Maxims

Birthday weekend on the Vineyard

noreply@blogger.com (Maxim) — Sat, 10 May 2008 19:11:00 +0000

We're spending a couple nights at The Madison Inn in Oak Bluffs, a town on Martha's Vineyard. Cute place, cute town, though not everything's open for the season yet. Tomorrow, we'll explore Vineyard Haven and some other parts of the island. For now, it's nice to not have to think about dishes, my to do list, etc.

Epicurious.com won't delete my account

noreply@blogger.com (Maxim) — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 22:53:00 +0000

A few months back, I created an account on Epicurious.com to test out the Facebook Beacon advertising feature that was in the news. After playing with it a bit, I decided I really didn't want an Epicurious account, so I e-mailed their customer service department asking them to remove my account. No response. So, I contacted them again. No response. I e-mailed their parent company's customer service. No response again. It's now been several months, and I haven't so much as gotten a response, and the account is still active. I've since noticed in their privacy policy that they make no commitment to remove accounts upon request. Talk about terrible business practice. They may have my e-mail address, but they'll never be getting my business (or my ad views).

Daylight savings tricks

noreply@blogger.com (Maxim) — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 20:03:00 +0000

Another one of life's little "a-ha" moments: when you realize that the reason your Palm has been reminding you of things an hour late all week is because of the time change five days earlier.

Comcast should be ashamed

noreply@blogger.com (Maxim) — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 18:09:00 +0000

Not only did Comcast pay people to fill seats and cheer them on at a recent FCC hearing where Comcast's practice of discriminating against certain network traffic was being questioned, but they have a ridiculous "defense" of why they did so:

Comcast spokeswoman Sena Fitzmaurice said it hired seat-holders only after an advocacy group called Free Press urged its backers to attend.

"For the past week, the Free Press has engaged in a much more extensive campaign to lobby people to attend the hearing on its behalf," Philadelphia-based Comcast said in a statement.

Does Comcast really not see the difference between paying people to fill seats and cheer for a cause they've been told to cheer for and organizing citizens to voluntarily attend an event and cheer on a cause they're invested in? I really wish the broadband market was more competitive so that people could actually cancel their accounts in protest.

United we fly?

noreply@blogger.com (Maxim) — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 22:52:00 +0000

Thanks to a combination of my own stupidity and the stupidity of United Airlines' policies, I had quite an adventure trying to fly home from San Francisco to Boston yesterday. Here's how it went down:

I skipped my usual practice of checking the flight status and time the night before my flight because my 24-hour wireless Internet access that I'd paid for had expired.
Believing, as I had all week, that my flight left SFO at 10-something in the morning, I checked out at 7:45. Before getting a cab, I decided to use the free wireless in the lobby to check the flight status.
Oops! The flight was 8:31, not 10:00 or later, as I'd thought. Uh-oh.
I hopped in a cab and arrived at SFO at 8:10, 21 minutes before flight time. And the departures board said the flight was "delayed," though it didn't specify how long.
I tried to check in (quickly, of course), but I learned that I was too late. Apparently you can't check in less than 30 minutes before flight time, even if the plane hasn't started boarding yet.
I had to call the Continental reservations line to rebook myself onto a 1:00 flight. No chance of standby on the 11:30 flight, because it was way oversold. After confirming a seat for me at 1:00, the reservations agent told me that I should call back after 9:00, because then the change fee for reticketing me will only cost $50, not $100, because the price goes down within four hours of flight time.
I ate some breakfast and then called back at 9:05 to reticket, which went fine. I was now out $50 and had a confirmed seat on the 1:00 flight.
Around 9:20 or 9:25, I decided to go through security so that I could take advantage of the stores and restaurants within the secured area of the terminal.
At 9:30, I got through security and checked the departures board. The 8:31 flight that I'd "missed" was now listed as departing at 10:00 (ironically, the time I'd originally thought it was supposed to leave).
Since I had nothing better to do, I walked over to the gate where that flight was departing, and I saw that it was just boarding. I asked the gate agent if there was any way to fly standby, since I was booked on a later flight. Amazingly, he said, "yes."
Five minutes later, I had a boarding pass for my original flight. Shortly after 10:00, I took off. Depending on your perspective, I was either an hour and a half late, right on time, or three hours ahead of schedule!

