ZChicken.com | Blog

Ewald is a bitch

nospam@example.com (Daniel Jabbour) — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 02:48:18 -0400

Have you ever known Chris Ewald? Well if you have, you'd know that Ewald is a giant bitch.

--
Daniel

Life on a Segway PT

nospam@example.com (Daniel Jabbour) — Sun, 17 Sep 2006 20:39:19 -0400

I purchased a Segway PT a week ago and have been riding it every day since. It has replaced my Subway use in Manhattan, it has sped me up quite a bit in traversing Hoboken, and I have been able to bring it into every store and restaurant I’ve been to except one (more on this later). My initial reaction, as I’m sure many Segway owners have thought before, is of utter shock and joy. Every time I look at the Segway, it looks so cool sitting in my Hallway. Every time I step onto it, it’s like I’m getting onto a device so cutting-edge and new, it turns almost every head for the first time when I pass by them. The Segway PT is an amazing device, and I doubt I’ll ever be able to regret the purchase.

I purchased the new Segway i2, which features lean to steer technology, the Segway’s new method for turning. Previous models (the i1* series) used a knob on the handlebar to steer, and only leaning for forward and backward control. I used an i170 when I was in Paris, as I went on a Segway city tour (a fabulous experience, highly recommended). Ever since I stepped onto this self-balancing scooter, I’ve been hooked. When I first heard of the Segway (back when it was called “it”), I wanted one. Using one in Paris sealed the deal, and now, a few months later, I’m a proud owner.

Traversing the world on two wheels is a little different than walking. I think like a handicapped person: will they have a ramp? Will I have to go up stairs? Fortunately, more and more of the world is handicapped accessible these days. Fortunately, I’ve been able to bring the Segway onto PATH trains, an important feat in order to get into the city on Segway from New Jersey. Since I do not have a medical disability card, I cannot use the Segway in the station or on the trains, so I push the Segway through the PATH system, no questions asked. I even brought the Segway back to Long Island via the Long Island Rail Road (LIRR), and found it no problem. I was asked by a conductor to sit toward the back of the train, and into the handicapped cars, but these requests were reasonable and kept the Segway out of the way of foot traffic that might trip on it. The LIRR had elevators to get both into the station and onto each track, a feature that enabled me to easily push the Segway through the station onto my train.

Another concern is one of a legal/regulatory nature. The Segway isn’t legal to drive everywhere. In New York State, a law has yet to be passed legalizing the Segway (though it was very close to being passed this year). So the Segway in New York is in a legal gray area. However, in New Jersey the Segway is completely legal to use on any sidewalk or road. This was changed back in June 2003 when the state senate and assembly passed this law, effectively legalizing the Segway on sidewalks and roads across New Jersey.

I’ve only encountered one store that refused to allow me entrance on the Segway, CompUSA. I was visiting one in the city to buy a part quickly (I volunteer for a non-for-profit program, and they were having some computer issues that I was tending to). The security guards approached me as soon as I went to take the elevator up to the actual store (the entrance was on the ground level, but the store is up one). I was forced to leave my Segway in the entryway with the security guard. This was frustrating and time consuming. I also didn’t feel very comfortable leaving an expensive piece of machinery in the lobby of a city CompUSA. Needless to say, any places that blackball the Segway are going to be blackballed from my life. No more CompUSA (not that I even liked the damn store to begin with). To date this was the only store that has had such a policy, and every other place I’ve been to has been more than accommodating of the Segway. Restaurants have let me park it either near my table or up front if there is not very much room. Stores have permitted me to enter on Segway. My school is fully handicapped accessible and I have been able to get around on Segway in a fraction of the time I’d be spending walking. Overall this last week on Segway has been a very pleasurable experience. I can’t wait to see how I feel after another week, and another. I don’t think the Segway is ever going to get old. Every time I have to go somewhere, I’m honestly excited. Yes! I get to use my SEGWAY! People’s reactions are completely ridiculous. Being an early adopter has it’s benefits and downsides. I hope to chronicle some of it right here in my blog. I think this will provide a good historical perspective for me (and anyone else who might stumble across this entry) on just what it’s like to ride a Segway in 2006. Expect more on the Segway soon.

