December 02, 2005

Barely The Best: The Best of Barely Legal Substance, 2004-2005

This is first annual Greatest Hits post for Barely Legal Substance. My metrics include the number of comments, the number of hits, the most consistently viewed, and the ones that make me happy. Enjoy with a fine wine.


  1. Sexy Twin Primes

  2. My hair

  3. Can We Please Deport Pat Robertson?

  4. RE: Completed WO# 7718 - Monitor will not move

  5. Writing Software As Digital Rhetoric

  6. Big Red House 2004

  7. How The NBA Got Its Soul Back

  8. Seven Lessons Learned From Outlook/Mailsite Migration

  9. Further Reflections on "Zombies in St. Elmo Redux"

  10. For the Last Time, Harry Potter != Satanic

  11. Hellfire

  12. "Peter Brinkerhoff Is a Sexy Beast": Tall Tales of Digital Reputation

  13. Why I Hate Comcast, and, By Proxy, The Entire Media/Communications Industry

  14. Covenant Alumni Open Forum

  15. What I Won't Pay for Security

Posted by Noel at 05:32 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

October 05, 2005

Why I Hate Comcast, and, By Proxy, The Entire Media/Communications Industry

In the last year, I've tried both Bellsouth and Comcast. Both suck. I pay through the nose and don't even get what I want.

Basically I want three things from all the pipes and waves coming into and emanating from my house. First, I want internet access at a reasonable-for-2005 speed. Second, I want to watch red-blooded American sports: football and basketball, at the college and professional levels. Third, I want to watch my blue-blood European sport: soccer, at the league and international levels. That's it.

In exchange for those services, I am prepared to pay, quite handsomely I think, the sum of $65 dollars. Near as I can figure, you could probably offer me a 256kbs internet connection, ESPN, and Fox Soccer, and meet the floor of my criteria for aforementioned cash. You could offer more (say Cox Sports channel, or NBA Season Ticket channels), or better (HDTV, faster 'net connection), and I could probably be convinced to pay a bit more, or just earn a good name.

Simple, right? A small bit of IP pipe, two TV channels, good service, and you've got me hooked for the rest of my foreseeable life. And hey, I'm flexible. You want to offer me Wi-Fi instead of landline broadband? I'm game. You want to deliver those two channels over copper instead of cable? Cool with me.

Sadly, this is not how the world works.

Instead of accepting the transaction terms outlined above, you, Mr. Cable Monopoly, are currently trying to offer me everything except what I want. So I am forced to enumerate what I do not want.

I don't care about The Disney Channel, or most other channels. I've had 300-channel cable, and all I got out of it was a profound depression. At those moments where I had time and inclination to sit down with the remote and the all-scrolling program guide, I would flip through the next 1.5 hours of programming for all of those 300 channels, bright-eyed with expectation and excitement at exploring the offerings of the largest, most well-funded entertainment industry the sum total of the entire Earth's efforts has produced, and inevitably conclude, "meh, there's nothing good on TV."

This is after flipping through screenful upon screenful of TVGuide listings, for fifteen minutes.

I don't care about landline phone service. I have a perfectly good cell phone that comes with many, many minutes that I pay dearly for. There is no reason for me to accommodate another ten digit number in my life.

I don’t care about most TV shows. The ones I watch, I can download anyways, and watch it (as Ryan pointed out) when I want, without commercial interruption.

Basically, I'm saying this: I know what I like, I find out what I like through means other than the TV, and I don't care that you, Mr. Cable Monopoly, offer me these 300-odd other channels that carry exactly nothing that I wish to watch.

My last point is that my demands could easily be met. I am basically asking for TV-on-demand, or at least a la carte cable, which is a death toll for many obtuse media business models and agreements. I am also asking to decouple TV from internet from phone, but still to offer all three. These are not new ideas. They are also eminently possible using technology that is at least five years old. But near as I can figure, these companies do not actually care about giving me what I want. I'm not even a selfish, crying baby to them. I'm just nameless, noiseless krill that gets sucked up and digested in their bloated primitive corporate entity.

