This is a follow-up to my post of Sunday night:
It turns out that this was actually a bug at OpenDNS. According to them, "my network," which happens to be fully dynamic IP, was crossed up with another user's network. As a result, my filters got crossed up with theirs.
They say there's a six step process I need to go through to fix the problem, including downloading software from OpenDNS (which does not support Linux end users, like me) and rebooting. Rebooting a UNIX or Linux machine is not a trivial task, and we don't tend to do it unless something major goes wrong, or the kernel is updated. Changing DNS servers or modifying the connection is not worth a reboot.
I thought it was much easier to switch to a different DNS that doesn't have these problems. Google's DNS works just fine....
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
The Machine Is Stacked Against You
This isn't a complaint as much as it is a report of how our current economic system works against us. I'd like to see it differently, but this is how it looks right now to me.
I've been unemployed for one day short of fifteen months straight now. I used to make a lot of money, and with some help from the family, I managed to spend nearly all of it. All right, all of it, and then some. My savings are gone, my retirement no longer exists and I'm working with the state of California to get me back to work, as well as fielding offers of interest from whoever reads my resume on Dice or wherever else it shows up online. Want one? :-)
One of my goals in my quest for work at this point is to broaden my field, so I'm looking at what the state can offer me in terms of training, just to do that. They have some really great programs available, but the devil is in the details, as they say.
In Orange County, where I live, you can't get a place to live for one person for less than around $1000 per month. That's just a fact of life around here. If you are the sole supporter of a family, the costs are the same, but the expenses are higher. If you happen to "own" a home (i.e., you bought a house and live in it but the house isn't paid off yet), it costs more.
According to information I have, I'm getting the top rate that unemployment pays out - roughly 2/5 of what I actually need to cover all my ongoing bills and expenses, so of course I am cutting corners, borrowing from pretty much anyone who will loan me money, gratefully accepting donations (note the donation button to the right of this post - hint, hint :-), returning CRV redemptible cans and bottles, even the glass ones I used to avoid because they weigh a ton and aren't worth all that much for the weight - pretty much scraping together anything I can to get by.
In its infinite wisdom, Congress was able to get through a nifty little (and I mean that literally) bill called the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act, or ARRA for short, that creates opportunities for the unemployed to find a way back to work. This includes some money for training if you want to broaden your field of expertise and have a reasonable expectation of being successful in the changed field.
There are some restrictions on the money: to qualify for it, you have to be dead flat broke and yet still be able to support your family on the pittance that you get from unemployment AND go to school to get your new classes completed. For me, this is really quite simple: lose my house and the attendant 60+% of my bills that go with it, along with a huge majority of my personal property that has little or no market value, move in with someone else and hope my unemployment will actually cover our survival needs until I can finish the classes and get back to work.
In other words, in order to benefit from the generosity of our Congress and President, who are amazingly willing to spend Hundreds of Billions of dollars killing people all over the planet, TRILLIONS of dollars to help bail out the richest people on the planet (Wall Street and the too-big-to-fail banks), I need to be below the poverty level of income and still support my family to afford to take advantage of this government "handout."
Isn't that completely upside down?
Doesn't it make more sense to invest TRILLIONS of dollars getting a productive economy back in order, putting people back to work and letting the ultra-rich 0.5% who own the rest of us flounder to find their own way without gouging the taxpayers (which they are NOT) for the next ten generations?
Doesn't it make more sense to stop wasting Hundreds of Billions of dollars manufacturing and using devices whose sole purpose is to obliterate themselves and anyone who happens to be within the blast radius (or live in it later on for millennia to come in the case of radioactive weapons like "depleted uranium" ammunition, which is about as safe as living inside the active part of an X-ray machine) and instead devote even a significant fraction of that amount in genuine living support for tens of millions of citizens who are the fastest growing segment of our population (the unemployed, like me)?
Okay, I guess that last part was complaining. The rest before that was how it works. Just the facts.
I realize that there are other options, and I don't mean leaving the country, which you need a passport to do, and guess what? That costs money, too. Come to think of it, pretty much all the other options also cost money, and credit is a little tight right now because the banks haven't figured out a way to use up all that bailout money before they deign to loan out the pennies that are left to the rest of us, and Exxon-Mobil is making so much profit they don't know what to do with all those billions, either. They've already bought everything they didn't own before....
The middle class, that segment of society that makes it work and which was growing from the late 1930s until the early 2000s, is dying of starvation. The rich like it that way, and the poor - get more numerous. Even given the dark sneaky stuff that the government has been pulling right under our noses and behind our backs during that same time frame, America was strongest when the middle class was growing, and corporations took care of their employees.
Instead of continuing and expanding that power and building ourselves up to be completely indomitable and unassailable, we funded the Germans and the Japanese who "lost" WWII, and they learned the lessons that apparently we did not. Despite all of their weaknesses, they now have the strongest economies in the world, while we have the richest and poorest and are sinking faster than anything or anyone else.
How many times do we really need to learn the lessons of the 1929 depression? Apparently at least one more, because we're spiralling down into that same kind of situation, but many times worse and on a global scale.
The machine is stacked against us. We need to work to reverse this insanity.
I've been unemployed for one day short of fifteen months straight now. I used to make a lot of money, and with some help from the family, I managed to spend nearly all of it. All right, all of it, and then some. My savings are gone, my retirement no longer exists and I'm working with the state of California to get me back to work, as well as fielding offers of interest from whoever reads my resume on Dice or wherever else it shows up online. Want one? :-)
One of my goals in my quest for work at this point is to broaden my field, so I'm looking at what the state can offer me in terms of training, just to do that. They have some really great programs available, but the devil is in the details, as they say.
In Orange County, where I live, you can't get a place to live for one person for less than around $1000 per month. That's just a fact of life around here. If you are the sole supporter of a family, the costs are the same, but the expenses are higher. If you happen to "own" a home (i.e., you bought a house and live in it but the house isn't paid off yet), it costs more.
