Seebach Exhibit 7

The Economist on our election: Kerry. Because he sucks, but Bush is worse.

The Economist's story on the election says about what I'd say.

I particularly like this paragraph:

The biggest mistake, though, was one that will haunt America for years to come. It lay in dealing with prisoners-of-war by sending hundreds of them to the American base at Guant�namo Bay in Cuba, putting them in a legal limbo, outside the Geneva conventions and outside America's own legal system. That act reflected a genuinely difficult problem: that of having captured people of unknown status but many of whom probably did want to kill Americans, at a time when to set them free would have been politically controversial, to say the least. That difficulty cannot neutralise the damage caused by this decision, however. Today, Guant�namo Bay offers constant evidence of America's hypocrisy, evidence that is disturbing for those who sympathise with it, cause-affirming for those who hate it. This administration, which claims to be fighting for justice, the rule of law and liberty, is incarcerating hundreds of people, whether innocent or guilty, without trial or access to legal representation. The White House's proposed remedy, namely military tribunals, merely compounds the problem.

Amen. Amen.

It is this decision, this policy, that most flagrantly flies in the face of Bush's constant claims to be a Christian man of deep faith. How can any follower of the one who came to set the captives free, do this?

Bush, Christianity, and politics

Bush is something I never expected to see; he's too religious to be a good President, and yet, he's a crappy Christian.

He prays ostentatiously. He thinks he's being guided directly by God. He lies. He tries to force others to comply with his beliefs, without offering any kind of leadership or example.

He does a very good job of pushing the emotional hot buttons to attract the religious vote, but that doesn't mean there's any real sincerity involved. We have no evidence of any greater sincerity than we get from any other politician.

Meanwhile, Bush feels comfortable driving away any and all people who disagree with him, and ignoring them, because he feels God is guiding him. He talks about being told by God what to do, so he doesn't need to waste time reading reports or talking to the intelligence agencies; he already knows what to do. God told him.

And yet... What he does is nothing like what a man named Jesus once told us to do.

As a Christian, I cannot possibly vote for a man who makes a mockery of my faith. As a believer in secular government, I cannot possibly vote for a man who is trying so hard to make his personal take on religion a part of the government I have to live under.

In short... I'd rather vote for a dog than vote for Kerry, but I'd rather vote for the decaying corpse of a squid than Bush.

I am continually mystified by the way in which people mistake Bush for a "Christian candidate". He uses the buzzwords, but doesn't walk the walk. There is no humility in him, no gentility, no kindness except when the cameras are rolling. He does not love his enemies. He does not protect the poor and defenseless; he protects the powerful. There is little basis to confuse him with the teachings of Christianity.

I've seen a lot of people talk about how Christian Bush is. Then they go on to talk about all the people they want to kill. They talk about how it's best if we torture terrorists, to make sure they don't "get off easy". If that's what they think Bush represents, well, they may be right, but it ain't Christianity.

In this election, I'm gonna vote Republican across the board, except for Bush; I'm voting for Kerry. I still believe in small government and fiscal responsibility, but Bush doesn't believe in these things.

Scary stuff, kids.

LiveJournal user talks to Secret Service. Neat! Apparently, if you say bad things about the President, you can be visited by the Secret Service.

Nice to know free speech is alive and well.

Treo 600 - least reliable phone I've ever owned.

So. My Treo 600 ($600 phone!) failed a while back. And I got it replaced, and the replacement didn't work at all; the digitizer was useless. So I got it replaced, and the new one, scheduled events and alarms didn't work. So I got another. And here I am, with my fourth Treo 600... And it's failing again.

It's now October 21st; my Treo was bought on October 27th. I'm out travelling. And I won't be back until the 29th. I'm not sure what to do; I guess I call Sprint and try to get them to flag the problem as having happened now, so it's covered by warranty service. Bleah!

But this phone is a piece of crap. If there were another phone I could use that would let me connect my laptop from the road, I'd probably get it. But so far as I can tell, there isn't.

Another reason not to use paypal.

So, I don't use Paypal. Well, not much. Every so often I need a gizmo that is sold only via paypal.

But, because they're a nasty, evil, company, with too close an affiliation with other nasty companies (say, Providian, one of the most fundamentally and genuinely evil credit card companies out there -- and that's a competitive market for evil!)... I don't have a Paypal account.

