Naginata

My Apple Problem

I have an apple problem. I have two iPods, one an old 3G iPod 10GB, which never moves from my car. It won't run on batteries anymore, it hasn't been synced in at least a year, maybe 2. It works "ok".

My other iPod is an old 1G 1GB shuffle. I use it to work out and put random uptempo tracks on it every couple weeks. Sometimes, I have to turn it off and turn it back on to get it to advance... but most of the time, it works "ok".

Now I'm thinking about getting a new portable music, and of course the new shuffle comes to mind, since I'm primarily looking for a workout device, but let's look at my requirements:

- carries at least 256MB MP3
- at least 5 hours of battery life
- weather resistant, for jogging when it's messy outside
- FM Tuner, so I can listen to TV at the gym
- can get music from multiple computers, so I can take my code trance tracks from work and make them my workout tracks without a lot of flim-flam or tomfoolery

Not only does the iPod Shuffle only meet 2 of those, the two which it meets are met by every other player on the market. Somehow, I think that I am Apple's target audience for these things - people that just aren't very smart. I hate iTunes, and only use it at home, where all my CDs are ripped in their format. At work and when I can get away with it, I'm all Foobar2000. The iPods really don't even work THAT well. The interface for the shuffle is basically impossible to screw up, and I have yet to see a screened mp3 player with an interface that isn't at least functional, considering that most of the time I just want music to come out of it, and the rest I don't care about. I mean, does your interface have these features:

-On/Off
-Play/Don't Play
-Next Track

If so, you're in. Previous track and random/nonrandom are just gravy. Also the interface for the FM tuner hasn't really changed since... you know, transistor radios. The widgets are different but the concepts are nice and stale.

I guess what I'm saying is this: Apple has somehow achieved vendor lock in. I realize that their products just barely cover most of my needs, and yet, I'll probably keep buying them, because... I don't know why. Brain waves. Apple computer brain waves.

Soon I'll buy a black turtleneck and start pronouncing my name differently.

The 10 Most Dangerous Bills

The fine folks at alternet were good enough to assemble a list of the 10 most dangerous bills currently in congress. Sure, that's not the title they put on them, but after reading the list, I'm sure that's what they meant.

Before I get started here, let me propose that we use the following tests to determine how right or wrong a bill is. The tests are very simple:

• Can this be done by a private company? If so, why is the government inappropriately entering into competition with the private sector?
• Is there a constitutional mandate for this? If not, by what authority is the government doing it?

Anyway, here's your top 10:

1. National, single-payer health care Test #1 fails, as private insurance exists currently. Test #2 fails, no where in the constitution does the government have the right to interfere with a private industry. Not only that, but have you talked to anyone in the health care industry lately? With 2 parents who work in a major hospital network, I hear from doctors and nurses somewhat, and my ridiculously informal polls are quite revealing, despite their lack of rigor. Simply, Medicare is driving treatment. Doctors are determining how to treat patients based on Medicare mandates. Not only that, but it's subsidizing the high cost of medicine. If you've forgotten that old Lord Reagan (peace be upon him) quote, the one where he says "Government doesn't solve problems, it subsidizes them", keep it in mind. Also, keep your laws off my body.

2. Counting Every Vote Holy crap, it looks like this one passes both tests. Crazy! Look, I see voting machine irregularities, and I get outraged. I see how crazy these things are, how easy to break, and I get outraged. I'm pretty sure that The Team and I could whip something up in a week that would work better than the voting machines out there now, and which would be more secure to boot. That part of the bill, I'm fine with. I want a paper trail. I want accountability. I want them to use open source software in voting machines! Why wouldn't you?!

   It's the other part I'm not happy with. I don't mean to sound like a bigot, but if you can't read and write simple english, maybe you shouldn't be voting. We're not talking about Joseph Conrad english here, we're talking about "to vote, push a button that has the name of the guy with the best hair" english. If you're illiterate, I honestly doubt that you understand the issues well enough to make an informed decision, and honestly, you have a responsibility to stay home. If you simply don't read or write english, and you're a citizen, I propose the following: you can bring a translator or a cheat sheet with you. Most immigrant families, in my experience, have one person who speaks english fairly well. That's fine.