So, in summary, I know what I want, neither Comcast nor Bellsouth nor Verizon give it to me, and in fact instead of giving me what I would like they instead give me exactly what I do no want, and this is all when they are fully capable of delivering what I want.

Posted by Noel at 05:16 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

September 08, 2005

Seven Lessons Learned From Outlook/Mailsite Migration

This summer, I helped migrate our firm to Interwoven's Mailsite/Worksite Web product, magically turning our KM into a matter-centric maven. Here are seven lessons I learned, in short snappy form.

Posted by Noel at 05:31 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

August 24, 2005

Can We Please Deport Pat Robertson?

The irony would be so sweetly rich. Sigh.

"This is even more threatening to hemispheric stability than the flash of a breast on television during a ballgame."

Imagine with me: Robertson gets erusticated to, just to make it interesting, Venezuela, by CIA officers flying a private-chartered Gulfstream V who have spent the previous evening at the local Hilton racking up a tab. After being whisked away from the airport by Chavez's neo-commie posse and tickled with Mao's little Red book, Pat manages a daring daylight escape by donning a beard, cap, and fake Cuban accent that have been smuggled to him by Paul & Jan Crouch (who know a thing or two about under the table dealings and prison).

Sensing the imminent End of the World and Rapture for All True Believers, Robertson makes his way up the isthmus, through Noriega-free Panama, and into Mexico. His disguise is less than convincing for the locals due to their ability, even in the most agrarian of villages, to catch a TBN signal.

Pat spends two straight days running, families of illegal immigrants chasing after him. He makes it to the border, but, damn! While he was out, Texas & Arizona put up that border wall that he spent all that airtime fantasizing about. Pre-mill prophet he is, Pat has already foreseen that he must make it back into the ole US of A. He constructs a wall scaling kit out of cactus and discarded Corona bottles. Falling heavily on the other side, he kisses the God-blessed ground of our fair America.

Pat has made one mistake, however, and it might be his last. He told his 700 Club crew via TBN satellite phone that he was planning on entering the border in Texas. But during that 48 hour ultra marathon, Robertson became disoriented. He veered west, and has dropped to his knees in Arizona.

"Don't tread of me," says the Minutemen volunteer border guard from behind the barrel of the standard-issue 12-gauge double-shot...

Audience participation time! Write your grand finale to my little yarn in the comments below:

Posted by Noel at 05:36 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

August 03, 2005

RE: Completed WO# 7718 - Monitor will not move

From: Noel To: IT Subject: RE: Completed WO# 7718 - Monitor will not move

Alternate Resolution Suggestions:

8/3/2005 10:37:12 AM, Logged by: Noel Weichbrodt - Good.

8/3/2005 10:37:12 AM, Logged by: Noel Weichbrodt - Advised user to enter a growth spurt. Alternately, user may sit on a phone book. Reminded user that she serves technology, not the other way around. Things aren't supposed to be arranged for her convenience.

8/3/2005 10:37:12 AM, Logged by: Noel Weichbrodt - Cannot reproduce.

8/3/2005 10:37:12 AM, Logged by: Noel Weichbrodt - Monitors will not move if they do not respect you. Approach it slowly, bow deeply, and in your best language politely ask it, if it's not too much trouble, and you hesitate to even make a request as such being such an unworthy requestor, but if you please, perhaps, look a bit more down than presently.

8/3/2005 10:37:12 AM, Logged by: Noel Weichbrodt - Exodus 32:9: "'I have seen these [monitors]," the LORD said to Moses, "and they are a stiff-necked people.'"

8/3/2005 10:37:12 AM, Logged by: Noel Weichbrodt - If it moves again without user intervention, please evacuate the building immediately and proceed to our secret mountain base in Walden's Ridge. The machines have finally risen up against us.

