Less than Lethal

Just like every other "less-than-lethal" toy the Government dreams up and produces for the military, This one is finding its way into the hands of Civilian Agencies, and being used against CIVILIANS.

First we had mace,
Then we had pepper spray,
Then we had rubber bullets,
Then we had bean-bag shotguns,
Then we have Tasers,
Now we have Sonic Weapons,
and Pain Guns...

The problem here is, when you give a police officer a little power and authority, but nothing keeping him (or her) in check, then you give the same officers weapons and tools that they feel "are non-lethal" and therefore are "free to use"...you have ABUSE issues.
As outlined above, the police are very indiscriminate about using these weapons. People have, according to the First Amendment, the RIGHT to EXPRESS Themselves and the RIGHT to PETITION THE GOVERNMENT. Yet, it seems that any time people gather (if they can get permits (isn't a requirement for a permit to exercise your rights illegal?)) the police gather. Any time you have police and protesters, SOMEONE on BOTH SIDES will feel the need to start something. SO what if an old lady or children are present...the tools and weapons are "non-lethal" so it doesn't matter...

THe thing is, they are "less-than-lethal" not "non-lethal"...

I have tried to make the point before, but this should help make it...we need CIVILIAN OVERSIGHT committees to OVERSEE or REVIEW actions taken by police, to analyse and document incidents and refer any findings to prosecutors for JURY TRIALS (if needed). These Oversight Committees also need to outline policy and review procedures to find that happy medium between what the police say is necessary and what really is necessary.
Otherwise, it is all left to the Government, and with cover-ups and "spin" that the government loves to use when it gets itself into trouble, how can or why should we trust them to have an impartial voice in these kinds of investigations?

And even a better question...why should we allow them use of military hardware in the first place...they aren't military, and shouldn't even be para-military... they are CIVILIAN Law Enforcement.

This doesn't mean that I support anarchy, or illegal behavior of protesters, but in many cases, Law Enforcement's response is NOT equal to the actions, it is usually GREATER...
They should, I believe, be held to the same standard when using "less-than-lethal" force as they are when using "lethal force"...maybe that might fix some of the issues...???

Or maybe fix the issues permanently, by finding out how to misues a product, then blame the manufacturer?
Sound Generator Lethal From 10 Meters

Slippery Slope to Totalitarianism

Being that we live in a "free country" you wouldn't think that we have a "nanny state", but we are moving in that direction.

It used to be that cars were built for safety, and then people had the choice to use those safety devices. Now the use of seatbelts is mandatory, and for Motorcyclists, the use of a helmet is (in many states) mandatory.

You don't hear a lot of people complaining about these government regulations into our safety and welfare, and when people do complain, they are called "extremists" or worse.

Well, now we have the Government stepping in and wanting to regulate our foods...not in the FDA sense (which is similar to the NHTSA, in regulating the safety of foods and auto-mobiles, respectively), but in the "nanny" sense.

There are new rumors as to the regulation (via taxation, etc) of DIET SODAS, "there are concerns that diet beverages may increase calorie consumption by justifying consumption of other caloric foods"...

This kind of baffles me.

First off...healthy foods COST MORE. Just run down to your local grocery store and pick up a package of SUPER LEAN BEEF and a package of REGULAR BEEF and look at the price difference...also look at items that are fat free, gluten free, zero calorie, etc. On the average, the "healthy stuff" costs more.
Diet drinks are supposed to help people like me get our caffeine without all the sugar. I don't run out and fill up on useless calories when I have a diet soda (although I have friends that will eat a hot dog with a diet coke...). For me, the switch from regular to diet soda saved me 20 lbs so far this year.

Secondly, with all the sugary foods, fatty foods, and other items (like deep fried Twinkies) that are available, you would think going after diet sodas would be a LOW item on their priority list... But, we are talking about the Government here...

Third, with McDonald's making people fat, and Home Cooked meals becoming a thing of the past (mostly because of the state of our economy, where both parents must work to make ends meet - i.e. mom is no longer at home to cook dinner), you would think the Government would have better and easier targets to make a few extra tax dollars, or to extend their "nanny-ness"...

Which brings me to my last point, Why is the Government telling me what I can and cannot eat? Why are they regulating my diet? Why would I trust my health to a government who cannot even look after the welfare of our country's financial mess?
Who/What gives them the right, the power and the authority to dictate to me what is healthy for me and my family, and enforce it under legislation?

When the government is so involved in our daily lives, it is no longer a Republic or Democracy, or "Free Country"...I am no longer a "Free Citizen"...
It becomes a Totalitarianistic Society..

I have to say, "Thanks, but no thanks. I think I can take care of myself, I don't need to be babysat."

400 mph... on a MOTORCYCLE?

I ride a motorcycle, and have for years. Mine is a 1987 Kawasaki Concours (ZG1000). It's top speed is about 150 mph, and I have had it to an indicated 125 mph.

In my opinion, 125 mph is WAY TOO FAST. And my trip was out on an open road, without traffic, flat, straight, on a sunny day without wind. 120 mph is 2 miles a MINUTE, 1 mile in 30 seconds, 1/4 mile in 7.5 seconds...

