Thursday, September 30, 2004
The present generation of video games are more my style. They incorporate tactics, problem solving, and some video game skill. My favorite type of video games the realistic military rpg. I have really only played two of them: Splinter Cell and Ghost Recon. Both games are fairly old (for technology) and carry Tom Clancy's logo. I knew I had reached a certain level of expertise because when I read through walk through my solutions to the problems where better than the walk through's solutions. Presently, I am in the middle of a recon mission with the Ghosts (4th or 5th mission out of 50 missions), and once I finish that game I have picked out the next in line for my conquest.
Close Combat: First to Fight
Close Combat: First to Fight is an authentic, team-based first-person shooter created under the direction of active-duty United States Marines fresh from the front lines of combat in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Set in a modern mid-eastern urban battleground, players lead a four-man Marine fireteam through the perils of modern urban combat. Together with the United States Marine Corps and Atomic Games, Destineer is creating First to Fight as a training simulation for use by the Marine Corps and will make it available to consumers in late 2004 for Xbox®, Macintosh®, and Windows®. According to Lieutenant Colonel Christopher Sharp of the United States Marine Corps, Marines from the First Marine Expeditionary Force have been working closely with Destineer and Atomic throughout development to ensure as much realism as possible in these games. Peter Tamte, Destineer's president adds, There is no guesswork on how to make the games realistic since we are developing First to Fight and Red Phoenix with significant input from Marines who, just weeks before, were being shot at in Iraq and Afghanistan.
First to Fight is brought to life by a visually advanced 3D engine created from the ground up by Destineer. This engine, filled with next-generation features like volumetric shadows, normal maps, natural skin lighting and specularity, promises to give players a first-hand look at the chaos and terror of modern urban combat.
First to fight follows in the tradition of Full Spectrum Warrior which was developed by the army. Full Spectrum Warrior was "Based On A Training Aid Developed For The U.S. Army."
I personally think, if I cannot have brand new full automatic weapons, the very least I can do to prepare for the eventual use of the weapons when the world goes post apocalyptic. I want to become proficient at acquiring targets, eliminating tagets, squad tactics, and blowing stuff up. It is a shame that the federal government has decided to regulate the buying, purchase, and use of machine guns and explosive material to the extent that it has.
On a more serious note, as games become more realistic training with them will increase. Why build a flight simulator, when on can be put on a CD and hand it out to your pilots. Additionally, the most successful training tools will probably be commercial successes also, at least for a niche market.
My question is, what are the disadvantages\advantages to having normal people access these training tools on every day basis?
Will a group of teenagers take over a school, using things they practiced in a video game. Many PC video games have tools where you can build levels. For a senior project on 3-D graphics, a friend of mine built a model of a well known landmark at my school. That model happened to be a building that could then be imported into the video game and played in. If teenagers built a exact replica of their school then practiced squad based tactics in a realistic video game, how effective would their preparation be? What effective offense (that they have not countered virtually) could be mounted against them from a law enforcement standpoint?
I have seen video games advertised for PC were you could download levels of actual missions that were performed recently by the US military, such as the situation with Saddam's sons.
Do these video games represent something about American culture? Do the show the brain washing of the military industrial complex that we have created?
I suspect in the next 20 years that society will have to decide if these are just fun and games or something more dangerous.
Wednesday, September 29, 2004
Some children are going to school longer, especially the ones who need it the most. In some charter schools, which have had great results, the children are going to school nearly 30 to 50 percent longer. They are going to school longer because they are behind others in their age group and because it takes time to teach what these children are missing. One of our solutions for the children, whose parents did not know how to raise them, was to take them out of their environment more, enforce discipline, and push them harder in their studies. The parent government treats these people as if they are children, which the irony is that they are.
The government is presently taking your money for retirement to pay for other's retirement and has been doing it for the past 70 or so years. Now the government has come up with a better idea of letting you keep your own money for retirement, instead of giving it to the government, but mandates, via federal law, what you can and cannot do with the money. The government also provides incentives to suggest what you should do with you own money. The parent government has moved from being treating me like a child to treating me like a teenager. I have more freedom, but I am bribed or threatened into doing the things which are good for me. It is better, by far, but still short of standing on my own two feet.
My question, to the pro-democratic anti-capitalists, is what becomes of these children who did not have parents? What happens to the children whose main teacher was the government? What do the parents, who are semi-responsible, but whose retirement decisions are strongly suggested by the parent government, teach their own children about saving?
In other words, once the government becomes your parent, how do you go back to standing on your own two feet?
The supreme court is going to hear a case about eminent-domain. I love the way Reuters says it:
The U.S. Supreme Court said on Tuesday that it would decide whether the government can take an individual's private property for business development intended to boost tax revenues and revitalize a local economy.
In other words, the US supreme court is going to decide if it can lower the importance of the individual and increase the importance of the government/state/local economy/society.
Lets hope they choose wisely. I stand on the side of personal liberty and power.
Presently we have a system that works ok. It has a checks and balances because the government must pay a fair price. This will keep them from taking land in prime areas, hopefully.
Reuters points out the importance of this decisions.
The U.S. Constitution allows governments to take private property through their eminent-domain powers in exchange for just compensation, but only when it is for public use.
In other words, the supreme court could change the Constitution. That is how IMPORTANT this court case is.
I love how the socialists hate corporations, but are willing to work with them once the corporations want the exact same thing the local government wants.
Off topic rantings
What is good for the person is good for society. My idea of social responsibility is for everyone else to handle their shit, so that no one else has to.
The socialists want to control the market and bend it to their will for the good of society.
This is universal: Money and power corrupt. The socialist think that giving that money and power to the government will remove corruption from the market place, and make the world a better place. That is illogical, naive, and dangerous.
Tuesday, September 28, 2004
I love O'Brien,and think he is great. He could very well do a great job on the tonight show. I do not have access to the entire contract, but it seems to me that O'Brien ended up with the good end of the deal. If he gets cancer and dies in the next five years, NBC will be forced to follow though with their end of the deal. That means that they will have to use a clone, make a deal with God, or make a deal with the Devil. I can't see how making a deal four years in advance is really that good for NBC. O'Brien could screw up and say something real dumb, and get fired and he would still have job. What if O'Brien brings out some fake documents which discredited by fox?
Update: Tilted Fish has a better take, though i think mine is funnier.
Sunday, September 26, 2004
Here is my revolutionary idea that will change the way America works out. I decided that when people work out that they are working too hard. I know this sounds strange, crazy, or even dangerous. I tend to think it is counter intuitive, like women. My theory is that for me to get on a plan that works for me I need to work out less. I do not mean putting less time in, i mean being able to move four days after working out. In the past when I have worked out would workout out every other day. Day one would be bi's and tri's, day two would be chest and back, day three would be shoulders and legs. To work out each of those muscles properly, you would have to spend a lot of time on workout days working out (like an hour and a half). The day after you would be tired, and on the third day you would be really sore. So I came up with a better way.
Only work out one muscle group a day. For example, today all I did was bi's. Then I rode the bike for 15 mins. My bi's are tired, but the rest of me feels fine. Essentially, the goal of this workout is not to work out to many muscle groups at once. In fact you should limit you work to once muscle group. Your goal should be to visit the gym at least every other day, if not every day. Also, do not expect to get big and cut on this plan, this plan is otherwise known as the "don't get fat before you are 30" plan. As far as the time frame you should actually see benefits. Since I have only been on the plan for one day I would say probably never. Though I think that you will not see any further depreciation of your best asset.
