It Starts With a Small Favor

One time the boss asked me to sketch a new product concept in our CAD program.  After an hour or so, I'd print out a paper drawing and hand it to him.

After a few weeks he stops by and asks, "How's the project going?"  "What project?"  Apparently the little favor I did, the sketch I provided, was supposed to be /my/ new project.  I was supposed to test it and get it working and make imporvements on it (in between all the other products that customers were paying for).  This wasn't the first time I was expected to be a mind reader, but it was the most egregious example.

My job, as it was explained to me when I started, was to design and order photomasks for a new IC.  I'd also provide notes on the fabrication requirements, both backend and frontend.  After that, it was somebody else's problem.  This was easy work, and I was able to fit in with only a little training.  I had time to devote to professional development, which was lacking.

At one weekly status meeting someone reported a problem with one of the chips I designed.  Suddenly everyone was looking at me.  They expected me to know what was going on and hoped I had devised a solution, Apparently, again, I was supposed to be responsible for all aspects of its manufacturing and testing.  But I wasn't even aware that it started production.  My only response was "I don't know" sung to the tune of "How the hell should I know?"  Again I was faulted for my lack of mind reading skills.

This is how things go in a small company that lacks a mentorship program.  If someone had provided a little guidance and explicit expectations, on day one, I might've developed into the ideal engineer.

Unfortunately, this happens at home, too.  "I want to paint the window sill on the porch.  Can you buy paint for me?" my wife asked last week.  Now she's saying that it's a big job and that she might have to hire someone to help.  So the todo list that she wrote today included, "Help me paint the window sill."  I'm assuming I'll have to do it myself.  But this bothers me because you're always paint the trim last, and the entire porch needs painting.  Not only is she manipulating me into doing the job, she's manipulating me into doing it wrong.

Does this happen to anyone else?  What are your experiences?

Forget MAGA -- Focus on MACFA

I had planned to write another of my silly “Forget MAGA...” posts^{1, 2}. The new post would have called for a focus on MACFA, or Make All Commodes Flush Again. This was something that Trump himself promised he would do.

But when I looked for background material and sources, I came across a recent Slate article³ that reports on the great progress that was made in low flush (LF) toilets. According to the article, the newest models can flush effectively with as little as 1.28 gallons of water.

I believe it. I can flush my toilets with a two-gallon bucket half filled with water. But the bowls remain nearly empty after that, so I suppose it takes another half gallon to refill the bowl.

The article explains that the earliest LF toilets used 1.6 gallons as does my newer fixture. However, they didn’t flush away all the solid waste; Trump himself said the operator had to flush “10 times.” “Not me, of course,” reports say.

So, have we Made All Commodes Flush Again? It would seem so. But I remain skeptical. I’d expect that the gradual accumulation of crap (quite literally) and minerals would reduce the water velocity in a low-flow toilet. And flushing is all about water velocity.

I can recall how well our 1.6 gallon toilet flushed. The water would almost totally disappear the moment I pressed the handle. But now it’s just like any other old-fashioned toilet in which the water rises before anything solid goes down.

When the commode was installed, there was a bumpy patch at the bottom. Now I wonder if the toilet was used or defective and that the bumpy part was scale or corrosion that was painted over.

Earlier today, I used my improvised drain clearer (an old bent coat hanger) to scrape at the entrances to the trap and siphon jet. The toilet flushes much better now. I’ll clean the visible portions with a pumice stone later tonight.

---

¹ Forget MAGA -- Focus on MATA https://ludditegeek.blogspot.com/2025/07/forget-maga-focus-on-mata.html

² Forget MAGA -- Focus on MEGA https://ludditegeek.blogspot.com/2025/07/forget-maga-focus-on-mega.html

³ https://slate.com/technology/2025/02/toilets-low-flow-trump-environment-cost-savings.html

Forget MAGA -- Focus on MATA

Have you noticed that towels don’t seem to absorb water any more?  Pick up a cold drink from the countertop and try to wipe away the ring of water.  What happens?  You smear the water across the surface.  My wife and I complain all the time about how modern towels can’t absorb water.

Bath towels that are heavy, plush and soft bother me.  These are the towels that seem to be least absorbent.  They’re so thick, I can’t get them into narrow places, such as behind my ears.  And they’re heavy so it takes effort to pick one up and move it around, so I end up working up a sweat.  Such towels are good for:

• decorating
• lining the dog bed
• gifting to people whom you don’t really like

My preference is a cheap, plain, white, 100% cotton towel that I can wash in hot water to get out all the oils that prevent absorption.  I like them because they're light weight and a bit scratchy.  And they absorb really well.

I don't use fabric softener because it coats the towel with a film that repels water.  See for yourself.  Lay a towel on a flat surface and drip water onto it.  The water will form a bead, then a puddle, indicating the towel is hydrophobic.¹

Advice abounds on the Internet about not using fabric softener on bath towels.² I see the same advice even on the bottles of fabric softener itself as shown below. (Note that most towels are made from terry cloth.³)

I’m convinced that if we just had towels that can absorb water, we will make America great again.

So, MATA -- Make Absorbent Towels Again!

