Republicans

When I was young, the Republicans were the stodgy party. Sensible, responsible, conservative... too conservative for my tastes, but decidedly not loony (well, except for Lyndon Larouche). But over the years, they've drifted farther and farther into loony land -- a land that was once the sole dominion of the left. When did that happen? Was it with Reagan's election? I thought he was bad, but I had no idea how much worse it would get. Reagan was a brain trust compared to George II, and at least had charm. Bush Jr. had neither. But even he was a bright spark compared with Palin and Bachman. I just shake my head in wonder. How do these bozos get so far?

And how does America vote? How can it oscillate between Clinton/Bush/Obama? I think swing voters are really just morons who vote largely based on the height of the candidate. Ooh, he's tall! Fortunately, neither Bachman nor Palin are as tall as Obama, so maybe we're safe for this next election. Better check the stats on that yahoo from Texas...

Accessing USB storage on NetGear wifi

I just got a new NetGear DGN3500 DSL Modem/WIFI router. It has a USB port on the back for storage, but I could find no documentation for how to access it from the Mac. Here's how:
1) Open the NETGEAR web console (192.168.0.1)
2) Select USB Storage/Basic Settings
3) Copy the smb url (in my case, smb://readyshare/USB_STORAGE)
4) Open the Finder on the mac
5) Hit COMMAND-K
6) Paste the smb url into the Server Address field
7) Log in as guest (worked for me, anyway)

On Human Curiosity about Aliens

I find it very odd that we are the only creatures on Earth with advanced intelligence -- or at least, the combination of intelligence and the ability to make things. Arguably whales and elephants are pretty bright, but, alas, no thumbs. Still, given the apparent advantages that intelligence confers, it is weird to me that there aren't more critters around us writing books and making bombs.

I suppose one reason for this is that early humans were very good at wiping out other humanoid variants that didn't look exactly like them. So other branches of the tree were pruned by our in-built propensity for violence and racism. Depressing thought, eh?

Still, I figure that on other planets that harbor intelligent life, there isn't such a monopoly on intelligence as humans enjoy on Earth. I think this monopoly on intelligence and civilization has given us a very warped view of our place in the world (and the universe). For one, we have an extremely human-centric view of the world that is deeply embedded in western civilization. Man created in God's image, and all that rot. This monopoly has led us to wonder: is there other intelligent life out there -- that is, are there aliens on other planets that we could invite over for a bar-b-que.

We would view things very differently if there were half a dozen other species that were as culturally and technically advanced as we were. If, say, raccoons and lizards were much bigger, could talk and build things, and had weapons, we might not be so eager to ask the question: is there intelligent life out there. For one, we'd be too busy defending our turf against other intelligent mammals and reptiles to wonder about life out there. Secondly, we would be more frightened about what we might find. Inviting the top predator of some other planet over for tea might not seem like such an appealing idea.

Humans (or at least westerners) have historically believed Earth was the center of the universe, and was unique in harboring life. That's a quirk or our belief system. Aliens may hold no such illusion, and may assume quite the opposite: life is universal, governed universally by evolutionary pressures. If you take that position, then you don't wonder whether other intelligent life is out there -- you assume it is. The question is more whether it's tasty to you, or whether you're tasty to it.

Athiesm and Belief

As an athiest, sometimes I ask myself what do I believe? That is, what are those things I don't have proof for, yet I nonetheless believe. My core belief is that the scientific method will yield the closest thing to truth. While I may not understand the exact science behind, say, carbon dating, I believe that there are people who do understand it to the limits of human ability and our current state of knowledge, and that there is sound basis for their understanding. I believe that if it represented a flawed understanding, that other scientists would make their careers out of correcting the flaw. And that over time, the model will become more and more accurate.

But even this "belief" is subject to revision. Perhaps the scientific method itself will be improved upon.

Science has learned humility, which is why it now speaks more of "theories" than "laws". Einstein's theory of relativity refined Newton's laws. Science has learned that it must make all knowledge provisional... that any bit of understanding may be replaced by a deeper understanding. At each point, we have a picture of how the world works, but that understanding is subject to revision. Perhaps String Theory holds the key to the next breakthrough in understanding. If so, it will have to prove itself to a skeptical scientific community.

