Much like all the other flip-flopping around by this administration, it appears that some of them think we might be at war.
Okay great, at least this time we have the advantage of actually having a "declared STATE" as an enemy rather than a bunch of rabble hiding out (being supported by) countries we are technically not at war with - sure most of that current state is at the moment what used to be Iraq, and maybe a little bit of Syria but it's a non-moving target - for the moment.
The ideal situation for the U.S. would be if ALL of the jihadist immigrated to the Caliphate so we could just wipe them out without having to chase them all over the damn globe.
Yeah that sounds harsh - especially from someone who (mostly) believes in the nonaggression principle. Yet, they declared war on us, not the other way around. Yes I know a case can be made for us using coercion to affect changes to their countries - probably a really good case, and I'm not sure we have the luxury of falling back on the claim of selfdefense. History, if man kind doesn't reach the point were we can drop historical grudges then we might as well give up the claim to civilization and just make war the primary pastime of everyone.
Yes one could argue that, that won't happen, and you'd be right, but can we at least pretend to try? I think it might fall in that area of "Fake it until you Make it" - probably wishful thinking. I do that sometimes.
So for the time being - we have an actual war with an actual physical state, might be the biggest mistake the Jihadists have made so far.
Friday, September 12, 2014
We're Not At War
I keep thinking about the administrations claims emanating around Obama's speech - what a sad affair that was - and I find it difficult to reconcile.
It's not an unusual state for me, trying to reconcile what appears to be either criminal negligence or massive stupidity in people who shouldn't be capable of either but obviously are. Take John Kerry's statement that we are not at war with ISIS.
When a militant group who have proven both the will and the ability to assault an entire country (granted not a great military force but still) says (and I paraphrase) "We will fly our flag over your nations capital" That sounds like a declaration of war to me. Because it IS a declaration of war. So, can you not be at war with someone who is at war with you? Sure if you just surrender - and that's not going to happen - we're a long way from that point despite the gutless progressive apologists.
Regardless of what our Secretary of State thinks about "war" being the wrong terminology - we are at war. I don't like it, but my not liking doesn't change reality anymore than it does for anyone else, so suck it up people.
Now why are they saying Not-At-War?
There are a few options - It could be (but it's not) a simple statement of fact - We're not at war with ISIS, we're at war with ISLAM or ISIL - which are not necessarily the exact same thing. We all know that's not what he meant thought.
It could be that he means we haven't made an official declaration of war - which is sort of true, but also just a dodge.
More likely he's saying we're not at war because the administration REALLY does not want to be in another war. I don't think that's it either. I think parts of the administration have been searching for another war for us to get into since we started pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan. War is big business - much bigger than oil when you consider the banks gains for war profiteering.
He could be just toting the line (which seems likely) and Obama so tired of it all that he personally doesn't give a damn what his masters want anymore, he just wants to play golf. Or it could have to do with his unending support of ISLAM. If you look back over his various quotes, time and time again he has supported Islam going so far as to say (in two separate instances) that:
“Islam has always been part of America”
and
“Whatever we once were, we are no longer a Christian nation”
Both of which are patently false, although the second is much closer to the truth than the first. There is a significant part of the populace that are not Christians, but that group is out numbered by Christians and those who don't profess any religious preference.
It's his undying oft repeated support of Islam and his off repeated claim that America is the problem, that I think is at the heart of it. He doesn't want to be at war with islam because he supports and believes in islam. Until recently I mostly discounted the accusations that he was an Islamist but it's become so difficult to support that position that I have abandoned it. Originally I thought it was just his desire to "Transform" America into is Alinskyist vision that he was just using Islam as a wedge, and I suppose that might still be true, but I no longer believe it.
It's not an unusual state for me, trying to reconcile what appears to be either criminal negligence or massive stupidity in people who shouldn't be capable of either but obviously are. Take John Kerry's statement that we are not at war with ISIS.
When a militant group who have proven both the will and the ability to assault an entire country (granted not a great military force but still) says (and I paraphrase) "We will fly our flag over your nations capital" That sounds like a declaration of war to me. Because it IS a declaration of war. So, can you not be at war with someone who is at war with you? Sure if you just surrender - and that's not going to happen - we're a long way from that point despite the gutless progressive apologists.
Regardless of what our Secretary of State thinks about "war" being the wrong terminology - we are at war. I don't like it, but my not liking doesn't change reality anymore than it does for anyone else, so suck it up people.
Now why are they saying Not-At-War?
There are a few options - It could be (but it's not) a simple statement of fact - We're not at war with ISIS, we're at war with ISLAM or ISIL - which are not necessarily the exact same thing. We all know that's not what he meant thought.
It could be that he means we haven't made an official declaration of war - which is sort of true, but also just a dodge.
More likely he's saying we're not at war because the administration REALLY does not want to be in another war. I don't think that's it either. I think parts of the administration have been searching for another war for us to get into since we started pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan. War is big business - much bigger than oil when you consider the banks gains for war profiteering.
He could be just toting the line (which seems likely) and Obama so tired of it all that he personally doesn't give a damn what his masters want anymore, he just wants to play golf. Or it could have to do with his unending support of ISLAM. If you look back over his various quotes, time and time again he has supported Islam going so far as to say (in two separate instances) that:
“Islam has always been part of America”
and
“Whatever we once were, we are no longer a Christian nation”
Both of which are patently false, although the second is much closer to the truth than the first. There is a significant part of the populace that are not Christians, but that group is out numbered by Christians and those who don't profess any religious preference.
It's his undying oft repeated support of Islam and his off repeated claim that America is the problem, that I think is at the heart of it. He doesn't want to be at war with islam because he supports and believes in islam. Until recently I mostly discounted the accusations that he was an Islamist but it's become so difficult to support that position that I have abandoned it. Originally I thought it was just his desire to "Transform" America into is Alinskyist vision that he was just using Islam as a wedge, and I suppose that might still be true, but I no longer believe it.
Wednesday, September 10, 2014
Just a thought
In light of the stern and forceful stance, of the present administration, to external threats (non-preceived). And tomorrow being the anniversary of the beginning of the "war on terror" that we've been told is all but done, except no one told the terrorist. And the assorted claims by the JV team in Iraq. I thought I might offer a suggestion to folks living/working in Manhattan - it might be a good day for a vacation in the countryside.
Because - event though it's not a day we celebrate, it is a day the Islamic world does celebrate - usually by blowing up something that doesn't belong to them.
Be careful - and Don't Forget.
Because - event though it's not a day we celebrate, it is a day the Islamic world does celebrate - usually by blowing up something that doesn't belong to them.
Be careful - and Don't Forget.
Free speech under attack by "a symbol and embodiment of that ideal"
You know what - I'm just going to let Ken over at Popehat explain it. He does so with his usually eloquent yet direct style. It's a master work of fisking.
Nice job Mr. White!
Yet, how could we expect any less from that Bastion of liberal fascism.
The University is, today, a symbol and embodiment of thought control, authoritarian over site, indoctrination, and a good way to fleece kids of their future income. Beyond that - you might get laid but it may very well land you in prison because any sort of sex on campus, that doesn't involve signed and witnessed consent for each separate activity, has become rape.
Nice job Mr. White!
Yet, how could we expect any less from that Bastion of liberal fascism.
The University is, today, a symbol and embodiment of thought control, authoritarian over site, indoctrination, and a good way to fleece kids of their future income. Beyond that - you might get laid but it may very well land you in prison because any sort of sex on campus, that doesn't involve signed and witnessed consent for each separate activity, has become rape.
Saturday, September 6, 2014
Friday, August 29, 2014
I think he said layoffs
My first thought after reading this:
But an IRS with no database - how would they keep track of who owe's what? Eh. Fire all of them too, but Lois and company need to see the inside of prison and I don't mean the kind with golf courses.
Justice Department lawyers working on the case informed him on a Friday call that Lerner’s emails may be on the federal government’s own backup system, but that it would be “too onerous” to recover them.
was: Okay - then there's no point in doing backups. Which means there's no point in keeping the people who do the backups, or manage the emails, or - well the entire IT department for that matter. If they can't keep the emails from disappearing the this age of RAID arrays, distributed databases, and cloud backups, then they serve no useful purpose.
Fire the whole bunch.
But an IRS with no database - how would they keep track of who owe's what? Eh. Fire all of them too, but Lois and company need to see the inside of prison and I don't mean the kind with golf courses.
Tuesday, August 26, 2014
Trick questions.
Taryn over at Glamor the single life (h/t Maggie's Farm) Has a video about things girls say to test guys. She then proceeds to tell men how they should respond. Unsurprisingly, every response is a guarantee that this behavior will continue. So, I recommend you start immediate NEGATIVE reinforcement. Put and end to this self sabotaging behavior.
She says: Seriously you don't have to get me anything.
Correct response: Fantastic! I was saving up, but now I can get the latest Call of Duty!
She says: So... Do you notice anything different about me?
Correct response: Yes, you have less money because you spent it trying trying to make yourself feel better.
She says: Do you think she's pretty?
Correct response: Hell yes! Thanks for pointing her out, you just made my day!
She says: Do I look fat in these jeans?
Correct response: I'm not sure take them off so I have a reference point.
She says: Are you listening to me?
Correct response: ......... silence ...... - unless, you actually were listening, in which case:
Correct response: Not any more.
Girls... here's a thought - try saying what you actually mean, and don't ask questions when you either:
A. Know the answer already.
or
B. Don't want an answer.
EQUALITY that's my motto.
She says: Seriously you don't have to get me anything.
Correct response: Fantastic! I was saving up, but now I can get the latest Call of Duty!
She says: So... Do you notice anything different about me?
Correct response: Yes, you have less money because you spent it trying trying to make yourself feel better.
She says: Do you think she's pretty?
Correct response: Hell yes! Thanks for pointing her out, you just made my day!
She says: Do I look fat in these jeans?
Correct response: I'm not sure take them off so I have a reference point.
She says: Are you listening to me?
