Thursday, January 13, 2011
1:00 pm
Daniel J. Summers
This post begins (and ends) my look back at 2010 called “2010 Year in Review: The Good, the Bad, and the Ridiculous.” If you've been reading them as I posted them, this is the end; if you're new, just keep scrolling, and all three posts are there in order. What follows is a non-exhaustive list of the things I considered good in 2010.
Firesheep
Toward the end of October, a Firefox plugin called Firesheep was released. This plugin illustrated a gaping security flaw in the way a large number of sites handle trusted communications. While the media reaction was negative, with accusations of this being a hacker tool, I think it's a good thing. Firesheep didn't create the problem, but it did illustrate, in vivid detail, how easily non-secure web traffic can be intercepted and impersonated. With the explosion of Facebook (which does login securely, then switches back to insecure, and has not changed as of this writing) over this past year, the time was right to remind people that there are serious flaws that need to be addressed.
I should note, for those unfamiliar with this whole scenario, this only affected open, unencrypted Wi-Fi points; if you're connected to a secured wireless network or a switched wired network, the plugin wouldn't be able to see your traffic. In response to the plugin, many sites have begun enforcing or offering an always-encrypted (https) connection to their sites. Also, note that WEP-secured networks are now able to be broken in less than a minute - WPA or WPA2 is what you want to use to secure your wireless network.
Forest Home
I don't know if Forest Home Christian Camp in Forest Falls, CA was better-than-ever in 2010, as 2010 was the year I became acquainted with it; however, I can state unequivocally that 2010 was a great year to attend Forest Home's family camp! We checked in on a Sunday and checked out on a Saturday, and were blessed from the time we got there until the time we left. Worship, eating, hiking, exploring, a night-time zip line - and that was just the first 36 hours. They have a lake (fed from melting snow - refreshing!), several hiking trails, swimming pool with diving boards, mini-golf course, as well as a game/lounge area with pool and ping-pong tables. If you're looking for activities, they've got it.
But what made the week there such an amazing week was the quiet times. There was singing and teaching in the morning with the director, Kent Kraning, and singing and teaching in the evening, let our week by Dr. Erik Thoennes of Biola University. Other than those times (where all age groups had their own programs), there were hikes before breakfast, family devotion times after breakfast, free time in the afternoons between lunch and dinner, and time after the evening sessions where you could reflect on what you'd heard. One of their core values is solitude - getting away from the noise so that you can hear God speak. I presented a laundry list of activities, but through the campground, there were benches and seats where you could just stop, sit, think, and pray. It's amazing how clearly God can speak when you unplug for a week and listen. I pray that 2010 is only the beginning of many years of family camp at Forest Home.
Personal Fitness
2009 was the year I got my head right, and 2010 was the year my body followed. The scale said I was 17 pounds lighter at the start of 2011 than I was at the start of 2010, and I can tell that I'm in the best shape of my adult life (possibly excluding the month or so immediately after basic training). The big change in 2010 was the way I view food - food is fuel, not fun. We used to celebrate everything with food as a central focus - birthdays, holidays, date nights, even fitness achievements. I have actually celebrated passing a fitness test by going to Outback Steakhouse for an order of Aussie Cheese Fries. How ironic and self-defeating is that? The quantity of food that I now eat is less than half of what I used to eat, and I'm still consuming enough calories that I have the energy to exercise. Of course, I'm not perfect - occasionally I will have more than I know I should, but it's still nowhere near the huge amount of food I used to eat.
NASCAR Parity
NASCAR in 2009 was a two-horse race between Joe Gibbs Racing (Denny Hamlin, Kyle Busch, and Joey Logano) and Hendrick Motorsports (Jeff Gordon, Jimmie Johnson, Mark Martin, and Dale Earnhardt, Jr.). 2010 saw the resurgence of Richard Childress Racing (Kevin Harvick, Jeff Burton, and Clint Bowyer) and Roush Fenway Racing (Carl Edwards, Matt Kenseth, David Ragan, and Greg Biffle), and steady improvements in Earnhardt Ganassi Racing (Juan Pablo Montoya and Jamie McMurray). That's a lot of driver names, and while some of them weren't title-competitive this year, the teams are becoming more and more balanced. Every year brings new rules to which teams must adjust, so 2011 is still up in the air; however, the parity that existed in 2010 is a good thing for the sport, and makes for good races for its fans.
