Individual Liberty — Individual Responsibility 

OTPB and OTA Tuesday

This open trackbacks post is for April 24, 2007.

If you have something interesting you'd like to share, feel free to link it here and leave a trackback.

Just remember the trackback policy.

For the best exposure, go to the blogger's oasis and use the linkfest chooser to choose the posts you'd like to hook up with.

A couple of Vista notes...

Microsoft and Dell might be having words soon. According to an article in the Seattle Times: 

There might be just a little bit of tension in the next meeting between Microsoft and one of its biggest customers, Dell.

In the past month, the computer maker has launched a couple of initiatives that appear to run counter to Microsoft's effort to move the world to the Windows Vista operating system.

On Thursday, Dell said it will make Windows XP an option on some of its consumer-focused desktop and laptop computers.

"We heard you loud and clear on bringing the Windows XP option back to our Dell consumer PC offerings," the company said on its Ideas in Action Web site, which is part of a customer-feedback tool it launched earlier this year.

Back in March, Dell announced plans to "expand our Linux support beyond our existing servers and Precision workstation line.

"Our first step in this effort is offering Linux pre-installed on select desktop and notebook systems."

And here's an interesting little tidbit. Instead of determining what rights a Vista executable requires based on what it does, Vista makes that determination based on the executable's name. Isn't that one of the things that Michael Howard warns against in his book Writing Secure Code? This one is from the Register.

Developers have discovered that the name given to a Vista executable affects whether or not it will require admin rights to run.

Security experts said the feature might seem odd, but helps to catch out spyware.

Reg Reader Mike, a C++ developer, discovered the behaviour after spending days trying to work out why just some of his projects required elevation (admin rights) to be run on his Windows Vista machine. To his disbelief, Mike realised that the different properties were simply due to projects being named differently.

"If Vista sees that you have created a Microsoft Visual C++ project with install in the project name, then that .exe will automatically require Admin Rights to run. Create exactly the same project, but call it, say, Fred, and the problem disappears," he explained. "Vista's security isn't just concerned with what an .exe is doing to your PC, but what it's actually called."

We put these points to Microsoft, which responded with a statement that explained why installation programs might need admin privileges to run but not why this changes depending on the name given to a project.

"Installation programs are applications designed to deploy software, and most write to system directories and registry keys. These protected system locations are typically writable only by an administrator user, which means that standard users do not have sufficient access to install programs. Windows Vista heuristically detects installation programs and requests administrator credentials or approval from the administrator user in order to run with access privileges. Windows Vista also heuristically detects updater and uninstallation programs. Note that a design goal of UAC [User Account Control] is to prevent installations from being executed without the user's knowledge and consent since they write to protected areas of the file system and registry," it said.

With security decisions like this, is it any wonder that some people are having such problems with Vista?

Previous Posts:

• Vista shmista - Gimme back XP!
• Microsoft set to anger another set of customers
• Man I Love those new 1X Robots
• Visual Studio 2005 and Windows Vista
• Ain't Technology Great?
• Windows Vista
• Incompatible Software...

A Sonics compromise?

You've probably noticed by now that I'm no fan of the Sonics. This isn't because I don't like basketball (I don't but that's not the point). It's because I really don't like the idea of any professional sporting organization holding taxpayers hostage with threats to leave if they can't have public funding.

I didn't like it when the Mariners threatened to leave if they didn't get their own stadium. When the opportunity to vote on the funding package came up I, like many other voters, voted against it. I was outraged when the state legislature decided that they were going to fund the stadium anyway, over the voters objections. When they tacked on an emergency clause to force the extra taxes on us I was livid.

I didn't like it when the Seahawks pulled the same stunt. I voted against funding a new stadium for the Seahawks too. This time, the people narrowly decided they wanted the Seahawks enough to tax themselves, so the legislature didn't have to step in. I was able to accept that, since it was the people that voted on it, but I still didn't like it. I thought it was a really bad day when the Kingdome was imploded even though it hadn't been fully paid for.

I've argued against public funding for a NASCAR track anywhere in Washington. NASCAR is making money hand-over-fist and I don't see the need for them to have a public funding package to hold one or two major races a year in the state. I really don't think the boost to the economy from those one or two major races a year would justify the cost of the funding package, and I think it would hurt other racetracks that are already operating in the area and raising their prices.

I've also said that it's time for the Sonics to go. They've made the threat just as the Mariners and the Seahawks did. Seattle told them not a penny of public funds to grant them a new stadium or arena, so they decided to make a play for Renton at 150% of the original asking price.

Danny Westneat has a solution... sort of.

Forget Renton. Forget building the world's most expensive arena out in the 'burbs.

It's time for the Sonics to come home. Now that state lawmakers have sensibly ignored the bloated fantasy of a $500 million Sonics and Storm palace in Renton, the burning question is: What next?