---

¹ https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hydrophobic
² https://duckduckgo.com/?q=why+no+fabric+softener+on+some+clothes&ia=web
³ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrycloth

Forget MAGA -- Focus on MEGA

When I was a boy, my shoes and sneakers never wore out.  Sure I would outgrow them when I was in elementary school, but by the time I was a fully-fledged teenager my feet stopped growing, and I wore the same footwear.  In fact, I still can fit into the same shoes, sneakers and boots that I wore in high school.¹  So the only things that needed replacing were the shoelaces.

Remember how shoelaces broke?  I do.  It would be a big inconvenience.  It would happen just as I was getting ready to leave the house to go somewhere important, not when I was stepping outside just to kick or throw some ball around.

These days I never have to replace the laces.  Why is that?  Are laces now made from a superior material?  Perhaps.

But perhaps not.  I think the reason is that the shoes would break before the laces did.  Right?  Have you noticed that sneakers don't have eyelets anymore?  They don't even have holes for the laces!  Instead, they have a loop of slightly elastic fabric through which to pass the laces.  What flimsy garbage!

I'm convinced that if we bring eyelets back, we will make America great again.

So, MEGA -- Make Eyelets Great Again!

¹ I have/had a pair of hiking boots that I wore every day in high school.  (I imagined that I was Aragon; in fact I almost bought a cloak.)  Thirty to forty years later I'd wear these boots occasionally.  The "have/had" arises from a recent purging my wife did of "all this old stuff on the porch."

High Blood Pressure vs. Computer Use -- Correlation?

Tonight I prepared for a 7:20AM fasting blood draw. Here’s how.

I have an outstanding balance with the lab, so I decide to pay it online and add a record to my database of paid medical balances.

I fire up my brand new laptop and navigate to the lab’s patient portal to accesse my account.

But before I pay any medical bill, I always verify that the balance does not exceed the Patient Responsibility as determined on the Insurance Provider’s Explanation of Benefits (EOB). So I also go to the insurance company website. While at the login prompt, I open my password manager to get the password for the site.

Unfortunately, the site rejects the username / password combination. The password had been created in 2018, so it must have expired.

At this point I could just reset the password. But then I would need to update both my work computer and the old computer. So I decide to start up my old, slow laptop and check the password manager on that computer. But the password manager offers the same old password for that site.

That’s not a problem. All I have to do is open Chrome, in which I save nearly all my passwords. But Chrome is running extremely slowly; seconds turn into minutes, so I take a break to feed the animals.

After I feed the animals, Chrome finally is loaded, and I find the new password in its password manager. I write that down on the invoice and transfer it over to the new computer via “SneakerNet.”

And this is where things spiraled into high blood pressure territory. The insurance company decided it was time to do maintenance on its website; it refused to display the login page any more!

I decide to call the insurance company, which is open after hours and also a few time zones behind me. Hold times are long. “Of course they are,” I told myself. “No one can log into the website!”

Finally, an agent picks up. “Hi, I just wanted to verify a Patient Responsibility – I can’t get into the website to do it.” The agent says, “I’m sorry but I can’t get that for you -- our computers are down. But they’ll be back up tomorrow morning.” “Oh, you too, huh?”

So then I decide that I’d just pay the darn balance. I’d rather pay online and download a receipt for my records than pay in person and get a paper receipt.

I switch tabs back to the lab’s invoice of my previous blood draw, the one I need to pay. But the information is gone – too much time had elapsed! So I’m required to re-enter the account details. I do that, and I’m able to transact the payment easily.

Next, I want to enter a record of the transaction in my database. I have a flat file database implemented in spreadsheet form with LibreOffice’s Calc. A brand new installation of LibreOffice, it loads quickly. Unfortunately the links to all my receipts and EOBs are showing up as #NAME. Now what?

It takes a while, but I figure out that I use =CELL(“FILENAME”, $A$1) to obtain the spreadsheet’s full path and file name. And then I use a home made function LG_GetPath() to strip away the spreadsheet’s file name and extension, returning a string that contains just the drive letter and directory. It’s this string (CWD) that prefaces all the links to the receipts and EOBs.

I go back to the old computer, open the Macro Editor, export the module, email it to myself (in case I can’t get it through the home network) and enter it into the LibreOffice installation on my new computer.

Finally I’m able to enter a record of the bill payment, the last step of my procedure for paying medical bills.

How long did this take? I recall that I finished feeding the cats at about 6:30PM and that I was able to finish my supper at 7:30Pm (thereby reducing the 12 hour fast to eleven-and-change). Given that it took me at least 15 minutes to eat, the process took nearly 45 minutes.

But from the way my heart was beating and the arteries throbbing in my neck, I’d say the time that was wasted was secondary to the increase in blood pressure.

And now, exactly eleven hours before tomorrow morning’s fasting blood draw, I’m quaffing the dregs of a Murphy’s Irish Stout.

We do not need medication to control blood pressure; we need new lives.

Air Conditioning

I used to get head colds and sinus infections in Winter.  But now, thanks to modern air conditioning, I can  suffer from them in Summer, too.

Traffic Light Improvements For the Age of Mobile Communications

I have an issue with traffic lights.

