7:45 AM Hmm. 237 emails in my Inbox. Three "WTF??" messages from people in the office confused as to why their machine doesn't work now... all they did was install the beta version of AOL's Instant Messenger. Seven phone messages. And a stack of user complaints because email was down (sacre bleu!) for ten minutes at - let's see - three AM this morning.

Yup. It's Monday.

So I see that Bob and Tom were roasting Dr. Keyboard for not making any posts for a while; well, forgive me guys, I didn't post an update yesterday. I humbly beg forgiveness. <g> Until I get a better net connection from home, though, all posts will basically be done from work. And I'll be damned if I'm coming into the office seven days a week. Six is bad enough...

Got some email regarding my anti-DOJ rant on Saturday from Bob Thompson:

-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Bruce Thompson [mailto:thompson@ttgnet.com]
Sent: Saturday, November 06, 1999 1:34 PM
To: matt@rearviewmirror.org
Subject:

> Xerox - same thing. You don't "use a copier;" you "xerox it."

Yes, but note that Xerox invented plain-paper copying. Until that time, copiers used nasty chemicals and coated paper. When Xerox invented, patented, and shipped plain-paper copiers, their competitors cried for government intervention. "It's not fair," they said. "We won't be able to compete with Xerox, because plain-paper copying is so obviously a better technology that users won't want our older technology."

So the government took away Xerox's right to profit solely from their own invention and gave Xerox's competitors the right to use it.

Government is not our friend. No government anywhere has ever been anyone's friend. Government is a leech. Government is worse than rats. At least rats are warm and furry. Government is cold and slimy.

Robert Bruce Thompson
thompson@ttgnet.com
http://www.ttgnet.com

An excellent point. Although from the personal contact I've had with congresscritters and other government types, they weren't cold and slimey... although their handshakes did leave me wanting to check for my watch.

But the question is, what do we do about it? 

We can't fight for our personal freedoms anymore; that's not allowed. Questioning authority and government draws immediate and severe penalties. We can no longer ask for fair and honest representation from government; we can't even ask. Our children can't read well enough to understand the documents our country is founded on.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

How long has it been since we've all read these words? How long since our government did?

Tuesday

7:45 AM Morning. Not good morning, you note, simply morning. <g> I was watching - with some disgust - the Vikings game last night when, around halftime, my pager started going nuts. So I spent the next few hours at the office, solving problems, before finally managing to leave again. I do these things so Tom won't be cranky without his email. <seg> It's not all bad, though; somebody must have said something good in the locker room at halftime, because the Vikings won.

Had an interesting discussion with Mr. A. Nonymous regarding revolution and the modern world. The gist of the discussion was that in the past, revolutions succeeded or failed based on the government they were rebelling against. If the government in question were occupied elsewhere, as in the American Revolution of 1776 (known to Dr. Keyboard, no doubt, as the War of Colonial Uppityness) then the revolution had a good chance of succeeding. Likewise if the revolutionaries receive outside assistance, are far separated from their oppressors, or if the government in question has become sufficiently corrupt, rotten to the core, so that the revolution is not so much a coup by main force as it is a case of nature filling a vacuum.

My anonymous correspondent pointed out that in the American Civil War (a.k.a. The War of Yankee Aggression, the War Between the States, the Second American Revolution, etc.) failed because the government was not yet sufficiently rotten. Although the seeds of downfall could arguably already be present, the rot had not taken hold, and the government was strong enough to put down the insurrection.

It's interesting that many of the Founding Fathers, including Thomas Jefferson, thought it a good sign that there were several small rebellions in the first years of the United States. They felt that if the people were angry enough to rebel against "lawful authority", then they were taking an appropriate interest in their government, and they were making their voices heard by whatever means necessary when they felt they were wronged. Too bad the government doesn't feel the same way today...

In any event, the point of all this is that if the United States were to become (or, arguably, already is) so corrupt and oppressive that a revolution becomes necessary, have we reached the point that such a revolution would certainly fail? After all, it's hardly likely that anyone would come to the revolution's aid in the struggle; too much risk if the government should win. And although the government may indeed be corrupt and rotten to the core, they still hold all the weapons; in order to be truly effective in a war against the United States government, weapons of mass destruction would have to be used. Aside from the problems of acquiring such weapons, and of effectively using them, it's hard to imagine anyone successfully changing the government of the country to something more free and open through destroying it.