These guys took a "motorcycle" up to 380 mph... um, to make math simple, lets call it 360 (which is his average "world record" time) - that is 60 miles a minute, 30 miles in 30 seconds (this is the length of my 40 minute commute), 1 mile a second, and a 1/4 mile in 1/4 second.

OMG

Now, they want to shoot for 400 mph... I think that is "crazy"...

Now, I do have one question, "I wonder if they would sell me a full engine kit?" I can think of a lot of uses for a 500hp @ 8500 RPM, 400 lb/ft torque @ 8500 RPM engine, one that is the size of a V-Twin...

Well, guys, HAVE FUN, and as we say, "Keep the Rubber Side DOWN!"

Fudging Data; not just for science, tax firms, and big corporations

So, not only do we have to contend with Scientists, Corporations, and Tax Firms fudging their data, but now with statistical analysts as well...

Is This Pollster Forging Their Results?

When it seems that everyone is lying to you, who/where do you go to get good data?

Pass the Pork

This should be filed under the "you have got to be kidding me" category.

I guess AL GORE, you remember him, just got himself $529 MILLION to develop a HYBRID Sports Car (at a estimated sales price of $89,000) - but that isn't the worst of it...he will be developing this car in FINLAND...
Why, with the economy the way it is, would we reach into our pockets and pull out $529 million and send it off to FINLAND?

And this is right after we took $465 MILLION and sent it off to ENGLAND for the Development of the Tesla Roadster (which sells for $109,000)...

I see a pattern developing here:
#1 - Give HUGE loans for the development of Hybrid or Electric cars (this isn't the bad part)
#2 - these companies are in FOREIGN Countries, in other words, we are sending our money OUT of the United States (in other words, it DOES NOT BENEFIT THE USA)
#3 - These Hybrid and Electric cars CANNOT BE AFFORDED BY THE COMMON PERSON...in other words, NO ONE WILL BUY THEM (except the VERY RICH) and the purchase price will go to the COmpany which is located OUT SIDE OF THE USA...so "we" do not benefit from the sales (except for a little tax money)

There you have it. We are pulling HUGE amounts of money out of our already failing economy and sending it out of the country (in one case, to Finland, and in the other, to England) for vehicles that very few will buy, so there will be no benefit to the Economy, no benefit to the Environment, no benefit to anyone but very few people, and mostly outside the country.

Please tell me the Government isn't this stupid?

Obamacare = Tax

It seems the InfoMills are running over time on this one, but it looks like the MANDATORY $1900 due for the Obama Health Care option could be turned over to the IRS to prosecute if you fail to pay...
Hmmmm?
Obama was saying that this wouldn't constitute a "TAX", but if that is true, WHY THE IRS??

Fail to pay ObamaCare fine, go to jail?

Flout the mandate penalty? Face the IRS

***UPDATE***

I thought this was a bit "conspiracy theory"ish when I first put this out on my blog, but it is now being reported by the mainstream media:

57% of Voting Americans are now OPPOSED to Obama's Healthcare plan, mainly because it will contain a MANDATORY provision, and if you fail to buy it, then you can receive a misdemeanor criminal charge, a fine up to $25000, and possibly a year in Jail.

NONE of this makes any sense. If you cannot afford Healthcare, and you STILL HAVE TO PAY FOR IT, but NOT PAYING FOR IT makes you a CRIMINAL...
Hay, folks, this isn't about "healthcare reform" this is about power and control. This isn't about providing health insurance to those that need it, it is about forcing everyone to buy government insurance.

It will be interesting to see who else picks up this story, and what spin the Liberal News will use...
Just one last thought here, PEOPLE aren't stupid. They are capable of seeing that this whole thing is a bad idea.
First off, it is illegal for the Government to put "undo hardship" on people.
Secondly, under threat of IRS and Jail, they are going to FORCE you to use their insurance
Thirdly, it is illegal for the Government to compete in the Private Sector

Three strikes and you are OUT!

Fees going up, Airline travel down - Well DUH!

Let me see, when Airfare was cheap and Security was "lax", people traveled a lot. They enjoyed going places for the Holidays, and businesses were more likely to send people out for training and other Business needs...
But then the Airfare started to go up. Not just the airfare, but the whole thing...fees, fees and more fees...
Then the Airlines started to reduce services. The stopped giving out the "good treats" and many airlines canceled "in flight meals" for some of the mid-range flights. THEN they changed their flight schedules and removed many of their routes to save money.
And then 9/11 and all the added security and hassle. Now, instead of arriving an HOUR early for your flight, just enough time to check your bags, get your ticket, and hit the gate...you have to arrive 3 hours early.
It takes about 5 hours to drive from Salt Lake City to St. George in Utah. If I fly, it would still take me about 5 hours. In my truck at about 18 mpg, it would cost about $110 for fuel to drive down, and a one way ticket will cost even more.
WHY WOULD I FLY?

