Yes on 8 - Equality for All

At one time, I was ambivalent towards California's Proposition 8 to restore marriage to its original form of 1 man, one woman. However, after seeing all the hatred exposed in the "No on 8" campaign, I've come to favor it strongly.

The issue arises from a recent CA Supreme Court Opinion. The opinion is quite long and muddled. On one side, it argues that standards should not be maintained, simply because they have always been that way. On the other hand, it justifies extending the name 'marriage' to same sex couples because marriage has always been understood that way. It then uses as an argument that homosexuals would be discriminated against if asked in social settings if they were asked if they were single or married. Baxter's concurring and dissenting opinion is on the point when it points out that the court acted beyond its power. It used legislative action to coerce a previously non-existent right, overriding a public initiative. Constitutionally, the only way that this should occur is by sending the initiative to the voters.

Ironically, proposition 8 is essentially doing it. However, the extra-constitutional activity has been further tainted by the decision to title it as "elimination of right of same-sex couples to marry." Instead, the court should have ruled that it did not have the authority to grant a new right, and leave it up to the legislature to grant a new right. The budget analysis is also somewhat misleading, saying that the state would gain more money on additional gay weddings. However, this bump would only be short-lived, and would be offset by a decrease in commitment ceremonies. They failed to mention that there will be additional costs in properly distinguishing from same-sex married couples and opposite-sex married couples (Federal would still treat them differently) Instead of going through the proper channels, the state government engaged in a biased campaign.

The no on 8 campaign, however, goes even further in the negativity. It equates proper constitutional process with "hate" and portrays a vast elimination of rights. That is, unfortunately, a distance from the truth. The court, for all its verbiage, said essentially that "marriage has a good connotation, and we'll let everyone use it." Ironically, in the rush to implement this system, the terms "husband" and "wife" were removed from marriage documents. (Quite an irony that a ruling intended to make more widely available a "commonly accepted word" as a side effect removed two commonly accepted words.) If "marriage" is so important for the same sex couples, wouldn't "husband" and "wife" also be important?

There is also the issue of the basic idea of "equality for all". A perfectly equal society would be quite dull. There are advantages to differences. Perhaps they are considering instead "equality of opportunity". Why does society decide that having all rights associated with marriage without the word marriage is insufficient for gay couples? And at the same time, why does it decide that it is ok to prevent pedestrians or cyclists from using all roadways merely because of their lack of vehicle?
Homosexuality is obviously a genetic dead end. It either represents some mutation or it is acquired from the environment. If it is a mutation, then people must have been able to 'overcome' it to propagate. If it is environmentally driven, then it can be viewed as a choice. There is nothing preventing a homosexual from being married to someone of the opposite sex. On the other hand, there are strong mechanisms in place to prevent people from driving. There are many classes of people that could never drive. These people are strongly discriminated against by prohibitions against walking or biking on freeways. Making this situation worse is the statutory exception for people who's cars have stopped working. People with a car are thus permitted to walk in an area where people without one cannot travel. However, an even closer category of people would be based on "vehicle orientation". Some are attracted to bikes. Others are attracted to walking. They may be able to engage reluctantly in motor vehicle activity, just as homosexuals could engage in heterosexual relationships. However, law still currently victimizes pedestrians and cyclists. If "Equality for All" was truly about equality, it would help support true equality of transport.

In addition, there remains the issue of extending marriage to some classes while denying it to others. Society has drawn an arbitrary line in the sand, condoning some sexual activity, while condemning other activity. Cross to one side of the line, and anyone attacking you is considered a "hate criminal". On the other side, however, you are one of the worst criminals. Different societies have drawn the line in different places. (Ancient Greeks, for instance, had no problem with pedophile homosexuality.) Heterosexual behavior in some form must be accepted in order for a society to propagate. A family relationship is also important for the upbringing of children. Beyond that, it is primarily "entertainment". Historically, western society advocated only heterosexual behavior within a marriage. Gradually the marriage requirement was reduced to the point today where heterosexual behavior is condoned among unmarried people, and even occasionally permitted by married people outside of marriages. With 'free' heterosexual activity permitted, permitting homosexual activity was the next logical route for society. However, in spite of this, the principle of "consent" is still key. If two people consent, anything is ok. If one fails to consent, then a serious crime has likely occurred. However, consent is artificially age-limited, and the paper trail is non-existent. If a person is deemed a few years too young, a consenting act could be a serious sex crime, regardless of the maturity of the individual. And if one person thought the other was consenting, when in fact they were not, it would also be a crime.
Marriage helps to relieve a lot of this ambiguity. Extending domestic partnership would also be part of the solution. There could be basic and advanced. Pick the commitment needed, and register before any sexual activity. Without registration, a crime would occur. With it, there would not be one.
As for marriage, it is interesting that it is odd that the court saw to extend it to same-sex couples put not to polygamous or other types of multiple-partner relationships. From the logic in the court argument, marriage is a right that all should be able to engage in. Limiting somebody's right just because the proposed partner is already in a marriage would appear to also fall in the argument. There can just as easily be loving, caring relationships with multiple parties as their can be with two people, regardless of sexual activity. In addition, the ruling uses "sexual orientation" as a basis for granting same-sex marriage. This appears to add to discrimination. Why should two homosexual men get extra rights that two heterosexuals do not receive? If two brothers are in a loving, caring relationship, they are currently precluded from the benefits of marriage that two non-related gay men would be entitled. This is far from equality. Also, it is with great irony that the court has actually restricted rights of groups in the name of "preserving rights" of others. (For instance, rulings that doctors must provide elective services even if it violates their religious beliefs) In essence, the courts say that people of certain religions are prohibited from practicing certain professions.

By the traditional definition, marriage is a man and woman united in a relationship to form a family and procreate. All men and women have an equal opportunity to participate in the institution. Beyond that, things are just a little... uh... murky.

First BCS standings

The First BCS standings are out today. Its interesting to see that the computers all rank the 'non-BCS' schools (with the exemption of BYU) higher than the human polls do. This seems to be quite different than past years, where the non-BCS were often supported by the human polls. It is likely a mixture of the strength of non-conference schedules by non-BCS teams compared to the cupcake scheduling of BCS teams (hello SEC and Big12), as well as the relative strength of various conferences. (USC did schedule some real opponents - but the Pac10 is just not that great this year.)

If the season ended today, the BCS would probably be something like this:
Championship: (1)Texas[Big12]-(2)Alabama[sec]
Rose: (3)Penn State[big10]-(5)USC[pac10]
Fiesta: (4)Oklahoma [Big12 at large]-(16)USF[BigEast]
Orange: (18)Georgia Tech[acc]-(9)Ohio State[big10 at large]
Sugar: (7)Georgia[SEC at large]-(11)Utah[mountain west - nonBCS]

Probably the only real question is whether Georgia or Florida gets the sec at large spot. With 3 sec teams in the top 12, it could be a question of who draws the most fans. For the Big 12, there are 4 teams, but Oklahoma is the top rated and easily has the most pull. The final spot would be between Ohio State and Boise State. An OU-BSU rematch would be interesting, but I'd expect a 'traditional' power like OSU to win out in the BCS minds.