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
1:00 pm
Daniel J. Summers
This is the middle post of my three-post “Year in Review: The Good, the Bad, and the Ridiculous.” The linked words in that title will take you to the other two posts. Here are the things that I considered bad in 2010.
Wikileaks
Wikileaks began as a whistleblower website, where people could release information about injustices. In 2010, they made a leap into classified government documents. Purportedly stolen by PFC Bradley Manning, these documents were not only embarrassing for some government agencies, the information contained in those documents identified informants and other non-public allies in the War or Terror. While the creator of Wikileaks, Julian Assange, is currently in custody (due to some somewhat-questionable sex crime charges), there is little legal enforceability on a citizen of another country disclosing secrets of another. Several US companies have severed ties with the site, and kudos to them for that; however, I believe that the net result of this will be bad.
ObamaCare
What I've identified as the most ridiculous quote of 2010 (“We have to pass the bill to find out what's in it”) was spoken in reference to this bill. Going by the formal name of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (colloquially known as “Obamacare”), this bill enacted many reforms to our health care system, most notably in the area of insurance coverage. The bill mandates that all people purchase and retain health care insurance (a provision already rule unconstitutional), stipulates that insurers must cover preexisting conditions and may not drop insured people for certain conditions, and provides for the creation of a public co-op. There may be more, but at 1,300+ pages, who knows?
We are already seeing the unintended consequences of this legislation. Insurance rates are going up, with many companies raising rates 25% or more. This shouldn't catch anyone by surprise; what is called “insurance” in the bill is more like a membership. Insurance is a bet against bad things happening, which is the entire reason preexisting conditions aren't covered. Where's the bet when you know the outcome? Insurance rates are not designed for this type of use. (Conspiracy theorists could speculate that those who passed the law knew this. They really wanted public control, but the people didn't want it - instead, they passed a bill that will bankrupt the insurance companies. Then, who rides in to save the day? Liberal government!)
Insurance is but one of the problems with this bill; there are many others where the unintended consequences outweigh the intended benefits. Hopefully, the 112th Congress can undo this monstrosity before most of its provisions become effective. Until then, though, this remains on the bad list.
The FCC Implements Net Neutrality
“Net neutrality” is the concept that network service providers (ISPs, cell carriers, etc.) must treat all network traffic equally. This means that they cannot favor certain types of packets (ex. their own video streaming) while slowing down other packets (ex. competitors' video streaming, voice over IP). While, on the surface, this sound good, it fails to take into account bandwidth considerations, and the consequences of that bandwidth being used up. A TV signal can be broadcast through the air, and whether one TV or a million TVs receive the signal, the signal is the same; however, the same signal received over the Internet must be duplicated once for each end point receiving it - it is a request-response network. It's not as cut-and-dried of an issue as some of its more ardent supporters would like to paint it.
Congress has failed to implement net neutrality legislation, and courts have ruled that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has no jurisdiction to implement it on its own. That didn't stop the intrepid FCC, which issued net neutrality guidelines near the end of the year. Hopefully 2011 will find these regulations to be unenforceable; as it stands now, though, these regulations are bad, and have the potential to slow innovation around the network.
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
1:00 pm
Daniel J. Summers
2010 was quite a year. To wrap it up, I'm bringing back a mostly annual tradition here of the three-post “Year in Review: The Good, the Bad, and the Ridiculous.” Per tradition, the posts are published in reverse, so when they're all posted, the good is on top. With no further ado, the ridiculous…
The BP Oil Spill
While this, on its own merits, would have landed on the bad list, the incompetence surrounding the spill launched it to the top of the list. On the front side, BP's pencil-whipped audits and ignoring of safety warnings is deplorable; those controls are there because they are necessary, and I'm sure that shutting off that particular well until it was fixed would have been much cheaper than clean-up from the spill was. On the back end, the US government's response was horrible. The failure to quickly approve waivers for foreign ships and exhaust regulations, and the failure to accept help from other countries in containing the spill while it was small, was eerily similar to the failures surrounding Hurricane Katrina. These failures led to the effects of the spill being far greater than they need to be.