Correct response: ......... silence ...... - unless, you actually were listening, in which case:
Correct response: Not any more.
Girls... here's a thought - try saying what you actually mean, and don't ask questions when you either:
A. Know the answer already.
or
B. Don't want an answer.
EQUALITY that's my motto.
Monday, August 25, 2014
Huckabee ByeBye
From Breitbart:
On Friday Fox News host and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee (R) called on conservatives to “stop the fight” over the Common Core standards and, instead, consider the positive effects the nationalized standards might have on students in poor-performing schools.
Seriously? Anyone republican attempting to cover for Common Core, possibly the worst idea in education since the teachers union, can probably kiss his future Bye Bye.
The only people actually in favor of that monstrosity are the American Communist Party and their lackeys.
Sunday, August 24, 2014
Manufacturing Conflict
There is a concept that has been floating around for a while now called Manufacturing Consent. It was put forward by Noam Chomski and Edward Herman. I think the idea has merit in some regards but I have some doubts in general.
Yes I think the mass media is consensual part of the propaganda machine of the left. On the other hand, when they report on what the right is saying, and when the right report on the left, it interrupts the propaganda. It works if you can pick apart the other sides arguments, but it's much harder for he left to pull apart the arguments made on the right, although the not the party line republicans. There is no doubt that their intent is to push the agenda of one side or the other. They lie constantly to create the illusion that their chosen agenda is what everyone should want.
What I really see happening is the manufacturing of conflict between the left and right. I think the reason is fairly simple, if we're fighting with each other we're not looking at the manipulations of the power elite. Hence the growing divide between right and left. The left has for a long time viewed capitalism with incredulity. In the last 30 years, I think a lot of that incredulity is the result of being told we live in a capitalist system, when in fact, since 1913 (or earlier) we've lived in a Crony Capitalist system - entirely NOT the same thing.
Many of the wars that we get involved in make no sense and I believe we are led into them by the same people who use crony capitalism, who seek to destroy the free market, who seek the new world order. I suspect move of the people in mass media don't even know their helping the cause that's destroying them. This manufactured conflict is I think, it's non an uncommon occurrence. We see it in Race baiters like Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Eric Holder, and Barack Obama, men who try to turn every occurrence of black and white interaction into a racial conflict. We see it in journalist and government support for terrorist, Hamas in Palestine, and Al-Queda in Syria and Lebanon. I think it even happens on F*ceB00k - huh, yeah I got the idea from reading a an article link from Maggie's Farm concerning "Likes"
Progressives going for the Nanny State, Republicans going for the Corporate State, both supporting wars that amount to colonial aggression under the guise of spreading democracy. Democracy is Mob Rule - why do so many people think that's a good thing? Look at the riots in Ferguson if you think Mob Rule is a good thing - there's your mob. It's were all mobs go eventually. Without a culture that promotes morals based on a sound philosophy, you end up with situational ethics, which is an oxymoron if I've ever heard one - right up there with Corporate Ethics.
When they start telling you to hate someone for what they say or believe - it's time to start looking to your own beliefs - do they stand up to logic, are they formed from a first level philosophy? If you look at the base of the Libertarian philosophy - despite all the differences, the basics are pretty much the same:
Individuals own them selves and the production of their efforts.
Coercion is immoral.
Individuals have the right to own property.
Self Defense is a Duty to self and third parties where Coercion is used.
Some would simplify and say, The Non-Agression Principle, and Property Ownership, and I'm okay with that because they lead to self defense, and one can assume self ownership.
If you can't get to where they say everyone should be, from that starting place - or what ever starting place you decided is true, then maybe you should examine their agenda before you join the revolution.
Yes I think the mass media is consensual part of the propaganda machine of the left. On the other hand, when they report on what the right is saying, and when the right report on the left, it interrupts the propaganda. It works if you can pick apart the other sides arguments, but it's much harder for he left to pull apart the arguments made on the right, although the not the party line republicans. There is no doubt that their intent is to push the agenda of one side or the other. They lie constantly to create the illusion that their chosen agenda is what everyone should want.
What I really see happening is the manufacturing of conflict between the left and right. I think the reason is fairly simple, if we're fighting with each other we're not looking at the manipulations of the power elite. Hence the growing divide between right and left. The left has for a long time viewed capitalism with incredulity. In the last 30 years, I think a lot of that incredulity is the result of being told we live in a capitalist system, when in fact, since 1913 (or earlier) we've lived in a Crony Capitalist system - entirely NOT the same thing.
Many of the wars that we get involved in make no sense and I believe we are led into them by the same people who use crony capitalism, who seek to destroy the free market, who seek the new world order. I suspect move of the people in mass media don't even know their helping the cause that's destroying them. This manufactured conflict is I think, it's non an uncommon occurrence. We see it in Race baiters like Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Eric Holder, and Barack Obama, men who try to turn every occurrence of black and white interaction into a racial conflict. We see it in journalist and government support for terrorist, Hamas in Palestine, and Al-Queda in Syria and Lebanon. I think it even happens on F*ceB00k - huh, yeah I got the idea from reading a an article link from Maggie's Farm concerning "Likes"
Progressives going for the Nanny State, Republicans going for the Corporate State, both supporting wars that amount to colonial aggression under the guise of spreading democracy. Democracy is Mob Rule - why do so many people think that's a good thing? Look at the riots in Ferguson if you think Mob Rule is a good thing - there's your mob. It's were all mobs go eventually. Without a culture that promotes morals based on a sound philosophy, you end up with situational ethics, which is an oxymoron if I've ever heard one - right up there with Corporate Ethics.
When they start telling you to hate someone for what they say or believe - it's time to start looking to your own beliefs - do they stand up to logic, are they formed from a first level philosophy? If you look at the base of the Libertarian philosophy - despite all the differences, the basics are pretty much the same:
Individuals own them selves and the production of their efforts.
Coercion is immoral.
Individuals have the right to own property.
Self Defense is a Duty to self and third parties where Coercion is used.
Some would simplify and say, The Non-Agression Principle, and Property Ownership, and I'm okay with that because they lead to self defense, and one can assume self ownership.
If you can't get to where they say everyone should be, from that starting place - or what ever starting place you decided is true, then maybe you should examine their agenda before you join the revolution.
Friday, August 22, 2014
Cosmos again
I've been watching Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey
I've always like Neil DeGrasse Tyson. Smart guy, articulate, seems to have a sense of humor. I was a little annoyed that he demoted Pluto but he was right. I really enjoyed the original Cosmos. The new one is also very good, flashy, but solid and informative. I've been a bit surprised to see Mr Tyson's opinions on religion not come pouring out unlike another special he did, where he fairly constantly referred to all religions as ignorant superstitions. Yeah I know that's the standard opinion of virtually every atheist I've ever met. Those of us who don't care for organized religion and don't like to be preached at by the church, don't much like to be preached at by the other side either. (I suppose I could be misjudging him on this but it's sure the feeling I got from his other show - The Inexplicable Universe.
One thing I found a little irritating was the time spent on global warming -slightly dates the show doesn't it? It's climate change this week. It was expressed much as the alarmists would have it, fate accompli, the Science is Settled™. This global warming episode was preceded by an episode that pointed out a number of scientists who were ridiculed by the "in" crowd, like the fellow who first postulated plate tectonics. It was followed by this, from the last episode:
Only a few centuries ago, a mere second in cosmic time, we knew nothing of where or when we were. Oblivious to the rest of the cosmos, we inhabited a kind of prison, a tiny universe bounded by a nutshell.
How did we escape from the prison? It was the work of generations of searchers who took five simple rules to heart.
(1) Question authority. No idea is true just because someone says so, including me.Does that sound anything at all like Climate Science? You know the Science is Settled™, shut your mouths or we'll send you to re-education camps, or GitMo or some other very unpleasant place. No? Do you suppose it's because it's not Science? Maybe because it's the religious dogma of the leftist ideology?
(2) Think for yourself. Question yourself. Don't believe anything just because you want to. Believing something doesn't make it so.
(3) Test ideas by the evidence gained from observation and experiment. If a favorite idea fails a well-designed test, it's wrong. Get over it.
(4) Follow the evidence wherever it leads. If you have no evidence, reserve judgment.
And perhaps the most important rule of all...
(5) Remember: you could be wrong. Even the best scientists have been wrong about some things. Newton, Einstein, and every other great scientist in history -- they all made mistakes. Of course they did. They were human.
- What happens when you question them? They tell you to shut up. (Rule 1 - FAIL)
- What happens when you try to do your own analysis? They try to shut you down by hiding the data (Rule 2 FAIL)
- What happens when you compare evidence to theory? They Deny your results - Our Models Tell Us! The evidence must be wrong! (Rule 3 FAIL)
- What happens when you ask them to follow the evidence - Prevarication, Obfuscation, Dogma (Rule 4 FAIL)
- What happens when you bring up rule 5? Outrage - DENIER! Off with their heads! (Rule 5 FAIL)
Must not be Science.
Related: Why there is no Science in Climate Science
Thursday, August 14, 2014
That's just scary.
Apparently a Former NYC police commissioner doesn't approve of tactics used by Ferguson cops.
Okay, the city that brought you stop and frisk, and like to shoot innocent bystanders as much as criminals. Just for a little perspective....
Crony Capitalism
Possibly, the biggest oversight of our founding fathers was, to not include an article in the constitution regarding the separation of economy and state. I'm still digging to see if perhaps they didn't actually make a conscious decision to leave the possibility of government interference in the free market.
When I was studying Economics in college, I took a course on government regulation. My conclusion was that, as a company you wanted regulation - yeah I know, that sounds really wrong. Keep in mind, that regulators, until fairly recently, didn't bother with little industries, there wasn't really enough voter noise for congress to create new regulatory agencies, and regulations. Mostly it affects large industries. Here's how it works.