You will have to read this entire post to find out the differences.
According to Webster here is the official definition.
"an increase in the volume of money and credit relative to available goods and services resulting in a continuing rise in the general price level"
Well that finishes out econ lesson today kids, lets go and play video games.
Saturday, September 25, 2004
I had guessed that they were bringing a book case. I had only tried to buy a book case once online. It turned out that they shipping would have been over three times as much as the book case, so ended that idea. People also always complained about my lack of a book case, all my books were on the floor in the corner. Additionally, I was talking to some people once, and told them that I had been in my apartment for a couple years, and they were astounded because it looked like I had just moved in. That made me proud. It turns out I was right.
In the process of putting up my books, I was talking to my father about the up coming election. He was saying that he did not see why what Kerry did in Vietnam was such a big idea. I told him some of the history of the swift boats, and how they have hated Kerry for a long time. Secondly, it would not have been a big deal if Kerry had not brought it up himself, and I quoted the "Reporting for Duty" line from the convention.
As we were talking, I mentioned to my dad that as I understood it they handed out metals a lot in Vietnam to increase morale. My dad mentioned that he was up for a purple heart at one time. I thought this was weird because my dad was a clerk in the army, not a fighter. It turns out that the base that my dad worked at was under a motor attack. My much younger day was running around the corner, and he gashed his leg on an ammunition can that was being used to hold cigarette butts. When he was called in to review the recommendation with a higher superior than recommended him, he told them that he did not deserve it. He also mentioned that they had medal competition between officers to see who could get the most metals for the guys under them.
I thought that was very interesting and thought that I would pass that along.
interesting...This makes me think that he is completely innocent. Though he made just be so self righteous that he forgot about a large terrorist group that he gave money to back in 1983.
Secondly, he may also think that they don't have any evidence, or that the evidence they have is shaky. It will be interesting if the federal government releases all they have, and then bust him while he is in court and on American soil. Though I don't see why it is helpful from outing him like that, it would seem to me that it would be better to watch him and find out what he is up to while he is in the US.
"For the duration of his term, George Bush has ignored and failed to offer any kind of viable solution for addressing the record energy costs," said Phil Singer, a spokesman for Democratic presidential nominee John F. Kerry. "When a few oil refiners come along, he snaps to."
Via Vodkapundit who put some spin on it. Read the article think about it and make you decsion, i said all i wanted to in the comment section of Vodkapundit's post.
I just wanted to publish this in case anyone wanted to see it. When you are more likely to see the dead bodies of American soldiers and the civilians they kill, I think it is important to know why we are fighting.
I personally have not watched it, mainly because it will only move me to an more extreme position of wanting revenge.
Eventually blame is going to shift for the beheadings, the democrats have been trying to shift the blame to bush. Some people will belief that this is his fault. Every one agrees that enemy is the one doing this. If these beheadings continue, for some people, our definition of the enemy will widen. The enemy will not just the ones doing the attacks, but the ones hiding them, supporting them, in words and deeds, and they ones who will not stand up and remove them from their own soil.
Friday, September 24, 2004
For a brand new Pontiac G-Six, the model given away on the show, the sticker price is $28,500. The $28,500 would need to be claimed as income so, depending on the individuals tax bracket, the tax could be as high as $7,000. And that was after Pontiac agreed to pay most of the local charges, including state sales tax and licensing fees. "
I think this is great, not because some of the people are going to lose their cars, not because this was a good deed that turned out not so good, not because I dislike Oprah. When it comes down to it whose fault is this. Is it Oprah's fault? I mean she was the one who gave the cars away. She is also a person who has played poor people in movies so she knows how they feel. She also has huge amounts of people who should know the results of giving cars away. I don't think this is Oprah's fault. I do think it is the government's fault, which have taxed our income.
If their was ever an argument for repealing the Amendment XVI, this is it.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
Just because Oprah did something good for these people, they are going to have to pay the taxes on a car that is worth more than some of them make.
Thursday, September 23, 2004
I fell I have seen the truth and I would like to be the first person to propose to everyone stop, Collaborate, and listen. Stop bashing Rather for a second and you will realize the truth of what he did, why he did it, and you will also receive the deep understanding of God while you are at it.
The reason why Dan when to press with that story, is not because he is a liberal, hates bush, or is incompetent.
Dan rather is old and has alzheimers. It is as simple as that. This is just like back in the 1980's when Reagan threatened the Soviets. What sane person would so something like that? Same thing with rather. What kind of of sane person would go on national television and use fake documents? Rather is insane in the membrane, if you know what I mean.
You heartless conservatives who are attacking a frail old man make me sick. You politically motivated liberals who ignored one of you own to suggest a conspiracy make me sick.
Wednesday, September 22, 2004
But his worries were about how children would handle the dark events in the second installment of his Star Wars saga, including Han Solo being frozen in a block of carbonite and Darth Vader slashing off Luke Skywalker's hand, then revealing that he was Luke's father.
Before releasing the film, Lucas talked to psychologists about whether Vader's revelation might emotionally scar children, he reveals on the commentary for the new Empire Strikes Back DVD in the Star Wars Trilogy box set out today (suggested price is $70, but it's available for $45 or less).
I have been asking myself my entire life: Why wasn't my father a dark jedi? Why don't I have the force? Why can't I be cool like Luke? (Yes he kissed his sister, but that was an honest mistake, one that I am willing to forgive.)
"A bill to raise California's minimum wage to $7.75 an hour over the next two years is headed to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, providing a major test of his pledge to reject bills that "harm the state's business climate."
Is it going to drive businesses out of California to near by states? Will national businesses keep prices the same in California, but raise them slightly elsewhere? Will national businesses raise prices in California and leave them the same else where? Could a change like that increase inflation?
unfortunately, we will never have the chance to find out because Schwarzenegger terminated that bill.
update: parallel posting
From what I can deduce, if you raise minimum wage locally these things happen.
- poor people will get paid more (for the same job).
- Productivity could rise (but what are the incentives for it to rise).
- the people who got the raise will spend it locally, but will also be paying more also, though the gains will outweigh the losses (I think, though if it were a national thing I don't think it gains would out weight the losses).
- prices will rise for local businesses, because they absorb the cost locally.
- prices could rise for national businesses, but will be smaller than what the local businesses have to do because they spread the cost nationally.
- raising the min wage will change the way a business does business. It could increase productivity, or it could make it cheaper to out source to another state. Those in favor concentrate on the good points, those against concentrate on the bad points. Neither is right. Only the market decides what the outcome will be. You can predict all day long, but you will seldom be right.
- Money will flow in to a area with a high min wage and stay there longer, possibly generating growth. Though it could just get caught up in the high wage cycle of the area and not be released for growth.
I think the two things about economics were forgotten along the way: incentives matter and there is no free lunch.
"And lastly--productivity worth less than minimum wage?!?!"
This could infact happen. If you raised min wage to grocery stores, it could become cheaper to hire one tech savvy person to manage several automated checking machines. Will this happen on a massive scale? I have no idea, but it will happen to some people. Will that be the net affect? I have no idea.