When I'm stuck right behind an inattentive driver at a red light, I get annoyed when the driver doesn't go right after the light turns green.  I get infuriated when the driver waits so long to go that the light turns back to red again before I can get across the intersection.

That's pretty much the only time I use the horn.  And it occurred to me that the traffic light itself should be equipped with its own horn.  It would beep whenever it turns green, relieving other drivers of the effort of doing so.

Inattentive drivers annoy me even when I'm not behind them.  When they remain stopped at a green light while I'm at the red light for the crossing traffic, they cause the signal to take longer to cycle.  The light stays green longer for them and stays red longer for me.  I say aloud, “Go already, so I don't have to stay here forever!”

A few towns have installed traffic light cameras, which take a picture of the license plates of cars that go through red lights.  But I say that these cameras should be used to monitor the faces of drivers who wait at red lights.  Face recognition would be used to determine whether the driver is paying attention to the light, or whether they are reading e-mail or texting.  The light would stay red until the driver's gaze was focused on driving.

What do you think about this?

Excel Hyperlinks -- Relative vs. Absolute Path

I rarely insert hyperlinks into an Excel spreadsheet.  So every time I do, I get burned by Excel's predilection for turning Absolute paths into Relative paths.

Here's the scenario...

I'll use Excel to create a flat file database on my local hard drive.  I'll include links to the file server on the network using UNC paths, such as \\File-Server\Share-Name\Path2File\MyFile.ext.  (The Ctrl-k keystroke is really handy for creating hyperlinks, BTW.)

After building the table by adding fields in columns, adding formatting, and entering a few records in rows for testing, I'll consider the database to be production ready.  At this point I'll upload it to the same file server that my links point to.

The next time a user opens the network version of that spreadsheet, Excel will convert those carefully-entered absolute links to relative links.  So if the spreadsheet resides in \\File-Server\NewShare\Reports\Databases\LG.xls, the links to MyFile.ext turn into this: ..\..\..\Share-Name\Path2File\MyFile.ext.  They work just fine while the spreadsheet remains in that location.

But suppose the user saves the database and then e-mails it someone else in the organization, or copies it to his or her local hard drive.  The links are broken.  Furthermore, there's no easy way to fix them.  Search and Replace (Ctrl-h) won't find the ..\..\..\ in the hyperlinks.  You'll have to either fix them manually or write a program to do it.  And then the same thing could happen again, anyway.

But there is (thankfully) a trick to keep Excel from bastardizing your carefully designed links.  But it's a preventive measure -- you have to know about the trick before you get stuck with the link conversion.

The trick is to open the File Properties dialog.  Choose the Summary tab and enter C:\ in the text box next to the label that reads "Hyperlink base:".  Be sure to OK your way out and save.  These instructions are for Excel 2000 and 2003.  Later versions probably have the same properties dialog, but the way to open it might be different.

Really, it's best to do this before entering any hyperlinks.  Ideally, Excel would have an Option for this.  But alas, all I could find was a checkbox to enable Excel to prompt for workbook properties.

Hopefully, by writing this post, I've seared this information into my brain so that the next time I'm tempted to enter a hyperlink, I'll remember to set this property.

Hmmm, it just occurred to me to code this property using VBA....

Outlook 2010 Macros -- Adventures in Getting Them to Work

In a post that included Outlook VBA code, I mentioned that I stopped using the macro because of Outlook's tougher security.

Today, I decided to try to eliminate the main problem that I had, namely an inability to run the macro except from within the VBA Project IDE.

Here's the scenario:  I have code that worked on Outlook 2000.  I assigned a toolbar button to call it.  But the toolbar button doesn't work in Outlook 2010.  Nothing happens.  Pressing Alt-F8 and clicking Run opens the VBA macro in the IDE and displays an error "Subroutine or Function not found" (paraphrased).  But then I can run the macro by clicking the play button.

One aspect of my solution was to make sure macros were not being disabled.  I choose to self-sign the macro rather than enable all macros.  First I used SelfCert.exe, which I found in the Outlook program directory (C:\Program Files\Microsoft Office\Office14).  SelfCert.exe can be used to create personal certificate -- it would work for me on my local computer.  After I created the certificate, I signed the macro (Tools | Digital Signatures | Choose).  After clicking OK, I immediately pressed Ctrl-sto save the macro.  And then I closed Outlook.  But when I did, it asked me whether I wanted to save VbaProject.OTM.  Odd.  First I responded No.  But when I reopened the VBA editor and checked for digital signatures, it reported that the macro was unsigned.  But answering Yes to the prompt to save didn't help either.  The macro still wasn't signed.

I wondered if the Read Only attribute had been set on VbaProject.OTM.  But no, I had Full Control rights on the file.  Yet, the file's timestamp was old!  It wasn't getting saved!  Ahh, but the old timestamp was a trick, an undocumented "feature".  According to this support thread, it was normal for the timestamp and file size of VbaProject.OTM to remain unchanged after a save.  (This is why the phrase "WTF?" was invented.)  I verified that the save was taking place by adding a comment to my code, saving, closing Outlook and then re-opening the macro.

