Tom Mollerus' Weblog

While conversing with a colleague today about the unusually cold temperatures we're having today, he mentioned that it was too bad that the United States hadn't pulled the trigger on a conversion to metric measurements when the Metric Conversion Act of 1975 was passed in the legislature. I started to wonder just when someone, probably a president, would get around to pushing the country from the centuries-abandonded Imperial system into the modern age of metric measurement. I keep hoping Obama will be that president.

And wouldn't now be an excellent time to start the conversion? People associate Obama with change; he has excellent approval ratings; and perhaps the conversion could come in the form of a government stimulus to help the economy, where the government would help fund the purchase and renovation of product labelling, signage, packaging, and production machinery. I think all of the upgrades could provide a kick to the economy. Think about it: it's laughable, frankly, that the government has mandated a switch to digital television but is afraid of switching to metric. We're more intent on providing crystal-clear entertainment than we are in modernizing our businesses and helping our children's math skills.

Today while shopping in Minneapolis' IDS Center, I stopped at an ATM machine to get cash. Since there were no machines available from my own bank, I used another's. Of course, I had no choice but to accept the $2.00 fee that the other bank charged me, and I'm sure that I'll face another fee from my own bank. Now, banks have said that they'll keep charging these fees as long as people tolerate them, and so far the market seems willing to bear the cost. You can try to use a machine from the same network that your bank uses, but I don't think too many people are savvy enough to look at their card's network provider, not to mention to that of the ATM machine. I'm willing to pay the fee for the sake of convenience access to money, but I sure wish the fees were lower.

So I found myself thinking just how the banks would know whether or not "the market" was tolerating their costs. How would they ever know whether potential customers were avoiding their cash machines? Sure, they could tell if their month-by-month percentage of out-of-network transactions decreased, but it occurred to me that an even stronger indication that the cost was too much would be if the customer cancelled their transaction at the point when they were told that they would be charged the extra $2.00 fee, in addition to fees from their own bank. That would be a clear sign to the banks that their fees were no longer so tolerable.

So here's my idea: whenever you're forced to use an out-of-network bank machine because you're not close to one of your own bank's machines, cancel the transaction where you see the screen about the extra fee. Then either start the transaction over to get your money, or, better yet, move to another nearby machine. You will still be paying the extra fee, true, but for the cost of a few seconds you'll be sending the banks anonymous feedback that could save us all some money in the future.

I came across a link to this very interesting infographic while reading a friend's blog: which countries have what percent of the world's oil reserves? It begs the next question of just how long the world's oil reserves will last at current levels of consumption and just when the day of peak oil will occur. After peak oil, producers will be delivering diminishing quantities of oil as time goes on, and we'll start paying dear prices if we haven't found alternative sources of energy by then.

Happy Halloween to all! My dog Cleo has started the festivities early here in Needham; not only is she wearing her bat wings already (thanks to the kids), but she's managed to eat a Twix bar and Tootsie Pop, wrappers and all (again, thanks to the kids).

No, that title isn't a mistake. It refers to an idea mentioned in a Ben Stein article, where he writes an amusingly logical piece asking just why we should trust Henry Paulsen with $700 billion taxpayer dollars, given that as Treasury Secretary he was supposed to be on watch for large, impending financial meltdowns, and has a former head of Goldman Sachs he was uniquely qualified to recognize a banking crisis when he saw it.

Paulsen has strenuously resisted any attempt for the bailout plan to stipulate Congressional oversight of how he would spend the money. Given the huge financial importantance of this spending bill to Main Street, and the fact that Paulsen and the Bush administration don't have much clout with either with Congress or with voters these days, I'm suprised that he would hang on so fiercely to that idea. I'm not suprised that he wants it; it represents an incredible amount of power that I'm sure is attractive to him.

But is a bailout of Wall Street the right thing to do? That's what Ben Stein asks, and one alternative is what someone in the office called the $700 bailout: what if we bailed out homeowners instead of bankers?

One final little thought bubbles into my mind: Maybe the bailout should not be of the banks at all, but of homeowners themselves. Maybe if we make the government the buyer of last resort of homes, we will stabilize the markets, stabilize the debt associated with the markets and take the gain out of the credit-default swaps for the speculators. Yes, price would be a huge issue, but so it is for Mr. Paulson’s plan for buying debt from banks.

