steven n fettig's Jitterin' Thoughts

    Here I sit, Sunday at 10:39 CST Ti PowerBook next to the kitchen window and a double espresso at my right hand. (Oh yeah, and RadioStorm streaming through iTunes. As I was making this morning's brew, I sat there wondering (waiting for the boiler on the dying Delonghi to heat up) what makes a person wish to live in a socialistic (read: communist) society? I really wonder about these types of things. Is it the humanistic altruism they think socialism is supposedly made of? Is it that they feel everyone should be given what everyone else has - i.e. there should be no differences in the material wealth of each individual? My questions are aimed at understanding the psychological draw that socialism has on people. I am almost convinced that those who support a system by which individual freedoms are trumped by the wishes of a dictator, monarch or beaurocracy must have psychological reasonings for their desires. What would make me sit back and wish upon myself a system by which my own decisions to do with my skills are relegated to the back seat because someone else has a grander and more noble plan? I remember when I read Plato's The Republic being completely taken by his argument that society would best be maintained by the Philosopher Kings. It was only as I read further (i.e. more philosophy) and grew older and more experienced (in working and learning), that I realized that Plato's vision was nothing more than a means of suggesting that someone else knows better than I what is good for me. This is the point that I find so confusing whenever someone begins to expound upon how society would be better off if we were to leave the "big" decisions up to the experts. What this boils down to, however, is that the succession of decision ends up in the hands of someone so far removed from the situation that the best decision is not made. How is this type of decision making better for me or for society?

    Thank Google News for this latest news sweep. I was drinking this morning's cappuccino (my stomach was not ready for the double espresso ;)) and found the following articles fascinating - it proves a point I was making to a friend in Germany about the difference politically between Iraq and North Korea.

The following excerpt is from the BBC - World | Asia-Pacific | Russia and China urge Korea thaw:
"Mr Putin and Mr Jiang, both allies of North Korea, said a nuclear-free Korean peninsula was important for the security of the region and the rest of the world.
'The sides consider it important for the destiny of the world and security in north-east Asia to preserve the non-nuclear status of the Korean peninsula and the regime of non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction,' the declaration said.
'And in this context, they stress the extreme importance of normalising relations between the United States and the DPRK (North Korea)...'"
My question (rhetorical): Who has their thumb on Iraq?

TheStar.com - Women with HIV a growing trend
"The group called on all levels of government to increase funding for treatment and research into prevention."
Yes - one of the few times I have seen the word prevention mentioned...

Boston Globe Online / Nation | World / Road study finds pros, cons to cell phones
Excerpt: "'It's sort of assumptions built on assumptions,' said Kimberly Kuo, spokeswoman for the Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association. 'There are not a lot of substantial findings that allow us to make policy conclusions.'"
Do I deny that cell phones can cause a safety hazard? NO! Do I think it is any worse than a car radio... probably not. I want solid proof and I want comparisons between the different causes of accidents - which is higher - changing the radio station or a cell phone conversation? Can we make a differentiation between use in the country vs. use in the city? Yes, there are too many assumptions built upon assumptions. People, this is bad... not good. Assumption based decision making leads us to a point where we are making choices that conflict and that are also do not make sense - and this is a bad thing (I repeat).

I like the blog thang' but sometimes I find that I have to hinder my voice because I use my website not only for personal reasons but also business... That brought up a question -- how much can I say and how much shouldn't I say due to my audience? I have struggled with this one since I started my blog at stevenfettig.com. Nobody seems to read this anyway - or at least nobody that has the interest in writing me ;) (which is probably a good thing since I have been so bogged down with work lately that it is sometimes taking me days to answer emails... so much for fast communication.)
I will go back to my original question: how much weight do people put on our personal preferences vs. how we are in the business world? If Bill Clinton had his way, none of our personal "stuff" would ever become a matter of public or private debate. I don't agree, however, because the type of person you are in your personal life affects the things you do in your public life. Anyone who pretends that someone into sado-stuff or something considered taboo by society (for generally sensible reasons) is not going to allow their personal lives interfere with work/business is wrong... What you do at home will inevitably affect what you do on the job. Now, whether you have the type of job that allows for certain small transgressions or not is another question...

to think that Iraq was somehow strong-armed into handing over its latest arms report to the UN. Okay, strong-armed it may have been, but Iraq doesn't do anything unless it is in Hussein's own best interest... Read Iraq claims US 'blackmail' to get uncut dossier shows lust for war for yourself.

