Naginata

It's the economy, stupid

Let's be absolutely clear, the Democrats can't afford for Bush to go into the final stretch of the election season with good Economic news. They're hammering him on the Iraq war, but that's not enough.

Oh, quick aside, I know there's "news" this weekend from Iraq, about WMDs and uranium and all that, but I'm not going to comment on that just now, because frankly, the news is saying what I've been saying all along - there were WMDs, and even if we don't find them, the war wasn't some crusade of prevarication launched by Bush and the Neo-Cons, it was sufficiently justified in my mind.

Ok, now that that's done (and please don't comment on that part, I'm just noting that I'm not talking about it la la la I can't hear you!), let's get on to the economy.

Late last year, here's what the Dems, and the press were saying, more or less:
"The economy is in the tank. Manufacturing, high tech, every industry is down and the country is going to hell. Bush cut taxes and that was wrong of him, plus he doesn't know how to "manage" the economy, get rid of him".

Oh, I agree, press, Bush doesn't know how to "manage" the economy. I'm grateful for that every single day, comrades.

Anyway, that didn't fly come the turn of the year, so they switched to something like "The economy is up, but where's our employment? Prices are so high, tuition is so high, and no one can find a job! The whole country is going to be unemployed... except for those rich people, raise taxes on them."

Well, what can one say about this? Perhaps I can point out that the employment numbers in January were similar to the ones called "low" at the start of Klin-Tawn's reign?

Today, I heard this on NPR (paraphrased):
"Economists are worried that income growth is not keeping pace with manufacturing and employment growth"

Let's recap:

"The economy is in the crapper, all the numbers are down"
"All the numbers but employment are up, we need jobs"
"Now people are employed, but they're not making enough money"

First, a theory: Income is going to start growing soon, then the press and the left will have to find another new economic issue... and they will.

That being said, can't they see the truth here? The economy is improving, in the way that anything with this much inertia changes or improves - slowly, in stages. Yes, first we increase output. Then once efficiency is maxed out, we increase the number of workers. Then, the hiring process is spun up and new workers are getting trained, output keeps rising and salaries go with it. If there's so many people unemployed, do we really expect industry to raise salaries? Of coruse not. Salaries will go up once labor gets a little more scarce. It's the way things work - we can be grateful that unemployment wasn't THAT bad to begin with, so it should be a short cycle.

Me, I'm anxious to see what the lunatic left comes up with next.

I, Robot

Go see it.

Wait, wait, I need to give a longer review.

I'm a pretty big Asimov fan, I think I've read all his fiction (and that's a LOT of fiction), most of it more than once or twice. That being said, I loved this movie. It's like it was written by someone who'd read all the Asimov robot stories and then said "ok, how can we mix these together to get something new out of it?".

Elements of several Asimov stories (The Caves of Steel, Little Lost Robot, Bicentennial man, that one where the 4 machines decide they're no good for people but I can't remember the name... and others) were all present, but at no point were you hit in the face with "look, THIS PART is from THIS BOOK". The special effects were, well, as it should be, you didn't really notice them that much.

And now, the spoilers...

First of all, it's nice to see the 4th law and the zeroth law both make an appearance in here, even if they don't state it. I was a little disturbed by Sonny at first, but I got over it, Lanning's smart enough for me to forgive almost anything.

I did think, like everyone else, that Susan Calvin was a little young, and I would have liked to seen her more involved with Sonny's production, before the start of the movie, but those are minor gripes and preferences. She did a good job of being more robot-like than the robot, which is how Calvin should be played, in my mind. And yes, she's the chick from Coyote Ugly.

And then on to Will Smith... he did a really good job. His character had an attitude problem, and he's good at playing that, no real suprises in the way he acted. I guess, the best thing I can say about Will Smith's role is that it's exactly what I would have expected if someone told me "Will Smith plays a robotophobic detective with a chip on his shoulder, and does it very well". Sure he's a little typecast at this point, but that doesn't mean he's bad at it.

I did love the "car chase" scene, with the robots taking over the car, it gives you a nice idea of how the robots were controlled. They keep repeating "Sir, you are in danger of a car accident" and the like, implying that the robots aren't being directly controlled into killing Smith, but rather, convinced, directed along a course of action that results in his death though misinformation. Like Calvin theorizes in Little Lost Robot, that a robot with only half the first law could kill by making a trap and then letting a person walk into it, this is the same sort of thing. And then there's the one on one fight with the robot after the car crash that ruins that theory... but it's still interesting to think about, in my mind.

Conclusion: go see the movie.

Moore vs Townsend

In response to statements made by Michael Moore, Peter Townsend posted his response

Quote:At the end of the film Bush says "Fool me once, shame on… me. I won't get fooled again." Clearly that moment demands that we hear Roger Daltrey scream, "Won't get fooled again!" That's how I had it cut. Pete Townsend blocked it, would not allow the song to be used

Here is the quote from Pete:

Michael Moore has been making some claims – mentioning me by name - which I believe distort the truth.