Anyway, it looks like the News Pundits are trying to draw some kind of conclusion about all this...
This is from KSL (Channel 5 in Utah):

Airline travel down, fees going up
September 25th, 2009 @ 1:35pm
By Mary Richards

SALT LAKE CITY -- Airline travel may be down, but the airlines have raked in $3.8 billion in the first six months of this year, just from fees.

Are you KIDDING ME? Just in FEES alone?

KSL Travel Show host Doug Wren says ... Revenue ... is up 276 percent in April, May and June alone ...

*W*H*A*T*??!!??!!

Other sources of income for the airlines include fees for canceling or rebooking flights, assigning seats, flying with pets or sending an unaccompanied minor...

I guess the IDIOTS in the Airlines don't understand...SUPPLY and DEMAND...
When there is no demand, you go out of business...you don't generate SUPPLY by having ridiculous prices and raising them when times get tough...I mean, am I making sense here? If people don't fly, you figure out WHY they don't fly, and you FIX IT...
People don't fly right now because, as I mentioned above, it is just too much hassle and too expensive...
SO, instead of lowering prices and making it easier to fly, they increase the regulations and hassle, and RAISE their prices and fees!

Oh, wait...this is the airlines we are talking about...
They don't have to worry...the Government will Bail Them Out!

Am I the only one who sees something wrong with this?

(This Excerpt is provided for informational, educational, and discussion purposes only. It is Copyright "KSL", for the full article search KSL's web site or Google with the title of this article)

Government Confused on what is "PUBLIC"

An anonymous reader writes

"Copyright law has previously been used by some states to try to prevent people from passing around copies of their own government's laws. But in a new level of meta-absurdity, the attorney general of Oregon is claiming copyright over a state-produced guide to using public-records laws. That isn't sitting well with one frequent user of the laws, who has posted a copy of the guide to his website and is daring the AG to respond. The AG, who previously pledged to improve responses to public-records requests, has not responded yet."

The challenger here is University of Oregon Professor Bill Harbaugh.

My question is,
If it is PUBLIC, like the PUBLIC RECORD, or PUBLIC LAW, or *A*N*Y*T*H*I*N*G* paid for by TAX dollars, How can Anyone claim it is Copyright? Or subject to DMCA?

That is like telling you that it is trespassing to go on public lands...

Media Bias

I have long held that there is a Bias in the Media. Figuring out just what kind of bias is the hard part. Is it a Left Leaning Bias, or a Right Leaning Bias?
I contend that it is a little of both, and SHAME on the Media for having any Bias. Shouldn't journalists be IMPARTIAL on their reporting? Would we accept Scientific Papers that only discussed the evidence that supported their Theories and Hypothesis? Should we not demand that reporting agencies give us the FACTS and not their interpretation of the facts?

Take for instance the whole Tea Party or the 912 event...
Some media outlets reported "tens of thousands" while others reported "2-3 million". If you look at all the pictures and the estimates, and compare that with other events (promise keepers, million mom march, the president's inauguration, etc) you can easily get the feeling that the number was prolly closer to 500,000. That is NOT a statistically insignificant number. Also, there were several groups, not just one mass protesting, but lots of individual groups protesting. Ron Paul's Group, the John Birch Society, and several anti-Tax groups, protesting everything from Taxes to Spending to Healthcare to the Federal Reserve... any ONE group might have had 10s of 1000s, but all together, it was more like 100s of 1000s...

If you think that the "numbers of protesters" is the NEWS here, well, you would be wrong. The "numbers of protesters" reporting only shows the Bias of the Left and Right in the media to "dumb down" or to "inflate" the numbers, respectively.
No, the big news here is, the numbers of protesters vs. what the numbers are protesting.
Currently the argument is over the numbers, but people aren't looking at WHY we are discussing the numbers at all. If we take my estimate of around 500,000 people, that is a representative number. It is a number representing a larger group of Americans, a group that is opposed to Taxes, Government sponsored healthcare, and the Federal Reserve. If you look into it, you will see that all these groups have legitimate concerns.
But taking our attention away from the MEANING of these numbers is what the argument ABOUT the numbers is for. It prevents us from looking into the facts.

Why would the media want to distract us? One reason might be if people realize that there are organizations and "hundreds of thousands" of people that oppose the Government's current direction, they may join the fight. So if the media distracts us, and hides the fact of WHY people are protesting and HOW MANY...if you feel alone, you are less likely to stand up and say something. This bias will get us all lost in the fog.

These and other stories indicate a "left leaning" media bias, over-all.

This isn't the only "proof" of a left-leaning bias in the news...
Look at the Tax Fraud scandal that plagued the Obama administration in the first few months of his taking office... What ever happened to these people? Why haven't we heard of their punishments and prosecutions (because the laws of our land WERE violated)? We hear about the tax problems, and then we don't hear anything, ever again.
And what about Acorn? Scooped by a couple "kids"? If this was the Bush administration, this would be FRONT PAGE news, "Bush administration funding prostitution", "Bush administration tax sheltering child prostitution"... yet we didn't hear a word about it until 2 kids blew the lid off the topic, and then only one or two major news agencies carried the story, and the story didn't center on Acorn, but on these kid reporters ...even now some news outlets are saying "they were just playing along" -- Uh-huh, ok...tell me another one.
How about the current trend to label everyone who disagrees with Obama and his Policies as a "Racist"?
Isn't this an ad-hominem attack, or a straw man? Instead of dealing with the issues, you call someone a racist, and that ends the argument...
Check this out...I am as Racist against Obama as I was against Bush. The race I am biased against is "politician"...