While the Gulf does seem to be recovering more quickly than expected, there will be pockets of oil and a poorer overall quality of water in the Gulf of Mexico for years. The knee-jerk reaction of stopping all off-shore drilling compounds the problem. A safety down-time to recheck all the rigs is in order, but once the rigs are found to be safe, there is no reason that they should sit idle. This also illustrates the ridiculousness of prohibiting drilling on land; how much easier would this well have been to seal up if it was in land? But, to placate tree-huggers and NIMBYs, we're drilling through a mile of water to get oil.
What solidifies this ridiculousness is that we seemingly have learned nothing from these lessons. Time will tell, and I won't feel any joy and bringing this back up, but I have a feeling we'll be revisiting stories similar to this one if things don't change.
United States v. Arizona
One of the basic rights recognized by our legal system is the right to self defense. Many things that would be otherwise illegal are justified when they are done in self defense. The state of Arizona is experiencing an influx of illegal aliens streaming across its southern border, and people who live in southern Arizona are encountering increasing violence from these illegals. While the Federal government has laws on the books, the current administration (and the one before it) seemed to be more interested in turning this group of illegal aliens into voters than enforcing the law. So, Arizona passes laws similar to the ones the Federal government has. Simple self-defense, borne of necessity due to inaction by the Federal government in the face of mounting threats.
How does the US government respond? With loud denunciation, even threats of lawsuits against Arizona if they enforce these new laws. They are joined by the media, who painted heart-wrenching pictures of illegals who were deciding to move because of the new laws. (To which I say, “Good!” I read one where the illegal was going to Colorado, and I thought, "Well, that's the wrong direction.") The law makes the state less hospitable to those who shouldn't be there in the first place; just as the laws passed in Oklahoma a few years back, this is a good thing.
How much better shape would Mexico be in if they had another 30 million workers there, stimulating its economy? How much better would employment opportunities be here if there were 30 million fewer potential employees, many of whom skirt labor laws? This is win-win! Each nationality lives and works in their own country, and we visit each others' countries on vacation. It works well for Canada - why wouldn't it work with Mexico?
The Spiraling Inanity of Reality TV
The Real World started it, Survivor perfected it, and many, many other have followed it. I don't know that 2010 was the year when this “jumped the shark,” but it certainly continued down the trail. It appears that script writing is becoming a lost art, except on cable channels, where the shows aren't subject to the restrictions of over-the-air TV; basic cable can now be categorized as either sports, news, reruns, niche networks, and train wrecks. A&E has gone from Biography to Billy the Exterminator; History has gone from actual history to current-day shows that may be tangentially-related to history. This probably explains why I've been watching less and less TV that isn't sports or news.
(One notable exception to this are the sitcoms on ABC; this is likely why they are so successful.)
Finally, a ridiculous quote to finish it off, from now-former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi - “But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.”
Tuesday, December 28, 2010
6:28 pm
Daniel J. Summers
Over at House of Eratosthenes, Morgan K. Freeberg puts forth a well-reasoned post called “So Does This Make Me a “Birther”?” In it, he examines the larger issue of the precedent set by this particular issue not being resolved for over two (nay, four) years. After the original post, he updated it with noticing how everything we know about the current President, we know because there is a group of people ready to ridicule us if we say we don't know it. For example:
He is a Christian and not a Muslim. Now, I really don't care about this one way or the other. But how do I know He's a Christian? Because He went to Jeremiah Wright's church, of course! But of course that would mean He's also an anti-white bigot. But no. He went to Jeremiah Wright's church for twenty years to listen to all the Christian-ish sermons… but was snoozing through all the America-bashing sermons. Yes to Christianity, no to America-hating, because Obama was coincidentally tuning out at all the right times. Again, how do I “know” this? Because someone's ready to ridicule me if I believe anything different. I don't have any other reason to “know” such a thing. None.
Read the whole thing. Whether you're a birther, you think the birthers are loony, or you've just resigned yourself to the fact that it's not going to be resolved (myself in that latter category), the points made in his post are important. Shouldn't the CINC have to show the same proof of eligibility as those he commands?
