For all the children out there who know in their hearts that Santa Claus is real, here's a little something for you to consider.

1) No known species of reindeer can fly.  BUT there are 300,000 species of living organisms yet to be classified, and while most of these are insects and germs, this does not COMPLETELY rule out flying reindeer which only Santa has ever seen.

2) There are 2 billion children (persons under 18) in the world.  BUT since Santa doesn't (appear) to handle the Muslim, Hindu, Jewish and Buddhist children, that reduces the workload to 15% of the total — 378 million according to Population Reference Bureau.  At an average (census) rate of 3.5 children per household, that's 91.8 million homes.  One presumes there's at least one good child in each.

3) Santa has 31 hours of Christmas to work with, thanks to the different time zones and the rotation of the earth, assuming he travels east to west (which seems logical).  This works out to 822.6 visits per second.  This is to say that for each Christian household with good children, Santa has 1/1000th of a second to park, hop out of the sleigh, jump down the chimney, fill the stockings, distribute the remaining presents under the tree, eat whatever snacks have been left, get back up the chimney, get back into the sleigh and move on to the next house.  Assuming that each of these 91.8 million stops are evenly distributed around the earth (which, of course, we know to be false but for the purposes of our calculations we will accept), we are now talking about .78 miles per household, a total trip of 75-1/2 million miles, not counting stops to do what most of us must do at least once every 31 hours, plus feeding and etc.

This means that Santa's sleigh is moving at 650 miles per second, 3,000 times the speed of sound.  For purposes of comparison, the fastest man-made vehicle on earth, the Ulysses space probe, moves at a poky 27.4 miles per second — a conventional reindeer can run, tops, 15 miles per hour.

4) The payload on the sleigh adds another interesting element.  Assuming that each child gets nothing more than a medium-sized lego set (2 pounds), the sleigh is carrying 321,300 tons, not counting Santa, who is invariably described as overweight.  On land, conventional reindeer can pull no more than 300 pounds.  Even granting that "flying reindeer" (see point #1) could pull TEN TIMES the normal amount, we cannot do the job with eight, or even nine.  We need 214,200 reindeer.  This increases the payload — not even counting the weight of the sleigh — to 353,430 tons.  Again, for comparison — this is four times the weight of the Queen Elizabeth (the ship, not the monarch).

5) 353,000 tons traveling at 650 miles per second creates enormous air resistance — this will heat the reindeer up in the same fashion as a spacecraft reentering the earth's atmosphere.  The lead pair of reindeer will absorb 14.3 QUINTILLION joules of energy.  Per second.  Each.  In short, they will burst into flame almost instantaneously, exposing the reindeer behind them, and create deafening sonic booms in their wake.  The entire reindeer team will be vaporized within 4.26 thousandths of a second.  Santa, meanwhile, will be subjected to centrifugal forces 17,500.06 times greater than gravity.  A 250-pound Santa (which seems ludicrously slim) would be pinned to the back of his sleigh by 4,315,015 pounds of force.

In conclusion — If Santa ever DID deliver presents on Christmas Eve, he's dead now.

Here's wishing each and every one of you the happiest of holidays.  Whether you celebrate Chanukah (Happy Chanukah), Ramadan (Ramadan Mubarak), Christmas (Merry Christmas), New Year's (Happy New Year's), Kwanzaa (Merry Kwanzaa), or something I've missed, I hope the holiday season brings you rest, relaxation, and most importantly, meaningful time with friends and family.  Remember that these are the times when fond memories are made.  Oh, and if you missed any part of The Twelve Days of Christmas, the first of many new series post, be sure to catch up with the story as it's complete today.

One of the fine folks I work with sent this to several of us yesterday.  Being the consummate cynic, I found it thoroughly entertaining and am posting it here for your enjoyment.

Late last week, I was rushing around trying to get some last minute shopping done.  I was stressed out and not thinking very fondly of the Christmas season right then.

It was dark, cold, and wet in the parking lot as I was loading my car up with gifts that I felt obligated to buy.  I noticed that I was missing a receipt that I might need later.  So, mumbling under my breath, I retraced my steps to the shopping mall entrance.

As I was searching the wet pavement for the lost receipt, I heard a quiet sobbing.  The crying was coming from a poorly dressed boy of about 12 years old.  He was short and thin.  He had no coat.  He was just wearing a ragged flannel shirt to protect him from the cold night's chill.