According to information I have, I'm getting the top rate that unemployment pays out - roughly 2/5 of what I actually need to cover all my ongoing bills and expenses, so of course I am cutting corners, borrowing from pretty much anyone who will loan me money, gratefully accepting donations (note the donation button to the right of this post - hint, hint :-), returning CRV redemptible cans and bottles, even the glass ones I used to avoid because they weigh a ton and aren't worth all that much for the weight - pretty much scraping together anything I can to get by.
In its infinite wisdom, Congress was able to get through a nifty little (and I mean that literally) bill called the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act, or ARRA for short, that creates opportunities for the unemployed to find a way back to work. This includes some money for training if you want to broaden your field of expertise and have a reasonable expectation of being successful in the changed field.
There are some restrictions on the money: to qualify for it, you have to be dead flat broke and yet still be able to support your family on the pittance that you get from unemployment AND go to school to get your new classes completed. For me, this is really quite simple: lose my house and the attendant 60+% of my bills that go with it, along with a huge majority of my personal property that has little or no market value, move in with someone else and hope my unemployment will actually cover our survival needs until I can finish the classes and get back to work.
In other words, in order to benefit from the generosity of our Congress and President, who are amazingly willing to spend Hundreds of Billions of dollars killing people all over the planet, TRILLIONS of dollars to help bail out the richest people on the planet (Wall Street and the too-big-to-fail banks), I need to be below the poverty level of income and still support my family to afford to take advantage of this government "handout."
Isn't that completely upside down?
Doesn't it make more sense to invest TRILLIONS of dollars getting a productive economy back in order, putting people back to work and letting the ultra-rich 0.5% who own the rest of us flounder to find their own way without gouging the taxpayers (which they are NOT) for the next ten generations?
Doesn't it make more sense to stop wasting Hundreds of Billions of dollars manufacturing and using devices whose sole purpose is to obliterate themselves and anyone who happens to be within the blast radius (or live in it later on for millennia to come in the case of radioactive weapons like "depleted uranium" ammunition, which is about as safe as living inside the active part of an X-ray machine) and instead devote even a significant fraction of that amount in genuine living support for tens of millions of citizens who are the fastest growing segment of our population (the unemployed, like me)?
Okay, I guess that last part was complaining. The rest before that was how it works. Just the facts.
I realize that there are other options, and I don't mean leaving the country, which you need a passport to do, and guess what? That costs money, too. Come to think of it, pretty much all the other options also cost money, and credit is a little tight right now because the banks haven't figured out a way to use up all that bailout money before they deign to loan out the pennies that are left to the rest of us, and Exxon-Mobil is making so much profit they don't know what to do with all those billions, either. They've already bought everything they didn't own before....
The middle class, that segment of society that makes it work and which was growing from the late 1930s until the early 2000s, is dying of starvation. The rich like it that way, and the poor - get more numerous. Even given the dark sneaky stuff that the government has been pulling right under our noses and behind our backs during that same time frame, America was strongest when the middle class was growing, and corporations took care of their employees.
Instead of continuing and expanding that power and building ourselves up to be completely indomitable and unassailable, we funded the Germans and the Japanese who "lost" WWII, and they learned the lessons that apparently we did not. Despite all of their weaknesses, they now have the strongest economies in the world, while we have the richest and poorest and are sinking faster than anything or anyone else.
How many times do we really need to learn the lessons of the 1929 depression? Apparently at least one more, because we're spiralling down into that same kind of situation, but many times worse and on a global scale.
The machine is stacked against us. We need to work to reverse this insanity.
Sunday, March 28, 2010
"Open" DNS Not So Open
I know it's late here (01:46), but I just had a thought and got up to see if anyone won the CA Super Lotto jackpot.
Yes, I know the lottery is a tax for those who can't add. Duh.
But guess what? It's my right, or yours, or anyone's, to be able to go online and see what the current draw results are. I don't usually go to 7/11 this late.
I've been using the OpenDNS name servers for about a year or so now. They're faster than whatever I was using before (probably AT&T's DNS 'cause I have AT&T DSL here). (Yeah, I know about that, too. It's relatively cheap and works well enough for most internet stuff.)
However, this morning, apparently OpenDNS decided that being able to see draw results on a state-sponsored lottery constitutes GAMBLING. That's right, just looking at the results is gambling, even if you a) didn't spend any money on tickets and b) can't buy them online anyway.
Can anyone else spell CENSORSHIP? Isn't that spelled Brother U Lame Loser, Sure Happy It's Thursday?
It's bad enough that the major ISPs are really hot to censor everything we don't feel we should have to pay extra to get access to on the internet. Here is a site that advertises its "openness" in its very name - OpenDNS. You'd think that they don't censor the web, wouldn't you? I sure did.
Not only that, but even classifying the lotto site as "gambling" is inaccurate, to say the least. What else is gambling to these people, looking at a photo of a roulette wheel? Next, we won't be able to access maps to drive through Las Vegas, even if it's just a gas stop the way to Denver (or from Denver to CA, if you're east of here), or check out the resorts in Lake Tahoe (which is a really nice place to visit, even if you don't gamble - the casinos usually have great food and good shows - cheap).
I figured that there had to be another free DNS service out there, so I did a Google search for it, and the first hit up was a blog that had a list of free, fast DNS servers on it, and the really interesting part is that you can use Google as your DNS server. I happen to like Google....
I filed a complaint with OpenDNS right away, of course - that kind of misguided public coercion is just plain wrong on so many levels I lost count immediately.
Then I switched to Google's DNS links and voila! Lotto results are right there.
Unless you like censorship, I recommend you contact OpenDNS and express your concerns, too. They're at www.opendns.com.
