Sing along with the RIAA:
Full image here
May 21, 2010
Your iPod is even more valuable than you think
Comments Off on Your iPod is even more valuable than you think
May 19, 2010
Military bureausclerosis, explained
Like many bureaucracies, the US Army has a plethora of generals running an organization that is far from its maximum historical size. Those generals all need staff, the staff need working space, transportation, support staff of their own, etc. Multiply that a few times and you get stories like this:
Gates rattled off examples of costly bureaucracy inside the military, as well. A simple request for a dog-handling team in Afghanistan must be reviewed and assessed at multiple high-level headquarters before it can be deployed to the war zone. “Can you believe it takes five four-star headquarters to get a decision on a guy and a dog up to me?” Gates said to reporters Friday.
The Armorer gets to the real point of the story, rather than the one Gates thinks he’s making:
I’ll just take this statement: “Can you believe it takes five four-star headquarters to get a decision on a guy and a dog up to me?”
And say — “Gee, Mr. Secretary, I can’t believe that a decision on a guy and a dog has to get to you.”
If you’re making those kinds of decisions, that’s just another reason the Services have put that many Generals in the loop.
This is what, in the private sector, is called micromanagement and it’s generally thought to be a bad thing, and a sign of incompetent leadership. What’s it called in the US Army?
Comments Off on Military bureausclerosis, explained
May 14, 2010
Defence minister denies that the Navy to be cut by half
Canada’s Minister of National Defence Peter MacKay claims that the following operational changes to Canada’s naval forces do not constitute a serious cut:
The directive was sent to maritime forces on the west and east coasts, as well as to senior officers in charge of naval reservists.
The letter says:
– The fleet of Kingston-class maritime coastal defence vessels will be reduced to six ships from 12.
– Three frigates, HMCS Montreal, St John’s and Vancouver, will now be conducting domestic and continental missions to a “limited degree.”
– Combat systems on HMCS Toronto and HMCS Ottawa, as well as on HMCS Athabaskan, will be “minimally supported to enable safe to navigate sensors and communications only.”
– A key weapon system on board the Protecteur-class supply ships designed to destroy incoming missiles “will not be supported.”
Jedi Master MacKay is attempting a mind trick: “these are not the defence cuts you’re looking for”.
May 1, 2010
April 20, 2010
QotD: Food porn and subversive humour
The KFC Double Down makes me despair. Not because of the “sandwich” itself but because of the predictable reaction; in general, if you didn’t know that the thing was made of chicken, bacon, and processed cheese, you would get the impression that it was lovingly constructed from scorpions and poison. [. . .]
But which side in the war between soulless conglomerates and food puritans has irony on its side? KFC has literally rearranged the same ingredients that go into most every other grab-and-go entrée it serves, and gotten rid of the bread, which, guess what, might not be that good for you anyway. The sinister Elders of Tricon, who were surely lit unflatteringly from above in an austere modernist boardroom when they made the decision to create the Double Down, knew perfectly well that it would create panic and horror for no other reason than its configuration. The Double Down is, explicitly and unapologetically, a piece of food comedy.
And all the horrible people — for it seems virtually impossible to talk about food without being horrible — are reacting exactly as planned. The unapologetically paternalistic healthitarians, the grease-sweating Warcraft-playing fast-food reverse-snobs, the one-idea-in-their-whole-head theorists of food salvation, the paleos and the Pollanites, the narcissistic Nietzscheans who look at cheese as though it was about to go critical any second but will buy whatever’s new on the shelves at the GNC without so much as looking at the label . . . all the people, in short, who routinely insist on adulterating the pleasure of eating, and that includes, most of all, the types who’ve imbibed too much M.F.K. Fisher and who write pornographically about the “pleasure of eating” as if they were zooming a powerful camera in on an open mouth furiously masticating a mouthful of gnocchi.
