It’s hardly news anymore that public-sector pension promises will be made good (or not) on the backs of taxpayers, but I still think that the average private-sector packmule has no idea of the amount they’re going to have to pony up to vouchsafe the various municipal, state, and federal pension promises. The amount required over the next several decades beggars the imagination. In fact, the amount is preposterous: there’s no way the money is ever going to be paid out as promised. Even if it were mathematically possible (which it isn’t), taxpayers would revolt over the massive increases that would be required. If I were a public-sector worker, I’d be making a point of saving every dime of my own money that I could, because that fat public sector pension is unlikely to ever be paid out in full. (And I’m not even getting into the healthcare benefits, which are even more onerous than the pension benefits.) Basically, the bedrock truth is this: money that can’t be paid out, won’t be, no matter what agreements were signed or what the courts say.
Monty, “The Daily DOOM”, Ace of Spades HQ, 2012-01-12
January 12, 2012
QotD: When a figure is too high to be repaid, it won’t be repaid
This time it’s India that gets the Top Gear treatment
I haven’t seen the Top Gear special in question, but from the complaints, it sounds like a pretty typical outing for the boys:
In the letter, published in the Daily Telegraph, the HCI criticised a lack of cultural sensitivity and called on the BBC to take action to pacify those offended.
One Indian diplomat told the BBC News website: “People are very upset because you cannot run down a whole society, history, culture and sensitivities.
“India is a developing country, we have very many issues to address, all that is fine but it is not fine to broadcast this toilet humour.”
He added: “There are many parts of the programme that people have complained about.
“It’s not only Indians, it’s also our British friends — it goes much beyond.”
The diplomat cited an “offensive” banner placed on the side of a train — reading “the United Kingdom promotes British IT for your company” — which read quite differently when the carriages were parted.
And he also criticised a scene in the programme which showed Clarkson taking off his trousers at a party to demonstrate how to use a trouser press.
Showing off the customised Jaguar, complete with toilet roll on its aerial, presenter Jeremy Clarkson said on the programme: “This is perfect for India because everyone who comes here gets the trots.”
Update: Jeremy Clarkson strikes again, this time agitating the folks on the Isle of Sheppey and recent immigrants:
Clarkson wrote: “Mostly, the Isle of Sheppey is a caravan site.
“There are thousands of thousands of mobile homes, all of which I suspect belong to former London cabbies, the only people on Earth with the knowledge to get there before it’s time to turn round and come home again.”
“And what of the locals? Well, they tend to be the sort of people who arrived in England in the back of a refrigerated truck or clinging to the underside of a Eurostar train.”
“And that reinforces my point rather well.
“Mboto has somehow evaded the gunmen and the army recruiters in his remote Nigerian village. He walked north, avoiding death and disease, and then somehow made it right across the Sahara desert to Algeria.
“Here, he managed to overwhelm the security men with their AK-47s and get on a boat to Italy, where he sneaked past the guards.”
The article in Top Gear mag adds: “He made it all the way across Europe to Sangatte, from which he escaped one night and swam to Kent.
“But that stumped him. Getting out of there was impossible, so he decided to make a new life in Maidstone.”
Toronto Hydro takes hostages, threatens eternal darkness if demands not met
Ah, it must be the time of year for Toronto Hydro to lose its collective shit and start the crazy talk:
Last week, the Ontario Energy Board denied Toronto Hydro’s request for a rate hike for homes within the city limits. The hike, which would have meant a monthly increase of five dollars for a typical household, was necessary, Toronto Hydro said, to renew the city’s electrical transmission grid. Failure to do so, they warned, could result in more, and longer, blackouts.
Not so, the Energy Board ruled. They said that Toronto Hydro had not demonstrated that Toronto’s power grid needed the kind of urgent repairs that were being proposed, and also chided Toronto Hydro for failing to make necessary productivity gains, implying that the requested money was not so much about urgent repairs as needing more cash. Toronto Hydro’s response has been swift: 700 contractors have been let go, and 20% of its workforce is being told that they’re next — that’s another 350 or so jobs. Oh, and without the cash, the city is probably going to go dark.
