Ever wonder where all the role models went to for people?  I mean - we had John Wayne, Kirk Douglas, all these guys who ... well you knew where you stood with them.  

Today I keep hearing about how we got - nothing.  No real role models for kids.  So I started looking - and thought I'd be disapointed.  Instead I found that role models are there - in fact if you're a girl man you are knee deep in them.  Let's look beyond Paris Hilton ... and Lindsay Lohan ... and look to ... Natalie Portman.

You guys remember Padme right?  Star Wars - V for Vendetta, this is a sister who let's face it, has cool down.  Did you know she's also a Harvard graduate, and in addition to Hebrew and English, has studied French, Japanese, and German is currently working on Arabic.

She co-authored two research papers which were published in professional scientific journals.  Her 1998 high school paper on the "Enzymatic Production of Hydrogen" was entered in the Intel Science Talent Search.  And in 2002, she contributed to a study on memory called "Frontal Lobe Activation During Object Permanence" during her psychology studies at Harvard.

And if you're saying, okay so she was a geek in High School and made enough money to be in Harvard.  Fine - let's look at Danica McKellar.  She used to be "Winnie" on the Wonder Years, has had a ton of awards as an actress - and then went to school.  She studied at UCLA, majoring in mathematics, and graduated summa cum laude in 1998. As an undergraduate, she coauthored a scientific paper with Professor Lincoln Chayes and fellow student Brandy Winn.  The paper proves a theorem in mathematical physics that is known as the "Chayes-McKellar-Winn Theorem". 

Now, she's also the author of the book "Math Doesn't Suck", and tours speaking on behalf of getting girls to realise - yeah, looking good is cool - but looking good and being smart ... is the coolest. 

Now... if we can get get a few role models ... for guys.

Ironically enough ... when tinfoil hats were tested ... it seems they not only don't work - they actually amplify the very frequency ranges used by the US Military and major US Global Telecommunications firms.  So the question is ... have "THEY" been telling us to wear aluminum to help their dastardly plans???  Check out the Discovery Channel and MIT's investigation here... 

Inquiring Minds want to ...

[[MESSAGE REDACTED]]

This is a big day for Microsoft Office, it's the day they get to say, "Hey, SUN - good job!  You used Open Source and made it work with our stuff!  Open Source and Microsoft don't have to be on opposite sides of the fence all the time!!"    So why is it that BetaNews portrays this effort and sentiment and Microsoft as the bad guys?

Let's completely gloss over the fact that Microsoft openly supported Sun's effort (and anyone elses efforts to create this - and other plug-ins) and move straight to the erroneous statement that Microsoft's Office Product has a "bug" that does not allow it to load this filter by default.

Mind you - I don't work over there on Office, so I can't speak authoritatively about this, in fact all of what you're about to read - is strictly my humble opinion.  But anyone with an ounce of skill in software development can see ... that's not a bug, it's a security feature.  Why?  Because first off it does not apply just to that (the SUN ODF) filter which is what was implied - although that does lend itself to the bug concept, what it implies is that only a specific set of filters ARE applied, and all others are ignored. 

So, assuming that since it applies to all filters being loaded as an exclusionary system, and that it happens at program run-time (a specific time) on filters that aren't actual filters from the program (indicating it specifically checks for this), and it merely prevents them from loading as a default  ... one can pretty much deduce that... it's not a bug.  Why? It's something meant to prevent an action that was not originally designed into the application from happening without the users specific knowledge and or their specifically choosing for that action to occur...  logically that is not a bug.  Or it is a most convenient bug because it asserts itself just like a very detailed security countermeasure.  Is it an annoying security feature (ala UAC?) yes.  But like UAC, if used it increases the safety and security of the computer dramatically.

For years Microsoft got trashed for lax security, for allowing the user to without knowing enable security risks to their computer.  Open Source and Security experts correctly railed on this and said they wished Microsoft would not do this.  I could very easily be wrong - like I said, I don't know the code and I don't know the specifics better than anyone else.  But it seems to me that it's very possible we're seeing the effects of the old addage, "be careful what you wish for".

If Office by default allowed that behavior (as it did I recall at one time), filters which it could not directly identify as it's own - could slip all kinds of cool viruses and worms in while it loads and no one would ever know.  Does no one remember that?  Office was changed to prevent this very scenario and all the open-source pundits out there (including Sun) said, "It's about time!!". 

Now they say that Microsoft security is by doing this blocking the seemless use of their ODF filter, uh... duh... yeah.  You can't have it both ways people.  You either want the tool to be safe, or you want it to be easy and allow seemless installation of 3rd party tools.  Has no one considered this? 