"I thought "adjusted for inflation" does take into the increase in buying power for necessary goods. Inflation adjustment is based on an index measuring the cost of basic goods like food, housing and transportation."
Actually, I thought inflation was set by the base interest rate. See when you save money and receive interest, and create money out of then air. The sum effect is your dollar is worth less.
For example, ten men on an island with eleven men all get 10 dollars. The poor guy is the bank and pays 10 percent interest. All put their money in the bank. At the end of one year the all have eleven dollars (the banker creates the money out of thin air, or invests it overseas what every you prefer). So one dollar is less of the total amount of money in circulation after one year, with compound interest the effect could be great.
I have not looked up the definition, but I have a feeling that both things play a part. Though ask yourself the question: Why do prices rise, and I think you will come around to this definition of inflation. :)
Just thought that I would bring that up.
So far I am against the min wage, mainly because the government is doing it. Every single statement predicting the next step in the money trail, also has a contrasting next step. So I end up not being against the min wage for economic reasons, but morefor philosophical ones..
Tuesday, September 21, 2004
Day one: CBS breaks story
Day two: Rest of world hears said news story.
Day Three: DNC comes out against bush and cites the memos.
Day Four: (Enter Bloggers Stage Left) Bloggers bash memos, everyone feels really dumb, everyone gets mad, everyone tries to work around problem, DNC looks really bad, Kerry loses because of rathergate.
Notice the only thing different about the past part of the timeline is what the DNC would have said. Things on day two happened as normal, but the bloggers were a part of the story, not watching it happen. Day three instead of having the debate raging as it was in the real world, a member of the DNC or the DNC itself (I hope that they would have been smart enough to jump on it that quick) would have used the memo's against Bush. That sound bite would have really hurt them when the truth came out.
The bloggers where so good that their net was not cast any wider than CBS because the story did not have time to get wider than CBS. If they would have waited and played their cards at the right time, it could have been cited as the main reason bush won the election. They will just be a side note now.
I can see why the left is afraid of things like the free market and the market place of ideas, you cannot control them and bend them to your will. Even though the left's will is for the "greater social good", that does not negate the fact you cannot control bloggers.
If I was the left I would be afraid too.
Do you know anyone whose entire view of the world shifted because of rathergate?
I was just wondering if there are any people out there like that. If there are i think you should by them cable to watch fox news?
Sunday, September 19, 2004
I am a software developer at a relatively small company, and this weekend my company is migrating (although migrating does not seem to describe what we are doing) over to a SAN. Our company has lots of manual data entry. The data entry screen is what I maintain and update. We run a visual FoxPro front end and a SQL server backend for the data entry system (SQL server is fine, but who ever decided to use fox pro for the front end is not to bright) . We presently have around 20 clients that run on this current system, each client has their own database. For around three to four years we all our clients were on the same server and been growing our client base.
Our current configuration has worked well, but has some major draw backs. If one user for client X starts a major process, it uses up the pooled resources (CPU's and disk IO's) and affects other clients. The nature of the company is that large processes, which move very large amounts of data around start regularly, so the entire company was being affected negativity.
Our company decided to purchase a SAN and several servers. So we went from having all our databases on the same server to having the databases spread out among several servers. Some clients have their own server, other smaller clients are grouped together on the same server. All servers are connected to the san through fiber. All servers are under one subnet with the san.
EVERY SINGLE piece of code that this company has which touches SQL server had to be inspected to insure: a ado connection was built properly and that any of the client queries use the linked server names (if applicable).
Connections must be built dynamically because databases can be moved at a whim ( in order to balance CPU usage on the servers and IO's on the SAN). To build connections a table, which contains databases and server names for each databases, is pulled down by connecting to a server and performing the query to pull down the table. The servers are numbered, so you start at one and loop through until you get a connection.
Any queries in the client code must be checked to see if there are any cross database queries. While there are never any cross database queries between clients, there are databases which contains metric information and application information for every single client database, and many times queries from client access the metric data.
Their are several things my company has done correctly, and their are several things my company has not done so well. I fell our soft ware department(s) has done ok,but our infrastructure department seems a little weak.
We had the servers we purchased in test. The servers were built, windows server 2003 and SQL were installed, and one of our brand new servers kept crashing for no reason. That server had every single part replaced and still was crashing. We swapped databases with another server, and it still kept crashing. Dell had a lemon clause and they are working building that server right now. So we are going live with one less server than we wanted. Which in theory will be a good exercise to make sure everyone has updated their code correctly. We will move the databases that belongs on that server when the new server comes in, though I do not know how it is going to work in practice. Secondly, on the infrastructure side we don't have active directory and we really needed that today.
On the software side, I do not thing this idea of going to linked servers was researched very well. Yes it works, but Microsoft only suggests going to linked servers after building up as far as you can. Which we did not do that. Also linked servers are very inefficient,large amount of data is moved between servers, but that is something that can be worked around in most cases.
If you have every worked with linked servers in SQL or for large scale database, I would love to hear about you experiences.
I arrived at work at 7:30 am today (Saturday). I have been so busy the last two weeks I have not washed clothes. Today all I have left are whities tighties. Today is going to be a long sucky day.
Saturday, September 18, 2004
Experts say the anti-depression drug gets into the rivers and water system via treated sewage water.
Friday, September 17, 2004
I really hate kicking a guy when he is down, but I have discovered a new problem. This problem is really a tough problem to pin down, and a hard one to explain. I figure Kerry will win the presidential race, once I fully explain this problem to you. I fully admit I do not want Kerry to win, alas I am a sucker for the underdog.
I present my evidence: Exhibit One, Exhibit Two, and Exhibit Three.
"He [Kerry] told the Detroit Economic Club that Bush has not taken responsibility for the economic downturn and is running an "excuse presidency.""
Left in the Reign
...John Kerry not only offers up his positive plans contrasted with Bush's failings, but now he takes a page from the GOP PR successes: he uses his opponent's words against him....
...That last bit is just what George W says about Kerry's supposed flip-flops. Next up is for Kerry to take a cue from Al Franken (as reported on Daily Kos) who said...
...This part of the speech is nice as well:...
...And it's nice to see Kerry call Bush's failed presidency what it is -- a failure....
All of three of these sources reference kerry's new stump speech, which a version can be found here. The version of Kerry's new stump speech that I read has two different phases.
He starts off in attack phase against bush, no surprise there. Politics is the art of being better than the other person running against you, and the easiest way to do that is to bring them down a notch.
Then the second half of Kerry's speech Kerry is talking about his message. He compares his polices against those of bush. Which is what I suggested he do during the debates. I said, "Kerry should promote himself by contrasting his ideas for the future against Bush's ideas. "
Here are some quotes from Kerry's speech...
Our opponents see an America where power and wealth stay in the hands of a few at the top, while everyone else is left to fend for themselves. We believe in an America where we widen the circle of opportunity for every American. An America where anyone with a good idea who's willing to work hard and take a risk can start a business and build success....
....Under our plan, you will get to pick you own doctors and doctors and patients, not insurance company bureaucrats will make medical decisions. My plan is not a government plan. It's based on incentives and the marketplace.
