the daily snivel

But since I've been on a Mac-evangelism streak lately, I thought I'd point out that the results of the 19th Annual Reader Satisfaction Survey conducted by PC Magazine has Apple ranked at number one. The score is compiled in terms of user experiences at home and at work, as well as repair or support incidents within the past twelve months. Apple was hailed as "the leader of the pack" by the magazine for both desktop and notebook systems, while other leading companies were ranked highly for one or the other, but not both.

Just saying, is all.

In fairness, I'll point out that my 4-year-old iBook is still out of action due to its recent and lamented logic board failure. Though given the number of times I've accidentally dropped it, I guess it needed a rest. I can't wait until I make big boy money and I don't have to choose between making my crippling student loan payments or getting it fixed. 

I'm not going to lie to you. I may be a lawyer, a student loan debtor, a coffee fiend, and a masher, but I have a real soft spot for the cute animals. One of my daily reads is Cute Overload, a website dedicated to bringing you spellbinding photographs of adorable critters. It's a daily dose of treacle that does a soul good in this world of suffering and despair. My personal favourites are the cats, frogs, and hamsters. Eee! So unbearably sweet to my blackened, tyrannical heart.

Anyway, I'm sharing this most wonderful kitten video with you. I dare you to try not to smile even once while watching it. You will most certainly fail in the attempt.

P.S. I was going to title this post "a bit of fluff," because that's all it really boils down to in this month of blogging about politics, criminal law, sick cats, and hardware, but the pun would have been unforgivable. 

John Gruber of Daring Fireball spends a lot of time writing about "Mac nerdery." His writing is good and thought-provoking on a subject near and dear to my heart, but there are times I think he thinks things through far too deeply. He recently wrote a 3000 word dissertation on the default way that the Mac OS selects multiple items on a list menu, for example, persuasively coming to the conclusion that Apple's Human Interface Guideline should be amended to allow anchored selections vs. unanchored selections. It's honestly something I'd never given a moment's thought to before, but there you go. He always writes in an entertaining fashion.

Anyway, his website is still on my daily read list, particularly because of highly detailed thoughts on subjects such as the recently hyped wireless hack of a MacBook by two security "experts" from security firm SecureWorks at an August 2006 BlackHat conference.

For background, I'll explain that the claim went that you could hack a MacBook and gain complete control of the system over any wireless network by exploiting an alleged flaw in the wireless card's drivers. As was quickly noted, however, the exploit (shown only via prerecorded video) made use of an external, third-party wireless card. All MacBooks have internal wireless cards by default. But the claim was repeated that this was a flaw that could be exploited through Apple's own wireless card and drivers. In other words, that you could really hack a MacBook via WiFi right out of the box.

The SecureWorks team added, fairly, that this was an exploit that would work on many other computers, including Windows machines. They indicated, however, that they used a MacBook in their demonstration because of the "Mac user base aura of smugness on security," adding, "We're not picking specifically on Macs here, but if you watch those 'Get a Mac' commercials enough, it eventually makes you want to stab one of those users in the eye with a lit cigarette or something," one does feel that there's more than technical interest behind publicizing such an apparent flaw in this manner.

The problem for them is that, following extensive scrutiny, they have admitted that not only was the wireless card used a third-party, external device, but that the driver it required was third-party software that was not installed by Apple or supported by Apple. This quickly produced a response from Apple:

Despite SecureWorks being quoted saying the Mac is threatened by the exploit demonstrated at Black Hat, they have provided no evidence that in fact it is. To the contrary, the SecureWorks demonstration used a third party USB 802.11 device -- not the 802.11 hardware in the Mac -- a device which uses a different chip and different software drivers than those on the Mac. Further, SecureWorks has not shared or demonstrated any code in relation to the Black Hat-demonstrated exploit that is relevant to the hardware and software that we ship.

