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

Identity Theft: How to Avoid it, How to Fix it

How to avoid or fix identity theft

Here is a web site that has all kinds of good information on how to avoid or fix identity theft.

http://www.ou.edu/oupd/idtheft2.htm#VICTIM

The New American Slaves

Once upon a time, we used to work for a company until we retired. If we wanted to leave, the company would recognize our contributions and offer a raise, or other incentives to keep good employees.
Then the tech revolution happened, and now average life span at a job is 2 years.
This means that you might move to another job for more money, get RIFed, or fired so that someone cheaper can be hired...
However, the new tactic is to LOCK you into a job... WIth non-compete and non-disclosure agreements, they can pay you scraps, keep you unhappy, and keep you employed
If you try to leave, you had better hope that the new company is not in any way related to your previous job... i.e. if you work for Microsoft, you shouldn't (and maybe can't) work for any company with a computer...

Legal argument could hamper high-tech job-changers

Published: August 26, 2005, 12:29 PM PDT
By Ed Frauenheim
Staff Writer, CNET News.com

Buried in Microsoft's lawsuit against its former executive Kai-Fu Lee and Google is a legal doctrine that could make tech professionals shiver.

The high-profile dispute largely hinges on a noncompete agreement Lee signed with Microsoft. But in court filings, the software giant has also mentioned the theory of "inevitable disclosure," which holds that in some circumstances people can't avoid sharing or relying on trade secrets from their former employer when moving to a competitor.

Thanks to this increasingly popular legal argument, techies and other employees could be in for a surprise when they try to switch companies. In states that accept the inevitable disclosure concept, employers can sue defectors even if they've signed only a confidentiality agreement--or even if they haven't signed an employment agreement at all, said Robin Meadow, an attorney with the firm Greines Martin Stein & Richland.

...

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

School: Forum to Close Minds and Mouths

While they are still kids, I won't say much, as I believe that Rights, Responsibilities, and Priveleges are all something that you gain a little at a time, untill you hit the age of "adulthood" (between 18 and 21)...
However, I don't think it is up to the school system to take these matters into their hands...

Principal curbs kids' Internet activity

For their own good? Or a violation of free speech?
Posted by the Asbury Park Press on 10/24/05
BY LAURA BRUNO
GANNETT NEW JERSEY

When students post their faces, personal diaries and gossip on Web sites like Myspace.com and Xanga.com, it is not simply harmless teen fun, according to one Sussex County Catholic school principal.

It's an open invitation to predators and an activity that Pope John XIII Regional High School in Sparta will no longer tolerate, the Rev. Kieran McHugh told a packed assembly of 900 high school students two weeks ago.

Effective immediately, and over student complaints, the teens were told to dismantle their Myspace.com accounts or similar sites with personal profiles and blogs. Defy the order and face suspension, students were told.

...

Students, who asked to remain anonymous out of concern for disciplinary action, said the majority of the student body protested the new rule. They tried to argue that they have freedom of speech and the school should not control what they do at home.

...

One student, who identified himself as a senior who was expelled, wrote that "pope john kicks you out once you think freely."

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

Public Oversight, not just a Good Idea

We all knew it could happen...
Many knew it would happen...
Some even believed it was happening...
Here is the proof.
Why is it we would trust the Government to do ANYTHING if they cannot seem to provide proper Security and Oversight...
I propose PUBLIC Oversight Committees...keep the Government in Check ...

FBI Papers Indicate Intelligence Violations
Secret Surveillance Lacked Oversight

By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, October 24, 2005; Page A01

The FBI has conducted clandestine surveillance on some U.S. residents for as long as 18 months at a time without proper paperwork or oversight, according to previously classified documents to be released today.

Records turned over as part of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit also indicate that the FBI has investigated hundreds of potential violations related to its use of secret surveillance operations, which have been stepped up dramatically since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks but are largely hidden from public view.

...

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

Money in the Modern Era

Someone may complain, but I think I am going to include this article complete. The issue here is that we are potentially earning less now that we should.
I have been working in the Computer industry since 1992. Thats a good 13 years. However, I am making less now than I was in 2000-2001. I haven't had a pay increas of any kind on the job for the past 8 years...no raise, no cost of living increases.
Yet, everything seems to be more expensive now than it was those short years ago.
So when taken all together, I am making a LOT less than I was, because it simply costs more to live now.
Read on...it is interesting.