In the early stages of regulation you have a government sanctioned monopoly of some domain. You are essentially guaranteed a return on investment, more than likely there is government funds to help you build the business. The second stage comes from the hiring of the individuals who used to regulate your business or, at minimum putting them on the board of directors. You now have your Washington insider, who has a serious financial incentive to get additional concessions from the 'new' regulator. Eventually congress get's involved, usually because of a change in technology, or a perceived change in the competitive nature of the regulated industry. Now the regulated corporation sends in the lobbyist, who write bills to favor the company, or industry. They raise funds for re-election, and in return the bills are passed. New regulators are appointed, old regulators are given very high paying jobs and put on the board of more companies. Eventually a previous regulator will split off, and via thecampaign finance donations bribery paid, they will be appointed to regulation again, where they with their new insight in to what the company needs, adjust the regulations, selectively enforce, or ignore regulations depending on financial gain to their now future employer.
Sometimes, the push to regulation comes from unions, early on, those regulations were primarily to prevent unscrupulous business operators from forcing workers into unsafe work environments. That for the most part (not entirely) ended back in the seventies.
In the end, the government who was trying to control the business is in fact, owned by the business. As long as they avoid any monstrously huge public impropriety the politicians will work with them and help them fleece theconsumer voter.
AT&T benefited hugely from it's government sanctioned monopoly - the euphemistic deregulation phase, on the surface seemed like a good thing, what it in fact did was create new regulatory conditions on multiple smaller organizations. Additional opportunities for jobs for regulators, lobbyists, and additional complex regulation that would allow the companies to avoid competition, due partly to the onerous barriers to entry crated by the wall of bureaucratic red tape.
Regulation is used as a giant club which is used to beat potential entrants into the marketplace, thus stifling competition. The large corporation, a million, or even 100 million dollar legal budget is an asset. It erects barriers that smaller more efficient, more competitive companies can not scale.
Thus crony capitalism is born.
The last thing a crony capitalist really wants is an elimination of government interference. There are few if any crony capitalists amongst small business. That generally only happens if a congress critter leaves office and returns home to start said business, or go to work with a friend and long time supporter.
If you want to see this in operation, take a look at the number of ex regulators working at Monsanto, or Verizon, or AT&T, or .....
When I was studying Economics in college, I took a course on government regulation. My conclusion was that, as a company you wanted regulation - yeah I know, that sounds really wrong. Keep in mind, that regulators, until fairly recently, didn't bother with little industries, there wasn't really enough voter noise for congress to create new regulatory agencies, and regulations. Mostly it affects large industries. Here's how it works.
In the early stages of regulation you have a government sanctioned monopoly of some domain. You are essentially guaranteed a return on investment, more than likely there is government funds to help you build the business. The second stage comes from the hiring of the individuals who used to regulate your business or, at minimum putting them on the board of directors. You now have your Washington insider, who has a serious financial incentive to get additional concessions from the 'new' regulator. Eventually congress get's involved, usually because of a change in technology, or a perceived change in the competitive nature of the regulated industry. Now the regulated corporation sends in the lobbyist, who write bills to favor the company, or industry. They raise funds for re-election, and in return the bills are passed. New regulators are appointed, old regulators are given very high paying jobs and put on the board of more companies. Eventually a previous regulator will split off, and via the
Sometimes, the push to regulation comes from unions, early on, those regulations were primarily to prevent unscrupulous business operators from forcing workers into unsafe work environments. That for the most part (not entirely) ended back in the seventies.
In the end, the government who was trying to control the business is in fact, owned by the business. As long as they avoid any monstrously huge public impropriety the politicians will work with them and help them fleece the
AT&T benefited hugely from it's government sanctioned monopoly - the euphemistic deregulation phase, on the surface seemed like a good thing, what it in fact did was create new regulatory conditions on multiple smaller organizations. Additional opportunities for jobs for regulators, lobbyists, and additional complex regulation that would allow the companies to avoid competition, due partly to the onerous barriers to entry crated by the wall of bureaucratic red tape.
Regulation is used as a giant club which is used to beat potential entrants into the marketplace, thus stifling competition. The large corporation, a million, or even 100 million dollar legal budget is an asset. It erects barriers that smaller more efficient, more competitive companies can not scale.
Thus crony capitalism is born.
The last thing a crony capitalist really wants is an elimination of government interference. There are few if any crony capitalists amongst small business. That generally only happens if a congress critter leaves office and returns home to start said business, or go to work with a friend and long time supporter.
If you want to see this in operation, take a look at the number of ex regulators working at Monsanto, or Verizon, or AT&T, or .....
Why there is no Science in Climate Science
I keep thinking about the battle between Climate Science™and Deniers™ and wondering why there's so much resistance to an actual scientific approach. For a while, I assumed it had to do with grant money. If you look at where funding comes from - the governments, you need to wonder why they fund non-science. Certainly there has been sufficient skepticism from ligament sources that they might consider. I think the answer lies in the centralization of power.
We've all heard the phrase "Never let a crisis go to waste." A crisis is the fastest way to institute law and regulation resulting in the increase of centralized power. Why? A crisis brings fear, and people who are afraid look for someone to protect them, sadly, we've replace family and community with government in that roll. So we have a crisis - apparently manufactured - funded by the government, supported by the liberal media. But it's being used to enact policy that makes little or no sense.
Thermal solar is the least cost effective form of energy in use for large scale production, wind only works when the wind is blowing at a reasonable velocity, geothermal doesn't seem to work well enough to gain traction, except perhaps in Iceland. Photo-voltaic is enormously expensive and only useful at a small scale at present. Both forms of solar are only effective during the day - fortunately solar covers the largest peak usage around noon, although it's less effective for the secondary peak around 5pm. Neither wind or solar is a viable power source for virtually half the day. Wave and Tidal power has a host of issues with maintenance costs and not in my back yard complaints.
So the government is attempting to kill coal because "global warming" at the same time, we're ripping out hydro-electric dams, we can't make progress on nuclear both of which are clean sources. It seems to me, they're not trying to solve the claimed problem. What it looks like to me is an attempt to make people afraid so they ask for protection, since you can't protect someone from something that doesn't exist, the power mongers need to find policies that appear to do something, while at the same time waisting economic productivity (money). Why? People in debt are slaves to the system, they are put in a position where they need help, creating more dependency. It's a self reenforcing form of serfdom.
Actual science would ruin all that.
We've all heard the phrase "Never let a crisis go to waste." A crisis is the fastest way to institute law and regulation resulting in the increase of centralized power. Why? A crisis brings fear, and people who are afraid look for someone to protect them, sadly, we've replace family and community with government in that roll. So we have a crisis - apparently manufactured - funded by the government, supported by the liberal media. But it's being used to enact policy that makes little or no sense.
Thermal solar is the least cost effective form of energy in use for large scale production, wind only works when the wind is blowing at a reasonable velocity, geothermal doesn't seem to work well enough to gain traction, except perhaps in Iceland. Photo-voltaic is enormously expensive and only useful at a small scale at present. Both forms of solar are only effective during the day - fortunately solar covers the largest peak usage around noon, although it's less effective for the secondary peak around 5pm. Neither wind or solar is a viable power source for virtually half the day. Wave and Tidal power has a host of issues with maintenance costs and not in my back yard complaints.
So the government is attempting to kill coal because "global warming" at the same time, we're ripping out hydro-electric dams, we can't make progress on nuclear both of which are clean sources. It seems to me, they're not trying to solve the claimed problem. What it looks like to me is an attempt to make people afraid so they ask for protection, since you can't protect someone from something that doesn't exist, the power mongers need to find policies that appear to do something, while at the same time waisting economic productivity (money). Why? People in debt are slaves to the system, they are put in a position where they need help, creating more dependency. It's a self reenforcing form of serfdom.
Actual science would ruin all that.
Wednesday, August 13, 2014
A new take on succession
Apparently a very rich liberal and donor to the democratic party thinks the "South" should succeed.
Why? Apparently the south is holding back the rest of the countries desire to forge ahead with it's progressive agenda.
Hmm, that might make for an interesting situation. I find the remark about dumbing down national politics kinda funny, politicians are constantly making incredibly stupid comments - and - okay I'm biased, but most of them are Democrats -
The writer is Guy Saperstein. He’s a major Democratic donor, a part-owner of the Oakland Athletics baseball team, a former President of the environmental organization The Sierra Club, and founder of The Patriotic Millionaires, a group of mega-wealthy Americans who want Congress to raise taxes, according to Media Trackers.
Why? Apparently the south is holding back the rest of the countries desire to forge ahead with it's progressive agenda.
"For more than 100 years, the South has been dumbing down national politics, tilting the country in a conservative direction, supporting militarism, all while demanding huge financial subsidies from blue states.”
Hmm, that might make for an interesting situation. I find the remark about dumbing down national politics kinda funny, politicians are constantly making incredibly stupid comments - and - okay I'm biased, but most of them are Democrats -
Comes to mind. Although there are so many more.Congress "[has] to pass the bill so you can find out what's in it, away from the fog of controversy." -- N. Pelosi
Is it warming or cooling?
From wattsupwiththat.com
Okay, here's a thought. Stop trying to draw conclusions from questionable data.
When you get problems like this - the solution is to toss ALL of the preconceived theories. Go back and look at the data collection methods and determine if they are adequate to the problem. If they are, everyone needs to agree on what the hell that data is. It's no good if one group sabotages the data to support their preferred Policy. Let's try SCIENCE. Why? well the left is doing policy and calling it science, and the right is pointing out the BIG ASS HOLES in their data and how bad the computer models are that the left has come up with to support their chosen policy. But who the hell is actually doing science? There's probably a few, but with all the noise, it' hard to hear what they have to say.
I think mother nature is going to solve this problem by doing something nobody wants, in a way nobody expects, because she's tired of listening to the constant squabbling.... "Just wait till your father get's home!"
What they said What they should have said
As near as I can tell, the left saw some localized events, Greenland Ice cover melt, receding glaciers, etc and jumped to the conclusion - Global Warming, then went about faking what ever data they thought might get them additional grant money and have been screening PANIC ever since. Many on the right simply say - There's no warming! And while they seem to have the data on their side, it doesn't explain the melting.
