Bad Parenting or RE: Megan Meier

I am sick of every time something bad happens, people, especially parents, turn to legislators to solve their problems. This is a rant about people giving up their freedom so they don't have to be parents. The fact is, if Tina Meier was a half decent parent, her daughter might not be dead now. People that are not mature enough to be online unsupervised should not be, and Megan Meier wasn't (obviously). Unfortunately everybody matures at different rates and there is no clear cut-off age, the US government errs on the side of caution and you cannot vote or enter into contract until you are 18. That would be a bit harsh for most of the nations youth to wait that long to be online unsupervised, but if you area bad parent (yes I'm talking about you Tina) it would be a good fail-safe age. It takes good parental know how, and you cant let your own laziness affect your vigilance. Laws and government are not a substitute for parenting, morals, common sense, and courtesy. Every single law is an infringement on freedom, and should be treated in that respect when being contemplated by legislators. The public at large has gotten in the habit of demanding the government "do something" when something goes wrong (Katrina, Megan Meier, 9/11, the "war" on drugs). When are people going to wake up and realize that the government is horrible at doing anything (Katrina, 9/11, the "war" on drugs)? Tina: If you read this, I know I'm being harsh on you, but please I implore you, don't use what happened to your daughter to try to get lawmakers to create legislation. Even if you succeed, it will be drug into the supreme court and struck down under first amendment rights (as it should be). Use your voice to raise awareness in parents that they need to wake up and watch their children. They are to precious and impressionable to be let loose on the internet alone.

Illigeal Imigration in the USA, or why I hate spin words.

Ugh.. the linguistics battle has really heated up over all this, and I hate battles of spin words, instead of thoughtful discourse. I prefer to argue ideas rather than ideology.

What the talking heads seem to be arguing over now is what they are calling amnesty. Amnesty means we dont throw illegal immigrants (ill get to this phrase in a bit) in jail. It does not mean we have to give them citizenship. It simply means we would forgive them for the transgressions they have made.

The language tactics are very blunt, with arguments like "how can a human being be illegal" and other such nonsensical drivel. A human being isn't illegal, they commit illegal actions. As well with the push to use "undocumented migrants". Well, entering this country without documentation is illegal, so at the best the statements are equivocal, and at the worst, "undocumented migrants" is simply more vague.

Both sides of the fence seem equally absurd to me. Building a fence, its not a solution, the Britons live on an island and they have over half a million illegal immigrants! Its not physical access, a fence or a canal or a desert wont keep people out. Its how much you care about that line in the dirt, its people. It you want to prevent the illegal transit of drugs and people over your border, you have to have people watch it. What is needed is a competent, well funded, and equipped border patrol. Give them the authority and the means and they can do it. This is the only way you are going to stop it and you can do it at any time, border security has nothing at all to do with what is decided about the illegal immigrants that are already here.

What we don't want are leeches on our social system. The illegal immigrants we want to keep are the ones that work, the ones were fighting over, the productive helpful workers.

So the answer is simple: Grant amnesty and issue "Resident Worker" visas to every "illegal immigrant" that is valid for one year. Make renewal of this visa contingent on employment with deportation the consequence for failing to renew. This solution should appease everyone with a legitimate concern.

The death of Microsoft or Why do you want a computer?

Ok, quick and to the point:
Google will kill Microsoft with Linux, and you dont want a "Personal Computer (PC)".

Heres how it works:

First consider: Why do you want a computer?
I don't have real numbers, but I'm sure between middle schoolers and business executives 90% of the people out there answer: browse the web (IE, Firefox), send and receive email (outlook, thunderbird), type stuff up (word, openoffice.org), play music and movies (iTunes), run your business (quick books, excel)

Now consider why you don't want a computer:
It can break, get infected, and loose all your data. Its stuck in one place, and expensive to keep replacing and upgrading. Isn't that enough?

Ok so whats that got to do with Google and Microsoft?
Lets connect the dots.
Google can offer most of these applications online, in a web page, where you can get to them anywhere, and it doesn't take a "computer", as you know it, to do it. Let me introduce you to the thin client.

It has a low power processor, a little solid state flash memory, and some ram. Its not a power house, and it doesn't need to run windows. 256Meg of storage, 128Meg of RAM, and a 800Mhz processor built into the back of a flat panel screen running Linux and Mozilla's Firefox will run any web page you need. It has no moving parts, and can be configured in a manner that if you do get a virus, or a program crashes, you turn it off, back on and your good to go (I know some of you say thats what I already do, but it doesn't always come back up).

A lot of what you need is being reborn in the old school model of centralized computing on the web. Google is at the forefront, the benevolent dictator with the "don't be evil" mantra. But they are just the beginning, where you start, complete with a search button. Their gmail is just the first step, and they already have a spreadsheet. Others see this, and are ready for tomorrow. QuckBooks, the preeminent (god knows why.. such a clumsy piece of software, i guess it makes sense to CPAs) accounting software, and turbotax, already have 100% online versions. iTunes, with the might of apple could be 100% web based tomorrow. Google has programmers working with OpenOffice.org, one of the few functional competitors for Microsoft's Office, and theres already speculation about a Google sponsored online version. These developments aren't lost on Microsoft either, they see the writing on the wall, and have their own online version of Microsoft Office already

So if you buy into all this, and so does everyone else, suddenly your workstation is small, cheap, and less likely to not work. Plus, it doesn't have anything sensitive or personal, so if someone steals it, all they have is a terminal. So now when you go... anywhere all you documents, email, balance sheet, is just a login away!

Of course there are those saying what about the gamers! Those games wont run on wimpy thin clients! Your right, but your question holds the seed of a better solution! So the above premise is that web pages will replace programs and all you need is a web browser. Games are neat on a computer, and I play plenty of them, but they wont stay here. The current game generation, all of them, the Wii, playstation3, and X-Box 360 come with web browsers. Theres your thin client already, sign up and throw your computer away.

So, with all of this, why do you want a computer?