Entries Tagged 'rant' ↓

Stupid is as stupid does. –Mrs. Gump

As I’m often wont to do, I was watching The Discovery Channel the other evening, specifically an episode of the series Discovery Project Earth. The series bills itself as “eight crazy experiments bold enough to change the world”. The experiments are ways to reduce or reverse the effects of global warming.

So, what are these bold, world-altering experiments? Well, I’ve seen three of the experiments so far.

1. Save the glaciers. The scientists running this experiment propose to save glaciers from accelerated melting — due to global warming — by wrapping glaciers with a reflective plastic. The experiment was performed on a glacier in Greenland that was tagged as being endangered by global warming. The glacier actually had a large meltwater lake in the middle of it — something I had never seen before. To be honest though, I’m not sure how saving glaciers was supposed to reduce or reverse the effects of global warming.
2. Create more clouds. Clouds are much more reflective than water or land. So this proposal is to create automated fleets of ships that will atomize sea water, spraying the mist high into the air to form clouds. The computer simulations of this experiment showed this being performed off the west coast of Africa. In theory, a 10% increase in clouds would cool the Earth to pre-industrial levels.
3. Diffract part of the sunlight that reaches Earth. This was, by far, the boldest idea. The proposal is to launch billions of refractive lenses into space between the Sun and Earth so that a portion of the sunlight that currently reaches Earth will instead be diffracted into space. A reduction of sunlight as small as 1-2% would cool the Earth to pre-industrial levels.

As I’m listening to each of these proposals, I was immediately struck by how amazingly stupid and ill-advised each one is. Not a single one of the ideas suggested discovering and addressing the root causes of global warming.

I know that the popular theory of the cause of global warming is a dramatic increase of CO2 levels in the atmosphere. And that might be true. But it’s not proven. Yes, CO2 levels have increased along with global temperatures, but correlation does not imply causation. An alternative, tongue-in-cheek, yet statistically valid theory shows an inverse relationship between the population of swashbuckling pirates and global temperatures. Specifically, that a decrease in the pirate population has caused a rapid increase in global temperatures.

I’m not saying the alarming increase of atmospheric CO2 is not the cause of global warming. I’m saying that it appears to be a promising theory with a strong correlation, but we still don’t know. The Earth has experienced temperature fluctuations before that were not caused by CO2. Are we sure this trend isn’t one of those flucuations? I think these experiments should have been directed at finding the root cause of global warming and not these absurd ideas.

After all, wrapping a glacier in plastic is such a stupid idea that I can’t believe it was even discussed — so, I’m not going to.

As for creating more clouds, let’s ask the survivors of Katrina whether pumping warm water vapor into the air off the west coast of Africa sounds like a good idea to them. Our understanding of climatic systems is embryonic, at best, so why even contemplate creating 10% more clouds? How can we possibly predict the global environmental impact?

And diffracting some of the Sun’s energy away from Earth? Let me think about that. Hmmm…every bit of the energy used on Earth comes from the Sun. And now we’re discussing decreasing that energy source? By spending trillions of dollars to manufacture, launch, position, and maintain billions of strategically positioned lenses? Riiiiggghhhtt.

I have a couple of ideas to reduce global warming that would fit right into this TV series. What if we paint all the cities white! That will greatly reduce the heat absorption of all that pavement. Not to mention stimulating the economy by employing all the painters in the world.

Here’s another “great” idea. A person breathing at the average rate of 12 breaths per minute, exhales 1.3 grams of CO2 every minute. What if everyone breathed slower? If every person would cut off 2 breaths per minute, their respiratory contribution to atmospheric CO2 would be reduced annually by over 116 kilograms. If everyone participated, the amount becomes 697,422,960 metric tons (1 metric ton = 1000 kgs)! The average American automobile annually spews 4.5 metric tons of C02 into the atmosphere. So merely by breathing a bit slower, we can effectively remove 154,982,880 automobiles from the road — that’s well over half the number of cars in the United States.

