#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.

Dear @BarackObama: Salary Exemption Is Broken

Mr. President:

    I realize that your presidency is fast coming to its end.  I also realize that during your presidency, you've attempted to make things right for Americans.  I haven't always agreed with some of the things you've proposed (I think Obamacare is radically overpriced, for example, and I don't feel that amnesty is the right answer for illegals), and I think other things have been deprioritized that should have been front and center (that we still have overreaching TSA, the tax code is still broken, and banks are still allowed to discriminate against people based on faulty credit agencies that are making billions in profit).

I do want to call to attention an issue that's always been there, and that's pay.  Not hourly pay.  Salaried pay.  For you see, employers have long been abusing this in order to minimize how much they need to pay employees.

The law was apparently written during a time when the idea of a "professional" position really involved someone in management.  Over the years companies have extended this with numerous sub-exemptions that pretty much label anyone not working data entry, customer service, mail room or retail, as an "exempt" employee.  This lets them avoid paying overtime, but with no penalty applied against the company when they abuse the employee's time.

As companies downsize due to the Recession, the changes in minimum wage, the rise of offshoring, etc., many companies figured out that they could simply stack double the work on an employee, but were not required to pay them any additional money for time above and beyond 40 hours.  Normally, this should work the other way: if an employee works at least an hour and gets their work done, that should be sufficient.  It's not.  Companies require employees to stay around for 40 hours minimum, even to the degree of requiring timesheets to back up that they put in a full 40 hours.

This goes against the very spirit of a "salaried" employee, which was intended to pay a person based on work being completed, not a duration of time being allotted.

But the complexity gets worse. An "Exempt" employee could be paid hourly (Computer professional exemption).  The requirements for this are even less logical: all a company has to do is agree to an hourly rate of at least $27.  If a person clocks one hour, they're paid $27.  They get no overtime, so if a company abuses their hours, they get paid flat for the extra time investment above 40 hours, which doesn't go a long way towards properly compensating the employee for "going above and beyond" - the true spirit of overtime time-and-a-half pay.

If a company hires an employee that does not do any of the "primary duty" work for that company, BUT is instead "lended" to another company as a consultant, some companies are abusing the exemption by saying that the work done for the other company qualifies.


This is all to the detriment of the employee, benefit of the employer, and has cost people millions of dollars in lost overtime pay.

Something should be done about this to ensure that people who go above and beyond are compensated, regardless of status, work type, or job type, so long as they are not management employees.  To me that's as simple as creating a single criteria for exemption: a person must have a direct report in order to be exempted from overtime pay OR your annual salary is at least 2x the median for the state, whichever happens to come first and must adjust with inflation.

This has four possible net effects.

One, companies will increase salaries so they don't need to pay overtime; a fixed annual investment in lieu of a variable hourly investment.

Two, a significant increase in the number of employees eligible for overtime, but a sharp decrease in the amount of overtime those employees are allowed (forced) to work.

Three, continuing re-evaluation of employee salaries to ensure they don't lose the exemption.  If a state's median is $40k and an employee makes $85k, they're exempt that year, but if the median rises the following year to $60k, the employee must now make at least $120k (a substantial raise that most companies won't do), or be now eligible to receive overtime pay at time-and-a-half (which lets the company constrain overtime accordingly).

Four, companies will hire more employees to do work rather than force existing employees to do overtime and pay more than they would pay additional staff.  This lightens workloads across the board - right now, employers are doing everything they can to minimize staff, which creates burden on existing employees who don't get fairly compensated for the extra work they're doing.


I am not sure if you're the right outlet to hear the plea, but I think the plea should be heard and considered.  It's a problem.  It's been a problem for far too long.  The fix is terribly easy; get rid of all of the complex, confusing exemptions that benefit only employers.  Put the power back in the hands of the employees by dumbing down the exemption: either they have at least one direct report (which they need to manage documentation for, of course), OR they make at least 2x the median, adjusted with inflation.  Otherwise, no exemption for that year.

