Crab Stuffed Tilapia (Sunday, January 15, 2012)

In an effort to improve my diet, I resolved to plan meals a week at a time, and cook more, rather than eating out. To that end, this evening, I made a crab stuffed tilapia.

The stuffing was made from 8 ounces of crab meat, a half cup of shredded cabbage, two thirds cup of bread crumbs, an egg, a quarter cup of olive oil, garlic, salt, and pepper. These were combined and added to a couple tilapia fillets and baked at 400 degrees for about 25 minutes. Honestly, that's enough stuffing for four to six fillets, rather than two. So we had more crab stuffing than tilapia. It was pretty tasty.

The meal was well complemented with a bottle of one of my favorite wines, a 2009 Erben Spätlese.

IT206 005 Object Oriented Programming - GMU Spring 2012 (Friday, January 13, 2012)

(Updated 1/20/2012) It's that time of year again. GMU has finally put my name up on PatriotWeb, assigned to this class, and the Google queries are starting to roll in.

I will be teaching Section 005 of IT206, Object Oriented Techniques for IT Problem Solving, which meets at the Fairfax campus on Tuesdays and Thursdays from 7:20 PM to 8:35 PM in Innovation Hall Room 207. In order to take Section 005, you must also be enrolled in lab section 205, which meets in Innovation Hall 334 on Tuesday evenings immediately after the lecture. The lab instructor for this section is Kiran Thati, who will be assisted by Kruthika Kunduru. I will also be teaching an online section of IT206, Section DL3, for which you must also enroll in lab section 2D3. Kruthika will be the lab instructor for the online sections. The online section will be asynchronous, using recorded lectures that students will watch on their own time. Online students will be expected to attend the midterm exam and final exam in person. You must have earned a C or better in IT106 to enroll in this class, although I understand that some students are transfers and will have a different, but equivalent, course that meets this requirement.

I have found that students very rarely come to fixed, scheduled office hours, even when they really should. Because of that, I generally tell students that office hours are by appointment — if you need to meet with me, please let me know, and I will make myself available. The most convenient time for me would probably be after class on Thursday evenings. More details will follow.

This class will use Deitel's "Java, How to Program" text book, which you will hopefully already own from IT106. I think the department currently encourages the "Late Objects" version, with the red cover, but it has the same content as the blue cover version, with the chapters in a different order. Please remember that I did not choose this book.

IT206 is the middle course in the Applied IT Department's programming sequence, and the last course required for all AIT majors. The course will introduce Object Oriented Programming techniques, and builds heavily on the material from the first course. Programming courses are not like courses in other disciplines where the material is largely independent from one to the next. In this course, you have to understand each topic before you can successfully move on to the next one. The best way to become a good programmer is to write an awful lot of code. If the only time you ever write any code is during your lab section, you will probably find this course very challenging.

This course can be challenging for anyone, so I highly encourage you to ask questions as often as possible, and keep asking until you are sure you understand. Feel free to contact me by sending e-mail to bziman@gmu.edu. Any message not sent from your GMU account and with "IT206" in the subject line will probably be eaten by my spam filter.

All material for IT206 will be posted on the course section of the MyMason Portal.

Welcome to 2012 (Sunday, January 1, 2012)

Yes, I know I haven't updated in an awful long time. But I figured I'd better write about tonight before I forget what we did. Over the course of the holiday season, I confess that I've forced Elaine to attend way too many family events and subjected her to far too many groups of people. So, when she suggested a quiet picnic at home for New Years Eve, I agreed. With the condition that the picnic be over the top.

We began the evening with bruschetta topped with tomato, mozzarella, oregano, and a balsamic vinaigrette.

Our second course was a cucumber salad with craisins, walnuts, and crumbled cranberry white Stilton, tossed in the balsamic vinaigrette.

Our third course was a duck leg confit, served with a French batard loaf, accompanied by a 2003 Bouchard Père et Fils, Beaune Marconnets (a delightful red French, which complemented the duck quite well, but without the usual abusive nature I've come to expect from French reds).

The final course was petit toast topped with crème fraîche and Trader Joe's variety of paddlefish caviar. While the caviar wasn't bad for the price and availability, it was saltier than I would hope for, and it didn't have the rich buttery flavor I've been told to expect from a high quality caviar. But at this price, it was good enough that I'd buy it again.

