Rating: Playing continuously in my ear buds for two days now.

He was able to give her the last appointment of the day, and immediately had her start feeding me with an eye dropper every 2 hours.  Neither she, nor I, got much sleep, but I did start gaining weight.  By May 28th, when these pictures were taken, I was back up to 6 pounds 8 ounces.

If you had LASIK surgery and, like me, are experiencing vision that is less than what you expected, or worse, some debilitating side effects, please take 10 or 15 minutes and complete the FDA’s adverse effect form.

The form isn’t the most user-friendly, and is at times confusing.  You will need to enter a made up identifier on the initial page, and select the “adverse” category on the subsequent page.  I described my situation in detail on the next page, and skipped over all the drug/dosage type questions.  At the end information about the reporter (who may or may not be the affected individual) is collected.  I have no idea what will happen as a result of my submission, but I feel better for having reported my difficulties.

Some Background

As an Information Technology professional I have maintained a current copy of my resumé online, both on sites of my own as well as on Dice.com, for more than a decade.  Technology placement firms and recruiters traverse the web and catalog all the resumés they can find.  Each resumé is indexed by keywords, allowing the recruiter to automatically send out emails soliciting interest in new positions they are trying to fill.  Post a resumé that is buzz-word compliant online and you too will start getting “Urgent Opening - Respond with Rate Immediately” emails.

Are these messages spam?  Not in the strictest sense; placing your resumé online for all to see is advertising and contains an implicit offer.  The recruiter is responding to that offer.  However, these messages are still in a bit of gray area.  They are unsolicited, and often are wildly off base with regard to the alignment of the opening they tout and your actual experience or interest. How the sender of these messages responds to requests to cease sending the emails, is the final criteria that determines if they are spam or not.

Most recruiters understand relationship management is their true business; can they develop a cordial, professional relationship with me that is mutually beneficial to all involved?  Unfortunately, some feel that high-pressure and a lack of common courtesy is warranted, even acceptable.  Who cares if we trample the sensibilities of one or two or even a hundred people we blindly email?  After all, there are lots of IT professionals out there, we’ll focus on the ones who aren’t squeamish about integrity or ethics.  This descent into used-car-sales techniques is not an endorsement.

S.1618 Title III and H.R. 4176 § 301

The disclaimer that Talentberg, and others, use to claim their message isn’t spam is Senate bill 1618 or House resolution 4167.[1]  Both of these bills contained language outlining what was or wasn’t spam.  The disclaimer looks like this:

In accordance with Bill S.1618 Title III passed by the 105th U. S. Congress, this letter can not be considered spam as long as we include: (1) Contact information and (2) a way to be removed from future mailings. To remove yourself email us at remove@somebogusdomain.com and type “Remove” in the “subject” line. Under the provisions of U. S. Bill S. 1618 Title III, this letter is not spam and no further action can be taken by the reader against this company/person. Any report of this letter as spam to any independent agency or site is a violation of this law and will be dealt with promptly.

Unfortunately it is completely false.

S.1618 does exist, and contains this language:

Title III: Spamming - Requires a person who transmits an unsolicited commercial electronic mail message to include at the beginning of the body of the message: (1) the name, physical address, electronic mail address, and telephone number of the person who initiates transmission of the message or who created the content of it; and (2) a statement that further transmissions of such mail to the recipient by the person may be stopped at no cost to the recipient by sending a reply to the originating electronic mail address with the word “remove” in the subject line.
(Sec. 302) Empowers the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) with regulatory authority over such unsolicited electronic mail, including authority to conduct investigations, commence civil actions against individuals, and impose fines, penalties, and injunctions. Requires the FTC to take appropriate action within two years after the transmission of such electronic mail.
(Sec. 303) Authorizes a State to bring a civil action on behalf of its residents against individuals or entities transmitting electronic mail in violation of this Act. Requires such State to notify the FTC of such action.
(Sec. 304) States that this Act shall not apply to an electronic mail transmission by an interactive computer service provider unless the provider initiates the transmission or the transmission is not made to its own customers.
Authorizes actions by such providers to enforce the sanctions under this Act. Requires such action within one year after receipt of the transmission.
(Sec. 305) Requires a person who receives from any other person an electronic mail message requesting the termination of further transmission of commercial electronic mail to cease such transmissions to the individual. States that a person who secures a good or service from, or otherwise responds electronically to, an offer of unsolicited commercial electronic mail shall be deemed to have authorized such transmission.