After that little detour, I found that it was necessary for me to install the certificate in the "Trusted Root Certification Authorities."  This can be done deep within the bowels of the VBA editor.  Tools | Digital Signatures | Choose.  Click the link that says "Click here to view the certificate prope..."  Click the button "Install Certificate..." then Next.  In the next dialog box, click the radio button for "Place all certificates in the following store" then Browse.  Select "Trusted Root Certification Authorities" and then OK / Next your way out.  Save and close Outlook again.

BTW, every time you close Outlook, you should use Task Manager to verify that the Outlook process is not running.

Still the macro would not run except from within the editor.  But I found the solution in another thread.  My code was in a module.  After I moved it to ThisOutlookSession, I was able to assign an actual functioning toolbar button to it.

Whew!

It is very nice that even though I have other macros working that access the From and To properties of a message, I no longer get the annoying message box that warns me that my address book is being accessed and asks whether I want to allow that.

Blamed For Doing Its Job

The IRS recently was criticized for scrutinizing certain organizations applying for tax free status.  It seems that organizations that had "Tea Party" in their names received extra scrutiny.

First of all, "Tea Party" generally refers to a political organization.  And the fact is that political organizations are not entitled to tax free status.

Second, "Tea Party" is a reference to a revolt conducted by vandals who were opposed to paying taxes.

So these critics are essentially saying that an organization whose name implies that it's political in nature and opposed to taxes should not be scrutinized when it applies for tax free status?

Huh?

Recalculating

I bought the GPS about one month before driving my family to Washington DC.  In order to get used to it, I would use it on my work commute.  I quickly discovered that it had an undesirable habit of choosing congested roads with many traffic lights.

It didn't seem to matter whether I choose Shortest Route, or Quickest Route.  It was oblivious to the Avoid Highways setting.  Even the intriguing Econo-Route setting made no difference.  It was stuck on an undocumented mode I call "Maximize Encounters with Red Traffic Lights."  And where I drive, at least every 1 of 4 traffic lights will be red on any given commute.  If you know how many traffic lights (L) are on the route, you can get a realistic arrival time (if you obey the speed limit) by adding this many minutes to the arrival time the GPS claims: T = 0.5 * L.  My meager 10-mile commute to work features an amazing 21 traffic lights and is ten minutes shorter at 3am when most lights are either green or disabled.

And unlike Monty Python's Flying Circus, I hate traffic lights, even when they're green.  Because a green light is one that is bound to turn red just as you get to it.  Of course anyone who has read my rant on traffic lights (and the follow up post) knows where I stand.

More on Traffic Lights

I was too tired to continue my previous post. So I'll add some comments here in a new post.

I wrote:

If the number of cars on the main road is so great that you need to interrupt the flow in order to let yet more cars on it, you're contributing to yet more traffic congestion.

Actually, about 16 years ago, traffic lights were introduced on entrance ramps to the Long Island Expressway. The idea was to prevent cars from entering the highway during rush hour. That demonstrates an appropriate use of traffic lights -- to improve the flow of traffic rather than to impede it.

I wrote:

It's inefficient to force several cars to stop for the sake of one or two cars that are already stopped. Forcing a car to stop and then accelerate back up to cruising speed is a significant waste of gas. In fact every time a driver applies the brake, he or she "throws away" the fuel that was used to accelerate the car. And acceleration is what uses the most fuel.

And...

Many of these intersections are so small that when cars turn onto them from the main road, the cars trigger the Hall effect sensor that causes the light to cycle. Thus, the light turns red for those who navigate the main road even when there's no car to yield to! More waste!

You can solve both problems simply by installing (or moving) the sensors farther back from the intersection and decreasing the sensitivity. That way the light won't cycle unless there are a few cars queued up. It might be a good idea to change the mode to blinking red-yellow during non-peak hours to allow cars to enter the main roadway whenever it's clear, but then have the light switch to give the right-of-way to the smaller roadway when enough cars are waiting.

I can imagine the day when every intersection will have a traffic light. Hopefully I'll be dead by then. Or perhaps traffic lights will be part of a Intelligent Vehicle System that's designed to route traffic for maximum efficiency. Lights will be used to tell motorists when it's safe to enter the intersection rather than stop other cars to allow them to enter.

The Problem With Traffic Lights

"'See, I can time them perfectly,' the [traffic] light said with satisfaction. 'I get hundreds of them each day. No one gets through my intersection without paying his tax in gas and rubber.'"

"'Go blow a bulb!' the car growled at the light.

"'Go soak your horn!' the light flashed back."

- from pages 187 to 188 of "Centaur Aisle," by Piers Anthony

I've had this quote in my "Quote du Jour" for several weeks, ready for the day I finally rant about traffic lights.

In my town, traffic lights are installed indiscriminately as a feeble response to town growth. The rich folks flock to buy McMansions in new developments. Then they complain that they can't get onto the main road without waiting a minute or two for a break in the traffic. So up goes yet another traffic light.

There are intersections where traffic lights are needed, such where two main highways intersect.