Oddly enough, he was holding a hundred dollar bill in his hand.  Thinking that he had gotten lost from his parents, I asked him what was wrong.  He told me his sad story.

He said that he came from a large family.  He had three brothers and four sisters.  His mother was poorly educated and worked two full time jobs.  She made very little to support her large family.  Nevertheless, she had managed to skimp and save two hundred dollars to buy her children Christmas presents.

The young boy had been dropped off by his mother on the way to her second job.  He was to use the money to buy presents for all his siblings and save just enough to take the bus home.  He had not even entered the mall when an older boy grabbed one of the hundred dollar bills and disappeared into the night.

"Why didn't you scream for help?" I asked.

The boy said, “I did.”

"And nobody came to help you?" I wondered.

The boy stared at the sidewalk and sadly shook his head.

"How loud did you scream?" I inquired.

The soft-spoken boy looked up and meekly whispered, "Help me…"

I realized then that absolutely no one could have heard that poor boy cry for help.

So I grabbed his other hundred and ran to my car.

confusion
is like a slow falling
a kaleidoscope of grays
that stays the same
the more it changes
a field of contradiction
without gravity
or form
a rush of silent confetti
that belongs
to no one

[circa 1986]

Sony announced an upgrade to their already impressive humanoid robot.  Qrio (short for "quest for curiosity") can now jog, throw a ball, dance, hop, and kick a soccer ball.  Most important is the jogging part as running requires that both feet be off the ground at the same time (walking, on the other hand, requires that only one foot be off the ground at any one time).  You can see a clip of the latest demonstration here (Windows Media Player) or here (Real Player).  The clip is a few minutes long, so I recommend using a broadband connection to view it (if available, of course).

RealNetworks recently filed a lawsuit against Microsoft for allegedly monopolizing the multimedia player market through its Windows operating systems.  I think RealNetworks has a bit to learn about how the market works and why their products aren’t doing so well.

I’ve grown weary of the Microsoft-bashing mentality that has run rampant in the technology industry.  Many PC-industry companies view Microsoft as an easy way to make a lot of money, so they abuse the legal system and file lawsuit after lawsuit in the hopes that either Bill Gates and crew will settle or a judge or jury will be swayed by all the anti-Microsoft hype and will order Microsoft to write yet another check.

If one were to look at the situation objectively, it becomes increasingly clear that many companies in this industry cannot support their own business models, cannot legitimately compete with Microsoft, and continue to make inferior products whilst blaming their falling market shares on the Redmond-based software giant.

Don’t get me wrong — I’m not a Microsoft zealot.  I work with Microsoft products every day and have done so for many years, and I will be the first to say that they are often full of security holes, use default configurations which are nothing more than invitations for someone to break in, offer very little flexibility when it comes to how people work and use computers, and suffer from a myriad of other shortcomings and problems.

That having been said, however, I am a pragmatist.  Many of the companies which have seen fit to take Microsoft to court recently are poorly run businesses which offer inferior products or abuse the computing public and wonder why their products fail.

RealNetworks falls into both of those categories.

Running to the federal court in San Jose, CA, RealNetworks is simply stomping its feet and hoping to get on the let’s-sue-Microsoft gravy train.  I would hope they could focus that effort on improving their products and removing the invasive code that commandeers a person’s PC when installed.

The RealNetworks formats have never impressed me.  I have often found the Quicktime or Windows Media Player versions of multimedia files to offer better audio and video.  In addition, the RealNetworks player is not user friendly and is extremely cumbersome to the average netizen.  And don’t get me started on the RealOne player, a wholly unnecessary piece of bloatware — or should I say malware? — that is laughably one of the most horrific attempts at software development ever created.

When you install a RealNetworks player, unless you are technically proficient and have plenty of time to chase down everything the software wants to change, it unreservedly steals file associates, installs automatically-loaded junk in the system tray, attempts to contact the RealNetworks servers on a horrifyingly regular basis (with no indication of what it’s communicating so often and unnecessarily), and barrages the user with superfluous messages from RealNetworks about paying to upgrade to their premium service (among other extraneous junk that it constantly pushed into your face).

To add insult to injury, the RealOne player is as inelegant a piece of software as I have ever seen.  It’s simply not suitable for manufacture or distribution, not to mention use.  The interface is kludgy and inexplicably complicated for the average computer user.  In fact, one can easily call it Byzantine, especially once an attempt has been made to get through all of the preferences.