Why not? We do it for farmers. Why not for the individual homeowner? Oh, right. Because Treasury secretaries don’t know any of those people.

Ben makes a good point here; I had always assumed that any kind of bailout would have to involve payments to the large financial firms instead of to homeowners because, logistically speaking, it's easier to write a few large checks than it is to write millions of small checks, but perhaps it wouldn't be beyond the means of our government. After all, the IRS already processes the annual financial records of most U.S. citizens-- couldn't we staff them up to verify who should receive housing assistance and who shouldn't? It would be no different than the stimulus package that was passed in the spring, except this time we could pass out mortgage vouchers. People could only use the vouchers with lending institutions, who would then turn them in to the government for cash.

The idea is, as Ben Stein points out, that it's worth thinking of a few alternatives to a bailout of Wall Street.

I just have to say that I find Bob Herbert's latest article in the Times to be well-stated. It's about how, despite what the McCain campaign and other supporters say, the press should indeed be exploring and challenging the opinions of vice-presidental nominee Sarah Palin:

The McCain campaign has done its bizarre best to shield Ms. Palin from any sustained media examination of her readiness for the highest offices in the land, and no wonder. She has been an embarrassment in interviews.

But the idea that the voters of the United States might install someone in the vice president’s office who is too unprepared or too intellectually insecure to appear on, say, “Meet the Press” or “Face the Nation” is mind-boggling.

The alarm bells should be clanging and warning lights flashing. You wouldn’t put an unqualified pilot in the cockpit of a jetliner. The potential for catastrophe is far, far greater with an unqualified president.

The United States has been lucky in terms of the qualifications of the vice presidents who have had to step in over the last several decades for presidents who either died or, in Richard Nixon’s case, were forced to leave office. Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson became extraordinary presidents in their own right. Gerald Ford successfully guided the nation through the immediate aftermath of one of the most traumatic political crises in its history.

For those who think Sarah Palin is in that league, there is no problem. But her unscripted public appearances would lead most honest observers to think otherwise.

Herbert goes on to detail some of Palin's remarks during her interview with Katie Couric. He finished with a simple, fair, analysis:

The press has an obligation to hammer away at Ms. Palin’s qualifications. If it turns out that she has just had a few bad interviews because she was nervous or whatever, additional scrutiny will serve her well.

If, on the other hand, it becomes clear that her performance, so far, is an accurate reflection of her qualifications, it would behoove John McCain and the Republican Party to put the country first — as Mr. McCain loves to say — and find a replacement for Ms. Palin on the ticket.

It seems that beer advertisements have the best humor for men these days. I wish I had a shed...

Dear Hillary,

In your speech after the South Dakota primary tonight you asked for suggestions from the public on what to do about your campaign. Here is my response to your call for advice.

You insulted the American public by not acknowledging his historic victory when he became the first minority nominee. You chose to sacrifice the strength of the Democratic Party in order to guard your pride and your political leverage. If you continue to do so, you will only damage and diminish your own reputation.

Suspend your campaign.

I'm in a new position today, as Senior Web Developer at the leading secure single sign-on provider, PingIdentity. They've set me up with a sweet 30" Macintosh HD screen, plus a nice, light MacBook Pro. The fridge is even stocked with Cokes. I think I may just sleep here.

A Slashdot user came up with an excellent idea last week: how about a Bill of Rights for the Digital Age? He asks:

"Since we are living in a world where the need is growing for privacy measures and rights to use emerging technology, it seems to me that state governments should adopt a bill of rights regarding internet privacy, use of technology and speech on the internet. For example: make it illegal to allow ISPs to release personal information to anyone who wants it. Now, obviously, that's not the only issue. If you were asked by your state government to come up with a bill of rights for internet privacy, technology use, and free speech regarding the internet and emerging technologies, what would you include?"

The American government has certainly seen fit to protect the interests of parties like copyright holders in our current technological era with bills like the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. And the world is definitely encountering a new set of personal abilities and personal risks with the reach of the Internet. So I don't see why they shouldn't recognize the protection needed for citizens as well. Here's what I'd like to see in a Digital Millenium Bill of Rights:

I just heard today that the House has passed a bill to take current oil subsidies and re-allocate them to subsidies for renewal energy. Has there been an issue in front of Congress recently that has been more clearly sensible? I personally think you'd be hard pressed to find a better idea. With the price of oil ranging at historic highs between $70 to $100 per barrel, Big Oil has been making record profits for years now. Seriously, how can anyone defend subsidies for an industry in which the market leader made a profit of 11.7 billion in the fourth quarter of last year, and a total of $40.61 billion for the whole year? And we're giving them tax breaks?

