taylor, it's different.  He was committing a felony, but we don't know why.  We have no story up to the surveillance video.  Was he acting alone?  Did his friends put him up to it?  Was it just him in that SUV or did someone else go with him that never got out (thus not seen by the cameras), but after it crashed into the dealership, escaped without being noticed?

The video shows that after breaking into the Mustang, he turned on the lights.  This is common with parking lot thefts where you want to "flag" a car that you intend to steal.  The problem is it was unnecessary.  If you have the keyfob, you simply need to walk the aisles and look/listen for a reaction.  If it didn't have keyless entry, it doesn't have an alarm; no alarm, no need to break the front windshield and you might as well go through the side window (he started doing this, but decided against it.  Which seemed to imply that he noticed an alarm).  It just doesn't make sense to then ram your vehicle into the showroom.

One prevailing theory is that he was doing this intentionally to get attention and get police out there for some reason.  Seems crazy, but if that's what he was doing, why a dealership and why in the middle of the night?  

These are important questions to answer.  An interesting factoid about Classic GMC in Arlington, TX is that there are no security cameras inside the showroom floor.  None.  Thus, there isn't video footage of the actual shooting.  Some wild-eyed theories that the Arlington Police are suppressing it, but this is debunked if you just go to Google Maps.

Around 5-ish years ago, dealerships reached out to Google Street View to offer internal shots of their dealership, so that customers could actually walk the lot and the showroom floor, in full high definition.  Classic GMC is one such dealership, and you can go inside yourself to verify that there are no cameras whatsoever in that building.  

Google Street View - See Inside Classic GMC, Arlington, TX

Arlington PD isn't covering anything up, because there's nothing to cover up.  No video of the actual shooting.  More likely is that the dealership put heavy security on the perimeter (the lot) thinking that they'd be able to identify and catch anyone who was spotted, and it would be unlikely anyone would try to break into the showroom after being spotted.  Christian did, to the extreme, and it got him killed.

Some have criticized the media for using terms quoted from the PD like "scuffle", "altercation", etc.  There was a "verbal altercation" in that Taylor apparently confronted the police officer through a glass wall and even started cussing at one point.  That's an altercation, an avoidable one.

Better questions are: why did the training officer, who was the senior that night, not corral the rookie cop?  Why was the rookie cop allowed to go on his own in the first place?  Who knows.

This is a very unfortunate situation that deserves answers.  I'm not interested in getting all angry about "white cop kills unarmed black teen".  I care about the truth.  The full truth.  

We need to know, for sure:

1. Why Christian Taylor decided to go to that dealership?
2. Why Christian Taylor decided to rob a dealership at 1am?
3. Why Christian Taylor thought he could steal a car when he already had a vehicle (how was he going to get it out of there?)
4. What was Christian Taylor doing with his cellphone (seen at one point in the surveillance video)?  
1. Was he texting someone to tell them what he was doing?  Who was that person and what was sent?  
2. Was he taking photos?  Were they sent to the cloud maybe?  
3. Where's the cellphone now?  Has it been analyzed for more information?
1. Did he make any calls or texts or IMs just before going to the dealership (accomplice, peer pressure, blackmail)?
2. What activities happened before, during and after this?
5. What does ballistics say?  
1. Do they show that Taylor was facing the officer and heading towards him (threatening gesture)?
6. What does forensics say?  
1. Do they show that Taylor had his hands up?  
2. Do they show anything Taylor might have had that was misconstrued as a weapon?
3. Are there any fingerprints in the office Taylor was shot in, not belonging to dealership staff (this is a big one)?
4. Was there anything helpful or incriminating inside the SUV?  Did they find evidence that someone else was in there the night of this incident?
1. Freezing the surveillance video when he crashed through the gate reveals what appears to be someone in the passenger's seat, but it's too blurry to verify.
7. What do detectives say?
1. Had Christian Taylor been to that dealership before (casing the place)?
2. Did anyone at the dealership know him personally (inside job...?)
3. Do any of his friends know anything at all (the cell phone should help this one)

A lot has been made of this incident and many people only care that a black kid was killed.  But the search for truth means much more to the public.  Until we put the story together, we can't assume that this is just some racist cop.  On the surface it looks like a rookie panicked and reacted, but until we learn what put Christian Taylor in that situation in the first place, we can't pass judgment.  Whatever it was that put him in that dealership is where anger should be directed, not at the police.  Had he never gone there, he'd still be alive.  We now need to know why he went there.