Oh, and there’s that little issue of having been bundled with AOL for a long time that raises questions about RealNetworks’ lack of character.  You are, after all, known by the company you keep — and AOL is simply the poorest company one can keep.

But the technical considerations are the core of the problem RealNetworks is attempting to solve with this lawsuit.  A bad product with a bad implementation with a bad media format with in-your-face marketing and unrelentingly invasive software all add up to a sagging bottom line for the company.  And this is where the truth can be found.

Just consider what RealNetworks chairman and chief executive Rob Glaser said in a statement regarding the legal action: "While we much prefer competing in the market — as we are doing and have done for nine years — our board has made a carefully considered business decision to take this action to end Microsoft’s illegal conduct and recover substantial damages on behalf of our shareholders."

It strikes me as odd that he has to point out that RealNetworks is in fact competing in the market.  Yes, technically they are, but the competition is similar to selling Lexus and Hyundai in the middle of an affluent neighborhood and wondering why the Hyundai vehicles never leave the lot.

If you look at his statement objectively, you can’t help but take special note of the "substantial damages" remark.  I suppose, if my business were faltering due to bad products and apparently bad management, I too would look for a company with deep pockets that I could sue for "substantial damages."

Given Microsoft’s bad luck of late, now is the time to take advantage of a biased population which has been force fed overwhelming amounts of anti-Microsoft propaganda (all from its competitors, but they don’t advertise that fact).

I think it’s time for the technology industry to stop earning a living off of legal attacks against Microsoft and to start dealing with the underlying problems which force them to seek "theft by litigation" solutions.

Despite RealNetworks’ meretricious arguments to the contrary, this lawsuit is intended solely to derogate from competing legitimately (and, perhaps, designing a decent product for once) in favor of demonstrating once again that even an otiose business model and line of products can be overcome by strategic litigation.

Sounds like The SCO Group to me.  But I shall save that laughable story for another day.

President Bush recently signed into law the CAN-SPAM bill — the first federal attempt to curtail unsolicited commercial email.  Many supporters of the bill claim it will be a significant weapon in the war on spam.  As a technology professional who has been dealing with the growing onslaught for years, I beg to differ.

After more than six years of exploring the idea of a federal spam law, Congress finally came up with what they believe to be the solution.  I see it as a first step — a law with no teeth to accomplish what it was meant to do.

When the new law takes effect, it defines how companies can communicate with people they know and people they don't know.  Falsifying email headers is punishable with prison terms.  Sending sexually-oriented email without proper labeling can also land you in the big house.  Oh, and most interestingly, the law grants the FTC new enforcement authority and the right to establish a national "do not email" list similar to the unbelievable popular "do not call" list for telemarketers.

All of that sounds good, doesn't it?  As you were told as a child, not everything is as it seems.

CAN-SPAM is unlikely to demonstrate any noticeable decline in spam for email users when it goes into effect on January 1, 2004.

It legalizes (yes, I said legalizes) sending non-fraudulent spam, so you can be inundated with junk email so long as it's not sent using forged email headers.

The law does away with the state laws governing spam — many of which are far more stringent and protective of the consumer.

CAN-SPAM outlines an "opt-out" approach to spam rather than "opt-in."  The difference is significant.  In an "opt-in" system, spammers cannot send junk email to you unless you have specifically requested it.  On the other hand, the "opt-out" system requires that you the consumer pursue the spammer in order to be removed from their marketing list.  It's like saying identify theft is OK unless you ask the thief not to steal your identity.  Is it just me or does that sound entirely backward?

Although the law forces spammers to let recipients unsubscribe from their list, it doesn't say anything about them having to make it easy.  They don't have to offer an obvious click-to-unsubscribe link or reply-to-unsubscribe functionality.  Instead, CAN-SPAM will let them use any "Internet-based mechanism," prompting complaints that an unsubscribe feature could be buried in a Web site clogged with pop-ups.

It prohibits recipients from suing spammers, even if they are repeatedly and maliciously spammed.

The law imposes no labeling requirement on email unless it is sexually explicit.  Currently at least 15 states require "ADV:" or a similar label on all unsolicited commercial email.  Because CAN-SPAM would zap those laws and includes no labeling requirement of its own, spammers in those states could no longer be sued if they chose not to label.