John Gruber runs with this, after already being very vocal in his skepticism since the claim was aired, and pens yet another thoroughly long, but thoroughly fascinating discussion of the issues:

I thus see no way out of this where Maynor and Ellch escape with their reputations intact, other than if they have in fact discovered a vulnerability against the stock MacBook card and driver, that they have disclosed their findings privately to Apple, and that the statement issued Friday by Apple's Lynn Fox is in fact scurrilously false. But even in this scenario -- which as I see it is the best case for Maynor and Ellch -- if they know for certain that MacBooks, as shipped by Apple, are vulnerable, why have they not plainly said so? I'm not saying they should have publicly described the nature of the vulnerability in any detail, but they certainly should have stated clearly that owners of whatever specific Macintoshes they have identified flaws against should be careful when turning on AirPort in any public or non-trusted environment.

In short, either Maynor and Ellch have discovered an exploit against stock MacBook and Apple has decided, incomprehensibly, to scurrilously besmirch their reputations with flat-out lies that will soon be disproved and will bring disgrace to Apple Computer, or, Maynor and Ellch have not discovered such an exploit and they are, at best, gross exaggerators, or, at worse (and more likely in my opinion), outright frauds.

...

So Krebs, albeit belatedly, finally now seems suspicious of the claims Maynor and Ellch had made to him previously, which claims he reported without verification.

But so is it just me, or does the headline Krebs chose for this mea culpa -- "Follow-up to the Macbook Post" -- seem slightly less provocative than the headline he chose for his original post in the series -- "Hijacking a Macbook in 60 Seconds or Less"? A more reciprocally sensational (and therefore reciprocally diggable) but yet completely accurate headline might have been, say, "Losing My Journalistic Integrity in 60 Seconds or Less", or "I'm a Gullible Rube and Got So Excited I Nearly Stained My Pants at the Thought of Breaking a Story on a Major Mac Security Exploit".)

Go have a read if you love your Appley emo boxes. In fact, even (and especially) if you don't. I would never claim that Macs are invincible (no one seriously does), but it's certainly true that they are comparatively secure systems, and that there was a lot of schadenfreude out there when this exploit was first announced, since some people really do want to see those smug Mac users get theirs. 

Thinking back to the recent news that the Conservatives are seeking extend the criminal process to ten-year-old children, Vic Toews has argued that one of the main forces behind such a move is that social agencies are letting these kids fall through the cracks. Here's Accidental Deliberations on it, saving me from having to rant about it while I'm at work on this rainy Sunday:

In other words, Toews tries to justify getting the criminal law involved earlier because of a view that social services aren't currently addressing the needs of such youths. But apparently it would be too easy to deal with such a deficiency by talking with the provinces to try to ensure that appropriate resources exist to provide the needed services. Instead, Toews' solution is not only to raise the spectre of criminal prosecutions for the youths involved, but also to impose his vision of social services on the provinces (and without any additional funding to help provinces meet that obligation).

I've said it before and I'll say it again: the criminal law power should never be used to fix social problems. It just widens the net more and more, triggering penal consequences for people who are being failed by overworked and underfunded social programs and agencies, and straining our overstretched criminal justice system even further from the problems it should be focusing on. 

Never base a major purchasing decision based on spite. That's my advice to certain dear friends (and you know who you are) who have turned their noses up in disgust at the prospect of buying a Mac after watching Steve Jobs' keynote address at the 2006 World Wide Developer's Conference, wherein more than a couple of playful jabs were made at the expense of a certain megacorporation for, shall we say, taking liberal inspiration from the current version of Mac OS X in making a number of upcoming software refinements.

Anyone who has ever said that Mac users suffer from a cult-like delusion and dedication has never had to try and smooth the ruffled feathers of friends who use Windows boxes and take affront at an Apple keynote address. Nevermind that in the same keynote, two of the nicest, fastest computers I've ever seen were unveiled (the new 64-bit Mac Pro workstation and XServe server), completing the family of the only computers that can run both Mac OS X and Windows XP. And that, in a continuation of my "Reasons to buy a Mac" discussion (as I pointed out to my dear and incredulous friends last night) that Apple is rated number one by Consumer Reports in all around consumer satisfaction for its tech support, and is highly ranked in terms of quality, value, and reliability.