As an open source software afficionado and promoter, I am mortally offended at this insult. Shame on "open" anything that censors our access.
Yes, I know the lottery is a tax for those who can't add. Duh.
But guess what? It's my right, or yours, or anyone's, to be able to go online and see what the current draw results are. I don't usually go to 7/11 this late.
I've been using the OpenDNS name servers for about a year or so now. They're faster than whatever I was using before (probably AT&T's DNS 'cause I have AT&T DSL here). (Yeah, I know about that, too. It's relatively cheap and works well enough for most internet stuff.)
However, this morning, apparently OpenDNS decided that being able to see draw results on a state-sponsored lottery constitutes GAMBLING. That's right, just looking at the results is gambling, even if you a) didn't spend any money on tickets and b) can't buy them online anyway.
Can anyone else spell CENSORSHIP? Isn't that spelled Brother U Lame Loser, Sure Happy It's Thursday?
It's bad enough that the major ISPs are really hot to censor everything we don't feel we should have to pay extra to get access to on the internet. Here is a site that advertises its "openness" in its very name - OpenDNS. You'd think that they don't censor the web, wouldn't you? I sure did.
Not only that, but even classifying the lotto site as "gambling" is inaccurate, to say the least. What else is gambling to these people, looking at a photo of a roulette wheel? Next, we won't be able to access maps to drive through Las Vegas, even if it's just a gas stop the way to Denver (or from Denver to CA, if you're east of here), or check out the resorts in Lake Tahoe (which is a really nice place to visit, even if you don't gamble - the casinos usually have great food and good shows - cheap).
I figured that there had to be another free DNS service out there, so I did a Google search for it, and the first hit up was a blog that had a list of free, fast DNS servers on it, and the really interesting part is that you can use Google as your DNS server. I happen to like Google....
I filed a complaint with OpenDNS right away, of course - that kind of misguided public coercion is just plain wrong on so many levels I lost count immediately.
Then I switched to Google's DNS links and voila! Lotto results are right there.
Unless you like censorship, I recommend you contact OpenDNS and express your concerns, too. They're at www.opendns.com.
As an open source software afficionado and promoter, I am mortally offended at this insult. Shame on "open" anything that censors our access.
Sunday, March 21, 2010
More reasons I like Linux
Today I had the dubious pleasure of installing some updates and new software on the one pure Windows machine still around in the house. Also, two nights ago I had another dubious pleasure of backing up another family member's laptop disk drive because the screen died (long story - not really relevant). That machine has Vista on it, but that's really not important.
I used a SATA/IDE-to-USB converter device to do the backup, and other than Windows halting the copies on every file it couldn't quite handle, things went fairly well. I was going to try to put Windows on my Everex laptop (that runs Linux) so this other person could use it (they are Linux-illiterate, despite my best efforts... :-), but the strangest things happened.
I put in the other laptop drive, and even though it tried for about 15-20 minutes, the Windows on-board recovery failed. Now, this should be no surprise because my Everex and their Toshiba are substantially different hardware bases, with different devices and so on, and most laptops come with tailored installations to match the hardware that accompanies them.
Then I put the original disk back in and lo and behold, none of my Windows installation CDs would run. They all got to that first step, "Setup is inspecting your computer for anything that might kill it," (okay, it didn't really say that, but it was the usual Windows Setup prompt), and then the screen went dark and stayed there. I haven't really had the heart to check into why a nice laptop like that, which came with Ubuntu Linux until I installed CentOS (Linux) over it and which runs perfectly, would choke on installing Windows. Truth be told, I don't care, but it's nice to know that my awesome Linux laptop won't even allow Windows to install on it.
More to the point:
Among other things, this desktop I was upgrading had AVG anti-virus on it (which I kind of like - it's free and works well enough) clamoring for an update to the virus definition file, NVidia's Network Access Manager complaining that it was turned off, Windows Automatic Update telling me it had some updates to install (I don't ever let things like that run on their own - too risky IMNSHO) and ZoneAlarm, which I had decided to uninstall.
I told the Windows automatic update to go ahead, update me. I uninstalled ZoneAlarm, which went well, except for two things:
1) Something else went wrong and I got one of those lovely "A program has crashed....Do you want to send a bug report to Microsoft?" windows, for which program I don't know (and they don't say).
2) The ZoneAlarm uninstall wanted me to reboot.
Fine. I told the bug report window to go away, and it did. However, the automatic update hung, hard. It stopped at 32% complete without ever downloading anything.
I admit it, I kind of floundered on this one. I tried running Windows Update manually, but that didn't do so well with the other one hung. I turned off the automatic updates, but that didn't un-hang the hung one. I tried to use the NVidia NAM's anti-hacking-only feature, but that didn't seem to help, so I figured, that's it, it's going and I'll worry about it all after the reboot.
So, since NAM doesn't have an uninstall command or feature, I went to the control panel and started to remove it that way.
That hung the whole machine.
Other than being an annoyance, this wasn't much of a hassle (had to reboot anyway), so I just rebooted the machine with the reset switch. And, to Windows' credit, it came up just fine.
(Yes, I'm running XP SP2 on that box - it does well enough for these purposes.)
NAM was not gone, so I removed it again and that needed another reboot.
Now I'm getting annoyed, and I'll go into that in a little bit, there's not much of the gripe left.
With NAM gone, I went back to a manual Windows Update run, and after a fair length of sitting silent, it finally started actually downloading and installing 23 updates. What they were I don't really know, or care, much. I've been using Windows more or less regularly since 1995 (at work) and 1996 (at home), and I have a fair amount of experience tweaking it using an official XP book and a couple of "Tips and Tricks" books, but I couldn't begin to tell you what update KB234678234 is (I fudged the number, but it could be any of them). All I know is that, without actually going through and reading the descriptions, those 23 updates were "Windows Update" or "Windows Security Update" and maybe an Internet Explorer update - too bland for me.