Monday, December 27, 2010
7:55 pm
Daniel J. Summers
On the suggestion of a friend, I subscribed to the Daily Audio Bible (DAB) podcast. In this podcast, Brian Hardin reads the Bible through each year - 2010 is the fifth year. It's been a blessing to me to listen to God's Word, as well as enjoy some of his comments as well. (I'll have to own up to skipping a good bit of the commentary, especially when I was trying to catch up a few days.) It was great to be able to listen while I did other things; however, this was a mixed blessing. I found that I would sometimes get distracted with the “other” thing that I was doing, and would mentally check out of the podcast. During one of these distracted times, I felt the Lord telling me that it was time to take the next step.
For this reason, beginning 2 Jan 10, I'll be beginning a 52-week Bible reading plan, reading it the old-fashioned way, off words printed on paper. My main Christmas gift this year was an ESV Study Bible, and this will help put that to good use. One of the aspects of DAB that I liked was the community; I knew that, although I might be the only one listening to my computer, there were thousands others that were listening to Brian. Although my participation in that community could be described, at best, as a lurker, it encouraged me to have it there. To help encourage others, I've created a group on Facebook called Read the Bible in 2011. This group will function as a community where we'll encourage each other along this journey. I'd like to invite you, my reader, to join me in this journey. The group is closed, but if you request access, just send me a separate message so I'll know who you are.
While the goal is to read through the Bible in a year, we don't want to go so quickly that we don't have time to stop and listen to what God is trying to tell us in the passage of the day. So, the stated goal of reading through the Bible in 2011 is not really the goal; it is merely the means to the greater goal of allowing God to speak to us. I'm looking forward to it - won't you join me?
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
8:10 pm
Daniel J. Summers
(Disclaimer: The President, as Commander in Chief, can set whatever policies he desires. Congress, as the body that creates law, can create whatever laws its members want. Nothing you may read below is targeted at any particular officeholder; it is my analysis of this policy. Furthermore, this analysis represents my personal analysis, and should not be construed to be official policy of any governmental entity. Feel free to comment; however, any comments that are derogatory to me personally or groups in general, either here or on Facebook, will be deleted without comment - stick with the issues or stay silent.)
Well, it looks like Wednesday is the day. What has passed Congress, and will be signed by the President, repeals the 1993 law mandating that homosexuals could serve in the military, provided they did not reveal their sexual orientation. This doesn't mean that tomorrow is the military's “coming out” day or anything; it simply means that the 1993 law is gone. It appears, though, that there is significant political pressure from the top down to somehow integrate a path to allow openly gay servicemembers in the United States military. I have a problem with this. Well, I actually have several problems with this.
1. Open shower bays must be replaced.
The reason male and female military members do not shower together is self-evident. While there are many things military members are asked to sacrifice, the indignity of showering with someone who considers you a potential sexual partner has not been one of those sacrifices. If this goes through, that changes. I would think that military spouses would be all over this for that very reason. Maybe they are, but nobody has asked them. I don't know if female members feel this way, but I know that this male does. The way the male mind thinks about sex cannot be discounted; as one of the three major drives of humans, it cannot be ignored. Men are more forward, and are more apt to make passes at the object of their desire. Putting heterosexuals in this position is something the military should not do. It happens - I can attest from personal experience. However, I have yet to have that experience as a military member.
Open dorm bays present similar problems, but not nearly the magnitude of the showers. The entire living condition thing should be addressed, but IMO, the showers are the biggest deal.
2. Homosexuality, like it or not, is a security risk.
Part of being in the military requires a security clearance. The existence of anything over which one could be blackmailed (excessive debt, arrests, etc.) is a huge red flag. Even gays who are “out” may not be completely out - there may be people that they have refrained from telling (for whatever reason - doesn't really matter). Even with openly homosexual military members allowed, there may be closeted gays, due to the social stigma. This is something over which they can be blackmailed. Allowing known security risks to appease a social agenda is not a choice that a nation that's serious about it's survival makes. (Of course, this is the same government that's staged the largest “security theater” in history - but I digress.)
3. Homosexuals have a higher incidence of HIV than heterosexuals.
A politically-incorrect truth, but truth nonetheless. The military teaches first aid as a part of normal pre-deployment training, and it's quite useful. In addition to all the other battlefield risks, now we would be exposing servicemembers to the potential of acquiring HIV in the course of saving their buddy's life. Either that, or HIV becomes a non-deployable condition - and, if you're not deployable, today's military doesn't want you. However, there are rules in place preventing dismissal due to medical conditions - how's that lawsuit going to go, the first time a gay military member is discharged for contracting HIV?