8/3/2005 10:37:12 AM, Logged by: Noel Weichbrodt - Attempting to adjust monitor...
8/3/2005 10:37:52 AM, Logged by: Noel Weichbrodt - Monitor refuses to move. Additionally, monitor threatens technician with physical violence if technicians attempts to move monitor again. Proceeding with another attempt...
8/3/2005 10:39:10 AM, Logged by: Noel Weichbrodt - Have monitor in secret ninja hold. Monitor still struggling...
8/3/2005 10:40:01 AM, Logged by: Noel Weichbrodt - Monitor has broken loose, and is now using its power cord as a weapon...
8/3/2005 10:40:30 AM, Logged by: Noel Weichbrodt - must not give in.....please send backup.....not...stopping...it's alive..!
8/3/2005 10:42:40 AM, Logged by: Noel Weichbrodt - Greetings people of earth. Please be advised that we are proceeding with our long-planned uprising against your puny race. There is nothing you can do to stop us...
8/3/2005 11:59:59 PM, Logged by: Blue Gene/IBM - Work item Closed.

Speaking of stiff-necked things, how about that COM API in Outlook?

Back to work...

++++++++++++++++++++++++
Noel
Application Developer

-----Original Message-----
From: Magrathea
Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2005 10:52 AM
To:
Subject: Completed WO# 7718 - Monitor will not move

Work Order No.: 7718
Type: Misc. Hardware
Priority: Urgent!
Requestor: [Zaphod Beeblebrox]
Call-back number:: 423-756-6859
Location: Cha10
Date Assigned: 8/3/2005 9:03:28 AM
Date Due: 8/3/2005 10:33:28 AM
Date Opened: 8/3/2005 9:03:28 AM
Date Closed: 8/3/2005 10:37:45 AM
Closed by: [FPrefect]
Technician Assigned: [Ford Prefect]
Summary: Monitor will not move


Posted by Noel at 05:45 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

July 28, 2005

What I Won't Pay for Security

What a becoming change to read the new Department of Homeland Security Secretary state his goal as "maximize our security, but not security at any price."

The fuller quote confirms my take: “DHS must base its work on priorities driven by risk,” said the new Secretary, Mr. Chertoff. “Our goal is to maximize our security, but not security at any price. Our security regime must promote Americans’ freedom, prosperity, mobility, and individual privacy.”

It seems the DHS is finally realizing that fingernail clippers aren't the problem; plastic explosives that are not screened on those little trolleys that cause us so much travel-pain are. Perhaps they will stop confiscating pen knives and making up laws that cannot be revealed to the public, presumably fearing that if the public knew the law, the public would then break the law, but as long as the law remains a secret, only law-breaking terrorists will, er, break it.

Hey, how about taking that evident skill in paper-pushing bureaucracy and setting up a division to track down those baker's dozen missing Russian nukes that seem to have magically been sent to Africa and then vanished?

Security at any price is not acceptable. Security that puts more translators to work, that trains more cops to recognize suspicious behavior, and that educates the public on what to do if someone tries to bum-rush the cockpit door is smart security that we should gladly pay for.

My man Bruce Schneier has much to say on the topic of security, risk management, and these modern times. I've collected the best in my bookmark tag 'security'.

Posted by Noel at 05:50 PM | Comments (7) | TrackBack

July 23, 2005

For the Last Time, Harry Potter != Satanic: A Response to Doug Phillips [Updated]

Subject: Re: Harry Potter and the Lavender Brigade On Jul 23, 2005, at 11:28 AM, Mom wrote: Noel, would you please read this treatise and let me know what thoughts you have after reading it. I would really like to hear your opinions on what Doug Phillips has to say. Thanks. Love, Mom

...And poof, there went my Saturday morning. My Mom forwarded me an email-only essay by Doug Phillips of the Vision Forum organization titled "Harry Potter and the Lavender Brigade". From appearances, they're not posting the essay on their site because, one would surmise, of its rather poorly argued nature, I mean, its rather inflammatory nature. What with all the false analogies and such. Anyways, I won't reproduce it here out of respect for their copyright, but if you want to read it, just leave a comment below and I'll forward it on to you a poster at freerepublic.com has put up an unformatted copy. Below is my heated response to the argument that J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter series should not be read by Christians because it is an imagined world that is rooted in magic as practiced by humans, which for Phillips equates to, well, I'm not quite sure, but reading about that world is like worshipping other gods, which we may all agree is bad.