However, things could get interesting next week. If Penn State thumps Ohio State, they will take a nose dive in the rankings. If LSU loses to Georgia and Oklahoma State loses to Texas, we would likely end up with a top 12 like:

1 Texas
2 Alabama
3 Penn State
4 Oklahoma
5 USC
6 Georgia
7 Texas Tech
8 Florida
9 Utah
10 Boise State
11 TCU
12 Oklahoma State

Championship: (1)Texas[Big12]-(2)Alabama[sec]
Rose: (3)Penn State[big10]-(5)USC[pac10]
Fiesta: (4)Oklahoma [Big12 at large]-(16)USF[BigEast]
Orange: (18)Georgia Tech[acc]-(9)Boise State[WAC at large]
Sugar: (7)Georgia[SEC at large]-(11)Utah[mountain west - nonBCS]

Boise State and TCU would be the only options for the final at large spot. So one would have to go in. Now of course, the wild way would be for the SEC to continue to beat each other, the Big12 to post round-robin victories, and the Big East and ACC to creep up in the polls.

1 Texas
2 Oklahoma
3 Penn State
4 USC
5 Texas Tech
6 Alabama
7 Utah
8 Boise State
9 Georgia Tech
10 Pitt
11 Ball State
12 Tulsa

With this, the Big 12 would have two teams in the championship, one Big12 would be left out, and the at large spots would be filled by selecting from 3 of 4 non-BCS teams - leading to an imminent reorganization of the BCS.

(Though an even better scenario would involve a whole lot more pummeling:)
1. Utah
2. Boise State
3. Tulsa
4. Ball State
5. Texas
6. Alabama
7. USC
8. Pittsburg
9. Georgia Tech
10. TCU
11. BYU
12. Penn State

This would probably be our best bet for a playoff. A BCS championship game with two 'non-BCS' schools, plus two additional at-large spots filled with non-BCS schools. The powers that be would soon realize that the playoff may be the only way to really keep the money in their pockets.

And now we start to discover who really is good.

East Carolina - Well it was nice while it lasted. Stick with playing those ranked "big 6" schools. They are obviously much easier to handle the 'lowly' conference USA teams.

Georgia - The Alabama loss was much closer than the final score. (It was 31-0 at the half). And this was in Georgia! There was justification in their gradual fall.

Florida - A narrow loss. These guys will always be ranked high, no matter how good they are. But, they have shown a weakness.

Oklahoma - They have dominated everyone they've played, but they've been playing mostly cupcakes. TCU has won in Norman before, and is the first serious challenge for the Sooners. (Of course they have to go out of the 'big 6' to find one a challenge.) That they were able to dominate shows that they are worthy of a high ranking.

USC - Lost to Oregon State in Corvallis. Yes its bad, but not that bad. (They have a nasty history of losing there.) Maybe the Pac-10 isn't so bad after all.

Cal - The pac-10 finally beat a Mountain West School. And Cal's lone loss at Maryland is not looking so bad after all. (we'll still call it jet lag.)

Oregon - It's great to have Washington State on your schedule after Boise State

UCLA - It's not so great to have Fresno State on your schedule.

With Wake Forest and Clemson both losing, the ACC is pretty much shut out of the top 25 (though Maryland should bubble up) This means an 'outsider' would only need to crack the top-16 BCS standings to make a big bowl. Boise, Utah, and BYU are all in good condition to do it. Fresno and TCU may even have an outside chance. (If TCU manages to beat BYU and Utah, its road loss at Oklahoma may not be so bad. Fresno may have a tougher time, with its weaker schedule, with the next big test not until the season ending showdown with Boise State. The BYU-Utah and Boise State-Fresno State games could be big. If Utah and BYU get past TCU and the rest of the mountain west, they could easily be top-10 behemoths battling it out - potentially even top 2)

It would be nice if the conferences grouped together to schedule there games. Then pac10, big12, WAC and MWC could arrange a sort of 'promotion/demotion' structure like in international soccer. The best teams in the 4 conferences would bubble up to play more of each other, while the worst would fall down to play each other more. Idaho and Washington State, in addition to being close by, are also equally mediocre. It would be more entertaining to see Oregon, Cal, and USC take on the likes of BYU and Boise, than make regulat blowout trips.

USC's loss - good for the PAC-10

The Pac-10 has completed most of their non-conference football schedule intact. A .500 winning percentage is not all that bad - especially when you consider they were playing real competition, as opposed to the I-AA home fluff the certain southern conferences like to play.

With only USC currently ranked, there is not a lot of chance that another team would make it to a BCS bowl, so the best shot at a big money postseason would be for a lot of teams to play in bowls. Six wins are needed for bowls. With an even nonconference won-loss mark, all it would take is a balanced conference schedule and everyone could end up 6-6 and play in bowls.

There are also a few nonconference games remaining:
Oregon State at Utah
Washington at Notre Dame
Washington State at Hawaii
UCLA at Fresno State
Notre Dame at USC
Stanford at Notre Dame
Colorado State at Cal

None of the games look like a sure thing in either direction. However, Utah will probably beat Oregon State (The Beavers have done great at home, but miserable on the road.) USC will probably beat Note Dame. Cal should beat Colorado State. Stanford and Washington at Notre Dame could be difficult to predict. We'll give it a split. UCLA is on a miserable streak, and will probably continue that against Fresno. Hawaii is nothing like they were last year, and will probably lose to Washington State. That would leave the pac-10 up a game for nonconference (with Washington state playing an extra game.) So, there still is a possibility that everyone qualifies for a bowl.

However, a more likely scenario would see the Washington schools continue to stink it up, with UCLA still feeding at the bottom. Cal and Oregon are really not in that bad a position. Oregon's lone loss is to Boise State. That Boise State team that has one of the best records over the past 5 years... Oh, and Oregon was playing with the 5th-string quarterback. Boise will likely increase in the rankings, increasing Oregon's BCS rank (and Purdue may have some surprises) If the QBs can stay healthy, Oregon could win 8 or 9 more games, and be in a position for a BCS bowl. Cal also has some could excuses - after all, there lone loss was after a cross country trip to play an early game in Maryland. If they run the table, they should qualify. However, since Oregon, USC and Cal have yet to play each other, one will end up with two loses. (And Cal still has to play a Mountain West team!)

Another scenario has Oregon State winning the remainder of its conference games, and USC winning the rest of its games. USC would probably still rank high enough and have the cachet to be taken as an at-large BCS pick. Oregon State, by virtue of their head-to-head victory over USC would be the conference champ (even if they lose to Utah, they would still be 9-3). Seeing two Pac-10 teams in the big bowls would really irk some of those southern conferences, but so be it.

