Characters courtesy of Planearium
Thursday, September 29, 2005
Wednesday, September 28, 2005
"Commander in Cheap"-Parallel-to-Reality
ABC’s new show "Commander in Chief" is a deliberate attempt to soothe the nation into the alien concept of a female president in order to grease the skids for a Hillary Clinton presidential bid in 2008. It's perfectly timed so Geena Davis' vice president character takes over for the dead president mid term to align the 2007 – 2008 season for a reelection plotline that coincides with the actual elections so "fictional" episodes can illustrate right-wing smear campaigns against the "independent" Geena Davis while ultimately allowing her character to overcome and triumph.
As I watched the show and developed this utter hatred and contempt for the entire conspiracy, I was alerted to the unveiled attempts to connect the characters with reality. Cheney's name was mentioned (by Geena herself) to make me believe the timeframe of this farce is sometime after the present day; however, I couldn't help but notice the countless references to the Clintons – "when Mrs. Clinton was first lady she did this" – as if George W. Bush had never been elected.
The parallels to the Democrat agenda for Hillary are so blatantly obvious that it insults my intelligence to have me assume there is no hidden ruse. In today's television culture, it's quite scary to think of the implications to the masses of ignorant lemmings that feed hungrily on the pap shoveled into their faces by a liberal slanted media.
With a simple formula for success in television programming – copy any program that works – the networks don't need to invest much time in creative broadcasting. "Lost" has spawned "Surface" and "Invasion". The buxom Jennifer Love Hewitt stars in "The Ghost Whisperer", a parallel to "Medium". Just how many lawyer shows are there? Lesser known MTV reality shows preceded "Survivor" which begat countless reality based, vote-off shows. People follow the network airwaves to the shows they are familiar with. They incorporate the plotlines and politics into their view of the world; possibly because the television is their only source of education. In my recent jury duty, it was mentioned that there was "no forensic evidence like on 'CSI' so we can't possibly convict".
It pains me to think of uninformed couch potatoes appearing in droves at the polls in 2008 armed with their television guides and utter conviction that a female president (no doubt Hillary) will further the cause of American democracy and be the best choice for our Republic. After all, she does fine on TV.
As I watched the show and developed this utter hatred and contempt for the entire conspiracy, I was alerted to the unveiled attempts to connect the characters with reality. Cheney's name was mentioned (by Geena herself) to make me believe the timeframe of this farce is sometime after the present day; however, I couldn't help but notice the countless references to the Clintons – "when Mrs. Clinton was first lady she did this" – as if George W. Bush had never been elected.
The parallels to the Democrat agenda for Hillary are so blatantly obvious that it insults my intelligence to have me assume there is no hidden ruse. In today's television culture, it's quite scary to think of the implications to the masses of ignorant lemmings that feed hungrily on the pap shoveled into their faces by a liberal slanted media.
With a simple formula for success in television programming – copy any program that works – the networks don't need to invest much time in creative broadcasting. "Lost" has spawned "Surface" and "Invasion". The buxom Jennifer Love Hewitt stars in "The Ghost Whisperer", a parallel to "Medium". Just how many lawyer shows are there? Lesser known MTV reality shows preceded "Survivor" which begat countless reality based, vote-off shows. People follow the network airwaves to the shows they are familiar with. They incorporate the plotlines and politics into their view of the world; possibly because the television is their only source of education. In my recent jury duty, it was mentioned that there was "no forensic evidence like on 'CSI' so we can't possibly convict".
It pains me to think of uninformed couch potatoes appearing in droves at the polls in 2008 armed with their television guides and utter conviction that a female president (no doubt Hillary) will further the cause of American democracy and be the best choice for our Republic. After all, she does fine on TV.
Tuesday, September 27, 2005
Intelligent Evolution
A trial is underway to decide whether a concept called "Intelligent Design" should be introduced in high school science classes before curriculum on evolution is taught. As I see it, the trial should be over rather quickly as this all just seems to be a mix up. Intelligent Design should definitely be taught in high schools; however, it should be in religion class, not science class. I can’t believe this isn’t obvious to everyone.