It was really slow, too. The update took about another 10 minutes, which, for 23 small updates is a LONG time.
Then I had to reboot again.
Well, whoop-dee-do, Mr. Mark, what's yer eff-in problem with that?
If that's all you're used to, then you probably don't know that there's a much better system out there - it's called LINUX.
We've had a flurry of bug fixes and other updates to various parts of the system over the last couple of weeks, including a substantial kernel update. For those of you who don't know it, the kernel is the heart of the OS - it's what makes everything else work. It is also what most Linux people think of as Linux itself - everything else is added on, mostly from the Free Software Foundation, which supports the standard command set that comes with virtually every Linux distribution.
Back to the point, there were ten notices in my deleted email about updates, seven of which were for my current CentOS release (5.4), the last of which was the kernel update.
I'm a command-line kind of person, having been in the business since before graphical user interfaces, like Windows, and as much as the GUIs have made a lot of the computing world easier, there are some things about running computers that just cry for the power and detail of the command line. I believe that systems administration, even for home use, is one of them.
This is not to fault the GUI system updater - it's fine, if you like that sort of thing. As it happens, I learned the command line method first, and it's so simple, clear and informative, I just use it, with pleasure.
For each of those seven updates, all of which included more than one area to be updated except the kernel update, I happily ran the command (yum update, if you're wondering), watched it whip up a fast list of what had an update available and then waited for my typed "y" to proceed, at which point it downloaded each update, ran the transaction checks, updated the modules and finished with a note about success. Quickly.
No reboot required. Technically, I didn't have to reboot after the kernel update, either, but if I wanted the new kernel, then, yes, that was necessary. It hasn't happened in a month or two, so I figured why not.
Actually, I went and read the release notes, and there were enough important security issues fixed that I figured it was worth it.
Rebooting a Linux system is not something to be taken lightly. It's a little more time consuming that a Windows reboot appears to be (the actual settling down of the OS and any run-time apps like your antivirus takes a lot longer than just getting to your desktop), but once I'm logged back in, it's done for the next month or six or however long before I decide to take it down again.
There were no cryptic symbolic names to decode - I know the packages that were updated because they are listed out by name and I've been working in and using UNIX/Linux systems long enough to know most of them by heart. Now, this is as opposed to the Windows updates, which are all named KB#########, or something like that, which means that NO one outside of Microsoft knows what they are without reading the accompanying documentation. In Linux, this is not required.
There's another thing I noticed during the Windows Update I ran. While the updater is downloading and installing the updates, it occupies a normal sized window in the middle of the screen which you can move but not minimize. Since I don't have the add-on to Windows that allows for multiple workspaces (virtual desktop screens) that happens to be a standard feature with both the GNOME and KDE GUIs of Linux, that window just sits there, staring back at me until it is done and tells me to reboot.
Feh.
After rebooting, I went to update the MS Office XP installed on that machine, except that there no longer appears to be an automated Office update process unless you get the Microsoft Update. Ick, no thanks.
So, what did I just say?
I like Linux's simple, convenient update process because it is simple, easy to use, unobtrusive and, unless it involves a kernel change, updates on my desktop without forcing me to reboot.
How could anyone complain about that on top of a cost-free software system for the stand-alone desktop computer?
Not me.
I used a SATA/IDE-to-USB converter device to do the backup, and other than Windows halting the copies on every file it couldn't quite handle, things went fairly well. I was going to try to put Windows on my Everex laptop (that runs Linux) so this other person could use it (they are Linux-illiterate, despite my best efforts... :-), but the strangest things happened.
I put in the other laptop drive, and even though it tried for about 15-20 minutes, the Windows on-board recovery failed. Now, this should be no surprise because my Everex and their Toshiba are substantially different hardware bases, with different devices and so on, and most laptops come with tailored installations to match the hardware that accompanies them.
Then I put the original disk back in and lo and behold, none of my Windows installation CDs would run. They all got to that first step, "Setup is inspecting your computer for anything that might kill it," (okay, it didn't really say that, but it was the usual Windows Setup prompt), and then the screen went dark and stayed there. I haven't really had the heart to check into why a nice laptop like that, which came with Ubuntu Linux until I installed CentOS (Linux) over it and which runs perfectly, would choke on installing Windows. Truth be told, I don't care, but it's nice to know that my awesome Linux laptop won't even allow Windows to install on it.
More to the point:
Among other things, this desktop I was upgrading had AVG anti-virus on it (which I kind of like - it's free and works well enough) clamoring for an update to the virus definition file, NVidia's Network Access Manager complaining that it was turned off, Windows Automatic Update telling me it had some updates to install (I don't ever let things like that run on their own - too risky IMNSHO) and ZoneAlarm, which I had decided to uninstall.
I told the Windows automatic update to go ahead, update me. I uninstalled ZoneAlarm, which went well, except for two things:
1) Something else went wrong and I got one of those lovely "A program has crashed....Do you want to send a bug report to Microsoft?" windows, for which program I don't know (and they don't say).
2) The ZoneAlarm uninstall wanted me to reboot.
Fine. I told the bug report window to go away, and it did. However, the automatic update hung, hard. It stopped at 32% complete without ever downloading anything.
I admit it, I kind of floundered on this one. I tried running Windows Update manually, but that didn't do so well with the other one hung. I turned off the automatic updates, but that didn't un-hang the hung one. I tried to use the NVidia NAM's anti-hacking-only feature, but that didn't seem to help, so I figured, that's it, it's going and I'll worry about it all after the reboot.
So, since NAM doesn't have an uninstall command or feature, I went to the control panel and started to remove it that way.
That hung the whole machine.
Other than being an annoyance, this wasn't much of a hassle (had to reboot anyway), so I just rebooted the machine with the reset switch. And, to Windows' credit, it came up just fine.