Software patents the end of life as we know it

nospam@example.com (Daniel Jabbour) — Mon, 28 Nov 2005 19:19:34 -0500

There have been a great number of debates on whether software patents are the way to go. In theory I believe that many of the laws and ideas that apply to the real world should apply to the digital world. For instance, fair use shouldn’t stop because you use a DVD and not a VHS (though the courts disagree with me).

Patenting a physical invention is easy for the US patent office. Here it is. It’s this big, it’s painted blue and it does this. Patenting software is much more theoretical. You patent an idea, not an implementation.

Imagine if we had been so patent-crazed when technology was developing. Imagine if TCP/IP was patented, and Ethernet and LCDs and electricity…

Where does it end? Would computing have ever developed if everyone wanted their piece of the pie? Dean Kunhardt suggested that patents be encouraged in the higher ed arena. On the front cover of the NY Times, he stated that patents are the next big-thing in education.

I say this is dangerous. Again, I’m torn as a scientist and an entrepreneur. I find it scary to think that I have to license 1-click ordering if I write software that uses a button to check a user out in one-click from Amazon.

I also find it necessary as a businessman to protect what I create. But where does it end? I have not the answer to the moral question, but I can answer the stance I took with my own product.

I find it financially infeasible to patent every aspect of my product. Unlike Microsoft, I do not have a few million to toss at lawyers and patent applications. For this reason, it’s financial infeasible for a small business to patent what it does.

My answer lays thusly in protecting my product through innovation. Sure, a competitor can try to out-do me, but by the time they copy me I’ll be on my next version, with new features that they do not have. I believe in a free market and I believe in competition.

What makes a product successful?

nospam@example.com (Daniel Jabbour) — Mon, 21 Nov 2005 19:19:00 -0500

The age-old debate of Mac vs. PC fuels many heated discussions. Really, though, there is no debate today of which technology is more stable or more advanced. There is, however, a debate over which is “better” to purchase.

Success comes from industry adoption. The best-used product is the best. I’ve owned an mp3 player since the very first flash and hard-disk players were out on the market. This was well before the iPod came about. They did the same thing the iPod did: play music. They were just as small, and just as cool to me.

What made the iPod successful isn’t that it’s better than all the rest (though it is a very beautiful and functional device): it was simple mob mentality. It’s the hot gift. It’s the device we associate with music-on-the-go. Many companies achieve this level of product success. But how?

Sometimes it’s marketing. We can see that with many popular and shitty products with great advertising campaigns. Apple says the iPod ad campaign is their best ever. Have you seen them? They’re fun, but they didn’t make me run out and buy an iPod. They tell you nothing of the product.

Sometimes it’s in the product. I’d like to think this was the case with the iPod. It was the first player that had a nice click wheel to browse through my 42 days of music. But the success of the iPod over other players wasn’t simply in its interface.

Sometimes it’s in good partnerships and business dealings. Gates selling MS DOS before he had the source code to it was a damn fine decision. He convinced IBM they needed something they had never heard of. Apple’s decision not to license fairplay (their DRM) or anything regarding the iPod (short of accessories), to me seems silly.

So, I leave this entry today in puzzlement. What made the iPod work. I ask these questions so, as an entrepreneur and software engineer, I can emulate what was done before. What makes a product better?

Source code management

nospam@example.com (Daniel Jabbour) — Mon, 14 Nov 2005 19:18:00 -0500

Without a doubt, revision control systems are a completely necessary aspect of software engineering today. Even small projects can benefit from them, and I certainly need not make a case for them today.

However, I found it most interesting to read the very heated debate over which RCS to use for the Linux kernel. In fact, until recently they used a closed source RCS that Linus liked called Bitkeeper. Does it matter which RCS is used?

To some extent it does. I find that I prefer Subversion to CVS in terms of its philosophy of what a branch is. However, I find the tools for CVS to be more refined and I haven’t found any gui I like for SVN.

Linux was a unique example. Developers from all over the world toss patches in and they wanted to keep it that way. The notion of read/write access to the repository they want restricted. That’s why bitkeeper worked well for them.