Meanwhile, I have to say that it is very hard for any computer manufacturer or software developer to say that they did X first, and Y is just a copy. Competition is what keeps innovation moving, and taking a neat idea and making it work better is something Apple has been doing for a long time, since the very first time they made a mouse move a pointer across a screen. They didn't invent the mouse -- they just made it work in a way that revolutionized computing, drawing on ideas that were out there. They didn't invent mp3 players, but simply focused on making the best mp3 players. Apple's rivalry with Microsoft certainly precedes this keynote, given their ill-fated lawsuit against Microsoft for borrowing the Apple OS "look and feel" for Windows 3.1 in the 1990s. But Apple and Microsoft need each other, and the "inventions" and innovations that either make would grind to a halt without the software and consumer base each provides to the other. Microsoft has its own, profitable, Mac Business Unit (bringing such daily necessities as Word into our lives), and Apple spends a lot of R & D making applications that run on Windows (like iTunes and Quicktime) that run just as well on a Mac.

Nevertheless, given the buzz and press and excitement that is being generated around Windows Vista, and the upcoming Microsoft Zune (the "iPod Killer"), Apple would be insane not to leverage some of that attention back its way by pointing out the glaring similarities, and trying to lay claim to being there first. It's marketing. And, anyway, all you need to do is look at the tech media to see that Apple's not the only one making the comparisons.

In any case, I'd much rather have Steve Jobs quipping about Windows on a stage than Steve Ballmer trying to sell it, as seen here where he completely loses it at his Developer's Conference and makes me feel a little scared inside to boot.

Aw, shucks. I don't mean it. I'm just fooling around! 

[Updated August 16, below]

Even with the narrow mandate given to our minority government of conservative insect overlords, and the cautious honeymoon period in which our beloved Prime Minister, Looney McNuttersons, kept his petulant whims and extremist colourful party members tightly under wraps, it was only a matter of time before things like this started to happen. Vic Toews, the federal Justice Minister, is calling for the Youth Criminal Justice Act to be amended so that the age of criminal responsibility is lowered from 12 to 10. Additionally, he states that he would make adult sentences mandatory for youths aged 14 and older who are charged with violent or repeat offences, and that deterrence must become a mandatory factor in all youth sentences.

Youth criminal justice is a complicated area of law. Just about every jurisdiction has a different definition of criminal responsibility, and there is also widely varying differences between jurisdictions as to when a youth vs. adult sentence is appropriate. In Canada, ths minimum age for criminal responsibility has been 12 since 1984. With the enactment of the modern YCJA in 2002, Canada has struck a balance between the competing goals of encouraging accountability and recognizing the reduced capacity to form criminal intent by creating a system that will always hold youths accountable to the courts once they have reached the age of twelve, but only imposing the most serious sanctions in the most clear and compelling circumstances.

Crime rates are generally falling across Canada, and the youth crime rate in particular has dropped 6% in 2005, the second consecutive decline. Violent youth crime dropped by 2% and property crime by youths dropped 12%. The only increase was in youths charged with homicides, which is already dealt with harshly by the Youth Criminal Justice Act, as I explain below. Overall, it is clear that we are not experiencing the kind of rash of youth offences that would justify lowering the age of criminal responsibility to 10.

Even if you think tougher sentencing for violent offences is a swell idea, it must be noted that the Youth Criminal Justice Act will already provide for the possibility of an adult sentence where a youth is found guilty of one of a list of "presumptive offences." These include first degree murder, second degree murder, attempted murder, manslaughter, and aggravated sexual assault. They also include serious violent offences where the accused is fourteen or older and has previously been found guilty of two separate violent offences, if the most recent offence is an offence for which an adult offender would receive a sentence in excess of two years. So, making the adult sentence completely mandatory in these cases is simply a bit of red meat to appease the base while removing more discretion from the hands of judges, who are ultimately the best positioned to look at the complicated facts and exceptional circumstances of a serious youth case and make a just finding. Mandatory sentences presume that the government always knows best. And it doesn't, because its decisions are political, universal, and arbitrary, rather than individual and fact-based.