He says – among other things – that I refused to allow him to use my song WON’T GET FOOLED AGAIN in his latest film, because I support the war, and that at the last minute I recanted, but he turned me down. I have never hidden the fact that at the beginning of the war in Iraq I was a supporter. But now, like millions of others, I am less sure we did the right thing.

When first approached I knew nothing about the content of his film FAHRENHEIT 911. My publisher informed me they had already refused the use of my song in principle because MIRAMAX the producers offered well below what the song normally commands for use in a movie. They asked me if I wanted to ask for more money, I told them no.

Nevertheless, as a result of my refusal to consider the use, Harvey Weinstein – a good friend of mine, and my manager Bill Curbishley – interceded personally, explained in more detail to Bill what the movie was about, and offered to raise the bid very substantially indeed. This brought the issue directly to me for the first time. Bill emailed me and told me how keen Harvey and Michael Moore were to use my song.

At this point I emailed Bill (and he may have passed the essence of what I said to Harvey Weinstein) that I had not really been convinced by BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE, and had been worried about its accuracy; it felt to me like a bullying film. Out of courtesy to Harvey I suggested that if he and Moore were determined to have me reconsider, I should at least get a chance to see a copy of the new film. I knew that with Cannes on the horizon, time was running short for them, and this might not be possible. I never received a copy of the film to view. At no time did I ask Moore or Miramax to reconsider anything. Once I had an idea what the film was about I was 90% certain my song was not right for them.

I believe that in the same email to my publisher and manager that contained this request to see the film I pointed out that WGFA is not an unconditionally anti-war song, or a song for or against revolution. It actually questions the heart of democracy: we vote heartily for leaders who we subsequently always seem to find wanting. (WGFA is a song sung by a fictional character from my 1971 script called LIFEHOUSE. The character is someone who is frightened by the slick way in which truth can be twisted by clever politicians and revolutionaries alike). I suggested in the email that they might use something by Neil Young, who I knew had written several songs of a more precise political nature, and is as accessible as I am. Moore himself takes credit for this idea, and I have no idea whether my suggestion reached him, but it was the right thing to do.

I have nothing against Michael Moore personally, and I know Roger Daltrey is a friend and fan of his, but I greatly resent being bullied and slurred by him in interviews just because he didn’t get what he wanted from me. It seems to me that this aspect of his nature is not unlike that of the powerful and wilful man at the centre of his new documentary. I wish him all the best with the movie, which I know is popular, and which I still haven’t seen. But he’ll have to work very, very hard to convince me that a man with a camera is going to change the world more effectively than a man with a guitar.

Pete

Links:
moore interview
Pete's Diary

Obesity an Illness

Go read this

That's right, obesity is now covered by medicare. Medicare may now pay for people to join a health club. Am I the only person who sees something wrong with this?

I'd write more, but I gotta say, I don't think I need to. One of these days I'll get up the moxy to write another good political rant, but I just don't have the strength right now. You'll have to be enraged on your own.

Hulk Smash!

Hulk has a blog now.

IRA Time

So I made my first contribution to my 2004 IRA today... I think I picked ok, though my selections are VERY "tech-heavy". What else am I to do, it's the one field that I really know well :)

I'm splitting about 1/3 into stable index funds and playing with the other 2/3... if the tech market takes another dive, I'm going to get rocked, but hopefully if that happens again, I'll have time to shuffle things around.

Also, I've decided that putting money into an IRA is emotionally equivalent to sitting down at a poker table, at least for me. I don't know if that's a good thing or a bad thing... I suppose when my money's still there at the end of the night, I'll feel all "responsible" and stuff, right now I'm just anxious for the order to go through.

Flags, Colors

While Cynan bugs me about the latest project he wants done, and how he wants it done, I'm left to reflect on a few things.

First of all, no one that reads this blog will get this except maybe Alex Lo... and he doesn't read this blog anyway... but it's possible I came down too hard on Jeff over the PIMPSLAP debacle. I'm doing some script conversion stuff right now, and it's not all cut and dried.

I still think Jeff was pretty slow getting it done, but I'm hardly the paragon of efficiency 24 hours a day. 1 hour, tops, per week, the rest of the time, I'm definitely sub-paragonal. While what I'm doing is, I'm going to say, slightly more complex than PIMPSLAP, it's similar, and while interesting, I wish I had a week to do it instead of a day.

Secondly, Cynan's project is what I call a "red flag". Many of you know my scale, and it's possible that I described it in an earlier post, or not... I know I've at least referenced it, and dammit, if I'm describing it twice that's my business.