Are the teams as good as gone to Oklahoma?

Is Seattle stuck with a debt-ridden KeyArena?

Is this broken relationship irreconcilable?

Without a big shift, the answers are yes, yes and yes.

But the 40-year marriage of team and city doesn't have to end like this. Compromise is a lost art, but there is one right under our noses that could save the Sonics without exorbitant public subsidies.

It would build a modern arena with double the space of the tiny Key. It would eliminate the debt that's crippling Seattle Center. It would involve no state money and no sales taxes.

The idea is simple. Sonics owners say they're willing to spend "more than $100 million" on the Renton arena that the state just shunned. What if they put that $100 million-plus into KeyArena instead?

A year ago, the team, under different owners, was pushing a $220 million rehab of KeyArena that would create, the team said, a "first-rate multipurpose facility."

Trouble was, then-owner Howard Schultz had lost a lot of money and wasn't willing to pony up much more. But the new owners say they are. With Renton all but dead, why not meet back at the Key?

The Sonics and the public could go 50-50 on the cost of renovating KeyArena. Say the price is up to $250 million. That's $125 million each.

The Sonics were going to spend at least that much in Renton, anyway. For the public, it's a quarter-of-a-billion dollars less than Renton.

It would leave us with just one basketball arena — happily, the one we've already got. We could drop the sales tax on restaurants. Imagine: a tax canceled! There would be zero state money needed. The entire public share could be paid for by extending local hotel/motel and car-rental taxes.

This solution is a whole lot more palatable to me than anything the Sonics have proposed. Maybe if the Sonics would pony up the majority of the cost I'd change my mind.

I still don't like the idea of using public funds to pay for professional sports. Mr. Westneat might actually be on to something this time though. But, as he says at the end of his article, "I don't suppose I'll hold my breath".

Originally posted at NW Bloggers.

Chess and Blogging

Chess is an interesting game. It's rules are fairly simple, but the possibilities can be fairly complex. Until a few years ago it was something that only a few humans could master, but only humans could truly master it. Now there are some machines that can outplay humans, but they're very large, and very expensive. They play by brute force rather than insight.

I haven't played chess in decades, except against computers. I'm reasonably good at playing it, but not against people who are dedicated players. I can beat a couple of chess programs, but not when I play against them on any of the higher difficulty levels. Most chess masters can beat the commercially available chess programs.

When I was a college student, back before the electric light-bulb was invented (o.k. maybe not quite that far back) I had the opportunity to watch a chess master play the game against a score or so of players from the chess club at Michigan State University. The room was laid out with several tables arranged in a square around the perimeter. On each table were several chessboards with a club member at each board. The chess master was in the center.

He started a game at one of the tables. After each player had made one move he would move on to the next game, where each player would make one move and so on. Most of the time the exchanges were fairly quick, but occasionally he would stop at a chessboard for a couple of minutes to examine the situation before taking his turn and moving on to the next game.

It was fascinating to watch. What was even more fascinating is that he won all but one or two of the games. I was thoroughly impressed, because I had played against some of the people he soundly defeated, and I could barely hold my own against them.

In some ways I think blogging is like that, except that the idea behind blogging is the exchange of ideas, not the defeat of an opponent. A blogger starts many "games" with several posts on his or her blog. Commenters come and go and the blogger visits each game to respond to a comment or not. If the blogger reads and comments at other blogs, it becomes a bit like intersecting rings of "games".

Each comment thread requires a shift in attention and a consideration of the positions before a response can be made. Some commenters will articulate their positions well and others won't. The ones that do can challenge a blogger to rise to their level to address their ideas.

I think that this helps to sharpen the mind. The higher the quality of the debate the better. The major news media like to dismiss the blogosphere because we don't fit their template. I think they miss the opportunity for meaningful debate that blogging provides.

Some of the major news organizations allow comments on their news articles. Occasionally this results in a decent debate, but often the comments are heavily weighted to one ideological "side" or the other, and devolve into name calling.

Of course, a lot of blogs end up with the same problem. Groupthink seems to be a common malady, and there seems to be a strong tendency of bloggers to "run in packs".

I don't particularly enjoy reading blogs that run strongly counter to my own ideological comfort zone. Much of the time it's because of the tendency of the regular readers of those blogs, or even their authors to dismiss differing opinions as coming from a "right-wing hack", or to resort to ad-hominem attacks and name calling.

I suppose that there's a similar problem for people on the left that want to carry on a meaningful debate with "the right". I've started a new blog as a place where, hopefully meaningful but civil debate on todays issues will be carried out. I'm still working out the details, but I'll be inviting a few people over to join the team soon.

I don't play chess much anymore, but I have a lot of fun blogging. Thanks to all of you that read and comment here for keeping it interesting. And thanks for each of your blogs.

(No, this blog isn't going away. It's sort of my home on the web after all.)