The Arlington Police Chief has been clear and open the entire time and it's obvious he wants to make sure the right information gets out rather than speculation.  He is to be commended for that as it's rare in police departments across the country.  Rallying for a "cleanup" of the department is silly and short-sighted at this point.  Let them do their job and hopefully, answer all of the burning questions I put up there.  Let's hear the truth before we find the pitchforks.

#Windows10 Lets You Evaluate For 30 Days. I Rolled Back After 1 Hour.

First, some back history.

• I've been using Windows since 3.1.  Yes, that long.
• I can clearly recall installing Windows ME on my friend's computer.
• I received a free copy of Windows 2000 as part of a fly-by-night self paced school and mastered it from that.
• I can clearly recall buying the boxed Windows XP from Staples in Chula Vista, San Diego, and how extremely buggy it was at launch.
• Windows Vista wasn't actually a bad OS, it was just buggy prior to SP2.  Once SP2 was released, it was an amazing OS on the right hardware. (keyword: RIGHT HARDWARE).  But Vista SP2 made for an awesome VMWare guest OS.
• I was one of the first to touch Windows 7 before it was released, and was certified on it shortly after launch.  I attended the "Windows 7 Experience" in San Diego at my own expense and walked away with a free copy of the OS.  Used it ever since.
• I tested the earliest build of Windows 8 on an Asus Eee PC touch tablet (which was actually an amazing experience, frankly) long before Surface was even thought of.
• I own a Dell XPS13 (2015) that came with Windows 8.1 and a free upgrade to Windows 10.  Free.  Everyone loves free.

I'm not new to Windows.  I've used Mac OS since it was the Apple System.  I've used various flavors of Linux including "Lindows" (aka Linspire).  I've been working with computers for over 30 years and I touched my first computer when I was 6 years old.

I gave Windows 10 a fair chance because usually, this is when Microsoft "gets it right" after botching things so badly.  And honestly, Windows 10 is an OK OS for someone who isn't tech savvy.  If you're the kind of person who just wants to fire up their computer and type out the occasional email or browse the Web, you're not a developer or anything like that, Windows 10 is perfectly fine.

The problem is, so is every other OS.  Windows 10 doesn't add anything constructive.

For me, the key indicators that an OS is going to work for me...it has to pass two tests: Quantifiable Benefits, and Justifiable Compromises (if any).  For me, a person who works as a software developer/consultant/PM/BA type role, Windows 10 fails both of these tests.  8.1 fails the Quantifiable Benefits test, but passes the Justifiable Compromises (because on my laptop, it doesn't compromise much of the experience).  Let's talk about it though.