Salary Survey: Are Skimpy Raises the New Normal?
With another year of anemic 3% pay increases, it sure looks that way for most IT workers.

News Story by Stacy Collett

OCTOBER 24, 2005 (COMPUTERWORLD) -
Return to the Special Report

After five years as a LAN specialist at Albany International Corp. in Albany, N.Y., a $1 billion maker of manufacturing products for the paper industry, Stephen Noisseau found himself with a 4.1% raise in 2005. Last year's raise wasn't any better. Did he complain? Grumble over his coffee? Stage a coup d'etat with other IT staffers? Nope. He looked at the situation philosophically.

"I guess that's the way the cookie crumbles," Noisseau says. "I'll take 4% over nothing. We're getting basically cost-of-living raises."

Where's the anger? The passion? The boiling point that IT employees were so close to reaching in 2004 when salaries then rose just 3%?

Perhaps repetition breeds resignation.

For the fourth year in a row, IT workers across the board received only modest raises -- their pay increased by an average of just 3% in 2005, matching last year's average salary increase, according to Computerworld's 19th Annual Salary Survey, which studied the compensation and bonuses of 14,253 IT workers. (To see results by job title and geographic region, use our interactive Smart Salary Tool. For key statistics in chart format, head to the Salary Snapshots page. There are detailed senior management, middle management and staff/entry-level results online. You can also download full results in PowerPoint format.)

IT raises still lagged slightly behind the average of about 3.2% for all U.S. workers as reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. While the majority of respondents (69%) said their 2004 base salary increased from one year ago, 31% experienced either no change in salary or had their pay cut.

The Good News

So here we are, another flat year. But there is some good news. Bonuses increased 2.8% in 2005, compared with 1% last year. Is that enough to keep employees happy? Apparently so, according to the survey. When asked about their overall satisfaction with their jobs, 63% of the respondents said they were either "very satisfied" or "satisfied." Only 18% expressed dissatisfaction.

Are cost-of-living-only raises the new normal? Some industry analysts say yes, at least for now. "A return to normalcy has clearly happened over the last few years," explains David Van De Voort, global leader of the IT Workforce Effectiveness group at Mercer Human Resource Consulting LLC in Chicago. The Internet bust, the subsequent slow economic recovery and the move toward outsourcing have kept salary increases low and employees relatively quiet about lackluster pay raises.
"All that special treatment that IT people were getting [before Y2k and Web-enabling] just stopped -- the high pay raises, the special bonuses," Van De Voort explains. "Many employers didn't even bother to explain it, and [employees] didn't squeal," for fear that their jobs might be outsourced to lower-paid workers. Nearly half (48%) of all respondents said that their organizations outsource work.

One project manager at a prominent East Coast financial company knows that fear. "During Y2k, the company was lucky to get any [new IT hires]. When they found somebody who knew what they were doing, they treated them with respect and made them part of the team." Now the sentiment toward IT employees has changed. "Senior management says, 'If you don't like the work, we'll get somebody in India to do it.' The computer people are seen more as part of the technology rather than part of the human resource," says the project manager, who asked not to be named.

The good news is the trend toward offshoring has slowed a bit as companies have become more aware of the quality of work and technical support they receive from overseas workers, says Van De Voort. "The whole offshoring dynamic feels a little less pressing than a year ago. But I think domestic outsourcing will continue to be a factor," he says.

Many Already Feel Well Compensated

Christina Shoppell was hired as a Web developer at Providence, R.I.-based Care New England Health System at the height of the tech boom in early 2000. She normally receives a 7% annual raise, and that's OK with her. "I started out with a great salary. The bubble hadn't burst yet," says Shoppell, who is now a senior Web developer. Other Web developers haven't fared nearly as well this year, with an average pay increase of 2.5%, according to the survey.

Increases were about the same at all levels: The average salary for a middle IT manager in 2005 is $90,691, up from $88,208 last year. Senior IT managers earn an average of $129,835, up from $126,130 in 2004.