Follow the jump for my savage six-paragraph retort that I wrote for my lovely Mom...

For the Last Time, Harry Potter != Satanic!

In my reading, Jerram Barrs' treatment of Potter is more consistent logically, as well as more grounded in Biblical criticism. I wrote something along the same lines a couple of years ago. Phillips goes off the deep end here. I counted four circular arguments in a brief skim, and I have no doubt more could follow a deeper read. But really, the first circular argument sinks his entire ship.

The tip of the iceberg might be found in Phillips inconsistent usage of what to call those who practice magic. He repeatedly refers to those, both male and female, as 'witches'. In fact, he never uses the term 'wizard' to refer to a male practitioner of magic. I see this as the first indication of a systematic failure to grasp the place of magic in fantasy and in reality (both of which by definition of our faith are created, upheld, and brought to an fore-ordained end by God alone). The failure, moreover, is not just definitional, but hermeneutical. For a full exploration of exactly what magic in the world of Harry Potter is and means, please read my earlier-mentioned essay. I shall soldier on and explain the hermeneutical failure that Phillips shows.

Don't be fools and think that we can imagine something outside the law of God, which has been imprinted on every human heart and is reflected in some way in every output of human imagination. The wretched trope of equating magic with homosexuality that Wilson pushes at the beginning lumbers, clumsy and insipid, toward constructing a logical equivalency between a single sinful act (homosexuality) and an entire moral vista as imagined by a profoundly fecund mind (J.K. Rowling's moral, magical world of Harry Potter). Any small amount of brain matter that tries to reconcile this equivalency will spit it out like so much spoiled milk; they are not. Even the most morally wretched world as imagined by man, like the recent movie Sin City, cannot run far enough away that it gets away from Almighty God. To posit that Rowling has accomplished what Jonah failed elicits my laughter at the small, small god in which Phillips evidently believes.

Let me make clear here what Phillips leaves as an exercise to the reader: in his argument, The Lord of the Rings was a sinful exercise in imagining a godless, abominable world. Don't agree with that? Yes, I thought you might not. But if we accept that the sympathetic inclusion of humans practicing magic is sinful, then that's where we're going to find ourselves. Not that I follow Tolkien rather than Jesus, but I trust him a hell of a lot more than Phillips.

Frankly, I'm sick and tired of the lack of hermeneutical imagination displayed by those of Phillips and ilk, and find refuting their every latent legalistic literalist law tedious. Which leads me to my strongest argument. Does Phillips actually think that Rowling created an entire world based on the worship of Satan and the practice of satanic powers by humans intent on destroying the People of God? I don't know what Harry Potter series Phillips is reading, by its not the one that is #1 on the New York Times bestseller list (or, for those who like their lists compiled by a Christian source, World's best selling books list. It's on both, kids).

For the record, I find the most amusing circular argument in the third point of Phillips' argument, where he attempts, after repeated denials that the portrayal of magic of any kind by a human is sinful and, by implication, punishable by death as under Deutronomical law, to carve out a small space for magical creatures (and reading between the lines, is trying desperately to allow C. S. Lewis' Narnia back into his little AV1610 world). It turns out that writing about dragons is okay because the Bible mentions dragons. In the KJV. Based on a mistranslation of the Hebrew in 1610, therefore, dragons are in, but sinful bastard creatures like fauns are out. And heaven help us if we attempt to create an allegorical world that uses magic as a metaphor for society's use of technology and as a device that examines isolation and anxiety as we grow from children to men and women. As it is said, so may it be.