Which leaves the political process, and passive resistance. I think we can all agree that the political process is a dead horse; change will not be effective there. Which leaves passive resistance and civil disobedience. What that means is that instead of taking up arms against the government, the people simply refuse to abide by it. We would, for example, refuse to abide by traffic laws, refuse to pay taxes, and so on. Technically we'd all be outlaws, but the simple logistics of trying to detain and punish any sizable chunk of the population would be difficult at best. Which is all very well and good, except for one thing; the "Lost Generation" tried that in the 60's, and it didn't work. So where do we go from here?

Wednesday

Update gone where the lost data goes, along with the socks in the dryer...

Thursday

November 11, 1999
On the 11th minute of the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month or ever, lest we forget.

IN FLANDERS FIELDS

In Flanders fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses, row on row,
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.

We are the Dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved and were loved, and now we lie,
In Flanders fields.

Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.

-- John McCrae

7:15 AM I wrote an update yesterday. Really. I did. I don't know where it went though. Damn gremlins.

I posted an email from Bo Leuf yesterday, along with my response, so here's the continued conversation.

-----Original Message-----
From: Bo Leuf [mailto:bo@leuf.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 1999 9:23 AM
To: matt@rearviewmirror.org
Subject: revolutions and insurrections

You posted

>>>
My anonymous correspondent pointed out that in the American Civil War (a.k.a. The War of Yankee Aggression, the War Between the States, the Second American Revolution, etc.) failed because the government was not yet sufficiently rotten. Although the seeds of downfall could arguably already be present, the rot had not taken hold, and the government was strong enough to put down the insurrection.
<<<

Point of order. Revolutions seek to overthrow governments. Technically speaking, the southern states attempted in the War of Secession (as it originally was) only to *withdraw* from the Union, which was in fact their constitutional right. The northern states, or more properly the state and federal leaders, did not see it that way and sought to keep the states in the Union by force. There were political, military and commercial reasons for this desire. There are all kinds of interesting side issues dealing with the very different economic and currency systems that each side was under, and some read the American Civil War (as it ultimately became known) as yet another early hostile takeover of a potential but then uninterested market.

I have read very persuasive analysis arguing that the primary reason that the South failed, first to secede, second to win, was that their economy was at root a fragile one and collapsed under the strain. The secondary reason was that the "spin" taken by the North turned the issue from secession into anti-slavery, which proved in time to generate greater public support for recruitment. The North had never really been anti-slavery, it was just that it had not built up a system dependent on slave labor like the South.

Insurrection, n. An unsuccessful revolution. Disaffection's failure to substitute misrule for bad government. (tDD)

/ Bo
--
"Bo Leuf" <bo@leuf.com>
Leuf fc3 Consultancy
http://www.leuf.com/

Point taken; phrase it then that most "revolutions" fail, while successful bids for independence are dependent upon the conditions as stated.

As for the American Civil War, I've heard it explained the way that you have listed, and also the alternate theory that slavery was universally disliked as individuals; if you were to quietly ask an individual plantation owner what he felt about slavery, chances were that he'd tell you it was wrong and something needed to be done. The problem was not that the South wanted to keep slaves; machinery and efficient cropping techniques were already making it economically inefficient. The problem was that the North was TELLING the South to free all the slaves. It's one thing for a man to decide slavery is wrong and free his slaves; it's another to be ordered to do so. Which takes the issue away from slavery, and places it right back in the realm of personal responsibility and choice. If that was indeed the case, I'd have to side with the South.

Personally, I think there's more than a little truth in both accounts. I've always admired Abraham Lincoln, but my impression of him is not as the "Great Emancipator" who freed the slaves, it's as a great orator who found himself overtaken by events.