The caviar and the turn of the new year were accompanied by an Amusant Bubbly Pink Moscato, in place of Champagne. That was a good call. The Moscato has a similar texture to Champagne, but with an almost strawberry flavor. Maybe it's not as sophisticated, but it's definitely tasty.

So Happy New Year! I hope everyone has a healthy and productive 2012!

It's That Time of Year (Wednesday, September 28, 2011)

So normally, I don't get all philosophical on my birthday, but this one is, after all, a special one. It's not every day that a Hobbit comes of age, right? To be honest, I stopped counting at twenty-nine, and these days if someone asks how old I am, I have to do the arithmetic to figure it out. Ancient, right?

So aside from the obvious, why is today important?

• In 551 BC, Confucius was born in China.
• In 1066, William the Conquerer began the Invasion of England.
• In 1928, Alexander Fleming discovered Penicillin.
• Actresses Mira Sorvino, Naomi Watts, and Hilary Duff were born, in 1967, 1968, and 1987, respectively.
• NBA stars José Calderón and Emeka Okafor, and Washington Nationals star Ryan Zimmerman were born, in 1981, 1982, and 1984, respectively.
• And on this day in 1891, Herman Melville died; in 1895, Louis Pasteur died; and on my actual day of birth in 1978, Pope John Paul I died.

Exciting stuff, right? And to celebrate, Elaine got me Shel Silverstein's Where the Sidewalk Ends and A Light in the Attic!

Debts and Deficits (Friday, July 29, 2011)

Well, everyone else is talking about it, so I guess I'll add my two cents... or fifty cents, now that I think about it.

According to the news, the national debt stands today at about $14.3 trillion dollars. That corresponds to nearly $47,000 of debt for every man, woman, and child in the United States. My nearly three month old nephew is already stuck with the bill for a new luxury car. And so are you, and so am I.

We all know Americans live beyond their means. It appears that the average adult in America carries about $4,000 worth of credit card debt. And most people seem to feel that this debt is largely insurmountable. Now realize that your country owes ten times that much, on your behalf! Even if the federal budget were balanced today, it would take many, many years to pay off the national debt — I'm guessing a hundred years, if we can manage not to be bankrupt before then!

Now don't get me wrong. Incurring debt is not a universally bad thing. If you want to buy a house, you take out a mortgage, and you pay it off over time. But during that time, you know that you need to keep to a budget so you can make those payments, and at the end of that time, you actually own a house. Obviously, you should not buy a house that is more than you can afford. You should not refinance the house over and over again, so that at the end of thirty years, you still owe the original cost of the house.

It's the same way for the federal government. It wouldn't make sense for them to bill everyone an extra $1,000 in a year, so that next year they can build new roads. Instead, the government issues bonds (which is one of the ways the government borrows money), uses the proceeds to build the roads, and then pays back the investors over time — so it only costs each person an extra $50 a year, over the next twenty years. And we expect that new road to last a lot longer than twenty years, and provide far more value over time.

The current problem comes by way of runaway spending, without any regard for raising revenue. I've read arguments that we are investing (borrowing) now in an attempt to spur a recovery from the recession, in the hopes that after the economy stabilizes, revenue will increase, and we'll be able to pay down that debt. And that's fine — you borrow some money to buy a used car now, so that you can get to some job, which you'll be able to use to pay it off. But more and more, it's not just a used car, but a new luxury car. And "eventually" is getting further and further away.

So to a point, I'm with the tea partiers who believe that we should not keep raising the debt ceiling indefinitely. It's going to take courage among our leadership to say enough is enough. I hate to think that our bills won't get paid, and I don't want the country to default — I understand the consequences of that. I do understand the need for deep cuts. I don't understand why conservatives want to cut useful social programs that take up just a tiny fraction of the federal budget, while leaving completely untouched, the waste in military spending.

According to the Washington Post in 2007, the wars were costing about $720 million a day. I've seen various estimates, but they are all running well in excess of $150 billion a year for the wars in the Middle East. That's three times what we spend on Social Security, and five times what we spend on Medicare. What's worse, is that most of the money we're spending in the Middle East is not to pay our troops, but instead, it's to pay for fuel that we've purchased from our enemies, that we burn, and it's gone forever; it's to pay for expensive hardware like missiles, that are used once, and gone forever. All of this money comes from tax payers, with the profits going to big defense, and no other benefit derived. We need to stop wasting money in the Middle East. Bring our troops home. You want to make the federal government smaller? Let's covert a large portion of our active military into National Guard, where at least they can help with disasters, relief efforts, and civil defense here at home, where we derive some value from the expense.