Todd Caughey, an IT manager at Harvey Vogel Manufacturing Co. in Woodbury, Minn., saw his pay increase just 2% this year. "I know I'm pretty well in line with the industry," says the eight-year veteran. "As long as I keep up with inflation, I'm just fine. There are a lot of other factors in job satisfaction."
The worst is over for Drummond Co. in Birmingham, Ala. Over the past four years, the $800 million coal mining company decreased its budget by 20%. Now business is picking up, and IT staffers received a 3.6% pay raise. "I can't say there's anybody who doesn't want their salary to accelerate faster," says CIO John Fallis. "As a company, we've been doing very well. While salaries haven't reflected that, the bonuses have."

Fallis gave his direct reports bonuses equal to 7% to 9% of their annual pay this year. Lower-level staffers received about 5%.

The average size of bonuses reported by survey respondents this year was 2.8%, up from 1% in 2004. "As companies continue to struggle with their ability to meet employee needs within their fixed-cost budgets, they are looking to variable pay like signing bonuses, spot cash awards and project milestone awards" to reward employees, says Steven E. Gross, leader of Mercer's Employee Rewards business.

Less Stress, More Security

The major stress-inducing factors affecting IT workers all dropped slightly this year. Fewer than half of our survey takers (47%) reported that they find their jobs "stressful" or "very stressful." That's high but lower than last year's 52%. Meanwhile, 57% indicated they were "very secure" or "secure" in their jobs, up two percentage points from 2004.

"For me, the stress level is very low," says Albany International's Noisseau. "The company closed a couple of plants over the last two years. But they're done with that for the foreseeable future. I feel very secure."

Some employees say they don't mind a bigger workload, as long as it's stress-free. At Care New England Health System, the Web development workload is heavy. "There's a backlog of requests, but not so much stress because people are willing to wait," Shoppell says. "They just don't have the same expectations in the health care industry as in the corporate world," where deadlines are more difficult to maneuver, she explains.

"Pent-up demand for development work makes employees think, 'My company needs me.' They haven't been feeling that for a while," says Van De Voort.

At Drummond, budget cuts were driven by the IT department, which eliminated all of the company's mainframes, got rid of consultants and streamlined operations. "We were able to eliminate costs, upgrade technology, which employees love, and we got a bunch of new toys that we really like working with," Fallis says.

Get used to the new normal, at least for now, says Van De Voort. When it comes to salaries, "IT is like everybody else and probably will be until the economy improves," he says. "That may have been starting to happen, but we now have some general concerns on the economy with oil prices and other things.

"The IT workforce and concerns about being able to recruit IT professionals will be a leading indicator of real economic recovery, because we know that there is some pent-up need for IT work."

Collett is a Computerworld contributing writer. Contact her at stcollett@aol.com.

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

Shouldn't someone investigate Microsoft's business model?

The Microsoft Protection Racket

I worked for M$, and when I did, I realized that Microsoft is not interested in providing you with the best OS at the best or a reasonable price, they are only interested in taking your money, and keeping you on the hook.
This is why they ship with known bugs, and they use anti-competitive practices in their marketing to computer companies.
They have been slapped for more violations of the Antitrust laws than just about any other company I can think of, yet, what do we do...???
I say, MOVE TO LINUX...but that is me...

10.10.05
Dvorak

By John C. Dvorak

Does Microsoft think it is going to get away with charging real money for any sort of add-on, service, or new product that protects clients against flaws in its own operating system? Does the existence of this not constitute an incredible conflict of interest? Why improve the base code when you can sell "protection"? Is Frank Nitti the new CEO?

So what is actually going on here? I think there were some bottom-line questions that must have been brought up internally. Obviously someone at Microsoft looked at the expense of "patch Tuesday" and asked, "Is there any way we can make some money with all these patches?" The answer was "Yeah, let's stop doing them and sell 'protection' instead." Bravo! And now the company has a new revenue stream.

Microsoft has stayed away from the antivirus, antispyware game for a long time because it knew that there was this inherent conflict of interest unless it gave away such software for free. After all, the exploits utilized by malware are possible because of flaws within the Microsoft code base. There is no incentive to fix the code base if it can make additional money selling "protection."