On to more realistic conditions, the Pac-10 has arrangements with 7 bowls. Can 7 teams make it? USC, Oregon, and Cal should easily qualify. Arizona needs just three more wins. Unfortunately, the competition will be a little tougher than Idaho. If they can beat the 2 Washington schools, and eak out one other win (perhaps Oregon State, or in-state rival ASU), they would be in. ASU has the tough part of its schedule coming up with Cal, Oregon and USC. They would probably need to win at least one of those to keep from getting too demoralized. But even if they lose, they have the Washingtons, UCLA and Arizona.
That would leave Stanford and Oregon State. Stanford can be totally unpredictable. Perhaps a win at USC and loss at Washington? 4 more wins is a possibility. However, that would require winning something on the road. Oregon State may have a tougher time. However, if they continue their string of winning at home, they can do it. (Though it would entail beating Cal, ASU, and Oregon.) They also have a 13 game schedule. (Would that require 7 wins to be eligible?) UCLA? Well, if they find their Tennessee form, they could be back in the picture. Washington? Their schedule is often ranked the toughest in IA football. They could turn things around when they start playing unranked teams. Washinton State? Well they lost to Baylor. I'd give the conference about 70% odds of filling all the spots.

Simple BCS fix

Currently there are 10 slots, champions of 6 conferences get in automatically (regardless of how bad they are), the top 2 get in to the championship game, and one 'non BCS' conference team gets in if it finishes in the top 12 (or top 16 ahead of a BCS conference team.) Then there are the additional rules (Notre Dame gets in if it is in the top 8, number 3 or 4 qualifies automatically if they are from a major conference without being the champion.) And then there are at-large teams who finish in the top-14 of the BCS standings (with at least 9 wins). The final caveat is that only two teams from a conference may be in the BCS.

The language is fairly clear - it is set up to enrich certain conferences at the expense of others. (Why do the rules for BCS #3 and #4 only apply to the 'BCS' conferences? And why are automatic qualifiers limited to one in the non-BCS conferences?) Suppose an SEC team finished 1st, with a MWC team 2nd, a WAC team 3rd and an SEC team 4th. The 4th ranked SEC team would automatically qualify, while the 3rd ranked WAC champion would be out.

For an ultimate BCS-buster, we would need something like:
1. MWC
2. WAC
3. SEC
4. PAC10
5. Big10
6. BigEast
7. ACC
8. Big12
9. Sunbelt
10. MWC
11. WAC
12. MWC
13. CUSA
14. MAC

An oddity of the current language of the selection process, is that the 2nd-ranked WAC team would not necessarily receive an automatic berth (because that is limited to 1 team from non big 6 conferences) However, I cannot see them refusing a number 2. However, if the at-large pool is limited to non-BCS teams, then the hand is pretty much called, and they will have to be taken.

As simpler format, why not eliminate the conference specification from the language. And change automatic qualification to include (in order of precedence)
1) Top 2 teams automatically qualify for the championship game
2) Top 6 ranked conference champions ranked in the top 12 automatically qualify
3) Independents in the top 8 automatically qualify
4) teams ranked 3 or 4 and not automatically qualified

Then for at large include:
1) Conference champions with at least 9 wins that did not automatically qualify
2) Teams ranked in the top 12 that did not automatically qualify

This would remove some of the bias.

The current poll standings could set us up from some interesting bowls
1) USC (pac10)*
2) Oklahoma (big12)*
3) Georgia (sec)*
4) Florida (sec)*
5) LSU (sec)
6) Missouri (big12)
7) Texas (big12)
8) Alabama (sec)
9) Wisconsin (big10)*
10) Texas Tech (big12)
11) BYU (mwc)*
12) Penn State (big10)
13) South Florida (Bigeast)*
14) Ohio State (big10)
15) Auburn (sec)
16) Wake Forest (acc)*
17) Utah (mwc)
18) Kansas (big12)
19) Boise State (wac)
As it currently stands: USC, Oklahoma, Georgia, Florida, Wisconsin, BYU, South Florida and Wake Forest would get automatic bids. One at large bid would go to a big12 team, and one would go to a big 10 team, and all would be fine and dandy in BCS-land

However, some of these teams will likely beat each other up, leaving a potential standing more like:
1) USC (pac10)*
2) Oklahoma (big12)*
3) Georgia (sec)*
4) Florida (sec)*
5) LSU (sec)
6) BYU (mwc)*
7) Texas (big12)
8) Alabama (sec)
9) Wisconsin (big10)*
10) Wake Forest (acc)*
11) Missouri (big12)
12) Auburn (sec)
13) South Florida (Bigeast)*
14) Boise State (wac)
15) Penn State (big10)
16) Texas Tech (big12)
17) Utah (mwc)
18) Kansas (big12)
19) Ohio State (big 10)


USC and Oklahoma would qualify automatically
Georgia, Wake Forest, South Florida and Wisconsin would get in as conference champions
BYU would get in as the 'BCS buster'.
Florida would get in with the K-state rule.
This would leave two at large spots. LSU, Auburn, and Alabama would be out (from SEC)
Texas would probably be in as the top ranked at large team. This would eliminate Missouri from further consideration. Thus Boise State would be the only remaining at large team.

PAC-10, SEC, and actually playing away games in college football

Last week the pac-10 had what appeared to be a miserable weekend, going 0-4 against the MWC, and losing some other key games. But, at least they tried. Looking at the season so far:

this week:
1-0 bigsky*
1-1 WAC
0-1 SEC

week3
0-1 ACC
0-4 MWC
0-1 BIG12
1-0 WAC
2-0 BIG10

week2
0-1 MWC
0-1 BIG10
1-0 MAC
1-0 WAC

week1
1-0 ACC
1-0 BIG10
1-0 WAC
0-1 BIG12
1-0 Bigsky*
1-0 SEC




Compared to the SEC:
Week1
1-0 MAC
2-0 ACC
2-0 Southern*
1-1 WAC
1-0 CUSA
1-0 Sun Belt
1-0 Gateway*
1-0 Big East
0-1 Pac 10

Week2
2-0 CUSA
1-1 ACC
1-0 MAC
1-0 Mideast*
1-0 Sunbelt
1-0 Southland*

Week3
2-0 CUSA
2-0 Sunbelt
1-0 Southern*
1-0 Independents

Week 4
0-1 ACC
1-0 Southern*
PAC10

Now lets get tricky, and put some assumptions:
1) All 1A(FBS) teams will beat 1AA (FCS) teams
2) All home teams will win
If we just count road wins and home losses, we get something different:
SEC:
1) 1-0 MAC
1-0 ACC (nuetral)
1-0 Big east
2) * Sunbelt (La Monroe technical home team in game played in 'neutral' arkansas)
3) none
4) 1-0 Pac10
A total of 4 wins in 4 weeks
4-0

PAC10:
1) 1-0 ACC
0-1 Big12 [home game for WSU on other side of state]
2) 0-1 MWC
3) 1-0 Big10
0-1 Big12
0-1 MWC
4) 0-1 WAC
0-1 SEC
2 wins and 6 losses in 4 weeks
2-6

And the MWC
1) 1-0 BIG10
0-1 Great west*
2) 1-0 PAC-10
0-1 Big12
3) 1-0 CUSA
1-0 WAC
1-0 PAC10
4) 1-0 CUSA
6 wins and 2 losses in 4 weeks
6-2

And the WAC:
2) 0-1 Big12
3) 0-1 MAC
0-1 MWC
0-1 Big10
4) 1-0 Pac10
1-0 CUSA
1-0 MAC
3-4
And some of the other 'big 6'
BIG 10:
1) 0-1 MWC
2) 1-0 ACC
1-0 MAC
3) 1-0 Bigeast
0-1 Pac10
1-0 WAC
4) 0-1 MAC
4-3