First, let’s state the fact that Intelligent Design – like its root: Creationism – is a creation of someone’s imagination. A thought – even a brilliant one – does not a scientific theory make. Science is based on the scientific method in which one develops a hypothesis based on observations and then seeks evidence through experimentation to prove or disprove the hypothesis. A predictable and repeatable test to demonstrate a hypothesis can sometimes elevate the idea to a theory. Scientific laws have the utmost stringent requirements for demonstrable proof and positive reinforcement. Evolution is a theory – not a law. Creationism is neither.
Darwin wrote his theories of evolution after long observations on what could be considered as close to a closed biological system that is possible in a real world environment. His theories have consistently been reinforced by further scientific research in many fields. Sub-cellular biology has provided a deep knowledge of the inner workings of our most basic of building blocks that unite all species. And still, natural selection holds true.
Intelligent Design reasons a higher power of intelligence had to be involved in the creation of species because the sheer complexity of life itself is far too intricate to have evolved from lesser building blocks. This is a debate based on flawed logic. Intelligent Design is not a theory because you can’t disprove it. It can only be a theory if there is demonstrable proof in favor of its hypothesis.
I can tell you that an elephant is sitting here telling me what to type and as absurd as you think it is, you have to believe it unless you can prove me wrong. Therefore, elephants are not only superior beings able to communicate with a human, but they possess an elevated intellect and the ability to link thoughts and ideas to express an opinion and defend its validity. One can easily find an elephant and disprove this. Further elephant research would confirm that this outrageous claim is most likely false. With ongoing support, wild elephants could be evaluated to debunk this ruse. However, Intelligent Design proponents are quite a bit more lucky because the “intelligence” (which is simply the term used to obscure the pink elephant in the room: creationists have found a politically correct way to say “god”) is not to be found and therefore, unable to be questioned.
Of course, this works both ways. Intelligent Design can not be proven for the same reasons its proponents believe it can’t be unproven. There is nothing to test. There is no demonstrable evidence in favor of the hypothesis as there is none against it. Therefore, Intelligent Design is nothing more than an idea of how we got here. In a fact based study like science with rules and methods to develop sound ideas into theories and facts, there is no place for a proposal that ignores the rules and presents no evidence to forward a concept that already has a place in the church – not the science classroom.
~ Postscript ~
The time and complexity involved in the theories of evolution and natural selection may well be too broad to comprehend for the human mind. The observations of Darwin and those who followed in his footsteps have only occurred over less than 200 years. The scale of the entire evolutionary process that the theories describe occurred over billions of years. It is foolish to expect to see noticeable and dramatic changes in decades versus the possible mutations that can occur over millions of years – let alone billions.
Perhaps it is not for the human mind to understand or even comprehend how or why we are here. Perhaps our best purpose – and that of science – should be focused on understanding the afflictions that affect us and the inherent flaws in human nature that cause us to act in certain ways. While there is valuable insight to be gained from the knowledge of how we came about, debates between religious ideas that are simply though up and scientific theory that has been rigorously tested and supported have no place in the quest for fact-based knowledge.
Until we can apply proven science to cure death, we all will eventually learn the answer to Intelligent Design’s real question – is there or is there not a god.
First, let’s state the fact that Intelligent Design – like its root: Creationism – is a creation of someone’s imagination. A thought – even a brilliant one – does not a scientific theory make. Science is based on the scientific method in which one develops a hypothesis based on observations and then seeks evidence through experimentation to prove or disprove the hypothesis. A predictable and repeatable test to demonstrate a hypothesis can sometimes elevate the idea to a theory. Scientific laws have the utmost stringent requirements for demonstrable proof and positive reinforcement. Evolution is a theory – not a law. Creationism is neither.
Darwin wrote his theories of evolution after long observations on what could be considered as close to a closed biological system that is possible in a real world environment. His theories have consistently been reinforced by further scientific research in many fields. Sub-cellular biology has provided a deep knowledge of the inner workings of our most basic of building blocks that unite all species. And still, natural selection holds true.
Intelligent Design reasons a higher power of intelligence had to be involved in the creation of species because the sheer complexity of life itself is far too intricate to have evolved from lesser building blocks. This is a debate based on flawed logic. Intelligent Design is not a theory because you can’t disprove it. It can only be a theory if there is demonstrable proof in favor of its hypothesis.