Colby Cosh, “The Double Down: your move, America”, Macleans, 2010-04-20
Comments Off on QotD: Food porn and subversive humour
April 16, 2010
QotD: Blog Post EULA
READ CAREFULLY. By reading this blog post, you agree, on behalf of your employer, to release me from all obligations and waivers arising from any and all NON-NEGOTIATED agreements, licenses, terms-of-service, shrinkwrap, clickwrap, browsewrap, confidentiality, non-disclosure, non-compete and acceptable use policies (“BOGUS AGREEMENTS”) that I have entered into with your employer, its partners, licensors, agents and assigns, in perpetuity, without prejudice to my ongoing rights and privileges. You further represent that you have the authority to release me from any BOGUS AGREEMENTS on behalf of your employer.
Cory Doctorow, “Video-game shoppers surrender their immortal souls”, BoingBoing, 2010-04-16
Comments Off on QotD: Blog Post EULA
April 15, 2010
The technical term is “totally insane”
Cory Doctorow has a horrible dystopian future in mind. No, it’s not the background to his next science fiction novel — it’s what the MPAA and RIAA think our future should be like:
The MPAA and RIAA have submitted their master plan for enforcing copyright to the new Office of Intellectual Property Enforcement. As the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s Richard Esguerra points out, it’s a startlingly distopian work of science fiction. The entertainment industry calls for:
* spyware on your computer that detects and deletes infringing materials;
* mandatory censorware on all Internet connections to interdict transfers of infringing material;
* border searches of personal media players, laptops and thumb-drives;
* international bullying to force other countries to implement the same policies;
* and free copyright enforcement provided by Fed cops and agencies (including the Department of Homeland Security!).There’s a technical term for this in policy circles. I believe it’s “Totally insane.”
I find the audacity of (as Cory calls ’em) “Big Content” to be breathtaking: it’s as if they’ve never heard of fairness or privacy. If they get their wish, we’ll never hear of ’em again either.
As Greg Sandoval points out, there’s almost no reliable data to quantify the problem all this draconian lawmaking and enforcement is supposed to address:
“Three widely cited U.S. government estimates of economic losses resulting from counterfeiting cannot be substantiated due to the absence of underlying studies,” the GAO said. “Each method (of measuring) has limitations, and most experts observed that it is difficult, if not impossible, to quantify the economy-wide impacts.”
In what appears to be a setback for Hollywood and the recording industry, the government said that it sees problems with the methodology used in studies those sectors have long relied on to support claims that piracy was destructive to their businesses. The accountability office even noted the existence of data that shows piracy may benefit consumers in some cases.
[. . .]
“Consumers may use pirated goods to ‘sample’ music, movies, software, or electronic games before purchasing legitimate copies,” the GAO continued. “(This) may lead to increased sales of legitimate goods.”
Comments Off on The technical term is “totally insane”
April 14, 2010
April 13, 2010
Expect to read more stories like this
Britain’s welfare support system was originally designed to provide temporary assistance — at barely-above-survival-levels — to workers and their families until the primary wage-earner could find new work. It wasn’t intended to provide this kind of support:
The Davey family’s £815-a-week state handouts pay for a four-bedroom home, top-of-the-range mod cons and two vehicles including a Mercedes people carrier.
Father-of-seven Peter gave up work because he could make more living on benefits.
Yet he and his wife Claire are still not happy with their lot.
With an eighth child on the way, they are demanding a bigger house, courtesy of the taxpayer.
Hard to blame ’em, really: if you can get substantially more through welfare support than you can by working, what’s the incentive to keep that job? Once upon a time, it was shame that would provide that extra spur to keep people in marginal economic circumstances from claiming welfare or other social benefits, as friends and neighbours would disdain them. These days? They’re probably envied by the next-door and down-the-street folks still dumb enough to get jobs.
At their semi on the Isle of Anglesey, the family have a 42in flatscreen television in the living room with Sky TV at £50 a month, a Wii games console, three Nintendo DS machines and a computer — not to mention four mobile phones.
With their income of more than £42,000 a year, they run an 11-seater minibus and the seven-seat automatic Mercedes.