Bigeast
1) 0-1 SEC
0-1 WAC
2) 1-0 CUSA
1-1 MAC
3) 0-1 Big10
0-1 ACC
4) 1-0 Sunbelt
3-5

ACC:
1) 1-0 big12
0-1 pac10
1-0 MAC
0-1 SEC
2) 0-1 big10
3) 1-0 bigeast
4) 1-0 big12
4-3

Big12
1) 0-1 ACC
1-0 Pac10
0-1 sunbelt
2) 1-0 MWC
1-0 CUSA
2-0 WAC
3) 1-0 Pac10
4) 0-1 ACC
*one late game vs MWC
5-3

And others
CUSA
1) [East Carolina was home team in Charlotte]
2) 0-1 Bigeast
1-0 Sunbelt
0-1 Big12
3) 0-1 MWC
1-0 Sunbelt
4) 0-1 MWC
0-1 WAC
2-5

MAC
1) 0-1 SEC
1-0 Indep
1-0 Bigeast
0-1 ACC
2) 1-1 Bigeast
0-1 big10
3) 1-0 WAC
4) 1-0 Indep
1-0 Big10
0-1 WAC
6-5

Sunbelt
1) 1-0 Big12
2) 0-1 CUSA
plus * nuetral LA-monroe arkansas game in arkansas
3) 0-1 CUSA
4) 0-1 Bigeast
1-3

If we rank conferences by total road victories over other conferences:
MWC 6-2
Big12 6-3
MAC 6-5
BIG10 4-3
ACC 4-3
SEC 3-0
WAC 3-4
BIGEAST 3-5
CUSA 2-5
PAC10 2-6
SUNBELT 1-3

So, ok, maybe the PAC-10 really is that bad, ranking between CUSA and sunbelt. But, notice that the SEC rarely leaves the comforts of home. The Louisville/Kentucky, South Carolina/Clemson and Florida/Florida State rivalries give at least one road trip per year (this year it is Kentucky and Carolina on the road.) Other than that, only Vanderbilt (at Miami of Ohio) and Georgia (at Arizona State) have played away games so far this year [with Clemson and Alabama playing at a nuetral site]. During the rest of the season only 2 non-conference away games remain, with Vanderbilt and Auburn hitting the road (along with the South Carolina-Clemson rivalry). Pac-10 also has two more road games, leaving the possibility that they could break out even with this metric. The mountain west has 5 more, big 12 has one more, and the MAC about 6 or 7. Chances are fairly high that MWC will get a couple additional road wins, thus besting the SEC. Even the Pac10 could potentially break even.

The SEC argues that their conference is the toughest. Yet, the non-conference schedule is filled with home games, with many from the sun belt and I-AA southern conference. Vanderbilt and Mississippi State are the only team with two non-conference road games. (And they also happen to be the two teams historically at the bottom of the standings.) Many of the teams (like LSU) don't even go on the road for nonconference games. At least Georgia traveled to Arizona State, and Tennessee to UCLA.

The Pac-10, at least is more willing to hit the road, with games this season at bowl teams Penn State, BYU, Utah, TCU, Virginia, New Mexico, Purdue, Maryland and Hawaii. The 2009 road schedule will include games at Boise State, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Georgia and Tennessee.
The SEC this year has road games schedule against bowl teams UCLA, Arizona State, West Virginia, Wake Forest and Clemson. Despite having 2 more members than the Pac-10, they've scheduled half the number of road games against teams that went to bowls last year.

Left turn, right turn

As traffic engineers have tried to eliminate all driver 'decisions' at intersections, 'right turn on red' has become the curious exception. Try to actually remain stopped in the right lane at a red light, and you are likely to hear honks and screams. It is also not uncommon to see cars make the "right on red" and cross over multiple lanes of traffic to get in to a far left turn lane. On the other hand, "left turn on green" is all put eliminated on most intersections (replaced with a "left turn on green arrow only.") Both movements involve crossing a similar number of traffic lanes in a very similar decision.
The irony is that engineers expect drivers to violate a signal by turning against a red light. (Many intersections would become incredibly backed up if all drivers waited for the green light to turn right.) On the other hand, engineers cannot trust drivers to yield properly to other traffic when they do have a green light. I guess the logical solution would be to make all lights permanently red

Uh, yeah, browser compatibility

PG&E has taken a new spin on browser compatibility. Using firefox? Well, then credit card payment will give you a "service is not available" error. But, you can go ahead and schedule recurring bank account payments.
Using Opera? Well, in that case credit card payment will work fine. But trying to schedule a bank account payment will give you an "Unsupported browser" error. Looks like this must have gone through a lot of testing.

All these oddities are probably a function of a bunch of 'isolated' applications that seem to be cobbled together. There seem to be a lot of extraneous clicks needed to go from one place to another. Seems to have 'big, expensive consulting company' written all over it.

Uh, and if that were not enough, the billing system could use a little connectivity. There seems to be nothing on the actual bill indicating that an automatic payment is set up. At least emails get sent out (though Yahoo! thinks some are spam.) And to add to the confusion, they announced that visa payments would stop at the end of June. Oops. It seems to have gone through fine in late July. Turns out they did not get 'regulatory approval'. Uh yeah... Thanks for the double payments...

Walkable cities

Walkscore.com has put together a nice site that evaluates the 'walkability' of cities. You type in an address, and it pulls up all the nearest amenities to determine how walkable a city is. The results seem about in line with I would give the various communities where I have lived.

The algorithm itself seemed somewhat susceptible to error. (It based the results on a google local search - which is prone to outdated, misclassified, or otherwise invalid listings. It also uses 'as the crow flies' distances, which don't account for whether you could really walk there or not. And a simplistic point system that awards points for a close amenity in a category without judging its usefulness to an individual could be susceptible. However, in spite of this the numbers still seemed about right.

It would be nice to add to it. Perhaps a personalized feature, where you could select features that really are important, and possible veto some results that come in. (If you have kids you care about a close elementary school, not a college.) Also, a walkable community close to work may trump some other features. And of course, it would be nice to actually look at the real conditions (such as sidewalks, weather, or even census information about car ownership and use)

Overall, it is a great tool that is helpful in evaluating potential good places to live.

Every One Pays for Careless Cop

Last weekend, a Deputy Sheriff's car killed two cyclists on Stevens Canyon Road in Cupertino. The incident has garnered significant media coverage, in part due to many witnesses, and the senseless waste. From reports, the cyclists were perfectly obeying all traffic regulations, and the Deputy simply fell asleep at the wheel, running over the cyclists. Now, two families have lost loved ones, one person must live with the pain of having killed people. Everyone in the county will also have to pay as Sheriff's department will likely have to settle an inevitable lawsuit for a few million dollars. The deputy will probably receive no more than a slap on the wrist (and will surely have a union and a lawyer to shift the blame elsewhere.) About the only real winner will be the lawyers.