We discussed in QSE the idea of keeping statistics- quantitative values- on the software engineering process. To what extent will RCS systems play into that? I really haven’t found any use for statistical data on my projects (short of being able to track a bug or feature from beginning to end).

It’s amazing to me that no course undergrad teaches the use of an RCS (or at least none I’ve yet encountered). I’d think we’d have a repository setup for the entire institution.

Working with idiots

nospam@example.com (Daniel Jabbour) — Mon, 07 Nov 2005 19:17:00 -0500

Previously I’ve discussed what I define an idiot as. I want to state for the record that I don’t mind idiots. I wish they weren’t there, and sometimes they may cause good people to get fired, but often times they amuse and intrigue me.

I mention this topic as I’ve frequently encountered such people in the corporate world. I have, however, learned a few survival tips I’d like to share.

First, idiots are everywhere. No matter how good of a company you may work for, they creep in. Second, they can be dangerous. Finally, in order to not have them ruin your life, it is essential you laugh at them as much as possible and not let them get to you.

The best tactic is, of course, to avoid being put into a situation where one must work closely with an idiot. This isn’t always possible.

I was forced to work with a development group lead by a 2,000$/day consultant who bottlenecked the entire process. My job was to document what he did. My suggestion to management: take away his keyboard privileges for a month. They didn’t listen to me at first. The only way to document what these people do is to force them to be documented. And even then, he would play politics, going through his own men, splitting up the knowledge best he could. A process only existed in his mind. Cleanup scripts ran out of his home directory at night. Letting him go (yes it did eventually occur) nearly brought down the entire infrastructure.

The next kind of idiot I find much more pleasurable to deal with: the cowboys. I think to some extent we all start off as cowboys. These people can go two ways: try to educate them on the ways of the jedi knights, or for the more helpless ones, simply try to manipulate them as best you can. Often it’s easiest to try to get them to come up with an idea rather than telling them it’s the answer. This can be tricky but there are subtle ways it can be done.

I once left a magazine open to a story on an idiots desk just on the off chance he’d read it. I was shocked when it worked and he started suggesting we do things differently.

An undergraduate degree in Computer Science (part III)

nospam@example.com (Daniel Jabbour) — Mon, 31 Oct 2005 19:16:00 -0500

Science fiction writers like to write in trilogies. Who am I to argue with the greats? This week, I’d like to conclude my analysis of the CS undergrad with a theoretical discussion of what I would rather see occur in the undergraduate curriculum. Interestingly of note, Dan Zambonini of O’Reilly (probably my favourite CS book publisher) had an entry in his blog on this topic . I may borrow some ideas of his.

As Dan put it there is a mismatch between education and skills. I couldn’t say it better myself:

Part of this mismatch (between education and skills) could be caused by the misguided notion that 'Computer Science' graduates don't necessarily go into 'Software Engineering', so are taught a more scientific approach, rather than vocational. However, the Computer Science graduates I know have software/programming careers, not science.

As Dan also points out, many universities try to attract CS majors with the potential of game design. While games are fun and game programming is challenging, the jobs aren’t all there, and it gives graduates a strong sense of false hope to think they’re going to get a career in game design because they concentrated on it in college.

The future of CS majors in my opinion should be a Computer Science/Software Engineering basis. There are two main problems: (a) the courses being taught are frequently outdated and (b) the curriculum does not contain much software engineering practice.

First, let me start by stating the courses I think need to be totally rethought: The entire progression from Discrete Mathematics to Theory of Computation to Programming Languages. These courses teach students an introduction to functional programming languages. First, they’re taught in scheme, a language invented for and used only in the classroom. I don’t think courses should ever use a language for more than an example or two that is developed solely for educational experimentation. A more modern approach such as “ml” would be been more helpful to students, as would a more detailed explanation of what a functional language is, and WHY we’re solving problems using one. As far as I can tell, very few students gain any useful skills from any of these core courses. These courses could be accomplishing much more with a better foundation.

Second, what is taught is too impractical. Operating systems may teach students a few system calls in C++, but it fails to really teach much about modern operating systems. We need courses on modern tools. We need web-programming courses (as far as I understand we have one currently being taught). We need courses in more than just scripting languages and basic database design. We need XML, DOM, XSLT, CSS. We need more theory of code architecture: coupling, OO design and interfaces, the importance of planning, specing, UML.