To pay for all this, we make sure that 98 percent of all Americans get a tax cut, while rolling back only the tax cuts for those who make more than $200,000 a year. Those Americans will go back to paying the same taxes you paid when Bill Clinton was president. And the rest of America will get a tax cut....Each one of the three sources above were referencing to the exact same speech. Kokopelli was the only one to mention the positive parts of the speech. In fact, mention was all he did. All three went on to quote the bush bashing parts of Kerry's speech. Kokopelli, of left in the Reign, said this to my comment on Exhibit One: "They [Kerry\Edward's message] have been positive; speaking about what they planned for America. However, the (right-wing dominated) media has been ignoring that message--".
No Kokopelli, the right wing is not ignoring Kerry's positive message, they have been reading left wing articles.
Kokopelli, I will not try to argue that CNN is not right wing, and I hope that you will not try to argue that you and Kos are right wing. Given those terms, two out of the three sources I quoted were lefties, and they both concentrated in the negative parts of the speech. The left hates bush so much that they cannot stop talking about it long enough to tell the world about Kerry's policies. Even your statement conflicted with the content and tone of your post.
Kerry needs to stop bashing bush at all, it will give the news organizations no choice but to publish the policy stuff he said.
Yes 20% 15814 votes
No 80% 61791 votes
The phrase the question as "procedures", almost implying that these procedures are life saving in some manner. We all know they are talking about abortion. I would love to see the poll where it asked, "Should doctors be allowed to skip the abortion training in school and legally refuse to perform abortions professionally, based on moral or religious grounds?"
I wonder what the poll would look like then?
I stand firmly on the side of general doctors should not have to learn how to do this. If you specialty is going to be giving birth to children, you should learn how to do to just in case you have to do it to save the mother, but you should be allowed to refuse to do it outside of saving the mother's life.
Anonymous person who may or may not be Liberal Larry,
well size matters in this contest, sorry you lose. Though I think they will make great gifts to friends, and will consider that for Christmas presents.
Anonymous voted for the spider man mug.
Gib voted for the batman mug.
Another real life friend voted for batman.
And I also cast a vote for batman.
So I will place my order today at some point in time. Thanks for the help and the ideas.
I believe that the polls are missing a potentially large demographic. Everyone who has graduated from college since 2001. Their were, "1,244,000 bachelor's degrees conferred in 2000-01". That is about four million people who were in college when the twin towers were struck. I think this demographic is very important because of the prominence of 9/11 in this demographic's mind and the several problems in measuring the sentiment of this group.
The problem with polling this group are:
They may not show up on Most likely voters polls. College students are not know for their voter turn out, and this group has not had a chance to vote in a national election since 9/11.
They address may not be included on polls as much as other voters who have a long standing address and a listed phone number. Their contact info might be present to a lesser extent. Most probably do not own homes and probably live with parents or in apartments. Some may not have home phones. I have a cell phone, and do not have a home phone.
Once their contact information was included they might stayed below the radar of the polling agencies. How many 22-26 year olds are home when the pollers call. I would guess to a lesser extent then the 30 year old with kids.
I think the polls are probably trying to poll this demographic comparable to percentage that voted in the 2000 election. If 10 percent more of this demographic turns out, that is about 400,000 voters. If this demographic turns out in force, seventy percent, that is about 800,000 more votes being cast. Enough to decide the election, maybe.
Thursday, September 16, 2004
If I was in charge CBS I would out our my source, say the documents are false, and move on.
This would allow me to get on board with George W. Bush before any of the other stations do because we know Bush is going to win anyways.
update: Moved twice now.
CBSNEWS PLANS STATEMENT TO 'CLARIFY' BUSH GUARD DOCUMENTS STORY... NEW TIME: 5:00PM EDT...
update: wow that was not very exciting at all, and I predicted wrong.
Wednesday, September 15, 2004
Secondly, I tend to find it enjoyable annoying people. I also tend to do it in a passive aggressive way.
So I came up with this idea. I am going to get the biggest coffee mug that I can and drink as much coffee as I can to suck up the avaible supply.
I decided that I needed a mugs, and I need some help on deciding on one. I went to thinkget.com, and they as some cool ones. I have finally narrowed it down to three.
Spider-Man Personalized Ceramic Mug
15 oz and it can have these phrases printed on it with my name.
- happy Birthday"
- "With great power comes great responsibility"
- "You make my spider senses tingle"
- "It's web slinging time"
I like the idea of a personalized mug, it is better than peeing on everything you own then smelling it. It is large and in charge, but it looks dumb as hell.
14 oz and it has just the Batman symbol, what more do you have to say. Though it is one oz smaller. Over 15 mugs this could make an entire trip difference. Over an entire month, it could make two trips difference. Over an entire year, I think my work will suffer.
14 oz and it has the Superman symbol plus the catch phrase we can all repeat in our sleep. This too is one oz smaller and has the same problem as the Batman mug.
Problems with the personalized one, is that it is white and will stain if I don't clean it out and I won't. It also looks dumb. Problems with the Superman mug, it is not as cool as the batman mug. Problems with the batman mug it is not as large as the spider man mug.
Post you comments, place you vote, and I will buy the one most voted for. Tell you friends.
First, outside of what the reactions of the robber might be or could be, the police officers are honor bound to protect the citizens they serve. The officer stops the robber by confronting the robber before the robber robs the bank, not while he is doing it, and not after the deed is done.
Our government is honor bound to protect it citizens, no matter the cost.
I said, "5. American Intelligence has not caught Bin Laden, but they are working on that. Less Safe, just by the fact that we don't know where he is."
Jeff said...We are less safe than when? What state of affairs were we in that has changed to make us less safe?
I model this situation much like this. You enter your house, and their is an dangerous snake in it that you do not know about. To me you would be in more danger, if you did not know there was an dangerous snake in you house than if you did, but the reality of the situation stays unchanged. If you did not know there was a snake and had no suspicion of one, you would go though you house just like normal. If you did know there was a snake you would leave and take proper action, like calling animal control.
Now lets say that this animal control officer enters the house looking for the snake. They are putting their selves in more danger than if they did not enter the house, that is obvious. Though it must be stated that the level of danger is greater than if you were just wondering randomly around the house. They are activity seeking out the dangerous animal, one that is hidden and could strike from a hidden location.
This is what we are doing right now with bin laden. We are trying to find a dangerous animal, this one is a lot smarter than a snake, and it is also trying to hurt us at the exact same time.
We are safer because we know about bin laden, but we are less safe know because we do not have him and are trying to chase him down. I am weighting the fact that we are could end up with cornered crazed animal a little bit more. I am stealing Andrew's argument of "You need to strike a balance between keeping them from running off on their own and lashing out like a trapped animal".
I read somewhere that was what we were doing by giving up some of the cities that are now coming back to bite us.
Actually, that is full of half truths. In the military you get full automatic weapons (machine guns). Which you have not been able to legally buy those since 1934 without a lot of paperwork. Some semi-automatic weapons (assault weapons) had certain features that were banned for ten years. One major thing that was banned was large capacity magazine for you handguns and you semi-automatic weapons, you can now buy a 15 round clip for you glock .40 caliber instead of a 10 round clip. Glock also makes a 17 round clip, but I don't know about the status of those.
You could still buy semi-automatics (assault weapons), without the banned features. The gun control lobby has won a great victory using the term assault weapons, but that is another topic altogether.
But you can still get fully automatic weapons.
Here are some links.
Impact Online Store (sound, might want to turn off speakers at work)
Can I Legally Own A Machine Gun (or a Suppressor)?