It was also obvious that Microsoft was so far behind the curve with antivirus software that it would embarrass itself if it entered that game, although it did quietly come up to speed over the years. But that still begs the question: Why protect the users when you can fix the code?

Therein lies the rub. Microsoft cannot fix the code—that's the point. It apparently cannot be done. Get over it. And when the spyware epidemic appeared, the company had to throw in the towel. Spyware exploits the basic architecture of the operating system, and no amount of patches will change that. A barrier has to be erected that changes the way the computer works, by monitoring things more aggressively.

I use a utility called Prevx [link: www.prevx.com], a host-intrusion protection system, as well as one or two other antispyware packages to keep the stuff at bay. And it still sneaks in once in a while. Most recently, I forgot to turn off my CUTEftp client and left it running all night. In the morning some system had loaded some weird software called "active skin," and I had to use SpySubtract to remove 26 Registry entries. Exactly how anything manages to worm in through the open port and place items in the Registry is beyond me, but it happens all the time.

Not to change the subject, but isn't it about time we junked the entire concept of a "registry?" This concept has been the bane of Windows since its invention. It prevents easy program migration. It creates conflicts. It invites tampering. It's exploited by viruses and spyware. Why does Microsoft insist on continuing its use? There has to be a better way.

Now if all this new protection software is Microsoft's way of throwing in the towel and admitting that it has failed to secure the OS and cannot guarantee that it will ever secure the OS, then why isn't it simply included with the Windows XP package in the first place? Seriously, I do not get this.

Microsoft talks about how when it releases Vista, there will be various versions such as Home, Small Business, Enterprise, and so on. Why doesn't the company just bite the bullet and bring out various exploitable versions? Here are some suggestions:

Vista – Won't Boot Edition… $29.95
Vista – Preloaded with Viruses and Spyware Edition… $39.95
Vista – Initially Clean but Use at Your Own Risk Edition… $49.95
Vista – Clean with Firewall and Weekly Protection Update Edition… $200

You get the idea. How about this for a concept: One Version that Works Edition.

John C. Dvorak.

(This Excerpt is provided for informational, educational, and discussion purposes only. It is Copyright "John C. Dvorak", for the full article search Google with the title of this article)

CyberSecurity in the hands of Government

Figures..."make the world safer for us" but they neglect themselves...
Like everything the Government touches, there seem to be glaring holes, lazyness, lack of original thought, greed and a whole host of other factors that contribute to the following problems...yes, lets put the Government in charge of everything...NOT!

U.S. cybersecurity due for FEMA-like calamity?

By Declan McCullagh and Anne Broache
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
Published: October 10, 2005, 4:00 AM PDT

In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, the Federal Emergency Management Agency has been fending off charges of responding sluggishly to a disaster.

Is the cybersecurity division next?

Like FEMA, the U.S. government's cybersecurity functions were centralized under the Department of Homeland Security during the vast reshuffling that cobbled together 22 federal agencies three years ago.

Auditors had warned months before Hurricane Katrina that FEMA's internal procedures for handling people and equipment dispatched to disasters were lacking. In an unsettling parallel, government auditors have been saying that Homeland Security has failed to live up to its cybersecurity responsibilities and may be "unprepared" for emergencies.

What's new:
The Department of Homeland Security's cybersecurity unit has been criticized by advocacy groups, security experts and government auditors for not meeting responsibilities. Should the nation face a cybercatastrophe, critics say, the division may be no better at dealing with attacks than FEMA was at handling Hurricane Katrina.

Bottom line:
The House has passed a bill that would create an assistant secretary for cybersecurity, streamlining the division's ability to respond to emergencies. But the legislation still awaits action in the Senate. Meanwhile, the division continues to see top-level staff depart.

...

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

Anything to Silence Critics and Wistle-blowers

I don't know how they plan to suspend the 1st Amendment for citizens of this country. I didn't realize that you had to be a journalist to be protected by the 1st amendment.

"Bloggers" may not be eligible for Shield Law protection

10/12/2005 9:56:55 AM, by Ken "Caesar" Fisher

#Senator Richard Lugar (R.-Ind.) recently revealed that so-called bloggers would "probably not" be considered journalists by the Free Flow of Information Act of 2005, which will include provisions detailing "shield law" protections for journalists. In effect, this could mean that it will be open season on those pesky bloggers once this bill passes.