But why install one at a "T" intersection on a busy main road for a tiny side street? Here's why it's not a good idea:

• If the number of cars on the main road is so great that you need to interrupt the flow in order to let yet more cars on it, you're contributing to yet more traffic congestion.
• It's inefficient to force several cars to stop for the sake of one or two cars that are already stopped. Forcing a car to stop and then accelerate back up to cruising speed is a significant waste of gas. In fact every time a driver applies the brake, he or she "throws away" the fuel that was used to accelerate the car. And acceleration is what uses the most fuel.
• Many of these intersections are so small that when cars turn onto them from the main road, the cars trigger the Hall effect sensor that causes the light to cycle. Thus, the light turns red for those who navigate the main road even when there's no car to yield to! More waste!
• Finally, traffic lights waste electrical power all day and night. In fact, they remain powered up even in the wee hours of the morning when no one needs them. At night they're so bright you could read a large-print book under them. Why not reduce the light intensity after dark and save money? True, some lights are set to blink red-yellow, and thus they require half the electricity to light the lamps. But the controllers that run them also waste electricity. So just shut them down completely and get that power consumption down to zero. Drivers know anyway to stop before they enter a main road in the absence of traffic control.
  

The True Meaning of Christmas

It finally clicked in me -- the True Meaning of Christmas.

It was when I heard the Christmas story retold for the fourteenth consecutive time, at last night's Family Christmas Eve service, at our local church. The Pastor had read Luke's Gospel, and then he expounded on it.

He started by describing Luke 2:1-7 in more detail. The reason that Jesus, Mary and Joseph were staying in a stable is that there was no room at the inn. That I've known since I was a child, but nothing more.

The rest of it needs to be appreciated against a backdrop of adult experiences. The child I was did not bother to wonder why they needed to find an inn.

The Pastor explained that Joseph needed to haul himself (and the pregnant woman he was engaged to) 80 miles, by foot, from his home in Nazareth back to Bethlehem in order to be counted in the census. So he could be taxed.

That's my wife and me, Joseph and Mary. Not only do we have to undertake some pain-in-the-ass journey for some poorly-planned government bullshit, we have to do it when we're about to give birth. All for the ultimate pleasure of paying taxes. This is jury duty on a Grand Scale.

To make the story more interesting, Joseph is caring for a woman whose child she carries is not even his.

And this is the way the Universe works. Even God's Children cannot escape suffering the idiocy that this world has to offer.

Cell Phone Angst

What is it that spurs people to get a cell phone? In our case, it was separation anxiety. More precisely, it was my wife's concern over losing our daughter to School.

As the dutiful family provider, I made sure that this new vital piece of technology was in our hands and working properly before the first day of school.

And I did a great job. I had come across a great online deal from AT&T Wireless back in 2001. I ordered the phone and service sometime during Labor Day weekend and received the phone on Tuesday. I was impressed with this ... er ... impressive service.

The only problem was that AT&T didn't own any base stations in our area. Nor did they have any stores nearby. And customer service was reluctant to give us the address of the nearest base station, perhaps as a security policy. So activating the phone was tricky. Eventually, I drove through various towns until I happened to cross into home territory. When the phone finally connected, it registered itself on the network, and I was able to use it.

The phone worked extremely well in our home, and I saved lots of money on long distance by using the cell phone instead of the land line. I liked the idea of calling my wife from the supermarket to ask her whether Land-o-Lakes Swiss Cheese would be okay to substitute for Finlandia Swiss. Unfortunately, there was no signal at our daughter's school and at our church.

The phone's battery out-lasted the contract, but it did fail. Rather than buy a new phone or get an upgrade, I canceled the service and got a new plan, along with a new free phone. Even though the separation anxiety was gone, the cell phone had become indispensable, at least to my wife.

Eventually, AT&T was forced to give up its wireless service. SBC's Cingular service took over. By then our contract had already expired. But we continued with the new phone and the same service on a month-to-month basis.

By this time, my wife was using the phone as a pager for her new on-call job. She was not hesitant to point out its short-comings, the biggest of which was that she couldn't get a signal inside certain buildings. But it gave her some freedom away from home and allowed her to respond to work calls while gardening or walking the dog.

One day in May, her work place complained that when they called the cell phone, they got a message that the number was not in service. When I called Cingular, they traced the problem to a billing issue. Specifically, the credit card that they were charging to every month had expired. Rather than notify us, they did the sensible thing and shutdown the service. (That's sarcasm, BTW.) After I pointed out that they should've called us before shutting off the service (which is used to provide on-call medical service) I was told that I wouldn't need to pay the $25 reinstatement fee.

So with that behind us and the contract expired, we had only to wait for the battery to fail on this new phone. I was intrigued when Cingular (now owned by AT&T) sent us a upgrade offer. We could replace the phone and increase from 120 to 400 minutes for a one-time fee of only $19.99, probably less than the cost of a new battery. I could see the catch, though. They were hoping the new phone's additional features would cause us to use the service more. The new phone was capable of Internet access and could do IM, both of which require premium service.

It was Independence Day weekend. As I mulled this offer over, my wife's work place called our land line number to tell us that they couldn't connect to the cell phone. Instead of ringing, they would get our voice mailbox, as if the phone was turned off or out-of-range. At first I thought that maybe the voice mailbox was configured to intercept the call. But after navigating the voice mail menus, I couldn't find a problem.