Finally, as regards the question of revolution as a means of solving the problems in our society; I'm of two minds on this one. Part of me thinks the way my anonymous correspondent does, that the rot has set in too deep and it will take something like a revolution to cut it away. The problem with this theory is that it's all very easy to say that the problems are set too deep, and we need a revolution to fix it. The reality is that revolutions do not "fix" the problems, they destroy what was in the hopes that when the pieces are put back together, it's something better than what came before. When dealing with human nature, that's one hell of an assumption to make.

To which Bo replied:

-----Original Message-----
From: Bo Leuf [mailto:bo@leuf.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 1999 11:55 AM
To: Matt Beland
Subject: RE: revolutions and insurrections

Matt,

Yes, I did note your split-mind, depressed attitude later in the posting, and of course in this reply. Fin-de-siecle syndrome :)

Personally, I think there's more than a little truth in both accounts. I've always admired Abraham Lincoln, but my impression of him is not as the "Great Emancipator" who freed the slaves, it's as a great orator who found himself overtaken by events.

True and perceptive. (BTW, d'y' recall during the last Chechen war when Clinton likened Yeltsin to Lincoln, for trying to hold together the union? Lincoln may have been trying to hold together a union, Yeltsin was trying to hold together an onion -- About the only thing they seem to have had in comman was the perception "at any cost".)

Finally, as regards the question of revolution as a means of solving the problems in our society

Traditional revolutions rarely do. Anyway, whose revolution do you get in the end? Usually, the wrong kind of people end up at the top, and having just made revolution themselves invariably act more intolerant and viciously against their perceived enemies than the overthrown "despots", knowing all too well the incumbant's vulnerability to revolution.

/ Bo
--
"Bo Leuf" bo@leuf.com
Leuf fc3 Consultancy
http://www.leuf.com/

Yes, I recall Clinton's speech to that effect. As I recall, I startled my teacher with the suggestion that Lincoln would be pretty upset with the comparison; Lincoln was trying to keep a federal union from fracturing, as a father might try to prevent a son from leaving; Yeltsin was trying to hold on to an old conquered territory, like a warden finding a hole in the fence.

As for the other, that is the main problem with revolutions that DO succeed. How many of the French citizens would have revolted if they'd known it would only net them Napoleon?

As a side topic, most history books pass over the fact that the French modeled their revolution after American; but the United States refused to assist in any way. Is that simply an indicator of our sensibilities towards England, or a sign of how much our government had already changed? I've read many accounts which suggest the people of the US, at least, supported the revolution and cheered it on, but the government very nearly condemned it.

Possibly more later, particularly on Exchange 2000.

---

3:40 PM Exchange is proving interesting and frustrating, as good software should. <seg>

The installation went well, I think, but the configuration is proving to be an all-consuming task. And that's something I don't have the time for right now. <g> Still, I am making progress; one resource I could not have gotten this far without is the microsoft newsgroups on the topic. Anyone evaluating this software for their company or thinking about writing a book on the topic (hint, hint) needs to go take a look. nntp://msnews.microsoft.com. The groups are semi-moderated; they don't approve or deny posts, but the groups are monitored, so you'll see quite a few responses from Microsoft employees, including the developers of the products you're asking about.

Found this link on Slashdot; it's pretty thought-provoking. It's not a joke or anything like that, it's actually prett serious, and something that might cast a little light on the subject for those who've never been able to understand "what the big deal" is about Internet Laws and security. Not to mention personal freedom. Go take a look. Internet Final Exam

Friday

8:00 AM Hmm, I promised a report on Exchange 2000, didn't I? Well, I'll get to it, I'm shoveling as fast as I can; at this rate, I may be able to see desk sometime in the next, oh, decade...