But proof that material wealth does not translate directly into happiness, the Daveys still yearn for things they can’t yet have. But at least they’re not feeling burdened by feelings of guilt or shame:
She added: ‘I don’t feel bad about being subsidised by people who are working. I’m just working with the system that’s there.
‘If the government wants to give me money, I’m happy to take it. We get what we’re entitled to. I don’t put in anything because I don’t pay taxes, but if I could work I would.’
[. . .]
Mrs Davey, who spends £160 a week at Tesco, says she does not intend to stop at eight children. Her target is 14.
And she adds: ‘I’ve always wanted a big family — no one can tell me how many kids I can have whether I’m working or not.’
It’s true: in spite of all the other intrusions into everyday life by the British and European bureaucracies, there are still things they can’t tell you.
H/T to Jon (my former virtual landlord) for the link.
March 31, 2010
The product liability crapshoot
Tales of odd and unpredictable results coming out of product liability court cases are dime-a-dozen. This result is pushing to the limit of illogical: Carlos Osorio vs. One World Technologies Inc. et al.. This is the case where the court awarded the plaintiff $1.5 million because the tool manufacturer hadn’t adopted the newest safety technology, despite the plaintiff’s clear breach of common sense and safe practices in using the tool.
The accident happened on April 19, 2005, and the table saw Osorio was using was a Ryobi BTS 15, which was purchased at Home Depot on Jan. 10, 2005, for $159. At the time of the accident Osorio may have been employed at that company for two months; however, this is not clear, according to a deposition by Phat Vong, who purchased tools for the flooring company Osorio worked for.
Osorio is from Colombia, has a degree in computer science and was installing flooring as he learned English. At the time of the accident, he was trying to make a rip cut on a 2′-long, 2-1/2″-wide by 3/4″-thick piece of oak flooring, according to court records. He was attempting to cut the board “freehand” without the rip fence, according to the documents. Osorio intended to make a cut in a straight line all the way through the board. He had cut only a small portion of the workpiece when it got stuck at the blade. Osorio immediately experienced chattering and felt vibration in the workpiece. He stopped cutting and cleaned the tabletop. He then attempted to make the same cut again but the chattering continued, and he decided to push the board harder. His left hand then slipped into the spinning saw blade, according to court documents.
The saw blade height above the tabletop was set to approximately 3″ — at or near the maximum elevation, and the guarding system was not installed on the saw during the operation, documents state. The table saw was on the floor, Osorio was kneeling on one leg in front of the table saw, and his body was just to the left of the saw blade, according to a motion filed by Osorio’s lawyers.
For those of you who don’t know woodworking tools, a table saw is not something you can casually use in the same way you might use a hand drill or a sander. It’s a stationary tool with a long history of injuring the careless or unwary user: the act of pushing a piece of wood into a rapidly spinning serrated metal blade requires care and attention to avoid injuring yourself or nearby workers.
Carlos Osorio managed to do just about everything to increase the risk of injury. He removed the safety devices that are there specifically to prevent the kind of injury he sustained. He clearly didn’t understand the risks of what he was doing, and he was operating the saw in an unstable position. The only way he could have been in greater danger of injury is if he was intoxicated or blindfolded.
The only reason the saw’s manufacturer was the defendant in this case is the “deep pockets” theory of legal practice: don’t sue the responsible party (in this case, the employer who clearly failed to train Osorio in the safe use of the tool), sue the richest person or organization even peripherally involved in the case.
March 30, 2010
Nanny state now working entrapment angle
They may be able to get methamphetamines with their breakfast cereal, but the nanny state is determined to ensure that they can’t buy goldfish:
Buying a goldfish at a pet shop used to be an innocent childhood pleasure.
But today an elderly pet shop owner told how she was entrapped into selling a goldfish to a 14-year-old schoolboy, then warned she could face jail.
She had breached a law introduced in 2006 which bans selling live fish to anyone under 16.