So, many would say Fox News is "Right Leaning", I would say that Fox News is "no so Left Leaning" many of the others are "Left Leaning" and you have to look really hard to find any credible source for "TRUTH" in the news...

http://www.mrc.org/biasalert/archive.aspx
http://newsbusters.org/
http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2009/09/20/must-read-the-definitive-catalog-of-left-wing-media-bias/
http://www.examiner.com/x-16500-Lake-County-Independent-Examiner~y2009m9d14-Two-million-man-march-in-Washington
http://www.examiner.com/x-20909-Columbia-Independent-Examiner~y2009m9d13-As-many-as-2-million-protestors-attend-912-Washington-DC-Tea-Party-Rally
http://blogs.abcnews.com/theworldnewser/2009/09/-dc-tea-party-crowd-estimate-how-did-thousands-become-millions.html
http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/acorn_media_beck_fox/2009/09/16/261056.html

Censorship

It doesn't take overt acts of Censorship to silence a people. Look at our media today, when someone says something against the President's policies, plans, or actions, it isn't because that someone has an opinion, or a reason behind their words, it is because they are "racist".
Once you start calling every detractor a Racist, it isn't long before you start pushing the "Hate Crimes" legislation and having people arrested and charged with hate crimes for simply having a different opinion than those in charge.

Great Britain has a different tack on this, whenever someone has a different opinion than the "status quo" you simply call it "libel", then you get them under the laws that protect people from libel, and you silence them that way.

Don't believe me? Look at South Africa some years ago. They had THOUSANDS of people in prison as "political prisoners" because they had the audacity to have a different opinion than that of the ruling government. How did they get them? They started calling any protest, even the peaceful ones, "illegal gatherings" or "illegal demonstrations", and they would arrest as many as possible, let the bulk go free, without charges, and keep the leaders in prison for being the "instigators"...this was to set the example - speak out against the government, get arrested and held for as long as we see fit.

Sometimes it is called treason, sometimes sedition...but any way you crack it, it is just another way to censor the critics, to limit Free Speech and to scare people into submission.

Cracking the Spine of Libel

Democrats Running Scared

I have noted, before, how I am a Constitutionalist, and that still holds true...but it sure is fun to watch the Democrats running scared...

Mitt Romney, I guess, has said some things that really ruffled the Democrats:

"The president sold [the stimulus act] as an immediate boost that would hold unemployment below 8 percent, restore the economy and create jobs,"

This is true, and is on record, and in my blog...

"Rather than bring back the economy, it brought back 30 years of failed liberal programs."

Also a true statement. We are now seeing that every social welfare program is fraught with waste and fraud, and nearly impossible to use because of ridiculous regulation.

Since the stimulus passed in February, millions more people have lost their jobs and unemployment is now teetering at 10 percent, Romney said. "Not one new job has been created," he declared.

Also a true statement, just look at the numbers out on the web...everyone from the local chamber of commerce to all employment related federal agencies are reporting these numbers...

The Democratic National Committee noted Romney was misrepresenting facts as he attempted to throw mud at the president.

Only, the DNC (while they NOTED somethig) hasn't published a SINGLE REBUTTAL to anything that Romney said...um, maybe it is because the numbers are in Romney's favor?

Instead, the DNC says:

"If Mitt Romney thinks pandering to the far right is a winning strategy, that's his choice," said DNC national press secretary Hari Sevugan. "Of course it didn't work out so well for him last time. Maybe that's because, given how often he changes his position on issues, he has no credibility with the right. And given how often he's misrepresenting the truth, he doesn't have much credibility with anyone else either."

In hopes of discrediting him, they call him a "liar"...
Um, didn't Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) try that once...yes, these guys are using more tact...but still...instead of dealing with the issues Romney places out there, they say "He Lies!"...

Now, they say, and they will try to use against Romney, that he passed a "socialist reform of healthcare in Mass."
Um, well, yes, that is true...HOWEVER, I have said it and other will point it out, IT IS DIFFERENT TO DO THESE TYPES OF PROGRAMS ON THE STATE LEVEL THAN ON THE FEDERAL LEVEL...
There is no support for such programs in the Constitution, and one could argue that the Federal Government taking up these responsibilities is a violation of State's Rights...but to create these programs at the State level is 100% OK. And it is a different point of discussion.