Now, my most important lesson from this experience is that it's important to double-check to make sure you know your departure time. However, I'm also convinced that United's policies are out of whack. Why lock out check-in before the flight starts to board? There's clearly enough time to check in, get through security, and get to the plane if boarding hasn't even begun yet. And why is it cheaper for me to change my ticket at the last minute than farther ahead, especially if both are on the day of the flight? And, just for good measure, why is the 11:30 flight heavily oversold but the 8:31 flight swimming in extra seats? Shouldn't United contact some of its 11:30 flight customers to see if they want to switch to the earlier flight?

Oh, well. At least I got home safely and even without sitting around the airport for several hours. I'm still a little bitter about the $50, though.

Obama

noreply@blogger.com (Maxim) — Sun, 27 Jan 2008 18:12:00 +0000

So, I'm supporting Barack Obama in the Democratic primary. Why? Here are a few reasons:

He's an inspiring leader. After eight years of Bushitis, someone who can make people feel good about America and confident in its president is worth a lot. Even Caroline Kennedy says that she thinks Obama has the potential to inspire Americans in the way that her father, JFK, did.
Obama is the only candidate, as far as I know, who has a clear, sensible, detailed technology policy. Even many candidates who have used technology effectively in their campaigns have not recognized the significance of changing technology on issues regarding privacy, freedom, and intellectual property. Obama does, so I feel comfortable that he'll give these issues the attention they deserve if he's elected.
Several people whose political judgment I respect, including Sen. Ted Kennedy and my boss, Harvard Law School professor John Palfrey, are supporting Obama. So are many of my colleagues at the Berkman Center for Internet & Society, which is a place populated by some of the smartest, most politically aware people I know.
Obama is a uniter, not a divider. He has a history of working with people across political parties, religions, races, and viewpoints to enact policies that make sense.

I think that Democrats and, really, the whole country, are fortunate to have such a strong field in the Democratic primary this year. Even if Sen. Clinton or a dark horse candidate wins, I'll feel very good if s/he is elected president. But, given a choice, I'll take Obama.

Two very different histories

noreply@blogger.com (Maxim) — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 18:38:00 +0000

I'm currently reading two books, both rooted in history, but in very different ways.

The first is Falls the Shadow, a historical novel by Sharon Kay Penman. This is the second of a trilogy (though they seem to be able to stand alone) that takes place in 13th century England and Wales. Written much like a typical fantasy novel, but based on real events and royal families of the time, it's a quick read, despite its 600 pages.

The other is Maravich, a biography of the late, great basketball player "Pistol" Pete Maravich. I'm not impressed by the writing and editing of the book, but the story about this incredibly talented but troubled man is really interesting. There's another popular biography about Maravich, as well, Pistol: The Life of Pete Maravich. The one I'm reading boasts access to Maravich's widow and includes lots of quotes and anecdotes from friends and family. I suspect the other is better written, though.

Why I don't want a Kindle

noreply@blogger.com (Maxim) — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 00:38:00 +0000

The technology media have been all agog this holiday season about the Amazon Kindle, the new e-book reader from the world's largest bookstore. Now, I must admit that the idea of an e-book reader, in principle, appeals to my tech geek sensibilities. But, even with the many neat features of the Kindle (free wireless for downloads, nice display, decent battery life), I'm just not sold. Here are a few reasons why:

I'd have to pay more for content that I could otherwise get free (blogs, library books) or inexpensively (used books, paperbacks).
The admission price is too high: $399
It's one more device to carry around, keep charged, risk breaking, etc.
I can read blogs and newspapers online from my home PC, my work PC, or my laptop anyplace that I have Internet access (which nowadays is almost anywhere), and I don't find it that hard to carry around a book or magazine.
Limited book selection. "More than 90,000 books, including more than 95 of 112 New York Times bestsellers" just isn't compelling. I just looked up four books from my "to-read" list. Of the four, two are not available for the Kindle. (The two that are available are high-profile new releases, which make up probably less than half of my reading list.)