4. The military is not a place for social experimentation.
Using the military for social experiments is certainly popular. To what other group of people can you give moderately-nonsensical orders, and have them do their best to carry them out? However, this argument remains, in spite of how many are tried before. It doesn't matter to me how many other nations allow openly gay members - isn't the United States military supposed to be better than all the other militaries in the world? Doing something just because some other military does it is ridiculous; when it doesn't pertain to something that will actually help us win wars, it's doubly so. I do not, for the life of me, understand the left's fascination with Europe. We've kicked the butt of every European country we've fought! Why are we trying to emulate them?
But back to the social experiment. I am absolutely convinced that this is a back door (pardon the pun) for gay marriage. Why? Because it's a slippery slope (and, despite those who scoff at slippery slopes, they do exist, and this is a big one). Gay servicemembers will want dependent privileges for their significant others. They can do this either by recognizing a same-sex “spouse”, or by allowing servicemembers to designate a person to receive benefits in lieu of a spouse (let's call them ILOS). If it's the former, there's a whole “The military does it!” chorus; if it's the latter, that will lead to even more expense, with uncertainty for the ILOS. Either way, it's a losing proposition.
5. Military service is a privilege, not a right.
There are many reasons someone may be disqualified from military service - why is homosexuality different? Over 10 times the number who have been discharged for homosexuality, on average, are discharged due to weight. For non-combat positions, who cares? Obviously, the military does - you can be the best at your job, but if you can't meet this standard, they'll be happy to have you as a contractor. Military standards have been developed over centuries, and represent what is necessary to defend our nation. I have yet to see the warfighting case for allowing openly gay servicemembers. The military isn't fair; fair doesn't win wars.
6. Many people find homosexuality morally abhorrent.
I guess I'm just all kinds of politically incorrect on this one. However, I know I speak for myself and lots of other people when I say that I do not want my children around homosexual couples. Am I going to have to keep them from the bowling alley, the commissary, the exchange? Where does a military member's right to free exercise of religion end and another's right to free expression begin? Furthermore, I can tell you that just like I can't make somebody a Christian by taking them to church, you will not change my mind on this, even if I'm assigned to an otherwise-gay organization. I have this quaint belief that words mean things, and when my God calls it an abomination, I'm pretty clear about what He means.
Going into this without addressing these (and other) concerns would be foolhardy at best. Even with these concerns addressed, this is simply not a priority, not important, and will not help us defend this nation. The lawsuits alone will wreak havoc on the military. The military knows what sort of people it needs to accomplish its mission, and it should be free to define those parameters without regard to whose feelings get hurt. Since when is the military supposed to care about feelings, anyway?
So where does this leave us? Remember, as I said above under #4, the military will do their best to carry out the orders and still do their job. That's how we roll. I hope these speed bumps don't slow our rolling too much.
Saturday, December 18, 2010
1:05 am
Daniel J. Summers
As most of you know, this past two weeks have been quite an experience. We were supposed to leave for a trip home, visiting Dollywood, seeing family and friends, and in short, having an actual vacation. That's not how it went down…
Wednesday evening, having gotten our vehicle completely loaded, we sat down to eat. Michelle had cream of chicken soup, and when she was through, she said that she felt a little off. About a half hour later, she was having abdominal pain so severe that it was making her black out if she tried to get up out of bed. She called a specialist who was familiar with her history, and he said that it sounded like she needed to go to the ER with a suspected a gall bladder problem. She also had a hernia that she's had since our third son Jameson was born; she had been consulting with this specialist to have it fixed January/February of next year. At the ER, they ruled out a blockage in this hernia and gall bladder problems, and it looked like we may have been sent home. Michelle asked the ER doctor to talk with her specialist, and once he did, she was admitted. The next morning, this specialist evaluated her, and said that the hernia had become incarcerated; it wasn't blocked, but blood flow had been cut off to it, and the intestines were starting to die. This hernia repair became a 4-hour, 15-minute emergency surgery, followed by a day in ICU, two days in a step-down unit, and four days in the standard post-surgical inpatient unit.