So. I just send money.

But, even if a given place which "takes money by paypal" lets you do that, you have to have a card Paypal likes.

And if you use a card to make an account, buy something, and then close the account, Paypal thinks maybe it's fraud. According to the rep I spoke to, if you have used a card on two accounts, it can never be used again.

There is no way to undo this. No expiration. No "you can send us a signed letter saying it's okay". It's simply dead. That 16-digit number will never again send money via paypal.

I just used my last card that Paypal hasn't neutralized. So I'm done. I can no longer send money via paypal, until I actually get new credit cards. I have to close existing accounts, and get new ones, before I can use Paypal again.

So.

Want me to pay you? Take some kind of payment other than Paypal.

By the way, they get a special award for the ludicrous incompetence with which they handle this. If you try to add such a card to your account, you are told you have to email "cardproblems@paypal.com". But what can they do? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING! They can't discuss card details via email. So, they tell you to call customer service. They don't give you the phone number, they just say to call. Two errors already:

1. Directing me to send email to people who are categorically unable to help me.
2. Not giving me the phone number.

So I wrote back, and asked what phone number to call, and why they didn't just give me the phone number. They wrote back with instructions for navigating Paypal's page to find the phone number.

Why not just give me the phone number?

These people are ludicrous. They survive on network effects alone; beyond that, they're pure suck.

What a piece of crap! HP DVD Writer dvd630i (aka 630c) is AWFUL!

Okay, this is just plain ridiculous.

I was having trouble with a DVD burner under FreeBSD - a Pioneer DVR-108. I finally got frustrated enough to stop by Circuit City and pick up a mid-range DVD burner. I bought an HP DVD Writer dvd630i, which appeared to not be one of the really cheap brands, so I figured it would probably at least basically work.

BOY, was I wrong.

Putting this drive in the FreeBSD machine made it kernel panic on boot, with errors about not being able to find a slave drive, even though there was no reason to expect one. If I put another drive in as the slave, I could get the HP to work, sort of.

So, I upgraded the machine from FreeBSD 5.2.1 to FreeBSD 5.3 beta 7. This made several of my other problems go away. So I tried the HP burner again. No luck, but now, I couldn't even get it to burn CDs with another drive on the chain.

So I put the HP in my Mac. It took over 20 reboots to discover the magic: The HP drive simply cannot work as a slave drive with a Pioneer A104 as master. At least, not on the Mac. No combination of steps would make it work that way. So I set it up as the master, and the Pioneer as a slave. With this setup, I found that it couldn't burn CDs or DVDs, because, even with third party software talking to it, it didn't detect discs - the same behavior I was seeing with FreeBSD.

So, I went to check for firmware updates. HP's page covers only their special Windows drivers. So, I take apart my Windows machine and install the drive there. What do you think happens? That's right. It doesn't work there, either. HP's special drivers announce cheerfully that there are no HP drives in my system.

Well, after that experience, they're right. The HP drive is not in any of the three systems it doesn't work in. It's in a box with a receipt on it. And later today, it will be back at Circuit City, where it will be returned as a defunct piece of crap.

Next time, I'll get the extra-cheap model. It'll work at least as well.

EDIT: I forgot to add: When I uninstalled HP's software from my Windows box, it uninstalled PowerDVD... Which had been installed two weeks earlier. Because all it does is check for software packages it COULD have come with, whether or not I installed them with it. Oh, and it added a couple of ads to my desktop, in the form of shortcuts to "try out Wild Tangent games now" and stuff like that. At least they went away in the uninstall.

Where do they get this stuff?

I am not making this up.

I kid you not, this guy is for real.

Kasey says: Its not right nor moral to intermix your race. For one, your going to produce mongrel children. Those children, naturally, are not going to be fully accepted by either of their heritage, be it one or the other. Its going to hurt them in the long run. Their life is going to be harder and thats not fair to them.

Secondly, we wouldnt have blacks, whites or orientals to begin with if thats not the way its supposed to be. If we are one big happy racial family, then a white couple should be able to have a black child without having to marry outside their race.