Thank you. You’ve been a great audience. I’ll be here all week.

In a recent article, Faux Fox News disclosed that political activists planning to protest at the upcoming Democratic National Convention in Denver will have to contend with the Crap Cannon, a sonic weapon that generates an infrasound frequency causing victims to involuntarily defecate! Supposedly, this weapon generates a brown note, a low frequency sound that causes people to lose control of their bowels due to resonance.

According to Faux Fox News, some activists are scared shitless concerned that the Denver police department is armed with such a diabolical device.

We know this weapon and weapons like it have been used at other large protests before. –Mark Cohen, co-founder of the activist group Re-create 68

There’s just one small fly in their, er, ointment; the existence of the brown note has never been scientifically proven. In fact, this urban myth has even been recently busted on the popular Discovery Channel show Mythbusters.

Still, the concept of such a weapon has seeped into popular culture and has been featured in an episode of Southpark as a sound played in a world wide recorder concert that caused the entire population of Earth to suddenly defecate. In the popular comic strip Transmetropolitan, the main character, Spider Jerusalem, totes a pistol-shaped “Bowel Disruptor” used to defeat and otherwise humiliate his enemies.

It’s almost as if we want the brown note myth to be true.

But what has me rumbling is that Faux Fox News published this story at all. Given their right-wing conservativism and well-known pandering to the lowest common societal denominator, I suppose it’s no wonder they’re gushing over the opportunity to spin a story so that the evil Democrats will be using a defecation weapon on brave protesters. I think their editors are combining their metaphors, throwing something at a fan to see what sticks on the wall.

And it smells like doody.

Less than two hours after I originally posted Get Your Gunn (April 8, 2008 at 10:40 PM), the following comment was left on this site:

Don | Glory2Jesus@ArmyofGod.com | IP: 72.218.37.151

I’m glad those babykilling abortionists were stopped from murdering any more innocent children in their mother’s womb.

Apr 9, 12:23 AM

A quick search of Wikipedia reveals that the Army of God “is a radical anti-abortion terrorist organization that advocates the use of violence to combat abortion”. It also reveals that Don is likely Donald Spitz.

The year was 1976. While the nation was gearing for a bicentennial celebration, a young obstetrics and gynecology resident at Vanderbilt University successfully performed the first Zavanelli maneuver — a last resort treatment used when an infant’s shoulders become stuck during delivery. When a baby’s shoulders became stuck after its head had emerged, David Gunn, the young resident, gently pushed the baby back into the mother’s vagina and then immediately delivered the baby via Caesarean section. The procedure is more appropriately known as the Gunn Zavanelli-O’Leary maneuver, named after the doctors who developed and performed it.

After graduating from Vanderbilt University and the University of Kentucky Medical School, the Dr. Gunn went to work as an ob/gyn at a public hospital in Brewton, AL. The idealistic Gunn elected to live in a poor, rural community where no other OB/GYN was practicing because, according to The New York Times, it had the highest infant-mortality rate in the United States. A statistic he hoped to change. Although he was initially a specialist in infertility, when a local clinic asked for his help because it couldn’t find a doctor who would perform abortions, Gunn agreed.

His empathy for the young mothers and because virtually no other doctors were willing the help them, led Gunn to eventually focus his medical practice solely on abortions. He traveled across Alabama, Georgia, and Florida — often 1000 miles per week — providing an unpopular service in communities that lacked reliable abortion providers. He practiced medicine across the Southeast, seeing patients in Mobile, Fort Walton, Columbus, Pensacola, Montgomery, Birmingham, Tallahassee, Savannah, and Orlando.

Pensacola was called “the Selma of the abortion rights movement”, notable for its pro-life violence. In the spring of 1984, an abortion clinic was bombed and then, six months later, was bombed again on Christmas Day. The offices of two Pensacola doctors were also bombed that same Christmas. The bomber called it “a gift to Jesus on his birthday”.