All things considered, I suppose what I’m saying is that much of the QSE concentration I’m taking I believe should be worked into the curriculum. True, we have two semesters of design, but by senior year it’s too late to expect 6 credits of design to teach everything we need to know about process. Process should start the curriculum not end it.

An undergraduate degree in Computer Science (part II)

nospam@example.com (Daniel Jabbour) — Mon, 24 Oct 2005 19:15:00 -0400

Last week I proposed some things I found wrong with undergraduate studies of Computer Science. This week I will look at the corporate experience that most often follows a CS major. I’d like to clarify one thing without sounding like I’m sucking up: I actually enjoy and appreciate QSE. I wouldn’t be in this class if I thought it was a waste of my time.

On the same line of thinking: I would like to state that I think QSE should be a part of the Undergraduate CS curriculum because it teaches how to think in terms of a process

Why is process important? I have been working in the financial services industry since I was in high school. Corporate America is, as shows like The Office and The Apprentice show us (though from two completely different angles), often painfully brutal, irrational, and dangerous. Though I was somewhat immune to fear of maintaining job security as I only worked during the summers (and thusly wasn’t a threat to anyone), I often analyzed what made people good at their jobs, and what made people stay employed.

I really liked most of the members of the teams with whom I worked. But I asked myself: what separated a “good” team member from a “bad” one? The answer lies in process. Those who can only be described by the word “idiot” lacked the ability to think more than a single step ahead. Like a game of chess, everything we do in life has consequences. Doing the “right thing” (a phrase that frequently came up amongst my teams) means looking at what is right from a variety of perspectives.

I will attempt to put the idiots into a two categories. First, we have the idiots who simply desire job security over doing the “right thing.” These are the sorts of people that will bottleneck a process and make themselves irreplaceable. These idiots are somewhat rare; they are usually, in fact, intelligent, but lack the overarching moral drive that a non-idiot would have to do the “right thing.” I don’t mind these folks, they’re usually fun to talk to, I just feel bad for the company for whom they work.

Next we have the idiots that think they know what the right thing is (because some vender convinced them their product was the best or because they read it in some sysadmin magazine). These are usually the sorts of idiots that are somewhat intelligent (they listened in their CS classes perhaps), but they fail to see the big picture. They’re often stubborn and suffer from group mentality. These comprise most of the idiots of the world. These idiots are a pain to work with. I will call them cowboys.

What I’d like to suggest is that for these people, education has failed. They have all the ego and superiority of a “guru” (to use the QSE term), but lack the analytical mind of a true guru.

I am very glad I got the experience of working in a true corporate environment as young as I did, and with the people I worked. I was fortunate enough to start with a team of people who are among the brightest and best in each of their industries (Networking, Unix, and Windows Engineers), and who taught me from day one how to think.

I came in guns flaring, as any cowboy would. I have all these knowledge; I have the power to create things. “What, why do we need all this process? I can do that in 30 seconds? What why do we need to pay for anything? Open source costs nothing.” These are the words that came from my mouth as I began. Learning the value of process was the best experience I took away from any educational experience I’ve ever had.

An undergraduate degree in Computer Science (part I)

nospam@example.com (Daniel Jabbour) — Mon, 17 Oct 2005 19:14:00 -0400

What does the CS major learn? What does an undergraduate student learn? If education is about cramming facts, formulas, and languages (linguistic or programming) into students' heads, then perhaps most of education has got it right. But, in reality, is all the calculus or science we learn here going to help most of us in the business world? Or, better yet- how many of us really grow from our education?

In high school I romanticized the idea of going to college. I've always been the sort of student that favored intellectually stimulating classes as a form of challenge, and enjoyed pursuing that challenge. While the list is short, what I loved about the classes that are most memorable to me, is that I walked away a new person: I was transformed by the educational process. Walking away with a physics formula, or memorizing the exact stages of photosynthesis is useless except when it comes to tests. It is that sort of intellectual challenge upon which education should be based. I thought college might be that environment.

