My Weblog

E-mail Stupidity

Wed, 05 Oct 2011 21:12:00 -0400

Have you ever received an e-mail from someone that was one or two lines long, but at the bottom contained something like the following:

This transmission is intended to be delivered only to the named addressee and may contain information that is confidential, proprietary or privileged. If this information is received by anyone other than the named addressee, the recipient should immediately notify the sender via Email and/or by telephone at xxx-xxx-xxxx and obtain instructions as to the disposal of the transmitted material. In no event shall this material be read, used, copied, reproduced, stored or retained by anyone other than the named addressee, except with the express consent of the sender or the named addressee.

Note: Offending corporation's phone number deleted.

Apparently, someone, likely someone who should actually know better, like a lawyer, has dictated this be appended to all outgoing e-mails. Now, I don't know if anyone actually reads this drivel, I rather doubt it. Even less likely someone receiving this for whom it's not intended will follow the instructions. But just for the sake of argument, let's go through this drivel, line by line. I do want to warn you that I am not a lawyer, but this is not exactly rocket science either.

The first line. If I received this e-mail in my inbox, I _am_ the named addressee. Whether or not the e-mail is intended for me is another matter, but my e-mail address names me. Duh. So obviously, we can always stop here. But then the line goes on to say that the e-mail may contain confidential, proprietary, or privileged information. If that is the case, then it should have been encrypted!

Sending an unencrypted e-mail is like sending a postcard. Anyone that can handle it can read it. I have been advocating encrypting e-mail for almost 20 years. No one listens. They do the equivalent of writing all their secrets on a billboard on the Interstate highway, then wonder why the whole world knows their secret. Many a corporation has been embarrassed in court because of unencrypted e-mails, but nobody wants to encrypt their e-mails. Am I missing the obvious here? Sending me an encrypted e-mail is like mailing me a letter in a SAFE. Only I can open it and read it because only I have the key. And unless the sender encrypted it to themself as well, even they can no longer read it. This is just too simple, I guess.

Moving on to the second sentence. We already covered the part about being the "named addressee", but assuming this e-mail isn't intended for me, do I have an obligation to notify anybody (except possibly the media) about this errant communication? No. Not really. This is what makes this such a joke. No one has any legal, moral, or other obligation in regard to this e-mail. If it was unencrypted and not really meant for me, then I can still do whatever I want with it. If it was encrypted, I couldn't read it anyway, unless I somehow "broke" the encryption. If I did somehow manage to unencrypt a message not for me, then we have another matter -- I could be held criminally liable under various statutes. The sender and intended recipient did actually have an expectation of privacy. That is not the case with a postcard, a conversation in Grand Central Station, or an unencrypted e-mail.

Moving on to the last sentence. Can this get any dumber? I can't read the e-mail? First, your disclaimer is at the BOTTOM. Even if this wasn't intended for me, how the blazes would I know that without reading it first? And like most folks, I read from top to bottom on a page, not bottom to top. So, I haven't even read that "in no event shall this material be read ..." until after I've read everything.

Einstein said it best: "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe." Well, this paragraph puts that case to rest.

The only reason I even bring this up is I have done a quick scan for these kinds of idiotic nonsense in my e-mails, and I have megabytes of it stealing hard disk real estate. It also jams my Internet connection with noise. In some cases, the signal to noise ratio is very high (like when 2k of a 3k message is this drivel). For those who've seen "A Bug's Life", Hopper hit it on the head. One or two is no big deal. But one or two hundred million is -- as a couple of his minions, and really all the grasshoppers came to find out.

David-

Fixing the Blame

Fri, 30 Sep 2011 11:06:00 -0400

I saw a commercial the other day on TV here. Let's just say, folks never fail to disappoint me. I had hoped for something more lucid coming from folks who work statistics, but then, if the question is wrong, or the input is wrong, the statistics will be skewed to support or discount the wrong question.

In the US, it has never failed to amuse me that folks don't see the illogic in the following: someone gets drunk, gets in their car, runs over a pedestrian; another someone (or perhaps the same someone) get drunk, picks up their handgun, shoots a pedestrian. In both cases we have two elements in common, the someone and the alcohol, but the cases differ in the instrument used to cause a death or injury. In the first case, most folks want to blame the drink, and in the second case, the handgun. Personally, I've never seen a bottle of whiskey drive a car or shoot a gun. I've also never seen either a car or a gun do anything unless operated by a person. So why are we blaming any of the car, the gun, or the liquor for the something obviously not their fault?