Quantifiable Benefits

1. Does the OS add features that I would find useful?
1. The only feature I saw added to Windows 10 that might be of any value was the virtual desktop feature.  For those that don't know what that is, it allows you to basically manage multiple "spaces" with different things going on.  So for example, you could have a work "space" with all of your work apps, then a school "space" with all of your school apps, and a personal "space" with everything else.  That way it's easier to keep track of what app has what open, and why.  The problem is, Windows 10 doesn't even call out this feature.  It's buried behind a poorly sized, redundant search bar.
2. Does the OS perform better than the OS before it?
1. While Windows 10 was certainly faster at certain tasks, I didn't find it booted or rebooted any faster than 8.1 on this machine.  Edge is lightning fast so long as the website is properly written, but Edge doesn't support LastPass (meaning no logins to websites) and doesn't support AdBlock (meaning you're blasted with ads all over the place).  Besides, Chrome performed admirably well anyway on both 8.1 and 10, so no real value add here.  Honestly, if your machine has a solid state drive, you likely won't see any improvement from 8.1 or 7.
3. Does the OS provide functionality that improves application support?
1. Not only did app support not improve, I was frequently hit with "not supported on Edge browser".  Even Dell's own website had this issue!  Months of having access to Windows 10 (since they had drivers available) and they didn't bother to rewrite their web app to support the Edge browser?  Really?  Other apps I had installed continued to work, but if web apps don't work it's a moot point.  Yes, I could just run Chrome and Firefox, but isn't Microsoft's point that I should be using Edge for a superior experience?
4. Does the OS provide enhanced driver support?
1. A funny story is that prior to release, Microsoft released a borked nVidia (graphics card) driver that caused Explorer (the heart and soul of your operating system, in a way) to crash.  No Explorer, no use.  So I put this as a fail.  They fixed it since, but the forced update issue (more on that later) negates that fix.
5. Is the OS easier to use or better from a usability perspective?
1. The big news is that Microsoft made the OS more intelligent.  If it detects you have a keyboard and mouse, it will send you to the Desktop, not the tiled "Start Screen".  If you have a Windows tablet, it will boot you into the Start Screen.  The regular Start Menu is back, with tiles.  But that's largely it.  Everything else is as it was with 8.1, except that certain critical settings (like Windows Update) have been dumbed down and buried in the "Metro" interface.  So, this is a fail.
6. Does the OS enhance core functionality and stability?
1. Microsoft would claim that their forcing updates will make the OS more stable and trustworthy.  I disagree.  At best, buggy updates will be deployed or even stable updates that break critical features will be deployed (this happened with an application I support, where a patch broke ActiveX in our application, causing a total rewrite of the code unexpectedly).  At worst, some plucky hacker manages to inject malware into the distribution engine and deploys it to botnets around the world.  Did you know there's a setting that basically allows internet PCs to share their updates with other PCs?  Yeah no.

In short, I saw nothing benefiting me as computer user.  I saw a lot of misguided attempts to dumb down the computer experience rather than leave power to those who know how to use it.  Microsoft's answer to this: "Buy the Enterprise Edition".  And of course, I'm not spending thousands of dollars to regain basic functionality I already have...in Windows 8.1.

Justifiable Compromises

This one is subjective, so I'll give you an example.

In Server 2008, you had to go through Server Manager and provision roles for the server.  There's a bug in that UI that, if you do certain roles out of order or if you do them at the same time rather than separately, it won't register certain files that are part of the role.  You have to then write a script to get it to "stick" properly.

Server 2012 corrected this by making one of the roles include all of the features necessary.  That way, it didn't matter which order you added the roles.  The trade-off is that the UI where you attach the roles was dumbed down severely; but they exposed PowerShell capability, so you could write a small script that attached the roles instead.  The result was that you could provision servers with defined roles much easier and faster in 2012, despite the UI being dumbed down, if you knew PowerShell scripting (which I do).

That's an example of a fair trade.  While functionality was taken out of one area, it was enhanced in another area, so productivity wasn't lost, it was improved.

The same is not the case with Windows 8.1 vs. 7, nor is it the case with Windows 10 versus either of the previous.  Windows 10 instead removes things (i.e. Windows Update advanced controls to refuse or delay updates regardless of version) and provides no other alternatives.  They're forcing their belief system upon the user, and it's wrong.  That's not justifiable, and I don't want to hear "but people would be exposed to all sorts of security problems!"  Wrong.  All this will do is cause underpowered, underspec'd machines to drag to a crawl or run out of storage prematurely.  People won't upgrade, they'll just reinstall the software, and the same thing happens again.  Geek Squad will make a killing on reimaging machines simply because some rogue update borked it, and others will complain that their metered satellite connection out in Hangem, Montana can't keep up and is dirt slow.  It's a problem.