-> C'mon... say it like it is. Don't be an idiot. Deficits are bad. Big government spending is bad. Big beaurocracy is bad... say it like it is. Hubbard obviously has a problem with doing this. Why can't we simply stand up to those who claim that the tax cuts only take care of the rich and tell them how it is:
(Thanks Glen, by the way)
"Written by an accounting professor, this explanation is a VERY simple way to
understand the tax laws. Read on - it does make you think!!

"Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand. Suppose that every day,
ten men go out for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid
their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this."

"The first four men -- the poorest -- would pay nothing; the fifth would pay
$1, the sixth would pay $3, the seventh $7, the eighth $12, the ninth $18,
and the tenth man -- the richest -- would pay $59."

"That's what they decided to do. The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant
every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement -- until one day, the
owner threw them a curve (in tax language a tax cut)."

" 'Since you are all such good customers,' he said, 'I'm going to reduce the
cost of your daily meal by $20.' So now dinner for the ten only cost $80.00."

"The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the
first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what about
the other six -- the paying customers? How could they divvy up the $20
windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?' "

"The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they
subtracted that from everybody's share, Then the fifth man and The sixth man
would end up being PAID to eat their meal. So the restaurant owner suggested
that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same
amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay."

"And so the fifth man paid nothing, the sixth pitched in $2, the seventh paid
$5, the eighth paid $9, the ninth paid $12, leaving the tenth man with a bill
of $52 instead of his earlier $59. Each of the six was better off than
before. And the first four continued to eat for free."

"But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. 'I
only got a dollar out of the $20,' declared the sixth man, but he, pointing
to the tenth. 'But he got $7!'. 'Yeah, that's right,' exclaimed the fifth
man, 'I only saved a dollar, too, ........It's unfair that he got seven times
more than me!'. "

" 'That's true!' shouted the seventh man, 'why should he get $7 back when I
got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!'. 'Wait a minute,' yelled the
first four men in unison, 'We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits
the poor!' "

"The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night he didn't
show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it
came time to pay the bill, they discovered, a little late what was very
important. They were FIFTY-TWO DOLLARS short of paying the bill!"

"Imagine that!"

"And that, boys and girls, journalists and college instructors, is how the
tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit
from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and
they just may not show up at the table anymore."

"Where would that leave the rest? Unfortunately, most taxing authorities
anywhere cannot seem to grasp this rather straight-forward logic!"

T. Davies
Professor of Accounting &Chair,
Division of Accounting and Business Law
The University of South Dakota
School of Business"

I don't know if this actually came from him or not... I received this from a friend via email and thought it would be quite educational regardless of true source.

-> I wonder if Mel is still on Cody's infamous list.

    I finally took the last test for the semester in Accounting Principles. Whew... it is like a big weight being lifted from my shoulders. The class really did not take up too much of my time, but it took up enough to be noticeable. I liked the prof and the class in general, but I have to admit that accounting bores the living daylights out of me. I don't know how I can be completely engrossed in a subject like calculus, but not accounting. I can't see much of a philosophical difference other than calculus seems more like philosophy (my passion), whereas accounting seems like a scheme to keep people from being able to read your books. (Not that something like that would ever happen anyway because each company has its own way of doing things regardless of how much we try to standardize things...) Anyway, I think and hope I did well. If it weren't for my respect for the teacher I would have probably blown off the class completely. Now onto the next thing... hopefully something with OS's like Unix or math. ...I really wish I had gotten an undergrad in math... too.