It is yet another sad tale of a life lost due to the car-obsessed society. Why do we have to accept that 'accidents' happen? I'm sure the lawyers will argue that the fatigue of working long shifts, the time change, and probably a slew of other factors caused the deputy to temporarily lose control and cause this tragedy. But why does this lead to the killing of two innocent people, while the vehicle driver is able to walk away? What would happen if safety equipment were switched around? Instead of protecting the occupants at the possible expense of those outside, what if cars were designed to protect those outside at the expense of those inside? If a car hit a pedestrian at high speed, the car could turn over, or compress itself. The best way for a driver to be safe would be to drive carefully. Now instead of being responsible for the safety of those around, they are primarily responsibly for their own safety. In the Cupertino tragedy, this scheme may have resulted in the loss of one life - or more likely would have resulted in a deputy taking the day off because he felt too tired.

Unfortunately, the public debate now seems to center around the dangers of cycling, rather than the dangerous caused by driving. If we could truly remove the implied 'right' to drive, and ensure complete responsibility for actions, we can improve life for all - and reduce the possibility of other senseless tragedies.

The Rain

It's winter time in California - which means rain. Winter rain is one of the worst elements to deal with. With cold snow you can bundle up and just brush it off. With summer downpours you can just get wet. But with the winter rains the challenge is finding the miracle fabric that keeps the outside water out, while keeping you from becoming drenched inside with sweat. Luckily at Stanford we have train and bus passes, so I've been cheating a bit, and relying on the woefully inadequate Santa Clara county transit to get around. But nothing beats working from home on a rainy day.

Silicon Valley Cars 2 - Books 0

Two newspaper tidbits today show the priority Santa Clara County puts on cars over books.

The first from Stanford: (http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2007/october24/meyer-102407.html)
Stanford is forced to move many books off campus because the county general use plan limits the University's ability to add new space. Stanford happens to have one of the largest university campuses in the world. Even the core 'academic' area is fairly spread out. (Cyclists almost always outnumber pedestrians.) It feels more like rural southern state college (Clemson) than an urban university (Harvard).
A long time ago, the university was once the site of Leland Stanford's ranch, and Santa Clara county was primarily rural. However, today Palo Alto is in the heart of the densely populated Silicon Valley.
Stanford is one of the world's premier universities, yet Santa Clara county just wants to keep it out of the way. The Stanford "General Use Plan" limits campus development and attempts to 'buffer' the university from the rest of the county. The Palo Alto transit center is one of the busiest in the county, and lies immediately adjacent to the Stanford campus. The general use plan 'logically' prohibits development in the section of campus adjacent to the transit center. It does allow for more cars on campus - but requires the university to chose between books or staff. (Hmm.. Perhaps if they just parked the books in trucks...)

The next ditty came in a letter in the Sunnyvale Sun (http://www.community-newspapers.com/sunnyvale/letters_opinions2.shtml) [link will only be valid for a week] there is a letter advocating a bond issue to build a new library structure, which objects to expanding the existing library because it would "seriously decrease parking (a very big no-no!)." It seems the chair of the "yes on b" has not studied many of the other big libraries in the county, which all seem to have greatly reduced parking:
King library (san jose) - No Parking
Cupertino Library - Parking Lot behind the library
San Jose branch libraries - very limited parking
One thing they all have in common is that the libraries are very accessible to pedestrians. People don't have to park.
The Cupertino library is often used as an example of why Sunnyvale needs a new library. Unfortunately, many of the aspects that help make it a success are overlooked:
1) Integrated with pedestrian friendly community (condos and small shop across quiet brick street.)
2) Open pedestrian spaces and play areas
3) A large park adjacent to the library
Alas, none of these seem present in the proposed new Sunnyvale library. But, odds are high that there will be a giant parking lot. And it will be needed because there wont be a whole lot of people within a short walk from the library.
But again, it seems that space for cars is what is most important in Silicon Valley.

What Can You Say about Race?

James Watson got in big trouble saying that Africa may be incapable of governing themselves due to lack of intelligence. Perhaps the co-discoverer of DNA was a little blunt and un-PC in his pronouncement. However, that does not mean there is no validity to his genetic explanation.

If we assume he was referring to western-style government in Africa, it would be very plausible that Europeans had optimized their governing scheme to take advantaged of their genetic features. These strengths (and weaknesses) may not be the same as those of the African population, thus the government may not be suited for them.

From this, we can add the debacle of colonization and state boundaries that were drawn specifically for European convenience.

If Intelligence is being measured by Europeans, then you would expect it to favor Europeans. After all, wasn't it defined by Europeans? It would be a statement of inferiority for a group to describe their intelligence as less than other groups. It reminds me of some of the New Guinea tribesmen that have a totally different vocabulary for 'poisonous mushrooms' and 'edible mushrooms'. To them it seems illogical that somebody would confuse them. This is critical intelligence, for them, while it probably would not have made a whole lot of difference for may others.

It is a pity that Watson's comments sparked such a negative reaction. Instead they could be seen as a source for improvement. Maybe the African governance system needs to take advantage of the strengths of the people there rather than the strengths of people in the industrialized north. This may actually make things much more difficult for westerners to deal with. (At least a corrupt western system is recognizable.)

It would be nice to acknowledge that there are genetic differences among people and races. Many people could never win a marathon even with a great deal of training. Similarly, there are people that could never become of a genius. Instead of denying this, why not let people focus on their strengths, rather than get discouraged by their weaknesses?

Old La Honda

Yesterday was a scorcher, so it seemed like the ideal day to go to the coast. Last time I went over the hills to the Pacific was 2000, so now would be a good time. Transit was free (spare the air day), so it seemed like there were good opportunities to bale if needed. I had planned on Alpine-Westridge-Portala-Old La Honda to get up, then finding a good way down, and then one to Half Moon Bay, and a bus or biking along 92 back. 92 wold be the opposite direction of commute traffic, so it seemed like a good idea...

Unfortunately, I got a little bit of a late start... Then Westridge was closed for some utility work. No problem, I'd just take the next through street. That would be Golden Oak. Unfortunately, while Alpine is mostly flat, the inner streets seem to go straight up. I eventually made my way up, and over to Cervantes and down to Westridge. Unfortunately, I turned the wrong way on Westridge. When I hit Escobar, I knew I had gone the wrong way around, but I took advantage of the opportunity to see if it went through to Ladera (it didn't). Then back up and down some hills to get to Westrdige and Portola, and finally to Old La Honda.

Old La Honda is nice and shady. Unfortunately, the hour of meandering around in the hills before was right in the sun. The climb was even nicer than I remember it. It also seemed to have more traffic. (Not a whole lot, but it wasn't an empty road like Alpine). It took me about 34 minutes. From this site, the record time is about 15 minutes. So, where did I lose those 20 minutes? I decided to give myself some handicaps:
1) An hour of climbing in the sun before starting
2) Poor bike (I'm using a beat-up Trek mountain bike with a slick rear tire. Even compared to my stolen Specialized Globe hybrid, this one is a clunker that requires a lot more energy. It was also weighed down with two baskets filled with work stuff (computer, backpack, clothes, etc.) from the commute home from work.
3) Lack of familiarity with the route. (It was less steep and shorter than I was mentally expecting. There were also a few ill-made gear decisions)
4) Pure lack of ability on my end. (After all, I'm no where near a world-class cyclist)
So which ones were most significant? Lack of familiarity probably accounted for no more than a minute. (I guess I could try it again to verify.)
The previous climbing was probably a little more of an impact. Though, I'm guessing that the bike was probably the most significant factor, followed not far behind by 'me'.