After a prosecution estimated to have cost taxpayers £20,0000, Joan Higgins, 66, a great-grandmother who has never been in trouble before, has been forced to wear a tag on her ankle like common criminal and given a seven-week curfew.
Her son, Mark, 47 was also handed a fine and ordered to carry out 120 hours unpaid work in the community.
The notorious criminals could face jail time if they’re brought up on similar charges in the future. The courts are doing everything they can to communicate the extreme seriousness of these crimes, and will stop at nothing to stamp out the evil goldfish sellers.
Apparently, the crime syndicate has been in operation for 28 years, concealing their evil, predatory behaviour behind such innocent-seeming activities as volunteering for PDSA (Peoples Dispensary for Sick Animals) and contributing food for the animals. The hardened criminal mastermind has been banned from contact with at-risk individuals like her own great-grandchildren and prevented from attending known criminal hang-outs like bingo halls and Rod Stewart concerts.
H/T to Kathy Shaidle for the link.
March 29, 2010
Don’t talk back to the man, part XLVI
Ken at the Popehat blog has a beef with part of the message in “10 Rules for Dealing with Police” from Flex Your Rights:
See, if your goal is not to be abused, wrongfully arrested, falsely accused, searched without probable cause, or proned out on the pavement because you irritated someone with a gun and a badge, then “don’t be mouthy to a cop” is excellent practical advice. But dammit, we shouldn’t have to give that advice. The concept that you should expect to be abused if you aren’t meek (or, to be more realistic, subservient) in dealing with public servants ought to be abhorrent to a society of free people. Courtesy is admirable, and unnecessary rudeness is not, but rudeness ought not be seen as inviting government employees to break the law. But the reality is that our society largely issues apologias for, not denunciations of, police abuse. The prevailing belief is that claims of abuse are about lawyers or crooks trying to game the system, that people accused of crimes generally committed them, and that cops are heroes of the sort who deserve the benefit of the doubt when their account of a roadside encounter differs from that of a citizen. Our society, for the most part, indulges cops in their expectation that citizens will be subservient. As a result, “don’t talk back to a cop” remains tragically apt practical advice.
Moreover, the truth of it is that many cops will interpret an assertion of your constitutional rights, however politely delivered, as a rude challenge. They are supported in that view by four decades of “law and order” talk that classifies constitutional rights as mere instrumentalities of crime, not as the rules by which we have chosen to live.
Shame on us if we put up with that.
H/T to Radley Balko for the link, who also offers a graphic example of what can happen when you don’t follow the helpful advice in the video:
Last week, a panel from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that three Seattle police officers were justified in using a taser three times on a pregnant woman for resisting arrest. The woman had been pulled over for going 32 mph in a school zone. She insisted it was the car ahead of her that was speeding, and refused to sign the ticket. That’s when they tased her.
The problem is that under Washington law, (a) you aren’t required to sign a traffic ticket, (b) speeding isn’t an arrestable offense, and (c) you can’t be arrested for resisting an unlawful arrest.
So the woman was completely within her rights. Yet asserting those rights got her the business end of a stun gun. Three times. And two of the three federal appellate judges to hear the case see nothing wrong with that.
Comments Off on Don’t talk back to the man, part XLVI
Nanny state to prevent the Queen from using stairs
I find this hard to believe:
A row over a staircase has led to the Queen withdrawing from an appearance at the Royal Nova Scotia International Tattoo during her forthcoming visit to Canada.
The tattoo would seem to be an ideal event to be graced by Her Majesty. It was a favourite of the late Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother, who opened the original one in 1979, and gained its royal title in honour of the Queen’s 80th birthday in 2006.
However, the Canadians reckon that Her Majesty is too old to manage the stairs.
Insulting and idiotic. Nicely played, organizers! You get to look like right twits, you’ve managed to offend the Queen, and you still appear as blithering bureaucratic meddlers to the rest of us.
He added: “If it is a condition [to use the stairs] for her to turn up then we can’t accept it. Do people still get their heads chopped off for defying the Queen?”