Frankly the data, as it stands, sans serious tweaking to reenforce policy, pretty much says - WE DON'T FRIGGING KNOW. There are reasons for some of the local phenomena, that are currently blamed on "global warming". But if there's no warming - and there doesn't seem to have been any, then we can probably conclude that's not the cause. Maybe it's time to start looking elsewhere. Maybe even use real SCIENCE - yeah I know Math is Hard, Science is really hard....
I haven't heard anyone claim the melt data is bogus. It might be as simple as changes in volcanic activity under the ice, might be something else altogether. Might be bogus too, although faking a receding glacier might be tough. Don't know, maybe that's just what glaciers do when they're not getting bigger.
I'm sort of curious as to why no one actually wants to know the real reason.
“We have been building models and there are now robust contradictions,” says Liu, a professor in the UW-Madison Center for Climatic Research. “Data from observation says global cooling. The physical model says it has to be warming.”
Okay, here's a thought. Stop trying to draw conclusions from questionable data.
When you get problems like this - the solution is to toss ALL of the preconceived theories. Go back and look at the data collection methods and determine if they are adequate to the problem. If they are, everyone needs to agree on what the hell that data is. It's no good if one group sabotages the data to support their preferred Policy. Let's try SCIENCE. Why? well the left is doing policy and calling it science, and the right is pointing out the BIG ASS HOLES in their data and how bad the computer models are that the left has come up with to support their chosen policy. But who the hell is actually doing science? There's probably a few, but with all the noise, it' hard to hear what they have to say.
I think mother nature is going to solve this problem by doing something nobody wants, in a way nobody expects, because she's tired of listening to the constant squabbling.... "Just wait till your father get's home!"
Thescientistspoliticians call this problem the Holocene temperature conundrum. It has important implications for understanding climate change and evaluating climate models, as well as for the benchmarks used to create climate models for the future. It does not, the authors emphasize, change theevidence of human impactlack of evidence of human impact on global climate beginning in the 20th century.
As near as I can tell, the left saw some localized events, Greenland Ice cover melt, receding glaciers, etc and jumped to the conclusion - Global Warming, then went about faking what ever data they thought might get them additional grant money and have been screening PANIC ever since. Many on the right simply say - There's no warming! And while they seem to have the data on their side, it doesn't explain the melting.
Frankly the data, as it stands, sans serious tweaking to reenforce policy, pretty much says - WE DON'T FRIGGING KNOW. There are reasons for some of the local phenomena, that are currently blamed on "global warming". But if there's no warming - and there doesn't seem to have been any, then we can probably conclude that's not the cause. Maybe it's time to start looking elsewhere. Maybe even use real SCIENCE - yeah I know Math is Hard, Science is really hard....
I haven't heard anyone claim the melt data is bogus. It might be as simple as changes in volcanic activity under the ice, might be something else altogether. Might be bogus too, although faking a receding glacier might be tough. Don't know, maybe that's just what glaciers do when they're not getting bigger.
I'm sort of curious as to why no one actually wants to know the real reason.
Monday, August 11, 2014
Koch brothers
Can't wait to hear what Harry Reid has to say about this:
Koch brothers reach out to Hispanics
Should be pretty amusing.
If you live in Washington - HELP
Hell even if you Don't live here - HELP anyway.
We have two bills I-591 Good, it stops the government from confiscating weapons in a state of emergency.
Bill I-594 - BAD This is a Bloomberg bill to register guns - which is how they're going to take them away when they declare a state of emergency - say when we have the next earthquake? Who Knows.
"Ah come on - no one wants to take your guns." Really? Are You Serious? (you realize I can go on like this for hours right?)
Call, write letters, write emails, send money. They have 3 MILLION Dollars out there trying to screw us, We have about 1. They have the media and Bloomberg, We have the NRA - oh wait, no we don't they seem to be missing in action.
GO READ THIS - NOW! THANKS Barron!
We do have the following
Gun Owners Action League of Washington (DONATE HERE)
CCRKBA
We have two bills I-591 Good, it stops the government from confiscating weapons in a state of emergency.
Bill I-594 - BAD This is a Bloomberg bill to register guns - which is how they're going to take them away when they declare a state of emergency - say when we have the next earthquake? Who Knows.
"Ah come on - no one wants to take your guns." Really? Are You Serious? (you realize I can go on like this for hours right?)
Call, write letters, write emails, send money. They have 3 MILLION Dollars out there trying to screw us, We have about 1. They have the media and Bloomberg, We have the NRA - oh wait, no we don't they seem to be missing in action.
GO READ THIS - NOW! THANKS Barron!
We do have the following
Gun Owners Action League of Washington (DONATE HERE)
CCRKBA
 |
| CCRKBA (Donate HERE) |
And Washington Arms Collectors
Sunday, August 10, 2014
Geek Alert
I'm a bit of a GPS junky, I'm a huge music junky, and I hate phones - yeah that's weird.
So I get this info from my brother about a new heads up Navigation toy that links to your car and your smart phone. - This is COOL. And the security dude in me is screaming - Right - nothing could possibly go wrong with this - you've just tied your car's computer into a WiFi and BlueTooth, link between your phone and your car - that's secure... or not.....
I might get one but I'll be bugging Navdy about security if I pre-order, I don't want instructions going to the ODB-II connector with out some assurances. I don't think there's a lot you can hijack on my slightly older cars - no microphones, no cameras, no auto parking assist or breaking assist. Doesn't mean it might not trigger the ABS system. Wonder if you could trigger the Air Bags... - that's scary. More research.....
Anyway - it doesn't hurt to look -it's a bit of a car nerds toy. What would be better would be to build this crap into the cars - starting from the Security and working up.
So I get this info from my brother about a new heads up Navigation toy that links to your car and your smart phone. - This is COOL. And the security dude in me is screaming - Right - nothing could possibly go wrong with this - you've just tied your car's computer into a WiFi and BlueTooth, link between your phone and your car - that's secure... or not.....
Anyway - it doesn't hurt to look -it's a bit of a car nerds toy. What would be better would be to build this crap into the cars - starting from the Security and working up.
The changing face of shopping - and employment
Bayou Renaissance Man: The changing face of shopping - and employment
I always appreciate Peter's views, well thought out.
I would suggest that if the trend in shopping is rapidly heading toward on-line. For jobs I would look to the delivery service - UPS, FedX and others. I know most of my Amazon purchases come either US Mail or UPS - although there are long stretches were everything comes FedX. Most likely determined by the current contract that Amazon can negotiate.
If I had more faith in theStock Speculation Market, i would think UPS and FedX would be good bets. UPS PE ration is not stupidly out of line although it was - yes, I know, no one pays any attention to PE Ratios anymore if they did UPS would never have hit a PE of 97 back in 2qtr of 2013.
Jobs will also be available stuffing junk in boxes at the fulfillment centers, most will be low paying, and probably part time to avoid adding benefit costs to shipping. Perhaps a better job would to be soliciting money for reviews on Amazon - that happens I suspect more often that anyone thinks - but that's just my cynical self coming to the fore. The big advantage to reviews for money would be working at home, and since you only need a computer and a net connection - which you'll need anyway to do all your shopping, there is really no overhead - although you can write off your computer, net connection, and office space. To be fair - purchasing Verified Purchase reviews is perhaps only a little disingenuous - but way more effective.
If indeed the Rich are getting Richer, then it will pay to provide them with Services. Sadly this usually requires operating in a city, or in one of the exclusive high priced real-estate zip codes.
I always appreciate Peter's views, well thought out.
I would suggest that if the trend in shopping is rapidly heading toward on-line. For jobs I would look to the delivery service - UPS, FedX and others. I know most of my Amazon purchases come either US Mail or UPS - although there are long stretches were everything comes FedX. Most likely determined by the current contract that Amazon can negotiate.
If I had more faith in the
Jobs will also be available stuffing junk in boxes at the fulfillment centers, most will be low paying, and probably part time to avoid adding benefit costs to shipping. Perhaps a better job would to be soliciting money for reviews on Amazon - that happens I suspect more often that anyone thinks - but that's just my cynical self coming to the fore. The big advantage to reviews for money would be working at home, and since you only need a computer and a net connection - which you'll need anyway to do all your shopping, there is really no overhead - although you can write off your computer, net connection, and office space. To be fair - purchasing Verified Purchase reviews is perhaps only a little disingenuous - but way more effective.
If indeed the Rich are getting Richer, then it will pay to provide them with Services. Sadly this usually requires operating in a city, or in one of the exclusive high priced real-estate zip codes.
Saturday, August 9, 2014
Re-education Camps for Climate Deniers
Here's a shock - a leftwing talking head at MSNBC thinks Republican Climate Deniers should be forced to take an Earth Sciences Course. - Just Republicans - none of the Democrat Deniers (and there are some).
See the Video Here
Well I'm not a Republican so I'm safe.
Here's a thought - anyone who gets Air Time on Public Air Waves, For Money should have to have a degree in Scienceto talk about science issues.... (You know, that's an unnecessary qualification - let's just leave it as science) I'm guessing we'd get about a 99% reduction in talking heads. Although with the current level of grade inflation - and colleges obvious preference for LibProgs - I suspect they'd be granting honorary Masters of Science degrees right and left.
See the Video Here
Well I'm not a Republican so I'm safe.
Here's a thought - anyone who gets Air Time on Public Air Waves, For Money should have to have a degree in Science
I like it.
Unsurprisingly, the minimum wage hikes going around, have the obvious effect of raising prices. So there's a Cafe in Minnesota that's printing receipts with the price increase spelled out.
The reaction amongst LibProgs is pretty much what you'd expect. Now obviously, everyone else is doing essentiality same thing - they're just hiding in that line that says BLACK&BLUE BURGER - instead of 9.00 it would be 9.35 and no one is complaining about those. What LibProgs HATE is having the consequences of their actions rubbed in their faces. So obviously it's the Cafe Owners fault, he's an asshat for not just eating the cost increase and joining the ranks of the poor. Can you imagine owning a Cafe and needing and EBT card because your employees make more than you do?