Unfortunately, the bill faces resistance from Republicans in the Senate and from President Bush, who say that the removal of the subsidies "would raise fuel prices for consumers, discourage oil and gas exploration in the United States and unfairly discriminate against a single industry". That's just silly-- the measure would amount to less than 2 percent of the profits of the five biggest oil companies, and would amount to about a penny a gallon of gas if the cost were passed along to consumers. And as for being unfair-- well, isn't a subsidy an unfair favor in the first place? I can't see how anyone can seriously argue that these companies need subsidies while they're making tremendous profits. It really baffles me.

And I think the real point is, here, that America's continued reliance on oil is unsustainable, since global oil reserves will only last us 50 more years and will start to decline in production long before then; since oil will become only more expensive as it becomes scarcer and consumption from third-world countries like China and India increases; and since it's politically unwise to continue to purchase high-priced fuel that puts money in the pockets of countries whom we consider to be unfriendly or even hostile to us.

I'm off to Disney World at the end of the day tomorrow, and I don't know who's going to have more fun-- me, or the kids. I haven't been to a Disney theme park since I was 11 years old and very nearly fell out of the Space Mountain roller coaster. You know that bad boy's on my list of rides to tame this time around (that, and going through the haunted house as many times as I can).

And I do want to give some props to the person who arranged our whole vacation, Sandy, who runs Instant Impressions Travel Services. Because she goes to Disney at least four times a year with her young daughter, she knows the park in and out, including rides, lodging, transportation, and dining. And the best part? Having her book your vacation is completely free to you.

"French designer Jean-Marie Massaud has a vision, one which looks like a huge white whale with flippers and flukes." This from the Spiegel web site, which tells the story of a great white whale and the... French designer who wants to make it fly. Make sure to check out the image gallery. It's a beautiful concept. We can only wish the Goodyear blimp looked this nice.

In Tony Weeg's post about how Obama makes him "proud to be an American", one commenter mentions that he's worried that neither Democratic candidate, Clinton or Obama, will be electable against any Republican candidate because a majority of Americans aren't yet willing to vote for a woman or a minority. I respect his worry, and it's a valid question for a political party when it's choosing which candidate to field. But even if there are worries that a candidate isn't electable because of their gender or race or religion, someone or some group is going to have to make the first step of ignoring those biases, so that others can learn to follow.

But do we need to worry about these candidates' electability? I know of two factors which lead me to believe that America is ready to elect a ground-breaking candidate.

First, a recent CNN poll reported that 72% of white Americans and 61% of black Americans think that the country is ready for a black President. I can't think of a more obvious piece of evidence to answer this question in the positive.

Second, the number of Democrats coming out to vote for these primaries has been quite large; larger than the number of Republicans, and larger than the Democratic turnout from years past. That tells us that existing Democrats are more excited about these two candidates than others in the past, or it tells us that more people out of the population at large are willing to vote Democratic than are willing to vote Republican. Perhaps both are true. Either way, more people are turning out for Obama and Clinton than turned out for Kerry or Gore.

So whether you're going to vote for Hilary Clinton, Barack Obama, or John McCain, I think we can share a feeling of humble satisfaction that Americans decide this election based on the candidates' values, qualifications, and policy. That's what it should be, and nothing more.

CNNMoney has a column saying that Apple has released new versions of the iPhone and iPod touch today. From their article:

Apple added new models of the iPhone and iPod touch Tuesday that double the memory capacity of earlier models.

The new 16-gigabyte (GB) iPhone will sell for $499, and the 8GB model will remain at its $399 price.

I've been waiting for new iPhone models to come out before I upgrade, so this news has me drooling to replace my Treo 650. But I still wonder if I should wait for the iPhone to come out with a faster data connection. Or, it is intriguing to think about what devices could come out on the supposedly more "open" networks of the major carriers.

On the subject of the Super Bowl, I'm have to say that while I'm happy for the ever-underachieving Eli Manning to have made it good, I was a little disappointed by one of the post-game traditions: the presentation of a new luxury car, such as this year's Cadillac Escalade, to the most valuable player. Why would a car company think that the rest of us want to see an already well-paid, honored pro athelete receive yet another free perk?