In the Book of Genesis, when it explains the creation of all the animals and the plants, it states that God created them after their "kind". The Hebrew word for "kind" is "miyn" and it means 'species'. If God didnt think it was necessary to make the races of animals after their kind, then why was it done this way? Further the Bible states that when the Gods looked at their creation, it was 'good' - Genesis 1:25. Romans 7:12 states that the 'law' is holy, just and 'Good'. Contexually speaking, to be made and reproduce after ones kind is lawful. Its holy and just.

Hence, there is no reason why it wouldnt be the same with humans.

He goes on like this a lot. Here's another gem:

Kasey says: Technically speaking, 'I' am not denying anyone anything by saying what Im saying. People are free to do what they choose regardless of the consequences, be they good or bad.

If I were to go into more detail, I would state that to intermix all the species would mean that you would mix the cultures inherent to that species. The mexican culture is unique and so is the Irish culture, but they are to different races. The culture should remain seperate, therefore, it would remain unique and valuable. If you mix the two, the individual uniqueness of the two cultures gets diluted and loses a lot of its value. I dont think thats right. The cultures should retain their value, but that cannot completely be done if you continue to mix the heritage of two different races.

I never see a cheetah intermixing 'its' species with a lion, nor do I see, naturally speaking that is, a house cat mating with a jaquar. They are all part of the cat "species", but they are different races within the cats. Its the same with humans. A black is different in more ways than one too a white person and a oriental as well. Their cultures are distintively different. The Blacks are the progenitors of a great myriad of different musical rythmns and schemes, the orientals are very good with anatomy and the workings of the body in Martial Arts. The Blacks are incredibly family oriented - and thats a very good thing. The Orientals, namely the Japanease have built incrediblely beautiful works of architecture.

Mixing the Blacks and the Orientals culture and race would dilute all of these things and, plainly speaking, thats an infringment on all that they accomplished on their own merit, with their own race and not with anyone else.

I enclose, for posterity, one of my responses to this plainly psychotic individual. Mostly because, I suspect, the thread at ChristianForums that spawned this will be gone in the morning.

Seebs wrote:

Kasey sez:
Its not right nor moral to intermix your race.

It isn't?

Is it immoral, or is it merely morally neutral?

For one, your going to produce mongrel children.

Er, yes. You are. Which is a good thing, because they have mongrel
parents. We're all mongrels. I'm a mix of, well, just about
everything. My stepmom's Chinese, which is ironic because it's
one of the few ethnic groups I can think of we don't have within
the last five generations. My wife's mostly Irish/Czech/Mongolian.

You think you're not a mongrel? I laugh. If you're human, you
probably have ancestors of "other races" within five or six
generations. It is virtually certain that you do within ten or
twenty.

Those children, naturally, are not going to be fully accepted by either of their heritage, be it one or the other.

What "heritage" should be accepting me? I have only one heritage;
I am human. The whole species is my heritage. Am I accepted? I
like to think so.

You think pedigreed children will be any more accepted? Not while
folks like you are around.

Its going to hurt them in the long run. Their life is going to be harder and thats not fair to them.

By the same argument, people of less than genius intelligence
shouldn't be having children; the children won't be as intelligent
as the children of geniuses, and this will make their lives harder,
which is unfair. My wife and I could live with this arrangement;
who's with us?

Secondly, we wouldnt have blacks, whites or orientals to begin with if thats not the way its supposed to be.

We wouldn't have blacks, whites, and orientals wanting to have
children together to begin with if that's not the way it's supposed
to be.

If we are one big happy racial family, then a white couple should be able to have a black child without having to marry outside their race.

The same way people with blue eyes can make brown-eyed children?

In the Book of Genesis, when it explains the creation of all the animals and the plants, it states that God created them after their "kind". The Hebrew word for "kind" is "miyn" and it means 'species'. If God didnt think it was necessary to make the races of animals after their kind, then why was it done this way?

Actually, I believe it says they reproduce after their kind.

However, our "kind" is "human".

Further the Bible states that when the Gods looked at their creation, it was 'good' - Genesis 1:25. Romans 7:12 states that the 'law' is holy, just and 'Good'. Contexually speaking, to be made and reproduce after ones kind is lawful. Its holy and just.

Indeed. And I promise you, if anyone I sleep with ever bears me
healthy ducks, we will have a SERIOUS TALK ABOUT THIS.

Hence, there is no reason why it wouldnt be the same with humans.

Indeed, it is. Humans mate with humans and produce human offspring.