Consider also that the Court of Appeal for Ontario ruled this year in R. v. B.D. (2006), 79 O.R. (3d) 768 that even the current regime for imposing adult sentences has constitutional problems that could only be worsened by mandatory adult sentences. The law previously required that when the Crown sought an adult sentence for a young offender, it was up to the young offender to satisfy the court that a youth sentence (which is considerably less severe and relies on more community-based and rehabilitative options) was more appropriate. This was seen as an unjustifiable infringement of a youth's right to liberty that did not accord with the principles of fundamental justice. Although the Court was specifically considering the reverse onus imposed on a young offender here, and not the adult sentence in general, I do not believe it would be any more constitutional for a government to say that young persons should be treated as adults without exception, despite the creation of an entirely distinct justice system premised on the recognition that youths have greater dependence and reduced maturity than adult offenders and should be in a separate system.

Whatever your opinion on law and order issues, it's hard to find an objectively sensible rationale the moves that Mr. Toews is advocating. Adult sentences are already provided for under the YCJA for serious violent offences. Youth crimes (and crime rates in general) are on the decline. There is no evidence, beyond what Mr. Toews admitted as anecdotal, for any need to get children as young as ten involved in the justice system.

Finally, and let's just appeal to common sense: don't you remember some of the stupid things you did when you were ten? How many of those things were technically criminal? We've already gone far enough with ridiculous "zero tolerance" policies that expel and suspend students for any and every kind of transgression, from schoolyard fights to sass. Would you have been better off if you'd been arrested back then to boot?

[Updated August 16, 2006, to add:] Come to think of it, when I was ten, I still believed in Santa Claus. My moral compass revolved around whether or not I would do something that would affect whether I got presents on December 25th. I'm sure some kids were more sophisticated and cynical than I was at that age, but it strikes me as ridiculous that being of an age when you're gullible enough to believe in a lie about an imaginary magic jolly elf that brings presents once a year through the chimey can mean you know right from wrong enough (let alone reality) to attract the potential for criminal liability for your actions.

I tend to think of the Conservatives as having a rather Victorian attitude towards a lot of things, but it really does sound like they're stuck in a rendition of Oliver Twist. 

In the wake of the announcement that a terror plot had been foiled in the United Kingdon (and, I might add, foiled by professionals who acted within the bounds of the law and the proper respect for civil liberties by relying upon valid search warrants and normal investigative procedures), it seems important to take a deep breath and put terrorism into context.

Terrorism is a threat to be taken seriously. I certainly do. No one wants to see another city attacked or another airplane blown out of the sky. And we should rightly call upon our governments to take all possible precautions to make our nations safer. But we cannot do so without working to make the world a more just and modernized and equitable place, which is how you stamp out extremism. And we can't turn every attack and threat and suspicion into an existential crises where we become so paralyzed with fear that we jump at every shadow and would do anything to feel safe and secure, even if it means suspending civil liberties and invading other nations. We have to be strong, remember the ideals and principles that make living in a free and democratic society worthwhile, and -- yes -- suck it up and accept the fact that bad things do happen and you can't live every day worrying about what the Dreaded Foreign Menace is doing (especially if you live, as many jingoists and terror addicts do, in the middle of buttfuck nowhere).

Helpfully, Kung Fu Monkey lays down the right attitude and the wrong attitude to have in a time of crisis. See if you can tell which is which:

FDR: Oh, I'm sorry, was wiping out our entire Pacific fleet supposed to intimidate us? We have nothing to fear but fear itself, and right now we're coming to kick your ass with brand new destroyers riveted by waitresses. How's that going to feel?