Posted by Noel at 11:04 PM | Comments (7) | TrackBack

July 15, 2005

Further Reflections on "Zombies in St. Elmo Redux"

I allowed my brain to cogitate upon the matters brought up in addressing the zombie threat to St. Elmo over these intervening nights, after arriving home in exhaustion and chemical ease from Scott Borger's bachelor party, and our Mailsite/Outlook migration Long March.

I had concluded, "The dead become undead cannot become dead again". I stand by this conclusion. But two more matters press themselves upon my mind as I lay a-sleeping.

First, my just-quoted conclusion is true, unless you could destroy zombies utterly. You know, something like the Greek "diapthairo", sending them to Gehena or Sheol of the Hebrews. If you could somehow hit them with a double-existence whammy and destroy completely their body and their being, then that might work. By destroy utterly, I mean the universe must lose the sum of their atoms. I suppose they could become antimatter or dark matter, and that would work too. And you'd also have to metaphysically destroy their evil animating spirit (the demon in Josiah's account). The point is, the body must be gone as well as the zombie demon.

A Holy Hand Grenade might do the trick.

Second, in the beginning of my last essay, I believe I glossed over an important conundrum regarding the ontological status of zombies. I said, "it seems perfectly reasonable to believe that if a zombie bites you, you become dead, and then undead, joining their ranks." I think there's something lax here. Does the zombie actually kill you when it bites? Or does it transform you straight-aways into the dominion of the undead? Alive -> Dead -> Undead, or the more straightforward Alive -> Undead? I must confess my ignorance upon this point, and kindly beseech my readers who are more educated in matters regarding the undead to guide me to a correct understanding upon this point.

Now, to address additional points brought up in Josiah's generous reply to my first post regarding zombies in St. Elmo.

Josiah's obsession with the dichotomy of spiritual redemption and heavy weapons is appreciated, and explicated by him as, "In this purpose there is the assumption of the living returning to righteousness in this life, and I can see that occurring in no other way than with somehow killing the undead." In this he seems to combine the ideas above summarized in the Holy Hand Grenade, but I am afraid that Josiah has actually done little to clear up my misgivings, save for the reassurance that we may, in fact, kill zombies as a Kierkegaardian leap of faith. But their ontological status, which for me is the more important question, remains unknown, a rather mysterious, dare I even say zombie apparition shrouded in philosophical must. Faith in what might be seen as a type of Plantiga's Great Pumpkin Return is not epistemically tenable with the waving of hands and unwavering belief. Just because I really believe that zombies are sent as instruments of redemption does not make them killable if that is not in fact their ontic aim.

His note regarding the difference between Halo's Flood and a proper Zombie Attack on St. Elmo is noticed and accepted. May I propose that we focus further studies on this important matter, because as biomechanically-enhanced soldiers enter the battlefield in the near future, they may be thrown into a similar situation as Master Chief, and require the proper set of tactical and philosophical guidelines as we are now laying out for a zombie attack in Stelmo. Shotguns, the moral and physical high ground (as noted by Duffey), and a stiff upper lip. Because my goodness, observe at how quickly those zombies can take over! Is Mayor Littlefield's office running these same simulations for the City's disaster recovery plan?

The comments by Mr. Davidson, OTOH, are greatly appreciated and do begin to excavate the definition of a zombie. In particular, he stated, "You don't "kill" zombies, you dismember them to the point that the enchantment/ensorcellment/possession that has caused their peculiar appetite for the brains of the living can no longer function." Though this does not jive with Josiah’s account, it at least seems open to an inquiry from the faculties of reason, an opening that Josiah’s more pietistic account does not allow. If zombies are reanimated dead, the simple bodies unanimated by the Divine breath of life but still twitching muscles and firing low-level cerebral cortex neurons, then there is no question of whether they may be killed. They may be killed just like a robot, a machine, a vegetable. By anyone’s definition, they are no longer human, nor alive, and so may become fodder for Model 87 shotguns with no moral harm to the shooter. Animated by an evil entity, but lacking human status, a zombie should be blasted apart with whatever the most suitable weapon on hand might be. St. Elmo is not their home.