The hardest lesson I learned in college so far was that I was wrong. In this world, those who win at the education game can do so without ever opening their minds. I think education is about something more. So what if you can identify the page of a spot quote on a test, or spit our a physics formula you memorized the night (or hour) before? It is without a doubt that I believe, based on the course load and my discussions with students at other universities, that Stevens presents the hardest challenging program I have come upon to date. But what are students here really learning in the often 20+ class-hour weeks? And what of the college experience?

Many student groups, leaders, and editorials right here in The Stute have complained about student apathy. In terms of The Stute alone, it's pretty easy to see our staff isn't as grand as it once was, and our readership probably isn't what it could be. Recently, the SGA has only two nominations for President, and they came a week after the deadline had passed. But why is that? Why are students so unwilling to participate in their school?

Many students are unwilling to participate because they are busy competing to have their net education be quantified as highly as possible - to raise this little number called the GPA. Honestly, the GPA is not going to mean anything after any of us are in industry. Its hard to argue: what industry success is based on performance. I cannot imagine someone asking my parents for their GPA in college at their next job interview.

And, if most students are so apathetic they cannot learn to write (say- become a reporter), or so scared of human interaction they do not peek out their rooms, how are they going to perform in the real world? In probably the one class I can say changed the way I think, the one class were I learned, the professor told us, "You think life is going to be different outside of Stevens? That you'll be less busy? I've got news for you..." These words have echoed in my head since last semester. Sure, we are living on a college campus now, going to 20 hours of class, spending another 20 outside of it studying, but isn't an average work week 40-hours? And, many of us are going to pursue the top paying jobs in america. How many hours does one have to put in for salaries the hundred-thousand dollar range?

To me, the problem is with the direction of education. Maybe I was one of the few people that was "tricked" by the marketing terms Stevens used to me- but I thought Stevens might be that sort of place. The campus has active sports teams, such a large number of fraternities for its size, and uses buzz words like technogenesis (which spell-cheker still underlines in red). The idea of forming marketable enterprises from abstract student ideas is really amazingly novel to me-- to encourage students to think "outside the box," and to help them patent and market their concepts. The only problem is- very few people actually are exposed to this concept.

In reality, most classes cram facts and typical structured, almost standardized AP-style information at us. Students have to remember they are paying forty thousand dollars a year, and doing so for a "quality education" and a degree- which should open doors to the market place, and open our minds. I cannot say I am thrilled with the education style of Stevens, and I cannot say I am alone. As a student, we have the power to change our school- ultimately we fund the budget. Without students, there would be no professors. Why aren't students more involved in auditing their school- in directing the goals and plans of the University? Perhaps because education teaches them not to. Since grammar school, education teaches students to stay in line, to follow the rules, to avoid a demerit.

Prestigious institutions, Ivy League schools, don't have the kind of class-hours we do- and arguably, those degrees are worth more. College and education is about more than class-hours and facts. Learning far transcends the classroom.

Functional vs. Imperative

nospam@example.com (Daniel Jabbour) — Mon, 10 Oct 2005 19:13:00 -0400

As a man of both theory and practice, the age-old debate on the “best” language rests in the hands of what programming theory is best. When I first started learning programming (using Logo on an Apple II, the C on a Sun Sparc Station 10), I thought I knew all there was to know. I was in second grade and I had already started to put a few languages to work. “All I don’t know is the vocabulary of a new language- I know how to program.”

Einstein put it best when he said, “We know nothing at all. All our knowledge is but the knowledge of schoolchildren. The real nature of things we shall never know.”

Learning how to program in a functional language really reminds us of that. To quote GIML’s Introduction for Functional Programming:

There has been a great deal of progress in recent years in defining methodologies and design techniques which allow programs to be constructed more reliably. Some would claim that object orientation for example builds on and improves on structured programming which undoubtedly contributes to a better process of software construction. Using a rational methodology software engineers can produce better code faster - this is to be applauded, however it does not bring us any closer to the goal of correct programs. A correct program is not just more reliable - it is reliable. It does not just rarely go wrong - it cannot go wrong. The correct program should be the philosophers stone for the programmer, the pole star of our efforts. Software engineering may allow the intellectual effort of the programmer to be used "more efficiently" however it does not necessarily give us accurate programs.