John Burt — a former KKK member and founder of Our Father’s House, a shelter for unwed mothers — was the local pro-life extremist leader in Pensacola. In 1986, John Burt invaded the Ladies Center, slamming the clinic’s director, Linda Taggart, against a wall before trashing the clinic with three accomplices. In 1988, Burt and John Brockhoeft, a man convicted of arson against a clinic in Columbus, OH, were apprehended with a trunkful of pipe bomb materials after parking in a lot across the street from the Ladies Center. Burt served jail time for these incidents. He also demonstrated in support of two young couples who bombed three clinics.

Fast forward to March 10, 1993. John Burt is leading a right-to-life demonstration, sponsored by Rescue America, in front of the Pensacola Women’s Medical Service Clinic. Inflamed by Burt’s rhetoric, Michael F. Griffin lurked near the back door of the clinic. As Dr. Gunn entered the clinic via this door, Michael Griffin rushed up behind Dr. Gunn and shot him three times in the back. Gunn died two hours later during emergency surgery. Griffin immediately surrendered to police.

Within an hour of the killing, Rescue America, a Houston-based group for which Mr. Burt served as the Florida leader, issued a statement requesting that donations for Mr. Griffin’s family be sent to Our Father’s House, another of Mr. Burt’s organizations. Don Treshman, the group’s national director, said:

We don’t condone killing an abortionist, but we don’t condemn it either.

Matt Trewhella, a pro-life extremist involved with the group Missionaries to the Unborn, said he:

would not condemn someone who killed Hitler’s doctors … and neither will I condemn Michael Griffin.

The NY Times had a different perspective in their editorial.

This murder was the latest escalation in a crescendo of violence by anti-abortion activists. In the name of “life,” the anti-abortion army has bombed or set fire to more than 100 clinics over the past 15 years, invaded more than 300 and vandalized more than 400. Last month in Corpus Christi, Tex., its arsonists leveled a clinic and three nearby buildings. It has stalked medical personnel, used their photographs on “Wanted for Murder” posters, forced physicians to wear bulletproof vests and work behind steel shutters. It has also driven many doctors out of their abortion practice.

Gunn was a recognizable figure partly because Operation Rescue, another anti-abortion extremist group, had put his face and phone number on a “Wanted” poster and displayed it at a rally in Alabama.

John Burt became a central figure in Michael Griffin’s trial. In fact, Griffin’s defense was that Burt brainwashed him with videos, books, prayer sessions, use of an effigy of Dr. Gunn, and even a funeral for a pair of aborted fetuses. Burt’s response?

I’ve shown those videos and literature to thousands of people who never killed anyone. I would respect Michael a lot more if he had stuck with his original defense, which was that he acted for God when he shot Dr. Gunn.

Paul Hill would often participate in protests with John Burt. Hill went on the Phil Donahue Show and called Dr. Gunn’s murder a “justifiable homicide”. A little over a year after Dr. Gunn’s murder, Hill got into the act himself, killing Dr. John Britton (who took over as clinic doctor after Gunn’s death) and James Barrett in Pensacola in July 1994. Hill was sentenced to death but never expressed remorse for his crime.

In June 2003, Burt’s faithful were left in disbelief, when the 65-year-old was charged with molesting a 15-year-old resident of Our Father’s House, the shelter he ran for unwed mothers. A month later, Burt pleaded not guilty to five counts of criminal conduct: four lewd or lascivious molestation counts, and another for slipping the 15-year-old a handwritten invitation to have sex with him. Local authorities said that after Burt’s arrest, other residents of Our Father’s House — a Christian-based boarding school for pregnant teens — came forward with similar stories of sexual abuse.

In May 2004, Burt was sentenced to 18 years in prison. In January of this year, Burt lost his final appeal in the Florida 1st District Court of Appeal.

Hallelujah.

BTW, Get Your Gunn was the first official single from Marilyn Manson. The song was inspired by the killing of Dr. Gunn, which the band called “the ultimate hypocrisy”.