On the way back, I decided to just take Skyline down to 84. You can't round corners super fast with a loaded down beat up mountain bike. Then Portala/Alpine/Arastradero/Fremont/Foothill... Unfortunately, I had a slow flat on the way home. After months without a flat, its been 4 in the past three days. D'oh! The first two were on Monday after running through a goat head farm. (Note to self, Los Altos Hills pathways are never worth it. They might at times be shorter, but I'm not one that likes downhill descents on dirt straight in to gates.) Yesterday it was shrapnel. A two inch staple, followed by a little shard of metal. Uggh.

Skyline commute

Well, I just had to try Skyline today.

In the morning, I did a nice 'easy' 20 mile ride. The outside of 280 ride from Loyola to Alpine. The climb at Moody was great. Nice easy rolling hills for a while, then boom, straight up for the last little bit. It seemed a lot nicer than I remember Altamont. There were also a few nice small climbs and descents in Los Altos hills. I explored a couple pathways, but only briefly. No new 'shortcuts' to think of. (Though I did take the crucial Stonebrook shortcut to get from Magdelena up to Moody.)

For the trip home, it was up Alpine to skyline. The initial part of Skyline is fairly easy, the grade is so gradual it might-as-well be flat. Past the library, traffic dove of to just about nothing. (I saw one car and 2 bikes in the section from there to Page Mill.) Alpine gradually gets steeper and narrower. The road is in fairly good condition, and nicely shaded making it an ideal climb. Then the gate and the dirt road begins. It is slightly rutted, giving a little bounce, but actually seems to be an easier climb than the paved section. All goes well until the washed out section, with the detour on the trail. The trail seems to go just about straight up, and is filled with roots and rocks. I was able to ride a few sections. However, I was mostly pushing my bike up this short trail. (Even that could be a challenge with the loaded down bike.) My first bit of riding on the trail ended when I bumped a small rock. It wasn't anything big, just enough to slow my momentum, and make it difficult to restart. The next bits of riding were brought to an end when the rear wheel seemed to just be spinning in the dirt. I guess there would be some advantages to having a MTB tire.
Luckily the trail portion was short, and soon it was back to dirt. And gnats. They seemed to love my sweaty face. The grade seemed to be getting even easier, and I ended up moving to midrange gears before I reached Page Mill. From Page Mill, there was a little more to go to reach Skyline. I managed to make it there in under 90 minutes, so I was just about right on track.

Skyline started with a nice descent. It seemed like I was home free. However, it soon leveled off, and then began going up. D'oh! Those ups just seemed harder now. Luckily the sign posts had been going down. San Mateo county 2... San Mateo 1.5... (Of course they were much more precise and frequent than that.) Highway 9 is at the county line, right? Unfortunately, no... Santa Clara began starting in the high teens... I sure hope that is not going down towards highway 9 at 0. I had only given myself 30 minutes to go down the stretch of skyline, and hadn't anticipated all the climbing involved. And there aren't many turnoffs. (I'd considered a trail down to Stevens Canyon, but descending on a trail just did not seem fun. The Mora Drive descent in Rancho San Antonio has to rank as the most unpleasant downhill experience I've had. Steep grade and poor, narrow pavement do not make for a fun downhill.)

Then came a same for a fire station. Civilization! Then I noticed it was a forest district one. D'oh! It was named Saratoga Summit. That means climbing must be over. But why am I climbing just past it? Luckily shortly after that, there is a stop ahead sign. I didn't know of any other major streets intersection Skyline. Could this be 9? Yes!

The descent on 9 is one of the greatest. Traffic is fairly light, the pavement is good and the curves are very well manageable. Very little braking is needed. It was just a quick sail down. The sign said curves ahead, next 7 miles. It seemed to be a quick trip zooming down. Did I really climb that much? Saw Pierce. Should I? No. Time for the quickest/flatest way. Skyline took a little more than 30 minutes. Luckily, I was able to make up the time (and then some) on Highway 9, and then had a little more than 30 minutes to cruise down Saratoga-Sunnyvale home. It was a little longer than I was thinking, but easily accomplished.

Now is it possible to work the Pacific Ocean in to a commute?

Alternatives to the commute

My regular commute is from Sunnyvale to Stanford. Foothill Expressway is the logical bike option. It is fairly fast, few lights, and takes about 40 minutes. (My best time was 35 - but it was primarily due to hitting green lights.) The biggest challenge is Page Mill. Its probably the steepest climb, and near the end of the ride. Powering up can be the difference between a momentum sapping 2 minute wait and a clear cruise on in to work.

However, the same route gets boring. So there is El Camino. Distance is about the same. There are still the challenges of beating the lights. However, most lights seem to run on shorter cycles (except for that Castro run that seems to run much longer than it needs to.) It is the much more urban alternative. [ughh... What is with this mouse that loves to suddenly send me back a page...]

Then there is the 'inner passage'. Winding primarily through the streets of Los Altos, and never hitting Page Mill or El Camino. Also taking advantage of the bike path for Los Altos to Arastradero and the Bol Park to Hannover path. There are plenty of variations of quiet streets and bike shortcuts to go on this slow, meandering way. It is nice when there is just not much of hurry, and no desire to go fast.

But sometimes, it is nice to mix in a few small hills. The outer passage goes through Los Altos Hills on the outside of foothill, mostly between foothill and 280. One variation of this is the 'follow Fremont'. It gets cut off a couple times in Los Altos, though it is fairly obvious where it should go. However, it ends near downtown Los Altos, and then a Fremont starts up not to far away in Los Altos Hills, and goes until it becomes Hillview. Is this the same road? It sure seems like it, though the obvious connection point seems to be buried in a big valley where Fremont dead-ends.

Though sometimes, the simple outer passage is not enough, and the desire for hills takes over. Thus, the swing to the other side of 280. It is possible to travel entirely between 280 and Skyline, sneaking around past the quarry, and on down to Page Mill or Alpine. Some nice hills, and a low-traffic ride. Though the shortcut through Rancho San Antonio has one of the scariest descents I have been on. The road (which I think is just a trail now) is in poor condition, with a very steep grade. It may be fun to climb, but not to go down - even with no other traffic to worry about.

But hey, there are even more hills out there. The Page Mill to Montebello route manages to totally avoid civilization. However, the entrance to Montebello from Page Mill seems to be blocked by a fence. Ugh! Thus a ride on a dirt trail for a while before getting to the unpaved old road, before getting to the paved road for the descent. After climbing Page Mill in the hot sun, and then descending Montebello in the shade, I realized this would have been a much better morning ride. Though I'll probably try out skyline next. And I suppose after skyline, I'd eventually get to the coastal route.

There is also the other direction to go. Middle passage goes down Park Avenue, eventually to California and Dana/Washington. It may also include the bike path from the Palo Alto Caltrain to Palo Alto High. This is between caltrain and El Camino the whole way. Low traffic, some annoying lights (especially on California) and fairly good biking. There are also some routes on the other side of Caltrain (bryant-central, middlefield) but I haven't tried them yet.