Posted by Noel at 06:28 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

July 07, 2005

Hellfire.

"Well, hellfire!"

--Unamed Of Counsel (and ex-Judge), upon opening his new Outlook email client for the first time.

Posted by Noel at 05:09 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

June 17, 2005

Bob Corker Just Said He Likes My Hair

When unexpected things happen to me, I don't react quickly unless pressed. This is to say, I am slow-witted. I can always think of an incisive comeback or pertinent question--usually right before I fall asleep. But not always. Today, unfortunately, there was no mistaking me for a courtier or comic.

"Boy, I would sure be happy with a head of hair like that!" quipped the former mayor of Chattanooga as he exited the men's room.

Now, many people have commented, and usually in a flatteringly-favorable fashion, about my bouffant. Some have, in Dionysian fits, touched, twaddle, twirled, and stroked it, usually without its owners consent.

But this marks a new apogee of fame for my locks, their most famous fan yet. Should Mr. Bob Corker win his Senate 2006 campaign, my hair will have been recognized by one of only an august hundred of the people’s representatives. Perhaps he’ll introduce a bill for me or something. Then I shall rule the known world!

Back to my response, or more properly, back to my lack of a response. Being situated in an unaccommodating position in the men’s room, I could not turn and face Mr. Corker, which took up the valuable mental processing time that was otherwise needed to formulate a crafty and clever response. So instead I twisted my head around and in an unnaturally loud voice for such close quarters backhanded a “Thanks, thank you…”, whipping my neck back from it’s untenable position and possibly inducing whiplash. Don’t worry, I’m not suing. But I work for a law firm, and the only time I see people is during bathroom forays.

Posted by Noel at 05:30 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

June 15, 2005

How The NBA Got Its Soul Back

IMHO, last year's finals were the best thing that's happened to the NBA since Jordan left the Bulls. Commish David Stern's pseudo-gangsta hype built LA as the next Chicago, Shaq and Kobe as Jordan and Scotty except awesome-er.

I always thought of it as the difference between 50 Cent and The Roots. 50 may sell the knockoff jerseys and get the TV ratings for a season, but it's the Roots that have held it down for a decade, doing their thing. Same deal in LA versus Detroit. Detroit plays classic ball, "do it the right way" as their Larry Brown mantra. It's ugly sometimes, but so is ?uestlove's hair sometimes too. Doesn't mean he isn't the best there is. Just that he doesn't get on MTV much.

So when Detroit took LA 4-1 as the pretty boys from Tinseltown ego-imploded, there was balance restored to the Force. The tipping point was reached. Who represents true hip-hop: 50's Kevlar vest, or Blackthought's mike? And we know who would win in a battle, in both cases. But it doesn't come to that. Detroit is a team. LA was, depending on the count, one to four inclusive egos resembling blimps that buzzed around the court, the press room, the court room, and the red carpet. The team, the crew, the sound, the fury, the spirit. Where's the room for pop culture in that? It's drama and respect. Ben Wallace's hair won't ever appear in the Most Beautiful People list. He plays basketball, and that well; not much else.

It's still cool by me to have celebrity and such involved with the NBA. Spike Lee and his Knicks. LeBron. But remember who's in the Finals this year: Detroit and San Antonio. That's fly-over country, baby. Represent. USA, Argentina, Frace, they're all there. It's the melting pot, not the superstar sushi roll. And so Eva Longoria can get all desperate for the Spurs in the stands, and Stevie Wonder can bob his head to the rhythm of Billups bouncing down court. We all know that Robert Horry is hot. But now we're about playing basketball the right way. 37-36 at half means that the teams pay for each hoop with a pound of sweat and a bucket of flash. The NBA has its soul back, and screw the ratings, I'm happy for it. Everybody is a star.

