You will understand what is happening in Ukraine if you imagine that Crimea is Puerto Rico

I readily admit, I am no historian or devotee of all things Ukrainian. I did know one Consul from Ukraine (Ukrainians hate people using "The Ukraine" I am told). And he was a very nice guy. But beyond that, and a photograph with this Consul and someone high in the Ukraine government years ago, until recently my knowledge of Ukraine was limited to my memories of Soviet history learned years ago.

Now we have a global conflict all of a sudden, when one can easily argue that Ukraine could and probably is well within the sphere of Russia's influence. After all, it not just borders Russia, but has been on and off for a hundred years, more or less, largely in Russian control or at least shadow. Of course, the exact relationship is difficult to see. Even our highest local Department of State official admitted to going it alone on some things, if not everything, by saying "F___ the EU" when talking about recent US involvement in Ukraine.

This is but the first way that you might understand Crimea. It is also useful to remember that old history of constant conflict here because Crimea (and for that matter Ukraine) is one of the most strategically important locations for the past centuries. You can learn this from the game Risk. But by just looking at it, you can see by its location on the Black Sea, as an entry point into that mass of land to its North, East and West that includes what people consider Europe and Asia with a narrow isthmus joining it to the mainland of Ukraine, that this is a very defensible and strategic jumping point for not only the land, but for any Navy seeking to move into Turkey, the Middle East and the Mediterranean.

If you ever go to war in the region, you need to control Crimea.

In reality, Crimea is not just the geographic location, but also a political location with a complex constitutional relationship with Ukraine and Russia. Crimea is an autonomous republic that is also part of Ukraine.  And one with various legal ties to the Russian fleet.

Although not singularly important to this review, it is worth noting that the history of Crimea is further complicated by the nature of its people and the number of different Soviet and Russian leaders who have been involved in this relationship.

Crimea is a part of Ukraine, but it is not fully integrated into Ukraine by any means.

With most of its citizens torn more toward Russia than Ukraine, and the difficulty of what "independence" really is for at least Crimea, the treatment of a Crimea take-over needs a lot more thought than given by many reporters.

In the end, we know what this is really like.

We have had a relationship with Puerto Rico for many years along similar lines, with no one certain as to its likely path for the future but consistent decisions not to make Puerto Rico a state. Indeed, one can make the same argument even of Ukraine, except that it is clearly independent at the moment.

So what if Ukraine again became a Russian satellite? Or what if Crimea (or Puerto Rico) suddenly decided to do something against the best interests of its long-time part-time partner?

Think of things this way, and you might begin to think differently about what is happening. And whether we belong there at all.

The Cult of Apple - Why Microsoft is Losing the War

As President Obama well-knows, all you need are fervent supporters and the rest necessarily follows. Perhaps Obama has a more complete arsenal than Apple. Yet, with three or four products and services offered from others, Apple does quite well thank you. Is it because most of you support them often mindlessly, and certainly without a grain of consideration? Kind of like those oysters.

I am not without my Apple products in our family. I have one of the oldest Apple phones, largely because there was a good hack years ago so it could be used in Europe, something Apple was working very hard to prevent at the time and almost certainly still today. I have a laptop that I bought used, and two in our family still use Apple products. One claims it is easier to use. I am uncertain of the other. But the main claim is that "everyone uses them."

As our school district moved from Android to Apple, it became clear that "everyone" included the parents and school administration who have seen fit to find Apple the best. The claim used in at least one classroom was that others could post negative comments about what their classmates wrote in Google Documents, while you could not using Apple. I have no idea what was being discussed, but this seems an invalid excuse that could have been prevented. Yet, when the teacher is using Apple in her home and on her phone, why would she want to learn anything new?

Among the substantive issues Apple iPhone supporters claim are the following.

1. The camera is better.

2. The operating system is safer and has no security problems like the many in Microsoft's operating systems.

3. The design is better, because Apple is an innovator.

4. Apple has a superior product overall.

Yet, analyze these claims and we find many unwilling to concede these points. And we find some designed to maintain the cult of Apple rather than state the truth.

Recently, two huge flaws in Apple's iOS security have been found. It is unknown when Apple discovered them. And it is also unclear if the fixes work. But what is known is that the fixes were released without much of anything from Apple. And that the flaws were so huge and readily exploitable that they were simple to fix. 

If they were so simple, why they were there in the first place? Some exploits are relatively hidden. Based on the discussions I have seen so far, it appears that these exploits were readily obvious. 

Maybe the hype surrounding Apple product security helps them avoid any exploitation. Not worth it. Or maybe most hackers are Apple users. Who knows? In the end, this will not matter to Apple. The faithful will just go back to their Apple products and laud Apple for working so quickly (without knowing how quickly this occurred) and doing such a great job with these two only two of a very few ever detected (which is not the truth).

Importantly, the way the flaws were identified and discussed is significant. Take the use of the language is a simple inadvertent line of code. 

According to Adam Langley with Google, the root cause of the bug is a simple inadvertent line of code (”goto fail;” statement) that causes the browser or application to bypass the verification step. Instead, the browser will accept any SSL key during the SSLVerifySignedServerKeyExchange step without verifying the signature of the SSL cryptographic key.

Do you read articles by Apple supporters? And if you do, do you feel they are biased? I am interested in your views. 

But before you do, give some thought to what is going on here. When Apple supporters and users talk of Apple, do they get a glazed look in their eyes? Do they seem so supportive without knowledge so that this is more faith than reality-based analysis? 

What of these comments?

I searched high and low for answers. The Bishop of Buckingham - who reads his Bible on an ipad - explained to me the similarities between Apple and a religion.

And when a team of neuroscientists with an MRI scanner took a look inside the brain of an Apple fanatic it seemed the bishop was on to something.

The results suggested that Apple was actually stimulating the same parts of the brain as religious imagery does in people of faith.

Unfortunately, most of us who deal with computers tend to read about only the operating systems we use. The few articles that attempt to deal fairly with exploits do not seem to be written by Apple users. And I am certain that the comparisons quoted above might end up just the same if you were looking at where the stimulation would be if the users were looking at a McLaren. Yet, the cult here is not so small as any religion, or so unimposing as a system that takes you over completely so you cannot live without it. 

But I digress.

Is there a cult? And if so, how is this defined?

Maybe we should use one of the definitions that pops up on Google search these days. (Sadly, the synonyms were great, but I cannot get them easily to work in the paste here, so they are left to your amusement if you decide to search the word "cult" on Google search.)

1. a system of religious veneration and devotion directed toward a particular figure or object. "the cult of St. Olaf"

2. a relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or sinister. "a network of Satan-worshiping cults" 

3. a misplaced or excessive admiration for a particular person or thing. "a cult of personality surrounding the leaders"

4. a person or thing that is popular or fashionable, esp. among a particular section of society.

Sorry, but I find that everyone of these definitions might fit. Just depends on your level of cynicism.

And I guess we will just have to leave it there. Does Apple's invasion into businesses, even into Microsoft with their iPhones, make it likely that the cult of Apple will win over Microsoft and/or Google?

Let's hope not. In the end, Apple is easy because it requires so little input and individuality. And I prefer not to be an oyster.

"I weep for you," the Walrus said:"I deeply sympathize."With sobs and tears he sorted outThose of the largest size,Holding his pocket-handkerchiefBefore his streaming eyes. "O Oysters," said the Carpenter,"You've had a pleasant run!Shall we be trotting home again?'But answer came there none--And this was scarcely odd, becauseThey'd eaten every one.