Basically, I think that, like the Sony e-Reader, the business model just doesn't work. They seem to want to model it on the iPod/iTunes model, but they're really quite different. Books don't normally need a device to be played. Most people don't want to switch from book to book several times per day. The selection isn't nearly as comprehensive, and there's no easy way to convert a book you already own into an electronic format.

I think that, to convince me to get a digital book reader, at least one of the following must happen:

The device has to be offered as a loss leader (i.e., much cheaper than $399).
The book selection has to be much larger and the prices much cheaper.
Some means to borrow library e-books and to sell used e-books has to be integrated into the device.

Until then, I'll stick with attending the twice-per-year used book sales run by the Friends of the Medford Public Library.

Work retreat

noreply@blogger.com (Maxim) — Sat, 01 Dec 2007 12:58:00 +0000

I've spent the past 24 hours or so at a retreat for work at the Essex Conference Center in Essex, Mass. The facility here is beautiful and just right for a low-key off-site event. Even the food is good, which is hardly a given for this type of place.

The retreat itself has been a lot of fun. Yesterday was spent with a lot of open-ended discussions revolving around interesting areas of potential (or current) research. Then, after dinner, we had drinks, played games, had a campfire (with s'mores!), had some more drinks, played some more games, etc. This morning I was up early (I didn't have quite as many drinks as some of the others) and went for a walk on a nature trail on the grounds. We have a few more hours of discussions this morning, bracketed by breakfast and lunch, and then we'll be heading home.

It's great to work someplace with really interesting, fun, and pleasant people. Berkman Center is like that, so spending a day and a half with them, even on a weekend, is a really positive experience.

I thought Jumbo was gray, not green

noreply@blogger.com (Maxim) — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 18:25:00 +0000

My alma mater and home of the Jumbos, Tufts University, was recognized by the Sierra Club and local energy company National Grid for its leadership in energy efficiency and campus environmental policy. I applied to Tufts in part because of its reputation for having a great environmental studies program (it lived up to its billing), so I'm glad to see that it remains a leader in this area.

If at first you succeed, don't try again

noreply@blogger.com (Maxim) — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 17:08:00 +0000

OK, so the title of this post is an exaggeration, but Guy Kawasaki makes a good point about why we shouldn't use a person's past success as an entrepreneur to predict his/her future success. I've often wondered whether the same could be said for CEOs or other high-paid executives. I wish someone would do (or, if it's already been done, point me to the results of) a study comparing the success of companies that hire a star CEO versus those that hire an untested CEO.

Back in the saddle

noreply@blogger.com (Maxim) — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 23:56:00 +0000

It's good to be blogging again!

As an active Democrat, people have been asking me lately who I'm supporting for next year's presidential nomination. The answer: I don't know. Why? Because it's not even the year of the election yet! I consider my passivity in this regard to be a form of quiet protest against the ever-lengthening campaign season.

The election is nearly a year away. The Democratic National Convention is nine months away. The Massachusetts primary, even if it is successfully moved, is over two months away. The way I see it, I don't need to choose a candidate and start campaigning for him/her until at least January 2, which is after the holidays and still gives me a month to support my candidate.

As for initial thoughts, I like fellow Tufts alum Bill Richardson, who is likely the most qualified candidate in the field. Sadly, though, he doesn't seem to have enough financial support or "buzz" to get the nomination. I also like Obama and Edwards on the surface, but I really need to learn more about their policy ideas and whom they've surrounded themselves with (that's a topic for a future post) before I could pick my favorite. But hey, I have at least another month to decide, right?

noreply@blogger.com (Maxim) — Thu, 05 Sep 2002 20:56:00 +0000

I think that state and federal campaign laws should include a provision that results in hefty fines for any candidate who publishes an ad which states as fact something which can be proven to be false. This wouldn't stop a lot of the negative and misleading information in campaign ads, but maybe it would help curtail it a bit. And it would mean there was a direct negative consequence if a campaign lies in print or in other media.