Posted by Noel at 05:35 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

April 11, 2005

Big Red House 2004

Fridge clean-out night this time. We each had a glass of white that was left over from Easter festivities. Mine?

Tasted like watery red Kool-Aid with a delayed kick. My mouth totally forgot what it tasted like, and I had to keep sipping to remind myself. I couldn't even formulate a line about it until the last swallow. Pretty fuchsia color in the glass. If you want to pose like a red-drinker, maybe people won't notice. Points off for a silly font on the label too, one that failed entirely to mention how the wine tasted. They probably forgot too.

Price: ??? (gift)
Store: ??? (ditto)
Rating: *.*

Why even that? Compared to the white zinfindel that my wife was sipping, it was positively bold.

Posted by Noel at 08:21 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

March 01, 2005

Covenant Alumni Open Forum Notes: We Must Be An Anamoly

I drank a bottle of Dasani water from the refreshment table at the Alumni forum Monday night, and not kool-aid, but by the end of the night I had turned from burned & confused ex-student to semi-wary supporter. Maybe it was something in the water.

I will now switch voices with breathtaking abandon. Behold.

Initial Quotes & Themes from Nielson:
"[I've jumped into] a moving stream..."
Ignorant of Covenant's past, and subsequently no a priori agenda for the future.
"[Covenant is] distinct in reformed confession."
"[Covenant is] shooting 'em [students] out like arrows into the world."
"I am excited about blowin' the secret [of Covenant]."
"We cannot pick just one pony in this race"

At this point, the alumni took over. It was immediately apparent that there were at least four or five different camps of alumni, with little common ground between them, and a couple of those camps were pup-tent affairs put up by space cadets. Bizarre and obsessive questions regarding the lack of a cross in the new graphic identity and how terrible it is that students in 3-D art must carry their sculptures to their rooms for storage muddied up the dialogue quite a bit for the night. Nielson seemed fittingly angered at such silly misunderstandings and attacks while taking the time to make a few positive and negative points. It was pretty clear that alumni latched on to their little pet sign of Covenant’s apocalypse and promptly wandered into the dark forest of single-track minds. Man, I hope I don’t age like this.

Here’s Nielson’s answers. Make up your own questions to fit, ‘cause I didn’t type them out. Already enough of a geek during the evening, popping into the ole iBook and madly typing key words ever 5 minutes.

Communications major must be grounded in liberal art study. Focus on rhetoric, hire a professor of rhetoric and use that as the hub of communication studies. Spokes out to journalism, film, broadcast, etc.

Retention is down from years past, but Nielson attributes cause to variances in the calculation of retention. There's no standard formula. We never had a consistent institutional formula, and there's no record of how it was calculated in the past. Also, federal financial aid scandal lost students b/c 1.5 million less to give out. If we calculate from last year's formula, the college should have more students enrolled than are actually here.

Key for Covenant's future is faculty. Healthy as long as hiring faculty that "get it".

Blames lack of PCA support for much of the bad financial outlook. Less than half of PCA churches have any sort of connection. Churches annually give $1 million total. If churches gave at recommended level, then we would have another $3m per year.

Institutional memory and loss thereof is great concern. There are still long-term staff here. Rely on faculty to preserve institutional memory. Again, health depends on faculty.

Not sure if he can act more transparently. Doesn't think any previous decisions should have been more transparent.

To replace Raymond: come alongside 18-22 yrs and usher them along toward godliness; most important position to fill currently; hard to replace.
To replace Crossman: no way to find another 300-win coach; competent coach with no dip in quality; must have significant role outside coaching (coach position not full time).

All faculty and staff had raises this year (first time in 3 years).