   People with disabilities should find that the polling place staff are quite accommodating, and will help out if you're blind or deaf or in a wheelchair. The government should accommodate those who can't vote because of disabilities, but honestly, I don't think it needs to take the same steps to help those who just haven't taken the time and energy to educate themselves. The government could also make available details of what every voting screen is going to look like, so people could study up in advance, or bring a cheat sheet with them.

3. Sick Leave First test doesn't apply, since this isn't a service. The second test, however, is quite clear. There's a word for this sort of thing and that word is fascism. The government should not interfere with private contracts between an employer and an employee. My view of the situation is quite simple: every single person is a private corporation. Naginata Code Exports Ltd. is a corporation which sells high-quality software for market-competitive prices. Currently, I have one customer, and they pay me for 40+ hours worth of product every week. The government has no business and no right to interfere with the contract between me and my employer, even if it is for a good cause.

4. Stronger Unions First test is irrelevant, but the second test clearly fails. This is also none of the government's business. Look, there was a time in this country, before OSHA, before the webotubes, before television, when unions were important. Workers had no rights, they were regarded as disposable, interchangeable wage slaves. That time has passed. We have reached the point where a worker's rights are carefully guarded, and a worker's safety is all but ensured. Accidents happen, and then after those accidents happen, lawsuits happen to make sure they don't happen any more.

   Are there still injustices in the workplace? Yes, I'm sure there are. My point is simply that unions are unnecessary at this point. I believe that workers should have the right to organize, to strike, to picket, to do whatever they want. That doesn't mean that the employer has to care. If I owned a business, and my workers went on strike, you bet your ass I'd replace them all as quickly as possible. If the government stepped in and told me I couldn't do that, I'd simply shut down my business. Where is your job now?

5. No Bases in Iraq This is silly. Is there a coherent argument against a base in Iraq? We still have bases in Germany and Japan, 62 years after the end of World War II. Do I think we need the current multi-location presence in Iraq, where we are, in effect, doing much of their security work for them? No, of course not, that's just inappropriate, this is a sovereign nation we're talking about. My position is this: If the Iraqis invite us, we should build a base in that region, certainly it's much more convenient than doing the King Khalid Military Shuffle. If the Iraqis tell us to GTFO, we should respect that too. Our policy shouldn't be dictated in advance by politicians looking for political points.

6. Stop Outsourcing Torture You know what, I surrender. Without looking more deeply into this bill, I'm not sure that I can oppose it. If we're going to fight terror, we should be willing to get our hands dirty. If a particular task is too terrible for us to do ourselves, we need to ask if it really needs to be done.

7. Access to Higher Education Hurrah, another resounding double failure. You want to improve access to education, I propose the following: Cut all federal funds to colleges and all federal funds to support loans and grants. Watch private industry come up with very favorable federal loans. Watch colleges that have expanded rapidly over the last 10 years come up with ways to lower prices to keep their campuses full. Government has spent so much treasure and energy subsidizing the cost of education that it's lost sight of the fact that it is by its own actions helping to inflate the price.

   Not only that, but my money should go to educating myself and my offspring, not someone else that I don't know or particularly care about. I mean, they could be getting a liberal arts degree, and I just can't condone or support that kind of behavior.

8. Free and Independent Media Ok, private industry, so the government shouldn't be competing. I know that's not what this point is about, but I wanted to get in a jab at NPR. Smooth and Smarmy.

   This is fascism lite. Just a little fascism. Not so much that it looks tyrannical, just a touch. Unless one corporation is developing a monopoly on media (which is probably impossible these days), I don't see why the government has any business here. Is the government going to set similar limits on other industries? Will Yum! Foods have to break up now, since they have chicken AND pizza? Will we set a limit on the number of franchises a restaurateur can own?

9. Public Financing of Campaigns I am offended by the fact that my tax dollars would be used to support a democrat or a republican candidate. This is none of the government's business. If some silicone-injected Barbie doll has the constitutionally-protected first amendment right to shake her betassled ta-tas in the champagne room, I sure as hell have the first amendment right to spend my dollars as I see fit. Not seeing the connection?