A lesson in patience.

We went to Noodles & Company to pick up some food for Melony. The guy in front of us ordered a couple of dishes; the woman after him ordered at least three.

When his order came up, she grabbed it and ran.

Presumably, she thought it was her order. But she was in a biiiig hurry. So she grabbed it and ran. Didn't check it, didn't confirm the name. Just grabbed it and ran.

So... She got the wrong food, and less of it. Oops!

Next time, be more patient.

Well, then.

Thanks to MillyFan, found this terrifying site:

http://www.bushfaith.com/homepage.asp

One of their quotes:

According to BBC correspondent Justin Webb: "Nobody spends more time on his knees than George W. Bush. The Bush administration hums to the sound of prayer. Prayer meetings take place day and night. It's not uncommon to see White House functionaries hurrying down corridors carrying Bibles."

First off, that kind of prayer isn't faith. It's the exact kind of public show of religion Jesus told us to avoid. It's... It's wrong. And it's the kind of wrong that makes me want to get this guy and his big show of how religious he is as far away from my government as possible.

Secondly...

I just want to repeat my favorite quote.

Nobody spends more time on his knees than George W. Bush.

And to think, he's still so closeted that he's actually trying to legislate against other men who want to do the same thing!

Sprint insults my intelligence

So, I got an offer from Sprint. I can get service credits (not money, just credits towards service) by selling them my old phones.

That is to say, they'll offer me $75.00.

Here's the page for the Treo 600 at Sprint PCS.

Here's the price chart:

Hmm.

So, basically, they want me to give them a $400 phone. For $75.

My theory is that this is probably because Treo 600 phones have had reliability problems; I think I'm on my fourth. So, they probably need working phones they can test out and label "refurbished" to give people instead of buying more phones to keep up with the incredible rate at which these things go south.

But... $75. On a phone that they won't sell new for under $420, and they still claim is a $600 phone. And that $150 savings is only if you're activating new service and have a two-year service contract.

Wow. I'm wondering if I should point out to them the clear message they're sending me about the intelligence they want to see in their user base.

Thoughts of a Christian agnostic

I kid you not, this is a FAQ. I have been asked this question no less than ten times since I got here, probably twenty or more. I've been asked by moderators, by other members. I've had posts deleted from Christians-only forums by well-meaning staff.

So.

From the top, using the most recent version as a template:

They asked why you post on the Christian side and answer Christian questions when you describe yourself as a "militant agnostic Christian" (a contradiction in terms huh?: )

Could you please explain what you mean by that for us, because it is difficult to reply to give an adequate response one way or the other until we understand.

Okay, let's break it down into words. (Thanks to dictionary.com for the citations.)

1. Militant.
mil-i-tant adj.
1. Fighting or warring.
2. Having a combative character; aggressive, especially in the service of a cause: a militant political activist.

I am using sense 2 of this word; I am aggressive in my beliefs.

2. Agnostic.

Word History: An agnostic does not deny the existence of God and heaven but holds that one cannot know for certain whether or not they exist. The term agnostic was fittingly coined by the 19th-century British scientist Thomas H. Huxley, who believed that only material phenomena were objects of exact knowledge. He made up the word from the prefix a-, meaning "without, not," as in amoral, and the noun Gnostic. Gnostic is related to the Greek word gnsis, "knowledge," which was used by early Christian writers to mean "higher, esoteric knowledge of spiritual things" hence, Gnostic referred to those with such knowledge. In coining the term agnostic, Huxley was considering as "Gnostics" a group of his fellow intellectuals -- "ists," as he called them -- who had eagerly embraced various doctrines or theories that explained the world to their satisfaction. Because he was a "man without a rag of a label to cover himself with," Huxley coined the term agnostic for himself, its first published use being in 1870.

I am agnostic. I do not have knowledge.

3. Christian.

I believe the site's definition of Christian covers the normal points. (The site uses the Nicene Creed as a definition of "Christian".)

Now, some people would ask how you could be a Christian if you don't know God exists. How indeed? Perhaps the Bible has some insights for us:

Hebrews 11:1

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

If I had seen, I would know. I have not seen; I do not know. I have faith. Is it acceptable to have faith in things you admit to not being totally sure of? How does Jesus describe the relationship between what you have seen, and what you have believed?