    I was driving home from the aforementioned test and listening to WLS and really wanted to call in for once... There is a show in the evening with two news reporters (one liberal, one conservative) and the other host is a commentator that swings between ultra-liberal and ultra-conservative. They were discussing whether free speech covers something like cross burning. While I am 100% appalled by racist comments, I still feel that we as part of a free society must bear the burden and put up with idiots out there spewing hatred... Because I don't agree with what they say does not automatically mean that it is not right for them to be able to say what they want without fear of physical punishment or coercion. If we look at the problem logically, we would conclude that nothing stops us from outlawing any type of speech because we feel it inappropriate at one point in time or another - and this is a bad thing. What if we weren't able to express our opinions about what the government does with our money, or whether or not we should go to war, or if we want so-and-so in office and not his/her opponent? The what-if's become endless and we see that puting barriers in the way of people expressing their opinions (whether idiotic or not) is more harmful than it is good. We also slowly evolve into a state in which people no longer have inalienable rights, but only those that the government grants us. I don't understand why people think this is any different than a racist barring a non-racist from stating his/her opinion... logically there is no difference - and if we expect the law and justice to be blind to race, creed, beliefs, color, etc. then there must be some element of logic in what our government is allowed prohibit and what it is not allowed to prohibit, no matter how much it hurts to allow it... To one of the men on the radio: "Jay, you want freedom, but only what you consider to be permissible... that is not the definition of freedom, it is the definition of permitism..."

I saw this on another blog and was led to gong szeto's site... Take a look and maybe you'll be as intrigued as I:

CNet reports: Web filters blocking health sites
No, really... who cares? Who ever said that content - whatever you want - is what you have a right to? Sooner or later, we will find that we have a right to anything we want... and I call that ridiculous.

I found an interesting article by UPI (which, incidentally, I have never heard of) about the possible causes of Parkinson's disease. I would love to find out more what the causes of Parkinson's is, as my grandmother died partly due to the disease...

I find the whole concept behind Integraph and it's latest lawsuit against PC makers such as Dell, IBM, Compaq, HP, etc. ridiculous. I don't understand how we arrived at the point where all arguments and rivalries are settled though lawsuits. An article I read recently regarding the suit against Microsoft laments the same thing that I see in Integraph's activities: instead on focusing on bringing the consumer better products, we are going to bilk them out of money by raising prices on products through the backdoor -- who do you think pays for all of this stuff anyway?

I simply can't write all that I want here, so I'm going to move some of my more wacky comments to another page. I don't know whether I'll ever link the two, though. Anyone going through this blog and interested in knowing "to where" I am moving, drop me a line... Too much of this stuff that I want to say could probably get me into hot water - if it hasn't already ;) Anyway, I thought I would say it here first.

    I fought it and fought it, but I am finally here... working with WinXP Pro. I never thought I would get to that point until I realized how much work it was taking trying to live in a non-Windows environment. I am ever-faithfully working on my Mac, but ... and this is a big but ... everyone else is working on a Windows machine of one sort or another. I would have been able to battle this one through if it had not been for the fact that I couldn't get anything like Dreamweaver or some web dev software on a Linux or FreeBSD machine that I liked. Yes, I am aware that there are some good programs out there that can probably do a decent job at editing, etc., but I am left with neither the time nor the patience to battle that fight to the end. I love my Mac, but alas, I am back to the world of Windows and my Mac is again outnumbered by slow performing, security-bug ridden machines. Thank goodness that everything important to me is still on a Unix-like machine (no, I won't go into the battle of whether Mac is really Unix, Unix-like or anything like that - I'm obviously not a purist - between all of the 10 computers in my house, there are 5 FreeBSD machines and 5 mishmashes of Mac and Windows). Anyway, before I bore myself to death with this tirade, what are my thoughts?
    I have to admit... I like the chewy interface. It looks especially good on some new 15" LCD panels I bought for home (which are the schiznit, btw). I like OS X's interface, too - in many cases better. I like the over-all design of OS X better (it's simpler... there, I said it. I'm starting to fall for simple -- especially at a time when life is anything but that), but WinXP is nice. The speed of browsing on XP is also nice. Mac's always seem to have a lag when going through browsing - especially the type of 80-pages-are-open browsing that I do. (I really ought take a screen shot one of these days.) I don't mind that so much, though - it is sometimes my only way to slow down - if waiting an extra 450 ms counts as slowing down. I hate the idea, though, that I am going to battle with security flaw after flaw. I know, I know (and so do you if you are honest) - both the popularity and crappy code writing contribute to the security bugs to be found in Windows (I would like to believe it is crappy code writing, but I can't judge that for myself, as I don't code much other than websites). So far, though, I am pretty happy. What this confrontation has really made me learn is that Apple should really get on the Intel bandwagon - or at least get OS X ported to the Intel/x86 platform. I know this would open up Pandora's Box for Apple because they would be subject to the same plethora of driver needs that Microsoft is now and always up against, but they would not force now-turned-loyal-users to buy equipment without OS X - there are some things that Apple just doesn't make and I am too impatient to wait for.
    Anyway, I hope to get more of my thoughts out there on this. My preferred desktop still remains FreeBSD, but reality checks in and I am missing two things that I cannot get along without (in the world I live in) - MS Office and Dreamweaver/Studio. Sorry, that's the truth.