I have gone way out to the other side of 101. There is the bayshore route which pretty much hugs 101 the whole way. Fairly fast, not too pleasant. Even further out is the bay route. From East Palo Alto to Palo Alto baylands to Mountain View Shoreline to Stevens Creek trail. Lots of trail riding (paved and unpaved) with few stops, and not too many others on the trail. (Simple formula: number of people on trail inversely proportional to distance from parking lot) It almost seems odd to be keeping a steady pace. It is also interesting to look at Shoreline and Moffett from the outside. They look like big tents stuck out in the mud.

Then last week I decided to go just a little further, and journey around the other side of the bay. So, over the dumbarton bridge I went, making it through the gusty crosswinds. Then it was down the other side of the bay through Newark and Fremont, and down to Milpitas. (Though Dixon landing road could use some help. It is only accessible via an 880 overpass. On the overpass, bikes are best in the middle lane (because the two other lanes get on the freeway). However, there is no bike lane there. Just past the overpass, there is a bike lane on the right. It seems anybody that could manage that overpass probably does not have a need for a 50 yard bike lane instructing them to stay right.) In Milpitas there was a nice little path going through farmland that links up with a very poor path going along 237. Then it was to Tasman on to Sunnyvale. (I had considered taking light rail in the event that I was running late. However, the light rail was traveling just about the same pace I was. It even got stuck in traffic as I did [planners wouldn't dare give it priority in such a car dominated area!]) Then it is back down Fair Oaks in to the heart of Sunnyvale.

Mary avenue overpass

There has been a lot of angst recently over a proposed Mary avenue overpass over 101 and 237. People living on or near Mary claim that it will destroy their community. They have formed community organizations and signed petitions protesting this. They have even created proposals to expand other roads and intersections and roads as an alternative to this overpass.

Unfortunately, they are missing the forest for the trees.

The core problem is that there is that the vast Moffett Park office park area in Northern Sunnyvale is virtually inaccessible without a car. By zoning design, there are no residences in the area. Even retail is for the most part absent. The Mathilda freeway intersection is a disaster, scaring off all but the most hard-core cyclists. The sidewalk network is incomplete requiring circuitous routes across dangerous intersections by pedestrians. There is a light rail running through the area, but the incomplete sidewalk network and multi-lane arterials can result in a half mile walk just to get to a building across the street. (And the streets are often faced by large parking lots making it more of a challenge.) The light rail also only runs through northern Sunnyvale down to San Jose. Somebody far away in south San Jose can take the train, while somebody in southern Sunnyvale is out of luck with transit.

If people really want to 'preserve community' and reduce traffic on Mary, the simple solution is to reduce the available supply of traffic lanes, while also increasing the connectivity of the system. Reducing supply will make it less convenient to make short car trips - while encouraging other means of travel. Increasing the connectivity will reduce trip lengths, thereby reducing aggregate travel distance. Shorter trip lengths and greater network connectivity will also encourage more biking and walking.

A simple solution to the Mary Avenue issue: build the bridge. Give it two car lanes, two bike lanes, and two sidewalks. But before doing so, extending the bike lane from Homestead to Maude, reducing car traffic lanes to one in each direction. This will allow for local connectivity, as well as providing the first safe Sunnyvale bike route to Moffett Park. It will also provide a good bike route from all of Sunnyvale (and even Cupertino once the 280 bridge is complete.) The reduction in traffic lanes will reduce the value of the road as an out-of-town short cut.

Even better from a long-term perspective would be an overhaul of the zoning regulations in Sunnyvale. With the city requiring all single-family homes to have 4 off-street parking spaces, is there any wonder why people drive so much. (Add to this the insistence on preserving additional on-street parking, and you get about 7 or 8 parking spaces per house - enough space for an additional house!) And these housing units are often built in housing ghettos, separated from arterials with 'great walls', and far isolated from commercials and retail areas.

On Food and Iraq

I just finished a couple of books. Morgan Spurlock's Don't Eat this Book and Peter W. Galbraith's End of Iraq. Both skewed left, though had very different styles.

Don't Eat This Book was a one sided attack on McDonalds (and fast food in general). It was written in a very casual style, with a lot of "stream of conscious" commentary. The style was interesting at first, but soon grew tiring. Though there were plenty of factoids and anecdotes, the book was so one-sided, it almost begged for a response from McDonalds to form a true balanced picture. It felt similar to the "objective" one-sidedness of O'Reilly and Fox News.

End of Iraq is also driven by the author's personal experiences, though it is done in a more balanced, formal way. It presents many first hand stories from the Saddam era of Iraq as well as the US occupation. It does a good job of pointing out the positives as well as the negatives. (One observation was striking - most [other than Sunnis] are now better off than they were under Saddam; However, the US is worse off - due to the driving up of radical Muslim insurgents, strengthening of Iran and poor image on the world theater). The basic thesis is that the Bush administration was extremely arrogant [hmm... typical Texans!], and just by listening to some of the local people and area experts, they could have had a successful middle-east experience. He also presents alternatives for the success in the future - essentially allowing Iraqis to do what they want, even if that means a partition of the country with an Iran-leaning Shiite theocracy in the oil-rich south. The focus is primarily on Iraq and the Iraqis, with little attention given to the external 'needs' of the US. (After all, wasn't the war about 'Iraqi Freedom', rather than US oil.) No mention was made of the macroeconomic costs of oil and other factors critical to Americans. However, these were not missed. Overall, it was a very well written book.

Stolen Specialized Globe and a new Breezer Bike

On my first day at work at Stanford, my bike was stolen (sniff sniff). My 2005 Specialized Globe had a few thousand miles on it and was showing its age. The fenders were beat up and in need of replacement, and the drive train and bottom bracket just about had it, but it was my baby. I guess that's what I got for parking it outside with only a cable lock in a "bike heavy zone".

Since I was looking at getting a lot of repair work done, in some ways it is a bittersweet loss. (If it had happened after I'd sunk another $500 in to the bike, then I would have been really mad). It was also annoying to use the Chariot and Trail-a-bike attachments, as well as the Dynamo light, and nice rack and paniers - and the bungie cords in there. At least I remembered to remove the GPS.

It did accelerate my decision to buy a Breezer folding bike. I was amazed at how well it runs. (It has been fun to keep up with and even pass guys on their super fancy road bikes.) However, it is kid of annoying folding up the bike and bringing it inside. Lack of storage capacity is also an issue. (A rack is a possibility, but getting the bags on top of it could be a pain.) It was nice that Stanford had the $100 promotion for the bike.

After seeing it missing, I've filed the police report and scoured the campus. No sign of my bike, but I did notice someone else with the same model of Globe. Dark blue and all, though in much better condition than mine. I'll miss that bike.

Missed opportunity for eco-friendly garage

The Mountain View Voice had an interesting little article about a new parking garage in downtown Mountain View. It has architectural flourishes to blend in nicely with the neighborhood, along with eco-friendly solar panels. Only one catch - the garage provides free parking. Thus it becomes a giant subsidy for people to drive and park downtown. The possible savings in the solar panels are easily consumed by the increased traffic.