LibProg Logic dictates fairness - Since the Owner gets all the Risk, it's only fair that the employees should get all the benefits, gotta share right?
HatTip Maggies Farm and PowerLine
So, what I'd like to see would be a break down of all the cost components. Can you imagine receipts that showed Labor Cost, Product Cost, Overhead, Government Regulatory Costs, Fixed Costs, and Profit.
Although if I owned a Cafe I'd probably refuse to do it as it's just a pain in the ass, and you'd need to add a line just to cover the cost of the receipt.
The reaction amongst LibProgs is pretty much what you'd expect. Now obviously, everyone else is doing essentiality same thing - they're just hiding in that line that says BLACK&BLUE BURGER - instead of 9.00 it would be 9.35 and no one is complaining about those. What LibProgs HATE is having the consequences of their actions rubbed in their faces. So obviously it's the Cafe Owners fault, he's an asshat for not just eating the cost increase and joining the ranks of the poor. Can you imagine owning a Cafe and needing and EBT card because your employees make more than you do?
LibProg Logic dictates fairness - Since the Owner gets all the Risk, it's only fair that the employees should get all the benefits, gotta share right?
HatTip Maggies Farm and PowerLine
So, what I'd like to see would be a break down of all the cost components. Can you imagine receipts that showed Labor Cost, Product Cost, Overhead, Government Regulatory Costs, Fixed Costs, and Profit.
Although if I owned a Cafe I'd probably refuse to do it as it's just a pain in the ass, and you'd need to add a line just to cover the cost of the receipt.
Thursday, August 7, 2014
A little too much truth
I gave up giving to charity years ago. Too many are corrupt, most of the one's that aren't are inefficient, if they're efficient, they rarely do the things I think need to be done.
Besides the government sticks a gun to my head every year to collect for charity so why should I volunteer more.
If these people are right (and I believe they are) then all that money destined to help the third world, is causing harm, not helping. I've talked about creating dependance before here. I view emergency response aid differently - obviously (well to rational person it would be obvious).
Apparently I'm not alone in thinking AID generally does more harm than good. PovertyInc.org seems to agree. Corporations seem to be the big gainers when it comes to foreign aid. That and foreign dictators.
Want some proof - take a look at the micro-loans to women program I've seen a lot of stories about significant successes here. Why - small business makes jobs, small business makes economic growth. Not big business, not governments, not involuntary charity, not the narcissistic kids going abroad to "help".
Besides the government sticks a gun to my head every year to collect for charity so why should I volunteer more.
If these people are right (and I believe they are) then all that money destined to help the third world, is causing harm, not helping. I've talked about creating dependance before here. I view emergency response aid differently - obviously (well to rational person it would be obvious).
Apparently I'm not alone in thinking AID generally does more harm than good. PovertyInc.org seems to agree. Corporations seem to be the big gainers when it comes to foreign aid. That and foreign dictators.
Want some proof - take a look at the micro-loans to women program I've seen a lot of stories about significant successes here. Why - small business makes jobs, small business makes economic growth. Not big business, not governments, not involuntary charity, not the narcissistic kids going abroad to "help".
Israeli Agression
Israeli agression. I'm hearing that term a lot. It would seem that the left is in dire need of a dictionary.
Self Defense, is NOT aggression - it's response to aggression. How do you know which is which. The side that uses force first - is the aggressor. I don't care if they're smaller, or not as well armed, or if they're losing - they're still the aggressor. In this case that aggressor would be Hamas.
You'd think it takes a friggin Phd to figure this out but... Oh wait - these morons all have Phd's
Come to think of it - so do most of the liberal academia professors who are vocally anti-semeitc. Hmm Makes you think maybe more education just makes you less capable of logic - then again, with the left being so happy about common core - I suppose it must.
Self Defense, is NOT aggression - it's response to aggression. How do you know which is which. The side that uses force first - is the aggressor. I don't care if they're smaller, or not as well armed, or if they're losing - they're still the aggressor. In this case that aggressor would be Hamas.
You'd think it takes a friggin Phd to figure this out but... Oh wait - these morons all have Phd's
Come to think of it - so do most of the liberal academia professors who are vocally anti-semeitc. Hmm Makes you think maybe more education just makes you less capable of logic - then again, with the left being so happy about common core - I suppose it must.
Ethics of Technology
If you ask the question - What if this falls into the wrong hands? You have two problems. First your asking a rhetorical question - it's going to fall into the wrong hands, that's a given. Second is did you ask that question before you made it or after. If you asked it after... you're too late.
If you're counting on laws to protect us from the consequences of our own actions, you're not paying attention to current events.
If you're counting on laws to protect us from the consequences of our own actions, you're not paying attention to current events.
Wednesday, August 6, 2014
I could swear they told me it was a right wing conspiracy
You remember the Obama birth certificate argument. How the left kept telling us it was all a right wing conspiracy.
Okay - So NOW MSNBC believes he's from Kenya.
These people are impervious to irony. He's from Kenya - MSNBC just told me.
More Math and a little Deconstruction
Here's a few interesting numbers.
According to this article - we paid out 2 Trillion dollars in benefits. Let's just see how that works out.
There are 318,600,0000 people in the US - we're adding 1 ever 12 seconds.
If you divide $2T by the population you get $6,277 - Anyone send you a check for 6 grand?
Okay - let's take a look at the "real" numbers From this article
We get a nice breakdown of that $2T bucks
I'm pretty sure I'd have heard if people were getting checks for $20K - Since I easily fall into that under $54K range - I know for a FACT I didn't get one.
Which brings up the obvious question - who did? Must be folks making more than $55K a year - really We need tosteal transfer wealth from people so we can give it to people making more than $55K a year? Really?
*this data is from Wiki and is 2011. So it's probably a bit lower than than it should be, but not much.
According to this article - we paid out 2 Trillion dollars in benefits. Let's just see how that works out.
There are 318,600,0000 people in the US - we're adding 1 ever 12 seconds.
If you divide $2T by the population you get $6,277 - Anyone send you a check for 6 grand?
Okay - let's take a look at the "real" numbers From this article
We get a nice breakdown of that $2T bucks
So let's be fair about this - Social Security is - in theory (if not in practice) simply returning money people paid in over the years - yeah we all know it doesn't work that way but at least they paid something for it. So let's leave that out.
Then there's the Veteran's benefits - Okay - those folks EARNED that so let's take that out too.
Everything else - Entitlement.
The numbers are approximate- some rounded up a tiny bit, others rounded down a tiny bit, for example when I say 144,400,000 it's really 144,393,150 so I'm not trying to hid anything here.
So subtracting out the "earned" benefits we have $1,271,658,000,000 yeah 1.3 TRILLION bucks
Divide by the total population and we get - $3,991 - anyone get one of those checks? I didn't.
But wait - these are BENEFITS - in theory for "Poor" people, so let's do some more math.
There are 66,000,000 households* that fall equal to or under the "Average Family Income" of about $51,000 so we going to go all the way up to 55,000 - benefit of the doubt you know.
Those 60,831 families have a total of 144,400,000 people so $1.272 Trillion divided by 144,400,000 is:
$19,267 PER PERSON
I'm pretty sure I'd have heard if people were getting checks for $20K - Since I easily fall into that under $54K range - I know for a FACT I didn't get one.
Which brings up the obvious question - who did? Must be folks making more than $55K a year - really We need to
*this data is from Wiki and is 2011. So it's probably a bit lower than than it should be, but not much.
Tuesday, August 5, 2014
Almost really funny
I normally think of Bill Maher as a progressive blithering idiot - and I'm not being redundant with that statement. Every once in a while he surprises me and says something I agree with.
His stance on Israel and Hamas. Excellent. - except the claim that most scientists are atheists - Only atheists believe that (which I find kinda of funny) sure some are, perhaps even the majority (although the numbers I've seen suggest it's closer to half and I'm not sure I trust even those) Ultimately Religion is a Personal Issue, Science is not, I really don't care if they believe one way or another. I do object to atheists pushing their beliefs on the world as if they were facts - as in - Okay Mr. Atheist, PROVE there is no God - good luck with that - lack of proof does not prove anything.
I agree with his stance on the militarization of the police (Hat tip - Earth Bound Misfit via Borepatch)
His stance on Israel and Hamas. Excellent. - except the claim that most scientists are atheists - Only atheists believe that (which I find kinda of funny) sure some are, perhaps even the majority (although the numbers I've seen suggest it's closer to half and I'm not sure I trust even those) Ultimately Religion is a Personal Issue, Science is not, I really don't care if they believe one way or another. I do object to atheists pushing their beliefs on the world as if they were facts - as in - Okay Mr. Atheist, PROVE there is no God - good luck with that - lack of proof does not prove anything.
I agree with his stance on the militarization of the police (Hat tip - Earth Bound Misfit via Borepatch)
Right up to the part where he goes off on Conservatives and the Tea Party - Dude, We're the ONLY people who have been making a point about this - this is the FIRST time I've heard any progressive even mention it. Just show's he HATES conservatives and will accusing them of not doing things they do, or doing things they don't - with no evidence, and his idiot audience will believe it.
On the other hand - I'm happy as hell a Progressive FINALLY said something about it in a public forum. He has a lot of fans so maybe the'll get a friggin half a clue (I have no illusions about them finding a whole clue).
More things I don't get.
Why are so many Jews Liberals. Short memories? They like the liberal media treating them as the Nazi Ideal of Jews? They like having a bunch of brainless Hollywood starts - who incidentally work mostly for them - call war criminals with no right to defend themselves?
Apparently more Jews are becoming conservatives - even a few running as Republicans - I view that as a possible mistake, but I understand the desire to fit into the two party pigeon hole.
Why do scientists support the liberal agenda? Yeah sure in the short term it's a monetary thing, they know who's buttering theirgrants bread. But in the longer run? They can kiss off following any leads that are not officially approved, and they'll have to pass all their results though their political officer editor.
I know why teachers do - 3 month vacations, tenure - shit even I'd be tempted (not enough but some).