Do these guys know how to play hardball or what?
New $10m X Prize for a “medical tricorder”
Get your Vulcan ears out for the next X Prize:
The Qualcomm Tricorder X Prize has challenged researchers to build a tool capable of capturing “key health metrics and diagnosing a set of 15 diseases”.
It needs to be light enough for would-be Dr McCoys to carry — a maximum weight of 5lb (2.2kg).
The prize was launched at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas.
[. . .]
The award organisers hope the huge prize may inspire a present-day engineer to figure out the sci-fi gadget’s secret, and “make 23rd Century science fiction a 21st Century medical reality”.
“I’m probably the first guy who’s here in Vegas who would be happy to lose $10m,” said X Prize Foundation chairman Peter Diamandis.
While the tricorder is obviously the stuff of science fiction, other X Prizes have become science fact.
In 2004, the Ansari X Prize for a privately funded reusable spacecraft was awarded to the team behind SpaceShipOne.
Update, 3 February: I’d forgotten about ESR’s post from a while back that — in many ways — we already have tricorders:
But in an entertaining inversion, one device of the future actually works on smartphones now. Because I thought it would be funny, I searched for “tricorder” in the Android market. For those of you who have been living in a hole since 1965, a tricorder is a fictional gadget from the Star Trek universe, an all-purpose sensor package carried by planetary survey parties. I expected a geek joke, a fancy mock-up with mildly impressive visuals and no actual function. I was utterly gobsmacked to discover instead that I had an arguably real tricorder in my hand.
Consider. My Nexus One includes a GPS, an accelerometer, a microphone, and a magnetometer. That is, sensors for location, magnetic field, gravitational fields, and acoustic energy. Hook a bit of visualization and spectral analysis to these sensors, and bugger me with a chainsaw if you don’t have a tricorder. A quad- or quintcorder, actually.
And these sensors are already completely stock on smartphones because sensor electronics is like any other kind; amortized over a large enough production run, their incremental cost approaches epsilon because most of their content is actually design information (cue the shade of Bucky Fuller talking about ephemeralization). Which in turn points at the fundamental reason the smartphone is Eater-of-Gadgets; because, as the tricorder app deftly illustrates, the sum of a computer and a bunch of sensors costing epsilon is so synergistically powerful that it can emulate not just real single-purpose gadgets but gadgets that previously existed only as science fiction!
When is an “insult” a criminal offence?
The answer, in the UK anyway, may well be “any time the insultee cares to call in the police“:
If you are reading this, chances are, you are a moron. There, have I insulted you? I’m asking because I have no idea if what I just stated has insulted you. Only YOU can be the judge of what you find insulting, yet plans are afoot for it to be a criminal offence to “insult” someone. So if you feel insulted, there is nothing to stop you ringing 999 and having the evil perpetrator banged up, DNA’ed and given a criminal record, although they will have had absolutely no idea that their actions or words have insulted you. If we criminalise “insults”, we shut up everyone and everything. For ever. Do you want to live in a society where you dare not speak in case the State decides your words may cause offence to people you will never meet? Now’s your chance to speak against it, USE IT, whilst you still can.
Now, I choose to be anonymous on my many public outings because, well, my face is my business. Unless I am actually committing a crime, it is not the business of the State to know what I look like anymore than it is the business of the State to randomly sweep bus stop queues for fingerprints. One of the reasons I wear a mask is because of the habit of the state to record the faces of those “who might” cause trouble, “for future reference”. The Met employ teams of photographers to take photos of any members of public who may be dissenting, sticks them on a database and cross references them. No thanks. My face belongs to me, it is my property, I will cover it when and if I choose. Naturally, this proposal is stop women wearing Burqas because some sensitive souls “may be offended” (see above), but as always, I say it is not the role of the State to dictate how I may dress.