So, my Non-Constitutionalist Democrat Friends, PLEASE show me where Romney's statements and numbers are misleading or otherwise FALSE...please...
Until then, it might be fun to take a look at this web site:
Political Math

For the rest of the article, please see:
Romney blasts Obama for 'weakening' America

(This Excerpt is provided for informational, educational, and discussion purposes only. It is Copyright "The Salt Lake Tribune", for the full article search The Salt Lake Tribune' web site or Google with the title of this article)

Dot Ex Ex Ex the TLD that said NO

It was about the same time I started working for Microsoft (back in the Windows 95 ORS2 and Windows 98 days) that I started testing the Blocking capabilities of the Browser known as IE. It was then that I realized that the built-in blocking and filtering capabilities just DIDN'T work.
I was able to retrieve all kinds of things that I shouldn't have been able to. But that was my job, to test if this thing was ready for consumer use.
The answer to that question was "NO", but that never stops Microsoft from shipping their software.

This helped formulate an idea in my head...one that was punctuated by the failure of other blocking and filtering software, or at least, their failure to block most of the stuff that they claim to block.

I came up with the idea of adding a ".xxx" Top Level Domain. I figured that ".com" was for commercial use (businesses, etc), and ".net" was supposed to be for networks (ISPs, etc), that ".org" was supposed to be for organizations, ".gov" for Government, and ".edu" for educational institutions...
This would require a small change in how things were done, but www.playboy.com would have been converted to www.palyboy.xxx, and even if Playboy kept ownership of playboy.com, it would either be directed at their "corporate" site, or redirected to playboy.xxx...
There would have to be some kind of User Agreement to keep COM for Commercial and XXX for Porn, and penalties for violating that...but it would be regulated by ICANN or INTERNIC, or whomever was responsible for the Regulation of the TLD structure.

I contacted InterNic and ICANN and other regulating bodies as well as my CongressCritters and other Government types. I outlined the idea and the few changes it would require and the benefits it would provide, like that it would be easy to block ALL .xxx traffic via a simple browser setting...

I never received a reply. Not one. Not from ANY of the letters that I sent out. They simply went into that Great Black Hole of Nothingness...

Then, a few years ago, I saw an article that someone was proposing a ".XXX" TLD...guess I should have patented that idea, or at least gotten a copyright on it...

Porn-friendly '.xxx' domains approved

By Declan McCullagh, CNET News.com
Published on ZDNet News: June 1, 2005, 8:10 PM PT

Pornographers and their customers soon will have a virtual red light district reserved just for them.

The nonprofit organization responsible for Internet addresses on Wednesday approved ".xxx" domains, a move that reverses the group's earlier position and heads off a potential political spat with conservative U.S. politicians.

...

Bush administration objects to .xxx domains

By Declan McCullagh, CNET News.com
Published on ZDNet News: August 15, 2005, 4:15 PM PT

The Bush administration is objecting to the creation of a .xxx domain, saying it has concerns about a virtual red-light district reserved exclusively for Internet pornography.

...

Other governments also have been applying pressure to ICANN in a last-minute bid to head off .xxx. A letter from ICANN's government advisory group sent Friday asks for a halt to "allow time for additional governmental and public policy concerns to be expressed before reaching a final decision."

After ICANN's vote to approve .xxx, conservative groups in the United States called on their supporters to ask the Commerce Department to block the new suffix. The Family Research Council, for instance, warned that "pornographers will be given even more opportunities to flood our homes, libraries and society with pornography through the .xxx domain."

...

I started to ask myself, WHY would they object? Sure, it would make it easier for the Mrs. to see if her husband was surfing porn, because the pornsite "www.whitehouse.com" would then become "www.whitehouse.xxx" and the Mrs. would know .xxx = porn...
But the real answer hit me, and I am not sure how it is affected adversely, but it really is all about money...

Senator Carper Wants Tax on Internet Porn

WASHINGTON(AP)- Senator Tom Carper is calling for a tax on all Internet pornography.
The Delaware Democrat is proposing a 25 percent tax on the purchase of pornographic material online.

The collected tax money would go to a fund to help police prosecute online child pornographers.

The provision is part of the Internet Safety and Child Protection Act.

In addition to the fund, the bill would require online pornographers to use age-verification software to block children's access.

Carper says the bill will keep kids away from X-rated material.

...

While I understand the money portion of this, it would actually be easier to collect a tax on the .XXX domains - it would be easier to block .XXX domains, thus "block children's access" (even if they don't use age-verification, parents can block .xxx completely)

So, why do they fight the .XXX domains?

(Thess Excerpts are provided for informational, educational, and discussion purposes only. They are Copyright "CNET Networks" and "The Associated Press", for the full articles search CNET Networks' or The Associated Press' web sites or Google with the titles of this articles)

Alternative Energy (and why are we going the wrong way?)

I already know the answers to these questions, but I thought they would be worthwhile to ask anyway.

Recently, we had the whole "Cash For Clunkers" deal where people were given $4500 dollars to trade in their old "gas guzzling" vehicles for some more modern "fuel efficient" ones...
There are several problems with this, however...

#1 - Most people bought FOREIGN cars, which (for the most part) doesn't help our economy - you know, with sending our money to Japan or Germany...
"Local Car Dealership Gets Cash For Clunkers"
I guess it wouldn't have been so bad, if our American Auto Makers could figure out how to make an affordable "alternative fuel" or Hybrid (or just a plain old fuel economic) vehicle.