The House of Representatives also had a measure that spoke to spam, H.R. 3888 § 301, which was pro-spam.  However, public outcry caused the offending section to be removed from the bill, and replaced with section 201:

Section 201 sets forth a sense of the Congress resolution regarding the practice of sending consumers unsolicited commercial electronic mail (or “e-mail”), often in bulk. This practice, commonly referred to as “spamming,” has been a serious concern to the Committee because spam congests the Internet and other electronic networks. In addition, some Internet Service Providers (ISPs) charge users based on time spent on using their network. Time spent by consumers deleting and preventing spam costs consumers money.
Thus, the Committee, for now, seeks to reduce the practice of spamming without imposing government mandates on the Internet and other electronic networks. Accordingly, the sense of Congress outlined in section 201 calls on the private sector to adopt, implement, and enforce measures that prevent and deter spam. The Committee expects that the private sector will view Congress’ charge as a useful opportunity to reduce spam voluntarily.

Since it requires both chambers of the Congress to make law, and given that the Senate didn’t approve H.R. 3888, nor did the House approve S.1618, there is no law that protects some emails from being spam merely by including an unsubscribe link.

Some email may alternatively quote H.R. 4176 § 101:

This message is being sent to you in compliance with the Federal legislation for commercial e-mail (H.R.4176 - §101).

Again, a bill, not a law.  In short, there is no legal protection for mass emailing simply by quoting a bill, and providing an unsubscribe link.

Talentberg

The Talentberg emails I get are frustrating on many levels.  One, they rarely coincide with my professional goals, career direction, or geographic restrictions.  It it painfully obvious that the sender hasn’t taken the time to actually review my resume to see if the keyword match is in fact good fit for the open position.  My stated desire to not relocate or travel is ignored in every single communication they’ve sent me.

Two, the erroneously quoted S.1618 is usually incomplete.  It appears that their email template truncates the notice.  Either they don’t know how to configure their own outbound email, making them incompetent, or they are deliberately trying to make it hard for people to unsubscribe to their messages, making them unethical.  Either way, I am not interested in putting something as valuable as my professional life into their hands.

Three, their absolute refusal to remove my address from their mailing list despite numerous, repeated request from me to do just that.  I have finally caved in and added rules to my mail server and client to “mark as read” and “delete” all messages from their domain.

In researching this “company” several inconsistencies appeared.  Their web site was only registered in February of this year, yet they claim a longer history than that.  Their site lists only a vice-president as part of the management team.  Furthermore, while you can find at least two people associated with the company on LinkedIn, one seemingly has two names, on American sounding and the other Asian in nature.  All of which adds up to a fly-by-night organization.

[1] Source: Spam and the Law - S. 1618 and H.R. 4176

This scheme has worked out surprisingly well except for one small beef.  While the ordering of the songs is random, and does represent a nice cross section of my favorite songs, it was surprisingly repetitive.  The pool of songs, those with 3 or 4 stars in my rating system just wasn’t large enough to produce freshness in the playlist as well as randomness.

Until today I had used the rating system rather haphazardly.  When I started with iTunes I imported some 400 MP3s from WinAmp and gave them all 4 stars.  Many of these titles were ones that I no longer had the CD for, and I wanted to keep them segregated from any new imports, purchases, or rips.  3 stars were given to new favorites outside of the original 400.  Songs that I grew tired of were demoted to 2 stars, and since you can’t remove stars from a track once it has been assigned any, 1 star is for those tracks I don’t wish to hear, but are unwilling to delete.  5 stars were used for a while to create playlists for my iPod, but that scheme hasn’t been used in a long time.

The Shuffle playlist used only songs with 3 or 4 stars as it’s universe, and as it was rather underpopulated, produced repetitiveness.  A quick scan of my library revealed some 3789 tracks that either had no stars, or hadn’t been played for one reason or another.  Time to include them in the lottery.