Federal government throws a wrench into the same-sex marriage debate
Updated below: I should retract my implication that this was a deliberate ploy by the federal government to re-open the same-sex marriage debate. It clearly is not, and was not any kind of political ploy — although at least one lawyer in the Justice department feels it should be. Original post:
Just when we thought the whole thing had been settled, Ottawa decides to toss their social conservative base a bone:
The Harper government has served notice that thousands of same-sex couples who flocked to Canada from abroad since 2004 to get married are not legally wed.
The reversal of federal policy is revealed in a document filed in a Toronto test case launched recently by a lesbian couple seeking a divorce. Wed in Toronto in 2005, the couple have been told they cannot divorce because they were never really married — a Department of Justice lawyer says their marriage is not legal in Canada since they could not have lawfully wed in Florida or England, where the two partners reside.
The government’s hard line has cast sudden doubt on the rights and legal status of couples who wed in Canada after a series of court decisions opened the floodgates to same-sex marriage. The mechanics of determining issues such as tax status, employment benefits and immigration have been thrown into legal limbo.
This new development will certainly re-invigorate the debate about same-sex marriage — perhaps to head off a debate about polygamy (there are many Muslim families living in Canada with the husband having more than one wife, for example).
Update: Matt Gurney offers a more comprehensible account of the court case and the government’s response:
The legalities of the situation are complex. The unidentified couple, whose names are covered by a publication ban, returned to Canada to apply for a divorce after being married here seven years ago. They were not able to obtain said divorce because under the Divorce Act, applicants must be residents of Canada for at least 12 months. This couple does not, and seemingly never has, lived in Canada. They just chose to marry (and split up) here because it was not possible for them to do so in their home jurisdictions.
Uninterested in living in Canada for a year just to get divorced, the couple filed a Charter claim against the Ontario and federal governments, claiming that the residency requirement violated their Section 7 right to “life, liberty and security of the person” and their Section 15 right to equality under the law. These both seem to be spurious arguments — but rather than fight them on their own (lacking) merits, a government lawyer instead deployed this humdinger of a legal manoeuvre: They can’t get divorced because it turns out they were never married at all.
Done! Easy-peasy. Let’s break for lunch.
The government is arguing that since Florida and the U.K. — the home jurisdictions of the estranged couple — don’t recognize gay marriages, a gay marriage licence issued in Canada isn’t legally valid. People living in Canada, Canadian or otherwise, would have no problem, because Canada does recognize same-sex unions. But if your home country or state doesn’t, then the government has argued that a Canadian marriage has no standing in law. Weird, but true.
[. . .]
To be clear — the suggestion that these couples were never married under Canadian law, a suggestion advanced by a single government lawyer — is ridiculous. The notion that Canadian law should be dependent on the local laws of every single other jurisdiction on the planet is asinine. A government that has made so much of standing up for Canada’s values on the world stage has no business declaring our own laws subservient to any other land’s. We might not have the hard- or soft-power to give our laws much weight abroad, but we can at least honour them in our own country.
Update, 13 January: The government is actually responding quickly and correctly to the story:
Canada’s justice minister says all same-sex marriages performed in Canada are legally recognized and the government is working to ensure foreign couples married here can divorce if they chose to.
“Marriages performed in Canada that aren’t recognized in couple’s home jurisdiction will be recognized in Canada,” Justice Minister Rob Nicholson said Friday in Toronto.
“I want to be very clear that our government has no intention of reopening the debate on the definition of marriage,” he added.
[. . .]
“I want to make it clear that in our government’s view, these marriages are valid,” Nicholson said.
[. . .]
The Harper government went immediately into damage control and denied that they were looking into the issue.
“We’re not going to reopen that particular issue,” Prime Minister Stephen Harper told reporters Thursday.
