Blackcap Blog

Published at 19:19 on 12 December 2013

It is time again for the yearly ritual of copying my contacts from this year’s Slingshot Organizer to the next. It’s something of a chore, but it also forces me once per year to do the necessary task of purging old and obsolete information. Moreover, I keep all the old Organizers and use them as a sort of back-up device to the current one I am using.

Yes, I’m old fashioned. I’ve rehashed this several times before and won’t bother doing so again. Suffice to say I’ve considered a smart phone and concluded it just doesn’t suit me as well as more traditional technologies.

Published at 18:34 on 1 December 2013

I’ve put up with it’s broken search function for years. Searching in Apple Mail depends on a fragile and basically broken indexing system that is typically out of step with the actual contents of a mailbox file. Upshot is that a search typically fails to find the message I’m trying to locate.

Then filtering mysteriously stopped working. I had set up a battery of filtering rules to ensure that the torrent of low-priority messages I get on my work computer get shunted to one of two low-priority folders, leaving the main inbox folder for messages that typically have higher priority. This was even worse, as important messages were now getting buried in the torrent of low-priority babble.

The last straw was when deleting mail suddenly stopped working for my Gmail account after I upgraded to OSX Mavericks. I’d delete a message only to have it immediately pop back into existence. OK, time to get off my butt and stop procrastinating about dumping Apple Mail, now.

After a little bit of research, I downloaded Thunderbird because it seemed to have fairly good ratings and I could download it for free right now and start using something that was hopefully not fatally broken.

The first pleasant surprise was configuring my inbox. It was shockingly easy compared to how painful it typically is in Apple Mail, where there always seems to be a crucially important setting buried in an obscure submenu which has defaults to the incorrect value.

The second pleasant surprise came when my messages were displayed: the display looked much like the old Apple Mail did, before Apple started playing games with the display of the inbox in various ways which always seemed to reduce the number of message subject lines and senders you could see at a glance.

The third pleasant surprise came when I set up filtering. There was a most useful “From, To, CC, or BCC” option which let me define in one rule what it took creating four rules to do in Apple Mail. And the filtering actually worked, instead of silently failing for no good reason.

The fourth surprise happened today, about a month later, when I set up Thunderbird on my home computer. I have a bunch of email accounts, and one of them is on a discount hosting service and has some truly strange options. I saved that one for the last. Before I got to it, I noticed Thunderbird flashing a message about checking its database of mail server parameters when I configured one of my other inboxes. So that’s why things “just work” and I don’t have to fight my way through obscure sub-menus. Could it be? Yes: I enter that final account, the message about checking the database flashes, configuration parameters found, done, even the obscure one “just worked”!

And searching works, too.

Published at 18:12 on 1 December 2013

Probably the biggest reason Javascript-infested websites suck so mightily is AJAX. Every GUI widget no longer simply operates local to the browser; in the background things are talking to the server for every little thing you do. This makes pages act erratically if your Internet connection is anything less than rock-solid and high-speed.

Making matters even worse is the tendency for JS-infested pages to re-invent the wheel. Instead of using standard buttons and other widgets, it’s all implemented from the ground up in Javascript. Unlike the standard widgets, these JS ones violate the look and feel of what the rest of your computer is doing.

Add that to the erratic behavior that AJAX causes with anything less than optimal network connectivity, and you have a recipe for an unusable web page. Do I need to click on that widget or not? One click or two? Does its color indicate it active, or disabled? Did the click I made register, or did AJAX make it vanish due to network flakiness? Or is the response just delayed? Oh, it did something! Was that my first click (with an unwanted second response coming when the network catches up), or my second one? And so on, and so forth.

Mind you, I’m not saying “never use Javascript”, just “use Javascript with great caution, and only when there’s no other way to do what you want (and are you sure it has to be done in a way that requires Javascript in the first place?)”.

Javascript’s proper place is as a seldom-used last resort, not as a commonly-used first one. Browsers work best when they run functional and descriptive code such as HTML and CSS, not procedural code such as Javascript. They also work best when user interaction is handled “off-line” (i.e. completely locally by the user’s computer), not “on-line” in an AJAX fashion.

Published at 13:39 on 30 November 2013

I’ve said this before, and I’ll say it again. Nothing underscores the slogan which comprises the title of this post more than trying to read your email via the Web while riding on the bus.

Mobile internet connections are never as fast or as solid as normal wired ones. Google Mail is awkward and unpleasant to use and iCloud is basically unusable. Yet reading my third inbox on a discount hosting service using the plain-Jane Squirrel Mail web software is a snap.

And if deep-pocketed big businesses like Apple and Google can’t produce a Javascript-infested web site that behaves properly, just what sort of hope do developers with far more modest resources have?