I know that the car companies want to promote their products as a prize worthy of a great contest, and as something that you should drive because it's associated with a great athlete. But I object to the idea of giving a free car to someone who doesn't really need it when the rest of America is struggling to meet their mortgage payments and is paying more than $3.00 per gallon of gas.

My solution? Make it an act of charity. Cadillac (or Eli himself) should give a new Escalade to some poor, worthy family in the name of the MVP athlete. That way, the car goes to someone who really needs it, the car company still gets exposure at the Super Bowl and association with the athlete, and both the athlete and the car company get some great publicity for their charitable work.

Oh well. At least they gave him a hybrid.

I know that John C. Dvorak of PC Magazine gets a bad rap sometimes on Slashdot and tech blogs, but he has a hilarious column out about how ridiculous the terms of some EULAs (end-user license agreements) are, such as those which tell you that you've accepted the contract just by opening the box it cam packed in, or that you agree not to sue the company even some harm comes to you and it's their fault. He even points out an example of one company that, in its EULA, required any lawsuit against it to be initiated in Bermuda, even though the company itself was based in Canada!

He summarizes all modern EULAs with the following:

Generally speaking, a software license and various terms-of-service and terms-of-use agreements say the following:

• Whatever you think we said, or whatever we said, about the product may have nothing to do with reality, and you agree not to expect that it does.
  
  
• No matter what happens, including damage to your equipment or even someone's death, you agree not to blame us even if it is our fault.
  
  
• If we are a Web site and you use it, no matter what bad things happen, it is not our fault.
  
  
• If you contribute anything at all to a site or system, we own it.
  
  
• You will never sue us for anything, ever.

I love his final advice...

My advice is to have a 13-year-old do all the installations and make all the agreements. They cannot legally enter into these contracts. I wish someone would try that trick and litigate it.

I swear I'm going to try that with my own kids-- just the installation part, not the litigation.

I'm sending out a happy Burns Night to everyone. Burns Night, which was actually last night, is a celebration of the life of Robert Burns, a Scottish Poet. My wife and I went to the house of a Scottish friend for dinner, where we were treated to the traditional welcome speech and the Address to the Haggis. Yes, we ate haggis-- and it was nowhere near what you hear it to be. Although it was made up of oats and ground-up sheep, it was, quite frankly, delicious. Perhaps the whisky helped.

If you ever get the chance, attend a Burns Night. It's good food, good fun, and good poetry. Imagine The Simpsons' Willie the groundskeeper reciting poetry, and you'll have some idea of what Robert Burns' literature sounds like (with apologies to my Scottish host, Grant).

I believe in the protection of American civil liberties, and so I encourage everyone to sign the petition to Senator Reid to help change the FISA bill currently under consideration by Congress for the better.

I wanted to spread this message since I believe it's important. I believe that to enforce the laws of our country, the government should be able to gather evidence about crimes. But it should have to get a warrent to do so. From the petition on the ACLU's site:

President Bush wants Congress to pass a bill that lets the government spy on the phone calls and emails of Americans without a warrant.

He also wants a bill that makes sure the truth about illegal spying on the emails and phone calls of Americans is never exposed. He does this by stopping lawsuits against phone companies that illegally handed over the phone calls and emails of Americans to the government.

But very soon, the Senate will vote on a bill to regulate spying on the emails and phone calls of Americans. What we don't know is whether Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will ask the Senate to take up a bill that was written closely with the Bush administration, or a more reasonable bill.

Tell Senator Reid you don’t want lawbreakers to be let off the hook. And you don’t want the government to seize your phone calls and emails without a warrant.

I mean, really... who on earth would want to encourage communications companies to feel as if they could break the law now with the promise that they'd be protected by immunity later? If you agree, or even if you are unsure, make your voice heard and sign the petition.

But now I think I've found the solution. I just don't force my daughter gets to school on time on any particular morning. I'm not going to complain at her or send her off to get socks on. I relax in the kitchen and perhaps softly remind her of what time it is, since she doesn't look at the clock. But it's up to her when we leave. She got a tardy slip the first time I did it, which she didn't like a bit. But now I'm more relaxed in the morning and so is she. I wonder why I didn't do it earlier.