I saw way too many compromises and not many benefits with Windows 10.  They didn't do enough to revert the damage done with Windows 8.  It's not close enough to Windows 7 in terms of usability and functionality to be a super success, and my guess is, we will see some updates that slowly revert some of the bad design decisions out of the OS.  Unfortunately, I won't be around to see any of it, and if this truly is the last full "Windows" we ever experience, I guess that means my personal machines will never see anything beyond 8.1.  At work, I'm curious if they'll update Windows 7 ever, or just stay on it to give the finger to Microsoft.

Why #DroughtShaming Is Misguided.

Hate mongering.

That's the first thing that comes to mind when I see tweets about this issue.  While it affects California presently, the reality is that the entire United States, if not North America at large, will at some point be impacted if global warming truly is a thing.

Drought shaming is the notion that by bullying someone who appears to be wasting water, you're making a difference by shaming them into changing.  Yes, I said bullying.  It amazes me that this is acceptable, but fat shaming isn't.  Makes one question where people's priorities lie, and the simple fact is that people who simply don't care about their lawn (or don't know how to properly take care of it) are using this as a free pass to say "neener neener neener!" at their neighbor who's outdoing them handily.  People jump on the bandwagon instead of appropriately saying, "it's not nice to tattle on people."  But the state (California) supports this bullying.

Below is one photo from this hashtag. 

 Now, I would call her a water waster, because she is blatantly watering the sidewalk with no care or empathy to the drought.  This woman should be instructed about the problem AND fined as her first offense.  If she keeps doing it, keep raising it.  There's intent here.


Here is another photo, this time of a fixed position spray nozzle irrigation system.  There is some sidewalk wetness.

This shouldn't be included in any drought shaming, and here's why.

1. The nozzle is aligned onto the lawn perfectly.  It's not intentionally spraying on the sidewalk or over it.
2. It's entirely possible that wind may have caused some of the sprinkler to mist back onto the sidewalk.  This is unavoidable; you can't control the wind.
3. The grass is very tall.  It's possible that what we're seeing is soil runoff due to over watering, but then we'd see a lot more water on the sidewalk.

Just that there's an irrigation system on a green lawn shouldn't be a free pass to bully someone.  Even if you watered with a hose you're still going to at least partially hit the sidewalk.  You can't prevent SOME water hitting the sidewalk, so we shouldn't be going around attacking people simply because the sidewalk's a little wet.

That said, there are instances where the sidewalk is clearly evidence of water wasting.  Take this photo for example:

Now, looking at the photo it's obvious what the problem is: slope.  It's just way too steep and the water is naturally running off.  His system is not designed to deal with this properly, to allow the soil to soak the water in before continuing to water.  Cycled light watering would help here, as would sideways cross watering instead of bottom-mounted spray heads.  A drip irrigation would probably be the best of both worlds since it would allow the soil to soak in the water over time.

Here's another example.

Here, it's clear that the problem is that the sprinkler heads are all wrong for this type of landscape.  It's sharply sloped upwards and the sprinkler heads are not adjusted for directed spray.  The result is significant misting, and in the case of the sprinkler on the bottom right, it's likely not aligned on the right stop.  There's also too much overlap in sprinkler heads, so there may be soil run off.

Then there are those who criticize green lawns in general.  People up in arms saying that homeowners should essentially turn their plots into Arizona deserts, like this:

Now, if you're the kind of person who doesn't want to maintain a lawn this is fine.  Although it will seriously tank the resale value.  Don't ever plan to sell?  Go for it, by all means.  It's not a solution to the problem.

A green lawn does not automatically equal water waste, and this is the point I'm trying to get across to people.  A family of 2+ will use more water in the bathroom every day than could possibly be used in an efficient irrigation system.  The lawn isn't a symptom of waste, it's a sign that the homeowner cares about the property.  That's it.  

The only way to prove waste is, as in the examples above, clear wasteful water spilling on sidewalks.  Otherwise, it's looking at the water meter results to determine if they are substantially higher than comparable homes in the neighborhood.  That's waste.  If that homeowner with a perfectly manicured lush lawn has a water bill of $40 where the neighbors with dead lawns are pushing $80, how can the lawn be evidence of water wasting?  It doesn't make sense.