Legalities of N.F.A. (National Firearms Act) Ownership
How To Order (just jump to the bottom for this one)
Which my argument for owning a military grade weapons is I want the biggest gun on the block. If the world goes post apocalyptic, I will not be the first one down.
update: I was a little confused as to wheater or not i could buy a brand spanking new machine gun. Well i found out the answer.
It has been unlawful since 1934 (The National Firearms Act) for civilians to own machine guns without special permission from the U.S. Treasury Department. Machine guns are subject to a $200 tax every time their ownership changes from one federally registered owner to another, and each new weapon is subject to a manufacturing tax when it is made, and it must be registered with the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) in its National Firearms Registry.
Since the Firearms Owners' Protection Act of May 19, 1986, ownership of newly manufactured machine guns has been prohibited to civilians. Machine guns which were manufactured prior to the Act's passage are regulated under the National Firearms Act, but those manufactured after the ban cannot ordinarily be sold to or owned by civilians.
I am all for repealing the firearms owner's protection act of 1986, who is with me.
Tuesday, September 14, 2004
What of these countries which have had democracy handed to them on a silverplatter? If you received a gift that brought you a tremendous amount of personal freedom and wealth, what would you do? Would you be like the early Christians who converted the world and shared their gift, or would you be like the modern Japanese who refuse to give their gift to others?
Under normal circumstances giving away a gift you own removes your ability to use that gift. If you are given one million dollars and you give it all away to a charity, you lose the utility of the money. In other words, the money cannot be owned by more than one person. It is understandable in this case, a person would not give the money away.
What if that person had a gift that could be replicated? Like a ever replicating cookie? A person can make as many copy cookies as they want and, as long as they never eat the original, they will never lose the ability to eat copied cookies. If that person would not give you a cookie when you asked, what would you think of them? If that person gave you a cookie, what would you think of them?
I fail to understand why other countries are unwilling to share the freedom given to them, and I resent them . I fail to understand why other countries do not want the freedom we have, and I want to help them.
At first I thought this was going to be a crazy college teacher who was got so upset at not being able to disprove a Christian in her classes, she decided to tear the bible up to make a point.
Burley High's Karen Christenson said she was trying to illustrate a point about censorship, as her sophomore students read Ray Bradbury's novel "Fahrenheit 451," which is set in a future society that commands all literature be burned.
Principal Jeff Harrah said Christenson isn't a Bible hater. He said she tore up the Bible in an effort to get her students to think about how it feels to have something they consider sacred destroyed.
He added the idea behind the controversial lesson was a good one, but with a bad result.
Christenson was disciplined but officials would not say what action was being taken against her.
Harrah called Christenson a "great teacher."
What if this teacher had torn up the Koran? I bet she would have been fired.
Of course, where is the censorship here? Was it in the lesson or was it in the response that the school had? I bet the response from the school was based on the response from the parents of the kids or from the kids their selves. It was probably some kid who was not paying attention and just caught the ripping and not the explanation before and after.
The article asks which document is typed in Microsoft word and which one is typed using a the only typewriter at the time that would have had to produced the CBS bush memo's.
I would post the picture here, but I cannot post pictures. Take a look at the link and the pictures, the answer is at the bottom of the page. When you get back we will discuss.
Ok, ready? I choose the one of the right as being typed. It was easy for me, I scanned the lines looking comparing the letters. What stopped me where the quotes around "Selectric". They seemed different in the documents, one seemed to have the modern curve and the other seemed straight.
Once I stepped back and too a look at the entire picture, it was fairly simple which one was the typed one. Just take a look at the last line and how it gets darker near the end, typewriters do that because they suck, laser printers do not.
Also, they just used sucky pictures in this article, I think if they would have scanned the entire pictures then posted a place readers could download the pictures at a better quality, you would see a huge difference.
So essentially the people posed a challenge. Which is the fake? I picked the fake out quickly.
Their point is?
Responding to a series of deadly terror attacks, President Vladimir Putin on Monday moved to significantly strengthen the Kremlin's grip on power, with new measures that include the naming of regional governors and an overhaul of the electoral system.
Monday, September 13, 2004
If you have not seen Heat, then you are missing out on a very special movie. Heat a movie in with both Al Pacino and Robert De Niro in it. I thought it was the first, but apparently they were in some God father movies together. The only complaint I have seen about this movie is that it is too long, but that was not something I even noticed. The person writing that comment must have had explosive diarrhea. In other words, this movie is so good that you will not know it is a long movie. Pacino and De Niro play a cop and a robber respectively. The are basically fighting it out the entire movie. It was great. The scene in the diner was great. It was great it did not turn into a gay lovefest. Really the only thing that this movie was missing was a car chase scene, Though the entire movie was really a chase sense, so I really don't know what more you could want. I have had movies I like better than this, but you cannot show those in theaters (wink wink)
My first problem with this film is the name, I watched it and kept expecting amphibious werewolves from the unseen mystic river to jump out and eat everyone. Alas, that did not happen. So the name of the movie does not fit the actual plot line at all, I can get over that.
Though I don't know if I can get over this. One of the things I always wait for in movies is the title line. The title line is the line in the movie in which the title of the file occurs. I thought this one would be real interesting, seeing how there is nothing mystic in the movie. Needless to say I was let down. The title line did not involve any amphibious werewolves at all.
The movie centers around three young friends whose lives are affected by tragedy then it fast forwards twenty or thirty years to when these young friends are grown up and have made lives separate from each other. Tragedy strikes again and the story picks up there. The movie is well paced, and it does not get bogged down in the plot. The characters are believable and very real. Mystic river has a solid cast of actors performing at their best. The only thing bad you could say about the movie is that it ended sadly (though not badly). If you like you movies to end happy, stay away from this one, otherwise put this one in the que to watch. It is a movie you will not forget.
Enjoyablity: 720 (so low because of the ending. It was sad.)
I sometimes wonder why certain movies are made. This movie in particular was an interesting choice. It was a slightly better than average movie, but I bet it was not a huge box office hit. I am bet it has made it's money back, just based on the big names that were the stars of the movies. I do not, by any means, think this movie advanced the careers of Harrison Ford and Josh Hartnett, but I don't think it hurt them either. It did have one unforgettable scene, it was where Ford took a bicycle away from a girl to chase a bad guy. That scene was worth the entire movie, in my mind.
Ford and Hartnett play cops who have other side careers and get involved in a murder scandal involving, none other than, rap artists. It was an ok movie, but not one I would watch again. I would skip this film, in place of other films which could please just as many people, and offer a lot more quality
Iraq will only be moderately successful in the next 20 to 30 years, but after that is where the real economic progress is going to happen. This current generation can only lay the foundation for their children: elections, respect for people of different faith, respect for the law, and respect of others. While that foundation is being built, the cultural wounds that have been created by Saddam and the US can heal. You can look at the history of America and see countries putting away former disagreements: Mexico (that whole Alamo thing had them pissed off for awhile), Japan (we beat them in WW2 and they are a good friend now).
If Iraq is successful in morphing capitalism to it's culture, it can act as an ambassador to the Arab world. If will need to straddle the divide between the capitalist culture of America and the Arab culture it is in the middle of.
we have gone easy on the world, and they should thank us for it.
Thursday was the 56th anniversary of North Korea's founding. The reclusive communist state often stages extravaganzas and big events to mark important anniversaries.