noreply@blogger.com (Maxim) — Thu, 22 Aug 2002 15:10:00 +0000

In the UK, it is apparently illegal, under the "Data Protection Act," for a company to allow personal data of its customers to be exposed (presumably, it would be acceptable with permission from the customers). I think this is a great idea, as it puts a legal "no excuses" burden on companies to really secure their data. Maybe we should have such a thing here in the U.S.

noreply@blogger.com (Maxim) — Thu, 22 Aug 2002 13:17:00 +0000

President Bush, according to this article is planning to reduce logging restrictions and enviornmental reviews in national forests. The reason, according to his administration, is to reduce the risk of forest fires. Does anyone actually believe that this is the real reason? Bush has been talking about allowing logging since he ran for office, pandering to logging industry lobbyists who paid him big bucks during his campaign. In spite of his claims, allowing logging is not better for the environment, it's worse.

noreply@blogger.com (Maxim) — Fri, 16 Aug 2002 19:39:00 +0000

The airlines have it all wrong. According to an "airline consultant" quoted in this article on boston.com, "[airlines] have to do something to get the price up," to return to profitability. Wrong. What they need is to fill planes. The problem has not been the low prices, but the lack of ridership that is causing airlines to lose money. The article claims that airlines have lowered prices to entice passengers, that the strategy has failed, so now the airlines are going to try to squeeze more money out of fewer passengers. You just have to wonder if it has occurred to these airlines that there are things other than money that affect people's choices. Ask five people why they don't fly more often, and you'll probably get five different responses. These might include "ticket prices change every 5 minutes," "it takes too long to go through security," "you have to arrive at the gate an hour beforehand and then sit around waiting," "flights are often late," or "all they feed me on a three-hour lunchtime flight is a pack of peanuts and a Coke." All of these are valid complaints, and none of them have to do with money. Sure, a devil's advocate would say, "but if you make the flights cheap enough, people will suck it up and fly anyway." Maybe, but prices can only get so low. And it often takes a lot of money to compensate someone for aggravation and waiting.

So, what's the solution? Well, it should be obvious from the complaints I listed above. Make the experience of flying, from ticket purchasing to landing, more pleasant, and you'll see more people flying. Seriously, compare the following two scenarios:

You decide that next month, you will fly from Boston to Cincinnati to visit your family. You log on to your favorite travel web site, such as Travelocity, and search for lowest fares leaving Friday afternoon and returning Sunday. The lowest fare is $159 round-trip. Not bad. Oh, but the times are horrible and there's a one-and-a-half hour layover in Pittsburgh. OK, search around a little more. OK, there's a fare for $199 at a better time of day. So, you decide to keep that in mind and talk to your wife. A few hours later, over dinner, you mention the fare and she agrees that it's a good deal. You log on to Travelocity and search for the flight. What? The lowest fare is now $259! And that's not even at a convenient time! Still, you really want to see your family, so you decide to suck it up.

The Friday of the trip arrives, and even though your flight isn't until 7:00 p.m., you have to leave work at 4:30 to get to the airport at 5:00, providing you enough time to get through security at Logan and still check in by 6:00. After standing in line at security forever, since the 30-gate terminal only has two security checkpoints, you get to the gate at 5:45, and there's no one there to check people in. You grab a slice of pizza at Sbarro's and then sit around until 6:15, when someone finally arrives at the gate, and you stand in line again to check in and get your boarding pass. At 6:45, they finally begin "pre-boarding" the flight, allowing 5 first-class passengers and a 10-year-old child to skip ahead of the line and board first. Then they finally open up general boarding, at which point you get on the plane, and sit there until 7:20 (20 minutes late) when the plane leaves the gate.