CHURCHILL: Yeah, you keep bombing us. We'll be in the pub, flipping you off. I'm slapping Rolls-Royce engines into untested flying coffins to knock you out of the skies, and then I'm sending angry Welshmen to burn your country from the Rhine to the Polish border.

US. NOW: BE AFRAID!! Oh God, the Brown Bad people could strike any moment! They could strike ... NOW!! AHHHH. Okay, how about .. NOW!! AAGAGAHAHAHHAG! Quick, do whatever we tell you, and believe whatever we tell you, or YOU WILL BE KILLED BY BROWN PEOPLE!! PUT DOWN THAT SIPPY CUP!!

You dig? 

Remind me never to do any favours for the government. Any level of it. Not one little courtesy. Not if the Prime Minister himself came to my door and asked to borrow a cup of sugar, or even if I was asked to wipe my feet before stepping inside the fanciest civil service office building. Forget it. This is because the pure, coal-black evil that is the National Student Loans Service Centre denied me interest relief on my shockingly expensive post-law school student loan payments because I'm just not quite poor enough. Thanks. I'll remember that when you need me. I really will.

I love my job, and I wish I could stay, but the weeks are counting down to my last day on September 1, and it's amazing how few job opportunities there seem to be for a new lawyer in Ottawa right now. I'm checking Legal Aid's website, the Federal Government's website, the Lawyer's Weekly, the Ontario Reports careers section, the Faculty's career listings, the job bank, the papers careers sections, and even legal staffing agencies. It's bleak. I don't mind the idea of sleeping in for a couple of weeks in September while I look, but I wouldn't like the utter lack of income (or whatever pittance EI will give me).

So I'm feeling sorry for myself because there's no bread at home, and I'm starving after a long day of working and working out, and I can't even afford a loaf of bread to make a sandwich with. And while I'm exhausted after a long week and it's a quarter after 11 at night, I have to walk home from work (just like I walked to work this morning, and just like I've done both ways every day) because I can't afford bus tickets. And it's as well that I'm single and lonely because I couldn't afford to take someone out for coffee right now anyway.

Bah.

So, yes, feeling very black and sour and wretched this evening. It will pass. I just need to get it out. I mean, between hitting the gym regularly again, and the malnutrition, and all the walking, I've lost 15 pounds in the past month, which is amazing and gratifying and I love how much better my clothes fit. There is an upside to all this.

Additionally, I'm so glad, of course, that I was able to put so much of the resouces I do have into making George the cat feel better, and I don't regret that at all. It really is a ray of light in my days that I can some home to him and rub his tummy, which is now healed and dry and fuzzy with new fur. He purrs all the time now, and is extra affectionate whenever I'm around. You can just tell he's comfortable and content again. And it makes me feel good inside to know that, when it comes right down to it, I'd go hungry before I'd let him do so, and that his health is so important that my roommate and I are willing to forsake nearly everything to look after him.

It's worth adding that later on this weekend I will count my many blessings. I do have a lot to be thankful for. But even Ned Flanders gets to have a full scale freakout once in awhile. 

George the cat has not been feeling well lately and, despite our very best efforts to ease his growing discomfort, he was showing very clear signs of inflammatory bowel disorder. This condition is usually the result of a food allergy, causing inflammation of a cat's digestive tract and typically manifests as regular, if not daily, vomiting.

We'd managed to get the vomiting under control several months ago with a hypoallergenic cat food formula (such foods get their protein source from animals that cats typically aren't exposed to and as such lack antibodies for, like duck or kangaroo), but George's allergic reactions were at best diminished rather than completely controlled. He developed numerous hot spots on his skin that he would scratch or groom obsessively, most vividly on his tummy. Earlier this winter we put him in a cone-shaped e-collar to keep himself from grooming so obsessively, but he quickly learned how to contort himself around it to resume all-access tummy licking, and in any case seemed to also be allergic to the plastic it was made out of. Around two weeks ago, his belly had reached the point that his belly had been licked completely clean of hair, and was red, raw, and weepy. He would lie down on a bed and leave a wet spot, it was so bad.