And no - Microsoft cannot, by default, say, "Oh you're code from Sun?  Sure - c'mon in!".  A) There isn't a reasonable method of proving a plug-in filters authenticity in this scenario.   B) Microsoft isn't responsible for another companies code - if the plug-in company chooses to change it at any time to something that screws up a system - Microsoft gets the heat for it and I'm no lawyer but I would bet dollars to donuts there's legal liability involved by allowing someone to insert code that could be malicious or damaging into your work flow process.   C) Even if they COULD it's illegal for Microsoft to give preference for one company's work over another - they open the door for Sun, they have to open the door for any hacker with a business license.  So anyone who decides to establish a legal dummy company and use that as a way of social engineering their way into all the Office Products could do so.  Effectively - they just need to become a "partner" of Microsoft in the same way SUN or any other company.  And yes, as insane as that sounds - people are actually trying to do just that already and have been caught.  Force Microsoft to accept any plug-in you open that door.

If they accept a plug-in, and they put it into their code - it's their liability.  Force them to accept anything and run with anything - and you force them to take a liability no other company out there faces, and no sane company would. 

For BetaNews, or Sun to expect Microsoft to call this a "bug" - is just beyond the scope of decency.  Microsoft has hailed their achievement - openly given them kudos for development of the tool - and in return they get slapped with "you have a bug and you don't play nice".  Neither of those statements - was or are true.  From SUN I can kind of see a bit of that, it's common rivalry in the business.  But anyone who purports to have "news" in the title should at least get the other side of the story before print.

BetaNews has shown itself in my mind to be just that, "beta" news... News that isn't proven, and isn't supported.

The other day I was trying to give my views to a friend why some Linux companies have been willing to work with Microsoft, and why some others were violently against it.  I guess having worked with Linux people my opinion was better than your average news paper (Why I have no clue - people tend to see you at a keyboard and immediately assume your a well of knowledge on all things computer related when all you really want to do is get to the next level in your MMO).

While trying to explain the advantages I had to explain there was not one brand Linux out there but several.  And to make things more confusing - not one flavor of "open source" out there but several.  And by the time I got that far - I could see the eyes of my audience were in full techno-zombie-glaze.  Total DOTH moment going there - "Deer-On-The-Highway"  for those who are not informed.  Another 30 seconds trying to explain why Open Source came about and I'd need Katherine Heigl a blue cart and 10 cc's of Epinephrine to bring them out of it.

And for those who doubt that's an issue -  it IS that bad for those normal people (in the old days we called these people "customers" ... ) who are caught in this ridiculous struggle that's going on out there.  

Here's the bottom line - building reliable software isn't good enough.  The battle field of software development is littered with the bodies of dead software, tools and OS's that were perfectly reliable.  "Good" software isn't good enough (see same battlefield mentioned above - just flip over the corpses to find the even more deeply buried dead).  Your software has to be accessible to people and even with Ubutnu it isn't there.  And I'll make this prediction... it won't be.  Ever.

Not until those who code the software wrap around their heads what the user really wants and needs.  Those coding the software in the Open Source world write software for one group - themselves.  They review the requirements they set the milestones and they drive the process.  "They" "They" "they"...  Open Source does it this way because "they" are the customer.  And in this method - the customer always gets what it wants, which is good - for them.  But Ms. McCluskey in Terrahaute, who just got her computer from Compu-Ware-Sale-Co just wants to be able to click and open her email and see her pictures from her sister, and Mr. John Q. Financeguy only wants to open his bosses Office documents so he can fix the errors before tomorrow morning. 

The needs and wants of the Gods of the Open Source project committees which determine what needs to be done on their products ... are more often than not the needs and wants of Ms. McCluskey and John Financeguy.  Because they're not the customers - they're not the users of the software.  It's the IBMs and corporations who rely on it for their server farms - who are the Open Source customer.  Webfarm admins are customers.  Tons of people are Linux and Open Source customers.  But not the general public.  Their voice isn't heard in the development process, or if it is - it is heard through the voice of the user/developer.  The guys who write it because there isn't an open source version and they feel that software should be free.

So they code up a free version - that is "Almost as good", without actually polling John Q. User - until after they've copied the key features from something else.  Once again, it wasn't written for the user - it was written so the user wouldn't have or need to use the program the user already knew and used.  (We will not debate the insanity of that - but please note for the record I can't wrap my head around the logic of it, and neither can a lot of people.)

The little people out there, the common people are the ones that no one actually sat down and wrote software for because they aren't the customer.  When Open Source embraces these cold hard world realities, and codes for the sake of creating something new,  instead of trying to replace things freely that people already had and they paid money for ... Then and only then will the story of Open Source and Linux become easy to explain, simple enough to people on the street so they will understand it and hopefully,  will not be ended with the words, "We've Got A Drifter!  Patient Is NonResponsive!!!  Everyone CLEAR!!".