Sony is in trouble.

OK.

So I saw a message board posting claiming that Sony was being sued by Immersion Corp (owned in part by Microsoft, more on that later) for patent infringement and back royalties. The source? The DualShock 2, a controller that, for many, is the difference between playing a game and living it. The DualShock 2, which has been around for years (since the PS2 has been around for years), and is sold along with each console. O....K.

Let me back up and state clearly that I've played every type of controller that has a force feedback function and NONE...NONE of them can compare to the DualShock 2. I'm very picky about how noisy the feedback is within the controller, and thus far, only Sony can make a quiet, yet powerful, feedback motor. Others have tried, and failed - Logitech came close, but their controller is way too overpriced.

Now, let's break down the facts as presented.

• The PS2 has been out for YEARS. YEARS. I remember when it first launched; my friend was dumb enough to run out and buy a launch system for $300, returning it shortly thereafter when he found there were no games. I'd estimate roughly 5 years, but I'm probably off a year in either direction.
• The DualShock 2 has been out for YEARS (since it was sold alongside the system).
• There is a limited list of games that "use the DualShock feature". This I don't get; more on this later.
• Force Feedback really started with the Dreamcast, but its was a separate feedback module that plugged into the controller. N64 followed suit with a similar concept.
• Third party makers have force feedback in them.

With the facts above, I ask myself questions.

1. In all of these YEARS why is this company coming forth now? Especially considering they could have really hurt the PS2's chances of becoming or remaining number one. If the PS2 had never existed -OR- were hindered by this announcement in the beginning, Xbox -WOULD- be the dominant system, Dreamcast would still be around and kicking out games, and GameCube would probably have been on top of the RPG world. Hey, just stating it as I see it.
2. Just about every game on PS2 uses the Dual Shock in some way or another; why is the list so short? I mean certain games like Final Fantasy X-2 and Star Ocean: Till The End Of Time weren't listed. There has to be more to this. I wonder if it's the name "DualShock" and not the mechanics. Then I'd understand the limited list, because not every game that supports DualShock mentions it on the box or in the game.
3. Why are third parties exempt? Why is Nintendo exempt? Again, something doesn't add up, unless question 2 is correct about it being the name patent and not the mechanics, or are others doing something different?

Anyway, I tried to buy a PS2 and found that no retailer has any, for some odd reason. Whether related to the suit I don't know, but I bought Dynasty Warriors hoping to play it, and finding now that I cannot. Really bites.

Oh well. Comments welcome.

Terri Schiavo (uh, oh)

I'll be honest. I learned about this human tragedy roughly a week and two days ago. Apparently this is a 15-year old deal, and I had absolutely no clue. Whether that's due to media trying to squash the issue, or just because it wasn't as big a deal as it is now, I'm not sure. What I get asked regularly is what I think about this.

What do I think? What I think doesn't matter. What I feel does.

I'll share a little known fact about ReV. I'm immortal. I plan to live forever. I have no intentions of dying at 80 like statistics say I should, and in fact, if I DO die, it wouldn't be a day before 146 years old. No, you silly reader, I'm not insane...I simply believe it. I believe it as strongly as I believe the sky is actually not blue. I refuse to give up life, not because I fear death, but because I can't imagine my consciousness winking out. I can't imagine not thinking, in other words. So I refuse to stop thinking, and therefore, refuse to stop living.

Which brings me to Terri's deal. Here we have a situation where she collapses (the true reason behind this collapse is not known but 'rumored' to be a deficiency of a nutrient, causing the heart to stop flowing, thus oxygen was not flowing, thus...you get the pix) and goes into what they refer to, rather rudely, as a "vegetative" state. I've seen people in this state. My grandmother was in a minor bout of this state just before she passed away. It's not pretty...but the one thing that remains: The people want to live.