(Yes, I'm running XP SP2 on that box - it does well enough for these purposes.)
NAM was not gone, so I removed it again and that needed another reboot.
Now I'm getting annoyed, and I'll go into that in a little bit, there's not much of the gripe left.
With NAM gone, I went back to a manual Windows Update run, and after a fair length of sitting silent, it finally started actually downloading and installing 23 updates. What they were I don't really know, or care, much. I've been using Windows more or less regularly since 1995 (at work) and 1996 (at home), and I have a fair amount of experience tweaking it using an official XP book and a couple of "Tips and Tricks" books, but I couldn't begin to tell you what update KB234678234 is (I fudged the number, but it could be any of them). All I know is that, without actually going through and reading the descriptions, those 23 updates were "Windows Update" or "Windows Security Update" and maybe an Internet Explorer update - too bland for me.
It was really slow, too. The update took about another 10 minutes, which, for 23 small updates is a LONG time.
Then I had to reboot again.
Well, whoop-dee-do, Mr. Mark, what's yer eff-in problem with that?
If that's all you're used to, then you probably don't know that there's a much better system out there - it's called LINUX.
We've had a flurry of bug fixes and other updates to various parts of the system over the last couple of weeks, including a substantial kernel update. For those of you who don't know it, the kernel is the heart of the OS - it's what makes everything else work. It is also what most Linux people think of as Linux itself - everything else is added on, mostly from the Free Software Foundation, which supports the standard command set that comes with virtually every Linux distribution.
Back to the point, there were ten notices in my deleted email about updates, seven of which were for my current CentOS release (5.4), the last of which was the kernel update.
I'm a command-line kind of person, having been in the business since before graphical user interfaces, like Windows, and as much as the GUIs have made a lot of the computing world easier, there are some things about running computers that just cry for the power and detail of the command line. I believe that systems administration, even for home use, is one of them.
This is not to fault the GUI system updater - it's fine, if you like that sort of thing. As it happens, I learned the command line method first, and it's so simple, clear and informative, I just use it, with pleasure.
For each of those seven updates, all of which included more than one area to be updated except the kernel update, I happily ran the command (yum update, if you're wondering), watched it whip up a fast list of what had an update available and then waited for my typed "y" to proceed, at which point it downloaded each update, ran the transaction checks, updated the modules and finished with a note about success. Quickly.
No reboot required. Technically, I didn't have to reboot after the kernel update, either, but if I wanted the new kernel, then, yes, that was necessary. It hasn't happened in a month or two, so I figured why not.
Actually, I went and read the release notes, and there were enough important security issues fixed that I figured it was worth it.
Rebooting a Linux system is not something to be taken lightly. It's a little more time consuming that a Windows reboot appears to be (the actual settling down of the OS and any run-time apps like your antivirus takes a lot longer than just getting to your desktop), but once I'm logged back in, it's done for the next month or six or however long before I decide to take it down again.
There were no cryptic symbolic names to decode - I know the packages that were updated because they are listed out by name and I've been working in and using UNIX/Linux systems long enough to know most of them by heart. Now, this is as opposed to the Windows updates, which are all named KB#########, or something like that, which means that NO one outside of Microsoft knows what they are without reading the accompanying documentation. In Linux, this is not required.
There's another thing I noticed during the Windows Update I ran. While the updater is downloading and installing the updates, it occupies a normal sized window in the middle of the screen which you can move but not minimize. Since I don't have the add-on to Windows that allows for multiple workspaces (virtual desktop screens) that happens to be a standard feature with both the GNOME and KDE GUIs of Linux, that window just sits there, staring back at me until it is done and tells me to reboot.
Feh.
After rebooting, I went to update the MS Office XP installed on that machine, except that there no longer appears to be an automated Office update process unless you get the Microsoft Update. Ick, no thanks.
So, what did I just say?
I like Linux's simple, convenient update process because it is simple, easy to use, unobtrusive and, unless it involves a kernel change, updates on my desktop without forcing me to reboot.
How could anyone complain about that on top of a cost-free software system for the stand-alone desktop computer?
Not me.
Sunday, March 7, 2010
Initiatives of the damned
Okay, I'm embarrassed, or would be if I did that sort of thing.
I thought I was a week behind in posting here, but obviously I was off - by two weeks! Foo.
So, to the point:
Today, I had to go to the store, and there was this really sweet, elderly black lady with a few teeth sitting outside the store, hawking initiative petitions. At first, when she presented her main pitch, I just said no and went on into the store. When I came out, I smiled and said no again.
Then I had to go back inside, and said no on my way in, but on the way out, I figured maybe I could do something intelligent, so I stopped.
The first petition was for an initiative constitutional amendment (which is usually a VERY BAD IDEA) to force a 2/3 majority vote in the legislature in order to instantiate or raise governmental fees (which is one way the state raises money without raising taxes). It's bad enough that we've hogtied California with the 2/3 requirement to set tax rates (up or down), but this would be a death knell for any state funding necessities at all. I failed to point this out to her, but I did say it was a bad idea.
The next one was (oh, foo, I forgot!) another bad idea, as bad as, or worse than that one.
Number three was an initiative to alter the lottery disbursements to increase the amount dedicated to prizes and decrease "the rest." Now, I'm not a big fan of public education as it is, but starving it is not the solution. Since the state doesn't even honor its Proposition 98 legal requirements to fund our public education system (which it can't, largely because of petition #1 and the 2/3 majority requirement for tax changes, and our governator's love affair with prisons), cutting even more money out just to enrich the one in 47 billion chance jackpot winners just doesn't seem right.
Number four was the only one I signed. It was a petition to change the majority requirement for passing a state budget from 2/3 to simple majority. That happens to be a good idea, and I'm surprised she had it, but I told her it was a good idea and signed it.