In the air, you get a cup of soda and a little bag of pretzels, and you really wish you had bought two slices of pizza at Sbarro's. After the plane lands in Pittsburgh, you file out, spend 10 minutes walking across the terminal to your connecting flight, and sit around waiting again to repeat the boarding process. As long as you're waiting, you mention to the attendant at the gate that your frequent-flyer mileage number isn't on the tickets, indicating that you aren't getting credit for the flight. There's nothing she can do, though, because the nation's biggest airline doesn't have the capacity to look up your frequent flyer ID number from the computers at the gate.

Finally, you board the flight to Cincinnati, sit around waiting some more, get another Coke and another small bag of the same pretzels, and make it to your destination. As you leave the terminal with your carry-on bags, you breathe a sigh of relief that you didn't have to check any baggage.
You decide that next month, you will fly from Boston to Cincinnati to visit your family. You log on to your favorite travel web site, such as Travelocity, and search for lowest fares leaving Friday afternoon and returning Sunday. You discover that for the dates you plan to travel, there are two fares available: $179 for off-peak times and $239 for on-peak times. You talk to your wife at dinner, decide that you're willing to spend the extra money to travel on-peak, and you go back online that evening and buy the tickets.

On the Friday of the trip, you leave your office at 5:00 so that you can make it to the airport by 5:30, ample time to get through security, pick up some dinner, and check in. You decide to check in before eating to avoid the line that will form closer to flight time, so you go to the gate, hand over your e-ticket confirmation and ID, and get a boarding pass. You then go and enjoy a leisurely slice of pizza at Sbarro's. You arrive back at the gate in time for boarding, and the plane leaves the gate a few minutes after 7:00.

On the plane, you get a Coke and a package of cookies. You wish you'd had 2 slices of pizza, but at least the Oreos are good, and they're more filling than those mini pretzels. In Pittsburgh, you make your way to the gate and inquire about your frequent flyer ID number, but they look it up in the computer based on your last name, and enter in the information so that you'll get credit for your whole round-trip flight.

On the flight to Cincinnati, you get another Coke and a packaged danish - not quite as good as the Oreos, but not bad. Arriving in Cincinnati, you head down to baggage claim to pick up the large duffel you checked. A couple minutes after you arrive at the baggage claim, the belt starts moving and the bags start coming out. Within about 5 or 10 minutes, all the bags are out (including yours), and you grab your duffel and head off to see your family.

Clearly scenario 2 is a lot more pleasant than scenario 1. And, maybe I'm just ignorant, but it really seems like it shouldn't be that difficult or expensive for the airlines to move from one to the other. And there is evidence to support this. For example, some airports (BWI, for example) have very efficient security checkpoints. Since the security is hired by the airlines at each airport, this is something the airlines could really improve. Another example is Southwest Airlines, which in spite of its low fares, somehow manages to have someone at the gate for check-in 90 minutes before each flight. Southwest also has a pretty efficient boarding system. As for snacks, a package of six Oreos couldn't cost more than 20 cents or so more than a little bag of pretzels, but think how much more people would enjoy it (they could have a variety of choices instead of just Oreos, for those who inexplicably don't like Oreos).

I really think that the airlines are barking up the wrong tree. If you want to get passengers, then make people want to fly because of how easy and comfortable it is. The harder it is, the longer people have to wait, and the more confusing the ticket prices, the less people are willing to fly.

noreply@blogger.com (Maxim) — Thu, 15 Aug 2002 14:04:00 +0000

I try to read James Lileks's Bleat column (blog) daily, as I find it entertaining. Today, though, he really made me laugh with this accurate description of CompUSA:

CompUSA always has the customer in mind, much in the way that Arafat has Sharon in mind.

noreply@blogger.com (Maxim) — Thu, 01 Aug 2002 21:20:00 +0000

There's been a lot of controversy here in Massachusetts lately over the issue of statewide ballot initiatives and referenda. The particular case which has been the center of the conflict involves "Clean Elections," an initiative which was approved by voters last November. The state legislature, particularly egomanaic House Speaker Tom Finneran, refused to approve funding for the measure, resulting in a court decision essentially forcing the legislature to comply.