It seems almost idealistic to think we can make perfect software but that’s where computer science started- before there were big calculators to evaluate our line-by-line instructions on if/then. We wanted to evaluate what a problem is. If we can solve it. What the definition of a problem is. Programs are built on man-made logic.

I believe that computer science is quickly reaching its potential in its current form. We haven’t really changed architecture in a few decades (though we have made things faster and smaller). We haven’t really changed the way we program in a few decades. And we’re no closer to achieving the level of AI that we once thought computers would possess. Our main downfall in software engineering is that it’s impossible to capture every case in iterative programming. This is where exceptions are thrown. This is where problems occur.

I can’t answer what the next leap will be, but I think it’s going to be a complete rethink. Back when LISP was invented, it was never intended to be compliable by a computer. It was only when a student managed to write a simple compiler in an iterative language that it exists today.

By definition our hardware is iterative. This is limiting since it forces us to think in terms of gates, ands, ors, and simple line-by-line logic. Maybe if hardware was rethought so it’s capable of directly running functional languages we’ll have our next breakthrough.

Machines need to look more like life if they’re ever going to compete with it. We need computers that make connections on their own, that can grow, that must learn.

Programming is problem solving

nospam@example.com (Daniel Jabbour) — Mon, 03 Oct 2005 19:10:00 -0400

Programming is problem solving. When approaching any problem we think as we have been taught to for years: work within a rule set, use the available tools, and try to break down the end goal into smaller, manageable tasks.

I just described, arguably, any intellectually stimulating task. Like anything else, our brain needs practice to make perfect. I find those who surround me to be constantly exercising their minds be it through discussion or debate on a topic over a meal or while moving about through the day- through activities such as puzzles or video games (though not all video games fall into this category)- or be it through other actives such as role-playing.

Recently, a poster on /. (pronounced slash dot, www.slashdot.org) asserted that RPing and programming have a lot in common. It’s sad that neither the author nor I after some degree of searching could find any scientific studies correlating the two, but I think there’s more to it than meets the eye.

As I started this entry saying, programming is problem solving. Role-playing is problem solving. We engage in simple arithmetic to control the flow of the game. We have a defined rule set, currently on version 3.5 if one plays Dungeons and Dragons. We have a specific end result we desire reaching (though in some cases it could just be not dieing). And we, as a team, solve the puzzles and riddles or conquer what comes at us.

RPing on surface value looks like acting, and as such I would at first think that it would be more popular at a liberal arts school. However, the skills necessary- the very lifecycle of a campaign matches up with programming- with specific meeting times, a defined project leader, and countless hours of concentration on a single task. Of course, it doesn’t hurt that it’s fun too.

Distributed Software Engineering Teams

nospam@example.com (Daniel Jabbour) — Mon, 26 Sep 2005 17:16:19 -0400

Working on projects with great distances between those participating can be challenging. I’d like to think I have established a good workflow for my team and me, but there are times when I miss being able to sit down with everyone and discuss designs- or just code in one another’s proximity to bounce questions and ideas back and forth.

Communication and organization are key- and I think we’ve achieved them. First and foremost, I’d like to state that our projects utilize a high level of technological organization. Each of our goals is broken down into specific tasks, entered into a tracking system, sorted by category, and assigned to the proper individual. We videoconference once a week with iChat AV (which is in my opinion much more productive than phone or online communication). Whereas a chain of emails or instant messages could take 45-minutes to an hour of time, the same could be accomplished in at least 15 minutes (1/3) of the time if done over iChat AV.

However, putting the pieces together can be difficult at times, especially when I can’t turn to the desk behind or next to me at any moment while I’m working. Additionally, I feel as though I get more work done when I’m in a more collaborative environment, as well as a greater feeling of control over the entire project.

Our team isn’t huge by any means- a handful of lead developers and few contractors that work on specific projects with us. For this reason, we often modify our requirements as we code and see what’s feasible and what’s not.

Our customers provide us with a wish list and we get to tasks in a priority that we negotiate and what makes sense to us. Since we’re developing a commercial product for a large number of customers, we often do not have one specific customer to answer to (though that’s not to say the sales team hasn’t made promises on our next version that we’re obligated to fulfill).