John 20:29

Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

Apparently, a willingness to have faith beyond your certainty can be a good thing.

Do we see clearly? Do we know the truth in fullness?

1 Corinthians 13:12

For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

We do not yet see fully.

We admit our failings, our doubts; only when we admit these shortcomings can we hope to overcome them, to progress beyond them.

No one has faith in the presence of a cat, or the pain of a bee sting. These are things we experience, that we know. There is no faith there. Doubt is not the absence of faith; doubt is the context of faith.

To quote a man much wiser than myself, Real Live Preacher:

Not so. People who doubt can have great faith because faith is something you do, not something you think. In fact, the greater your doubt the more heroic your faith.

I learned that it doesn't matter in the least that I be convinced of God's existence. Whether or not God exists is none of my business, really. What do I know of existence? I don't even know how the VCR works.

What does matter is whether or not I am faithful. I think faithful is a hell of a good word. It still has some of its original shine. It still calls us to action.

Once I stumbled upon this very old truth, I prayed the most honest prayer of my life.

God, I don't have great faith, but I can be faithful. My belief in you may be seasonal, but my faithfulness will not. I will follow in the way of Christ. I will act as though my life and the lives of others matter. I will love.

I have no greater gift to offer than my life. Take it.

This, then, is faith. Not empty and soulless intellectual assent to a series of claims, considered in a vacuum, but the commitment to live the life Jesus called us to, whether or not we ever have the easy confidence so many rely on.

Posted by seebs at 01:47 PM | Comments (3)

Why I'm not voting for Bush, part 1.

I posted this in a thread on CF about the handling of the people being kept by the U. S. Government in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. My correspondent is another member of the Republican politics forum. This is from an ongoing conversation, so the context is a bit sketchy, but I think everyone's familiar with the basic situation: Lots of people being kept as prisoners, with no trials, no charges, no lawyers. And, I might point out, we've already had court rulings saying this is wrong.

Are they lawful combatants according to the Geneva Conventions?

I dunno. What other options are there?

Is there a special category for "not even human, and not entitled to basic human rights"?

Keep in mind, the Geneva Conventions are not a standard of morality; they are an ABSOLUTE MINIMUM, and if you fall below it, people have a reasonable grounds to eradicate you.

If they are lawful combatants according to the Geneva conventions.

How about if they're human?

If they're levying war against the United States or giving aid and comfort to its enemies or adhering to them, put them on trial for treason.

If they're citizens, then yeah, it's probably treason.

Treason is a crime.

If you commit a crime, you have a constitutional and inalienable right to a speedy trial by a jury of your peers. You cannot just be held without charges.

As to the others...

1. If they are citizens of a nation we are at war with, they're POWs.
2. If they're citizens of a nation we are not at war with, we should extradite them for trial.
3. If they're Just Random People, then we should either let 'em go or try 'em.

The last, you will note, is not a formal legal requirement. It's a moral requirement. Morality doesn't have loopholes, it doesn't have elaborate rationalizations. You don't get to make up new special rules to avoid having to follow it. Sometimes, it's inconvenient, and you'd be happier or safer not taking the moral path.

But the moral path is still there. We have established that justice demands that people be tried by a jury, with access to legal counsel, on the basis of laws which are published and were in effect at the time they committed their alleged crimes. We have established that this trial should be speedy.

That we only legally guarantee these rights to our own citizens reflects the impossibility of trying to extend rights to people who are under the authority of other governments. However, once we have these people, and have claimed that no other government can speak for them, we should offer them these same rights; not because they are citizens, but because they are humans.

A lot of people like to claim this is a Christian nation. We talk about people being endowed with certain rights "by their Creator".

Well, do we mean it? Are we sincere in this, or is it a bunch of hypocritical nonsense we use to bash people we don't like, but won't stick to when it actually means we have to put our OWN comfort on the line to do the right thing?

I say that, whatever America's origins may be, those rights are indeed inherent. They are indeed endowed by our Creator, not by any law. And that failure to extend those rights to all humans, without exceptions, without excuses, without loopholes, is a grave state of sin.

This is one of the reasons I cannot in good conscience vote for Bush; I believe he is directly and flagrantly disregarding God's clear and unambiguous will. Not just His will for His people, but for all people. God has endowed us with certain rights; Bush has deprived some people of those rights. This is simply immoral, and cannot be defended or justified.