Published at 08:44 on 25 November 2013

I don’t care how frustrating and unprecedented the Republican blocking of judicial nominees is, and how hypocritical the Republicans are for opposing the same nuclear option they were advocating enacting when the tables were turned.

The tables will turn again, and when that happens the Democrats will sorely regret “going nuclear” as right-winger after right-winger sails through the Senate and onto the bench.

The foolishness of the current herd mentality is so transparently obvious that it is simply staggering that so many seem unable to see it.

Moreover, it will be made all the worse because the Republicans, unlike the Democrats, are firmly committed to their ideals and willing to pursue them with full vigor, so the rightward shift by the Republican appointees will overwhelm any leftward one put in place by the Democrats.

Published at 20:46 on 15 November 2013

After electing a corporate Democrat to the mayor’s office to replace a bumbling* but at least non-corporate incumbent, Seattle elects a socialist to the City Council.

* And yes, McGinn was bumbling and incompetent. But I’d rather have someone incompetent at doing good things than someone competent at doing bad ones. Of course it’s sort of academic at this point since I’ve moved out of Seattle and have no plans to move back.

Published at 20:57 on 14 November 2013

I care so much about programming languages principally because I don’t care about computer geekery that much, at least not as much as most computer programmers do. I can’t really geek out on learning a programming language. Just give me something that’s simple and well-designed and therefore not much work to understand and use.

That me averse to overly-complex languages like Ruby, Perl and particularly C++. Why would I want to piss away my valuable time becoming proficient in one of those when for less investment in time I can be proficient in something simpler and easier like Java, Python, or C#?

It means I can spend less time worrying about computer programming and have more brain cells to devote to other things.

Published at 21:03 on 18 October 2013

Some time ago I wrote a post about D-STAR. It’s time to revisit the technology and do some quick summarizing.

D-STAR is an Open Standard

Maybe in an abstract theoretical sense, but in practice, it’s proprietary. Only one major ham radio manufacturer (Icom) supports D-STAR. None of the others have announced any intention to. In fact, one, (Yaesu) has come up with a digital protocol of their own. Plus, there’s plenty of hams utilizing used P25 digital equipment. So not only is it not “open,” it’s also not really a “standard.” The actual standard for local VHF/UHF voice communications remains FM, because that’s what all manufacturers support, and what the vast majority of repeaters continue to use.

D-STAR is the Wave of the Future

Highly unlikely. Digital modes in general are the wave of the future and will probably eventually displace FM and most other analog modes for most communications. But it’s hardly clear that D-STAR is the technology which will prevail. In fact, its lack of widespread adoption argues against it being the digital technology which will prevail. More than likely, that will end up being some yet-to-be-invented mode which offers far better weak-signal performance than either D-STAR of FM, and audio quality at least as good as current analog modes. That way, users will put up with the unavoidable “fall off a cliff” because it will happen significantly further out than where FM starts getting a bit hissy and choppy.

D-STAR, being Digital, Offers Better Audio Quality

No, it doesn’t. It offers worse audio quality. This isn’t CD-style digital audio we’re talking about; there’s significantly less bandwidth available than that on a ham radio channel. Circumstances dictate a slower sampling rate and very aggressive compression. Lossy compression. Quite audibly lossy compression, in fact.

It gets even more dramatic in weak-signal situations. Like all digital modes, a D-STAR signal quickly “drops off a cliff” when usable range is exceeded. Audio gets totally lost, first little bits, then big bits, then all of it. And it’s a much more disconcerting and intelligibility-compromising loss of information than one gets in analog FM, where rising background hiss provides an early warning and the drop-outs are not so sudden or so total.

D-STAR Is Needed Because We’re Out of Repeater Pairs

Maybe in Manhattan, Tokyo, or LA this is the case but for the vast majority of the Earth’s surface it is not. Most places have plenty of repeater pairs available. Others, such as most big cities that fall short of being megalopolises, might be short on empty repeater pairs but the repeaters themselves end up being mostly empty (you can listen all day and you’re lucky if you as much as hear another station ID). There’s plenty of room for more chit-chat.

D-STAR Therefore Is Useless

Not so fast. Nothing says you must use it for voice. There’s two parts to D-STAR, a CODEC for moving between the analog and digital worlds, and a way of sending streams of bits over the airwaves. The former is actually where most of the cost for the equipment comes in (since it’s a proprietary CODEC), while the latter is 100% open. So if you need a digital point-to-point link, the technology has some use.

In other words, it’s a specialized mode for special applications, not any sort of general-purpose replacement for FM.

Published at 19:36 on 17 October 2013

Executive summary: It’s yet another piece of crap from Tim Eyman. Vote NO.

“WTF?” was my first impression on reading a summary of the thing.