Although this situation was scary at times, there is a whole lot more about which we can be thankful. For the balance of this post, I'd like to take some time to, as the old hymn says, “count my blessings.”
First, look at all the good things dealing with the timing of this. Praise the Lord we were here in Albuquerque, and not somewhere on I-40. It is highly unlikely that the diagnosis would have been made, and surgery performed, were we not where Michelle's history was already known. Even if they had, the week-long hospital stay in some unknown town would have been difficult; as it was, we were able to use our home, and rely on our network of friends here for support (more about them next). Michelle's specialist, who made the correct diagnosis, is only in Albuquerque once a month, but he was here that night; we found out later that he actually stayed over an extra day to do this surgery. Also, a surgeon whom he trained as a resident (and called his “star pupil”) is the director of surgery at Lovelace hospital here in town; he and she both were able to work together on the surgery. And, while we knew this surgery was coming, the fact that it had to be done as emergency surgery means that it's automatically covered; no paperwork hassles and waiting for referrals! I had already lined up time off from work, so I wasn't expected to be there.
Second, I'm exceedingly grateful to my friends here in Albuquerque. I won't name them all publicly because I haven't asked their permission, but there were many families that came together to help take care of our children (even offering for them to spend the night, which never did materialize). There were also many other families that made meals for us, bringing us so much food that we were able to get at least 2 meals out of each one. Phone calls, visits, and e-mails of support also helped Michelle and me during this time. Finally, prayer - I know that the one thing that has made the difference in this situation was the intercessory prayer on Michelle's behalf, and prayers for me as I was working through everything else. During the entire time, I was never worried; I had a peace that the doctors were going to figure it out, and we were going to be OK. While I try not to let on too much, that mindset is pretty rare for me when facing medical situations - my mind wants to go off and worry about these worst-case scenarios, rather than trust God in the scenario in which He's placed me. As I put prayer requests out via Twitter (more on that below), we often saw near-immediate change in situations. Both Michelle and I are very grateful for those of you who lifted us up in prayer.
Third, special thanks go to our families. From the time they heard about what was going on, the planning was continuous. Everyone worked together, and the children were able to still get to go visit them. Thanks to our families, they were even able to spend a few days at our vacation condo in Pigeon Forge and meet up with friends with whom we were going to be vacationing. Having the children safely with grandparents, I was free to focus on Michelle, and helping her during her stay in the hospital. It's also helped her to be able to focus on her recovery now that she's at home. The children will be coming home soon (in time for Christmas), and we're really looking forward to seeing them.
Fourth, Twitter was great. Sure, it may seem strange to offer thanks for a social networking site, but Twitter really helped me during this time. Facebook would have seemed to be the solution for keeping people informed, but Michelle has friends, and I have friends, and some of those cross, but some don't. Since you have to be friends to see updates, I would have had to have double-posted. (I don't even know if the Facebook client on our phones lets you easily manage dual accounts; and while I've boasted about Seesmic Web's ability to dual-post to Twitter and Facebook at the same time, Seesmic for BlackBerry doesn't support Facebook.) Twitter, being public by default, was what I needed. I didn't need to give the same update by phone 14 times, and I didn't need to fiddle with changing settings. “Pull up the box, type my 140 characters or less, and press send” was much easier for providing up-to-date information to people who wanted to know it. There was a little resistance from some folks, but once I reassured them that my profile page was a simple web page with no account needed, they got it. I'm now grateful for the micro-blogging platform I scorned for so long.
Finally, I want to praise the Lord for this outcome. Although it wasn't our timing, God knew when this hernia needed to be repaired. It's been hanging around (pardon the pun) for nearly six years - the fact that it's in the past, even now, I don't think has truly sunk in yet. The doctors who needed to be here were here. We avoided the disaster of being sent home from the ER with the problem unresolved. While, obviously, Michelle isn't completely healed from surgery this extensive in two weeks, her healing progress has been in line with what the doctors have expected; this isn't an exercise in “speed-healing.” Looking back, we can see how everything worked together to ensure this bad situation had a good outcome. Thank you, Lord.