According to the first draft of the Free Flow of Information Act of 2005, the "covered person" protected by the bill's terms includes "any entity that disseminates information by print, broadcast, cable, satellite, mechanical, photographic, electronic, or other means and that publishes a newspaper, book, magazine, or other periodical in print or electronic form; operates a radio or television station (or network of such stations), cable system, or satellite carrier, or channel or programming service for any such station, network, system, or carrier; or operates a news agency or wire service." The legislation also covers employees, contractors or other persons who "gathers, edits, photographs, records, prepares, or disseminates news or information for any such entity."

Lugar did say that he expects plenty of debate on the matter, but added "Are bloggers journalists or some of the commercial businesses that you here would probably not consider real journalists? Probably not, but how do you determine who will be included in this bill?"

(This Excerpt is provided for informational, educational, and discussion purposes only. It is Copyright "Ken "Caesar" Fisher", for the full article search Google with the title of this article)

Why don't the Anti-Trust settlements REDUCE our tax?

Another incident where we were being gouged by the big corporations. Yet, what good has the anti-trust suits done for us? It is the government who will get all the 646 million, not us...
Why can't we apply that money to reducing our taxes, it is, after all, "Government Income" (just like taxes...)

US says Samsung to plead guilty, pay $300 mln

Thu Oct 13, 2005 1:08 PM ET

#WASHINGTON, Oct 13 (Reuters) - South Korea's Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. (005930.KS: Quote, Profile, Research) has agreed to plead guilty to charges of price-fixing and pay a $300 million fine as part of a federal investigation into the computer memory chip industry, U.S. antitrust authorities said on Thursday.

The Justice Department said the $300 million was the second-largest criminal antitrust fine in U.S. history.

Samsung and its U.S. subsidiary were accused by the U.S. Justice Department of conspiring with other chip makers, between April 1999 and June 2002, to fix the prices of memory chips sold to some computer and server manufacturers.

...

The Justice Department said fines totaling more than $646 million have resulted from the department's investigation.

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

And on the same note, why doesn't the money from other corporate settlements go to the "victims" or the "consumers" that were affected by the corporation's idiocy?
Comcast Pays Out $16M In P2P Throttling Suit

Do the right thing, get the shaft

Monday, October 03, 2005
A Skeptic Under Pressure

It figures. Someone does the right thing, and gets a load of crap for it.
I have worked in the Computer (Hardware and Software) for more than 10 years, and when I pose concerns, they are usually ignored.
However, this concern is about people's lives. Someone should listen.

A U.S. engineer faces bankruptcy and arrest in Austria as he questions the safety of a component in the huge Airbus A380 jetliner.

By Peter Pae, Times Staff Writer

VIENNA — Ever since the Mangans gave up their comfortable house in Kansas City, Kan., and moved here a year ago, the family has been living in a kind of suspended animation.

...

Joseph Mangan, 41, is a whistle-blower. As a result he and his family find themselves in a foreign country with unfamiliar laws, fighting a legal battle that has left them almost penniless.

A year ago, Mangan told European aviation authorities that he believed there were problems with a computer chip on the Airbus A380, the biggest and costliest commercial airliner ever built. The A380 is a double-decked engineering marvel that will carry as many as 800 passengers — double the capacity of Boeing Co.'s 747. It is expected to enter airline service next year.

Mangan alleges that flaws in a microprocessor could cause the valves that maintain cabin pressure on the A380 to accidentally open during flight, allowing air to leak out so rapidly that everyone aboard could lose consciousness within seconds.

...

Mangan is getting ready to file for personal bankruptcy.

TTTech has offered to drop its legal action against Mangan, court records show, and pay him three months of severance, if he retracts his statements. But Mangan has refused.

...