I can tell you that an elephant is sitting here telling me what to type and as absurd as you think it is, you have to believe it unless you can prove me wrong. Therefore, elephants are not only superior beings able to communicate with a human, but they possess an elevated intellect and the ability to link thoughts and ideas to express an opinion and defend its validity. One can easily find an elephant and disprove this. Further elephant research would confirm that this outrageous claim is most likely false. With ongoing support, wild elephants could be evaluated to debunk this ruse. However, Intelligent Design proponents are quite a bit more lucky because the “intelligence” (which is simply the term used to obscure the pink elephant in the room: creationists have found a politically correct way to say “god”) is not to be found and therefore, unable to be questioned.
Of course, this works both ways. Intelligent Design can not be proven for the same reasons its proponents believe it can’t be unproven. There is nothing to test. There is no demonstrable evidence in favor of the hypothesis as there is none against it. Therefore, Intelligent Design is nothing more than an idea of how we got here. In a fact based study like science with rules and methods to develop sound ideas into theories and facts, there is no place for a proposal that ignores the rules and presents no evidence to forward a concept that already has a place in the church – not the science classroom.
The time and complexity involved in the theories of evolution and natural selection may well be too broad to comprehend for the human mind. The observations of Darwin and those who followed in his footsteps have only occurred over less than 200 years. The scale of the entire evolutionary process that the theories describe occurred over billions of years. It is foolish to expect to see noticeable and dramatic changes in decades versus the possible mutations that can occur over millions of years – let alone billions.
Perhaps it is not for the human mind to understand or even comprehend how or why we are here. Perhaps our best purpose – and that of science – should be focused on understanding the afflictions that affect us and the inherent flaws in human nature that cause us to act in certain ways. While there is valuable insight to be gained from the knowledge of how we came about, debates between religious ideas that are simply though up and scientific theory that has been rigorously tested and supported have no place in the quest for fact-based knowledge.
Until we can apply proven science to cure death, we all will eventually learn the answer to Intelligent Design’s real question – is there or is there not a god.
Monday, September 26, 2005
Friday, September 23, 2005
IP Telephony Doesn't Mean Phones
In my previous entry Takeaways from VON, I commented that Voice over IP doesn't mean IP telephones on desktops, but rather, simply: Voice over IP. That of course translates to anywhere IP can go, voice can go. Hence, if IP can go to a computer, so can voice - and with software phones, there is no need for the physical handset to sit on a desktop.
In fact, the handset is an anchor for mobility. If you rely on the handset, you are no longer allowed to experience the true mobility that VoIP can offer. Recently, I've started relying solely on my IP Communicator (Cisco software phone) rather than my desktop 7970. I've had no issues - other than the headset being rather odd instead of the usual phone handset. The only reason I keep the 7970 connected is to get the video provided with VT Advantage as this is not yet supported on the IP Communicator client.
As I sent an email to Cisco asking when a future VT Advantage/IP Communicator integration will happen, I found myself wondering if it ever would. It doesn’t make good business sense for a company that sells hardware IP phones (among other things) to integrate their software offerings such that they eliminate the need for the hardware. I’m quite sure IP telephones do not make a substantial contribution to Cisco’s bottom line, but with the latest announcements for IP phone rollouts, 60,000 7970 phones passed over for cheap software would make quite a dent in a salesman’s pocket.
The barrier for entry into the VoIP realm for a vendor is substantially lower if the vendor realizes they do not need to produce an actual hardware phone. Software development alone is much cheaper than the hardware and software development needed for a hardware platform not to mention the associated manufacturing costs that are surpassed in favor of a software only solution. Take Microsoft’s Live Communication Server (LCS) client – at VON, this seemed to be the software phone of the future (without expressly saying so). Microsoft doesn’t make an IP phone nor do they manufacture servers for IP PBX’s; however, they don’t plan on missing out on the VoIP market.
While the fact remains that most end users appreciate the comfort of a hardware handset (even I still find myself reaching for the 7970 occasionally), as convergence enables multiple modes of communication from the computer itself, the phone will logically (and physically) move there. Even if I did still use the 7970, I don’t need to actually dial numbers as I have a select and dial application that automatically connects my handset to a dialed number without me lifting a finger (except to click the mouse button). With the ability to launch instant messaging or video from the computer desktop, the telephony integration occurs with more ease in the same space.