   Strippers are, supposedly, protected by the first amendment. The whole adult entertainment industry is. How is it that, if I print a magazine about totalitarian chicks in bondage, that's acceptable, that's free speech, but if I print one about totalitarian candidates in Bismark, that's illegal. It is preposterous. The most important form of "speech" is the only one under attack. McCain-Feingold was step one, and this thing is step 2. Removing private financing and replacing it with public financing is only possible in a world where people believe that the government has first claim to your money.

10. Clean Energy Question: how can the government, an organization which produces nothing, commit to producing certain types of things? Answer: fascism. Private industry is on this one, government. You can sit this round out, the market is on the job. Hybrids are sexy. Flex-fuel cars are sexy. Green is the new black. Ok, I don't know what that last one means.

    The point is that market demand dictates production. Saying that you're going to produce 25% flex-fuel cars by 20XX is nice, but there's a market there. There are two factors determining what gets made and what gets bought, the same as there always have been: supply and demand. Demand for green cars is high and getting higher all the time. Supply is adjusting to match, and if the government would just sit back and let it happen, it would take care of itself.

    Oh, and the bill also makes gas price gouging a crime. When I hear someone say "price gouging" in relation to gasoline, my rage is such that I'm afraid of spontaneous human combustion. I propose the following, to all you gas gouging myrmidons out there, please, find me an instance of gas gouging. You'll need more evidence than "high prices". In your search, consider the following; which would you rather find at a gas station? A) Gas costs $2.25/gallon, but there won't be any until thursday. B) Gas costs $6.00/gallon, and you can have as much as you want. If I'm a gas station owner and I get word that my supplier has just lost 30% of its refining capacity, you bet your ass I'm going to raise prices, to protect my supply. Especially if I know that the majority of my competitors get their fuel from the same supplier. I would much rather deal with customers complaining about my prices than deal with no customers.

    On a related note, the next time a disaster strikes, and they find some guy selling 20 generators off the back of his truck at double the retail price, they need to give that guy a crown, a scepter, and a medal. He is providing a service. If he were overcharging, the people wouldn't pay. If you don't like it, figure out a way to get generators in there quickly and cost-effectively for 10% over retail and make some money while helping people out.
    

And that's about it. Turns out I'm not quite 100% against all of these... but 85% is good enough in my book. Remember kids: your rights belong to you, unless you choose to give them up. The government grants you nothing.

Down Mexico Way

I'm going to keep this quick, and I'm going to avoid any sermonizing about the invasion of illegal immigrants pouring across our borders, since anything I say will come off as the rantings as one of those anti-immigrant racists, anyway.

I went to Qdoba for lunch today, and the guy in line two spaces in front of me wanted to know if they had Milk. I watched him ask two separate employees, both of whom nodded and pointed at the register. Needless to say, Qdoba does not have milk. He must have "argued" with the person for a good 3 minutes. To the guy's credit, he was pretty patient with someone who kept saying "yes, we have milk" and then pointing at the soda machine.

Now, I don't speak spanish, but I know a little bit. I considered translating for the two of them - I certainly know enough to ask "tienes leche?", but honestly, the comedy value of the whole scene was just too much.

Ultimately, the only employee of Qdoba who spoke english was across the room, mopping up.

Draw your own conclusions.

Flash TD

You need to play this game:

On Open Source

I've been managing a fairly successful open source project for about 6 months now. We typically have 2-4 active contributors, and are on our 9th significant release since I took over. I say all this not to establish myself as an authority (because... well, you'll see how I feel about authority in open source projects in a minute), but simply to point out that, though my opinions may diverge from other open sourcerors, I'm not entirely uninformed.

Now then, let me get to the premise: Linux cannot possibly compete with Windows. Ok, now you're all angry. Let me restate it thusly: Windows and Linux cannot and should not compete with one another.

Car analogies are popular, and I'm no Neal Stephenson, but I sure can rip him off. Let's say that operating systems are like cars. You go to buy a car, and come to a corner where there are 3 lots. On one lot, you've got the Windows dealership. They have nice boxy station wagons with signs that say things like "Not quite as slow as last year!" and "Now with more MPG*". Everyone seems to be buying these things, even though they require a hideous amount of maintenance. The people selling the windows wagon are quick to point out that it requires less maintenance than their last product - and that's certainly true, they have gotten much better - but they're not all that great. The nice thing is, everyone has one. Chances are one of your neighbors can fix it if it breaks, and the parts are largely interchangeable.