Yonhap had conflicting reports about the cause, quoting one source as saying it could have been a forest fire; another that it might have been an arms depot or factory explosion.
Other possibilities include a failed missile engine test or a high-explosives test as a precursor to a nuclear blast, diplomats said. "In the northern part of the country, there are a lot of weapons factories and underground missile bases. The rocket-fuel could have exploded in the underground base, or something," said Daniel Pinkston of the Center for Nonproliferation Studies in Monterey, California.
A large explosion occurs and we don't know if it was nuclear or not. That is disturbing, I thought we have sensors that could tell if a nuke was exploded anywhere in the world.
If you are going to plan a large explosion, tell people about it. Some one could get a little trigger happy and launch a missile, just in case you are launching missiles at other countries. "Oh we are sorry we destroyed your country, we thought you were firing at us. Next time tell us you are testing nukes.", I am not saying that will go over well internationally. Could you really could you be blamed if an automatic system destroyed a country?
Sunday, September 12, 2004
On the surface bowling is a simple game, you through the ball down the lane and knock over the pins. Once you get more involved, you learn that they place oil on the lanes to protect the lanes. Also, different patterns of oil are used to provide a challenge to professional bowlers. Bowling balls have different covers which react differently to the oil and they have weights in the ball to help the path of the ball curve as it goes down the lane. The reason the ball curves is because their is a "pocket" to hit the pins in. If you hit the pins in the right place every time, you will be an excellent bowler.
The past year I have bowled with a "lane" ball. Which means I do not really fit in that well on league night. I am making the plunge this weekend and buying my very own ball. I chose the Brunswick Monster Bruiser. Since I am fairly new to bowling, though I am no means a beginner, I choose to not go with the entry level ball, but I did not get most expensive ball either. I based by decision on brand name and this chart. As you can see the Bruiser straddles the lines between the medium and oily lane conditions and is about in the middle of the grouping of the balls they offer for arc and hook potential.
Also, I am catching up on some of my favorite music artist Eddie Glenn. I have bought his latest album Hick Hop. I hold high hopes for this album.
Saturday, September 11, 2004
I don't know where i found this at, i just found it book marked in my favorites. If you posted this on your site, tell me in the comments (with permalink i can confrim) and i will make sure you get credit.
Intresting article, it will make you think.
The Reason Public Policy Foundation’s Lynn Kiesling found that municipalities adopting a pay as you throw program on average cut waste production by about 17 percent, and saved over seven dollars for every dollar they invested in the program. Forced recycling programs, on the other hand, typically cost cities money, anywhere between 25 and 200 percent of what it would cost to merely dispose of the goods the city pays to have recycled.
wow i like that idea.
The "swarm" or hive idea is interesting. I have read the exact same things on five different sites before, and there seemed to be no connection between them. I personally think ideas are like viruses, they leap from node to node (blogger to blogger). If the ideas are particularly infectious, they spread faster and are easy to recognize.
Another thing about the decentralized network of bloggers is that we also have increased data reliability. Hundreds of people would have to work together to perpetuate a lie, this makes lies (or secrets) harder to keep going. The amount of fame that could be received for producing proof you are involved in blog conspiracy would be tremendous. In other words, the system provides incentives for outing conspiracies, but not necessary incentives for not starting them.
On that note, I am asking you, my readers, to help me perpetuate a huge fraud that will shake America to its core. It is very simple. Some friends and I want to ruin the effectiveness of exit polls. If all the bloggers and all the people who read blogs, were to tell the pollers that they voted for a certain candidate. The polls would be skewed, their effectiveness as predictors would be ruined, and America would be free from the vile nature of polls. This is not telling you how to vote. Vote for who you want to, but when you come out you will tell the pollers that you voted for a specific candidate.
The only other step is to decide which candidate to tell the media we (all the bloggers in the entire world) voted for. I decided to flip a coin: Heads bush (because the is a moron) and Tails Kerry (because he got shot there). I will flip that coin now.
Flip - flop - flip - Tails. So I guess that settles it. The bloggers of the world will tell the exit pollers they voted for Kerry. We will take away the tools the media controls us with, while also vesting the power to control what others think in our hands.
Friday, September 10, 2004
"Teresa Heinz Kerry says "only an idiot" would fail to support her husband's health care plan.
But Heinz Kerry, the wife of Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, told the (Lancaster) Intelligencer Journal that "of course, there are idiots.""
Oh and she continues..
"If Kerry is elected, Heinz Kerry predicts that opponents of his health care plan will be voted out of office. She says, "Only an idiot wouldn't like this.""
Since i am an idiot and i know that now. I am going to vote for Kerry, for sure!!! Thanks for straightening me out Ms. Heinz.
In the poll, 43 percent of people said they would be more likely to vote for a national candidate who supports private-school vouchers, the largest response for that question.
Private-school vouchers continue to lack majority support, according to the authors of the poll's summary. Asked if they favor or oppose allowing students and parents to choose a private school to attend at public expense, 54 percent opposed the idea; 42 favored it."
On the issue of private school vouchers, it is the parents money. They are the ones who have paid the taxes. If I choose to send my kid to a private school or home school, I should not have to pay the public school component of state and local taxes or I should get that money back in a form of a voucher (not pay the taxes in the first place would be more efficient). If you send you kid to public school, the state allocates that money to the school based on attendance. If you don't send you kid to public school, that per head rate is just increased.
I think taxpayers should not fund schools. Every parent should be responsible for paying the fees associated with school (or as much as possible). The PTA would become a sounding board for consumer complaints. The state or private charities could fund scholarships for the children that need to go to school, but cannot afford it. Parents paying directly for school would provide incentive for parents to get involved with their children schooling, provide incentives for parents to find ways to make their children get their money's worth out of school, make schools answer directly to the parents, and would allow parents to price shop trying to get the best value.
Karlo, about Chalabi check out this you. If you read through it you might find a pattern.
"Saddam was seen by U.S. intelligence services as abulwark of anti-communism"
"Iraq was then regarded as a key buffer and strategic asset in the Cold War with the Soviet Union. "
"saying that the CIA had chosen the authoritarian and anti-communist Baath Party "as its instrument.""
Different time, different enemy. America cut a lot of corners trying to protect itself from communism (which has killed more people than any other form of government in the world), and we are still reaping the rewards for our efforts. Just look at Iran.
""It was a bit like the mysterious killings of Iran's communists just after Ayatollah Khomeini came to power in 1979. All 4,000 of his communists suddenly got killed.""
We put/allowed a lot of goons into power to head off communism, and now that we beat [correction: them] we are working on taking out the smaller goons, though those goons know have nukes. If the UN would do it's job of providing security and democracy, we would not have to do their job for them.
Thursday, September 09, 2004
Right now their looks like their will be two or three debates. The first and last one will be about domestic policy and foreign policy. I don't know which order. There may or not be a second one.
originally there where three planned, but Bush's debate team is pushing for two. The theory driving that decision is Bush stands to lose much,but gain little because he is an incumbent. They are citing the type of debate the middle one is,a Q and A with undecided voters, to strike it. I think who ever is behind in the polls should push for more debates. It will make them look aggressive and the other person look sly, unapproachable, and unwilling to fight head on with the other candidate. In fact, Kerry has already asked for a debate every week until the election occurs. I think that was over the top. Pushing for 4 debates would be good move in my book.