Increase the amount of time for gathering initiative and referendum signatures? Why? It’s not as if the current time limit, which to my knowledge has worked just fine from the day the Washington State Constitution was written, is excessively onerous or anything. It’s not unusual for a measure to get enough signatures then to be shot down at the polls. If that almost never happened, then there would be basis for arguing the existing time limit is too short.

That alone had made for at least a 90% chance I’d vote NO, without having any idea who penned the measure. Or without having yet read this little gem:

The measure would provide that interfering with signature gathering for a state or local initiative or referendum is illegal. Interfering with a person trying to sign a petition, stalking a person who signs a petition, or stalking or retaliating against a person who gathers petition signatures would constitute the misdemeanor of disorderly conduct. Such conduct would be subject to the civil anti-harassment procedures available under RCW 10.14, and civil penalties. Interfering with petition signing and signature gathering would be defined to include, but not limited to, pushing, shoving, touching, spitting, throwing objects, yelling, screaming, being verbally abusive, or other tumultuous conduct, blocking or intimidating, or maintaining an intimidating presence within twenty-five feet of a petition signer or signature gatherer. Initiative or referendum petition signing and signature gathering would be legally protected on public sidewalks and walkways and all sidewalks and walkways that carry pedestrians, including those in front of entrances and exits to stores, and inside or outside public buildings.

So, let’s see now. First, if you’re circulating petitions, it’s likely you’re going to be doing so in multiple places at multiple times, particularly since the same Mr. Eyman who authored this measure pioneered the use of paid, professional signature-gatherers in Washington state. If you oppose a petition, it is likely that you will engage in counter-petitioning at multiple places and multiple times. As such, it’s likely the same counter-petitioner will end up opposing the same petitioner more than once, without any motive other than opposing the petition. But this would seem to qualify as “stalking” on the part of the counter-petitioner under I-517.

Second, there’s wording about the vague concept of “an intimidating presence within twenty-five feet,” without ever clearly defining what such a “presence” is. Is it completely in the mind of the petitioner? Does this give a hypersensitive petitioner the right to accuse any person encouraging passersby to not sign the petition of being “intimidating” if said counter-petitioner is within 25 feet?

Given that doing anything within 25 feet seems to become risky under such legislation, one would expect counter-petitioners to stay further away. If so, how on earth would one attract the attention of prospective signers without raising one’s voice? Which neatly falls into the “yelling” or “screaming” categories of prohibited conduct.

Or suppose a counter-petitioner starts out being nice and polite and mild-mannered, and is goaded into an escalating verbal battle by the petitioner (entirely possible, since counter-petitioners have no special protections under the law, only petitioners). Then once the counter-petitioner responds to an insult or a raised voice with a raised voice of his own, bam! guilty of “yelling”.

In short, I-517 would appear to be attempting to criminalize pretty much any sort of counter-petitioning whatsoever. It is simply an attempt to infringe on the freedom of speech of those who wish to oppose the signing of a petition.

Note that actually assaulting or threatening petition gatherers is already illegal under the same laws which make such conduct illegal generally. So it’s not as if a NO vote here is for legalizing actual attacks against anyone.

Make that a 100% chance of earning my NO vote.

Published at 10:28 on 13 October 2013

One of the propaganda pieces in favor of them, which alas I can’t seem to find on the web, shows someone in a grocery store where prices are not marked on anything yet where the clerk occasionally mentions things like “Oh, that’s sure an expensive item.”

The customer asks to see the prices, and is condescendingly scolded “Oh, that’s called ‘shopping’ [complete with air quotes]. We don’t do that here.”

It’s a profoundly dishonest statement of the problem, because the setting implies the unstated premise that the prices being charged are as simple, straightforward, and easily comprehensible as they are in a grocery store. When it comes to health care, nothing could be further from the truth.

One of the biggest sources of waste in the US Medical-Industrial Complex is how both providers and insurers employ vast armies of paper pushers. Providers employ them to come up with new ways of billing and charging insurers. Insurers employ them to come up with new ways for disputing and refusing charges.

Neither side’s paper-pushers contribute one iota towards providing actual health care, yet of course they must be paid wages and benefits. It’s the main reason why the USA both spends more per capita on health care than any nation, yet covers a smaller fraction of its citizens than any other developed nation.

It may be wasteful, but at least the battle of the paper-pushers the status quo represents is a fair fight. But with the new high-deductible plans, I am now expected, mostly on my own, to match my wits against an army of creative billers with centuries of collective experience in coming up with ways for separating payers from their cash.

Can you say “unfair match?” But, hey, what would the insurance industry care? They are not going to be the ones conned into paying more. In fact, quite the contrary: providers will naturally focus most of their energies on creatively billing consumers who haven’t yet reached their deductibles. Con artists always go after the easiest marks, after all.

So insurers get to both outsource a good chunk of their labor and they make the remaining billing disputes they don’t outsource easier for themselves. Such a deal. For them, that is.