Number five was a petition to eliminate the (just-enacted) commission to determine census redistricting. I pointed out that we just enacted the commission as a solution to the problems of having the legislature do that, and she said we should let the people decide. I pointed out that the people DID just decide, but she didn't seem to understand that one, which I thought was really weird because she did understand that this would reverse the commissionization of district drawing that we have fought for ten years to get through, but she didn't get that this reversal was a bad idea.
Number six was supposedly a petition to alter the way businesses can reduce their taxes by shifting losses from one year to another. I couldn't figure out what it would really do from the way it was worded on the petition, and I was running out of time, but I figured this - better not to sign what I don't understand. I'm no political newbie, but this one was too vague and had insufficient information on what the impact would be, so I said no.
With respect to petition drives for changes to the law, California has been the center of an epidemic of such drives. Usually they are funded by very rich sources (meaning corporations or groups that have too much money and nothing better to do with it than spend it in ways to make themselves richer and more powerful, usually to the detriment of the rest of us) that do not have our best interests at heart, in mind, or anywhere even close to the horizon.
To top all of this off, yesterday Arnie announced that he was releasing $9.2 million (yeah, Million) to large cities in CA to fight gang violence.
Hello? Do you know how to read and write, Arnie?
First of all, there's something inherently wrong with the idea of fighting violence.
Secondly, if you really want to reduce gang violence, the proper solution is to give people something better to do than join gangs. I would strongly suggest a few things like good jobs that pay enough to be worthwhile, in fields that people can actually prosper and enjoy, maybe enhancing our educational system so that it works, including our state universities (and maybe restricting the UC regents from being able to hike tuition and fees to cover their bad investment decisions rather than actually funding the students' education), single-payer universal health care so California's businesses can compete in a global market where every other industrialized nation in the world has this but we don't - radical ideas I know, but someone has to say it....
Moral: READ before you sign. If you don't understand it or don't like it or it doesn't sound right (or even just sounds fishy), chances are it wasn't mean to do what the petition signature gatherer is told to tell you it does. They are getting paid per signature, often not a lot, and most of them are fairly desperate people who will do anything for the money, so stereotypically, they cannot be trusted to tell you the truth about what they want you to sign.
That's a long moral, and so is this post. See you soon!
I thought I was a week behind in posting here, but obviously I was off - by two weeks! Foo.
So, to the point:
Today, I had to go to the store, and there was this really sweet, elderly black lady with a few teeth sitting outside the store, hawking initiative petitions. At first, when she presented her main pitch, I just said no and went on into the store. When I came out, I smiled and said no again.
Then I had to go back inside, and said no on my way in, but on the way out, I figured maybe I could do something intelligent, so I stopped.
The first petition was for an initiative constitutional amendment (which is usually a VERY BAD IDEA) to force a 2/3 majority vote in the legislature in order to instantiate or raise governmental fees (which is one way the state raises money without raising taxes). It's bad enough that we've hogtied California with the 2/3 requirement to set tax rates (up or down), but this would be a death knell for any state funding necessities at all. I failed to point this out to her, but I did say it was a bad idea.
The next one was (oh, foo, I forgot!) another bad idea, as bad as, or worse than that one.
Number three was an initiative to alter the lottery disbursements to increase the amount dedicated to prizes and decrease "the rest." Now, I'm not a big fan of public education as it is, but starving it is not the solution. Since the state doesn't even honor its Proposition 98 legal requirements to fund our public education system (which it can't, largely because of petition #1 and the 2/3 majority requirement for tax changes, and our governator's love affair with prisons), cutting even more money out just to enrich the one in 47 billion chance jackpot winners just doesn't seem right.
Number four was the only one I signed. It was a petition to change the majority requirement for passing a state budget from 2/3 to simple majority. That happens to be a good idea, and I'm surprised she had it, but I told her it was a good idea and signed it.
Number five was a petition to eliminate the (just-enacted) commission to determine census redistricting. I pointed out that we just enacted the commission as a solution to the problems of having the legislature do that, and she said we should let the people decide. I pointed out that the people DID just decide, but she didn't seem to understand that one, which I thought was really weird because she did understand that this would reverse the commissionization of district drawing that we have fought for ten years to get through, but she didn't get that this reversal was a bad idea.
Number six was supposedly a petition to alter the way businesses can reduce their taxes by shifting losses from one year to another. I couldn't figure out what it would really do from the way it was worded on the petition, and I was running out of time, but I figured this - better not to sign what I don't understand. I'm no political newbie, but this one was too vague and had insufficient information on what the impact would be, so I said no.
With respect to petition drives for changes to the law, California has been the center of an epidemic of such drives. Usually they are funded by very rich sources (meaning corporations or groups that have too much money and nothing better to do with it than spend it in ways to make themselves richer and more powerful, usually to the detriment of the rest of us) that do not have our best interests at heart, in mind, or anywhere even close to the horizon.
To top all of this off, yesterday Arnie announced that he was releasing $9.2 million (yeah, Million) to large cities in CA to fight gang violence.
Hello? Do you know how to read and write, Arnie?
First of all, there's something inherently wrong with the idea of fighting violence.
Secondly, if you really want to reduce gang violence, the proper solution is to give people something better to do than join gangs. I would strongly suggest a few things like good jobs that pay enough to be worthwhile, in fields that people can actually prosper and enjoy, maybe enhancing our educational system so that it works, including our state universities (and maybe restricting the UC regents from being able to hike tuition and fees to cover their bad investment decisions rather than actually funding the students' education), single-payer universal health care so California's businesses can compete in a global market where every other industrialized nation in the world has this but we don't - radical ideas I know, but someone has to say it....
Moral: READ before you sign. If you don't understand it or don't like it or it doesn't sound right (or even just sounds fishy), chances are it wasn't mean to do what the petition signature gatherer is told to tell you it does. They are getting paid per signature, often not a lot, and most of them are fairly desperate people who will do anything for the money, so stereotypically, they cannot be trusted to tell you the truth about what they want you to sign.