#2 - There was absolutely NO accountability built in to that program. We have NO REAL idea how much money was spent, and they went from ONE BILLION to THREE BILLION in the same way someone might go from 1 to 3 dollars.
Tax money is supposed to be for the operation and support of Government operations and services, where does the Cash for Clunkers fall? Under what law was it authorized?

#3 - I could have taken that $4500 and converted each of those vehicles (clunkers) into a Fuel Efficient "Diesel-Electric" hybrid, or a fully converted Electric car. The Diesel-Electric can get about 100 or more MPG and the Electric can travel between 30 and 120 miles on a single charge (depending on a variety of factors).
Which is better? 35-45 mpg or 100 mpg, 100 mpg or no need for fuel at all?

#4 - Anyone who benefited from the CfC $4500 will have to claim it on their TAXES as INCOME. For most people, this means an INCREASE in their taxes at the end of the year.

I would also like to wonder why we aren't seeing more focus on some of these other issues...maybe that 3 BILLION might have been better spend supporting Research into Alternative Fuels:
- BIODIESEL
- ETHANOL (not CORN ethanol)
- RECYCLING
(for those of you who still think CORN ETHANOL is a good idea, look at the comparison with Cane Ethanol, and BIOMASS Ethanol)

Or maybe one of these Alternative Vehicles or Companies:
- How About a BioDiesel or Electric Conversions (or THIS)
- Aptera, Persu, X1, Turbine-Electric, Diesel-Hybrid, or VW's Answer...

There are also companies that can sell you everything you need to "DIY"...
- Electric Motors and Control Systems

And you will notice that I didn't even hit on other alternatives, like Hydrogen, Steam, Natural Gas, Propane, or even compressed gas...

Don't you think that 3 BILLION would have been better spent in one of these areas?

And my last question:
Why are cars still about as efficient today as they were in the 1930s? The Olds L6 Sedan got about 30-35 mpg, which is better than what a V6 with Computers and Technology gets today...
So, with all that technology, we cannot get better fuel economy?
Take a look at this...

<<>>
More and newer ways to alternative energy:
The BlackLight Process

Or how about a "Micro Nuclear Power Plant, like the ones HERE and HERE?

How to protect your wireless signal

I am a computer professional and I have several machines with WiFi and other means of communication between them and they outside world...
I have done everything from Locking Down my routers, authentication routines for getting on my network, proxy access to the network and the web...

These make it more difficult for a hacker, and hackers, like most criminals, are LAZY. THey will look for the unprotected wireless access points, or the ones that their little cracking tools work on. This is the only thing that protects my network...I have made it a little more work than they are willing to put into it.

Here are some steps (short of the next suggestion) that you can do to protect your wireless network:

#1 - TURN OFF BroadCast SSID in your wireless router
#2 - Use WPA2 (Enterprise) Authentication WITH a Certificate and Passphrase
#3 - Lock the Router down to specific MAC Addresses of the hardware that will be accessing your network
#4 - Use a Proxy that has some kind of Authentication
#5 - Use STRONG passwords

However, there is an easy way to lock-down a wireless network, and make it "hacker proof", its called a Faraday Cage.

Essentially, it is a fine wire mesh that is grounded. It traps wireless signals and prevents them from going in or out of the Faraday Cage. So if you have wireless access inside your house, or a wireless phone, they will work just fine INSIDE, but not beyond your boundary (marked by the Faraday Cage).

One drawback, your cellphone... it will work outside your house, but not inside your house (inside the Faraday Cage.

You can read more at Wikipedia

Another option, which I just read about, is to use Aluminium Oxide Paint,
Anti-wi-fi paint offers security

Linux vs. Windows (TCO)

There are 3 major opinions when it comes to the Linux vs. Windows vs. $$ debate...
Linux SAVES money
Linux COSTS money
Linux is about the same as Windows.

In my opinion, and I have worked in the field for over 15 years, LINUX can save BIG MONEY over Windows for a variety of reasons.
First, it comes with EVERYTHING (email, web, office tools, etc) or you can get something you need for FREE (or low cost), and if you nees some specialized something or other, you can build it yourself (in most cases) without the overhead of all the costly licensing.
Second, Linux can remove the need for many of the (really expensive) bits of "protective" software (Virus, Mallware, Spyware, Adware, etc)
Third, you can reduce the need for TRIPPLE Redundant machines (as Microsoft recommends) and reduce your IT staff.

You do have some incurred expense, and that is mostly in the rest of your employees getting used to your new environment (which really doesn't take that long).

Anyway, here are some articles that are interesting...

Linux vs. Windows: TCO Comparison

By Laura DiDio
August 16, 2005 10:00AM

No Basis for Mass Switch

(Ms. Laura goes on to state some interesting numbers (currently in dispute) about how companies don't seem to be moving, so there is no need to move to Linux...)

Energy and Enthusiasm

(Ms. Laura does make a good point here. Pragmatism is the most importent factor, right next to the Bottom Line.)