I recently blogged about a small software project with which I’m involved that is saddled with using a waterfall project methodology; I have never been a fan of the waterfall method but, on this project, I am being engaged through another consulting company that is providing the project management, so I have no choice.  I’ve estimated that the software development portion of the project will entail 120 man hours of effort — a very small project. Yet, for this small 120 hour project, I’ve seen 3 major revisions of project scope documents and four weeks slip by while the project manager attempted to "nail down the requirements" with the client.

Now it appears the client has signed off on the "final" project scope document and is ready to begin the project. So the project manager met with us on Friday to kick off the project and discuss the project plan.

A 105 step project plan!

For a software project that is estimated for 120 man hours.

To paraphrase Churchill, never in the face of human endeavor has so little been tracked by so many to so few.

At this point, the client has many pages of requirements documents and an exhaustive project plan, but not a single line of working software code. The management structure of the project has already consumed more time and effort than the actual development of the project’s ultimate deliverable — working software.

Somebody please explain to me how anyone can still place any value on this style of project management.

Drip, drip, drip, drip.

Let’s take a road trip. I want you to drive me to California from South Carolina, but I’m not sure exactly where in California, just somewhere in the southern part of the state. I’ll know it’s the right spot when we get there. I need you to provide me with an extremely detailed itinerary, specifying the exact time and location of waypoints along the route. And you must provide this itinerary by merely consulting a map, you cannot check weather or traffic conditions. In fact, you’re not quite sure when we’ll be making the trip, so you can’t even take into account the season. Now imagine we’ll be using a bus on this trip, and all the passengers will be giving you directions and asking for stops along the way — but you’re not allowed to talk to these passengers before the trip. I still need you to provide a firm timetable and cost estimate for this trip.

This hypothetical trip is an example of a wicked problem – a problem whose requirements and limitations cannot be entirely known before completion.

Drip, drip, drip, drip.

Three weeks ago, my company was presented with a small project that we estimated would take about a man-month to perform. Since that time, we have met with the Business Analyst (BA) on the project three more times, and each time, the requirements have changed and we’ve been asked to re-estimate the project. Moreover, with each estimate, we’re asked to provide more detail and clarification. We have had no direct contact with the ultimate users of the proposed system. During this time, the BA has produced a few versions of a very nice requirements document, but right now, the customer has no working software. Instead, the project is going through an endless loop of analysis paralysis.

If the project had kicked off three weeks ago, it would likely be complete by now. The customer could be using the software and providing feedback to the development team so that the software could be further refined to solve the users’ particular and unique needs.

Drip, drip, drip, drip.

This situation is the inevitable result of the use of the waterfall project management methodology. The benefits of working software are being sacrificed for the illusion of control. I view this as shooting a bullet at the moon; if your assumptions, calculations, and aim are absolutely perfect — and no unforeseen circumstances occur — it just might work. But wouldn’t it be better to embrace change? To build flexibility into your methodology to accommodate change, mistakes, and unforeseen circumstances? Wouldn’t it be better to pilot a projectile to the moon?

To go back to our California trip analogy, instead of creating an extremely detailed itinerary, why not create a general overall goal and timetable with smaller chunks of milestones. For instance, let’s just say our target for the first day is to reach Jackson, Mississippi and spend the night there; we’ll cover a good amount of ground, but we’ll allow for a bit of time to deal with traffic in Atlanta and maybe a bit of weather near Birmingham, Alabama. We anticipate arriving in Jackson in time for dinner, but if we decide as a group to take a detour to see Stone Mountain outside of Atlanta, we won’t stress about arriving a bit later in Jackson. Conversely, we may breeze through Atlanta and arrive in Jackson in early afternoon. If so, we may decide to keep going and perhaps stay overnight in Vicksburg, overlooking the Mississippi River.