First I added 2 stars to all the tracks that didn’t already have 3 or more stars.  Scanning down through this new list of tracks I quickly eliminated several I don’t care to hear (but keep for completeness sake) by giving them 1 star.  My new and improved star scheme looks like this:

• 1-star: Don’t want to hear, kept only for the sake of being anal
• 2-stars: Starting point for all songs
• 3-stars: Hearing these once in a while is nice
• 4-stars: These are the meat-and-potatoes of the collection, lets hear them frequently
• 5-stars: My absolute favorites.

Next, I created two new smart playlists to include a much larger swath of my collection in the shuffle.  First I made a list of tracks to avoid.  Audio books, holiday music, and some children’s music that I don’t want in my daily rotation.  This list is called P:Avoid, and uses the genre tag to eliminate tracks.

The second new playlist is called P:Obscure, and it grabs all tracks with a rating of 2 stars or higher that aren’t in the P:Avoid list.  The P:Obscure list is included in the shuffle composite list, bumping the universe of songs from 1675 to 3975.

Over time I expect I’ll be able to increase the “not played in x days” value to something much higher than 21.  For now I am getting to hear lots of music I haven’t heard in a long time.  There have been a couple of tracks I’ve wanted to banish to the 1 star level already, but I’m resisting the urge until they come around on the playlist a second time.

Here are the playlists that make up my Shuffle:

• All lists select only tracks with 2 or more stars (unless otherwise noted)
• All lists eliminate tracks included in the P:Avoid playlist

• Least Recently Played (P:LRP) : Limit to 50 songs selected by least recently played
• Least Often Played (P:LP): Limit to 50 songs selected by least often played
• Most Recently Played (P:MRP): Limit to 50 songs selected by most recently played
• Most Often Played (P:MP): Limit to 50 songs selected by most often played
• Random (P:R): Limit to 75 songs selected at random, not in the other lists
• Obscure (P:Obscure) Rating is 2 stars exactly
• Avoid (P:Avoid) Eliminate songs from genres Christmas, Holiday, Audiobook, et cetera

A composite list, made up of the 250 songs selected in the six underlying lists is next. Finally a smart playlist that you actually listen to, Shuffle, which selects songs from the composite list provided the song hasn’t been played in the last 21 days.  Hopefully, even after I’ve chewed through the new tracks in the shuffle universe, the larger universe of tracks will eliminate the repetitiveness that had started to plague the previous shuffle.

Wordpress does provide instructions for how to accomplish site updates using Subversion.  Unfortunately, my host provider doesn’t have Subversion installed, nor are they inclined to add it just for me.  As I am comfortable with command line tools, I decided to investigate rsync as a solution for my update tasks.

Rsync

Rsync is remote synchronization software that allows you to keep files in two locations in sync with each other.  This is not a rsync tutorial, so I high encourage you to read the man page, or visit one of the numerous sites explaining this powerful tools uses.

For my purpose I want my Wordpress update steps to be the following:

1. Download and expand the latest Wordpress version.
2. Execute one rsync command for each site to be updated.
3. Enjoy a beverage.

Basics

rsync [options] source_directory target_directory

Where [options] are the command options, source_directory is the location of the files you want to synchronize, and target_directory is the location of the files to be synchronized.

There are a myriad of options for rsync, but the three (or four) that I used are:

• -r : Recursive mode, recurses through all sub-directories contained within the source_directory
• -a : Archive mode, which is equivalent to setting the -rlptgoD flags, for recursive, preservation of links, permissions, time, group, owner, and Device.
• -v : Verbose mode, to see exactly what the command is doing
• -n : Dry-run mode, shows the effect of the command without actually running it.

Running the command with the -n switch is a good idea, if for nothing else to verify your source and target directories. (Once you run the command to your satisfaction using -n, simply edit the command from your shell history, and remove the “n” leaving the rest of the command untouched.)