Customer service remarked that there were service problems in our area. They expected that it would be cleared up within 24 hours. But in order to add our account to the list of the ones needing service, I had to give them three phone numbers that failed to ring the cell phone. Well, the work place was One. And our land line was Two. Cingular also tried (and failed) to ring the cell phone. Could they be Three? No. I was supposed to call someone right away and ask them to call me back. On a lovely summer Saturday afternoon. On Independence Day weekend.

The one person I was able to reach directly couldn't actually hear me because of all the noise at the pool. I gave Cingular the number anyway.

After twenty-four hours, the problem still was not fixed. I encouraged my wife to turn her hostility away from me and direct it instead at Cingular. They placated her by telling her it would be fixed on July 5.

On July 5, she called again. This time they explain that the problem is with the phone. It's obsolete. "How old is that thing, anyway?" they ask, oblivious of the fact that they gave it to us less than three years ago. We would need a new phone, and it just so happens that we have an upgrade offer to take advantage of. Isn't that nice? (More sarcasm.)

We complained about the coercive tactics used to get us to upgrade, which pissed off the customer service clerk and got us a reduced upgrade fee. If it were up to me, I'd've canceled the service. But my wife has been brainwashed into thinking that she cannot live without a cell phone.

The new phone, BTW, has only a few ring tones, two wallpaper images, and no free games (other than demos). Of course we're welcome to buy additional content. This is the epitome of progress -- develop new ways of getting more money from the customer.

TaxFreedom Not What it Seems

Last year I discovered a way to file my federal income tax return electronically for free using the online income tax forms on the intriguingly-titled website http://www.taxfreedom.com. (Please see this post.) This year Intuit improved the website to support non-IE browsers. But it also imposed a fee for individual taxpayers whose adjusted gross income is greater than $50,000.00.

This fee seems to flow down from the IRS. It's discussed on their Free File page.

Intuit offers two other options. The first is called "Essentials," which costs $9.95. The second is "Deluxe," which costs $19.95 ($39.95 after March 31.)

Unfortunately, after I filled out the free form and was ready to submit the data, Intuit informed me I'd have to upgrade to the "Deluxe" version. It didn't offer "Essentials" as an option.

I suppose it might have something to do with the complexity of the return. I needed to enter some extra 1099 forms of an unusual nature. And as a home owner, I chose to itemize deductions. I later found out that a $9.95 package can be used only for 1040EZ returns.

Well, I need to use an online service. I have little choice. Microsoft stopped supporting Windows NT 4.0 quite a while ago. As a result, tax preparation software no longer supports Windows NT. And paying an H & R Block moonlighter $200 to enter data into their program is an outrage.

Anyway, good luck with your tax-filing endeavors!

Introducing The Luddite Geek Award for Dubious Design

I was so inspired by reading "The Darwin Awards III: Survival of the Fittest," by Wendy Northcutt, I decided to launch my own award.

But I was even more inspired by the first award winner, the Bissell ProHeat 8910 Series upright carpet cleaner, which I purchased in October.

This machine is compact and economically priced. With the cost of 1/2 day rentals approaching $45, this thing would pay for itself after four uses. It includes an upholstery kit that can also be used on stairs. The website proudly displays the Consumers Digest Best Buy award.

So what's the problem?

The tank-in-tank, which enables the machine to be sleek and compact, is the problem. The tank-in-tank is clever, really. A flexible bladder sits inside a rigid tank. Fill the bladder with clean hot water. It expands when full and slowly shrinks as the water is used up and while waste water is dumped into the rigid tank.

At least, that's what it's supposed to do. Unfortunately, the bladder becomes permanently deformed from hot tap water. Once it's deformed, you need a funnel to fill it because the opening has shrunk. And it can hold only about a quart of water, enough to do about eight square feet.

When I complained about this to their customer service department, I was told that the maximum recommended water temperature is 120 degrees Fahrenheit. (By comparison, our home's hot water runs a bit hotter, because we use a dishwasher and heat our home with hot water. It's set to between 180 and 195 degrees.) I requested a new bladder made from a better heat-resistant material. They didn't have that. I explained that the manual doesn't mention any maximum temperature. (And if you check out the web page, it still says that it "...heats hot tap water up to 25 degrees hotter....") We compromised. I settled with them sending me a new tank-in-tank for free. So I cannot complain about customer service, at least.

Now I still have a bad feeling about the cleaner and the company. I can't help it. How am I supposed to make sure the water I put into the bladder isn't too hot? What troubles me even more is what kind of engineer or product designer would consider 120 degree water to be hot? I guess this is the result of out-sourcing. It was probably designed in some village where the water is heated with camel dung.

Just Say "No"

In one of the "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" works, New York City is described as a place where it's best to answer "No" to three out of every four questions people ask you.* Douglas Adams wrote that back in the early eighties, well before the first "Windows" was released. Yet it applies so well to our modern day Windows operating systems.

Consider what you go through today to install software.

"You must agree to the following End User License Agreement. Blah blah blah... Do you agree?"

"Yes." [Replying no here means you can't install.]

"Would you like to install Active Desktop?"

"No!"

"Would you like to make this your default browser?"

"NO!"