Now, I think that Finneran's behavior is pretty reprehensible. That said, I think that ballot initiatives and referenda are ridiculous. The United States and Massachusetts governments are set up as a democratic republic, meaning that everyone of voting age has the right to vote (democratic) for individuals to run the government (republic). Without analyzing all the pros and cons of a democratic republic, the basic idea is that the elected representatives are in a position to study issues, hear from experts, and make an informed decision that the general populace could not be expected to make. Or, to put it more simply, our legislators know more about the state budget than the average voter.

As soon as referenda enter the picture, there's an attempt to create a pure democracy (sans republic). Voters are asked to make a decision, often with very little information about what they are voting on. Really, what uninformed voter is going to vote against something called "clean elections"? But, like any new program, clean elections require money. Money that comes from the same budget as all the other programs created by the legislature. Legislators understand this and can balance their priorities (which, at least in theory, reflect the priorities of the voters). Ordinary voters cannot. This is one reason why the founders of this country chose a republican form of government. Personally, I think they made the right choice.

noreply@blogger.com (Maxim) — Tue, 30 Jul 2002 19:32:00 +0000

Random musing

I wonder if it's possible, long-term, for a person to be completely committed (in action) to his principles while also being willing to change his principles if he discovers that his principles need tweaking.

As an example, suppose someone believes that he should always use public transportation whenever it is available as an alternative to driving. So, he starts doing so. However, after awhile, he realizes that it's incredibly inefficient to travel an hour by public transit, changing buses twice, to go 2 miles up the road. So, he modifies his principle. He now believes that he should always use public transportation when it is available as an efficient alternative to driving. The question is, has he "seen the light" and therefore changed his principle to better reflect reality? Or has he instead found himself unable to stick to his original principle and therefore changed it simply so that he could convince himself that he's acting on his principles?

Just wondering...

noreply@blogger.com (Maxim) — Fri, 26 Jul 2002 14:34:00 +0000

You know, when it comes to bowling, I always thought turkey meant three consecutive strikes. This game, however, gives the term a whole new meaning.

Apologies to my friend Ananda at WhatTheHeck.com for posting this, since it's usually he who posts these quirkly little web games.

noreply@blogger.com (Maxim) — Wed, 24 Jul 2002 21:12:00 +0000

According to the White House, our economy is doing really well right now. Sure, unemployment is rising, large corporations are going bankrupt, and the stock market is in the tank (despite today's "rebound"). But that's not really important, says Bush's gang in a Reuter's story on Yahoo! News:

"When you take a look at the data -- the hard cold facts about the economy -- impartial economists will all tell you, even partisan economists will tell you, the economy is growing, the economy is growing solidly, fundamentals are strong," White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said on Wednesday.

What's interesting is that this parallels the logic of publicly-traded corporations: it doesn't matter whether we're profitable, or how many people we lay off, what matters is the growth of our revenue. I think that some people (specifically, big-business people such as corporate executives and George W. Bush) don't get that growth, in itself, is not universally good. I mean, everyone realizes this in other contexts; imagine if a child kept growing indefinitely. That would be bad. Same thing with a balloon - bigger is better, but too big ends up in an explosion. Yet somehow, corporate types think that unlimited, continual growth in revenue (in the case of a corporation) or growth in "the economy" are worth aspiring to. Doesn't anyone realize that things sometimes have an ideal size? Just like a balloon is at its best when it's inflated to its max, but not beyond, a company does its best work, and has the easiest time maintaining profitability, when it's at an optimal size. This size may be different for every company (and every country's economy). But, to at least one college-educated citizen (that would be me), it's pretty obvious that an optimal size exists and that exceeding it can lead to bankruptcies, stock market collapses, unemployment, pollution problems, and other seriously bad stuff.