In fact, the handset is an anchor for mobility. If you rely on the handset, you are no longer allowed to experience the true mobility that VoIP can offer. Recently, I've started relying solely on my IP Communicator (Cisco software phone) rather than my desktop 7970. I've had no issues - other than the headset being rather odd instead of the usual phone handset. The only reason I keep the 7970 connected is to get the video provided with VT Advantage as this is not yet supported on the IP Communicator client.
As I sent an email to Cisco asking when a future VT Advantage/IP Communicator integration will happen, I found myself wondering if it ever would. It doesn’t make good business sense for a company that sells hardware IP phones (among other things) to integrate their software offerings such that they eliminate the need for the hardware. I’m quite sure IP telephones do not make a substantial contribution to Cisco’s bottom line, but with the latest announcements for IP phone rollouts, 60,000 7970 phones passed over for cheap software would make quite a dent in a salesman’s pocket.
The barrier for entry into the VoIP realm for a vendor is substantially lower if the vendor realizes they do not need to produce an actual hardware phone. Software development alone is much cheaper than the hardware and software development needed for a hardware platform not to mention the associated manufacturing costs that are surpassed in favor of a software only solution. Take Microsoft’s Live Communication Server (LCS) client – at VON, this seemed to be the software phone of the future (without expressly saying so). Microsoft doesn’t make an IP phone nor do they manufacture servers for IP PBX’s; however, they don’t plan on missing out on the VoIP market.
While the fact remains that most end users appreciate the comfort of a hardware handset (even I still find myself reaching for the 7970 occasionally), as convergence enables multiple modes of communication from the computer itself, the phone will logically (and physically) move there. Even if I did still use the 7970, I don’t need to actually dial numbers as I have a select and dial application that automatically connects my handset to a dialed number without me lifting a finger (except to click the mouse button). With the ability to launch instant messaging or video from the computer desktop, the telephony integration occurs with more ease in the same space.
Wednesday, September 21, 2005
Takeaways from VON
I wrapped up my attendance at the VON conference in Boston today and I'm left with a few takeaways that are insights, opinions and still some unanswered questions. While the entire conference seemed more focused on VoIP endpoints and VoIP offerings for service providers, there were still some presentations geared toward the enterprise customers.
In particular, I was interested in Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) and its role in future VoIP deployments as well as possible migration and integration paths to SIP from current VoIP architectures. Currently, I'm in an enterprise that uses mainly Cisco Call Manager (CCM) for voice and H.323 systems for video (with a mix of other technologies) and the messaging platform is non-Microsoft. This presents many hurdles when talking about the future of network collaboration: presence.
While Microsoft had its own booth at VON, every vendor presentation I attended included tie-ins to Live Communication Server (LCS) 2005. This seems to be the de facto standard for presence aware collaboration in the convergence realm. This assumption leaves me wondering about a few things in particular: buddy lists, PBX integration and email.
While I do use a personal address book for contacts that are not in my company, I do not use the company's personal address book for internal contacts. I use Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP) because it is dynamically updated as employees join, leave and change contact information and it is centralized. I seem to remember the precursor to the Domain Name System (DNS) – the hosts file – failing miserably when trying to scale to meet the ever growing needs of the Internet. As enterprises grow in size, a centralized database of users and their endpoints is essential. The "buddy lists" that we learned to love from AOL Instant Messenger can play a small role for important quick contacts, but a desktop client showing all users and their presence is not practical. Furthermore, having to add users to my local list just to contact them is unacceptable.
My second thought is a concern spawned by the lack of Cisco demos showing future SIP and presence aware applications integrating with CCM. This is very troubling as an enterprise customer with an investment in CCM and a desire to enable real-time collaboration for my user community. It seems the Cisco/Microsoft alliance for CCM could be reaching an end now that people are realizing that VoIP does not imply a Voice over IP telephone, but simply Voice over IP [read: the endpoint does not need to be hardware on a user's desktop]. While Cisco makes a software phone, it is not nearly as integrated with LCS 2005 as Microsoft's client. Furthermore, Microsoft's dominance on the desktop enables them to develop a software phone that integrates Voice over IP with on-demand video, instant messaging and conferencing. While today, an IP PBX may be required for the backend functionality like conferencing, call-park and transfer, it may not be long before those traditional PBX features are "bundled" into LCS.