"Would you like to sign up for our mailing list so that we may pester you with annoying HTML emails that contain web tags?"

"NO!!!"

See?

Now that End User License Agreement, or EULA, is a truely annoying thing. The difference between Spyware and "Legitmate" Spyware is that the latter comes with a license agreement that tells you that it monitors your activity and calls home about it. So it's important to at least skim through license agreements before agreeing to them.

And I do. I really do. But it's getting harder to find time to do this, especially since I use many programs that get updated once every few months.

So I was intrigued when I learned about a tool called EULAlyzer (which I first learned about from this CastleCops newsletter article) that "can analyze license agreements in seconds, and provide a detailed listing of potentially interesting words and phrases."

I plan to try it out just as soon as I finish reading its EULA. :)

------------------

* Well, I recently re-read all five books in DNA's HG2G trilogy. I came across the "answer 'no' to three out of every four questions people ask" idea in "So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish". And it takes place in San Francisco, not New York (in which, I suspect, you'd be better off answering no to every seven out of eight questions...), when Arthur and the fetching Fenchurch travel all the way to visit Wonko the Sane. -LG 2006-03-04

Universe 1 - Me 0, or How Not to Upgrade a Hard Drive

Back in the good old days of DOS, upgrading to a larger hard drive was a breeze. All you had to do was this:

1. Physically install the new drive as a slave.
2. Do FDISK to create one or more partitions.
3. FORMAT /SYS the primary partition.
4. FORMAT the extended partitions (if any).
5. Copy all the files from the old drive to the new.
6. Physically swap the drives, setting the new one as master.

The word "reinstall" was not in the vernacular. There was no such thing as a registry.

Windows 95 changed all this for the worse. The upgrade procedure became:

1. Perform a full backup of the hard drive.
2. Physically install the new drive as a master.
3. Insert Windows Setup CD and run it.
4. Install a minimal OS.
5. Install backup/restore software.
6. Perform a restore.

Well, okay the number of steps is the same. But the equipment list grew to include backup software and media, and a Windows Setup CD.

Back in the early days, backup software wasn't robust enough to handle the registry. And the backup / restore process can be as much as one hundred times slower than directly copying from one hard drive to another. So folks just started over from scratch, reinstalling all the applications and then copying data files from the old hard drive.

I suspect this inconvenience is by design. It prevents casual software piracy.

Since Windows 95, Microsoft has released Windows NT, Windows 98, Windows 98 SE, and Windows 2000, which is what I'm using at work. Microsoft has pointedly ignored all these opportunities of making things right.

By now you've guessed that I'm about to rant about my attempt to upgrade my computer's hard drive. You guessed correctly. I was at zero bytes on C:.

I know a little bit about the administrative tools that come with Windows 2000. Disk Manager has some nice features. It allows you to remove, create and extend partitions. You can reformat drives and change drive letters. You can even mirror drives. With all its capabilities, I was sure I'd be able to upgrade the hard drive without agonizing over a backup / restore procedure.

So I wrote a thirteen step procedure that would safely and quickly move three partitions (including the boot partition) from the current disk to a new disk. It looked great. The IT guy nodded enthusiastically. And it worked flawlessly, up until the very last step.

That's the thing that bothers me about the Universe. When it plays tricks on you, it waits until the last possible moment to steal the cheese from the end of your maze. In my case, everything went exceedingly well until it came time for me to create the mirror. You see, Disk Manager will mirror disks or partitions only for the Server version of Windows 2000. Users of Windows 2000 Professional (of which I am one) who wish to create a mirrored set will instead wail and gnash their teeth.

And the thing is is that practically each step in my procedure required a restart of the computer. In two cases, there's even a complete shutdown and power down to reconfigure the disks. Just imagine the time it took for me to get to step thirteen!

But not all is lost, I convinced myself. (Or maybe the Universe convinced me.) A fall-back plan presented itself. Having successfully moved everything over from the other two partitions, I could delete those partitions and extend the boot partition.

I am soooo clever.

Now to use Disk Manager to extend a partition, you first need to convert the partition from a Basic partition to a Dynamic partition. That's because only Dynamic partitions can be extended. The thing is, though, that once you convert a disk / partition to Dynamic, you can't go back.

But why would I need to go back? I proceeded to convert the disk, clicking OK to a rather ominous message about having to live with whatever consequences might arise from doing the conversion because it can't be undone, and "are you really completely sure you want to convert, because it really can't be undone? I really mean it this time, too." And so on. "Oh give me a break," I retorted, rolling my eyes. I am not a wimp.

Still, I was a bit unnerved by that message. There has to be a reason for the grave tone of the warning. I thought about this while waiting for what I thought would be the final restart. I mean, people get paid a lot of money over at Microsoft. They're not going to waste it by writing a grave warnings unless they're really, really warranted, right?

With the restart complete, I logged back on and breathed a sigh of relief. "There, everything's working," I consoled myself. Now to fire up Disk Manager, extend the partition, and bask in the glow of a larger boot partition. Sigh, life is good. I love being clever. I get such a sense of satisfaction knowing that I can work around every conceivable obsta....