Apparently more Jews are becoming conservatives - even a few running as Republicans - I view that as a possible mistake, but I understand the desire to fit into the two party pigeon hole.
Why do scientists support the liberal agenda? Yeah sure in the short term it's a monetary thing, they know who's buttering their
I know why teachers do - 3 month vacations, tenure - shit even I'd be tempted (not enough but some).
Open Borders
From a libertarian viewpoint I'd like to have open borders - the problem is, I don't live in a libertarian nation. For open borders to work, we'd need a few things we currently lack, and we'd have to get rid of a few things we have.
First we'd have to do away with all the welfare and other entitlement programs. As people entered the country they'd need to sign a contract, they'd have five years to learn basic english, file their taxes (of which there would be fewer - for everyone), and not get into trouble. Not getting into trouble would be easer because we'd get rid of a significant number of laws and regulations. So, no driving under the influence, no contract violations, no criminal convictions. End of the five years - you get to take the test for citizenship. If you pass then you get a green card, and you can now vote. I don't much care where you came from, although I'd be fairly watchful of folks from countries that are known to support terrorists.
We'd need to have open borders and open trade in a lot of other countries too - if we're the only one, then we're going to have a problem. We're going to have a huge crime problem as long as there's a minimum wage because there will be a huge unemployment problem, and starving people tend to resort to crime when no other option exists. If everyone had open borders then people would be able to move freely (although perhaps not cheaply) to where ever the jobs were. - Yeah we'll we know that's not going to happen. Did you know that even cheerful little New Zealand has MUCH stricter immigration rules than we do? Yep. I can't immigrate to New Zealand if I wanted to, even with two degrees, and no criminal record. Tool old, yeah age discrimination (and for a very logical reason). Now if I win the lottery, I might pull it off - and I might add to my education to fit one of their strongly desired skills, but even then I might be too old. Why? National healthcare, the last thing they need is a bunch of retired folks coming down and plugging up their healthcare system, having never paid into it.
If you have children - they do not become citizens until you do, or until they can pass the test by themselves. Then again I wouldn't let children of existing citizens vote until they could pass the test either. If you can't read english (or brail), then you're not going to qualify for citizen - sorry. Yeah, I know that seem harsh and possibly somthing-ist. Here's the thing, we got into the trouble we have because we let a lot of stupid people vote.
You'll notice that I don't mention education in there? That's because if you want that you'll need to pay for it. (I'm already getting a headache from the whiners...) The idea a "free education" is a myth. We're simply spreading the cost of it across a lot of people. You're kids, will be eligible for vouchers once you pass the exam and get your citizenship. How's that for incentive? I'm not convinced we should even have "free" education - although there is a significant argument for the pro side. Even though I don't have kids, I can see how I benefit from their education (well not the ones they're getting now, but the kind they used to get) that I don't find the tax burden unreasonable, although I'm fairly certain that anyone over the age of 65 has paid enough and should be exempt (no I'm not 65 yet , or even 60).
The point here is that my desire to see the borders locked up has more to do with economics than race, more to do with politics than race.
First we'd have to do away with all the welfare and other entitlement programs. As people entered the country they'd need to sign a contract, they'd have five years to learn basic english, file their taxes (of which there would be fewer - for everyone), and not get into trouble. Not getting into trouble would be easer because we'd get rid of a significant number of laws and regulations. So, no driving under the influence, no contract violations, no criminal convictions. End of the five years - you get to take the test for citizenship. If you pass then you get a green card, and you can now vote. I don't much care where you came from, although I'd be fairly watchful of folks from countries that are known to support terrorists.
We'd need to have open borders and open trade in a lot of other countries too - if we're the only one, then we're going to have a problem. We're going to have a huge crime problem as long as there's a minimum wage because there will be a huge unemployment problem, and starving people tend to resort to crime when no other option exists. If everyone had open borders then people would be able to move freely (although perhaps not cheaply) to where ever the jobs were. - Yeah we'll we know that's not going to happen. Did you know that even cheerful little New Zealand has MUCH stricter immigration rules than we do? Yep. I can't immigrate to New Zealand if I wanted to, even with two degrees, and no criminal record. Tool old, yeah age discrimination (and for a very logical reason). Now if I win the lottery, I might pull it off - and I might add to my education to fit one of their strongly desired skills, but even then I might be too old. Why? National healthcare, the last thing they need is a bunch of retired folks coming down and plugging up their healthcare system, having never paid into it.
If you have children - they do not become citizens until you do, or until they can pass the test by themselves. Then again I wouldn't let children of existing citizens vote until they could pass the test either. If you can't read english (or brail), then you're not going to qualify for citizen - sorry. Yeah, I know that seem harsh and possibly somthing-ist. Here's the thing, we got into the trouble we have because we let a lot of stupid people vote.
You'll notice that I don't mention education in there? That's because if you want that you'll need to pay for it. (I'm already getting a headache from the whiners...) The idea a "free education" is a myth. We're simply spreading the cost of it across a lot of people. You're kids, will be eligible for vouchers once you pass the exam and get your citizenship. How's that for incentive? I'm not convinced we should even have "free" education - although there is a significant argument for the pro side. Even though I don't have kids, I can see how I benefit from their education (well not the ones they're getting now, but the kind they used to get) that I don't find the tax burden unreasonable, although I'm fairly certain that anyone over the age of 65 has paid enough and should be exempt (no I'm not 65 yet , or even 60).
The point here is that my desire to see the borders locked up has more to do with economics than race, more to do with politics than race.
Saturday, August 2, 2014
Let's do some math
Figures vary depending on where you get them but since I found these at politifact - which has been accused of lefty leanings - well righty leanings too - so what the heck.
The average government employee compensation in 2009 averaged $123,049 that's full benefits. The average Median individual income for people 25 and older is $32,140 (2005) so maybe it's a bit higher today but probably not much- same with the government numbers.
Now, the average tax rate across all americans has been roughly 17% for a long time - sorry don't have the source right now, I'll keep looking. But it's the reason people were talking about a 17% flat tax - because no matter what we seem to do with the tax rates, it always works out to about the same revenue / GDP. So for arguments sake call it 17%
Great so 17% of $32,140 = $5,464
If we divide that government employee's compensation by $5,464 we get 22.5 - so it takes on AVERAGE 22.5 people to support each and every government employee. Everything else the government spends money on - needs to be paid for by anyone left over. Think about that for a bit. Let it sink in. Are we really getting 22 peoples worth of benefit from any government employee? - maybe the military but probably not even all of them.
Keep in mind these are averages- and the years don't match and .... but it's approximate call it roughly 20 to 1. Ask yourself - are they worth it? When was the last time they actually did something beneficial? When you were happy to hear from them?
ASSUMING 20 to 1 (lower than calculated)
There are approximately 153,900,000 people in the labor force. There are approximately 2,800,000 federal employees. Yeah, that means we have 151,100,000 people paying taxes. - Wait Government employees pay taxes - Seriously? Pay them with WHAT? Oh yeah - taxes - at best it's a figging discount. That means it takes about 56 million people to Pay for the number of federal employees we have - wait can that be right? That's like a third of the entire workforce... No, it's even more than a third...
Yes Martha - it's that bad. It takes over 1/3 of the work force just to pay for the people that are making our lives more difficult. Who's bright idea was this anyway? - Oh yeah, government employees.
The average government employee compensation in 2009 averaged $123,049 that's full benefits. The average Median individual income for people 25 and older is $32,140 (2005) so maybe it's a bit higher today but probably not much- same with the government numbers.
Now, the average tax rate across all americans has been roughly 17% for a long time - sorry don't have the source right now, I'll keep looking. But it's the reason people were talking about a 17% flat tax - because no matter what we seem to do with the tax rates, it always works out to about the same revenue / GDP. So for arguments sake call it 17%
Great so 17% of $32,140 = $5,464
If we divide that government employee's compensation by $5,464 we get 22.5 - so it takes on AVERAGE 22.5 people to support each and every government employee. Everything else the government spends money on - needs to be paid for by anyone left over. Think about that for a bit. Let it sink in. Are we really getting 22 peoples worth of benefit from any government employee? - maybe the military but probably not even all of them.
Keep in mind these are averages- and the years don't match and .... but it's approximate call it roughly 20 to 1. Ask yourself - are they worth it? When was the last time they actually did something beneficial? When you were happy to hear from them?
ASSUMING 20 to 1 (lower than calculated)
There are approximately 153,900,000 people in the labor force. There are approximately 2,800,000 federal employees. Yeah, that means we have 151,100,000 people paying taxes. - Wait Government employees pay taxes - Seriously? Pay them with WHAT? Oh yeah - taxes - at best it's a figging discount. That means it takes about 56 million people to Pay for the number of federal employees we have - wait can that be right? That's like a third of the entire workforce... No, it's even more than a third...
Yes Martha - it's that bad. It takes over 1/3 of the work force just to pay for the people that are making our lives more difficult. Who's bright idea was this anyway? - Oh yeah, government employees.
Stuff that Doesn't Surprise Me
Apparently Harvard has a cheating epidemic
Given the high percentage of cheaters at Harvard, would you hire a Harvard Grad?
Here's a non-surprise - Socialists Cheat twice as much as Capitalists. Yeah - see above.
Have you ever heard the phrase Culture comes form the top down - This might explain the math scores Apparently giving your self raises when you have a budge shortfall is Smart™ They pass it to the teachers, the teachers pass it to the kids and Poof - you get this:
Given the high percentage of cheaters at Harvard, would you hire a Harvard Grad?
Here's a non-surprise - Socialists Cheat twice as much as Capitalists. Yeah - see above.
Have you ever heard the phrase Culture comes form the top down - This might explain the math scores Apparently giving your self raises when you have a budge shortfall is Smart™ They pass it to the teachers, the teachers pass it to the kids and Poof - you get this:
- Average credit card debt: $15,191
- Average mortgage debt: $154,365
- Average student loan debt: $33,607
This is sure no surprise - California environmental regulations might have issues.... sort of
Thursday, July 31, 2014
Hey I found the truck I want - let's go get it.