Although we had taken him to the veterinarian before about his problems, the best they could do was give him a shot of corticosteroids and recommend further testing. Corticosteroids and other anti-inflammatory drugs are, unfortunately, not at all good for cats, as they pose a high risk of causing kidney damage. So we're reluctant to use them as a long-term solution.

At any rate, George was clearly no longer feeling well, despite being as good-natured and loving as ever. So it was time to take him to the vet.

This time, we chose the Bytown Cat Hospital, hoping to have him treated in a facility with more expertise in diagnosing and treating these kinds of problems (as well as finding a vet with a better bedside manner than we`ve had the luck to encounter before). We took him there a week ago, and they also quickly suspected that he had inflammatory bowel problems -- given his symptoms and history, he was the right age, was an indoor cat, and didn't come into contact with other animals or pets. George was subjected to the indignity of a blood test to rule out any feline diseases or organ problems (but he was "very brave" about the big needle, according to the vet), and promptly scheduled for a skin biopsy (to rule out parasites or skin diseases) and more injections for the coming Thursday. In the meantime, he was sent home with a super deluxe prescription-only hypoallergenic cat food (made out from only the finest ducks -- no ash or carrots or snouts for my big sensitive boy!) and the distinct odour of rubbing alcohol emanating from where the vet stuck him.

I took him to his next big appointment on my way to work on Thursday -- during the day, he was put under a general anaesthetic, had various bits of him shaved, some skin samples were removed, and he was sutured back up. Then his claws were trimmed, his belly was thoroughly cleaned, and he was given a dose of antibiotics and a shot of steroids to take down his inflammation and help him heal.

Eight hundred dollars later, George is back home and clearly feeling much better. He bounced right back from the anaesthesia, and takes every opportunity to seek cuddles, purr loudly, and otherwise hang out with his favourite people in a state of contentment and comfort. He even stoically puts up with having a pill shoved down his throat twice a day.

Happily, he is hungrily addicted to his new cat food, gobbling it up with vigour and relish as soon as we feed him, and no longer listlessly picks at it like he did with the old food (nor does he signal his disappointment with it by leaving large piles of half-crunched crumbs on the floor as he once did). His belly and his other hot spots are healing up wonderfully -- and as much as the steroids and antibiotics are to be credited for this, I am of the firm belief that he's finally eating cat food that isn't provoking an allergic reaction in him. He seems so much more comfortable and happy these days.

My friend (and roommate) Mel and I couldn't be more relieved. We've been very concerned about our cat's health, and it is very upsetting to watch an animal (especially one you love) in such discomfort. We had to pull together a lot of resources, and beg and borrow some money, to make this work. Of course, we don't regret spending the money we did on him at all, but it was certainly a huge blow to our limited finances this month. Neither of us have or make a lot of money, and the veterinarian bill was paid out of money that normally goes to food and rent and other bills. But seeing George purr, and loll about happily, and smack his chops after eating his new food, makes it all worthwhile. I'm looking very forward to the day I can pet his belly without saying "eww" to myself.

I watched an episode of Family Guy tonight where Peter sprayed himself with "Tag Body Spray for Sick Cats," only to be swarmed by coughing, barfing, mangy, sick cats (including one wearing a cone-shaped e-collar) -- and, as he tries to pet one, displays the same grossed-out horror that George's angry belly inspired in me before his big day at the vet. It made me laugh, if only because my special little guy is doing so much better.

So, the moral of the story is that George is going to be just fine. Unfortunately, my beloved iBook is not. It has developed a logic board problem and is so ancient that it has long outlived even the extended warranty I bought for it all those years ago. I'm going to try to see if I can sweet talk Apple's customer relations into extending its logic board repair program (which ended well over a year ago), but if that fails I'm afraid I will be without a home computer until I start making a lot more money. Between the cat and the student loans and having to eat, I don't have anything to spare for my trusty old Mac.

Says Rob, the poor little rich lawyer.