That's a long moral, and so is this post. See you soon!
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Evil does in fact exist and walks in the world right next to us
This may seem like a strange thing to say, but after much thought and serious consideration, I have to face the fact that there really is such a thing as evil, and it lives right beside us in the world now, not only in whatever may come hereafter.
I met a personification of evil today. It's in the person of someone whom I have known for a long, long time, but it wasn't until today that I realized just how truly vicious, despicable, loathsome, self-centered and purely twisted this person is.
This person is someone who takes pride in how honest and forthright they are, but in reality, they lie, cheat, steal and twist up everything to make them look good and make everyone else around them wrong, petty, selfish and small.
I now know who the person is that is petty, selfish to a degree I can only imagine, and so small that they are and have nothing of value to anyone, even their own self. I suppose that explains why they are the way they are, and that is beyond sad, it's tragic, but it's like an alcoholic - they can't even begin to recover until they can admit to what they are. This person is incapable of admitting that they are now or ever have been wrong, not about anything.
If you happen to meet someone like this, or about whom you feel anything like this, you can try to be nice to them, to sympathize with all their awful plights, their horrid relationships, get them gifts, do anything they ask, but it will never make a difference, because they can't even see that you are a person, that you have your own thoughts that might not be the same as theirs, or things to do that are just as important to you as every whim of theirs is to them. If are nice to them, or give them things, or do things for them, don't expect any gratitude - they are incapable of recognizing that you did anything, for them, about which they should be grateful. They can't conceive of anything outside their own narrow, narcissistic warped view of the world.
I can't say who this person is, but I can conclude with one comforting thought:
It isn't me, and I thank God every day for that, no matter how much I complain (and, yes, yell at Him) about anything else.
I met a personification of evil today. It's in the person of someone whom I have known for a long, long time, but it wasn't until today that I realized just how truly vicious, despicable, loathsome, self-centered and purely twisted this person is.
This person is someone who takes pride in how honest and forthright they are, but in reality, they lie, cheat, steal and twist up everything to make them look good and make everyone else around them wrong, petty, selfish and small.
I now know who the person is that is petty, selfish to a degree I can only imagine, and so small that they are and have nothing of value to anyone, even their own self. I suppose that explains why they are the way they are, and that is beyond sad, it's tragic, but it's like an alcoholic - they can't even begin to recover until they can admit to what they are. This person is incapable of admitting that they are now or ever have been wrong, not about anything.
If you happen to meet someone like this, or about whom you feel anything like this, you can try to be nice to them, to sympathize with all their awful plights, their horrid relationships, get them gifts, do anything they ask, but it will never make a difference, because they can't even see that you are a person, that you have your own thoughts that might not be the same as theirs, or things to do that are just as important to you as every whim of theirs is to them. If are nice to them, or give them things, or do things for them, don't expect any gratitude - they are incapable of recognizing that you did anything, for them, about which they should be grateful. They can't conceive of anything outside their own narrow, narcissistic warped view of the world.
I can't say who this person is, but I can conclude with one comforting thought:
It isn't me, and I thank God every day for that, no matter how much I complain (and, yes, yell at Him) about anything else.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Credit Card Fraud, by the Issuer
I was just informed of a fascinating situation that someone I know ran into with their credit card company. I won't name my informant (and it was not me), but I will name the credit card issuer: HSBC (Household Services Banking Corporation).
HSBC offers a "service" whereby a debtor can make a credit card payment online, but there is a one or two day delay built into the payment processing time. Why? Because they like to make money, of course. Given that banks can afford the fastest computers in creation and that most electronic transactions take a few microseconds to perform, even allowing for a few milliseconds for the disks to record the transactions, and even then allowing a few seconds for trans-network transmissions - these folks don't use the internet for transactions like these - a one day delay is purely for show. Actually, it is entirely possible that the delay is arranged so the bank can use the money during that time to make even more off of it through other investment services, but I can't prove that. (But think about it - why would a virtually instantaneous transaction be delayed for 24 hours, 86400 seconds, 86.4 billion microseconds, or longer, other than to make more money off of it through back channels that don't have such delays?)
To get past this, they offer another "service" called "Rush Payment," whereby they say the one day delay won't apply. What they don't really say is that the payment will actually be processed the same day or by the next day. They don't say this because, although the "offer" of such a service to get the payments processed faster, for a fee, generates lots of rush payments and, hence, more money to HSBC, frequently out of the pocket of someone who is already having trouble making the payments in the first place, the actual payment is not rushed at all.
So this person I know sent HSBC a message through HSBC's internal messaging system for contacting them, explaining the situation and asking for a refund on the rush payment.
Here is what HSBC sent back, verbatim, with identifying data removed (and some emphasis added):
from: HSBC Card Services Customer Care
Dear [name redacted],
We are writing to you in response to your inquiry regarding your Account ending in [redacted] issued by HSBC Bank Nevada N.A.
We can certainly understand your concern regarding the payment hold on your account. Your payment in the amount of $115.00 was received and posted on 02/01/2010; however, a temporary hold for the same amount has been placed onyour account. * The available funds will be released no later than 14 days after the payment posts to your account. At this time, you have no available credit on your account. Please refer to the Maximum Credit Limit portion of your Cardmember Agreement and Disclosure Statement for more details.
*On your online statement, the temporary hold will show as a Pending Charge in your Recent Transactions. The Merchant Name will be HCS (HSBC Credit Services) and the transaction amount will be $1.00 less than your payment amount.
Unfortunately, we are unable to comply with your request to remove the fee for rush payment from your account . Our rush payment service has been added as a convenient option for our Cardmembers. Although there is a charge for this service, it frequently helps our Cardmembers avoid late charges. We guarantee payment will be applied the fastest way possible at a cost that is less than a late penalty.
