Cheerful Curmudgeon

St. Charles County, MO, will try to ban bicyclists from using some state highways, as reported in the Suburban Journals, Bill would ban bicycles from some highways in St. Charles County. How wrong can you get? In the year 2010, amidst all the hue and cry about poor health, obesity, and greenhouse gases from automobiles, Councilman Joe Brazil, R-District 2 is seriously  proposing that,

The bicyclists need to stay on the trails that were made for bikes and off the roads in southwest St. Charles County.

Why, Joe?

I get more complaints about this single issue than any other issue. The speed limit is 55 mph. You come around a corner and there are two bikes in your lane. You can’t pass them, and it becomes a hazard.

This sounds like an opportunity for education on sharing the road and respecting all persons’ rights to use the roads within the limits of the law. 55 mph is the speed limit; there are no minimum speeds on the proposed county roads. It is perfectly legal to drive a car or ride a motorcycle at 15-20 mph; so why ban bicycles? If you are in a car behind two bikes, or any kind of slow vehicle, I would hope that a polite toot of the horn or flash of the headlights would encourage the slower vehicle to move over and let you by.

We live in the 21st century, Joe. Segregation is “out.” Coexistence and cooperation are “in.” There is plenty of room for all of us here in St. Charles County. Won’t you join us?

If you live in St. Charles County, I encourage you to contact your council representative.

You may not be aware of some of the insanity which current copyright laws create in many countries, not just the United States. Here are two songs which you may think are free and clear but which are, in fact, copyrighted and subject to royalty payments:

Happy Birthday to You

The Chicago-based music publisher Clayton F. Summy Company, working with Jessica Hill, published and copyrighted “Happy Birthday” in 1935. Under the laws in effect at the time, the Hills’ copyright would have expired after one 28-year term and a renewal of similar length, falling into public domain by 1991. However, the Copyright Act of 1976 extended the term of copyright protection to 75 years from date of publication, and the Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998 added another 20 years, so under current law the copyright protection of “Happy Birthday” will remain intact until at least 2030. (from Snopes.com)

Kookaburra Sits In The Old Gum Tree

In February the [Australian] Federal Court ruled the iconic Aussie band [Men at Work] plagiarised part of [it's 1980s hit Down Under], which was penned in 1979 but only achieved worldwide success after a flute riff was introduced to the track two years later. Larrikin Music said the band stole the riff from the children’s song Kookaburra Sits In The Old Gum Tree which was written by Melbourne teacher Marion Sinclair for a Girl Guides jamboree in 1934…. Larrikin owns the rights to the song and had been seeking up to 60 per cent of Down Under’s profits as compensation. (from the Australian Broadcasting Company)

Y’all be careful out there. Just because it has been 75 years or more since that little ditty was written, doesn’t mean you can’t be ordered to pay royalties if you sing it or even just riff a few bars on your instrument.

This has got to be the coldest, most insensitive obituary ever written:

!STL 06/424 3SQ AD CLSD WEF 1006300501

In English, this NOTAM (federal NOTice to AirMen) says that the St. Charles Municipal Airport will close at 12:01am CDT, Wednesday, June 30, 2010. After 67 years of service, the owner will shut it down forever.

I returned to flying, after a 13 year hiatus, at this airport. Countless pilots have learned to fly at St. Charles Muni. Innumerable stories have been told. Lessons learned. Camaraderie savored. Airplanes loved.

You can read more about it in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

Back in the Old Days, I had to pay for computer time on Michigan Terminal System (MTS) at the University of Michigan. It was a simple system: the more you used, the more you paid. MTS charged for CPU time, RAM used while your program was running, disk space used to store your files, I/O used to read and write your files, pages printed, cards read (yes, real punched cards!), and time logged into an interactive terminal. In one of those It-Makes-Me-Proud-To-Be-A-Taxpayer moments, the USPTO has granted a patent to Amazon for exactly the same system: USPTO Grants Bezos Patent On ’60s-Era Chargebacks.

I thought you couldn’t patent prior art? Clearly, I’m wrong.

Facebook added the proverbial last straw with its latest privacy faux pas. It has demonstrated, yet again, that in pursuing it’s goal of selling advertising, Facebook places very little importance on our personal privacy. Remember that, while Facebook ostensibly is a web site designed to help people connect with like-minded people, in fact Facebook is a business which derives it’s revenues from other businesses, not from it’s subscribers. In plain English: Unless you are paying big dollars to Facebook, you are not Facebook’s primary audience.

Don’t believe me? I just spent half an hour tightening up my Facebook privacy settings; it was a bewildering maze of pages and checkboxes and pop-up windows. I thought maybe I was just dim, that it couldn’t be as hard as it seemed to be. But no; it really is that hard. The New York Times counted the words and discovered that Facebook’s privacy policy is longer than the US constitution!

The new opt-out settings certainly are complex. Facebook users who hope to make their personal information private should be prepared to spend a lot of time pressing a lot of buttons. To opt out of full disclosure of most information, it is necessary to click through more than 50 privacy buttons, which then require choosing among a total of more than 170 options.

Users must decide if they want only friends, friends of friends, everyone on Facebook, or a customized list of people to see things like their birthdays or their most recent photos. To keep information as private as possible, users must select “only friends” or “only me” from the pull-down options for all the choices in the privacy settings, and must uncheck boxes that say information will be shared across the Web.

The last straw was discovering a page which allowed my personal information to be shared with third-parties (advertisers and other businesses) when my friends do stuff, not because of my own actions. Here is the page, after I turned everything off; all of the boxes had been checked when I first came to the page.