As is typical (and exactly the same as the telemarketing "do not call" registry), the law doesn't regulate spam from political, religious or nonprofit groups.  No other antispam law in the United States appears to do this either, primarily because of questions about whether levying such regulations on noncommercial speech would jibe with the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of expression.  Also, politicians sometimes engage in spam themselves and prefer to keep their options open.

Analysts and spam-fighting companies have warned that CAN-SPAM could lead to even more unsolicited commercial email.  MessageLabs predicts that it "could increase already growing volumes of spam and adversely affect consumers and businesses."  Gartner warns spam would likely worsen despite the existence of a federal law.

Ray Everett-Church, a lawyer at antispam firm ePrivacyGroup.com, says that even with the FTC and state attorneys general, there is not "enough enforcement to make spammers think twice about engaging in the practice."

Everett-Church and other spam opponents have said that, because CAN-SPAM will legalize nonfraudulent spam, every business in the United States could send an unspecified amount of unsolicited email repeatedly, until the recipient asks to be removed.  The Small Business Administration says there are 22.9 million small businesses in the country, and each one would be able to take advantage of this new legal right.

California Sen. Debra Bowen, a Democrat who supported her state's legislation, said in a statement on Dec. 8 that CAN-SPAM "doesn't can spam, it gives it the congressional seal of approval…  An advertiser's First Amendment right to free speech doesn't trump a person's basic right to be left alone.  Spam isn't legitimate advertising and it's not free speech."

Tim Muris, the chairman of the Federal Trade Commission and a veteran of the spam wars, has been warning since the summer that CAN-SPAM might do more harm than good.  Instead of helping, Muris said, the measure "could actually be harmful" to the FTC's ongoing efforts to sue spammers.

In a speech in August, Muris warned that under CAN-SPAM, "the FTC would have to prove that the seller (who hires a spammer to advertise a product or service) knew, or consciously avoided knowing, that the third-party mailer intended to violate the law.  This standard requires proof of both the seller's and spammer's level of knowledge…  These requirements to prove intent pose a serious hurdle that we do not have to meet to obtain an injunction under our current jurisdiction."

The National Association of Attorneys General, which would also be charged with enforcing CAN-SPAM, is more blunt.  In November, the group sent a letter to Congress that warned: "The bill creates so many loopholes, exceptions, and high standards of proof, that it provides minimal consumer protections and creates too many burdens for effective enforcement…  We respectfully request that you not move forward…"

In addition to all of these issues, the law has no jurisdiction over spam sent from other countries.  I personally receive quite a bit of junk mail sent from China, Canada and Brazil (among many other countries), but this law will do nothing to curtail any of that.  That is a problem with many things other than spam, however, and will require a significant catalyst to get the world community to work together on the problem.

When Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., predicted in November that "it is quite possible that we will have to revisit this matter again," he was very much the prognosticator of the day.  CAN-SPAM was well-intentioned but poorly designed.  I believe its impact on spam will be negligible at best.

I know you'll all be happy to know that I finally got around to updating the gallery.  This round of updates are all based on pictures from my parents' infinitely large collection of pictures.  I started with a small set of pet pictures, so you can find all the new photos in the Pets gallery.  For more specific info on the updates, read on.

A couple of new pictures were added to Arco's gallery.

A new gallery was created for Dawg, a ferocious-looking pit bull who was actually a very big baby.

The ducks got their own gallery since I added several new pictures of them.

Henry's gallery was updated with a couple of new pictures.

A new gallery was added for Keli, the little dog who could keep up with the best of 'em.

Sneak got his own gallery — which is just how he would want it.

Finally, some miscellaneous pictures were added to the Pets gallery.

As I'm able to get my hands on more of the ol' family photos, I'll be updating the gallery.

For those of you who want to see the pictures from the new digital camera I got recently, just keep your pants on and be patient — I intend to start posting them within the next two weeks and will continue to post those that I think are worthy of sharing.

In honor of the Christmas season, here's a slightly different twist on The Twelve Days of Christmas.

Although the twelve days of Christmas are technically the twelve days from December 25 through January 5, leading from Christmas to the start of Epiphany (January 6), I'll be using one of the alternate interpretations which assumes they are the twelve days before Christmas leading from December 14 through Christmas day (December 25).