They claim there's a problem with the VIN numbers. Okay - since when does a mismatch VIN become a Homeland Security Issue? The local cops? Sure. The State Patrol? Okay - the FEDS? not.
My bet - some DHS asshat wanted a Defender and found one, figures he'll get it at auction cheap.
Science is DEAD, long live Politics
The trend continues, any scientist who disagrees with the political agenda get's silenced. Borepatch has some info on one of the more recent assaults on science. If you sometimes wonder about Climate Science - just keep following the links on his site. You will rapidly come to the conclusion that there is something going on - but it's NOT SCIENCE.
Want some more - go check out You Tube. First look at the TED channel, there are some very interesting talks - there's also a LOT of social engineering going on - no big surprise, most of them are believers in the Leftist Agenda.
Now search for Banned from TED talks. Yeah there's quite a few of them, if you listen to them you'll find that they mostly talk about things that are counter to the Leftist Agenda.
One I can't quite figure out is this one https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKCvf8E7V1g - Look at my previous post - it's basically a Rich Guy saying we need to Tax Rich Guys. Well that fits with the Leftist agenda - except that they KNOW they're not going to do it, because THEY don't pay taxes.
 |
| From Joanne Nova - http://joannenova.com.au |
Want some more - go check out You Tube. First look at the TED channel, there are some very interesting talks - there's also a LOT of social engineering going on - no big surprise, most of them are believers in the Leftist Agenda.
Now search for Banned from TED talks. Yeah there's quite a few of them, if you listen to them you'll find that they mostly talk about things that are counter to the Leftist Agenda.
One I can't quite figure out is this one https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKCvf8E7V1g - Look at my previous post - it's basically a Rich Guy saying we need to Tax Rich Guys. Well that fits with the Leftist agenda - except that they KNOW they're not going to do it, because THEY don't pay taxes.
Wednesday, July 30, 2014
What Rich People Don't Understand
I'm going to assume it's a lack of understanding, because I find it difficult to fathom what other possible reason the rich could have to recommend taxing the rich.
This TED talk is a good example. Everything he says sounds really good. In some respects, he is correct - the rich don't create jobs, that's done mostly by small business and the middle class. Where they always go WRONG and I mean Horribly WRONG is in two areas.
First - It's not the Rich spending - it's their access to CAPITAL that makes job creation possible. It's making capital available to entrepreneurs that makes jobs.
The second is that Transferring that capital to the government in ANY form will change anything. It won't. Government creates jobs, but those jobs are fed by taxes of the middle class, all that happens when government creates jobs is and increased tax burden. What about all those government employee's paying taxes? - They're paying it with YOUR tax money. They PRODUCE nothing. Can they increase private sector spending in the short run - Yes, but with out adding anything to the GDP there is NO growth. Ultimately you simply increase the tax burden and put it on even fewer people. That's what's been happing for the last 20 years - see the big improvement? No? Surprise!
If the rich really want to give away their money out of guilt and have it do some good - create interest free small business loans - not big business, SMALL business. Big business has access to capital they always have and until things collapse they always will. It's small business that's being strangled by taxation and regulation - as is the middle class. Stop taxing the crap out of us to buy votes.
This TED talk is a good example. Everything he says sounds really good. In some respects, he is correct - the rich don't create jobs, that's done mostly by small business and the middle class. Where they always go WRONG and I mean Horribly WRONG is in two areas.
First - It's not the Rich spending - it's their access to CAPITAL that makes job creation possible. It's making capital available to entrepreneurs that makes jobs.
The second is that Transferring that capital to the government in ANY form will change anything. It won't. Government creates jobs, but those jobs are fed by taxes of the middle class, all that happens when government creates jobs is and increased tax burden. What about all those government employee's paying taxes? - They're paying it with YOUR tax money. They PRODUCE nothing. Can they increase private sector spending in the short run - Yes, but with out adding anything to the GDP there is NO growth. Ultimately you simply increase the tax burden and put it on even fewer people. That's what's been happing for the last 20 years - see the big improvement? No? Surprise!
If the rich really want to give away their money out of guilt and have it do some good - create interest free small business loans - not big business, SMALL business. Big business has access to capital they always have and until things collapse they always will. It's small business that's being strangled by taxation and regulation - as is the middle class. Stop taxing the crap out of us to buy votes.
Tuesday, July 29, 2014
The Last Generation
Parents and teachers will be the death of the country, but before that happens I figured out how you can all get rich. Invest in Bubbles. Mexican's aren't stupid they're not going to send their army up to start the Reconquista, no need. They come, they take over all those dirty jobs no one want's their kids doing. They learn to become the perfect helicopter nannies, now mom can stop hovering and go back to work - awesome. I figure two more generations of public school and helicopter moms should about do it. The entire generation will grow up in bubbles. The Mexicans will be there, waiting patently for the senile old assholes to need spoon feeding, then Boom! "Sign the deed bubble boy, then you get fed." Poof - they own the country.
Monday, July 28, 2014
LibProg doing that Cannibal Thing
For some reason - I suspect it's the total lack of ability to process logic, accept facts, and the absolute assumption of moral superiority - the LibProgs just love to turn on each other and eat their own.
Trans-gender is a big LibProg issue, must respect the rights of Trans-genders, must Celebrate Trans-genders - hell why aren't YOU a trans-gender, you hater.
Unless apparently you're a radFem (or Feminazi) which I think is probably the better term.
So this article brings up some of the conflict between radFem and TransGen.
Nope can't have those whiney TransGen assholes trying to muscle in on our Misandry - no, it's ours we Earned It.
So apparently if you trans from Fem to Patriarchy you're a traitor, and if you Trans from Patriarchy to Fem, you just an upstart late comer bitch muscling in on their Victimhood.
Oh so very logical.
Trans-gender is a big LibProg issue, must respect the rights of Trans-genders, must Celebrate Trans-genders - hell why aren't YOU a trans-gender, you hater.
Unless apparently you're a radFem (or Feminazi) which I think is probably the better term.
So this article brings up some of the conflict between radFem and TransGen.
Nope can't have those whiney TransGen assholes trying to muscle in on our Misandry - no, it's ours we Earned It.
So apparently if you trans from Fem to Patriarchy you're a traitor, and if you Trans from Patriarchy to Fem, you just an upstart late comer bitch muscling in on their Victimhood.
Oh so very logical.
Sunday, July 27, 2014
Californification
There was a period in WA history that we talked about the Californification of Washington. You don't here much about that anymore - I think we've been overrun. I'm starting to wonder if there are more native Californians here than native Washingtonians.
Reading the news - Okay, I don't read the news I read select websites - one of which is Lawrence Person's Battleswarm. He often talks about how many businesses are moving from CA to Texas. He talks about this in terms of how bad CA is for business (which it is) and how much better TX is - which it is. Sadly - I think they're gonna regret the Californification of Texas - Just look at Austin.
It does tend to show the rather hypocritical nature of libprogs, they've screwed up CA now they're moving to Texas - a state, who say five years ago would have been considered a Conservative gun toting Hell on Earth. Apparently Gun Toting Conservative is better than Ruined LibProg - even in a LibProg's mind.
Reading the news - Okay, I don't read the news I read select websites - one of which is Lawrence Person's Battleswarm. He often talks about how many businesses are moving from CA to Texas. He talks about this in terms of how bad CA is for business (which it is) and how much better TX is - which it is. Sadly - I think they're gonna regret the Californification of Texas - Just look at Austin.
It does tend to show the rather hypocritical nature of libprogs, they've screwed up CA now they're moving to Texas - a state, who say five years ago would have been considered a Conservative gun toting Hell on Earth. Apparently Gun Toting Conservative is better than Ruined LibProg - even in a LibProg's mind.
Saturday, July 26, 2014
Thinking out loud
Rand Paul in 2010: "The average federal employee makes $120,000 a year," Paul said. "The average private employee makes $60,000 a year."
Politifact cries foul saying that it's comparing apples and oranges. I've got some other issues with both of them. The census puts the average MEDIAN FAMILY income for 2011 @ $51,374
From Politifact:
According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, a federal statistics-gathering agency, federal worker compensation in 2009 averaged $123,049, which was double the private-sector average of $61,051. That's a gap of almost $62,000 -- and is pretty close to what Paul said on This Week.
Next they say - wait a second:
That said, there's still a gap between federal and private-sector pay if you strip out the portion that's in the form of benefits. BEA found that federal civilian employees earned $81,258 in salary, compared to $50,464 for private-sector workers. That cuts the federal pay advantage almost exactly in half, to nearly $31,000.
Cool - I wouldn't mind and extra $31,000 a year - You? So, now that's closer to what I'd think might match the Census data. It's still not clear if their talking Mean or Median averages (or some other weighted average).
Then they go on to complain that, well government folks tend to have Degrees and such - the don't mention the fact that most of those degrees would get them a job flipping burgers at minimum wage - but what ever.
So the fairer way to compare pay is by an apples-to-apples comparison of equivalent jobs. A widely referenced study by USA Today attempted to do this.
The newspaper found that "overall, federal workers earned an average salary of $67,691 in 2008 for occupations that exist both in government and the private sector, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data. The average pay for the same mix of jobs in the private sector was $60,046 in 2008, the most recent data available." Doing this calculation reduces the federal pay lead over the private sector even further, to $7,645.
Great, so even after all the - but waits, Government jobs still pay better, and have had more growth than private sector - then there's the MUCH better benefits, oh yeah and the JOB SECURITY. - All of which comes out of the TAXES paid by the Private Sector Salaries.
But wait you say - Government employee's pay taxes too. Yeah they do - they pay them with TAX MONEY taken from the Private Sector - so at best it's a discount on their salary costs. They also do NOTHING to help GDP.
So WHY do they have UNIONS? What the hell - when did the government EVER have unfair labor practices? What possible excuse do these people have for needing a Union? Oh, right - because the Union takes their money - which comes from our taxes, to support Democrats, so they can have a Bigger Government and take More Taxes.