If. Only.
H/T to Taylor Empire Airways for the link.
Comments Off on Nanny state to prevent the Queen from using stairs
March 25, 2010
QotD: The all-conquering Commerce clause
. . . this kind of argument proves too much, since it means that everything people do or don’t do potentially qualifies as interstate commerce, once you consider substitution effects, secondary and tertiary consequences, and similar behavior by other people. If sleeping with the windows open or failing to purchase an air filter triggers people’s allergies and causes them to “purchase over-the-counter remedies,” it affects interstate commerce. By Balkin’s logic, Congress therefore could pass a law requiring everyone (or maybe just allergy sufferers) to close their windows at night or purchase air filters. Mandatory calisthenics, which would make the population fitter and thereby reduce health care costs, likewise should qualify as regulating interstate commerce, along with myriad other measures aimed at increasing health-promoting behavior or reducing health-compromising behavior: a national bed time, mandatory tooth brushing, a donut ban, a weight tax, etc.
And these are just the possibilities suggested by the government’s interest in health care. Add in the other five-sixths of the economy, and the Commerce Clause swallows pretty much everything, subject to specific limits such as those listed in the Bill of Rights. Hence Congress could not stop us from watching a particular TV show or playing a particular video game (which would violate the First Amendment), but it could prevent us from engaging in such sedentary activities for more than an hour a day in the name of improving our health and boosting our productivity, both of which would have consequences that ripple through the economy and have a cumulative effect on interstate commerce.
Jacob Sullum “Uninsured People Do Things, So They Should Be Punished”, Hit and Run, 2010-03-25
Comments Off on QotD: The all-conquering Commerce clause
Is this the beginning of the end for “Don’t ask, don’t tell”?
US Defense Secretary Robert Gates has announced some changes to the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy that makes it a bit less easy to force gay or lesbian service members out of the armed forces:
The Pentagon announced immediate changes on Thursday to make it more difficult for the military to kick out gay service members, an interim step while Congress debates repeal of the existing “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates told a news conference that the directives included raising the rank of those allowed to begin investigation procedures against suspected violators of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.
If you wonder why even a small step like this has been so long in coming, this explains how deeply embedded anti-homosexual attitudes can be:
Well now we know. The reason Western forces failed to prevent the massacre in Srebrenica in 1995 is because of the gays. You see the Dutch lifted a ban on homosexuals in the armed services in 1974 and ever since then the Nancy boys have been so busy watching Sex and the City, baking flans and checking out the backsides of their hetero comrades-in-arms that the whole operation has gone to pot.
This is the theory floated with an ironically straight face by retired Marine General John Sheehan during congressional hearings on abandoning Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, Bill Clinton’s cowardly split-the-difference policy on gays in the service. The General’s criticism wasn’t limited to the Dutch, mind you; he thinks many European armies have gone “soft” owing to liberal social engineering projects.
General Sheehan may be more representative of attitudes at the higher levels of the armed forces than Secretary Gates. I don’t get it, but this is nothing new. As I wrote back in 2008:
As a recruiting policy, DADT is just plain dumb. As a “retention” policy, DADT is worse: gay and lesbian soldiers are pretty clearly determined to serve — in spite of the widespread anti-gay mentality pervasive in some units — and are being dismissed from the service for being honest. This, at a time when all branches of the US armed forces are struggling to maintain troop levels. It’s a stupid, dishonest policy and should be discarded ASAP.
Oh, and here:
It’s truly mind-boggling that the US military can still justify this stupid policy: being gay isn’t a crime, and is becoming “normal” across the country, yet it still counts as a reason to drum someone out of the military. This, at a time when the armed forces are finding their demands for personnel outstripping the supply.
A gay man or a lesbian woman is no more a threat to the efficient functioning of a military unit than anyone else — all things being equal — and may well be more motivated to succeed because they’ve volunteered to serve in spite of the idiotic “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.