Preliminary impressions; don't try this one at home. Exchange 2000 requires Active Directory, which Novell Users probably think they're familiar with. Well, leave it to Microsoft; they've messed with it enough that if's barely recognizable. Most of the changes are technically for the better, it's just unnerving to see something, think you understand exactly what it does, only to find yourself completely screwed over because you were wrong. Don't even think about installing Exchange 2000 on anything but its own server; my revised network plan is creating a new intranet server, Alexandria, which will hold Exchange, the Intranet web page, and maybe - MAYBE - the printer. Period. On the plus side, it doesn't have to be a huge machine; I'm running it right now on a 400 MHz test box, 440BX-2 motherboard with 256 MB of RAM, and it's not even breathing hard. Yesterday I loaded 50 test users, set up a ColdFusion email bomber, and hammered all fifty accounts with email, increasing the rate and checking the processor and RAM usage. It climbed quickly until at 5,000 emails per hour - which is more than our current load, internally - it was at 80% processor load and max RAM. Then something odd happened; as I hit it with more email, the processor load stayed stable, and RAM usage went down. I think it was caching something and the load-handling software stopped doing that at a certain point, although I'm not sure. The machine finally crashed at something over 20,000 emails per hour, although there was some heavy lag in there. Sending emails at 5,000 per hour, there was about a five-minute lag before receiving the message. At 10,000, the lag was over 20 minutes, and at 15,000, an hour. But it was still handling them.

Of course, that was with one machine downloading the mail; I'll have to find a way to test it with 50 machines checking mail every minute, and then again with the "immediate notification" mode set. Which will probably change things dramatically.

I am having a lot of problems with the Instant Messaging component, though. We'll have to see if I can work that one out, along with the collaboration and voice messaging. Those are two things the developers here are screaming for.

And in other news, another email from Bo Leuf:

-----Original Message-----
From: Bo Leuf [mailto:bo@leuf.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 11, 1999 11:20 AM
To: Matt Beland
Subject: RE: revolutions and insurrections

Matt,

As for the other, that is the main problem with revolutions that DO succeed. How many of the French citizens would have revolted if they'd known it would only net them Napoleon?

The problem with "success" arose already with Robespierre. In the growing obsession with suspected internal enemies and sympathizer as the allied foreign armies were sweeping the countryside with the new republic's soldiers, it must have seemed like the choice of hell -- friends and neighbors being carted off to the executioner on the basis of a careless comment or insufficient enthusiasm for the cause. That the red cap icon did not receive the lasting connotation of similar symbols of bloodily repressive regimes (even the French called it the "Reign of Terror") is one of those mysteries I can only ascribe to the French tendency to romanticize anything dear to their sense of patriotism.

As an aside: The parades and shows of military might that occur these days on July 14th in Paris are really remarkable, and the only comparable displays I know of are those in China, and what used to occur in the USSR.

As a side topic, most history books pass over the fact that the French modeled their revolution after American; but the United States refused to assist in any way. Is that simply an indicator of our sensibilities towards England, or a sign of how much our government had already changed?

While the "taxation without representation" similarity may indeed have provided inspiration, I would personally hesitate to say that the French "modelled" their revolution on the American one. There were simply too many differences in situation for that to be possible. I somehow doubt that the US leaders saw much similarity at all.

That the US refused to assist is perhaps not so strange. After all, it was only a few years earlier that Independence had been secured, with some assistance from France, then monarchy. To then get involved into what was rapidly becoming yet another European war would surely have seemed ill advised, especially if against the major powers. I also rather think any established contacts to the French which would engender any impulse to help went via the very people who ended up a head shorter. The general reactions to the events of the French Revolution by European leaders were overall very negative, not to say horrified at the political audacity shown. And I think there were in the US grave concerns about what the repercussions of a successful revolution would be for that extensive piece of real estate known as Louisiana.

One also needs to look at that great equalizer and motivator: money. Radical monetary reforms were set loose around the American Revolution and the French. (Both revolutions were financed by the innovative issue of paper money. The French was additionally to a large extent triggered by massive national insolvency.) Helping the French Revolution could not have looked to be very rewarding.

I've read many accounts which suggest the people of the US, at least, supported the revolution and cheered it on, but the government very nearly condemned it.

That is always the challenge of a government, to get the people to cheer for the course of action that the government wants to take.

/ Bo
--
"Bo Leuf" bo@leuf.com
Leuf fc3 Consultancy http://www.leuf.com/

Excellent points. I need to think on them a bit, and I don't have time; I've just been handed a never-been-booted Sony Vaio and told to have it ready by two. Sometimes I love my job. Other times I really, really need a small thermonuclear device... <g>

Saturday

Sunday