On the next lot, you've got macs. Macs are expensive. They require you to go to a special shop for maintenance, and have a lot less room in the back for hauling... whatever it is you windows people haul. Fortunately, they break down a lot less often, and are much shinier. Each mac also comes with a free latte and black turtleneck.

Then you've got the Linux lot. On the linux lot, there's a group of mechanics standing around with a mountain of parts. You've got all sorts of vehicles, all of which run on a common, immensely powerful engine which can run on nearly anything. It's the turbine from an M1A1, powered by a Mr. Fusion from Back to the Future II. Oh, and they've got every kind of vehicle, too - pickup trucks, semis, tanks, flatbeads, you name it, they've got it.

Of course, the problem is that people who shop for trucks and tanks are fundamentally different from people who shop for station wagons and flauntmobiles. Heck, a lot of people have use for a station wagon AND a truck, and they've been getting by with just one. Imagine how much easier their lives would be if they'd admit that they could get some use from a real work vehicle.

Ok, now the analogy is getting in the way of my point. My point is to say that for Linux to compete with Windows is inappropriate. The beauty of open source, as I see it, is that the source is right there. On the EVEMon project, between a quarter and a half of our bugfixes come from people who aren't, properly speaking, developers. 10-20% of our new features come from the same place. I can't tell you how many patches we've gotten with a comment like "I couldn't stand the way EVEMon did _____" or "I know _______ works for you, but here's a patch to fix it for all us _______ users". Open source is great because it enables you to fix problems and get your work done.

Now, I'm a free market guy, so you know I've got to say something about how for-profit software produces better incentives than free software, right? Actually... I don't know that that's true. Oh, I'm sure that there are people, possibly even a majority, writing for-profit software even though they hate it, but for the developers who love to code, there's really not a lot of difference. We pretty much pump out software at a given rate which is influenced much more by our interest in the project and environment than our compensation.

I guess the real difference is focus. Windows is focused on one goal - making an operating system for everyone on the entire planet that isn't just going to use linux anyway. They make compromises, and hide features. You have to install third party software - some of which costs more dollars - to access all of the secret hidden tweaks in windows.

Linux, on the other hand, is focused on an entirely different goal - whatever the hell the user wants the goal to be. If you want something that's very usable, go get Linspire or Lindows or whatever it's called this week. If you want something that's stable with a lot of solid backing, go get Debian. If you want something that's easy to modify and extend and always have the latest toys, go get Gentoo. If you're an asshole, go get Slackware. Everyone has an option, and if you can't find one that fits you, you can always start your own.

To go back to cars, people who want Linux to take over the desktop are trying to build a truck that appeals to car drivers. They're trying to build the 2002 Dodge Ram of operating systems. I'm not saying they can't succeed, or that they shouldn't succeed, I'm just saying that getting people to who are shopping for a car to buy your truck, is a hard sell. Most of the people who buy your product are going to be people who need a truck, but want to be able to drive it around every day. Your features - configurability, reliability, "easy" maintenance (if you know what you're doing to begin with) - aren't going to sell to the car crowd.

Aha! But what if some group of intrepid open sourcerors got together and made a version of whatever software they were working on that targeted the common consumer? Here's the problem - people who write open source code typically don't care about the consumer. They don't see the consumer, they see the user. It's not about profit motive, it's a completely different way of thinking about your target audience.

Of course, there are always projects out there that prove me wrong (like firefox), and maybe I am completely off base here. Perhaps if an open source project sticks around long enough, its target user base grows to the point where it begins to resemble a for-profit style consumer base. There is, after all, a large portion of the market interested in the Dodge Ram, or else they wouldn't be building them.

When it comes right down to it, I always detested people who declared every year the Year of the Linux Desktop. Now that I have a tiny open source empire of my own, I'm starting to realize why.

Your Rights in Danger

Everything great which has ever been accomplished has been done by individuals. Our economy is driven by people working for their own enlightened self interest, to improve their own life in whatever way they see fit. Why then, do we have politicians in positions of power who are war with individualism?