Just one example: I am perfectly happy allowing my friends to know my birthday but I was angry to discover that, when a friend of mine “visits a Facebook Platform application or website,” my birthday was revealed to the business running that “application or website.” That’s just not right; I did not give my permission for this. I do not want it to happen. Facebook added this “feature” and began giving out this information without asking me.

In response to that discovery, I have done a couple of things. First, I took the time to go through every Facebook privacy page and tighten up the settings. My friends can still see stuff about me. The friends of my friends can also see some stuff about me. To the extent possible, I have blocked business’ abilities to obtain my data. Second, I have removed all of the data which I do not want publicly shared. Since I cannot trust Facebook to keep it private, I no longer store those data in my Facebook profile.

If you are reading this on Facebook, you should know that Facebook is posting a copy of my original article. I actually wrote this on my own blog at www.CheerfulCurmudgeon.com and I invite you to visit the site directly. Facebook does not copy everything from the blog and you are missing good stuff by staying in Facebook and not coming over to the actual website.

I choose to control access to my data, sharing it only with the people that I trust. Facebook has proven, time and again, to be a very untrustworthy arbiter of our data.

Candy and I are shopping for a new refrigerator. The good news is that we don’t need to spend as much as I feared we would. The bad news is that shopping for a fridge is worse than choosing a breakfast cereal. The manufacturers and stores seem to create as many models as possible just because they can. Did you know that Sears sells 85 refrigerators between 16 and 19 cubic feet in size?!

Most annoying, though, is that you can only get the cool “features” like better organizing bins and shelves if you buy a bigger box. There are only two of us; we don’t need a 26 cubic foot fridge. Here in the good ol’ U S of A, some folks still seem to believe that bigger is better. T’ain’t so.

Quick rant on misuse of the English language.

Neither “incent” nor “incentivise” are words. “Motivate” is a word. There is no verb form of “incentive.”

We have many opportunities to experience both good and bad customer service. Rarely, though, do we bump into extremes at both ends of the spectrum in the course of one technical support issue. Doing so makes both experiences all the more poignant.

I use a Garmin GPSmap 396 coupled with a hockey puck sized XM Radio receiver in my airplane. The combination gives me NEXRAD weather radar in near real-time, with my current position and course superimposed. It has proven invaluable in keeping me safe and well clear of thunderstorms. Recently, the weather got “flakey,” sometimes I would receive it and sometimes not. On an August flight back from Wisconsin, when I was flying along the front edge of a line of rain and thunderstorms, the NEXRAD radar vanished and I could not get it back. After experimenting on several follow-up flights, I determined that the problem was heat related: when the XM receiver had been on for 30-40 minutes and got hot, it stopped working.

I called Garmin and asked whether they wanted the XM receiver back with or without the GPS unit and how much it would cost to repair/replace it. The Garmin rep, for whom American English was clearly his primary language, asked what model antenna I had and I told him that it was the old, original GXM 30 and that it was almost four years old. He immediately offered to replace it with a new GXM 40 for free under warranty. (I looked it up later; the GXM 40 retails for $268.) I shipped my broken receiver to Garmin on Wednesday and had the replacement on my doorstep on Friday. That’s amazingly awesome service, Garmin. Thank you!

I just phoned XM Radio to have the old receiver removed from my account and replaced with the new receiver. I got a woman who spoke English with such a thick accent that I had trouble understanding her. She then informed me that this “service” would cost me $15. Excuse me? Garmin just replaced a very expensive piece of broken equipment at their expense and XM wants to charge me $15 to type an eight letter radio ID into their computer?!?! Talk about petty. Worse, she then tried to “up-sell” me to a lifetime music subscription for “only” $399.99. I was flabergasted but did manage to recover my voice and tell her how angry I am that, after paying them $75 per month for weather, XM has the gall to charge me  an additional $6 for music. Truly apalling.

Garmin: I have had several of your products over the years. All have performed wonderfully. This is the first time that I have had to work with your customer service and I am thoroughly impressed. You’ve got a very, very happy customer who will certainly return to purchase more of your products.

XM Radio: The aviation weather “service” that I receive from you is overpriced and the additonal charge for music is insulting. I have had to make several calls to your customer service over the last four years and every one has been, without exception, infuriating. Were there any alternative source of cockpit weather data, I would drop you in an instant.

Cindy and Geoff did a great job and produced Caedmon Geoffrey, a wonderful, healthy baby boy at 7:12pm on May 20. He’s 9 lbs 1 oz, 21 inches tall. His plumbing works so well that he peed on the doctor during delivery. I take that as a great omen!

Candidate Barack Obama promised change and more government transparency. President Barack Obama’s Department of Justice is delivering change for the worse: continuation of the Bush administration’s assertions that the US government can conduct warrantless wiretapping coupled with a new assertion that the government is completely immune from litigation for illegal spying under any federal statutes.

In plain language: According to the Obama administration, if the US government spies on you and you do not like it, there is nothing you can do about it. You cannot even sue in federal court.

Details in the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s article, In Warrantless Wiretapping Case, Obama DOJ’s New Arguments Are Worse Than Bush’s.

Sad as that is, it’s the Department Of Justice’s second argument that is the most pernicious. The DOJ claims that the U.S. Government is completely immune from litigation for illegal spying — that the Government can never be sued for surveillance that violates federal privacy statutes.

This is a radical assertion that is utterly unprecedented. No one — not the White House, not the Justice Department, not any member of Congress, and not the Bush Administration — has ever interpreted the law this way.

Trite though it may sound, it is not safe to assume that “we’re from the government and we’re here to help you” is anything  short of misleading. We emperil ourselves if we allow the executive branch to place itself outside the system of checks and balances of the judicial branch.