I wonder what could bring the same level of collaboration back without slowing us down further; frankly using a source-code manager and entering everything into our ticket system takes overhead. I think the overhead is obviously worthwhile, but sometimes I wonder what the pros do that we don’t, and vica versa.

Our approach has been very ad hock, and I think to some extent this gives us an advantage. There are industry standards, but there is no best practice set in stone as there is in other industries- say accounting (you won’t find too many “novel” ways to accomplish corporate accounting - at least not legal ones). To some extent we’re discovering the same wheel the industry has. To another, we’re reinventing the way in which we implement certain practices. One thing that excites me about quantitative software engineering is that it’s a field largely still being worked on. QSE is still in its infancy, and what we’re learning is really what’s been done before- what works and what hasn’t. It has yet to be turned into an exact science.

Why do we care about the past?

nospam@example.com (Daniel Jabbour) — Sat, 17 Sep 2005 04:35:30 -0400

With such an overarching title- some might read it and simply say, “I don’t.” However, I think it’s naive for us to think we don’t care about legacy and history, even if we’re only concerned with our own. Some people live in the past. After recently seeing “Everything is Illuminated,” Staring Elijah Wood, I wonder what compels individuals to focus on preservation.

“Everything is Illuminated” is a relatively independent film covering a trip of a young Jewish American, Jonathan, to a remote Ukrainian village which had been destroyed by Nazis. Jonathan as, as he put it, “a collector.” He had stockpiles of things from his past; things he said would help him remember it. This parallels another character, an old women, we meet in the ruins of the old Ukrainian village, the village where Jonathan’s father grew up. Jonathan craved to know something about his past, and this woman- a fellow collector- was able to provide him with a piece of it.

In one respect, I too fall prey to this fixation. As a journalist, I feel one of the important duties of a paper is to document history in the making for future generations, if not our own. I like seeing a story featuring me because I like the idea that it’s forever. Maybe it’s the ever-human arrogant fixation with being remembered, especially post-mortem. It would seem that someone remembering our life, even for just a moment, gave our life that much more purpose.

I have always been taught that an editorial should pose a question and attempt to answer it, in order to be a good editorial. I started by asking, “why do we care about that past?” I’d like to conclude by saying it’s human. Part of the problem is that much of our society teaches us to make sacrifice for later. A new President is on the way - the promotion is always coming- eternal salvation awaits us upon our death- all of these ideas promote a noble stance that the “now” doesn’t matter.

Part of what makes Jonathan’s character so broken and heart wrenching is that he is incapable of living in the now. He’s surrounded by the past, by history- he lacks no identity of his own. The old woman he met paralleled this. She asked if the war was over. How could she live her life literally disconnected from the world? What life was she living and was it worth it? Why is she so noble- because she keeps the memory of this town alive? What if it was gone and Jonathan was free to live his own life? Like Jonathan, we all need to live a little more in the now.

The point of a blog

nospam@example.com (Daniel Jabbour) — Mon, 07 Mar 2005 01:07:17 -0500

I havn't used zchicken.com for much of anything in recent months, years even, for I havn't had the time or efforts to post information. While blogs are often used to post personal rants, dreams, experiences, et cetera, I wonder what a blog really is, and where the future of blogging is going.

Someone theorized recently that services like google's news service will eventually crawl enough primary sources (a/k/a blogs) to draw the necessary data to create a newspaper capable of competing on a national scale. This idea intrigues and interests me... perhaps I should start to use my source as a way to post individual articles, in the hopes that the combination of editorials, news, and facts, from primary sources, can eventually lead to such a revelation.

...or perhaps we're being too optimistic to think that editorial standards can be met by bloggers. Only time will tell.

America has failed...

nospam@example.com (Daniel Jabbour) — Thu, 04 Nov 2004 07:16:18 -0500

It is a dark day for our country. The lie that lasts eight years: George W. Bush. The graphic at the side is one I created. It is a listing of every state's policy toward same-sex partnerships. How can a GLBTQ person live in a country where the overwhelming majority votes like this...