But we will have a goal of getting to California. We will have a general strategy (itinerary) developed from maps and previous experience. And we will have a set of tactics to deal with unforeseen circumstances. Some of those tactics may be mitigating the risk and impact of unforeseen challenges by carrying extra maps or a GPS, cell phones for communication, credit cards for ready access to cash, and most importantly an adventurous attitude willing to embrace change.

The point being that we will drive "within our headlights". We will set short, reasonable goals that we can accurately predict and work to achieve those goals daily. If any of those goals are not met for some reason, they are reassessed and tomorrow’s goals may be adjusted — perhaps we won’t be able to go see the world’s biggest ball of string tomorrow. Who knows, with a more relaxed atmosphere on the bus, everyone might even enjoy the trip.

As stated in the Principles of the Agile Manifesto for Software Development, working software is the primary measure of progress.

Instead I’m reviewing yet another change in the requirements documentation. Three weeks of "planning" and "nailing down requirements" for a 4 week project.

Drip, drip, drip, drip.

A little over an hour ago, Microsoft announced it is making an unsolicited bid to buy Yahoo. Microsoft is bidding $44.6 billion dollars for Yahoo, or $31/share — a 60% premium over Yahoo’s closing price of $19 on Thursday. Yahoo’s stock price opened at $28 this morning, before the offer was announced — obviously a case of insider trading. But I guarantee the SEC will turn a blind eye to Yahoo’s overnight 50% stock jump on the eve of their largest news announcement ever. It seems that unless your name is Martha, you will never be a investigated target for insider trading. How much more blatant can it be?

And  the saga continues…

Again, I received a phone call from Todd, my local telco field service technician, asking me to check my DSL download speed. Again, it was less than 2 Mbps, far below the promised 6 Mbps download speed — and far below the current speeds I enjoy with my cable-based broadband connection.

This has been going on for 3 weeks now. And the saddest part is that the technical personnel for the company responsible for delivering the service, can’t figure out the problem. I suspect they’re trying to diagnose a kludgey system that was crufted together as a stop-gap, "me too", answer to the cable company’s broadband service.

I’m still playing games with my telephone company trying to get satisfactory performance from my new DSL Internet connection.

My local telephone company field technician called today and left a message requesting that I check my DSL download speed again, saying that the problem should be fixed now. I did. It isn’t.

The saga continues.

So my local telco field technician, Todd, came out to my house this morning. He hooked up his equipment to the box outside my house and reported a good strong signal there. He then came inside the house and and plugged his equipment into the jack I’m using for the DSL modem and reported a good strong signal there also. He said I should be receiving 6Mbps download speed. He then hooked up his laptop to the DSL modem and ran a speedtest; he got about 1.2Mbps. Now, he’s feeling really stumped and I’m feeling joyously vindicated.

BTW, the DSL modem does have a built-in, primitive firewall but it was not enabled. Todd was surprised at that and said they should always be enabled as no unprotected PC should be put on the Internet. Again, I am intoxicated with a surge of vindication.

Todd tries another DSL modem with the same results. He says there must be a problem up the line with "the programming" in the switch. He also tells me that I’m the first 6Mbps customer on this switch. He sends the problem back to the guys responsible for the programming and says he will give me a call later when they have resolved the problem. Todd then leaves about 10:45 AM.

About 4:00 PM, I receive a call from Todd. He reports that they have now set up my programming exactly like another customer that is using (and receiving) 6Mbsp download speed. He asks me to try another speed test and call him back. I do so with the same results.

So, here I am exactly 2 weeks into my attempted use of the telco’s high-speed DSL service and they still have not delivered their product. In fact, they can’t figure out why they can’t deliver their product. Even if they find and fix the problem, this fiasco does not bode well for when I experience service problems in the future.

Quality in a product or service is not what the supplier puts in. It is what the customer gets out and is willing to pay for. A product is not quality because it is hard to make and costs a lot of money, as manufacturers typically believe. This is incompetence. Customers pay only for what is of use to them and gives them value. Nothing else constitutes quality. –Peter F. Drucker