Oh, well, maybe the recent rash of corporate scandals will help voters realize that voting for corporate-sponsored candidates is not in the best interest of Joe and Jane American.

noreply@blogger.com (Maxim) — Mon, 03 Jun 2002 21:03:00 +0000

So, I went to the Massachusetts Democratic Convention over the weekend. Quite an experience. I really enjoyed learning about a little-known aspect of the democratic (or Democratic) process. It was also fun meeting some of the candidates and talking about issues. On the other hand, the nomination process, and the mechanics of the voting, need a lot of work. There was lots of disturbing political maneuvering and lots of sitting and waiting for votes to be collected and counted. There were also a bunch of boring speeches (especially the hour or so dedicated to talking about how great Worcester [the host city] and its Democrats are) but also some really great rallying speeches by the likes of Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, and Mike Dukakis (yeah, he's still around). I supported Bob Reich for the gubenatorial nod, as he is the only candidate who really seems to be interested in progressive ideas like urban redevelopment and control of suburban sprawl. He didn't get the official endorsement (translation: the party won't give him much money) but he's on the primary ballot and may have a shot at upsetting Shannon O'Brien and Tom Birmingham, the more mainstream candidates. (O'Brien got the official endorsement.) Anyway, it was a fun if occasionally tedious couple of days. Now, on to the September primary. Go Reich!

noreply@blogger.com (Maxim) — Tue, 28 May 2002 19:16:00 +0000

You know, when you say that the last few days were a "long weekend," you're usually referring to the fact that it was three days long. For Carrie and me, though, it was a long weekend in the sense of tiring. I spent all day Saturday helping my friends move into their new house (congratulations again, J&J!). Then I spent all day Sunday at work migrating the company's data to a new server. Then back into the office on Monday afternoon to verify that everything was working after the migration. At least I got to watch the end of the fabulous come-from-behind Celtics victory on Saturday and all of the almost-but-not-quite game yesterday.

Carrie, meanwhile, spent the weekend in D.C. After flying down on Saturday morning, she attended a bridal shower that afternoon, went to a bachelorette party on Saturday night, attended a wedding on Sunday afternoon, and went to a brunch on Monday morning. Then she flew home and got picked up at the airport by yours truly, who vowed (again) to never drive to Logan Airport at the end of a holiday weekend.

Things don't promise to get much quieter for the next couple weeks, either. On Friday and Saturday, I will be in Worcester attending the state Democratic Convention. Oh, and I'll be gaming on Sunday, too. The following weekend holds another wedding and my 10-year (eek!) high school reunion. Then there's a family reunion the following weekend. I think sometime in late June, we might actually have a day with no plans. We'd celebrate by cooking ourselves a nice dinner, but our kitchen will be in the middle of remodeling.

How is it that a couple with no children can be this busy? At times like this, living as an isolationist in the woods with no electricity or phone seems almost appealing. But then, I guess I wouldn't be able to update this blog, so what fun would that be?

Well, back to life in the bumper-to-bumper lane...

noreply@blogger.com (Maxim) — Fri, 17 May 2002 20:27:00 +0000

Happy birthday Carrie!

Today, my wife turns a year older than me. She always enjoys that 5-day period when our nominal ages are the same, but it quickly comes to an end. And, of course, I go out of my way to remind her of her seniority during the other 360 days. ;-)

Last weekend, we celebrated our birthdays and Mother's Day by meeting my parents in Manhattan. After a day of tourism in which we devoured large quantities of tasty foodstuffs (pastrami and corned beef at Katz's Deli, hot dogs from Nathan's, shaved ice from the guy on the corner), we saw Liam Neeson's and Laura Linney's excellent performances in The Crucible. If you're looking for a good play the next time you're in New York, I highly recommend it.

On Sunday morning, we went to brunch at Norma's, a restaurant located on 57th street inside the Parker Meridien hotel. The place is pricey, which is too bad, because I think Carrie and I would seriously consider driving 4 hours each way some weekend just to have brunch there if it were cheaper. :-) After starting with a complimentary taste of their "Smoothie of the Day" and a delicious basket of baked goods which included a fresh Krispy Kreme donut, we had the main course. My dish was Granny Smith apple and red pear crepes with a light glaze. Yum! Carrie had the same fruits in thick Irish oatmeal with a brulee' top. I don't remember what my parents had, but all of us (even my mom, who somehow almost always orders something that doesn't turn out right) loved the meal. If you're in New York and you want a special treat for breakfast/brunch, I highly recommend Norma's. Mmmmm.