(This Excerpt is provided for informational, educational, and discussion purposes only. It is Copyright "owner/writer", for the full article search Google with the title of this article)

The People Vs. Common Sense

The People Vs. Common Sense
10/03/2005

by jkdove on 10/03/2005

Throughout much of the world today, mass media is prevalent to such a degree that it has become a cultural influence as deep as our languages and ethnic histories. The multifarious mediums through which human beings extend their inner being, their very sense of personal identity, are a teeming tangle of noise in the airwaves along which this "Age of Information" extends its influence into our homes, our minds, and our lives. Since the dawn of the human ability to create media as a means to communicate or simply to visualize the poignant tide of human thought, we have suffered the criticism of our fellow inhabitants within our communities. While endeavoring to bequeath our exclusive equities unto the world, we are often chagrined by remonstrations designed to terminate what many believe to be our God-given right to pursue. Parallel to the advent of society, there have been laws and law makers, empowered by militant services and the citizenry of which they are comprised, created and enforced to impose the will of the commonality. Parallel to that have been those who questioned whether or not those in power are in fact speaking for the commonalty and to what ends.

AND SO IT BEGINS

Allow me to present Michigan SB-0416, the latest attempt by the American government to protect the well being of its citizens from the cultural influence spawned from the very citizens which it seeks to protect. By the statute of ethical journalism, it should be duly stated that SB-0416 has been enacted to identify, protect against and subsequently prosecute those found in violation of committing willful acts of "dissemination of certain ultra-violent explicit matter to minors" [1]. While it is difficult for many to reasonably argue that the children of this country should be excluded from partaking in adult material, the State of Michigan, or more specifically, Senator Alan Cropsey, has found it necessary to deem these violations liable to civil and criminal penalties. The question is then raised as to why the video game industry has been singled out by both the States of Michigan and Illinois, to the point of spending the taxpayers money to combat an issue which is argued against by experts from both sides of the coin. California may soon become the third state to follow suit, though perhaps the inertia of such a decision is strengthened by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and his close ties to the entertainment industry, particularly that of his body of work within the film industry.

The aspects of the Michigan law that are most demonstrative of the commutative nature of the American people are those that hold certain individuals liable under civil and criminal penalties. The question raised among analysts, lawyers, and journalists alike is why the movie theatres of America are not held to the same standards. A statement on the issue by Douglas Lowenstein, President of the Entertainment Software Association, brings to light the very heart of the issue:

"It is illogical that video games would be treated more harshly than R-rated movies or music CDs with parental warning labels, both of which can be legally viewed and sold to minors. How can you treat a video game based on James Bond any different than a book or movie based on the same subject matter?"

The ESA, operating with the full support of the gaming industry, will soon file suit against Michigan Governor Jennifer M. Granholm, on the basis that "similar laws were previously found unconstitutional and thrown out in St. Louis, Indianapolis, and Washington State, costing taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees"[2]. Though we can only speculate that the decision to sue Michigan and not Illinois rests on the enactment of civil and criminal penalties, we cannot say for certain that a follow up lawsuit will not follow in the event of the law being overturned. The Governor's and Senator's Office could not be reached for questioning by their own constituents here at GamerGod.

The Motion Picture Association of America instituted the ratings system on November 1, 1968, in order to address the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in April of 1968, which upheld "the constitutional power of the states and cities to prevent the exposure of children to books and films that could not be denied to adults." The effective result was that movie theatres across American did indeed put these ratings to use by disallowing minors access to films that were off limits to children. The main contradiction today is that movie theatres, their owners, and their employees are not held liable, dictating fines must be paid for violations, as no such laws exist.

Let us pause at the MPAA ratings for a moment, and fast forward to 1994 and the induction of the Interactive Digital Software Association, now known as the Entertainment Software Ratings Board, or ERSB, into the halls of parental guidance history. The goal of the ERSB is to enforce ratings, advertising guidelines, and online privacy principles adopted by the computer and video game industry, primarily by assigning ratings to video games much like those the MPAA applies to the film industry. Much like the MPAA ratings, the ERSB ratings were put into place to arm the parents with the tools they would need to protect their children from inadvertently partaking in games that should rightly be marketed and sold to adults. Until the Illinois law went into effect, the public appeared to manage rearing their children just fine on their own. Law makers such as Senator Alan Cropsey, given the amount of thought, time, and taxpayer money that has gone into enacting laws that allow for punitive repercussions, have gone to great lengths to insinuate that parents have indeed failed their children by allowing them to do as little as glimpse at the packaging in which violent video games are sold. Is it that those parents are not doing their part, or that the ERSB has failed to properly warn parents about products which are appropriate for their children? Douglas Lowenstein provides some insight into this when he issued the following statement:

"We reject any suggestion that parents cannot trust ESRB ratings. In fact, a scientific national survey by the highly regarded Peter D. Hart Research shows parents themselves agree with the ESRB ratings 83% of the time. Further, even the National Institute on Media and the Family (NIMF) usually agrees with the ESRB. In fact, for the 10 games recently highlighted and rated on its web site, the NIMF ratings almost always agree with the ESRB rating. In a pluralistic society, any rating system which gets it right 83% of the time is doing a pretty good job."