The commercial I watched blamed speed, alcohol, or talking on cell phones as the three leading causes of auto accidents here in Panama. Apparently, either the question or the input to answer the question is skewed. The real blame should be placed squarely on one of the following: arrogance, ignorance, or apathy resulting in a failure to abide by the traffic laws. The other day I found myself behind six other cars at a stop sign. Two signs, one below the stop sign which read (in Spanish) NO LEFT TURN, and a prior sign (about 20 feet before the stop sign) with an arrow showing a left turn and a big red slashed circle on top of it -- i.e., the international sign for no left turn. EVERY ONE of the six vehicles in front of me turned left. I don't know if the meaning of NO LEFT TURN has been changed to LEFT TURN ONLY or what (no I didn't turn left, but was wondering if I was the only one of the drivers about to get a ticket).

I have asked the question in previous postings what causes the apparently universal cultural attitude within the Latin community that laws are for everyone else, but for whatever reason don't apply to them. This includes the police who set only a bad example for drivers. I still don't have an answer to my question.

I can't compare this to anywhere else, as Panama is the only country where I've been to traffic court (on _way_ too many occasions), and even after the judge issues his findings explaining the point of law and everything, the offending party _always_ says they appeal. FACT: you ran the stop. FACT: you caused an accident. FACT: no mechanical failure caused you to not be able to stop. FACT: you've been charged with causing the accident based on the above and other facts. Why you ran the stop is irrelevant. So what are you appealing? Did the judge rule that you're ugly and you want another opinion?

Are any of the above transgressions fixable? Of course they are, but I don't expect to see it in my lifetime. First, folks need to stop blaming everything and everyone else (especially God) for their failures -- admit them. Second, recognize that you're NOT special/privileged/whatever. You have the same rights and responsibilites as everyone else, accept them rather than shirk them.

Will this ever happen? Will attitudes change? Will Ursus Americanus stop defecating in a stand of conifers? Stay tuned for updates (but don't hold your breath).

Meanwhile, let's see if we can stop blaming inanimate objects for actions they're not capable of. Then let's see if we can fix the problem rather than the blame.

David-

Loving Catholics (in a pig's eye).

Mon, 01 Aug 2011 09:37:00 -0400

Once upon a time I said I refused to discuss religion. Every single time I have to deal with "men of God" I come away wondering how so many folks can so proudly proclaim they are this or that religion. And the louder they proclaim, the more hypocritical they are.

Yesterday, 31 July 2011, a car came into the neighborhood full of teenagers from a local Catholic church. They were very proud to tell me they were Catholics. I wish I could remember which specific church they came from, but I told them they should learn how to read. The didn't live in the neighborhood, and it was very clearly marked at the only entrance/exit that non-residents were prohibited entry.

Guess their God told them they were above everyone else and could come in. They all finally left in the white station wagon that dropped them off, but not before, in front of all the teens in the car, and at the top of his lungs, the loving, tolerant Catholic yelled at me to go back to my own country, I wasn't welcome here in Panama.

The words that come to mind number among: ignorant, hypocritic, xenophobic, hate-monger, and more. Any wonder thousands marched off on the crusades at the whims a mad-man Pope? And those same sentiments remain, apparently. Wonder when the next crusades will start?

Now, if it were in my power, I'd grant this loving Catholic his wish. I'd leave, take all the other foreigners (US, Canadian, Venezuelan, European, etc.,) out with me. I'd also, by the way, remove the Embassy and all other diplomatic personnel, and all the money Panama receives in foreign aid. Then watch as the entire country imploded. Who would care? Panama is a third world nothing. It could easily be reabsorbed by Colombia and no one would care or even notice outside of Panama. I say, give this loving Catholic exactly what he's asked for.

Reminds me of the mandatory indoctrination required by another Catholic church when a dear friend asked me to be a "Godfather" to her daughter. I pointed out this was asking a bit much, but after some insistence on her part, I conceded (what could it hurt, I might even learn something about tolerance after all).

The talk was to be about being a God parent. It was supposed to be 3 sessions of 60 to 90 minutes. I didn't make it through the first session. After listening for about 20 minutes to some deacon (whatever that is) advocate -- no, encourage, child abuse, I stood up and told him what the law had to say about what he was encouraging, told him a prison sentence might do him some good if he really did treat children this way, and walked out.

The next day I saw the priest (I needed time to cool off). He listened but offered little in the way of an apology or anything that sounded like he would actually do anything. In fact, it sounded like this deacon ran the church. While they gave me the certificate to be the child's Godfather, I did not return to more of these lectures, and cannot believe this deacon was allowed to continue giving them.

Religion is something that should have died a horrible, agonizing death centuries ago, but I find it unlikely to happen as long as power-hungry religious icons can find fanatics willing to die or kill to support their point of view. If the intolerant, ignorant, xenophobe who called himself a loving Catholic had a gun yesterday, I'd likely be dead now.