Crucial, Basic TCO Information

(Ms. Laura tells us that the CIOs and other executives and managers are really clueless when it comes to these numbers--so it is "Lack" of "Crucial, Basic TCO Information")

Maximizing Network Potential

(Ms. Laura talks about the Myth of the "One Size Fits All" idea...but I personally subscribe to it)

"Laura DiDio is a Research Fellow at Yankee Group, a Boston-based consultancy. She has covered operating systems and related security issues for 18 years as an analyst, reporter and editor."

As I mentioned, this report is being criticized - from both sides. It is accurate and inaccurate about some details, but for the bulk of it, it goes to show that you CAN have your cake and eat it too.
(This Excerpt is provided for informational, educational, and discussion purposes only. It is Copyright "Yankee Group", for the full article search Yankee Group's web site or Google with the title of this article)

Cybersource dishes out some Linux TCO 'truth' of its own

By Jack Loftus
13 Dec 2004

"According to Cybersource, the report showed that a company with 250 users running Linux will experience a 27% to 36% cost savings over Microsoft alternatives, over a three-year period."
"Cybersource did not modify the model to reflect the study, which shows that Linux required 82% fewer staff resources. The cost of malware, viruses, spyware and worms were not included either, he said."
"Linux's cost advantage is simply too great"

You can see, some things aren't included in the report, and Linux still comes out ahead.
(This Excerpt is provided for informational, educational, and discussion purposes only. It is Copyright "Jack Loftus", for the full article search Google with the title of this article)

Linux TCO: Less Than Half The Cost of Windows

October 7, 2002
By Dan Orzech

"The cost of running Linux is roughly 40% that of Microsoft Windows, and only 14% that of Sun Microsystem's Solaris, according to a new study which examined the actual costs of running various operating systems over three years."
"Linux cost $74,475 over three years, while a Windows deployment cost $190,662 and one on Solaris $561,520. "
"The average Windows administrator in the study earned $68,500 a year, while Linux sys admins took home $71,400, and those with Solaris skills were paid $85,844."
"There were other costs the study was not able to quantify, according to Robinson, such as security. While study participants were reluctant to provide hard figures on the costs of security breaches, it appears that the "cost for handling security issues on Windows systems was very high," says Robinson. The study revealed that Windows administrators spent twice as much time patching systems and dealing with other security-related issues than did Solaris or Linux admins."

Again, without counting the Security (and other "hard to quantify" factors) Linux comes out on top.
(This Excerpt is provided for informational, educational, and discussion purposes only. It is Copyright "Dan Orzech", for the full article search Google with the title of this article)

So I sit and wonder, WHY (with all the Security Issues with Microsoft and ALL of their Products) would ANYONE use Windows?
(just to let you know, I run Linux at work and at home, and the reasons aren't so much the COST, because I have too few machines and lots of years experience with Computers, but it is the EASE of use. I run my own Web Server (FREE), I run my own Email Server (FREE), I run my own Web Filter (for the kids) (FREE), I don't worry about Virus, Mallware, Spyware, or Adware, and my server has been running for 5 years straight with a 99.99% uptime. So would I go back to Windows? Well, it shouldn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out...)

Oh, and we shouldn't forget the "FREE" version of Windows 7

Windows 7, Do you have the TIME for it?

I used to work at Microsoft, not so very long ago, and I am so glad to be out of there...but...
I keep hoping that Microsoft will LEARN from their mistakes, only, they seem to be on the whole, "We are Microsoft" kick...

Ah well...

SO I was reading an article about the Estimated Upgrade times, and, well, do you really have time for this?

"Microsoft: Windows 7 upgrade can take nearly a day"

"A clean 32-bit install on what Microsoft calls 'high-end hardware' should take only 30 minutes."

Ok, not bad so far...

"Microsoft really did time an upgrade that took 20 hours and 20 minutes. That's with 650GB of data and 40 applications, on mid-end hardware, and during a 32-bit upgrade."

20 hours, really?

(This Excerpt is provided for informational, educational, and discussion purposes only. It is Copyright "Ars Technica", for the full article search Ars Technica's web site or Google with the title of this article)

Windows vs Linux (Security)

The other day I came across this report. It details the security concerns of Windows and Linux users, and busts a few myths...

I find much of it interesting, and thought y'all might as well.
Security Report: Windows vs. Linux
For those of you who like to read the LAST PAGE of a novel before the first, here it is: (Caution, Spoilers Ahead)

"Finally, we also include a brief overview of relevant conceptual differences between Windows and Linux, to offer an insight into why Windows tends to be more vulnerable to attacks at both server and desktop, and why Linux is inherently more secure."

(This Excerpt is provided for informational, educational, and discussion purposes only. It is Copyright "The Register", for the full article search The Register's web site or Google with the title of this article)

Waste and Fraud

I have been in several discussions about the waste and fraud in the Medicare and Medicaid programs (in just about every program in the US Government, but mostly in the Social programs)...
One of the thing that some do not realize is that we already have a Social Program designed to get medical help to those that need it. This is Social Security - which includes things like VA Benefits, Medicare, Medicaid, Disability, etc...
It would cost far less than $900 BILLION to fix this system and build in checks and balances to eliminate (or control) the amount of waste and fraud.
(another topic I might discuss here is the alternatives, like privatizing the whole Social Security program...)