It is one thing for any journalist to dig through the mountains of facts, papers, statements, laws, publications, laws, and red tape in order to determine which side has the greener grass, who is right and who is wrong. The real meat of the story lies within the real life stories of the parents and their children, in both this day and age and before the laws of Michigan and Illinois. In this particular debate, I found it imperative to seek out real life, everyday people in order to give credence to the claim within another of Douglas Lowenstein and the ESA's statements:

"We also disagree with those who suggest that violent video games are harmful. The most objective science in the world from the U.S. Surgeon General, the State of Washington Health Department, and the Government of Australia, among many others, has not found that games cause actual aggression or real-life violence."

PEOPLE LIKE YOU AND ME?

While researching the intricacies of behavioral modification theory through excessive exposure to violent video games for the Grand Theft America - When Parents Stop Parenting article, I came across a wealth of information which provided insight to the possibility that children could be effected in a number of ways. One theory states that that cognitive perception of the morality of "right" and "wrong" could be distorted in the very core of our brains during adolescent and pre-adolescent development. Another theory stated that repetitive acts of simulated violent behavior could not be determined to be the primary motivator for a violent adulthood. There is little evidence to suggest viewing blindfolded bondage scenes, drug users weighing drugs on scales, scantily clad warrior women wielding swords, drive by shootings, hangings, electrocutions, and exploitation of the female gender have been found to be influential in rise of crime statistics.

I spoke to the youngest of two brothers raised in a household headed by parents who worked full time throughout the week and saw very little of their children on the weekends. On any given weekday or weekend, the lack of socialization with their parents could have been the result of them "running wild in the streets," as he so fondly recalled, or his own self-imposed solitary confinement within his room, delving deep into another world which existed in either books or video games. He read heavy science fiction as a child and moved into Stephen King's Pet Sematary at age nine, given to him by his mother. He played Dungeons and Dragons from age ten and his preference of video games was anything with a plethora of swords, destruction, explosions, violence, and destruction. The games and literature were either provided by the parents or known to them from their children having been exposed to them outside of the home and telling the parents at the dinner table. He told me his brother, for the most part, spent a great deal of time in nature, playing with friends, climbing trees, and catching lizards. The older brother's devotion to video games fell unto those of good old fashioned American sports condoned by millions of parents; football and boxing.

Though he could not tell me at which point it became apparent, there became a noticeable difference in the two as the years went by. The older brother became increasing violent and prone to criminal acts of destruction, theft and violence, dropped out of middle school, eventually serving several years in a state penitentiary for his crimes. The younger brother joined the military and went on to become a Chef, creating artful delights and serving people in order to see the smile on their faces. Both brothers are in their thirties now and while each still enjoys video games, the older brother has developed severe social anxieties, leaving his house only to work; the youngest is an avid MMORPG player and active in his community.

After hearing this story, I simply noted the proof that two different people growing up in the same household with two different preferences for after school and weekend activities can produce two entirely different outcomes in their lives. This, however, was simply not enough.

I endeavored to dig deeper, to see how the other side lived, to find a different perspective, one that had the potential to be affected by the laws taking root in our land. In order to do that, I spoke to a couple from Michigan with flair for individuality expressed though what some consider an "alternative" lifestyle: working mostly at home and home schooling their three children, ages 3-8. The father works within the gaming industry, the mother in education. By all accounts from speaking with the mother and father separately, their children are nothing short of exemplary. They are well spoken and well behaved, and yet, low and behold, are exposed to video games on nearly a daily basis, even violent video games such as Halo. The eight year old is allowed to play the video game with the father present, all the while being taught the difference between right and wrong, and always within limited play times. They are not exposed to sexually graphic games such as Grand Theft Auto's Hot Coffee mod. They enjoy an active social life with other children their age through sports, music, and dance lessons. These children seem destined to be model citizens, though this is no indication they will not become dangerous elements of society in their later years. Odds are stacked in their favor though as these parents are doing the one thing that all parents can do to avoid allowing the influence of the everyday world to scar the minds of their children: stay involved.