Putting It Together

Here then, is the command as I run it to update my remotely hosted sites:

rsync -rav ~/Desktop/wordpress/ myUserName@myServerName:public_html/siteRoot

Obviously, you will need to substitute your username and server name.  After responding to a password prompt, the command executes and your Wordpress installation is updated from top to bottom, leaving any theme or plugins behind.  Any modifications you’ve made to Wordpress code will be overlaid, so you’ll have to re-apply those once rsync is finished.

To update my locally hosted test sites, which are built upon MAMP, the command looks like this:

rsync -rav ~/Desktop/wordpress/ /Applications/MAMP/htdocs/siteRoot

The final step would be to encapsulate the rsync commands in a shell script so they can be executed without the need to retype them each time they are needed. Or you could create an alias in your bash profile for each destination and execute the sync that way.

Hiding alternative procedures behind a common interface.

The word, polymorphism, is a Greek term meaning “many forms.”  A common example of this in the programming world is a routine that calculates state sales tax.  The calling process is unaware of the different implementations (one for each state) behind the sales tax interface.

In my recent efforts to learn music, specifically the piano, I have started seeing striking parallels between some object-oriented technology concepts and music.  Polymorphism occurs in different chords derived from scales.

Each octave scale is comprised of eight steps, with the first and last step being the same note.  A C Major scale is C D E F G A B C.  Chords are combinations of three or more notes, for example C-E-G is the I chord in C Major scale.  It is called the I Chord because the lowest note of the chord is the first note of the scale.  A IV Chord is built on the 4th note of the scale. (The chords are denoted with Roman numerals, I, IV, V; but in speech are pronounced “one chord,” “four chord,” and “five chord.”)

There are three primary chords in an octave scale: the I chord, the IV chord, and the V chord. These are the primary chords because with them you play all the notes within the scale.  The patterns for these chords is as follows: I Chord - 1 3 5, IV Chord 4 6 8, V Chord 5 7 2, where the number represents the step in the scale that is played.

For a C Major scale the I Chord is C E G, the IV Chord is F A C, and the V Chord is G B D.  The chord patterns are polymorphic.  While the pattern remains the same regardless of the scale being played, the notes do change for each scale.  The implementation of the I Chord in C Major scale is C E G, but in a D Major scale it would be D F# A.

The chords are also polymorphic in that a C Chord (C E G) occurs in multiple scales, as the I Chord in C Major, and as the IV Chord in G Major, for example.

You see, he said, that last slice belongs to the one who bought the pizza.  ”That last slice is mine.”  Every so often I have a pizza by myself, and therefore I don’t have to worry about snagging the last piece.  But I do think about it and plan for it.  You see, there’s almost always one piece of the pie that is better than its mates.  One piece that has the best distribution of toppings and cheese.  

You scout out that piece first thing, and then you locate the second best piece, which is usually a neighbor of the best.  You eat the second best slice first, and then work your way around the pizza eating all the other pieces before arriving at the last one.

And you eat that last one crust first, of course, so that the last bite is arguably the best bite of the whole affair.

In the last two years and four months the site has enjoyed just over 11,000 visitors who have viewed some 20,000 pages.  I have several regular readers who visit the site daily.  If we say there are 5 regular visitors, who each visit the main page of the site 5 days a week, then in the last two years these regular visitors account for approximately 1300 of the visit and page view counts.  The remaining 9700 visits are random visitors, usually from a search for “shotski’s ring” or any alphabetical construct involving the letter “z.”  I believe that the number of visitors is slowly increasing, but even assuming 5,000 or so per year, I’ve had no more than 50,000 unique site visits; a statistical insignificance compared to the total number of site visit the Internet must get.

The nearly 1500 entries I’ve posted here have attracted a grand total of 86 comments.  Since converting the site’s backend to Wordpress at the beginning of the year, the number of comments have doubled.  Most of those were a result of the generosity of another site providing a link to my humble little Internet backwater. So the idea that a comment would suddenly become the nexus of a controversy is astonishing to me.

The Comment That Roared

Last month, I wrote about a topic that was interesting to me.  I referenced a couple of articles I had seen online and expressed my opinion about the topic.  The posting must have resonated with more than one person as it almost immediately received a couple of comments.  The first linked to yet another posting that was relevant to my central theme.