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
9:21 pm
Daniel J. Summers
Here a while back, I had tried to get to Inbox Zero, and succeeded for a while. However, things happen, and with multiple inboxes, Inbox Zero was a memory. While I've been at the hospital with Michelle, while she rests, I've used tools provided as part of Gmail to integrate my personal and two business e-mail accounts, as well as my Gmail account, which I started using a few months ago as my primary e-mail address.
Before we dig in, let's talk about Inbox Zero. It's basically Getting Things Done applied to e-mail. In GTD, you collect everything that's on your mind (which an e-mail inbox does by default). Once you have all these loose ends collected, you “process” them - you either deal with it (if 2 minutes or less will do it), defer it (which can involve prioritizing), or delegate it. E-mail “processing” is different from what we usually do when we sit down to an inbox with 400 message, 285 unread, looking for subject lines with things to which we can respond in the short time we have. Processing's goal is an empty inbox; to look at every thing and make some decision with it. This brings clarity, because a good bit of the noise will be quieted. Then, when you have time to “do” e-mail, you start with your highest priority, and work your way down. (Of course, there's a little more to it - I just summarized an entire book in a few sentences.)
Here's a screenshot, to prove that I got there. :) It also illustrates how Gmail can help you get there and stay there - labels, conversations, filters, and search.
The first is labels. Within Gmail, messages can have one or more labels; in fact, “Inbox” is a label as well. This allows messages to be identified with the topics addressed, as well as a priority. “1 | Pending”, “2 | Follow-Up”, and “Scouting” are labels in the image above. There is an experimental feature (that seems to work well) that shows or hides the labels in that list based on whether there are any unread conversations in that label. Labels are displayed in alphabetical order, so starting the priority labels with a number sends them to the top of the list. With an e-mail folder (or a file folder), you can't file something in more than one place at a time. However, with labels, you can have a single message labeled with several labels; in fact, one of the messages in “1 | Pending” is also the unread message in “Scouting”. Using read/unread as a status is a help, too; of course I've read the e-mail, but by marking it as new after I had applied the labels to it, it increments the number beside the label in the list (and makes the label show). I can then “archive” it (remove it from the inbox), and I have a reminder of what I need to do.
The second is conversations. Gmail groups all e-mail communications into conversations, and sent and received messages are stored together. This means that you don't have to go plowing through your “Sent” folder to find the message; assuming you labeled it, the entire back-and-forth e-mail exchange is right there in that label's list of messages. It works great for mailing lists, personal e-mails, etc. The only thing I haven't found it working well for is Facebook e-mail notifications; it groups them by subject line, so all the “this-person commented on your status” messages get grouped, and they're not in the order that they are on Facebook. However, that hasn't really bothered me too much.
The third is filters. This is where Gmail would earn its price, if it weren't free. Filters are run against messages as they are received. The most common options I've used in filters is “Skip the Inbox” and “Apply this label” - using those two options, you can make a filter that automatically delivers e-mails to your labels, without you even having to take action to process them! All my daily/weekly e-mails and newsletters are now delivered to “3 | To Review” - the only time I see them is when I say “OK, now I have time to check up on news” and click on the label. I've also created filters for all the ads I've started getting for the sites where I bought that one thing some time ago, and now I get all their ads; I decided against completely deleting them (in case I'm looking to buy something and want to see these e-mail specials), but it's easy to click a label, click “select all”, then click “Delete”. Additionally, if I find myself dealing with the same type of e-mail more than once, I take the do-it-in-two-minutes-or-less route and create a filter for that message; instead of working to get one e-mail done, it's work that will enable future e-mails to be done more quickly.
The fourth is search. How many times have you wanted to “Google” within your e-mail? In Gmail, messages can have any number of labels (or none at all), can be read or unread, starred, etc. In fact, archived with no label is the equivalent of out-of-sight, out-of-mind. However, with their search (you can see the box near the top of the screen shot), you can search all of your messages, including archived message, very quickly. You can also use it to search for e-mails from or to a specific contact. Knowing that search is there can help relieve you of the stress of making sure you apply lots of labels; you can find what you need, when you need it. Want to keep an e-mail? Archive it. You'll never see it until it comes up in a search result and you think “Man, I'm glad I saved that!” Also, searches return conversations, so you have your results in their context.