Our nation was founded on the idea of rugged individualism - that people could pretty much take care of themselves. It was taken for granted that a man had a right to protect himself, his property, and his family. It was taken for granted that a man has a right to use his talents in the best way he sees fit. It was taken for granted that two people had the right to form a contract between them to which they be bound by honor and by the law. Why then, do we have politicians in positions of power who seek to remove these rights and responsibilities from you?

Every right, nearly by definition, comes with a responsibility. We, as a people, have stopped living up to the basic responsibility which underlies all rights - defending them. I would argue that a right and the responsibilities which go along with it are so linked that if you refuse to take up the responsibilities which go with a right, you, in essence, surrender that right. If you incite a deadly riot, you lose your right to free speech. If you shoot someone in Reno just to watch him die, you lose your right to bear arms. People who break these responsibilities - who violate the rights of others - should be restrained so as to limit the future harm they can cause.

I'm talking about us, all of us, losing our rights to the government not because we have committed criminal acts, but because we have ceased to defend our rights. What am I talking about? I'm talking about our government effectively rewriting the bill of rights.

• Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof unless someone looking on said exercise might be offended; or abridging the freedom of speech unless that speech is political in nature, or of the press unless they're not being 'fair'; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble as long as they stay behind the fence, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances except in a time of war.
• A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a freethe State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. shall be maintained by the government, and only used against the people if we think they might have some dope or Korans.
• The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Unless we think they have some dope.
• No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
• The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

It's like we're living in bizarro backwards land. The constitution was intended to place limits - shockingly harsh limits, considering the power of the various monarchies in force at the time - on the government. The people, it was presumed, could take care of themselves thank you very much without the government's help. The government was not created to guide the people, or to employ the people, or to manage the people, but to secure and defend the people, and to ensure that the rights that they enjoyed before the government had anything to say about it would be maintained.

Now, we seem to have the presumption that you're entitled to the rights enumerated in the constitution - that the government grants you those rights, and you ought to take those and be damned grateful! Also, if we feel like it, you may have to give up some of those rights, because somebody somewhere said you might like to get high, on your own time, in your own home, with your own money. Or maybe you got on the radio and dared to suggest that democrats want us to surrender in Iraq. Or maybe believe in a candidate for office so strongly that you want to donate $2,101 to support his or her political campaign. Clearly, we can't have that!

It is not the people who should be limited by the constitution, it is the government. The people could do whatever they wanted before the government stepped in, and the more you let them take, the more they'll want.

Hillary Runs

Hello boys and girls, welcome to the 2008 political season. Yes, it's only 22 days into 2007, but you know how these things go.

Hillary Clinton has just flung her hat into the ring, and I'm not going to mince words: this woman must not be president. Normally, I don't care who wins the democrat primary, because I'm not going to vote for them anyway, but we, as a nation, cannot afford to even risk the possibility that Hillary be elected.

Let me be clear; I'm no Obama fan. I'm not going to vote for the man, and I really don't want to see him become president, but I'm not frightened of the very prospect. Under president Obama, the republicans would regroup and rally and hopefully gain some conservative ground, much like they did in 94. Under Hillary, the same thing would happen, but not nearly quickly enough. She is, quite simply, too smart and too dangerous to let her into the office.

Smart, fine. Dangerous, fine. When both dials are at 11, we're headed for trouble.

Hillary has been carefully positioning herself for years, and her senate career has been carefully managed to make her look like a reasonable candidate, but let's not forget her real positions:

• Hillary has declared war on individualism
• Hillary believes that your rights are given to you by the government
• Hillary lied to the congress while first lady - real lies, not 'Bush lied kids died' lies
• Hillary backed a healthcare plan that would have made a criminal out of anyone who sought and paid for medical care with their own dollars.

You know this isn't the last post I'll make on this dangerous and destructive woman. I think you all remember my glory days, when it was 2-5 politically charged ramblings a week? If you like that sort of thing, I have good news for you!

And if you don't like that sort of thing... too bad. Bender's back, baby.

El Laberinto del Fauno

I went to see Pan's Labyrinth with some friends the other day. The movie is absolutely fantastic and very, very dark. The story itself is, well, it's a fairy tale, but it's not very pleasant. If that sounds like your cup of tea, you should go see the movie.