Oh, religion is such a wonderful thing. Anything can be justified in the name of God -- and usually is.

David-

Lemons (limes) everywhere.

Thu, 14 Jul 2011 11:15:00 -0400

I've been doing some thinking, and the other day, during a bout of sneezing (a number of my friends have colds -- I just get a day of sneezing), I realized that folks in this house haven't been really sick in over 2 years.

The one exception is my son. About a month ago, he developed a cough. Lasted less than 48 hours. No one else in the house caught this malady. Apart from that, since a couple of us got Dengue Fever over two years ago, we've been remarkably healthy.

It's not like we've been hermits. I, my wife, and our kids, have all been in contact with folks who've had colds. It's unavoidable in this day and age. The only thing different is in what we've had added to our diets as a daily routine: lemonade.

Ever since our farm has been producing more lemons (actually Tahiti Limes) than we can sell, and they're available to us on a year-round basis, I make lemonade from them. Everyone loves it. Just 2 cups of fresh-squeezed lemon juice, 2 cups of brown sugar (we don't buy the white refined sugar -- so the lemonade isn't the most pleasant-looking color), and a gallon of cold water. We go through about 10 gallons a week. That's some hundred or so (but less than 150) lemons. Takes normally from 8-12 lemons to make 2 cups of juice.

We've all heard how Vitamin C will help prevent colds. And we've tried Vitamin C tablets before. But nothing has been as remarkable (IMHO) as just drinking fresh lemonade. I suspect it's more than just the vitamin C, or taking the vitamin C pills should have had this effect -- but it didn't. I will note that store bought lemonade powder just isn't the same.

Are there any side effects from drinking this much lemonade regularly? It is a lot of acid. So far, seems not. The only side effect has been that associated with handling the lemons.

When the wife or I pick lemons and are in direct contact with the leaves on the trees, or when I cut and squeeze the lemons and am in direct contact with the skin of the fruit or get splashed with the concentrated juice, we develop some interesting (not) effects.

My wife will get a red rash like a burn almost immediately on sensitive skin -- like the skin above her lip if she touches that while picking lemons. Except for that being the only area "burned" by something, it would seem like a sunburn.

My reaction is a bit more severe, but seems localized to my hands and arms. But with me, the reaction is totally different. It took us a while to connect the lemons with this problem. While my wife's reaction is almost instantaneous, mine takes several days -- not minutes, not hours, but days. If I pick on a Sunday, go home, squeeze lemons that night, on Wednesday night (actually Thursday morning in the wee hours of the morning) I'll wake up with my hands (mostly the tops and insides of my fingers -- but not my palms) and arms itching like I have Poison Ivy. And on Thursday during the day I'll develop a rash with boils similar to Poison Ivy. This rash will last about a week. It is extremely itchy and even Caladryl lotion doesn't help.

Covering myself with two long-sleeve shirts and two pairs of latex gloves helps. But whatever bothers me will penetrate one pair of even thick latex gloves. I have to be very carefull handling this fruit. And yet, the prepared lemonade, even when poured directly onto my skin, has no effect. Only undiluted juice appears to bother me. Good thing too, because I drink a _lot_ of lemonade.

So maybe, as in my last post, I won't burn down the whole farm. I will leave some trees so I have fruit for lemonade. As I see it, all I'm paying for is the sugar. And if I could get some Miraculum berries (Synsepalum dulcificum) and grow those trees here, I wouldn't even need that.

David-

Should I Burn the Farm to the Ground?

Thu, 14 Jul 2011 10:24:00 -0400

Well, I knew it would happen. See "MIDA -- Keeping producers unproductive.". I have, once again, thousands of Tahiti limes rotting on the ground. No buyers. So I packed a few thousand off to Panama City.

Seems that's also a waste of time. Last price I got here in Chiriqui from a buyer was around ten cents apiece (I'd be happy with anything above 6 cents apiece - just above break-even). But producers from Cocle province, with the help of MIDA, are supplying Tahiti Limes to buyers. Best price I could get for my limes: 2 cents apiece. The Cocle producers flooded the market and killed it.

So now I'm left to decide if I should just start a big fire on the farm and burn it all to the ground and start over. The 2 cents per doesn't pay expenses.

Problem is, what to plant? I don't need to make a killing, but it would be nice to cover expenses, otherwise, what's the point? Sure, if I had 10 times the number of trees I could export the limes. But exporting takes guaranteeing a full container every week (or at least on a regular basis). But by the time I could fill a small container, half the fruit would be rotten.

Between thieves on the one hand and the government of Panama on the other, there seems little hope of ever coming out ahead.

I'm open to suggestions.

David-