You are important to us and we appreciate your business.
Sincerely,
[I shouldn't redact this person's name, but I will anyway]
HSBC Card Services Customer Care
HSBC Bank Nevada will not send or request sensitive personal or account information through e-mail or the telephone. If you receive suspicious email or phone calls regarding your credit card account, contact us immediately at the phone number printed on the back of your credit card or on your billing statement.
HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A., P.O. Box 703, Wood Dale, IL 60191-0703
© Copyright HSBC Finance Corporation. 2010. All rights reserved.
---
In other words, the payment is marked as posted on the account, but even though electronic funds transfers are virtually instantaneous, they're going to hold onto the money anyway, just for the heck of it, for up to 14 days. Back in the days when these funds transfers were done via U.S. Mail, or at least not posted until the paper proof of transaction was transmitted and received, this might make sense, but with EFTs???
Unfortunately, HSBC is "unable to comply" with the request to remove the rush fee from the account. Apparently, they are incapable of changing their rules or making exceptions that actually benefit the customer. Notice that credit card issuers have no trouble amending their credit card contracts at any time when they want to increase their fess, penalties, interest (usury) rates, and so on, but when you want an adjustment in your favor, they are "unable to comply." So my source paid $15 for nothing, and HSBC is going to keep that, too.
However, "You are important to us and we appreciate your business." Well, DUH! They just rooked another customer of another $15 in a fee that bought the customer nothing. I'd appreciate that business, too.
But, we can trust the banks - they're too big to fail, they keep the economy alive (with their $400,000 yacht cruises and such). In short:
WE DON'T NEED TO REGULATE THE BANKS AT ALL!
Right? Right? Is anyone out there?
HSBC offers a "service" whereby a debtor can make a credit card payment online, but there is a one or two day delay built into the payment processing time. Why? Because they like to make money, of course. Given that banks can afford the fastest computers in creation and that most electronic transactions take a few microseconds to perform, even allowing for a few milliseconds for the disks to record the transactions, and even then allowing a few seconds for trans-network transmissions - these folks don't use the internet for transactions like these - a one day delay is purely for show. Actually, it is entirely possible that the delay is arranged so the bank can use the money during that time to make even more off of it through other investment services, but I can't prove that. (But think about it - why would a virtually instantaneous transaction be delayed for 24 hours, 86400 seconds, 86.4 billion microseconds, or longer, other than to make more money off of it through back channels that don't have such delays?)
To get past this, they offer another "service" called "Rush Payment," whereby they say the one day delay won't apply. What they don't really say is that the payment will actually be processed the same day or by the next day. They don't say this because, although the "offer" of such a service to get the payments processed faster, for a fee, generates lots of rush payments and, hence, more money to HSBC, frequently out of the pocket of someone who is already having trouble making the payments in the first place, the actual payment is not rushed at all.
So this person I know sent HSBC a message through HSBC's internal messaging system for contacting them, explaining the situation and asking for a refund on the rush payment.
Here is what HSBC sent back, verbatim, with identifying data removed (and some emphasis added):
from: HSBC Card Services Customer Care
| ||||||||||||||||||
We are writing to you in response to your inquiry regarding your Account ending in [redacted] issued by HSBC Bank Nevada N.A.
We can certainly understand your concern regarding the payment hold on your account. Your payment in the amount of $115.00 was received and posted on 02/01/2010; however, a temporary hold for the same amount has been placed onyour account. * The available funds will be released no later than 14 days after the payment posts to your account. At this time, you have no available credit on your account. Please refer to the Maximum Credit Limit portion of your Cardmember Agreement and Disclosure Statement for more details.
*On your online statement, the temporary hold will show as a Pending Charge in your Recent Transactions. The Merchant Name will be HCS (HSBC Credit Services) and the transaction amount will be $1.00 less than your payment amount.
Unfortunately, we are unable to comply with your request to remove the fee for rush payment from your account . Our rush payment service has been added as a convenient option for our Cardmembers. Although there is a charge for this service, it frequently helps our Cardmembers avoid late charges. We guarantee payment will be applied the fastest way possible at a cost that is less than a late penalty.
You are important to us and we appreciate your business.
Sincerely,
[I shouldn't redact this person's name, but I will anyway]
HSBC Card Services Customer Care
HSBC Bank Nevada will not send or request sensitive personal or account information through e-mail or the telephone. If you receive suspicious email or phone calls regarding your credit card account, contact us immediately at the phone number printed on the back of your credit card or on your billing statement.
HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A., P.O. Box 703, Wood Dale, IL 60191-0703
© Copyright HSBC Finance Corporation. 2010. All rights reserved.
---
In other words, the payment is marked as posted on the account, but even though electronic funds transfers are virtually instantaneous, they're going to hold onto the money anyway, just for the heck of it, for up to 14 days. Back in the days when these funds transfers were done via U.S. Mail, or at least not posted until the paper proof of transaction was transmitted and received, this might make sense, but with EFTs???
Unfortunately, HSBC is "unable to comply" with the request to remove the rush fee from the account. Apparently, they are incapable of changing their rules or making exceptions that actually benefit the customer. Notice that credit card issuers have no trouble amending their credit card contracts at any time when they want to increase their fess, penalties, interest (usury) rates, and so on, but when you want an adjustment in your favor, they are "unable to comply." So my source paid $15 for nothing, and HSBC is going to keep that, too.
However, "You are important to us and we appreciate your business." Well, DUH! They just rooked another customer of another $15 in a fee that bought the customer nothing. I'd appreciate that business, too.
But, we can trust the banks - they're too big to fail, they keep the economy alive (with their $400,000 yacht cruises and such). In short:
WE DON'T NEED TO REGULATE THE BANKS AT ALL!
Right? Right? Is anyone out there?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)