When asked a question Kerry can do several things: Attack Bush's record, promote himself, attack Bush's ideas for the future. Attacking Bush's record is one of the worst things he can do. First off, everyone knows his record, so nothing new is going to come out of that. Secondly, Kerry will meet a wall of conviction. Bush will strip away the long, boring political process talk and concentrate on the reason why he acted in the way he did. In other words from Bush you will get, "I did what I did because I believed it made America safer" . You can argue if Bush's actions accomplished what he wanted to do, but you cannot argue with Bush's goal. Kerry can attempt to cast Bush's judgment into question. That is just trying to jump over the wall of conviction, not avoiding it entirely.
Kerry should promote himself by contrasting his ideas for the future against Bush's ideas. If the democrats ideas are really better, I think that the American people will see that and vote for Kerry. Bush has stated his plan, although it is weak on the details. I think it is important to point out that Bush has gotten many things that he wanted accomplished from his first term: Education and Medicare Reform. He has a track record of doing things, he said he would do. I also think that while I care about the details, some people may not. As much as I know, I still know very little about the details of the two things I mentioned earlier. As much as each side may mention about detials, they are of limited use. Kerry should explain what he wants to do, not how he wants to do it, and explain fundamentally why Bush's ideas are wrong. Concentrating on the future and his plans, is what Kerry needs to do.
That is why I reproduce The Pup's entire post about me below:
Don't give that money away...Keep it in the state. I have been thinking about the federal funding of schools from systems flow perceptive. The US constitution does not address the funding of education and who should be in charge of it, but there is a section that covers what the constitution does not address.....
Read more of Cubicle's political rants and observations at: http://sandcastlesandcubicles.blogspot.com/
My thoughts: At last, a coherent unbiased view on current events in relation to politics!
Side note: I luv [emphasis mine] you Cube!.
Along came polly is not one of Ben Stiller's best films, though it returns him to his original area of expertise: the wackly romantic comedy. Watching this movie made me recall better films that Stiller has made in the same area - There's Something About Mary and Meet the Parents. Along came polly resides somewhere around wackiness level of Meet the parents. This movie was no where near his great ones: Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story, Zoolander, and Starsky & Hutch. I have not seen anchorman, so I don't know what role he plays and cannot vouch for the quality of that movie. This movie was not bad, but it was not great either. I really liked Jennifer Aniston's character. The character reminded me of people I actually know. Though I am surprised this movie did not get protested by people with IBS, though I suspect that they might be doing something else. If you like Ben stiller, this movie should be in the middle of the list of movies to watch.
Also, a friend and I came up with the stiller cycle theory. The quality of Ben stiller's movies cycles. Though causation, correlation, and the actual cycles are hidden from us at this point in time, I stand by the fact a movie quality cycle for Ben stiller does exist.
This movie generated lots of questions from the group that I saw it with: When was it set? Was the main character "retarded" (or as the teachers say these days Mild to Moderate (MM))? Is it alright to laugh at someone who is retarded? The characters have mannerisms reflecting the 1980's, though the movie is set in the 1990's. If you grew up in a small town, you know small towns sometimes get stuck in a time vortex they are unable to escape out of, that seems to be the case for the town that Napoleon is in.
The characters in this movie are particularly expressionless (just like their town), though their expressions are assumed. If you have ever been a teenager, you know everything that is going on in the characters heads. I believe that is the intent of the film. Napoleon is a weird, unpopular kid with a weird, unpopular, seemily self assured, best friend. Napoleon lives with a weird, unpopular brother, a hip grandmother, an uncle who ordered a time machine off of the internet, and has a weird, unpopular girlfriend.
This movie is only fit to be seen at the local art house, which happens to be where I saw the film. Any movie I see at places like these, houses of liberal ill repute, have to prove their worth to me. At the very beginning of the movie, people were already laughing their butts off at any little thing Napoleon did. It took about 15 mins before I started doing the same thing. The early adopters of this humor, I assume, were either the target audience or have seen the movie before.
This movie was great, and I would watch it again if I had the chance. I don't say that often and I don't think I have said that about a movie which I have reviewed before.
This movie gets a 950 for originality and a 900 for overall enjoyablity and quality.
If you have not seen or heard of garden state, let me introduce this movie to you by way of this superbly done website. I swear, I could watch the teaser trailer a thousand times and never tire of it. I have never seen images, I have liked as much as the images, I have seen in this trailer. Zach Braff wrote, directed, and played a main part in this film. Zach Braff is the white kid from scrubs. Zach's talents in this film lie not in acting, but in the writing and directing. I think Zach's role in scrubs in better done by him, than this role he played in this film, though his directing was top notch. Their were some parts of the film that were roughly cut, but the underlying base film was enchanting at its best and just good at its worse. I do not relate to the main character in this film, but many people my age or around my age will. Some people will feel this movie is about them, it models the post college, pre-family area of life many people I know are in, with a certain clarity of vision that should be recommended to your friends. Zach Braff plays a mid-twenty something whose life is empty - void of love, friends, and filled with drugs. He comes home, after a long absence, when his mother dies.
I also liked his apartment at the beginning, it reminded me of mine in some ways.
This movie is a must see, and something that will cause to you think a little.
Wednesday, September 08, 2004
I was thinking about the structure of social security. The ones working pay for the ones who are in the system. This structure really is a beautiful one (although unfair) if the working population does not drop or the wages of that population does not drop. According to the left the last one has happened and according to everyone else the first one has happened. I was trying to figure out the ideal situation to fix social security. To me the ideal time would have been when you had a maximum amount working and a minimum amount of people getting benefits (on a percentage basis). The cost would have been less, you would have had a large working population to spread the cost over, and you would prevent a large mass of people from getting their retirement tied up in a system.
Under my former views, the government had made a contract with the people of America under the social security program and it must honor that contract. While the government could wean the American workers off of the system, it still had to fulfill the "contract" with the American workers. The only way I saw to do reasonably was to cut cost of the program (i.e. means test), and raise taxes on the present workers.
I was prepared to accept that tax responsibility for the contact made so long ago, just like I am willing to accept American's responsibility to spread freedom throughout the world. Grudgingly, but not seeing anyone else who can do it. My attitude, as of a few days ago, ran along the lines of, "Dang, it is going to have to be up to my generation to fix it." I harbored anger at the government that is taking my money to pay for others health care and at politician who ignored the problem. I did not harbor any resentment for the Americans caught in the evil system that.
NO more my friends. I have nothing but disdain for the previous generations, in regards to this problem. If I can do anything about social security, they will reap the rewards of their indifference. The boomers had the ideal situation and refused to address the problem. I know hindsight is 20/20, but it has been a well known fact that the birth rate after the baby boom generation has been much lower than it was during the boomer years. I am accusing the baby boomer generation of willfully ignoring the problems of social security. Just like all problems that are not dealt with, this one has just gotten bigger. Take a look at this graph. The baby boomer generation is between 1946 and 1964. When would have been a good time to start moving people away from social security? I do not know the answer to that. There are a lot of numbers that I do not know and do not have access to that I would need to answer that question, but I feel confident saying that it occurred sometime between 1966 and 1986. The twenty year gap in which baby boomers started working. During that 20 year period the baby boomers also started voting.