1. That green lawn might be dwarf grass, which uses an extremely low amount of water and requires little maintenance.  This is used in some golf resorts because of its tolerance to foot traffic and abuse.
2. That green lawn might be artificial turf, which of course requires no water.  Some golf resorts have changed over to this now that techniques for manufacturing have yielded a more realistic look.  Some celebrity homes also use this - and no, stripes in the lawn aren't evidence that it's real grass.  Newer synthetic grass can actually stripe.
3. Some grass seed requires very little ongoing water.  Fescue, for example, is a resilient grass that doesn't require a lot of watering.  A person could water it once a week in the morning when it's cooler, and it will not only green nicely, but stay green.  Fescue also responds very well in shaded areas, so if the lawn is even partially shaded, it will retain green throughout the year with very minimal watering.
4. Some fertilizers are better at assisting grass growth and resilience, and minimize water needs.  That the lawn is super green compared to the neighbors might simply be the right balance of nutrients in the soil.
5. The majority of that lawn might be green moss, rather than actual grass.  This is especially true in the Pacific Northwest, because moss will largely stay green unless treated, and blends in with otherwise green grass.
6. Green lawns help cool the surrounding air with an evaporation effect.  Don't believe me?  Stand outside on a green lawn, then go stand on a completely dead lawn.  Do this in the middle of a heat wave.  You will feel a difference.  
7. Green lawns help deter fire spreading.  Dead lawns are kindling to fires.  In states such as California this is critical.  The moisture in watered lawns might be the difference between a quickly spreading fire and one that can be doused in time.
8. Hardscapes, gravel and asphalt increase heat emission.  Ever notice how much hotter it is in places that don't have many green lawns, or trees?  This is because of the absorption of heat by the hard materials that emits back upward.  

The answer isn't to bully people who happen to have a green lawn, and I'm not suggesting that there isn't blatant water waste.  But the drought shaming trend has gone way too far in the wrong direction with people pointing fingers at the wrong sources.  It's people who are knowingly and willfully wasteful (i.e. saturating sidewalks, and/or take 30+ minute showers, and/or run multiple laundry loads, etc.) that are deserving of the shame.  Don't just point fingers at people with green lawns when it very well may be that they're just really good at lawn maintenance.

Why $15 Minimum Wage Is The Wrong Answer

Hi.  My name is...well, call me ReV.  And I've got a story to tell.

1996.  I graduated high school and "at the behest of" (aka forced by) my father, went straight to work.  I didn't get the chance to go to college like I was planning to.  I've never worked a part-time job, ever.  That first job, I was making $8/hour at a time that minimum wage was under $6/hour.  I basically made about $1,000/month.  Back then you could rent an apartment for $500/month.  Wouldn't be anything fancy, and don't expect not to get robbed every so often, but the point is it was perfectly possible.

Rather than saving money or doing anything purposeful with it, I spent it on things I don't even remember.  Car stereos absolutely, clothes certainly.  Beyond that?  No clue.

Fast forward nearly 20 years, and I am still working full time and have been continuously for 11 years, though I have moved from job to job in search of "that right fit".  I'm convinced it doesn't exist.  But I digress; that's not what I'm here to talk about.  I'm here to rant about the minimum wage fight.  And let me clear: It's not that I don't think minimum wage should be raised.  On the contrary, it's long overdue and the law is broken.  I simply think that asking for $15 is out of whack.

About two years ago I did some number crunching and estimated that, according to the value of a minimum wage position to the economy, minimum wage should be around $10.  Last year (after I made that estimate) the certain economists stated that minimum wage, adjusted for inflation over the years, should be around $10.10.  You know what that tells me?  It tells me that I had the magic all along.  And I want to share  that magic with you, despite knowing that many people will simply react emotionally rather than process the information rationally.

The problem with higher wages?  Taxes.

Full time employees that  make a decent amount of money fully  understand how greedy our government is.  "The more you make, the more they take" was never true, and this is even worse if you live in a state with income tax separate from Federal.  In ways you're getting triple taxed, and this  is  all before you even see that money.  So the pundits say that raising minimum wage will spur the economy because people will spend more.  Here are the issues.  Let's put some metrics around this.