I like to pride myself as being somewhat empathic; meaning, of course, that I can detect what certain people are feeling. I'm good at it, been good at it since...oh....10th grade maybe? Anyway, when I look at the footage and pictures of Terri, and I look into her eyes, I don't sense someone in pain. I don't sense someone wishing death. I sense someone who's frustrated. Frustrated that she can't voice her side. Frustrated that people can't fully understand her. Frustrated that she can't live the happy life she once had, and frustrated that now, her life is being decided by, of all people, "the system". Not her.

I say "the system" because after many bouts back and forth between her estranged husband and her parents, a judge has ruled that Terri be deprived of the nutrients she needs to survive. You see, she was fed through a tube that went directly to her stomach. Her condition prevented her from consuming nourishment, effectively creating a dehydrated and malnourished state for the body. This tube was her saving life, and a judge made the decision to end it, based on doctor's opinions (I stress that word for a reason) and Mr. Schiavo's slight falsehoods. He's not a downright liar, but he's not telling the full truth. For example, it's a well known fact, and real doctors know this, that a person does not just collapse without:

• physical trauma (i.e. someone struck her)
• mental trauma (i.e. stress, fatigue)
• dehydration (difficult to believe if her 'loving husband' is with her)
• malnutrition (see above)
• suffocation (bad air/not enough air?)
• heart problems
• drugs

Note that with the exception of heart problems, all of these instigators are really motives to hurt someone, and don't make Mr. Schiavo look too good. I'm not saying he did anything. I'm stating a fact: It's highly improbable that she just woke up one day, walked into the living room, then collapsed from absolutely nothing. This isn't the Matrix; she wasn't unplugged or anything.

Which brings us to now. And which leads me to answer the question I've avoided up to this point: What do I think? Honestly, and some will hate me for this, I think that she should be allowed to die. It may seem to contradict what I said above, but let me explain myself before you throw tomatoes with these two timelines. Both could be wrong, neither may happen, but just to get your brain moving a little.

1. Judge makes decision. Tube is to be removed from Terri Schiavo.
2. Parents, friends, and sympathizers provide support to Terri in her final hours.
3. Terri passes away. The country mourns her seemingly pointless loss.
4. Evidence surfaces that Mr. Schiavo caused the initial collapse.
5. Judge finds that due to Terri's death, Mr. Schiavo should be tried for murder and sentenced to death by slow injection.

That's the "poetic justice" timeline.

1. Judge makes decision. Tube is to be removed from Terri Schiavo.
2. Parents, friends, and sympathizers provide support to Terri in her final hours.
3. Terri manages to recover enough to say (and is taped doing so) what happened and that she wishes to live.
4. Parents violate court order, feeding her just enough to keep her alive to request a stay of judgment.
5. Judge orders stay; Terri can be fed until a final verdict is reached.
6. Judge finds Terri can comprehend the world, contrary to doctor opinions, and rescinds order for tube removal.

That's the "sunny day" timeline.

Both basically say that fighting the system is useless. As long as there are nerds with PhD's running around making opinions about symptoms, they'll be believed. This situation can end only one of three ways: poetic justice, sunny day, or yet another person gets away free. OJ Simpson, Michael Jackson, The Ramseys, Kobe...

Long answer short - I feel she should be allowed to die because if Mr. Schiavo caused her to collapse in the first place, it's grounds for his execution. He'll die, and in a slow, painful way, just like he made her do. If she's allowed to live and he's found guilty of the collapse (say he hit her, as an example), he'll get...what...2 years lockup time for domestic abuse? Come on.

I may have a cynical view, and again, I AM pro-life, but I'm an even bigger supporter of "what goes around, comes around". IF he did it, he should get the maximum possible punishment.

While I'm at it - OJ Simpson...

OK.

I'm on a roll, and people have asked me about the OJ Simpson trial of the 90's. The criminal AND the civil one. What are my thoughts? Well...I don't want to go too much into detail, but I will say this: OJ was involved, but not the killer.

First, the testimonies.