I am not mad at the people who choose to pass the act. I am mad at the people who decided to extend it life past it's intentions (look on page three to find the reason for social security).
The choice of old age and unemployment as the risks to be covered by social insurance
was a natural development,since the Depression had wiped out much of the lifetime savings of the aged and reduced opportunities for gainful employment.
I am mad at the boomers for not using their voting power after 1986 to fix the problem. Now I am mad at the current set up politicians for not solving the problem. As it happens they happen to be mostly boomers.
My views have sifted from a contract the government must fulfill to a contract that the American people failed to break.
Tuesday, September 07, 2004
Secondly, I love daytime television. It is the worst in the word. Can you imagine what a commercial for yoga booty ballet would be like? I don't have to because it is seared -- seared in my memory. Thank goodness, I did not have my contacts in.
Thirdly, I love coming back to the apartment after being gone half a week, it always smells better when I have not lived in it for awhile.
Sunday, September 05, 2004
Pentagon to check Kerry war record
and this horrible suggestion...
I am distressed by the effectiveness of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ads. It is causing me to lose faith in our democracy. Something must be done.
My suggestion may seem radical, but sometimes big problems require big changes. We should set up a special court of federal judges to determine the merit of accusations against any candidate running for national office before these charges can be leveled in television, print, or radio ads. Laws do not protect candidates from libel -- especially when the candidate is running for president. The prize is too great and the consequences too small.
Saturday, September 04, 2004
I have touched on this subject in this post. Tech central brings it up again, I am not convinced they are right. The problem with the tech central article is they give some numbers on how the population has changed in certain areas (ie New York and Texas). I see their point more people in a red state. I think that is more of demographic shift not powered by abortion. Until I see average the number of children, average age of birth (for the parents), and average birth rate broken down by party affiliation I will not be convinced by either side.
Lets say that the tech central article is wrong, because of this reason found in this post on the internet: "The abortion changes the timing of birth but not the total number of births."
I think that is a very reasonable statement to counter tech centrals argument, and intuitively makes sense to me.
Moving the time of birth instead of stopping birth. Lets run some simple numbers to show you the effect of changing the time of birth.
|liberal: 1 generation = 30 years||conservative:1 generation = 20 years|
|1 kid in 2004||1 kid in 2004|
|2 kids in 2034||2 kids in 2024|
|4 kids in 2064||4 kids in 2044|
|8 kids in 2094||8 kids in 2064|
|16 kids in 2124||16 kids in 2084|
|32 kids in 2154||32 kids in 2104|
These numbers show that even if liberals have the same birth rate of conservatives, but have children later (this example is extreme), then conservatives will in effect out produce liberals. Though it might take a few hundred years. So while tech central may be right, they are not right for the reason they think they are. While the other guy might be right about abortion not affecting the birth rate, he wrong because of the generational span.
I call this my generational span inequality theory.
As a counter point, the liberals do have a few points in their favor. Some conservatives will join the army and die in a war, which could even up the odds a little bit.
Remember you saw it here first.
"Our health care is better? People go North of the border to buy medication!"
David I applaud you asking questions, if you consistently ask questions you will see through the political rhetoric, to the center of the question. You will be a slave to neither political party and have important contributions to add to the political discourse of America. Where you fell short here was to keep asking questions and to answer you own questions. If you stop asking questions only when you have no more to ask, you will get to the bottom of the problem. If you always answer you own questions honestly, you will not rely on others to answer your questions, therefore you will not fall under their basis.
Things you did not ask.
Why are people going north of the border? The drugs are cheaper.
Why are the drugs cheaper? Price fixing by the Canadian government.
Do cheaper drugs mean better drugs? Possibly, but then again you do get what you pay for.
Who invented the drugs? America.
What other health care do people go to Canadian for? None that I can think of.
Also, I check out this earlier post that I wrote on the Canadian healthcare system.
Friday, September 03, 2004
What went wrong, you might ask? From the beginning, the case was more about a celebrity on trial than a woman accusing someone of raping her. It was more about digging up her past indiscretions, and a daily dose of character assassination designed to cloud the truth, to prevent her from ever being able to present her case to a jury.
Her past, eh...Like who she had sex with the day before and the day after. I would say those facts should not be splashed on the news, but the juries need that information.
"From the moment that Bryant defense lawyer Pamela Mackey violated every semblance of
judicial decorum by announcing six times the alleged victim's name during an initial court hearing, the game was on."
Don't forget that they name was leaked on the web before that, it was in some legal papers that made it to the net. The writer does mention that later on, but I am fairly sure that the leak on the web happened before the lawyer said the name. It is a lawyer, they know what they can get away with and what they can't get away with. Purposely outing a victim would probably get them disbarred.
Though the writer is right about some things, he paints everyone as the devil except the victim. There is more than enough information for a person to have doubts about the victim also.
"While the judge, the lawyers, and the court system must take most of the responsibility for this travesty of justice, "
I do agree with him here. I personally think the court system failed the victim, mainly through the one mistake it made of releasing the victims name, the rest was just lawyers acting on behalf of their clients. Secondly, the system was was never ready for what was coming, the judge did not realize who Braynt was. They charged an internationally recognized star with rape and did not know it until it got into the papers.
I can take solace in the fact that if Bryant did it, he stands a good chance of burning in hell. I hope that young girl is able to recover from this mess, and that I don't read any news about her committing suicide.
"announcing on Aug. 5 that it will allow the United States to use data gathered by Canadians at NORAD. The North American Aerospace Defense Command, in the development of our missile defense system"
I know a little about NORAD from a discovery show special. It is on American soil, inside of a mountain in Colorado. The reason NORAD is inside of a mountain is so that it can survive a nuclear attack nearby, though not a direct one (which is improbable, because of the distance a missile would have to travel from Russia (think cold war technology)). I personally think it could be hit with a direct hit today. The Canadians and the US do have joint ownership, but America has provided the bulk of the money to build and support NORAD. I quote the dumb Canadians their selves:
Throughout the history of the agreement, the United States has often provided the
majority of the funding for various projects. Developing the various radar and ground tracking systems would have been completely out of reach for the Canadian government on its own. Canada is presently benefiting from a radar system - the North Warning System or nws - that is 4,800 kilometres long and 320 kilometres deep, and made up of 54 radar sites, 47 of which are located in Canada. Canada also benefits from the services of several us awacs planes (at a cost of approximately us$270 million) and provides only a few crew members. Canada's air defence is assured by only four fighter squadrons and 21 control and tracking planes based in Cold Lake, Alberta and Bagotville, Que-bec, 5 which is very little when you consider the thousands of square kilometres that must be scanned and monitored.
So allowing America to use equipment, resources, and information that the tax payers of America "provided the majority of the funding for" is a slap in the face of every single. Our defense shield will include Canada, even without them asking. Do you think that a missile defense shield will stop at the border?
The article points out that America would just have built a parallel system. Would this have resulted in two different, fully funded NORDs, I doubt it. We would have let the old rot, while we were perfecting the new one. One cannot begin to imagine the noise that would come out of Canada, if their country was struck by a nuke due to their own stubbornness. Also, we could not allow any from Canada over to the US because of potential radiation, which seeing how our health care is better would be a bad thing for them.
Should we end NORD out of spite and build our own? As much as I would like that, the cost may not be worth it to satisfy my desire to shut Canada up.