What's this? "Extend Partition" is still grayed out. There must be some mistake! It's a Dynamic partition. It says so. Determined not to let the Universe get the better of me, I opened Disk Manager's help file (for the first time) and felt my neck and spine contort as I read the following paragraph from the section titled "To extend a simple or spanned volume":

• You can extend a volume only if it contains no file system or it is formatted using NTFS. You cannot extend volumes formatted using FAT or FAT32.
• You can extend a simple or extended volume only if the volume was created as a dynamic volume. You cannot extend a simple or extended volume that was upgraded from basic to dynamic.
• You cannot extend a system volume or boot volume.

Arrrrrgh! Are they serious? I cannot extend a boot volume?!? What's the point of providing an option to Extend a Partition if it won't work on a boot volume? That's the only kind of partition you'd need to be able to extend!! Arrrrrgh!

I compose myself before heading over to the IT guy, the guy who assured me that I'd be able to extend the partition. After all, if I strangle him, there won't be anyone to backup / restore my hard drive.

"Um, Andy? It says I can't extend boot partitions." "Uh huh. Well, you could use Partition Magic, as long as it's a Basic disk. Partition Magic doesn't work on Dynamic disks."

I was silent. Silent in the manner of someone who's busy containing an exploding mind.

"Um, Andy?" I was surprised at how calm I sounded. "You told me to convert the disk to Dynamic so I could extend it."

I don't remember his response. I wasn't able to hear anything with all that exploding going on in my head.

So I went back into Disk Manager and asked whether it was even remotely possible to undo that little conversion to a Dynamic partition. It would be okay, right? I did only a few hours ago. The paint isn't even dry yet.

That's the Universe you hear laughing.

Then I confirmed that Partition Magic indeed does not work on Dynamic partitions. Actually, I thought it was nice of the Universe to let me confirm that so quickly. I guess It felt sorry for me and decided against letting Partition Magic start up, offer an "Extend Partition" option, and proceed to wipe out the hard drive. Although it would have been hilarious, I'm sure.

To describe in detail how I finally got more space on the boot partition would be disappointingly anti-climatic. And I don't want to appear too smug, lest the Universe find a bit of cheese that it forgot to steal from my maze. I'll just briefly mention that I was able to move everything over to a new drive with nearly ten times the capacity of the old. I used Norton Ghost to avoid the tedium of backup / restore. The fact that Norton Ghost needed to be installed on C:, which was already filled to capacity, was a nice touch, don't you think?

Well, everything seems to work just fine. Nearly everything. I just can't seem to run the defragment utility. But I'm sure I can work that out some how. After all I'm clever, and I'm not a wimp.

TurboTax -- Angst and Euphoria

My home computer runs Windows NT. It serves me well. But I get nervous every time I need to update a program. Why? Microsoft stopped supporting NT quite a while ago. So I've become adept at locating that little "System Requirements" section on packaged software.

I've used TurboTax to file my federal taxes for 2001, 2002 and 2003. But when I sought out the latest version for 2004, I noticed that Windows NT was absent from the "System Requirements" section.

I bought it anyway. I'm sure they didn't mean to imply that it won't run on NT. They just left it off because ... well, nobody has NT anymore. Besides, perhaps it is time to buy a new computer. Or at least I'll buy a new hard drive and install Windows 2000 on it. And if I don't switch to Windows 2000, I can always run TurboTax on my office computer.

Before I cracked open the shrink wrap, I decided to check out the TurboTax website to verify the system requirements. After a mere six mouse clicks, I had my answer:

System requirements misprint on the Welcome Back CD packaging

The TurboTax Welcome Back CD packaging incorrectly lists Windows 95 and NT as supported operating systems. You can review the actual system requirements with the links below.

Then I got mad. This is all the fault of a lazy Intuit IT department and a team of inconsiderate programmers. And because of them, I have to invest time and money updating a perfectly good computer. I decided to rebel. I would do my taxes by hand.

Just before I clicked on my browser's close button in a huff, I noticed an inconspicuous link called TaxFreedom. "This looks interesting," thought I. In my rebellious mood, I envisioned a site that would show me how to give the IRS a virtual middle finger. If I could blow off doing my taxes, I won't need software.

But the link led me to another TurboTax site that offered to "Prepare and e-file your federal return FREE and get your refund fast!" Well, I wasn't born yesterday. I know nothing's for free. What's the angle? Apparently, they do your federal taxes for free, but you have to pay for having your state taxes done. That's okay. My state taxes are a breeze to do.

The system requirements (yes, I checked that right away) informed me that this would work only with Internet Explorer 5.5 and above. I did have the right version. But I've configured my firewall to block IE from the Internet. So I spent some time figuring out what IP addresses I needed to allow in order to get IE to work.

After I convinced myself that it was for real, I decided to give it a try. "I'll just enter my name and address," I told myself. It was nearly midnight.

Well, by 1:30am I had completed both my federal and state taxes, the latter by filling out the form at my state's website. My cost? Zero. And I believe it took less time than if I had been able to install and run TurboTax, since it's necessary to download several megabytes of TurboTax updates before filing.

Incidentally, I got a nice refund and I returned TurboTax with no questions asked.

So maybe I can keep using NT for a few more years....