This is the story of love gone terribly wrong — all in the holiday spirit of giving.  Our story involves one Miss Agnes McCallister and one Mr. John Hughes and, eventually, a law firm.  Below are the letters to John regarding his Christmas gifts to Agnes.

December 14

Dearest John:

I went to the door today and the postman delivered a partridge in a pear tree.  What a delightful gift.  I couldn't have been more surprised.

With dearest love and affection,

Agnes

December 15

Dearest John:

Today the postman brought your very sweet gift.  Just imagine, two turtle doves…  I'm just delighted at your very thoughtful gift.  They are just adorable.

All my love,

Agnes

December 16

Dear John:

Oh, aren't you the extravagant one!  Now I must protest.  I don't deserve such generosity.  Three French hens.  They are just darling but I must insist… you're too kind.

Love,

Agnes

December 17

Today the postman delivered four calling birds.  Now really!  They are beautiful, but don't you think enough is enough?  You're being too romantic.

Affectionately,

Agnes

December 18

Dearest John:

What a surprise!  Today the postman delivered five golden rings.  One for each finger.  You're just impossible, but I love it.  Frankly, John, all those squawking birds were beginning to get on my nerves.

All my love,

Agnes

December 19

Dear John:

When I opened the door there were actually six geese a-laying on my front steps.  So you're back to the birds again, huh?  Those geese are huge.  Where will I ever keep them?  The neighbors are complaining and I can't sleep through the racket.  PLEASE STOP!

Cordially,

Agnes

December 20

John:

What's with you and those fucking birds????  Seven swans a-swimming?  What kind of goddamn joke is this?  There's bird shit all over the house and they never stop the racket.  I'm a nervous wreck and I can't sleep all night.  IT'S NOT FUNNY……..So stop with those fucking birds.

Sincerely,

Agnes

December 21

OK Buster:

I think I prefer the birds.  What the hell am I going to do with eight maids a-milking?  It's not enough with all those birds and eight maids a-milking, but they had to bring their own goddamn cows.  There is shit all over the lawn and I can't get into my own house.  Just lay off me.  SMART ASS.

Ag

December 22

Hey Shithead:

What are you?  Some kind of sadist?  Now there's nine pipers playing.  And Christ — do they play.  They never stopped chasing those maids since they got here yesterday morning.  The cows are upset and are stepping all over those screeching birds.  No wonder they screech.  What am I going to do?  The neighbors have started a petition to evict me.  You'll get yours.

>From Ag

December 23

You Rotten Prick:

Now there's ten ladies dancing — I don't know why I call those sluts ladies.  They've been balling those nine pipers all night long.  Now the cows can't sleep and they've got diarrhea.  My living room is a river of shit.  The commissioner of buildings has subpoenaed me to give cause why the building shouldn't be condemned.  I'm sicking the police on you.

One who means it,

Ag

December 24

Listen Fuckhead:

What's with the eleven lords a-leaping on those maids and aforementioned "ladies"?  Some of those broads will never walk again.  Those pipers ran through the maids and have been committing sodomy with the cows.  All 23 of the birds are dead.  They have been trampled to death in the orgy.  I hope you're satisfied, you rotten swine.

Your sworn enemy,

Miss Agnes McCallister

December 25

From the Law Offices of Taeker, Spredar and Baengar

To Mr. John Hughes

Dear Sir:

This is to acknowledge your latest gift of twelve fiddlers fiddling, which you have seen fit to inflict upon our client, Miss Agnes McCallister.  The destruction, of course, was complete.  All correspondence should now come to our attention.  If you should attempt to reach Miss McCallister at Happy Dale Sanitarium, the attendants have instructions to shoot you on sight.  With this letter, please find attached a warrant for your arrest.

There was a city cop on his horse waiting to cross the street when a little boy on his new shiny bike stopped beside him.

"Nice bike," the cop said.  "Did Santa bring it to you?"

"Yep," the little boy said, "he sure did!"

The cop looked the bike over and handed the boy a $10 ticket for a safety violation.  The cop said, "Next year tell Santa to put a reflector light on the back of it."

The young boy glanced at the citation then looked up at the cop and said, "Nice horse you got there sir, did Santa bring it to you?"

"Yes, he sure did," chuckled the cop.

The little boy looked up at the cop and said, "Next year tell Santa the dick goes underneath the horse, not on top."