Kaelin says he heard "3 thumps". I didn't hear the testimony so I could not hear his reenactment of the thumps in order to know speed, volume, and pattern.

Fuhrman found the glove over by Kaelin's room, however the foliage was undisturbed and no blood was found except that from the glove.

The glove was still moist the next morning - a total of 8 hours.

All of the clothing was OJ's. In particular, the Bruno Magli shoes.

OJ could not be accounted for during the murder period. The Bronco was not confirmed to be at Rockingham the entire time...unless Allan Park (the limo driver) was lying.

Speaking of Allan Park, he said he saw a "shadowy figure" walk up from the driveway to the front door. This was assumed to be a black man. However, race is irrelevant, since you could wear a dark beanie or other head ornament over your face and appear black to someone that far in the distance. This is important.

Kaelin and Park just happened to be within visual range of this figure walking up the driveway at the "right" time. So the timing of Kaelin's exit from the room as well as Park's facing the gate with the beams on just happened to be the same. More on that later.

The murder clothing was found half-washed in the washing machine. The bloody socks were found near the foot of the bed and the murder weapon never found.

The murders were brutal, calculated...there was nothing subtle about the way Brown or Goldman was killed. Although Simpson was the only known person to really have a motive to kill Goldman, others may have had reason to kill Brown...and Goldman happened to be in the wrong place at the right time.

That should be it for what was presented. Now, many theories are floating around, the conspiracy to frame Simpson by LAPD, mob involvement, Simpson himself, and even gangs. I think (and I stress this as an opinion based on the facts) that OJ was no fool. I don't...no, CAN'T believe him to be capable of such ineptitude. Things were way too illogical as presented, and the murders too brutal for a normal human being. Therefore....(wait for it....)

I think someone ordered a hit on Nicole Brown Simpson, and I think that OJ was framed...not by that person, but by himself.

Notice I said "someone". I don't discount the possibility that OJ was the requestor. What I'm saying is that someone else did the actual kill. Who was it? I don't know. May have been OJ, may have been someone trying to blackmail OJ, may have been someone who just didn't like Nicole. Perhaps someone from her past. In any case, that would explain the missing murder weapon; the killer would not be dumb enough to leave it anywhere. The second part - that'll be some explaining yet.

So, like I did with MJJ, I'll recount what I believe happened that fateful night:

• Goldman discovers Nicole left her sunglasses at the restaurant. Decides to take them to her.
• Goldman arrives at the Bundy residence, meets Nicole, and gives her the glasses.
• The killer, having been waiting near the residence, sees there's another person. He (more on that later) realizes he'll have to kill Goldman as well.
• The killer performs his killings. He had to have been behind Nicole, possibly holding her with the knife to her throat, giving instructions to Goldman to "get down", knocked out Nicole, then Goldman attempted to take the knife from the killer, who overpowered him and stabbed him. A few more pokes - is he dead? Nicole has since comes around, sees the killer and perhaps recognizes him - Goldman almost got the hoodie off in the struggle. The killer realizes he's busted, kills Nicole.
• The killer departs the Bundy residence immediately.
• Fate and timing would have Simpson show up. Simpson intended to talk to Nicole in an effort to work things out. He walks up the front way until he hears splashes under his feet (this accounts for why blood is on his Bruno Magli shoes and socks). Hmm, maybe she left the water on.
• As he gets closer he sees that they're dead bodies with pools of blood - specifically, that of Nicole and Goldman. He starts in grief, possibly even grabbing Nicole up to him and crying over her body (this accounts for the blood on the sweat suit if he was wearing it). Then he stops. He'll be blamed for this. He'll be the one.
• He gets up, frantic. He goes this way, that way, not sure what to do next. He's in a serious panic over what to do next. Should he call the police? There's blood all over him and his bloody footprints are the only ones present.
• Without thinking, he gets into the Bronco and removes the sweatsuit, laying it on the seat next to him, then drives rapidly back to the Rockford residence (this accounts for the Shively testimony). He knows he needs to get out of there, quickly, but there's blood all over him. What should he do?
• Park's scheduled to pick him up. He forgot. He needs to get to Park so that Park can take him to the airport. But he can't walk in with these bloody clothes. Knowing that Kaelin is the only one inside, Simpson stands partially on the gate and raps three times (Kaelin's story about the picture slanting isn't true), then goes back around into the shadows at the front.
• Simpson waits a moment, then walks up to the house, thinking that Park is inside the limo which is facing the gate with its beams on and wouldn't be looking in that direction.
• He slips inside, now that everyone has exited, throws the bloody clothes in the washing machine, forgetting in his haste that the cycle would not take out all of the blood, goes upstairs, and changes socks, not realizing there were small splots of blood from the splashing. He does his best to hide the shoes and change to get ready for Park.
• Park drives Simpson to the airport with a "half-moon shaped bag". This is the same bag that Kaelin attempted to assist Simpson with earlier. Simpson is seen apparently holding this bag and putting something in the trash. Either he was called by the killer who threatened to kill him if he didn't put the money in the dumpster, or he was called by the killer demanding payment be put there. In either case, I believe it was money, not evidence.
• Fast forward: Simpson is called by police who inform him that his wife's dead. He shows little emotion to this event, why? Because he already knew she was dead and was fighting to maintain composure, lest he implicate himself. Simpson says he's rushing home.
• Simpson writes what appears to be a suicide letter, but is actually a "disappearance" letter. He's encouraged to write this by his friend Cowlings, who is making arrangements for Simpson to flee and has all of the necessary instruments to do just that.
• Fast forward some more: after the Bronco chase comes to an end, it is filled with what appear to be effects for skipping the country - a passport, lots of cash, fake mustache, etc.

In closing, I am honest when I say I don't believe "OJ did it". I believe he was at the scene of the crime, yes. I believe he was wearing the clothes he said he was not, yes. I believe he committed perjury about not wearing the shoes, yes. I believe 90% of his testimony was filled with perjury, yes. However, I don't believe him capable of those murders - not the way they were done. Again, I'm willing to admit the possibility that he ordered the hit and maybe even watched it happening. But I don't believe he killed those two, and until I hear a failed lie detector test and perhaps photo evidence of him carrying the bloody knife, I won't believe it. I think he was a man who panicked. I think he lost cognitive reasoning for that moment and it almost cost him.

Is Michael Jackson really "Bad"?

OK.

So the buzz of the year is, "Did Michael Jackson molest that boy?" In fact, people are also asking, "is it possible that Michael Jackson molested the boy from before?" They assume that, since he paid the last boy off, it's an admission of guilt. They also assume that just because Michael Jackson enjoys the company of children, he must be a pedophile. And they ask me what I think. I'd have to say I get asked the question roughly 4 times in a given day by a variety of folks who are rather disquieted at my reply.

Simply put - I don't think he's fully guilty.

Yes, you heard me. I don't think he's fully guilty. By that, I mean that I think there are things he did that were inappropriate, even illegal. I do NOT, however, believe he molested that boy. I can back up what I believe with the following:

1. The daughter not only lied herself, she admitted that her mother lies;
2. The brother lied, on numerous occasions. First off, it's VERY hard to mess up boxers and briefs. They are two different things. A 13-year old boy is more than likely not wearing boxers, he's probably wearing briefs, but let's assume he wanted to be grown. The brother said once that MJJ had his hand down the accuser's pants. Then he said MJJ's hand was on top of the accuser's pants. Then he said MJJ's hand was down the accuser's briefs, then he said boxers. All during Mesereau's cross-examination (and by the way, if I ever get in a scuffle, I'd love to have this guy on my team.)
3. The accuser stated that Michael gave him wine. He also stated that it smelled like "rubbing alcohol". I know from personal experience that he was referring to vodka; however, there is a strong difference between vodka and wine. The accuser said he took the drink and just swallowed it in one gulp from the Diet Coke can. No. Impossible. For one, you can't just drink the entire contents of a Diet Coke can with "one gulp" due to the fact it's in a can. Two, the strength of the alcohol content in vodka prevents you from running shot with a can's worth. Your throat would be so jacked you couldn't even speak. Three, the boy stated he thought it was water. Bull, since the smell will reach you long before the can does, not to mention it would be illogical to have water in a Diet Coke can. I believe this was very carefully scripted and the boy coached on exactly what to say.
4. The accuser's family is charing MJJ with attempting to imprision them, preventing them from leaving. If this is case, how did they get out the one time, only to turn around and come back to be "imprisioned" again?
5. The only two accusers of molestation in the entire span of time MJJ has had Neverland running (2, for the record) were both from broke, low class families. All of the children who made something of themselves (Macaulay Caulkin, Wade Robson, Emmanuel Lewis) say that MJJ didn't do anything to any of them. Know why? Because the families want to get paid. They know MJJ is a mark. They know MJJ is a softie. They read up on the case or talked to the previous DA that won the settlement and found exact details of what they needed to do. Then, they decided to try to muscle cash out of the King of Pop. Pure and simple. Jay Leno himself tried to get scammed by this same family, for the same cancer pity speech. Unfortunately, it didn't work, because they had nothing to use against him: Leno doesn't like the company of children.

With all that said, I don't believe MJJ molested that kid nor gave him alcohol. The facts presented do not make sense, and these are actually the family's testimonies. They all have been carefully scripted to say certain things certain ways, and there is no truth or validity about any of it. If these events really happened the mother would have put a stop to it long ago. A mother can tell when her kid is plastered, and if this kid really did down a 6 x 2 can worth of vodka, he should have been at slobbering status. Assuming he was, the mother chose not to act. That makes her negligent, and there is no proof to back up the claim that MJJ gave that liquor to the kid.

"But you said not fully guilty!" Yes I did, and I applaud you for your memory. By that, I mean that I DO think MJJ was sharing porn mags with the kids. Why do I think that? It's the one part of this whole trial that is not getting much focus. Sure, Sneddon did a little bit of questioning about the briefcase and such, and Mesereau did do some cross examination of the brother to catch him in a lie, but it was not as deep as the alcohol when, in my opinion, the porn mag is a more serious issue. For one, showing porn to an underage child is illegal. MJJ's prints as well as the kid's were on one of the mags. The kid's prints being on the mag means the kid saw the mag. Which means the kid looked at the mag. Which means MJJ is guilty of that, because if it was in a briefcase somewhere, the kids (unless they're just that good at searching) would not have known where that case was stashed. Someone had to pull it out for them. That someone could only have been Jackson.
Assuming what I think is true, showing porn to anyone has the potential to arouse sexual feelings in that person. Curiosity is a certainty. It's entirely possible, and believable, that in the process of seeing porn, possibly for the first time, the kid may have become curious, and regardless of who initiated it, that could lead to some level of molestation, even if benign.

So...having stated all of this, here is what I believe happened.

1. Child meets MJJ.
2. MJJ finds a common bond with the boy after hearing that the boy also did not have a good relationship with his father (the boy's father attempted molestation)
3. MJJ meets the mother, the mother is at first apprehensive, but realizing the possibility of a good life at MJJ's expense, goes along for the ride.
4. MJJ and the boy are close friends, and he feels safe with MJJ, so much that he feels acceptable calling him "Daddy".
5. Mother learns that MJJ allows the boy to sleep in his bed and is again uncomfortable until she is told that MJJ sleeps on the floor, not in the bed, when someone else is sleeping there.
6. Mother finds out, either through reading or perhaps even a meeting with that DA, about the previous molestation case that was settled. She gets dollar signs in her eyes at the prospect of another settlement. Knowledge that children sleep in his bed is golden.
7. Mother explains situation to the boy, who doesn't want to rat out his friend. The brother, however, does, and somehow gets the boy to go along with it.
8. Martin Bashier interview happens at just the right time. Boy pretends to be perfectly friendly with MJJ, long enough for MJJ to reveal the fact about his willingness to let children sleep in his bed.
9. Boy gets curious, and asks about "the birds and the bees". MJJ, not really knowing how to explain it, offers to illustrate instead, and shows the porn mag.
10. Brother finds wine cellar, alerts boy, and together they go down to "take a look". Finding nothing but alcohol there, the brother encourages the boy to "take a sip and see what it tastes like". Boy is hesitant at first but then concedes. After all, this is all part of mother's plan.
11. Rebuttal video is orchestrated by MJJ, who does not actually script what to say, but pleads with the family to simply solidify the point that nothing sexual or inappropriate happens at Neverland. The rest is the family's discretion.
12. Mother talks to a lawyer to find out her rights, going on the assumption of a molestation case. The accusation begins.

As you can see, I have a somewhat different view of events, but I seriously don't think MJJ would have laced the kid with alcohol nor do I believe that MJJ would have been jerking the kid off or rubbing him inappropriately or in inappropriate areas or whatever. I just don't accept it. Not solely because it's not in MJJ's nature, but because the testimonies are illogical. The stories keep changing, and all the while, the one witness who could exonerate Michael is exercising his rights as a reporter - yes, Martin Bashir, for Martin was the one who lived with Michael during the exact time that the alleged crimes started. Martin knows. He knows exactly what did or did not go on. His testimony would tell the truth (if he himself were truthful), and he chooses not to provide it. So then my question to Mr. Bashier is, are you testifying because you want to protect Michael? Or are you refusing to testify so you can get your share of whatever profit might come out of MJJ's conviction? It seems to me that a man who has evidence or eye-witness testimony to set a man free and believes him to be free would do everything possible and within reason to see that the truth is revealed, but not Martin Bashir. So I'll reserve judgment.

In any case, those are my thoughts. Post away.

File Sharing? No.

OK.

So the RIAA has been issuing lawsuits faster than George W. spits lies. And towards what? Users of P2P, or peer-to-peer, networks. They claim that the "rampant downloading of free music is damaging" to their bottom line, and that the "blantant stealing causes CD prices to go up as a result".

Let me tell you something.

I've been paying $18 for a CD (not including tax) for as long as I can remember. The part about increasing prices is a crock. Recent studies also have shown that, in fact, p2p can help sales. How? Look at the facts:

- the RIAA says that everyone who downloads music off of the net is yet another consumer who's not paying for the music. However, studies show that these same people are, for the most part, not financially inclined. They're the kids with allowances, highschoolers with lunch money, etc. They're not your working stiffs. That's not to say there aren't working stiffs that p2p. It's saying that they're the minority. That means that the minority are the losses to the artists, and truth be told, with the price gouging that CDs endure, they make more than enough to compensate.

- the RIAA says that people like to go online and download whole CD's of music. This isn't true, because anything transmitted over the internet, even with the fastest of connectons, is not near as good quality as the physical copy. A lot of people use p2p to sample music -OR- to get a single - something a lot of stores stopped selling. The thing is, if people get a chance to hear one or a few songs from an artist that they end up enjoying, they WILL buy the person's album: one, because they're impatient to wait for it to download; two, because there's no guarantee it won't be a corrupted file (and most people don't have the patience), and 3, they want to get the best possible quality. They'll buy it.

- the RIAA says that p2p is stealing. It's not. It's sampling music and I'll tell you truthfully - I would welcome p2p to anyone, because it means people actually get a chance to hear my music, and maybe even find songs that they enjoy that didn't get air play. That's sales for me.

- the RIAA says that MP3 files should be outlawed, and songs not be able to be burned to CD due to the rampant burning and selling. It's so hard to find a good quality version nowadays that it's more time effective to just go buy it.