These people need to be charged, and tried, using juries and judges, and with access to legal counsel. This is not optional; this is the bare minimum moral standard my faith demands of our treatment of all people, and if Bush wishes to proclaim that faith when it comes time for people to vote for him, he should act on that faith when hundreds of people are languishing in prison, having been neither charged, nor tried, nor found guilty of any crime.

Holding them until the war in Afghanistan was over would have been comprehensible. It has been well over a year since then. The time to act has come and gone.

Athy, Athier, Athiest

I am soooo sick of people misspelling "atheist".

Here's my solution:

"athy" is hereby declared to be an adjective. If a thing is more athy than another thing, it is athier. If it is more athy then all other things, it is the athiest.

What, exactly, does this adjective mean? I propose that it be used to describe "the trait of being repulsed by homosexual sex". There are a few reasons for this. One is that "homophobia" is overused hugely, and sheds more heat than light. Another is that most atheists are quick to defend gay sex as acceptable, and most fundamentalists would see disliking gay sex as a very positive trait.

In short, they need to learn to spell, to make this useful distinction.

This lets us eliminate the overuse of "homophobia", create a useful word, and give people an incentive to learn to fucking spell.

Studio Whipping Boy

It's been a long day's puttering and configuring, but the initial pages are up for Studio Whipping Boy. What's that? That's a studio consisting of Chartreuse, my lovely wife, Fireball, our roommate, and the writer of Kagerou, and the inimitable Rah.

There's a few projects here, too. This is the new home of Metanoia, Cynthia, and Cold Iron. There's a lot of half-finished things; we haven't put many images in Rah's image gallery, for instance, but we've got the comment code working. (That was a lot of fun; the image gallery in question presumes MySQL, not PosgreSQL, but I would rather use PostgreSQL, which is, so far as I can tell, superior in every possible way.)

Lots of fun, and now I'm getting some milage out of my high-speed personal DSL.

Commuting is destroying our world.

Seriously. Commuting really is that bad.

It's not that no one ever needs to commute. It's that we have a lot of people commuting who don't need to, and the net result is a feedback loop of interacting problems making each other worse.

Commuters waste gas, and pollute the environment. They waste time. Furthermore, the more time they spend stuck in traffic jams, the more gas they waste and the more time they waste, and the more of them there are, the more traffic jams they get into.

Underneath it all is a basic design flaw: We have a huge number of people moving the same way, at the same time, all at once, and each of them is in a separate car.

Carpooling helps some. If you can have three people in a car, you've just taken two cars off the road. Reducing the number of cars on the road has exponential effects; you're not only reducing the number of cars directly, but you're reducing the amount of traffic jam, which means you're increasing the speed at which the other cars get off the road too.

Telecommuting works better. A telecommuting employee isn't on the road at all. It's not just a question of traffic jams; there's no commute time at all, and there's no gas burned moving the employee around.

The time spent commuting is often overlooked or underestimated. Many people have a commute of half an hour to an hour each way. Some have longer commutes. An hour each way, for a regular 9-5 job, translates into ten hours a week; on a 40 hour job, that's 25% overhead. In practice, this time is mostly lost. Sometimes, people work on the road; the net result is that even more time is lost, as people die in accidents caused by idiots trying to have meetings on the phone while driving.

There are, of course, some jobs that really benefit from or require commuting. Most office jobs don't. Even when there's a benefit, the costs of commuting may outweigh it.

Commuting hurts productivity, too. A commuter can't take a 15-minute break. A commuter can't take just half an hour off to do something at home, or let the plumber in. When my friends who commute need work done on the house, that's an entire day off from work; there's no point in trying to arrange a commute. When I have to have someone over, it generally costs me about 20 minutes.

Working from home cuts the impact of sick days. An employee who's out sick isn't about to drive in heavy traffic for an hour, check his email, and drive home, but it's no big deal to stumble over to the office and have a quick look at the inbox.

In short... Commuting is a disaster. It made sense when we didn't have reliable high-speed networking. Now, for most people, it's a bad idea. If we didn't insist on making people commute just so stone-age Luddite bosses could stare at them balefully over a cup of lukewarm coffee, we'd have less traffic, less polution, more time to work, more time to be home from work, lower costs, and better morale.

Get with the program, folks.