And now, the scale, in order of least critical to most critical:

Green Flag: We'd like this done at some point. If you don't have anything better to do, read up, maybe prototype some things, and think about design. Long-term software like "replace X that we use now, but which works fine" is Green flags. Green flags usually mean they don't expect a product within any sort of timeline, and if they do, then the project gets upped to Yellow.

Yellow Flag: We need a finished product at some point in the future, the sooner the better, but we know you have pressing issues. Ideally, we'd like a product by day X, or an explanation of why it can't be done by X, with or without a new estimated date of completion. Short version: write some code, we want it.

Red Flag: We need some code written immediately, either on a new program, or to fix some existing software. One or more people will be held up in the near future if you don't get this done. Drop everything and get to work on this project. It is your primary action item.

Purple Flag: That code you just wrote doesn't work, and department X cannot do their job as a result. Fix it.

Ultraviolet Flag: That code you just wrote doesn't work, and it erased the database and/or stopped manufacturing until it's fixed. Alternately, person/department X needs code by the time they get here tommorow morning. You can never go home again.

X-Ray Flag: The CEO wants this done today, and knows that you're the only one who can do it.

See, when I made the scale, I thought that Red was going to be the top of the list. I was naive. Also, it should be noted that Cynan's red flag project kept getting bumped by purples today, until about 15 minutes ago. C'est la vie, non? Now his project has bypassed Purple (which is reserved for bugs) and gone right into UV.

Dear Paingiver,

If you'd like to tell me what purpose the following code serves on virtually every page in our intranet, I'll consider refraining from smashing your head with something heavy.

<div align="center">
<div align="center">
<div align="center">
<div align="center">
<div align="center">
<div align="center">
<div align="center">
<div align="center">
<div align="center">
<div align="center">
<div align="center">
<div align="center">
<div align="center">
<div align="center">
<div align="center">
<div align="center">
<div align="center">

</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>

Compiler Bug?

I've got a chunk of code here:

public int Read()
{
int badLines = 0;
FileStream inStream = new FileStream(inFile, FileMode.Open, FileAccess.Read);
StreamReader read = new StreamReader(inStream);
string line = read.ReadLine();
while(line != null)
{
//it should fit a pattern...
Match m = stripData.Match(line);
if(m != null)
{
int count = Int32.Parse(m.Groups["count"].Value, NumberStyles.HexNumber);
if(m.Groups["datum"].Captures.Count != count)
{
badLines++;
}
else
{
int addr = Int32.Parse(m.Groups["addr"].Value, NumberStyles.HexNumber);
if(addr > data.Length)
{
ExpandData();
}
//now write the data
foreach(Capture c in m.Groups["datum"].Captures)
{
byte b = Byte.Parse(c.Value, NumberStyles.HexNumber);
data[addr++] = b;
}

}
}
else
{
badLines++;
}
line = read.ReadLine();
}
read.Close();
return badLines;
}


That, when run on the appropriate file, reads through 3 lines, and then stops executing. It does NOT return, it just... stops. It does not hang, or go into a loop, because it returns thread control to the UI at that point.

Compiler error? Man am I NOT in the mood to dig into ildasm today. On the plus side, I could probably use this code to crash your computer.

Reading Assignments

Run, don't walk, to read Michelle Malkin's latest on Ted Rall.

Normally I'd post a nice healthy rant here, but I just don't have the strength. I'll just say this about Rall's comic - another perfect example of racism from the left.

Raw Egg

So, last night I went to work out (it being a thursday), and spent a good 2-2.5 hours at the Y lifting weights. On getting home, I reheated some pasta leftovers from the weekend, but after eating what I thought was an adequate amount of food, I was still hungry. Now, I know that some people will think it's a load of crap, but I could feel my body craving protein, and pasta, well, it ain't protein.

So, I decided to do something that I've never done before, but always wanted to try, and ate a raw egg. In retrospect, it was hardly a culinary delight, but neither was it intolerably awful.

Stupid Fun

It's a neat diversion while I'm waiting on people to contact me, or just plain need a break. Click here to help me out. You can click up to once per day, so... come back to this story and click once per day if you really like me :)

Car Woes

My car is broke again. Last time it broke (~10 days ago), it cost me over 300 bucks to fix it, plus a tow... I think I'll just call them up and inform them that they're going to tow me for free, and be glad that I'm not yelling at them for stealing my 300 bucks last time.

Or I'm going to tow it someplace else.

Libraries

Don't trust em. Evil, evil things. Especially if "well, this function worked for the program I wrote this library for in the first place, and even though I only called it on one set of data, it should work now, right?" is your rationale.

Short version: by cutting out the "easy" "helper" functions and going back to a more elemental form of the serial port, I've ~doubled my speed and brought my "false fail" rate from about 1 in 4 to 0 in the last 20.

I rule.

If you're wondering why I sound like a blithering idjit in this post, check the timestamp... and then remember I only have interweb at work.