The second comment has become the center of a tempest in a teapot.  The comment author linked to a story with a real world example of the central topic of my posting.  About 9 days later a third comment was added to the posting, refuting the claims made in the second comment.  Yesterday a fourth comment was added, refuting an obscure portion of the second comment.

Yesterday afternoon I received an email with the subject line “defamatory web comment.”  The mail appears to be from the subject of the second comment, and author of the third comment.  The email objects to the comment, calling it a “knowing or reckless falsity” and ask “whom my lawyer or I can contact about asking that this false and defamatory post [sic] removed as soon as possible.”

NB: The posting I made on my site has nothing to do with the subject of the comments.  I believe the author of the letter is actually referring to a comment attached to the posting.

Maybe my little site has been promoted from lint under the finger nail of the long arm of the Internet to a hair follicle on its little finger.

The Sky is Falling

A number of thoughts run through your mind when you are presented with what appears to be the precursor to a cease and desist letter.  And a number of emotions go along with these thoughts.  The extremes can be summed up as “you’ve got to be kidding me!” and “why didn’t I use a pseudonym when I created this site?”

Some web searching revealed some interesting facts.  The same comment, letter for letter, appears on other personal blogs.  Followed by the same rebuttal.  That the contended comment has a malformed link which doesn’t lead anywhere in all instances I’ve found of it seems to have escaped notice.  I have no way of knowing how prominent the handful of other sites infected with this comment are, but I suspect they are not any closer to the head of the Internet than Zanshin.

Turning to the potential legal aspect of this soap opera I eventually found the Electronic Freedom Foundation’s (EFF) Blogger’s FAQ.  Which has an entire page devoted to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.  While many sections of the CDA have been struck down as unconstitutional (partly as a result of the EFF), Section 230 remains as law.  In brief it states: 

Section 230 says that “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” This federal law preempts any state laws to the contrary: “[n]o cause of action may be brought and no liability may be imposed under any State or local law that is inconsistent with this section.” The courts have repeatedly rejected attempts to limit the reach of Section 230 to “traditional” Internet service providers, instead treating many diverse entities as “interactive computer service providers.”

In other words, as a web publisher, I am not liable for the content of comments posted on my site.  The US 9th Circuit court has upheld this law and, since the US Supreme Court declined to hear the case, this ruling remains as the legal precedent.

A Bully is as a Bully Does

There are two aspects of bullying at the core of this story.  On the digital playground of the Internet there aren’t any monitors, teachers, or responsible adults.  Bullies can, and do, run rampant over other online citizens, often with little or no consequence to themselves.  Much like the American West during the pioneer expansion, individuals often have to find ways to stand up for themselves, without the infrastructure of an established society’s framework of norms to assist them.

The second aspect of bullying here is the tone of the email I received.  ”Whom may my lawyer contact” is a conversational gambit designed to put the recipient on the defensive.  What ever happened to simply asking first, with an explanation, to have the offending comment thread removed?  Trying to dictate the outcome you want, to an unknown party, using the thinly veiled threat of legal action is bullying.  The emotional response I am experiencing is no different than what I would feel were I to be the subject of “defamatory web comments.”

I fear that in her quest to erase all record of what the she feels is “reckless falsity,” the party wanting my web site comment thread altered has reduced herself to the same level as the original author of the alleged falsity.

Saturday evening we visited the nearby Wal-Mart to get new flowers, and came home with some lavender, a cherry tomato plant, a rose bush, a flat of stock, another flat of petunias, and 160 pounds of potting soil.  We planted most of the new stuff as soon as we arrived home.

Sunday the weather was even nicer than Saturday, and we spent the entire morning moving some sandstone rock to make a border along the south side flower bed.  The rest of the new flowers were carefully planted, and by noon the flower bed was looking very good.  With the day lilies Sibylle planted a week or so ago, and the pansies in the raised bed we made last summer, the patio and garden is shaping up beautifully this year.

The best part is sharing it each other.  I’ve never had a garden of any kind before, so I am enjoying all the new aspects of this activity.  Being able to be outside in the warm sunshine and fresh air is wonderful, sharing it with Sibylle make it all the more special.