As a side note, you can also see that, even with one of my accounts that collects zipped database archives every day, I'm only using 4% of my allotted space (near the bottom of the screen shot). This is all my processed e-mail from the past three years, complete with messages I've kept for historical reasons.
The one thing I have yet to do is connect my BlackBerry with this account (Gmail supports IMAP), but that's only because I can't remember my login from a year ago. :) And, because of the Facebook issue I mentioned earlier, I have Facebook e-mails still going in the inbox; once I do connect this account, it will let the BB Facebook app use its integration with the BB inbox. However, these messages are labeled automatically so that I can search that label, then delete my search results.
So, there it is - from chaos with 4 different inboxes to a unified, automatically-filtered organization system in less than two days. The filter and label system are a system I can trust to tell me what the next thing is that I need to do. I even found a feature request for one of my websites while I was processing the imported e-mail, and got it implemented in about 10 minutes. Now I'm ready to GTD!
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
4:20 pm
Daniel J. Summers
This post has grown out of a discussion I had with a friend over on Facebook, regarding the BCS vs. deciding the championship on the field. I said that it wouldn't be too hard to come up with something better, and below is an expansion of the remainder of that comment.
All bowls must occur by January 1st. I'm still undecided about whether playoff contenders still play in a bowl, but I'm leaning toward yes, as this leaves the “season” as close to its current incarnation as possible. Once these final rankings come out, the AP top 16 qualify for the playoffs.
Beginning the weekend after New Year's Day, there will be regional playoffs for the rounds of 16 and 8, then a final four that rotates from year to year; the higher seeds (1-8) go to the regional closest to them that has a spot open. All playoff venues will be NFL facilities, to avoid any team playing on their home field. This would also have to take into consideration teams who make the NFL playoffs, so they won't lose the use of their home field to use for practice. For the South/East, some venues would be the Georgia Dome (Atlanta) or Raymond James Stadium (Tampa); the West could play at Qualcomm Field (San Diego) or Candlestick Park (San Francisco); the Midwest could play at Cowboys Stadium (Dallas), Soldier Field (Chicago), Reliant Stadium (Houston), or Invesco Field (Denver). For the championship, I foresee NFL stadiums bidding for a chance to host the Final 4, similar to the way cities bid on the NCAA basketball Final 4.
The round of 16 would feature the lower seeds on Friday night, and the higher seeds on Saturday; the following week, the winners would play (staggered Friday/Saturday among regions, to maximize TV time). The round of 4 would play lower seeds on Friday, higher seeds on Saturday, with the championship the following Saturday. This will wrap up the college champion by the end of January, in plenty of time for the Super Bowl, which is usually the first or second weekend in February.
So, how would this play out this year? As of this writing, we would have:
West Regional - Qualcomm Stadium, San Diego, CA
Friday - #12 Virginia Tech vs. #5 Stanford
Saturday - #16 Oklahoma State vs. #1 Oregon
South/East Regional - Raymond James Stadium, Tampa, FL
Friday - #9 Boise State vs. #8 Arkansas
Saturday - #15 Missouri vs. #2 Auburn
Midwest Regional 1 - Invesco Field, Denver, CO
Friday - #11 LSU vs #6 Ohio State
Saturday - #13 Nebraska vs. #4 Wisconsin
Midwest Regional 2 - Cowboys Stadium, Dallas, TX
Friday - #16 Oklahoma vs. #7 Michigan State
Saturday - #14 Nevada vs. #3 TCU
I don't really see a whole lot wrong with any of these pairings. Nevada/TCU? LSU/Ohio State? Boise/Arkansas? I don't even follow those schools, but those would be some sweet games. And, throw in a few upsets, and there are some really good college football games in the month of January. Boise State and TCU still get to play for the championship; failing to win your conference championship doesn't necessarily keep you from getting a shot at the national championship. Any of these 16 teams could win the championship, by winning 4 games in a row.
I don't know if we're ready for college teams with records like 18-0 (what Auburn's record would be if they won out - 12 regular season games, 1 conference championship, 1 bowl, and 4 playoff games). But, as a college football fan, I'd sure love to stop hearing about “BCS Busters” year after year. (It would also make Tim Brando and Rece Davis find something else to talk about.)