I also don't understand why conservatives are so opposed to increasing revenue. Our tax system is totally messed up. I have a fairly comfortable income, but I pay an amazingly low marginal tax rate. On the other hand, I know many people who can barely make ends meet, who are paying a significantly higher marginal tax rate. This indicates to me, that after years of lawmakers favoring the wealthy, we have a system that is both stifling to the average person, and not producing enough revenue to cover our expenses.

First and foremost, we need to stop subsidizing large profitable businesses with tax breaks: oil companies, coal companies, gas companies, telecommunications giants, big agriculture, auto manufacturers, and banks. We reward the companies that destroy our environment and our investments, and the people pay for it. The profits of these big companies go directly into investors pockets. That's great for me, but it is less than useless for the average American. You think an executive who makes an extra million is spending that in the local economy? He's not! He's pushing it right back into his investments. And when he does buy something, it's a jet, or a yacht. Sure, some of that money will eventually "trickle down" to the rest of society, but not nearly as much as if he were taxed fairly, and that excess money went straight back into the economy.

So yes, let's stop runaway borrowing. But let's also stop giving money away to the big businesses and the wealthiest Americans. Let's reduce our spending in the most obvious ways — not by cutting social programs, but by ending useless and unpopular wars. Of course, we should reform social programs where necessary, but let's get our priorities straight. What I can't figure it, is why with all the debate in congress, no one seems to be able to understand this!

Happy 100th Birthday, Grandpa! (Thursday, July 28, 2011)

My grandfather, Ed Leitner, turned 100 years old yesterday. We went to visit him in Connecticut over the weekend, and had the family party then. Yesterday, the town threw a party for him, apparently with over a hundred people in attendance. It's amazing that my grandfather is still totally with it after all these years. Here's looking forward to another hundred years!

Oh, and of course, Congressman Joe Courtney was so impressed, that he kindly wished my grandfather a happy birthday on the record in congress, and it was it was published in the official Congressional Record!

So, What do You do for a Living? (Sunday, July 17, 2011)

I'm a software engineer and a part time professor of Applied Information Technology. These days, when someone asks what I do for a living, I either tell them I'm a professor (because it sounds cool) or that I'm a mathematician, if I'm talking about my day job. I try never to say the word "computer" or "software", because they hear "software engineer" or "computer science" and think I can fix their computer or explain some piece of software to them. They just can't understand that if I didn't write the software in question, I probably can't help them — especially if I've never even used it! Anyway, computer science is really just a branch of applied mathematics, so I don't necessarily feel bad about claiming maths. And I'm a lot more likely to be able to help them with a math problem than I am with their computer problem. I can't even make excuses, effectively, because it's not worth the effort of explaining that I don't use Windows or a Mac, and haven't for almost a decade. Of course, I'm always happy to help someone with their programming problems or their Linux issues!

Surgically Implanted Explosives... Really? (Wednesday, July 6, 2011)

Apparently, the Department of Homeland Security's latest "threat" involves surgically implanted explosives being used to destroy airplanes, and that airlines and international travellers shouldn't be surprised to see additional security measures, since metal detectors, and even the backscatter X-ray machines cannot see inside the human body.

My question is, what are they trying to protect us from? Even if you consider this a plausible threat (which I don't), you can't possibly look inside every passenger, every time they fly. The current security theater is bad enough, but you can't run all your passengers through an MRI or CT scan before they get on an airplane. And so what if you could? What's to stop someone from detonating an explosive in the security line? There are probably more people waiting in the security line in the terminal, than there are on the airplane itself!

The number of people killed in the World Trade Center attack in 2001 was a result of the airplane itself being used as a weapon. It seems clear that passengers will no longer stand by while hijackers use a plane as a weapon. United Flight 93 proves that the situation has changed. As do the situations with the "underwear bomber" and the "shoe bomber", both of which were thwarted by their own failure or the intervention of passengers. The combination of active passengers and hardened cockpit doors largely mitigates the risk of a commercial plane being taken over and used as a weapon.

So that really only leaves the threat of destroying the plane, itself, and killing its passengers. But as I said, if you keep the explosives off the plane, the criminals can always attack the security line itself.

There is no purpose served by more and more invasive screening procedures. The government has already gone much too far, and now they want to go even farther. But it serves no useful purpose, and does nothing to add protection from any threat, real or perceived.