Say you're making $7/hour right now at some fast food joint, part time 6 hours a day/30 hours a week.  So your net income is going to be $210/week, $420/biweekly, $840/monthly.  

Under a $15 minimum wage at the same number of hours, you'd be looking at $450/week, $900/biweekly, $1800/monthly.

You with me so far?  Good.

1. Sales tax will destroy any potential benefits one might see from higher wages.  You know it's true.  It doesn't matter if you make $8/hour or $15/hour, you still won't buy that shiny new laptop knowing you're paying anywhere from 6%-12% in taxes.  Especially if said laptop is over $1,000 in the first place.  And don't give me garbage about Amazon, because even they're cracking down on that (reluctantly).  But say you start shopping.  You'd be thoroughly surprised how fast that $900 will disappear simply by renewing car tags, renewing bus passes, getting gas, getting food, renting a car, buying a plane ticket, getting OTC meds from the drug store, and taking care of one pet and one kid.  
2. Most that want minimum wage increased are smokers, drinkers, and/or both.  But the problem is that most in this minimum wage category are going to buy (more) cigarettes (or weed) and alcohol.  If they currently smoke, this just gives them ammunition to buy more of it.  Yes, they're paying hefty taxes on those (not hefty enough IMO), and that's the problem.  By the time it's done, they're back broke again and asking for another minimum wage hike.
3. The Feds are now able to come a-knockin'.  Did you know that, under the wage scenario in red above, you'd owe NOTHING in taxes?  That's right.  This is because, if you were so underpaid as the $7/hour scenario placed above, you'd make $10,080/year.  The minimum threshold for being taxable was (as of tax year 2014) $10,150.  What's this mean?  See, the minimum threshold was designed to ensure that if the government deems you simply insolvent and not financially in a position to pay taxes without putting yourself out, they just don't need to collect. 
   
   This is called EXEMPT and if you've filled out a W4, there's a line that asks you this very thing.  Many don't understand what it means, but it essentially says, "if you made so little that you ended up getting a full refund, and are still going to make so little that you would  get a full refund again, enter EXEMPT and keep your money, we won't take it."  That's right - more take home, instead of waiting for the scam known as a tax refund.  You don't owe it and it's a waste of time and taxpayer money to file a form requesting money back that never should have been taken from you.
   
   Now, if you bump minimum wage to $15/hour, you're now making $21,600 - well over the minimum threshold.  All of a sudden you must pay taxes, and legally, you must pay them via proper W4 exemptions.  Given that, and assuming you had 2 kids and filed single (since most  minimum wage harpers have at least 2 kids for some reason), your estimated tax is approximately $2600 every year.  So now, you're down to approx. $19,000/year.  
4. You're now paying a lot more into Social Security and Medicare like everyone else.  Federal was estimated at approx. $19,000/year.  So let's look at this a bit more.  Another $1,200 (approx.) for Social Security.  Another $300 (approx.) for Medicare.  So now you're down to $17,500/year.
5. Unless you live in one of 7 states, you're paying state income tax.  Let's take California - I mean that's where everyone wants to live, right? - so that's another $1,500  (approx.) for that sunshine.  So now you're down to $16,000/year.

Now, with those bullets, where's that leave you with your amazing minimum wage bump?  Approx. $1200/month take home.  Here's a funny fact: if you got a raise to $8/hour and worked full time,  you'd make slightly more than that.  That's right - an extra $1/hour would be the same from a financial standpoint vs. getting a $15 minimum wage if you're right now making $7/hour.  It just gets worse from there.

This is what is known as the Law of Diminishing Returns.  You're in a position where you are not required to pay as much tax, and end up making more money to where taxes nearly triple.  From a in-pocket perspective, you haven't benefited from the increase. The inevitable next step is to then ask for more money.  It becomes a domino effect from there - a slippery slope of failure and disappointment as those who don't understand the tax system start to feel that pain and realize that their "large wage increase" isn't as livable as what they had before.