    Trent, you turned yourself from an official jackass in my book to a somewhat respectable guy. Thanks for not destroying the Republican party and letting go before you did. I still think you should have resigned long ago after your involvement in the Clinton-Whitewater-all-encompassing-investigation because you have no cajones, but that is another story. I almost drove off the road in a fit of joy when I heard.

Yes, this blog entry is old... I was in the car with my wife last week and wrote this... I forgot I had saved it. My ego tells me to publish it, though.

    The Australian case involving alleged Wall Street Journal defamation has had me thinking for the past few days. I have been trying to read the articles that explain the reasoning behind the Australian High Court's judgement that a United States company, namely Dow Jones Publications, can be held responsible for laws under which that corporation or busines does not operate. At first glance I didn't know whether to disagree or agree with the question of jurisdiction. After further reading (and the realization that the content in question was not available to the general public, only paid subscribers) I realized the ridiculousness of this case: read - this case is worthy of ridicule. How can any court justify jurisdiction being taken over content that was published in another country? If the Australian Supreme Court wants to validate their juristiction over content available in Australia, then the onus is really on the Australian government to censor information coming into their country (via the internet or any other medium of publication) because it is illogical to hold someone responsible for an act which is not illegal in the country in which it is committed. Imagine me publishing data on the internet about a Chinese government leader that was illegal in China. Published in the US, the publishing of publicly known facts is not against any law - but it may be against the law to say anything of anyone in China without their approval. Does this mean that because I published it on the internet that I am liable for knowing all laws in all countries? Of course not - that would be the oposite of jurisprudence - for I would be liable for any crimes that I did not know were crimes.
    I think that the Australian judicial system is making a mockery of jurisdiction proceedings by deeming material available on the internet part of their jurisdiction - even if published and stored outside of their country.

I ran across this site this site which mentioned an article on oreillynet.com about bloated sites... I like the reminder. As I surf around the net, it is all too aparent that people have forgotten the masses out there forced to live with dial-up internet services. Think of this: over 60% of our population in the United States (and Canada for that matter) live in rural areas. With the cost and/or demise of satellite internet service providers and 3G not yet being where it should be, we really tend to make it difficult for dial-up users to use the net by not paying attention to bloated site syndrom. I could go on, and on - as usual - but I won't. I hope my point was made succinctly enough.

I ran across this site this site which mentioned an article on oreillynet.com about bloated sites... I like the reminder. As I surf around the net, it is all too aparent that people have forgotten the masses out there forced to live with dial-up internet services. Think of this: over 60% of our population in the United States (and Canada for that matter) live in rural areas. With the cost and/or demise of satellite internet service providers and 3G not yet being where it should be, we really tend to make it difficult for dial-up users to use the net by not paying attention to bloated site syndrom. I could go on, and on - as usual - but I won't. I hope my point was made succinctly enough.

    From everyone here at the Fettig house, we wish you a very Merry Christmas and hope all is well in the New Year! Frohe Weihnachten und guten Rutsch ins neue Jahr!

- Steve & Steffi

    I have moved most of my personal commentaries and stuff to another blog... I don't want to unduly sway someone's opinion of the businesses I am involved in because of my ideology. Ideology is something that evolves and changes over the course of time... hence, I moved that portion of my psyche to a different area of the net. I feel freed by finally making the split. I will now devote this weblog to things related to Anywhere Technology and mainly computer related issues. I am currently working on stevenfettig.com v. 3.1a - you can't see it yet because I am currently in the "idealized design phase." Please, please, if you are interested in the more personal side of myself, drop me a line and I will let you in on the secret of where the other side of my personality resides.
    I hope everyone's holiday treated them well! I have to say that I had a wonderful Christmas... As I get older (which isn't that old), I find more joy in giving than receiving. There is something more exciting about watching someone's expression as they open your gift than having your thirst for material things quenched by another yet-to-be-thrown-away object.

I wish everyone out there a very Happy New Year!