Mountain View currently has a nice suburban downtown that is fairly pedestrian friendly, and contains a large amount of free on-street parking. Local downtown residents are more likely to walk to the other downtown restaurants and attractions. Many of the other visitors are likely within a short bike ride of the area. However, bicycle facilities are significantly absent. Bike racks are extremely hard to come by on Castro street, and the narrow lanes with significant street parking make riding a bike an advanced obstacle course journey. Spending the money to improve the bike-friendliness of the area may help to provide access for the same number of people without creating additional traffic in the area.

In addition, pedestrian improvements could be made. From north of the railroad tracks, the only real pedestrian access point is at Castro. This crossing includes a grade crossing of Central Expressway and the Caltrain tracks. If you happen to be on the wrong side of the street when a train comes, the light cycle could lead to a 5-10 minute wait. There are overcrossings at the Stevens Creek Trail and Shoreline, however, these require a significant detour. A pedestrian access point or two would provide nice access from the north, and transform some 2 mile drives to 2 block walks.

Charging for use of the parking garage would decrease the people that would use it. However, there is currently no shortage of free parking in Mountain View. The garage could easily extract a premium for a guaranteed available spot in an attractive building. This money could help increase other facilities around downtown, and have a positive impact on the downtown and global environment. By making the garage free, the city is managing to throw-away money, increase traffic, and pollute the environment, without doing much to help downtown business.

Oracle, unable to manage support accounts, sues SAP

Oracle lost a bunch of support business to SAP.  However, Oracle's sysadmins must have been too lazy to actually disable to support accounts of the customers that left.  So, they are in turn suing SAP for using those accounts.  But, boy do they try to put a lot of spin on it.  The article starts out with tales of high-tech breaking and entering.  However, when it finally gets to explaining the crime, it turns out to be more of a case of forgetting to change the locks, or even shut the door after somebody moved out.  If these were legitimate customer accounts, then it seems the worse SAP may have done was served as a delegate for support. (With the many companies outsourcing IT and support work, this is a very common occurance these days.)  And perhaps, they may have a TOS violation for using an erroneous email address.  The reasonable solution there would be to cancel support and disable the account - which is something they should have done once the customer left.


Oracle Sues Rival SAP for Alleged Theft

Getting the trail-a-bike

My 5 year is starting to get too big for the bike trailer, but is still not quite big enough for most tandems. So, we're finally seriously looking at trail-a-bikes. Looks like the Burley rack-mounted one is out of the picture, so we are left with just seat-mounted ones. And now the big debate. I've seen a few primary models.

In-Step: After a horrible experience with their other products, we've vowed not to touch them again.
Schwin: Also look like a fairly low-end trail-a-bike
Adams: Pretty much the standard trail-a-bike. Most bike shops seem to carry the basic model.
Chariot: We love our Chariot trailer. The Catch'em does seem nice, but all the features do seem like overkill.
Novara: I saw the REI brand one when I went to look at the Adams. It was brand new, and none of the staff seemed to know much about it. The quick release clamping mechanism did seem like a plus.

Of course deciding on the bike is only part of the problem... I also have to figure out how to get it on my bike. The seatpost is a suspension post with not enough clearance for most trail-a-bikes. So, I'll need a new post. Unfortunately, its a 30.9 Specialized post, which seems to be rather hard to come by. One shop did have the post in stock, along with the Adams trail-a-bike... But their cost was $30 more than REI... Should I support the local shop and get it all at once? Or just do the piecemeal approach? And that is assuming a I go with the Adams. I also need to check out racks and fenders. It did look like the trail-a-bike could clear my rack, though the panniers are a question. And then there is that Electra tandem...

Halliburton yes, DPW no?

Halliburton just announced they were moving their CEO to Dubai, effectively making it a Dubai-based company. Of course, congress whipped itself up in to a frenzy about how they were trying to cheat America and escape taxes. However, missed in the point was the pure prejudice shown to Dubai Ports Worldwide. Halliburton has contracts with the military, and has fairly tight involvement with 'critical' US installations. DPW had merely purchased the contract to operate shipping terminals from another foreign company. However, in the end, both are 'Dubai-based companies'. If it is a security risk for a Dubai-based company to unload ships, I'd imagine it would be an even bigger risk for them to actually feed the troops.

It would be nice if the US actually supported free-trade in action, instead of stifling it whenever it seems it can win political favor. However, that may be asking too much. Maybe this Halliburton thing will help convince the pontificaters that Dubai can actually house some legitimate world companies. Nah, that may be stretching it, too. Perhaps all we can hope for is just a conclusion that any company that hires Cheney as CEO may just be shrewdly maximizing things for its own benefit.

Does programming language make a difference?

It seems that today "Java" is the in-vogue programming language that can make all web-development tasks easier. But does a language really make any difference? And does java really provide advantages over other languages?

Java is 'compiled' in to byte code, and then interpreted by the java virtual machine. The JVM concept is an advantage in the "write-once, deploy everywhere" paradigm. However, when deployed in a web environment, this primarily results in overhead. (How often is the webserver switched from one platform to another? A switch to different application servers is more likely - and this would still require rework if any application-server specific functionality is used.)

Then there is the persistent nature of java app servers. Instead of invoking a new connection like CGI, it just runs in the same JVM. This is often quite useful. However, fastcgi, and mod_xxx (mod_perl, mod_ruby, etc.) provide similar benefits for other languages.

Since java is essentially interpreted byte-code, it would seem to fall behind other languages like C that are truly compiled. However, since the source has to be compiled to byte-code, it also takes more time to develop than other scripting languages that don't require the separate compiling step.

OO is another potential benefit - however, most languages today have OO capabilities, so java has no monopoly there. On the other hand, the ability to do lightweight scripting without the strict object overhead is not available within java.

Web libraries to facilitate development are also available in most language. And page templates (like JSP) are also quite common. (Though its unlikely that systems like .jsp will ever truly achieve the goal of complete separation of code and content - unless pages remain static.)

What about code quality? That is essentially the same as discussing the quality of spoken Hungarian vs. spoken English. There may be great speakers, and there may be horrible speakers. Constructs of the language may contribute to certain aspects of speech, but in the end, it is the speaker that matters the most. The same goes with programmers.

ADA improvements, but who can use it?

I got a note today saying the due to a tenant improvement project, the City of Sunnyvale was required ADA city ode related modifications for access to the front of the building. Due to this work some parking lot spaces at the front of the building will be shut down.

So now access to the front of the building will be improved. However, getting to the building is still a problem. There are no sidewalks in front of the building. There are sidewalks across the street - but no crosswalks or even pedestrian ramps to cross the street.

However, the city has been unwilling to require sidewalks. The rather week sidewalk ordinance has plenty of exceptions (see http://www.sunnyvale.ca.gov/199912/rtcs/99-512.asp)
A berm or a tree in the way, or is a justifiable excuse. And sidewalk requirements don't even come in to the picture for remodels.

How hard would it be to put a sidewalk in place? Most buildings that have a 'berm' or trees by the street have a parking lot right behind the trees or berm. A few parkings spaces can be removed, and some travel patterns changed to create a sidewalk. But, alas, the minimum parking requirement always trumps the sidewalk requirement.