Finally, with the latest polls citing Instant Messaging (IM) will surpass email usage by 2008, I'm left wondering what will become of email? It's just a matter of time before I can send an IM to an offline user and the smart IM server stores the request (much like email) until it can be sent to the client. The new IM client is no longer a chat window but a more robust email-like client that sorts messages like a news reader – in threads by author. Unread messages highlight the author's name in my client and allow me to drill down and read messages or respond real-time if the remote party is online. This merging of email and IM seems the next logical step as the lines between the two technologies blur.
In particular, I was interested in Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) and its role in future VoIP deployments as well as possible migration and integration paths to SIP from current VoIP architectures. Currently, I'm in an enterprise that uses mainly Cisco Call Manager (CCM) for voice and H.323 systems for video (with a mix of other technologies) and the messaging platform is non-Microsoft. This presents many hurdles when talking about the future of network collaboration: presence.
While Microsoft had its own booth at VON, every vendor presentation I attended included tie-ins to Live Communication Server (LCS) 2005. This seems to be the de facto standard for presence aware collaboration in the convergence realm. This assumption leaves me wondering about a few things in particular: buddy lists, PBX integration and email.
While I do use a personal address book for contacts that are not in my company, I do not use the company's personal address book for internal contacts. I use Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP) because it is dynamically updated as employees join, leave and change contact information and it is centralized. I seem to remember the precursor to the Domain Name System (DNS) – the hosts file – failing miserably when trying to scale to meet the ever growing needs of the Internet. As enterprises grow in size, a centralized database of users and their endpoints is essential. The "buddy lists" that we learned to love from AOL Instant Messenger can play a small role for important quick contacts, but a desktop client showing all users and their presence is not practical. Furthermore, having to add users to my local list just to contact them is unacceptable.
My second thought is a concern spawned by the lack of Cisco demos showing future SIP and presence aware applications integrating with CCM. This is very troubling as an enterprise customer with an investment in CCM and a desire to enable real-time collaboration for my user community. It seems the Cisco/Microsoft alliance for CCM could be reaching an end now that people are realizing that VoIP does not imply a Voice over IP telephone, but simply Voice over IP [read: the endpoint does not need to be hardware on a user's desktop]. While Cisco makes a software phone, it is not nearly as integrated with LCS 2005 as Microsoft's client. Furthermore, Microsoft's dominance on the desktop enables them to develop a software phone that integrates Voice over IP with on-demand video, instant messaging and conferencing. While today, an IP PBX may be required for the backend functionality like conferencing, call-park and transfer, it may not be long before those traditional PBX features are "bundled" into LCS.
Finally, with the latest polls citing Instant Messaging (IM) will surpass email usage by 2008, I'm left wondering what will become of email? It's just a matter of time before I can send an IM to an offline user and the smart IM server stores the request (much like email) until it can be sent to the client. The new IM client is no longer a chat window but a more robust email-like client that sorts messages like a news reader – in threads by author. Unread messages highlight the author's name in my client and allow me to drill down and read messages or respond real-time if the remote party is online. This merging of email and IM seems the next logical step as the lines between the two technologies blur.
Monday, September 19, 2005
Reach the Beach Relay - 2005
Up until the Wednesday night before the race, we only had a 10-person team. Amazingly, we found another runner and convinced a colleague to fly and drive in from Cincinnati to round out our 12-person roster.
For all the last minute planning and the dedicated running of our team, we placed 36th overall out of 300 teams and 8 out of 23 in our class - Men's Masters.
Genetically Challenged - Men's Masters
Back row from left: Matt (leg 12), Gabriel [aka: The Janitor] (leg 3), Jeff (leg 11), Gavin (leg 6), Jul (leg 5), Rich [aka: El Capitain] (leg 1), John (leg 7)
Front row from left: Tom (leg 9), Jason (leg 4), Vince [aka: Me] (leg 2), Dan (leg 10), Ted (leg 8)
Posts