What I see here is a Conflict of Interest - on a HUGE scale.
Solution - If your income is derived from taxes - you don't get to vote. You don't get to contribute to campaigns. That should solve the conflict of interest problem.
Politifact cries foul saying that it's comparing apples and oranges. I've got some other issues with both of them. The census puts the average MEDIAN FAMILY income for 2011 @ $51,374
From Politifact:
According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, a federal statistics-gathering agency, federal worker compensation in 2009 averaged $123,049, which was double the private-sector average of $61,051. That's a gap of almost $62,000 -- and is pretty close to what Paul said on This Week.
Next they say - wait a second:
That said, there's still a gap between federal and private-sector pay if you strip out the portion that's in the form of benefits. BEA found that federal civilian employees earned $81,258 in salary, compared to $50,464 for private-sector workers. That cuts the federal pay advantage almost exactly in half, to nearly $31,000.
Cool - I wouldn't mind and extra $31,000 a year - You? So, now that's closer to what I'd think might match the Census data. It's still not clear if their talking Mean or Median averages (or some other weighted average).
Then they go on to complain that, well government folks tend to have Degrees and such - the don't mention the fact that most of those degrees would get them a job flipping burgers at minimum wage - but what ever.
So the fairer way to compare pay is by an apples-to-apples comparison of equivalent jobs. A widely referenced study by USA Today attempted to do this.
The newspaper found that "overall, federal workers earned an average salary of $67,691 in 2008 for occupations that exist both in government and the private sector, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data. The average pay for the same mix of jobs in the private sector was $60,046 in 2008, the most recent data available." Doing this calculation reduces the federal pay lead over the private sector even further, to $7,645.
Great, so even after all the - but waits, Government jobs still pay better, and have had more growth than private sector - then there's the MUCH better benefits, oh yeah and the JOB SECURITY. - All of which comes out of the TAXES paid by the Private Sector Salaries.
But wait you say - Government employee's pay taxes too. Yeah they do - they pay them with TAX MONEY taken from the Private Sector - so at best it's a discount on their salary costs. They also do NOTHING to help GDP.
So WHY do they have UNIONS? What the hell - when did the government EVER have unfair labor practices? What possible excuse do these people have for needing a Union? Oh, right - because the Union takes their money - which comes from our taxes, to support Democrats, so they can have a Bigger Government and take More Taxes.
What I see here is a Conflict of Interest - on a HUGE scale.
Solution - If your income is derived from taxes - you don't get to vote. You don't get to contribute to campaigns. That should solve the conflict of interest problem.
Thursday, July 24, 2014
More States, better representation?
This article references a current attempt to split up California. There has been a State of Jefferson movement for years, I’ve heard of plans for three states, this is the first I’ve heard of six.
There is I think a need to re-evaluate the boundaries of several states as populations centralized in to fewer bigger cities. Cities tend for a number of reasons to head down the path of Socialism - it never works, but they keep trying. I’ve felt for a while now that Splitting eastern and western Washington, and Oregon would be beneficial to some extent. The downsides need to be examined in some considerable detail before that happens. As things stand, in WA there are seven counties around Puget Sound that control the fate of 39. To say that most of counties outside the Puget area are getting represented by their government is either terribly ignorant or disingenuous. California is much worse.
While I don’t think the split will succeed - it might, things are bad -business are moving out as fast as they can, looking for tax relief and slightly less insane regulatory restrictions.
You can tell that the plan was developed by a Silicon Vally type, they’ve taken the most expensive, and most financially powerful section of the state and spit it off on it’s own. The upside, is that they will get to pay for their own social engineering experiments. Sadly, it leaves one city to wag each state, except Jefferson, and wag them they will. Bakersfield/Fresno are similar enough that they’ll act in concert, it’s possible that they’re small enough still to realize they’re only there because of the surrounding agriculture. Sadly, they’re going to be in a financial tight spot, yes, they can dump all of the Socialist crap, but they’re going to have a fight on their hands with illegal aliens.
Jefferson would have opportunity to become the free state that a lot of people dream about. They’ll have a hard start but with the right laws and tax structure, I could see a lot of companies moving in that direction. They’ll just need to be careful about which they allow in.
Ultimately, they may end up with more conservative (red) states than they think.
Tuesday, July 22, 2014
iPhone back doors - Apple supplies the tools to hack your phone, and you'll never know.
While I believe the iPhone is more secure than android, that's sort of damming with faint praise. Neither phone is secure.
Here's a recent article by a computer forensics guy about the API in iOS that let's people with the know how, log into your phone and download - well pretty much everything, including stuff you can't access yourself - all with out a password.
So how does apple protect this rather massive security hole in their system - which they put there, on purpose - they don't document it. Yeah, that helped a lot.
What we need is a new OS, open sourced, built with the following priorities.
Security
Portability
Cross Platform development tools
Size/Speed
Extensibility
I'm not sure if you could start with any existing OS, as none of them were designed with Security as the primary design criteria.
Each and every decision made needs to be evaluated for potential security issues. There are hurdles, big ones. I'm not sure it's possible given the linkages between existing processors, bluetooth, and wifi. Starting with a new hardware platform would be better, but unless someone has a few spare billion laying around to start a new phone company.... You'd have to source a processor from your own manufacturing to be sure they didn't build back doors into the chip itself, and work your way up. No Chinese made processors, or hardware. No NSA involvement - and how do you filter out the NSA spies from the development team? Yeah, I'm not sure either.
Sadly, security ultimately relies on human beings an frankly - that's not a very trustworthy foundation to build anything on.
Here's a recent article by a computer forensics guy about the API in iOS that let's people with the know how, log into your phone and download - well pretty much everything, including stuff you can't access yourself - all with out a password.
So how does apple protect this rather massive security hole in their system - which they put there, on purpose - they don't document it. Yeah, that helped a lot.
What we need is a new OS, open sourced, built with the following priorities.
Security
Portability
Cross Platform development tools
Size/Speed
Extensibility
I'm not sure if you could start with any existing OS, as none of them were designed with Security as the primary design criteria.
Each and every decision made needs to be evaluated for potential security issues. There are hurdles, big ones. I'm not sure it's possible given the linkages between existing processors, bluetooth, and wifi. Starting with a new hardware platform would be better, but unless someone has a few spare billion laying around to start a new phone company.... You'd have to source a processor from your own manufacturing to be sure they didn't build back doors into the chip itself, and work your way up. No Chinese made processors, or hardware. No NSA involvement - and how do you filter out the NSA spies from the development team? Yeah, I'm not sure either.
Sadly, security ultimately relies on human beings an frankly - that's not a very trustworthy foundation to build anything on.
Note to self - Never hire a U of Wisconsin Grad
Never hire anyone who went to school at the University of Wisconsin - Madison (probably any U of Wisconsin school)
Monday, July 21, 2014
Gaystapo strikes again
Looks like the Gaystapo is at it again. Why is it that the perpetually offended insist that every one celebrate their life choices. They're offended by a Christian College having an anti-gay stance - well no shit, and so what. Let me see... constitution.... bill of rights... Ah there it is, 1st Amendment.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibition the free exercise thereof; ....
Okay, let's review how this works....
If congress can't do it because it's unconstitutional then guess what - neither can a state, or a county or a city. Oh, and neither can the Gaystapo.
Sorry folks, you are provided equal rights - not superior rights, you don't get to determine how religions run their institutions.
Thursday, July 17, 2014
Screwed up terminology
Illegal immigration - no such thing. If you're not here legally, it's not immigration, might be occupation, but it's not immigration.
Illegal alien - someone in the country illegally. Specifically the crossed the border with out a visa - and I don't mean the credit card, or their visa has expired.
It's impossible to grant immigration amnesty to someone who isn't a criminal.
It's impossible to grant immigration amnesty to someone who isn't a criminal.
I'm getting tired of the media switching terms around trying to make criminals sound good.
U.S. Attempts to create a Zombie Army
I can't think of a single other reason why The US sends 14,000 draft notices to men born in 1800s
Oh -wait - complete and utter incompetence might explain it.
Oh -wait - complete and utter incompetence might explain it.
Wednesday, July 16, 2014
Arming Police with Cameras
It's a simple solution, and one early experiment seems to show some positive results.
Realto, CA has attached video cameras to it's officers in an attempt to reduce the unnecessary use of force and complaints associated with that abuse of power. Abuse of power has reached epidemic proportions from the federal level all the way down to the locals. It must stop.
I would take the process one step further and require all the footage to be available to the public 24/7 on the web. I'd also look for a volunteer group to review the video from all personal interactions between officers and the public for say two years, then cut back to just interactions that resulted in anything more than a simple citation. Why? simple, I want the sheep to have some control over the wolves - we've seen what happens when the police police themselves - it's rarely justice for the public.
Privacy concerns need to be addressed before any video is made available to the general public. I would want the non-officer identity protected - blurred images, names redacted from the sound track. The police, as a public employee don't get a claim on privacy when operating in the public. The original versions must still be available. I'd be will to say that only video covering contacts that resulted in a complaint by the public should make it to the web, just to save costs.
Realto, CA has attached video cameras to it's officers in an attempt to reduce the unnecessary use of force and complaints associated with that abuse of power. Abuse of power has reached epidemic proportions from the federal level all the way down to the locals. It must stop.
I would take the process one step further and require all the footage to be available to the public 24/7 on the web. I'd also look for a volunteer group to review the video from all personal interactions between officers and the public for say two years, then cut back to just interactions that resulted in anything more than a simple citation. Why? simple, I want the sheep to have some control over the wolves - we've seen what happens when the police police themselves - it's rarely justice for the public.
Privacy concerns need to be addressed before any video is made available to the general public. I would want the non-officer identity protected - blurred images, names redacted from the sound track. The police, as a public employee don't get a claim on privacy when operating in the public. The original versions must still be available. I'd be will to say that only video covering contacts that resulted in a complaint by the public should make it to the web, just to save costs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)