This weekend promises to involve a bit more effort. My grandmother is moving on Monday into senior housing from an apartment that she's lived in for 38 years. You can only imagine the things we've been finding as we've sorted through nearly four decades' worth of accumulated possessions. Anyway, tomorrow is packing day, and the biggest challenge is probably going to be keeping 6 family members working in the same apartment without any murders taking place. After the packing, though, we plan to celebrate with a birthday cake from Party Favors, the bakery in Brookline from which we got our wedding cake. Since we picked our cake entirely based on taste (near as we could tell, most decent wedding cake places do a good job with appearance), we know from experience that Party Favors has delicious cake. Mmmmm. Cake. Mmmmm. We just couldn't wait until next November (our anniversary) to enjoy it again.

With a busy weekend of packing ahead (with time out for gaming and watching the Celtics game, of course), I doubt I'll have an opportunity to update the blog. So, see you Monday!

noreply@blogger.com (Maxim) — Tue, 14 May 2002 19:47:00 +0000

The other day, I read this article about a new (second attempt) child pornography law. The law's primary purpose is to eliminate 'virtual' child porn. By virtual, they mean pictures or movies that show children having sex, even if the pictures are computer-generated and do not involve real children. In the case of teenagers, the law allows such 'virtual' porn, but it is up to the creator or distributor of the porn to prove that it's virtual, not real. In other words, the producers of American Beauty are off the hook because they can easily prove that Mena Suvari is over 18. But if some pervert uses a computer animation package to create a realistic-looking teenager having sex, the pervert will be convicted unless he can prove it was computer-generated and not real. How he proves that, I'm not sure.

Now, I find child pornography sick (especially if it involves young children - yuck!). Still, this legislation bothers me for a couple reasons. First, I don't see how it really benefits anyone. I mean, maybe it would be nice to know there are a handful fewer gross pictures and movies in the world, but do we need federal legislation to do that? Who's being protected? Virtual porn doesn't involve children the way 'real' porn does. So kids don't benefit. And protecting kids is really supposed to be the goal of child porn legislation. It's the reason that such laws are considered Constitutional, in spite of the
First Amendment. Personally, I think the legislation exists so that a group of conservative Republicans (the sponsor and co-sponsors, including Tom DeLay) can impose their values on society.

Second, there's the Constitutional issue which I already mentioned. The First Amendment allows people to express themselves. It even allows them to create pictures and films of their fetishes and fantasies. This is the freedom that America promises: the ability to create things, even if other people don't like them. The exception is, or at least is supposed to be, when person A's invocation of his/her rights interferes with person B's safety or freedom. Creating 'real' child porn goes beyond free speech - it also involves abusing children. But virtual porn does nothing of the kind. There are no rights or freedoms being violated. It's nothing more than some person's sick idea of fun. Don't like it? Don't look at it.

Third, there's the problem of turning the tables on our legal system's standard 'innocent until proven guilty' paradigm. This legislation would basically say 'if it looks like 17-year-olds were involved, then they were, unless you can prove otherwise.' There is no burden of proof on prosecutors to show that minors were involved in the creation of the images. Taking this to the extreme, it could lead to McCarthy-like witch-hunts against everyone involved in pornography creation and distribution. 'Are you, or have you ever been, involved in creating porn using minors? No? Prove it!' Even in a less extreme case, a religious fundamentalist like Attorney General John Ashcroft could have a field day arresting every creator or distributor of porn with younger-looking women. No burden of proof means less time and expense for the prosecutor's office and a higher conviction rate.

Overall, I think legislation like this is dangerous. I'm planning to write my congressman (the legislation is currently in a House committee) and let him know he should vote against it if it comes to a floor vote. If you're interested in doing the same, the bill number is H.R.4623.IH and its name is 'Child Obscenity and Pornography Prevention Act of 2002.'