Skepticism is so important to progress in science. Any new idea has to prove itself to a skeptical community. This means it can take a long time for a new idea to become accepted. When I was a child, I remember a crazy notion that birds evolved from Dinosaurs. Now it is accepted dogma. Sufficient evidence was accumulated to convince a skeptical scientific community.
It is the combination of skepticism with a high burden of proof that makes it possible for science to advance in a sure-footed way. This is part of the scientific method, and one reason I can believe in the scientific method. I know that accepted scientific theories have been subject to intense skepticism and scrutiny, and have passed the test.

Can the same be said of religious belief?

Hyper Productive Programming

A couple of years ago, I started a payments company with a (non technical) co founder. We teamed up just before the stock market tanked, and needless to say, had a hard time raising money. Eventually we did raise some VC, but not much. Anyway, we had to build the product and the company on a shoe string.

I started developing a philosophy, born of necessity, of hyper productivity. There has always been the myth of the super programmer (think of the evil geek from Jurassic Park). The dude who can do it all. Generally this falls under the category of Hubris, and yet... with todays technology (open source and cloud computing), it is in fact possible for one or two good engineers to build and run a fairly complex software enterprise.

Cloud computing allows a software engineer to let somebody else, such as Amazon, worry about the hardware. The cost of using a service of Amazon is so much cheaper than buying equipment and staffing an IT department that it's really the only way to go.

Google Apps provides an intranet in a box. Group Scheduling? Check. Email? Check. Shared Documents? Check. The free version is fine for a small organization.

Leveraging appropriate software engineering tools keeps things productive. We use a Java stack with Hudson and Ant for build automation, Ivy for a repository, Junit for test, Eclipse IDE, GIT for source control, and Jira for bug tracking. It's what you'd expect to find in any large organization. Except that, uh, it's just me.

It seems like a lot of infrastructure, and it has certainly taken time to put all the pieces in place. But I don't regret any of the time spent in building the infrastructure. It's all paid dividends. If an outside observer were to look at our software stack and engineering infrastructure, they would easily believe it was supporting a serious software organization. And it is. Just a very small one.

IFrame URL should be displayed by the browser

I wasted several hours struggling through a problem with facebook's OAuth implementation, trying to get it to work within an iframe. After a bit of research, I worked out that it is designed NOT to work in an iframe, to avoid phishing/clickjacking attacks, and this is, in fact, the recommended practice in the OAUTH spec. Because the user can't tell (from the URL bar) what site an iframe comes from, it is recommended practice that the OAuth authentication happen in a popup window, or a page that you're redirected to, but not a page within an iframe.

In my opinion, this is getting things back asswards. This is a browser problem. Browsers should display (on mouse over, or focus) the actual URL for the iframe. If you're on www.foo.com which contains in iframe hosted by www.bar.com, when you mouse over the iframe, it should display the URL for that site (maybe hovering below the URL bar). Perhaps the browser could also change the mouse pointer, or have the favicon for the actual site appear near the cursor. It could also indicate whether the iframe is secure (https).

IFrames are great, but they do have security concerns... but those concerns should be addressed at the browser level, not by requiring unnatural user interface design.

A year off

Well, it's been over a year now that I have been off work. I have to say, it's been a good year. At first, I kept myself very busy. I had many projects around the house, and I knocked them off steadily. After awhile, that drive wore off, and I got into a more laid back routine. Since we're home schooling the kids, there's always something to do.

In the past year, I taught Devon to read (starting with the basics - hop on pop, to the most recent book, Pippi Longstocking). Considering that Devon is quite dyslexic (I suspect), this has been a lot of work, but a great accomplishment. I also taught Devon how to ride a bike. He was quite nervous much of the time while he was learning, but now he's very comfortable on a bike.

Recently I've been teaching Claire how to ride, and she's getting good too. Today was the first time she went out without me running along beside her for support. I was riding with her (and Devon), and only had to help her occasionally when starting from a dead stop on a hill.

I re-read my last post on Claire. She has come a long way since then. She's still a handfull, but she has matured in so many ways.