But we suffer waste and fraud in any Insurance Program. You either get claims denied that shouldn't be, or you get things happening on the other end of the spectrum...

Insurance Won't Cover Smartphones, When Pricey Alternatives Exist
This article talks on the problems in the Insurance Industry, where a hand-held computer (or smart phone) can be used to accomplish the SAME TASKS as specialized equipment that might be Larger, Heavier, and (definitely) more expensive.
Yet, they are not willing to pay for the LESS EXPENSIVE option if the MORE EXPENSIVE option exists.

"... Kara Lynn has amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, or A.L.S., which has attacked the muscles around her mouth and throat, removing her ability to speak. A couple of years ago, she spent more than $8,000 to buy a computer, approved by Medicare, that turns typed words into speech that her family, friends and doctors can hear."
"...the PC...ran ordinary Microsoft Windows software"
"[but]...Under government insurance requirements...[it]...had to block any nonspeech functions, like sending e-mail or browsing the Web."
"...Dismayed by the PC’s limitations and clunky design, Ms. Lynn turned to a $300 iPhone 3G from Apple running $150 text-to-speech software."
"...Medicare and private health insurers decline to cover cheap devices like iPhones and netbook PCs that can help the speech-impaired, despite their usefulness and lower cost."
And the reasoning given?
"Insurance is supposed to cover medical devices, and smartphones or PCs can be used for nonmedical purposes, like playing video games or Web browsing."

DO WE REALLY WANT TO GIVE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CONTROL OVER OUR HEALTHCARE WHEN WASTE AND FRAUD ARE THE NORMAL??

(This Excerpt is provided for informational, educational, and discussion purposes only. It is Copyright "The New York Times", for the full article search The New York Times' web site or Google with the title of this article)

MI5 vs. Benjamin Franklin

When we look back in American History, we find a whole bunch of really smart, very intuitive individuals. These men, our Founding Fathers, had a good understanding of Human Nature. They created the Constitution after long debate, and added the Bill of Rights after to keep the balance (the balance between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists).
I love many of the quotes from our Founding Fathers...these men had lived through the tyranny of the Kings of England, and had lived in the Freedom offered in the Americas. When they chose to adopt themselves a New Country and become a UNION of FREE STATES, there was a reason to their madness.
One of the quotes, from Benjamin Franklin, describes Human Nature. When you hear, "somebody ought to do something" or "there ought to be a law"... that "somebody" should be YOU and that law should be proposed by YOU. This is YOUR Government, after all.
Benjamin Franklin said, "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
This is why we have the Second, Third, Fourth, Nineth, and Tenth Amendments...to provide for our protection: our personal protection, the protection of our homes and families, protection of our cities and states, protection from the Government...

When we give up these LIBERTIES, and ask someone else to provide for us, we deserve neither LIBERTY nor SAFETY.

Now, contrast that with what is going on in our country right now...and what is going on back in England...

MI5 head warns on civil liberties

Civil liberties may have to be "eroded" to protect Britons from terrorism, the head of security service MI5 has said.

...

(This Excerpt is provided for informational, educational, and discussion purposes only. It is Copyright "BBC", for the full article search BBC's web site or Google with the title of this article)

20 Things They Don't Want You to Know

I am still not sure who "they" are, but in this case, "they" are a LOT of different peoples...

20 Things They Don't Want You to Know

#01 - Your CPU May Be Much Faster Than You Think (that's why we Over-Clock)
#02 - You Never Have to Pay Full Price (Overstock.com, etc)
#03 - Faster Shipping Isn't Always Faster (if you live 3 days away by regular mail, why pay for 3 day express?)
#04 - You Can Kill Messenger
#05 - Extended Warranties Aren't Worth It
#06 - You Too Can Exploit Windows' Bad Security
#07 - You Can Save Big Money on Big-Name Software Packages
#08 - That Dead Pixel on Your LCD May Not Be Covered
#09 - Your Cell Phone's Been Crippled (ATT disables WiFi on phones so you have to buy the Internet Plan)
#10 - High-End Manufacturers Don't Always Make Their Products (there are really only 5 Laptop Manufacturers in the world...)
#11 - You Can Call Amazon, EBay, and Other Web Businesses
#12 - Security Center Can Be Muted
#13 - Game Consoles Are Hackable
#14 - You Can Use an IPod to Move Music
#15 - You Can Get a Human on the Phone
#16 - MP3 Players Run Down Too Fast
#17 - Useless Specs - Digital Zoom
#18 - Useless Specs - Response Time and Contrast for LCDs
#19 - Useless Specs - Speaker Wattage
#20 - Useless Specs - Burst Transfer Rate

http://pcworld.com/howto/article/0,aid,122094,pg,11,00.asp