CAN THERE BE EXPLANATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION?

Aside from reviewing the lives of real people who somehow managed their way through life before these laws, the primary issues that we as citizens should examine and question are those defined within the laws themselves. The following questions need to be answered before any of us can truly understand why our money was spent to further the crusade of select religiously motivated fat cats who deign to impose their concept of parental guidance and care upon us: Why are we holding the owners and employers of video game retailers under different laws than those that govern the movie industry? If the studies which the legislation used are based on video games, why are all devices which can be classified as "computers" held liable? Are we to charge every single retail outlet owner and employee in America with the duty of scouring for pornography and violent material in order to avoid paying increasingly excessive fines? Given that the average person who is likely to be selling one of these "obscene" games makes ten cents above the federal minimum wage, how are they to even pay the fine? Since the law really only prosecutes those who absolutely knowingly push the material to kids they have with full knowledge and verification that they are under age, who does this law actually pertain to? Does the existence of a few individuals among hundreds of millions warrant the need for us to spend money and time debating? Did the politicians who have either signed these laws or considering them forget about comic books, bugs bunny, cops and robbers, cowboys and Indians (which actually happened by those who built this nation by carving a bloody trail through history)? Have we made absolute certain books and movies are not degrading the minds of our children and video games and all computerized representation of violent and sexual acts are the cause of an increase of depraved sociopaths? Are we to head down to every single corner drug store, mall shop, retail outlet, Wal-Mart, Best Buy, and gas station in a mad witch hunt for deviant employees seeking to peddle their way into infamy using digital crack? Why didn't the politicians respond to our questions before they spent our money and put into effect a punitive law that clearly states they have decided that we are not able to protect our own children to the point of hunting down retail clerks for restitution? Where will the money go if any is ever indeed collected?

WE HOLD THESE TRUTHS TO BE SELF-EVIDENT

The letters of the laws simply fail to define in no uncertain circumstances why they are being enacted, given that parents have the full right to give these games to their children if they so choose to do so. If that wasn't strange enough, it is perfectly legal for their seventeen year old siblings, who are by definition of the law in every single state in the U.S., minors themselves, to give the game to siblings with no penalty. The laws do not provide for the ability to apply forensic culpability to any single, supposed offender of a law that, when examined closely, serves to do little more than create resume filler for the politicians. Since the inception of the laws that govern the United States, we have to enact a law that can protect our children from the outside world if we fail to take an active part in their development, their daily activities, and quite simply, their lives. Frankly, I haven't found many citizens of this country who believe it takes a half naked, scale toting, blind folded, sword wielding matriarch of judgement empowered with the right to capital punishment to tell us that now.

Sources:
1. "Disseminate" means to sell, lend, give, exhibit, show, or allow to examine or to offer or agree to do the same. [from Michigan SB-0416] 2. ESA Press release http://www.theesa.com/archives/2005/09/video_game_indu_2.php

Judge Orders 17-Year-Old Girl Not To Have Sex

Saturday, October 01, 2005
Judge Orders 17-Year-Old Girl Not To Have Sex

I think this judge is doing what is needed, especially with those that use sex to get drugs. She is, after all, a MINOR...
There are those that will disagree with me, but I think the judge is moving in the right direction!

POSTED: 9:16 am CDT September 30, 2005

SHERMAN, Texas -- No sex. That's part of a sentence imposed on a 17-year-old girl by Texas state district judge Lauri Blake.

She's ordered the young drug offender not have sex as long as she is living with her parents and attending school, as a condition of her probation.

It is one of several unorthodox rulings Judge Lauri Blake has imposed since she was elected 10 months ago in the district court that covers Fannin and Grayson counties.

She has also prohibited tattoos, body piercings, earrings and clothing "associated with the drug culture" for those on probation.

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