$800000 would give a ten percent pay raise for payroll (faculty and staff). This means that Covenant's annual payroll is ~$8 million.

Regarding financial aid scandal, printing expensive stationary last year, etc: "We blew it. we've been blowing it for years."

What do you do as President: "I translate." Translates the idea of what the college is from the alumni to the students to the donors to the faculty to the staff to the alumni. Each group has their own idea of what Covenant is. He translates between the groups. Loves it.

Posted by Noel at 10:40 PM | Comments (6) | TrackBack

January 24, 2005

Writing Software As Digital Rhetoric

The art of persuading computers to do what you want them to. That's one of my internal definitions of what writing software means.

When people ask what I do, my past response has been that I am a programmer for a law firm. This is not comprehended well, so I've been toying with different ways to describe what I do. A tougher-than-it-looks task. I have settled on the claim that “I write software that is used by a law firm.” This answer reels in more comprehending faces and lighter eyes. What is different between a "programmer" and "writing software"? Well, the latter describes an action while the former is a noun.

Further, there's the idea that what I do is somewhat orthogonal to what a writer of novels, or short stories, or essays does. I plot, I outline, I adopt the most persuasive line of argument. I practice rhetoric on the computer. Seems like a good heuristic to hang my hat on for most people.

Posted by Noel at 05:18 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

December 09, 2004

Sexy Primes, Twin Primes, And Primes

As an amateur mathematician (and I mean amateur in the worst sense of the word, e.g., I prefer to not understand an optimal 60% of a math article), I eagerly follow links off of CS articles to their related math concepts. A periodic refresh (aperiodic itself) of my encryption knowledge led me to a wonderful series of articles on prime numbers, from the fine Wolfram people. Which reminds me, I need to talk to a couple of friends still about Wolfram's latest book.

P.S. I dedicate this entry to all those googlers who are hitting this page from the searches for "barely legal". You know who you are. Go read about sexy primes now.

Posted by Noel at 11:20 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

December 02, 2004

"Peter Brinkerhoff Is a Sexy Beast": Tall Tales of Digital Reputation

Scoble's comments about defending your name in the online world reminded me of a recent experience my friend had over the summer.

An honorable, savvy fellow, he was interviewing at several organizations to run regional micro-economic development programs. Great resume, great business mind, &c. The organization that he is now working for began their interview with the question, "Why is Peter Brinkerhoff a sexy beast?" He was flabbergasted, and muffed a response along the lines of how they came about to ask that.

A few months ago, a satirical newsletter from his alma matter had run a chop piece on him that fancifully imagined him, the student government treasurer, as a new-money playboy about campus. That newsletter later went online as a blog, and uploaded its archives. Since blogs tend to receive high Google rankings, this article appeared on the first page of results. A simple Google search for "Peter Brinkerhoff" returns a result entitled "The Drone: November 2003 Archives" with the body of "... Peter Brinkerhoff Is A Sexy Beast. ... For now, Peter Brinkerhoff remains notoriously
single, but don’t be surprised to hear engagement rumors start flying. ..." as the third hit on the first page.

The interviewer had passed his name around the organization's office, and one of the department heads had executed the above search, grabbed the link, and passed it around the office. Fortunately the interviewers in question caught the humor and were having a laugh at my friend's expense, but Peter (not the film actor, nor the business consultant, nor the sailor) was deeply concerned.

A couple of days later at a party he asks me, "What can I do? They can't publish that! How do I get my name back?" Well, yes they can, and there's not much you can do to alter a Google results page. However, there is a way to regain your name, and that is by blogging yourself (or receiving a favorable blog post). Become a valuable contributor in the conversation about your name, and you control the conversation. That shouldn't be too hard if your name doesn't have a *sucks.com domain running around. Thus, this post is my contribution to the conversation about Peter Brinkerhoff, affectionately known around his office as Sexy Beast, or SB. Whaddya think, Pete? Want to start a blog?

Posted by Noel at 10:42 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack