Flibbertigibbet

October 31, 2003

Life Lessons in the News

CNN: Man drops cell phone in train toilet, jams arm
Do not reach into a New York City public toilet for anything.

CNN: Girls pummel man who exposed himself
Do not flash the Little Lady Ninja Academy. (Props to Angelweave)

CNN: Madonna: Ben 'n' Jen to blame for frenzy
Occasionally, Madonna displays remarkable perspicacity, but mostly not.

CNN: RNC asks to review 'The Reagans'
Republicans really are pretty uppity most of the time and some times they're down-right nuts.

CNN: High school quarterback honors his code
Justice and honesty are still alive. Bless him.

CNN: FDA: Food from animal clones safe to eat
If you're going to act based on faith and ignorance, don't bother with science at all.

Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at 03:14 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Category: In the News
Post contains 124 words, total size 1 kb.

Sondra Day O'Conner: Obvious. Stupid. Appointed for Life.

This is kind of old news, I think because I'm usually the last to know, but I came across this article by way of Absinthe & Cookies and I am compelled to comment.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor predicts that the U.S. Supreme Court will increasingly base its decisions on international law rather than the U.S. Constitution, according to an article in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.
By doing so, the court will make a good impression among people from other countries, she said.

Can someone please go pull Justice O'Conner and explain to her that this is A-MER-I-CA? When we set this whole America gig up it was for the expressed purpose of NOT being under the law of another country and it would reasonable to assume that the notion extends to being free of any combination of countries.

Isn't there some saying about not being able to serve two masters?

I would also like to point out that this notion of "international law" doesn't actually exist. What we call international law is barely a set of rules that most countries agree to enforce so long as it suits them, which means that countries agree to break them when it suits them as well.

Madam O'Conner would do well to review the Declaration of Independence again to develop a more solid understanding of why it was we declared our independence in the first place and what it means to do so.

Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at 12:24 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Category: In the News
Post contains 245 words, total size 2 kb.

October 30, 2003

Let's All Go Out After Work And Rev Our SUV's in the Parking Lot Just For the Sake of Using More Gas

CNN: The politics of getting around campus

CNN continues to frollick in the Land of Loud-mouthed Leftist Loonies. I realize that people just going about their business, making money, paying their bills, and finding general bliss in their lives here in modern America isn't really newsworthy. But I’m not one to entertain the mewling hippies out there who would sooner get high than earn a paycheck.

I just want to comment briefly on some of the text from the article.

SUVs get blamed for worsening traffic, guzzling gas, and endangering bike riders who have to share the road with them.

I realize that CNN is not making this assertion. Here CNN is just saying that some folks make these complaints. MY complaint is that these are not worthwhile complaints.

SUVs do not worsen traffic or endanger bike riders any more than an equivalent number of cars would accomplish. Poor driving endangers bike riders (and everyone else!) here in Athens. The same is true for traffic problems which come as a result of a combination of factors including the number of cars, the skill with which their drivers are able to negotiate the streets and even the layout of streets, but not by virtue of the size of cars or the number of SUVs. We're talking about a college town where most of the people on the road are fairly young and inexperienced motorists. Needless to say traffic, along with accidents, increase during the regular school year.

As for the guzzling of gas, perhaps, they do. But is that a characteristic exclusive to SUVs? I really doubt it. Let us take a brief excursion (PUN ALERT!) into the realm of fuel efficiency. A quick review of the data reveals that pick-up trucks along with vans are generally less efficient than SUVs. Why aren't they vandalized? And according to that same site, the most efficient stationwagon is comparable to the most efficient SUV as well. Further still, considering the least efficient of all vehicles, it is a couple of sports cars that "win," not some SUV.

So, what's up with that, criminales environmentalensis? Were your hands so tired after scratching up SUVs that you just couldn't make it to the other cars or were you just overwhelmed by a fit of stupidity?

Some students even go as far as linking large vehicles to the war in Iraq, arguing that the big cars' fuel tanks increase the United States' dependence on foreign oil.

Briefly, one of the ideas communicated here that irks me here is in the word "dependence." (I do not want to talk about oil and the war in Iraq, although given the facts I’m discussing here, you should be able to draw your own conclusion about how that discussion would run.) Please note that owning an SUV does not cripple you. Your legs work just fine which leaves you open to all sorts of options for getting around should the SUV or all gasoline-powered vehicles fail you. Perhaps I'm just being picky, but I am not dependent upon much of anything. Then again, I am a pretty resilient individualist, which happens to also be the reason why I’d buy an SUV if I wanted.

Because I can and I want to.

Christopher Ingham, on the other hand, says he doesn't condone ecoterrorism, but believes "Sometimes you've got to do what you've got to do."

I am going to optimistically assume that this sentence is simply poorly constructed because if I read it properly, then Mr. Ingham DOES condone ecoterrorism as a class of activity that ”sometimes you’ve got to do.” For all appearances, I needn’t worry about Mr. Ingham’s judgment on much of anything because all I have to do to justify any frivolous or heinous activity, I have only to establish my need. (Can’t some say they NEED to go off-roading and haul a lot of gear, thus an SUV is the only appropriate vehicle?) Since I don’t know him, I would prefer to give young Mr. Ingham more credit than I would a silly marxist.

As the world's petroleum resources grow thin, Goodrum says…

As a rule of thumb, it is a good idea to consider the premises behind any argument. Here, the argument to seek out alternative fuels is based upon the assumption that the world’s petroleum resources are growing thin. As I understand it, that’s not exactly true, is it? Among those who would make proclamations about such and have a strong economic incentive to be right, world petroleum resources are characterized as abundant?

Allow me to quickly state my point of view on alternatives fuels: I’m tired of fossil fuels. We can do better. But until we do, I’m fine pumping gas. But I digress…

"I personally feel like the alternative fuel vehicle is a patch, a Band Aid solution to a larger problem," says Jacob Lindsey, the club's (Students for New Urbanism) vice president. "It is the automobile itself that creates mobility and many of the social inequities we have in the United States."

Not everyone can have everything. Scarcity is just a concept in economics that reflects a fact of reality. For some reason these kids think this is actually a problem as if we should go around trying to change the fact that there is a finite amount of matter and energy in the universe. It’s the same problem that communists face: Wealth is created, not harvested.

Those who would mind their own business and enjoy life are telling all those slackers to sit down and shut up already.

Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at 09:49 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Category: In the News
Post contains 944 words, total size 6 kb.

October 27, 2003

Badass Alert

'Iceman' Grabs Shark to Save Men

Captain Sigurdur Petursson, known to locals as "the Iceman," ran into the shallow water and grabbed the shark by its tail. He dragged it off to dry land and killed it with his knife.

Now, that is what I'm talkin' about.

Hot!

Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at 03:28 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Category: In the News
Post contains 49 words, total size 1 kb.

October 26, 2003

You Have GOT To Be Joking

I am incensed and incredulous about those who actually believe and, even worse, say OUT LOUD that they believe that the United States sponsored, orchestrated, or planned the 9/11/2001 attack.

That is one of the most profoundly stupid things that could possibly be uttered.

Tell me, do these same people think that Britain paid the Nazis to bomb Dresden? Would these knuckle-heads be willing to go on record as also being of the mind that the millions who have died at the hands of dictators like Kim Jong Il, the Shah of Iran, and Nigeria’s string of tyrants like Sese Seko or Zimbabwe’s Mugabe were just asking for it?

That’s right. I went to the ad hominem because this argument is well outside the reaches of rational debate and civility. Anyone who seriously believes that idea deserves to be escorted to the border – preferably one of the deep ones.

I linked to it before, but I didn’t get my rant in earlier so here it is again. This line is the one that inspired this post:

About 20 percent of all Germans -- and one in three younger than 30 -- believe that the United States sponsored the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to provoke a war.

And I again want to mention that the use of the F! Bomb there is entirely appropriate. Be ye forewarned.

Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at 07:47 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Category: In the News
Post contains 232 words, total size 1 kb.

October 23, 2003

What's To Be Done With All These Haters?

Atlanta Journal-Constitution: Hate crime defendant sentenced to 8 years in prison

Anyone who knows me may not exactly catch the vapors to know that I am opposed to hate crime legislation, but I did want to take a moment to mention it here for the enlightenment of all the world.

Frankly, all crimes are hate crimes. Just because you are REALLY upset this time at how bad someone is beaten or killed and you can't believe that there are people living today who would beat or kill other folks while simultaneously not respecting their race, religion, sexuality, eye color, age, percent body fat, number of factors in their social security number, or GPA in Star Fleet Academy, does not mean that we should give them special treatment.

Of course I'm raising an eyebrow over why you didn't care as much the last time someone was beaten or killed, but I don't want to make a big issue of that.

It's just that beating and/or killing someone for non-self-defense reasons is pretty much a crime no matter who you ask. There really isn't any sense in punishing those who have poorly-chosen ideologies or simply don't possess the self-control not to utter epithets while committing the act of violence any worse than you would otherwise.

If you want to lock someone away for longer, go for it. I won't stop you.

Speaking as a person and not from my built-in-the-European-Union pedestal of Oppressed Minority-ship, I want to say that if I am beaten or killed, I would prefer that they be beaten or killed back. But due to the mundane nature of most of our punishments in this country, I will also accept the greatest amount of punishment afforded by the law.

If the law says, "Vandalizing Trey's property is punishable by life in a nice prison or life in an unpleasant prison," I want the criminal put in the unpleasant prison for life.

If the law says, "Beating or killing Trey is punishable by death by electrocution or death by lethal injection," I would prefer slow electrocution and then lethal injection for good measure, if some judicial discretion is allowed.

It's just that all people are granted equal protection under the law. Hate crime legislation actually affords some people a little more protection under the law.

Now, you might be thinking, "Laws don't really protect anyone. They really just outline the consequences for not following the rules." And I understand what you mean: Punishments for crimes certainly are not intended to deter anyone from committing crimes. They're just meant right the scales of Justice. An eye for an eye, if you will.

I might be tempted to say that criminal punishments are a kind of vengeance, but since we have judges and juries the idea is that the trial and punishment are fair and impartial. Vengeance isn’t ever impartial and it’s rarely fair. Otherwise, if you asked me what kind of punishment I would expect someone to suffer for poking me in the eye with a sharp stick; I would of course expect them to allow me to poke them in the eye with a sharp stick back and then rip out their uvula with pliers. Clearly, as the wronged party and even without a poke in the eye, I can easily lose sight of justice.

Hate crimes give sanction to this very type of blindness. (The lost-sight-of-justice kind, not the stick-in-the-eye kind. The metaphor is intentionally continued, the confusion is not.) Hate crimes allow folks with the best of intentions to say, "Hey. This was REALLY wrong what you did here and you're clearly a very bad person-- a fact demonstrated by your crime and the awful things you believe."

If I were allowed to call down the force of law against everyone who believes things I don’t believe, we would not be faced with a two-party political system today, and debate would consist of little more than, “But I disagr--” <sound of jail door or guillotine sliding into place>

Essentially, the convicted are punished for not just their crime but their stupidity as well but only in special cases where lots of really popular people happen to disagree with their particular stupidity.

If we're going to start punishing stupidity, I would much prefer a clearer definition so that I can launch my campaign of citizen's arrests. Hate crime legislation is simply not the way.

Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at 02:56 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Category: In the News
Post contains 743 words, total size 4 kb.

1 Consideration of motive is appropriate for sentencing (not for determination of guilt or innocence).

For example, I don't believe anything (such as drugs) should be illegal because our exhaulted leaders believe it makes us more likely to commit a real crime. By "real", of course, I mean one that hurts others, although I'm willing to consider indirect causal chains, so I'm not 100% libertarian.

So, once I've been found guilty of hurting someone, it's time to determine how long I should be locked up. I'm of the opinion that this is the time to consider how likely I am to repeat my crime.

If I assaulted some guy who threatened my girlfriend, then go easy on me, it's not likely to happen again. If I assaulted him because I was high, then I'm likely to go do it again, so lock me up for a while, but allow drug rehab to be taken into consideration for parole. If I assaulted him because he's gay, then lock me up with little chance for parole, because I'm an asshole and that's unlikely to change. Finally, if I did it because I just like beating up other guys, then just throw me in a dark hole.

All of these guidelines, though, should be just that. Probably in the form of jury instruction. I would like to see trials for serious crimes "continue" past conviction long enough for both sides to present expert testimony about the likelihood of recurrence.

For our legislators to take on the task of linking motives, actions, and repeat likelihood is naive and dangerous. We've already stepped onto the slippery slope of thought crimes.

[Trey Givens responds] I don’t think motive should be considered at all… at least in terms of how “motivation” is distinct from “context.” Judges and juries should determine guilt or innocence as well as the sentence based entirely on context. This ensures that a proper verdict is reached and a proper punishment is doled.

Judges and juries should not give much thought to how likely it is that you will commit the crime again outside of cases of recidivism. The fact that you did it once is why you’re being punished, not what you have or have not done later or even in the past. This, as you said, is a slippery slope, and represents such even in the hands of a jury.

But in those cases of repeat offenders, I do agree that it is appropriate to punish them more harshly each time. But that doesn’t speak to the chances that they will do it again, but to the fact that they have done it again after being punished once already.

I’m curious about your “indirect causal links” comment. What do you mean?

Posted by: hans at October 24, 2003 04:53 AM (CWwGn)

2 I think we have a fundamental disconnect here. I don't consider the goal of sentencing punitive, but protective. I guess that's what makes me a social libertarian.

If, in your view, the point is "being punished", what role does even context have to play?

My first degree was in psychology, so forgive me for thinking we might proactively determine if someone's likely to commit a crime again and head it off *before* he infringed on the rights of another victim.

[Trey Givens responds]The role of context is important in determining the punishment because one has to figure out what was done and why. If we were to simply close our eyes and say "any action that results in the death of another is murder" then we would punish serial killers as harshly as those who have some horrible accident.

This is the distinction between manslaughter and various degrees of murder.

There are three theories behind punishment under the law: That it is punitive, deterrent, or rehabilitative.

In reverse, going to jail isn't to teach you not to knock over liquor stores any more and, thus, all penal systems pursuing this goal have resolutely failed to the end of rehabilitating criminals.

As far as protection is concerned, I think it's a nice thought to believe that making laws would some how stop people from doing bad things. But it really doesn't. Practice has also shown that those who would commit a crime do so without much consideration to the punishment that will be laid upon them for doing it.

There just isn't a way to prevent a crime from happening. All you can do is say, "Hey. If you do this crime you get this punishment."

Which leaves the role of law to simply stand by and wait for someone to commit a crime before swooping in and showing them what for.

Posted by: hans at October 25, 2003 11:22 AM (SSLGd)

3 As for indirect causal chains, consider environmental policy. When you dump crap into the air via a tall smokestack that disperses it far and wide, there is no *direct* victim. Rather, you are contributing to acid rain that will, IMHO, violate the property rights of some number of landowners. There is no reasonable means for these landowners to trace the damage to their property directly to your actions, so your polluting should be regulated.

This may put me in the same camp as those who fault you for damaging Mother Earth, but for different reasons. The social "polluting is just wrong" component also motivates me personally, but I feel my outlet for that is in choosing where I spend my money.

So, I consider myself an environmentalist libertarian. As a libertarian, I believe the EPA serves a valid and important role in our government, but lament that it is poorly understood by supporters or detractors. As an environmentalist, I behave and spend in line with my beliefs.

[Trey Givens responds]Ah! I see!

On environmental policy I believe we agree, but I'd go so far as to say that in many, many cases with our current level of scientific progress pollution isn't an indirect causal chain so much as it is the direct contamination of the environment and thus the bespoilment of others' property! About acid rain, you're spot on.

I compare it to how my neighbors are not allowed to play REALLY loud music from their yard. That is a violation of my rights.

I think that at least in this particular issue regarding environmentalism we are in agreement.

I think that government agencies are useful in providing expert insight into highly specific and technical issues. The EPAs role is (or at least should be) to do this in light of environmental issues. I believe that is proper.

Posted by: hans at October 25, 2003 11:26 AM (SSLGd)

4 You say you don't believe motive should be considered, but it's important to consider "why" a crime was committed. Eh?

Also, when I talk of protecting society, I am referring to isolating the criminal from the victim (and since the victim is often any member of the...). The rehabilitative qualities (or lack thereof) of incarceration are another discussion entirely.

I agree (and am pleased to hear you say) that it is fruitless, even dangerous, to use the law to try and prevent crime. This leads to such absurdities as the criminalization of Sudafed possession.

Where I think we diverge, though, is I believe that prevention of *further* crimes by an individual is possible, by considering the likelihood of repeat offenses. I support, for example, enforcement of "quality of life" offenses as it has been demonstrated this can prevent escalation of more severe crimes. Also, as I've stated, consideration of individual factors that contribute to the probability of future criminal activity.

What irony that I should find myself arguing with you from the traditional conservative side of the spectrum.

Posted by: hans at October 27, 2003 05:09 AM (CWwGn)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Russia, I Beg Of You in the Name of Justice, Right This Wrong!

Mergatroid the Whale Woman wanted to be a ballerina ever since she was a very large, but still young, girl. As soon as she reached the age of required labor in Communist Russia, 2.5 metric-years old, she claimed her right to be a dancer.

As a footnote to this, it is a well-known fact that everyone, according to legal precedence dating back to the Code of Hammurabi, has a right to be a ballerina. I, myself, am just waiting for the paperwork to clear before claiming my position as the star ingÃ©nue for a troupe in Pocatalico. I’ve already been suited for my tutu. I’m just waiting for them to call me back. They’ll call any minute. I’m sure of it.

Mergatroid saw much success in her career. Under the stage name, Anastasia Volochkova, she became world-famous. And then our poor, large heroine became the oppressed victim of one of the most insidious of social ills and fired. She, in all of her innocence, looked to her addiction to ice-cream (Even still the victim of big business’ campaign to exploit people with taste buds.) and alleged that she was terminated due to her weight. Finally, the Russian government, now not completely Communist, has stepped in to assist and demanded that she be given back her job.

They obviously can’t be allowed to fire her for being a fatty. She should definitely have her job back.

But I think the Russian government has wrong -- well partly -- and she is mistaken about why they fired her. The reason they fired her is both simple and evil: Racism. And this horror should not go unaddressed. They should fire all those male dancers who persecuted her, seemingly for her big-boned-ed physique. Here’s why:

1) The racism. It is so obvious one need not cite facts to support it. Their elitist, look-at-me-I’m-Papagano-with-the-Magic-Flute attitude is smeared across their bigoted little faces in the shape of a smirk. Some have reported that every time one of the male dancers breaks a leg or arm lifting Mergatroid there is a party later to sign the cast with hate-words against our victim.
2) And they are sexist, too. How dare they refuse to dance with her?!?! Clearly they are doing so because she is female. If that were not the case, why would they make such a point to call her a ballerina? Male dancers aren’t called ballerinas. They’re doing it just because she’s female and for that same reason they have refused to dance with her.
3) They cannot perform the duties of their job. They pitifully attempt to disguise their discriminatory attitude by claiming that they cannot lift her. It is part of their job to hoist this delicate flower of womanhood into the air and if they can’t do that, then they can’t perform their jobs.
4) These male dancers think they know everything. This makes them very hard to work with especially when they cannot find their way to the stage and refuse to ask for directions. This makes choreography impossible.

Reason number 3 above is really good because they can prove that in court. The irony of turning the tables on those haters is just too good to resist.

This would be but a small step in freeing the world of this plague of bigotry and discrimination. I only hope Mergatroid can work through this trial and continue to do well in her career as a great, big, nay, huge ballerina.

Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at 02:02 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Category: In the News
Post contains 592 words, total size 4 kb.

McDonald's Settles But Does Not Admit Knowing That Some People Are Really Fat

CNN: McDonald's settles weight discrimination lawsuit from job applicant

Not a whole lot of information is available in that article above, but one thing that I'm realizing about the popular meaning and the modern legal discourse regarding matters of discrimination is that once accused, it's better for businesses to simply pay the hush money than it is to defend themselves against the injustice.

In far too many cases, business is blamed for being "unfair" and "discriminatory" and even as bad as "bigoted." With the exception of perhaps my own political circles, people don't stop to point out the fact that one is well within one's rights to be those things. It is a failure of our government that refuses to recognize and defend this.

I'm not saying being a bigot is a good thing. I'm just saying that if you want to be that way, you should be allowed. And I'm allowed to not listen to you, not shop from you, not work for you, and not even acknowledge your presence.

What has happened to our freedom of speech? Property? Liberty?

In this case, this great, big, fat man claims he was discriminated against after arrangements were made for his McDonald's uniform. Really, if McDonald's wanted to be indiscriminate, it would hand uniforms of a single size to all of its employees. Afterall, how dare they acknowledge and make business decisions based upon physical differences between their employees?

What will people do when they realize that having separate bathrooms for Ladies and Gentlemen is also discrimination? SEPARATE IS NOT EQUAL!!!

This is a variation on the JadeGold mistake of confusing economic influence with the power of a gun; the power of the government.

Before waging a war, one must have a reasonable expectation of winning that war. In the case of business v. the government. Business doesn't stand a chance. So, it's no surprise to me that businesses settle in cases like this. I would probably do the same.

Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at 11:19 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Category: In the News
Post contains 342 words, total size 2 kb.

October 22, 2003

Rockin' It Out, Sowell Style

I believe I've mentioned how awesome Thomas Sowell is but let this be a reminder. Dude rocks.

Capitalism Magazine: A Lynch Mob Gathers Around Justice Janice Rogers Brown: Part 1
Capitalism Magazine: A Lynch Mob Gathers Around Justice Janice Rogers Brown: Part 2

I don't really have much of a comment to make on this except a hearty
'PREACH ON!'

Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at 06:05 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Category: In the News
Post contains 65 words, total size 1 kb.

Wanted: An Industrial Robot

I love headlines like this:

CNN: Industrial robot sales surge in West

Industrial Robots. No joke. I love robots. I want a robot of my own. There should be MORE robots everywhere.

It's too bad that there are crazies out there (read: Democrats) who will probably use this information to outlaw all robots because of the jobs that it will cost us.

I think that we should pre-emptively pass legislation in protection of robots as an endangered species.

The Robot Protection Act of 2003. Who's with me?

Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at 10:41 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Category: In the News
Post contains 91 words, total size 1 kb.

Stop The Cycle of Violence, Today! Rename EVERYTHING!

Thanks to Angelweave and PETA I am now aware of a new problem confronting these, our modern lives. If we name a place after something, then it means that we eat the thing for which that place was named.

Washington, Jefferson, Jackson, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Lousiana, Maryland, Columbus, Rome, Harrisburg... The list goes on and on! In Atlanta, we actually renamed our airport recently after passed (as in "away") Mayor, Maynard Jackson! THE HORROR!

We should not support cannibalism with these names any longer.

Further, due to the health problems that could be caused by eating inedible things, names such as "Rock Springs," "Haines City, and "Ivory Coast" should be changed as well.

Finally, misleading names like "Colorado", "Forest Heights," and "Los Angeles" should be changed as they may lead people to think that we eat things which we cannot or do not and any attempts to do so may lead to injury.

I need to start now composing my letter of thanks to PETA. Without their help, I may have been lead down a path of misery and stomachache!

Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at 06:13 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Category: In the News
Post contains 187 words, total size 1 kb.

Oh, What A Feeling! Toy Yoda!

Bonita Daily News: Waitress says Hooters restaurant promised her a Toyota, gave her a toy Yoda

Caption: Jodee Berry of Panama City, Fla., sits with her toy Yoda at her lawyer's office Wednesday. Berry, a former Hooters waitress, has sued the restaurant where she worked saying she was promised a new Toyota for winning a beer sales contest in April. Berry, 26, believed that she had won a new car, but she was blindfolded, led to the parking lot and presented a toy Yoda, the little green guy from Star Wars.

(Scanned image, again, courtesy of office-mate, Al-dawg. Where does he get this stuff?)

Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at 04:50 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Category: In the News
Post contains 110 words, total size 1 kb.

Innertubes

Doesn't that word look weird? I don't think I've ever seen it written down before.

Strange.

CNN: Niagara Falls survivor: Stunt was 'impulsive'

Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at 04:37 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Category: In the News
Post contains 24 words, total size 1 kb.

October 21, 2003

File These Under: "Headlines About Which I Expect To Have To Make No Comment"

CNN: Aryan Nations founder runs for mayor in Idaho
CNN: Judge raps ruling in Eminem case
CNN: California the place to look for single men
Reuters: What Is Yogurt? EU Grapples with Diverse Cultures

OK. That's really enough.

It's late and I need to read about "Unfair Labor Practices" for my Legal Studies class.

Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at 06:42 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Category: In the News
Post contains 68 words, total size 1 kb.

Type A Personality Here. Don't Hate.

CNN: Study offers advice for Type A personalities

Type A personality is marked by tenseness, impatience, and aggressiveness, often resulting in stress-related symptoms such as insomnia and indigestion, according to the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language.

I had no idea that the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language was created by a bunch of slackers.

I would like to point out that perhaps we Type A personalities are impatient because all of the Type B personalities who are being slow and/or stupid?

And I might add that if I weren't constantly having to pick up after, plan for, and work around the "free spirited" Type Bs that I might be more relaxed.

But you know what? Someone has to get stuff done on time. And for your information, I sleep just fine.

Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at 06:33 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Category: In the News
Post contains 140 words, total size 1 kb.

To Paraphrase Voltaire, "I May Not Want To Be Unplugged, but I Support Your Right To Be Unplugged."

Reuters: Governor Orders Feeding Resumed for Florida Woman
CNN: Gov. Bush orders effort to save brain-damaged woman

For starters, I think there is something just not right about people who want to be unplugged. I have absolutely no intention of dying and so long as there is even the most remote chance that I could be revived, I want all steps to be taken to keep me alive. Veggie or no. Keep me alive. I may even have myself frozen one dayjust to give science a fighting chance. I hope we're all clear on that in case there is some kind of horrible-horrible and a question comes up in court.

I think this story is a tragedy that has been denigrated to the level of legal farce.

To start, her husband is the only person on this planet who is even remotely qualified to speak to her wishes. Philosophically, the union of two consenting adults in a partnership such as marriage is a mutual statement of the involved that they share nearly, if not completely identical values.

If anyone knows what she would want in this situation it would be him.

Our laws very intelligently allow for this and so Michael Shiavo became the legal guardian of Terri Shiavo upon her incapacitation. That's how things ought to be.

But her family steps in to protest, which implies that they believe the marriage was a sham. They're basically saying, "That Michael doesn't know what she wants at all. She never loved him and he never loved her."

People completely lacking in civility (Sean Hannity) even cite the fact that after 13 years, Michael Shiavo has found a new partner, and should, therefore, not be considered a reliable source for decisions regarding Terri's health and well-being. It is appalling that anyone would say or suggest such a think in public and in earnest, but I heard it with my own ears on the radio today.

NOW, the legislature in the frontier state of Florida has given Jebby Bush one-time authority to not only override the courts decisions that upheld Michael Shiavo's rights as a husband and guardian but to remove those rights from him.

!!!

Hello? Florida? Yes, this is the Constitution calling and we need to talk...

(Those conversations hardly ever go well, you can trust me on that.)

You really do have rights to Life, Liberty, and Property -- just by virtue of being a human being. These are fundamental. And, speaking to that of Life, it means that you're allowed to go on living so long as it is practicible. It also means that you're allowed to NOT do that if you want.

Yes, you have a right to die.

On a short, morbid digression, I want to point out that you do not have the right to exercise this decision on the roof of my car from a far distance above. If you do, I will press charges against your estate for damages. Just so we're clear.

Euthanasia in the political realm isn't in itself a moral question. The question is whether or not you have the right to Life. Do you? Is it your life to do with as you please even to destroy? Natch.

So, not only does the grand state of Florida deem it acceptable to violate their own constitution with this bizarre contravention of the separation of powers, they think it’s acceptable to violate the basic rights of citizens.

I can hear them now, “Oh but it’s just a one time thing.”

What did I say about trusting dictators?

Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at 05:55 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Category: In the News
Post contains 613 words, total size 4 kb.

October 20, 2003

Perhaps I Am Unduly Cynical or Perhaps We're Talking About IRAN

CNN: Hint Iran may curb nuclear program

It really sounds to me like Iran is trying to avoid getting a boot to the face -- and not in the fun, Lucy-Liu-Charlie's-Angels, dominatrix kind of way. Probably because that's what they say they're trying to avoid.

My thought on this is, "You should have thought about that before you started up your barbaric little theocracy and began your crazy terror-war against us for the last 20-some-odd years." My suggestion to Iran would be that they simply stop being so rotten and that consists of quite a bit more than a promise to stop enrishing uranium.

And I wonder why I have such a deep-seated mistrust of dictatorships. hmmm...

Also, this story continues to illustrate CNN's lackluster reporting and biases. Here's a quotation:

Bush went to war with Iraq over weapons of mass destruction earlier this year

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the war about Iraq's non-compliance with UN resolutions and not actually about the WMDs? In light of the debate raging over the specific issue of WMDs and the threat posed by Iraq, would it not be more responsible to find a different, more accurate way of describing the war? Perhaps a more accurate description of the impetus behind the war could be found in other, recent news stories.

March 17, 2003 The President Addresses the Nation
CNN: Bush gives Saddam 48 hours to leave Iraq

Since then, the world has engaged in 12 years of diplomacy. We have passed more than a dozen resolutions in the United Nations Security Council. We have sent hundreds of weapons inspectors to oversee the disarmament of Iraq. Our good faith has not been returned.

I'm starting to think I missed my calling. Perhaps I should be a journalist!

Here's a quick overview of Iranian history if you're interested. And if you're STILL interested, here's an in depth history of Iran.

And this is one of my favorite essays ever. It's called The Justice of War by Patrick Stephens over at the Objectivist Center.

Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at 05:44 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Category: In the News
Post contains 351 words, total size 3 kb.

October 19, 2003

Someone Get Me a Line to the President, RIGHT NOW.

Reuters: Bush Open to Security Assurances for North Korea

Someone, anyone, please! I need to talk to the President. My Accounting exam be damned, I need to talk to him now! It's a matter of national security!

While I will admit that there are times when my memory, in the words of ~~Yosemite Sam~~Foghorn Leghorn, is "about as sharp as a sack of wet mice," I do distinctly recall being through all of this with North Korea a couple of times before and we learned something very important: Kim Jong Il is a big, fat liar.

I guess I shouldn't be funny when the topic is serious, but really now. Am I the only one here amazed by this? Did not GW himself put North Korea on the list of people to beat to pulp?

Since when is it appropriate to make agreements (little a!) in order to get the baddies to behave?

Picture it: The killer is looming over you with a knife and you say, "Wait. If you put down the knife, I will lie down in the driveway behind your car and close my eyes. But I'll only do it if I really see you put down the knife."

I always thought the agreement was implicit: I won't bussa cap in your grille if you don't make me bussa cap in your grille.

Also, why is China our ally? Why does it seem like every country in some particular context or another is our ally? Do we not show any kind of ideological discrimination any more?

When I'm not profoundly disgusted by the state of politics today, I'm utterly baffled, which usually leads back to the disgust.

Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at 02:09 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Category: In the News
Post contains 290 words, total size 2 kb.

About Face? Nay. A Commitment to Intellectual Integrity

In my private life, I've built a small reputation for honesty and integrity. I maintain that it's a fairly easy thing to do as long as one doesn't let misplaced pride get in the way.

Well, I'm continuing my policy here on my blog.

In a recent post (Department of Justice and Wired Magazine: You Sorry, Little @ # $ F-bomb ! *& - if the link don’t work for you. My bad. I still ain’t worked that out yet.) I posited that open source apps are not ready for general consumption by businesses. This position was based upon the idea that open source represents too much a of a risk (and as such also cost) to businesses who enjoy the contract behind buying something which does not exist with open source software.

The debate has really wandered across the board only briefly ever touching on this first and most contentious point in my post. Briefly but with significance as you shall see.

The second point I made in my post was that much of the open source community supported the antitrust suit against Microsoft because it was an opportunity to wedge their products into the market.

Well, I was wrong.
Rather than just talking out of my elbow in generalizations, I decided that the best tack to take in confronting those (Pixy Misa and particularly Hans, whom I think has left an email for me as I write this) who would counter my position is to find some real numbers on the issue.

I went out looking for any statistics, survey results, whatever to show how many businesses-at-large have adopted open source software. Even the littlest bit would satisfy me.

First stop: The Internet. Google was not much of a help on this one, but I wasn’t terribly patient with it, I’ll admit.

Second stop: I decided to go to the source that started all this fuss: Wired Magazine and the very same issue that started my rant. I thought, “If the opposition proves my point, the argument will be that much stronger at least rhetorically.” It’s a coincidence that I didn’t notice before that this issue’s cover story, and thus lots of little spin-off stories, are about Linux.

Wired isn’t big on stats. You may or may not know this but well-cited information simply isn’t their standard fare and it’s hard to find data that are stated succinctly. They usually speak in vague, opinion-like sentences with colorful little twists and unimportant details. (Why do we care about the marital status of Linus Torvald's parents?) But, catch this quote:

About two-thirds of the servers that collectively make up the internet deliver webpages and other data through a program called Apache, developed by a band of programmers who receive no direct financial compensation for their work. The programming language Perl […] And most of the world’s email is routed through Sendmail, yet another mob authorship.

This very site is built with Movable type and PHP!

Because citing Wired again leaves me with a bad taste in my mouth, let me include a quote from Hans on the issue:

You will find that when the JBoss group, Apache group, or core Linux team label a product as a release, it is stronger than the industry average. These products have been proven viable.

I’m still interested in the statistics on open source but, I nevertheless stand corrected. Clearly open source technology is widely used at present and it has been our (me and those I’ve been debating) agreed position that this will only grow.

That addresses my first point and renders my second point rather, well, pointless.

Clearly, I got carried away. Antitrust legislation is wrong. Intellectual property theft is vile. Wired Magazine sucks. And all the people I’ve ever talked to (save Hans and perhaps Pixie Misa) who vehemently support open source have been borderline communist loonies.

One position that I maintain through all of this, though, is that open source is still a vast, un-mined source of super-cool stuff. There’s a lot of money to be made out there! I don’t think that the collaborative nature of open source is anti-capitalist. I just think it’s fairly mysterious to a traditional business perspective.

Time to shift some paradigms, eh?

Post Script: A lesson to all. This is how debate among rational people is conducted. No ad hominum attacks. No yelling and screaming. Just identify the premises and test them. And if no agreement is met, then just let reality hash it out. Much thanks and respect to Hans and Pixie Misa for conducting the debate with me. Much love.

Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at 11:51 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Category: In the News
Post contains 773 words, total size 5 kb.

1 I may be a borderline loonie, but I'll be damned if I let you call me a communist! Grrrr!

I agree that intellectual property theft is vile, and that Wired sucks. I think, though, that antitrust legislation has its place - though I'm not sure that Microsoft was an appropriate target.

[Trey Givens responds] I said "perhaps!" Like perhaps you're not a commie. Just know that I'm watching you!

On a serious note: Antitrust is all bad. It does not have an appropriate place -- at all. May I recommend Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal by Ayn Rand, Browning and Brawning's Microeconomic Theory and Applications, and The Market Economy: A Reader by James Doti and Dwight Lee?

I think that some day, maybe soon, I'll write a statement about specific to antitrust for another blog debate.

I'll put that on my list after my "Faith" series which has yet to spontaneously write itself.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at October 19, 2003 01:33 PM (jtW2s)

2 Oh, and for Apache, don't bother with Wired, go straight to the source with Netcraft's monthly survey here: http://www.netcraft.com/Survey/Reports/0309/byserver/index.html

64.52% Apache

This is exactly the sort of thing I was talking about when I said that open source software is already widely used - in fact, many companies are running Apache for their web servers or Samba for file servers and don't know about it, because it simply works.

I'll respond to your latest email as soon as I get time.

Rockin'! Thanks for the source!

Posted by: Pixy Misa at October 19, 2003 01:44 PM (jtW2s)

3 ...and to think I purposefully avoided pulling out the Netcraft stats because they are used far too often and threaten to narrow the argument to web servers.

David Wheeler has prepared a decent analysis. Like much open source advocacy, though, it is too focused on Linux and Apache. I find the movement towards open sharing of code, frameworks and tools in the enterprise IT market much more interesting. The open nature of the Java development community has even infected the Microsoft development world... Open .NET resources are far more prevalent than in the world of COM, DNA, etc. This is the most dramatic cultural change this industry has seen, and this industry has driven the most dramatic cultural changes in recent business history.

Enough of that, though, you've been convinced. :-) Thanks for the mature debate, you've helped mature some of my own opinions on the market and have salvaged some hope for the triumph of reason.

[Trey Givens responds] Word to your mother and cheers!

Posted by: hans at October 19, 2003 02:42 PM (SSLGd)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

October 17, 2003

Department of Justice and Wired Magazine: You Sorry, Little @ # $ F-bomb ! *&

So, I got the November issue of Wired in the mail the other day and tonight I was reading through it.

I'm not renewing my subscription, by the way. The magazine is almost pure garbage. The writing is shoddy.

p134 "scientific instruments have steadily transformed our conception..." "Concept" and "Conception" have only become synonyms due to misuse such as this. (Per descriptive linguistic theory, I guess it isn't misuse anymore, right?) Dija heard? And that doesn't even begin to excuse the cliche.

The journalism is questionable.

Same article entitled "Cosmic Reality Check." No sources cited. Just assertions about the physical nature of the universe laden with editorializations and 'colorful' twists of the tongue. Like 'conception' in place of 'concept.'

Their politics are blatantly leftist and sometimes overtly socialistic. (I guess that shouldn't surprise me since things that are blatantly leftist are typically, overtly socialistic sooner or later.)

I've only spotted one anti-RIAA/pro-intellectual property theft article in this issue but several references to file swapping. I'm thinking of making up a drinking game about it. "Every time Wired prints something derogatory toward those who would protect intellectual property rights, everyone does a shot!" Oh and peep the endorsement of some hippie anti-war protest book on page 44.

And they really ought to just stick to computers and not attempt these weak forays into science and medical journalism let alone politics.

It's been a long time since I resigned myself to the idea that I may be just a little more of a nit-picker than most, but I hang on to the idea that I'm this way for the good of mankind. (Clarification: The previous sentence is irony.) Ostensibly, my impact so far has be negligible since publications like Wired are still in business and Howard Dean is still running for president.

But what I wanted to write about isn't how crappy Wired is, but about one little quotation I found on page 157.

What everyone wants: a single, easy-to-use app that combines email, calendaring, address book, instant messaging, and file sharing...

Am I the only one who roars with rage and pain over those 18ish words?

Not sure what I'm driving at?

Well, let me first say that the quote is pulled from a short column about an effort by the open-source community to develop some-such application. Nibble on this other quotation and see if you see where I'm going:

Why launch in...[this kind of desktop app market, which is] dominated by twin titans Microsoft (Outlook) and IBM (Lotus Notes)? Because in the face of this cozy duopoly, email innovation has slowed to a crawl.

ARRRRGGG!

Remind me again why the Department of Justice went after Microsoft. Was it because the firm attempted to follow market demand and started bundling applications together to provide consumer with what they want, which is a robust, all-inclusive operating system/email application/browser/messenger/etcetera? Oh yeah, it was because of that, wasn't it? (Aside: It wasn't just that, I know, but don't deny.)

I come across this entirely by coincidence after a week of debate in my legal studies class about anti-trust legislation.

I don't intend to endorse Microsoft with all of this (even though their success speaks for itself. ) but the contradiction that this article presents casts a urine-tinted glare on the reality of antitrust. These people somehow without any burden of conscience snipe Microsoft for its success and its attempts to follow the market, then after the company is persecuted according to our backwards laws regarding the perpetually-undefined "trust activities" they gripe about the lack of innovation.

I know it hurts, but let's be honest here. Let's spill the beans about antitrust and open-source right now.

Antitrust legislation was written to punish the successful and to protect the weak. It was not created to stimulate the economy, protect competition, or to invite innovation in the market, thankfully, because it accomplishes the exact opposite of each.

And the open source community is crawling with anarchists, socialists, hippies, iconoclasts, and just plain-old non-conformists, all of whom find it difficult, if not impossible, to compete in a free market environment. Open source is, at present, not commercially viable and represents a heavy risk to any sane businessperson considering the use of open source applications.

If you doubt me, just give me the answers to these questions:
When your Open Source App crashes, who do you call to fix it?
Who guarantees updates to your Open Source Applications?
Who can guarantee the security of Open Source code? Stabliity?

I know the Open Source crowd is driven to improve the code by their zest for improving the lives of their fellow man and unshackling the proletariat and all, but business just don't work like that. I also know that there really isn't any good answer to the above questions that doesn't rely on someone acting out of the goodness of their heart. And I'll try not to mention that only a prayer buttresses the security of Open Source against those who would write malicious code and back doors into those programs. That and $4.01 will buy you a grande, low-fat, white chocolate mocha from Starbucks.

Whups.

But right now, I'm just really galled at the audacity of these people. They criminalize Microsoft for providing most of us with tools we want and then blame it for not continuing to do so.

In the words of John Galt, (no, not those words) "Get the hell out of my way."

Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at 05:05 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Category: In the News
Post contains 915 words, total size 6 kb.

1 The John Galts of the industry only want Microsoft to stop hiding behind restrictive contracts and exclusive licensing so that product quality might become the measure of success. In the software industry, Redmond is the one in the way.

[Trey Givens responds] These comments are patently false.

But thank you for stopping by.

Posted by: hans at October 17, 2003 08:21 PM (SSLGd)

2 Funny, my company has been running all its servers on Linux for the past two years.

When your Open Source App crashes, who do you call to fix it?

When there's a problem, they call me, or one of half-a-dozen techies they know. But it doesn't crash. The last major problem was a hardware failure due to overheating.

Meanwhile, try calling Microsoft tech support and getting a meaningful answer.

Who guarantees updates to your Open Source Applications?

You do. You have the source code. If no-one else is willing to update it, you do it, or pay for it.

No-one guarantees updates to closed-source software. Sorry, we've discontinued that package. No, you can't call tech support about discontinued software. But you can migrate to shiny new package at huge price tag.

Who can guarantee the security of Open Source code? Stabliity?

Who guarantees the security or stability of any software? Microsoft? With their IE/Outlook/IIS virus-of-the-day?

And I'll try not to mention that only a prayer buttresses the security of Open Source against those who would write malicious code and back doors into those programs.

Uh, open source is, you know, open. If there's a back door, or other malicious code, it's right there in the open. You can see it.

Closed source offers no such assurance.

If you're going to rant about open source, you might try learning something about it first. Something. Anything at all.

Open source is not standing in anyone's way. If you have a problem because some people choose to give their work away rather than charging you for it, well, that's your problem, not theirs.

[Trey Givens Responds] You've mistaken my position on this. Open Source in itself is certainly not standing in anyone's way. Some people's notion of giving away their work is not a problem at all. That’s completely their business.

I made two points with this post: 1) Open Source is not a viable business option for most businesses today due to simple business risk and constraint factors and 2) it is unjust to hold those options that ARE viable to business as criminal especially for the sake of those options, like open source, which are not viable.

For the vast majority of businesses, it is not economically viable to hire a programmer such as you or to rely on the kindness of random, anonymous programmers for fixes, upgrades, and whatnot. It’s simply too risky and/or too costly.

Speaking to proprietary, closed source programs, the company who sells them DOES offer as much guarantee for updates, security, and stability as is possible. Paying for something gives you a right to claim a certain level of quality in the product you’ve purchased. Those patch-of-the-day things you get from Microsoft represent that.

Nor is this a debate about how effective open source applications are. I am actually of the opinion that open source does represents the closest thing to a free market in terms of innovation and thus presents an unparalleled opportunity for speed-of-thought innovation.

But what is objectionable about the position taken by a majority of those in the open source community is that some how profits and licensing are borne of evil or some nonsense. While programmers may have a legitimate gripe about the efficiency and efficacy of closed source programs given their specific situation and application, it is profoundly ignorant to make such claims universal, given the perspective of businesses (Again, I contend that this is a majority of businesses out there.) whose needs are succinctly met by those apps.

And what is yet more objectionable are the legal actions taken against firms like Microsoft who are meeting those needs with their programs for the very reason that they are meeting those needs.

How does that last point relate to open source? A large portion of the open source community, including those represented in Wired Magazine, are those who wish to gain their foothold in business by using the force of government to give them their opportunity rather than by the sheer, overwhelming force of their innovation.

If open source has anything to offer business, it will have to do much better in order to overcome the risk-aversion associated with the organic nature of open source.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at October 18, 2003 01:18 AM (jtW2s)

3 1) Open Source is not a viable business option for most businesses today due to simple business risk and constraint factors

Now that is just patently false. Were it true, the impact of Open Source would be so negligable you probably still wouldn't know about it. Had you heard of the GNU project in the 1980s, before the modern viable business solutions grew from it in the later 90s?

2) it is unjust to hold those options that ARE viable to business as criminal especially for the sake of those options, like open source, which are not viable.

This is simply misled. As an Apple shareholder and software development manager beholden to Microsoft (and non-Microsoft) tools, I hold your favorite option as criminal not for the sake of open source, but for the anti-competitive actions of an industry behemoth. Not all of us who hold Redmond accountable are rabid liberal-agenda radicals. Some of us simply want our industry to foster a healthy, innovation-driving environment. I welcome Microsoft's participation in a fair and open market, they have shown in the past that they can participate admirably (witness early versions of Mac productivity apps, OS/2 NT, SQL Server, and much of .NET).

Granted, there are immature, socially motivated radicals that welcome any charges against Microsoft simply for what Redmond represents to them. These people may be loud, write to Wired, and post to slashdot.org often, but they have no power to influence these legal matters, and are rarely even true participants in the Open Source community. Several very successful businesses, however, do participate, by providing the support and service guarantees the market desires.

[Trey Givens responds] The impact of open source has not been negligible, but to claim that the primary market for open source software has been and is business is not reflected in the facts of reality. But in spite of it not dominating the market, I will grant that the adoption of open source apps has grown. More to the point of my original piece, one might blame the fact that Microsoft has not been allowed to develop apps people want is thanks to antitrust actions. We’ll never really know, will we?

Further, those activities that are labeled as “anticompetitive” are legitimate business practices that should not be criminalized. That also was not in line with the themes of my original post but may be important to note now.

While you may not be “rabid liberal-agenda radical” in all cases, your support for antitrust legislation does label you as having statist tendencies. If you really supported fair competition and a free market, then you would not take a position in support of antitrust legislation.

The only assertion you’ve made here to which I find interesting to which I will grant a concession is in your last paragraph. If there are businesses offering support and service guarantees for open source apps, more power to them. I see open source as a remarkable green-field opportunity for profit to those who can mine it properly.

Finally, perhaps due to the informal construction of the essay, you have misunderstood the point of my article. It is not a debate about open source technology, nor is it a debate about Microsoft’s particular situation. The point I made was about the present viability of open source apps to most businesses today and the role of the open source community in the injustice of antitrust suits such as that one leveled against Microsoft.

Thanks!

Posted by: hans at October 18, 2003 10:55 AM (SSLGd)

4 Let's make a distinction here. I never asserted support for antitrust legislation. Whether justified or not (and I am not well enough informed on the issue to debate it), in reality antitrust laws are in place. I do support consistent application of the laws of our republic.

Those laws have been used to pester and hinder the operations of IBM over more years than Microsoft has even existed. Thankfully, they remained in business regardless, so they could get screwed by Microsoft twice on the OS front (shame on Redmond for DOS, shame on IBM for falling for it again with OS/2).

More importantly, though, they are still here to provide Apple with superior microprocessors and lend the open source world the business credibility it needs.

Also, it is unlikely that the success of any open source app is a result of Microsoft being hindered by antitrust actions. I can't think of any successful open source apps that Microsoft doesn't have a direct competing product for.

Back to your stated two-pronged point, though: Open source apps are quite viable with the weight of IBM, Apple, Oracle, Sun, HP, etc. behind them. The anti-Microsoft community naturally supports the leading Microsoft competitor, which is presently Linux, OpenOffice, J2EE et al. This does not mean that those of us that have participated (selfishly!) in these projects. Do not fall prey to lazy thinking and imagine causation where there is only correlation.

If you want an objectivist idol in the IT industry, try IBM. Apple's too niche, HP is too inept, Oracle is too boring, and Microsoft? John Galt didn't use bully tactics and legal tricks to manipulate the market into accepting his value, he would've wanted to compete on the merit of his product alone.

[Trey Givens responds] It's ok if you are not qualified to speak to the legitimacy of antitrust legislation in this discussion because we agree that it is not central to the issues at hand. I do expect, however, that you have something of value to offer on the topic.

I apologize if I misinterpreted your comment about wanting Microsoft to stop hiding behind restrictive contracts as support for antitrust legislation.

Let’s be clear: There’s no such thing as a truly restrictive contract beyond the restrictions that exist in any contractual agreement. Those manufacturers have the option of not entering into those agreements. And Microsoft's desire to have such contracts is legitimate. They should not have to bear any obligation to include competing software in its OS packages. Nor should it be obliged to remove any software it deems advantageous. (Did you know that other industries, such as that of book publishing, have similar contracts with their vendors?)

Your implied position to the contrary on these is what I construed as support for the antitrust case against Microsoft.

Also, when it comes to unjust laws such as these, I do not support their uniform application. My hope is that it will be as limited as possible until undone. (You may be keen to know that the uniform application of antitrust laws would effectively destroy every business in the market.) It is an absurdity to hold that uniform application of injustice is fair or just.

I did not and do not hold that any open source app resulted in Microsoft being hindered by antitrust actions. (Although I contend that we'll never know how the two would compete thanks to the antitrust actions.) I hold that many of those involved in the open source community support(ed) the antitrust action in order to wedge their weak and underdeveloped products into the market.

Your claim that open source apps are quite viable is very nice. I’m sure I would agree if I knew anything about that. However, consider the idea of investing in an open source app from my perspective – that of a businessman. This is the first of my “two-pronged point;” at present the idea of setting up my business dependent upon open source apps is scary as even today the open source offering is still relatively unknown, still unproven, and still very, very small.

Again, I agree with you that open source is growing. For some, though still not most, open source is exactly what is needed. You’re also right that lots of large firms have invested in supporting the area and I expect that more safety and security will be added as this area of technology matures.

Speaking to the metaphor you’ve persisted through this conversation: John Galt, Hank Rearden, and the rest would not care about the contracts or what you’ve called “bully tactics and legal tricks.” Microsoft, to the best of my knowledge, has not initiated the use of force against anyone. Those who’ve signed contracts with the firm have signed them freely. Also, you’ve pressed a characteristic into those fictional people that doesn’t exist in the book and cannot be extrapolated into real life with your statement that “he would've wanted to compete on the merit of his product alone.” Not only is that a part of the creation of the merits of the Microsoft product, it’s a foolish statement to believe that John Galt, Inc. would not demand adherence to contracts or that it would not take steps to make its products stronger on the market. That’s just smart business.

At this point would you like to cite and argue the legitimacy of Microsoft's actions? Bring me a list and we'll talk.

My thought is that you and I can cease this discussion after this note. You’ve addressed, albeit indirectly, the two core points of my argument. Allow me to outline our progress:

1) Are open source applications viable to most businesses today? I say ‘no’ by virtue of the fact that the offering is still (see above) “unknown, unproven, and small” and illustrated by the still low adoption rate of open source apps. You say ‘yes’ based upon your experience that they are proven and that is good enough for most businesses.

2) Is there a large contingent of the open source community that support antitrust action against Microsoft? We both say that those people do exist but you hasten to clarify that not all open source folks are this way. I can nod to that.

Have I misunderstood your position? If no, I still hold that you are ignorant of the predominant business environment today but agree that the outlook for open source is promising. If yes, then please do clarify, but I’ll ask you to stay on topic by speaking only to two questions enumerated above.

Posted by: hans at October 18, 2003 02:10 PM (SSLGd)

5 Oh dear. This is a very tedious way to conduct a debate. Anyway, my responses are listed below preceded by asterisks. (***)

You may also see further clarification in my responses to Hans on my site.

Thanks!

Trey
..... ... .. . . . .
http://www.treygivens.com

PS I'm adding this to my site as an additional comment. I think it will be enlightening to readers.

Posted by: Pixy Misa at October 19, 2003 06:40 AM (pfnKw)

6 To make this brief, I'm going to trim sometimes paraphrase your comments. Please correct me if I misconstrue your message in the process.

And Microsoft's desire to have such contracts is legitimate. They should not have...

My libertarian nature causes me to agree with every statement you made that uses "should" as a verb. As long as we abide by the rule of law, though, I want the law applied uniformly or repealed.

I think there is a fundemental point here on which we agree completely: Microsoft is the behemouth they are today largely because they outsmarted the industry. Many believe it is "unfair" that they as consumers have to suffer (for lack of innovation-driving competition) because Dell, Compaq, and company were outwitted in business. I am not one of those people, I still have the option of Apple products for personal computing and Java products for enterprise computing (and Microsoft for either when they provide the better solution).

Also, when it comes to unjust laws such as these, I do not support their uniform application.

To support nonuniform application of laws is to grant too much power to the executive branch.

(You may be keen to know that the uniform application of antitrust laws would effectively destroy every business in the market.)

I am outside my area of expertise here, but I will accept this statement. So, in true Atlas Shrugged style, let it begin. I bet the legislation will be severely curtailed the moment it starts doing this damage, for it won't take long for it to impact large constituent or donor bases.

It is an absurdity to hold that uniform application of injustice is fair or just.

Perhaps it is neither. Uniform application of law is a requirement for our republic to function, though. I am sickened by the trend towards making every action of every citizen (personal or corporate) illegal so the government can arbitrarily decide when it cares to interfere in our lives.

I did not and do not hold that any open source app resulted in Microsoft being hindered by antitrust actions.

Nor did I assert as much. Re-read my statement (a direct response to yours); "is a result of" is not "resulted in".

Is it fair to summarize your contention as follows? Antitrust legislation unfairly favors non-proprietary products (open source) over proprietary ones (Microsoft's). This is probably true, although it could be argued that at least some market segments would display this favor regardless of legislation.

I hold that many of those involved in the open source community support(ed) the antitrust action in order to wedge their weak and underdeveloped products into the market.

The statement "many...support(ed) the antitrust action in order to wedge...[open source] products into the market." is true.

It is a fallacy to expand this to your conclusions, however, which I will state as "the open source community is anti-business" and "open source products are weak and underdeveloped."

We need to clarify some terms here. When I refer to the open source community I mean the people who are actively involved in the development of open source products, and I do not include the whining high school students who have Linux bumper stickers and use Linux merely because it is cool to be anti-Microsoft.

When I refer to open source products I mean mature, widely supported tools such as Linux, Apache, Tomcat, JBoss, Struts, Mozilla, KHTML, and Darwin. Personal projects built by a few guys who know Perl or PHP and hosted on Sourceforge are not mature products and are rarely advertised as such.

You will find that when the JBoss group, Apache group, or core Linux team label a product as a release, it is stronger than the industry average. These products have been proven viable. I don't want to get into swapping resumes, but let's just accept that you are better qualified than I to consider the ramifications of antitrust legislation, and I am better qualified than you to judge the viability (and present adoption rate) of business technologies.

Regarding the metaphor of John Galt, I stand corrected upon further reflection. It is fair to say that John Galt, Inc. would have done business similarly to Microsoft. [JGI probably would have refused to defend itself and let the government dismantle it, as well, so the world would learn its lesson when Windows development ceased. :-) ] Also, touchÃ© for the coercive force retort to my use of "bully tactics."

1) Are open source applications viable to most businesses today?

See "open source products" above.

2) Is there a large contingent of the open source community that support antitrust action against Microsoft?

See "open source community" above.

Have I misunderstood your position? If no, I still hold that you are ignorant of the predominant business environment today but agree that the outlook for open source is promising.

Send email if you want to debate our relative business technology experience.

Now, simply because I'm too immature to resist the temptation, I will take some of the bait in your response to Pixy Misa:

Your implicit statement that a product can only be considered viable if it is already deployed or in deployment in most businesses is ludicrous. Again, though, you make factual assertions about adoption rates that are not in line with industry surveys.

We all agree that Wired sucks, and they often represent a community of anti-business whiners.

You assert that providers of proprietary, closed source programs "offer as much guarantee for updates, security, and stability as is possible." I will assert that the guarantees offered by business supporters of open source products meet or exceed those of your preferred vendor(s).

If you buy, say, the Websphere Application Server from IBM, you will have claim to them on the quality of the included open source software.

Please, do stop reading Wired magazine, particularly if you're going to extrapolate their opinion to the open source community. One might as well tune in to Jerry Falwell every week and assume he speaks for the Republican party.

You are, indeed, wrong in your generalization. ;-)

Retorts such as "reality happens daily" have no place in civilized discourse.

Finally, you continually refer to how Microsoft has been prevented from offering a product (or even product bundle) to users, and we are hence "forced to choose something other than what [we] want." Please provide evidence of this.

[Trey Givens responds]For starters you should read my latest post as I admit that I stand corrected with much thanks to yourself for assistance in the matter.

I won't address every point of this comment just because most of it is moot at this point.

But I would speak to a couple of items.

First, the executive branch already exercises the capricious and arbitrary power of picking and choosing which firms will fall victim to antitrust legislation. It's not that the enforcement of the law in this case ought to be spotty, it's that if it were uniformly enforced it would destroy everything.

So, when you support the uniform application of such laws so that they will play to their inevitable conclusion, all I have to say is "Viva La Revolucion!" (ha ha. Little joke.)

Antitrust legislation has already done damage, sadly. Economically and politically speaking there are lots of reasons why this has not been addressed by the government. I suspect, like you, that if it gets too bad then someone will scramble to find a cure.

Now about my line of argumentation.

My retorts are appropriate to the context of the conversation. I might point out that your request for a comparison of business experience is inappropriate and the same goes for the use of emoticons.

I will also simply say that taking experience, creating a theory, and applying it to reality is the scientific method. It is wholly appropriate that I would do so. This debate represents the testing of such a theory.

I thank you for a lively debate. I hope that you will continue to visit my site.

Good day!

Posted by: hans at October 19, 2003 08:32 AM (SSLGd)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

From Laughter to Fury

Ok.

I was highly amused by the Pamela Anderson story and now I read this:

CNN: Taipei tower takes height record

Indeed, one future contender to unseat the Taipei 101 from its position as the world's tallest building is the proposed Freedom Tower, designed to replace the WTC.
Although that has yet to get the go-ahead, many New Yorkers say they do not want the tower to be built in their city fearing it will prove a target for future attacks.

Insert F-bomb where you see appropriate. You have got to be kidding me.

I visited New York in December 2001 and I refused to go to "Ground Zero." Why? Because it hurt. Because I refused to observe the destruction that those craven maniacs leveled on the city and nation to which I often refer as "the bright white-hot center of human civilization." I have no care or desire to see anything like that any more than I care to see the work of a serial killer.

Now, I'm telling you Americans and especially you New Yorkers who have allowed this fear to give you pause or even caused you to stop. Move. Move now. Go somewhere that will keep you "safe." Go somewhere that has buildings that are low to the ground. Go somewhere that won’t let you have a gun for fear you’ll put your eye out. Go somewhere that will birth you, raise you, and bury you without asking the question whether or not you’re worth the trouble.

I ask those of you who fear another 9/11/2001: Where is your self-respect; your pride?

Hear me now: I am an American and my people do not cower. We are not timid. We are not stopped by threats. We do not turn the other cheek and we do not stop building skyscrapers because of terrorists.

I am so furious about this obscenity that I've actually lost the ability to express it in words. I just keep hearing those two words over and over in my head and imagine the shame that those people should feel.

Let's Roll.

Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at 05:38 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Category: In the News
Post contains 351 words, total size 2 kb.

October 14, 2003

New Strategy in the Pledge of Allegiance Case: Take Them at Their Word

Reuters: Supreme Court to Decide Pledge of Allegiance Case

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

I love America so much. I could write at length about how much I love American and how the Flag of the United States is a symbol of individualism, rationality, justice, capitalism, and everything good that I can imagine in the context of proper politics.

But what I actually want to write about are two little words that were added to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954. Those two words, as you know, are "under" and "God." (If you're interested, here's a nifty link to a brief history of the pledge, which, I might add, is not devoid of some significant irony.) To be perfectly honest, I just want to talk about the word "God" as I am infinitely less concerned about the geographical location of myth than I am the philosophical impact of the notion.

All the other issues aside, including those associated with the particular brand of faith to which you subscribe, but excepting those naturally spawned from a complete lack of faith,as is my case, the word "God" is nonetheless somewhat important if only by virtue of its widespread usage.

There are three possible cases in which one may use or consider the use of the word "God;" as a specific reference to the Judeo-Christian deity, a general reference to a supreme deity in any religious contexts, or as a metaphor for supreme goodness.

In the first two cases, there is a clear religious implication. The very use of the word "God" directly implies the existence of some supernatural and/or mystical reality.

The third case is how Aristotle or Plato or some other classical pagan might have used it. When you're reading The Republic and you happen across the word "God" you should not imagine that it is a reference to the baby Jesus, the dove pooing on his manger, nor the pants that violated the virgin. It's also generally accepted that neither should one literally imagine the pantheon at the invocation of this mighty term. In all, one should just hold the term to refer to some vague notion of "Greatest Good" floating out in the collective soul somewhere.

As an atheist, I don't really get in a huff over this particular use of the word "God." I myself often say, "Oh my god" or, when upset, utter an oath invoking the judgment of "god." I don't literally mean it, although I do think that the best practice would to simply say exactly what one means. Simply replace the word "God" with the concept of "the sum of all goodness" and you can see what those phrases accomplish.

Now, consider with me what the Pledge of Allegiance is. Not very surprising to anyone, the Pledge is a pledge… of… allegiance. That’s right. It is a vow to defend and uphold the fundamental premises of the United States of America. The Pledge handily names Liberty and Justice for all as two such fundamental concepts. The Pledge is, understandably, not a legally binding statement, but it should be considered as spiritually binding.

Do you or do you not support the United States? The Pledge is one of allegiance.

Which begs the question: What does the word “God” do for the pledge?

Historically, the words were added to the pledge for the expressed purpose of invoking the specific Judeo-Christian religious significance. However, even though it has only been a part of The Pledge of Allegiance since 1954, I believe it has come to bear the secular meaning of the word.

The tiny little prepositional phrase “under God” actually bears little literal significance to the Pledge. The meaning and impact of the vow are not greatly enhanced by the words if used in the secular sense, because the rest of the words stand for themselves. It is for this reason that early versions did not include the phrase. Poetically it may be argued to the contrary, but in plain English we’re no better or worse off.

With the religious meanings, however, the other words “Liberty” and “Justice” derive their significance from “God.” Conservatives such as David Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and others are taking this position. Their stance is that the Pledge is not simply an expression of patriotism but one of their religion and a celebration of their freedom to express it.

It is on these grounds that the Supreme Court should rule against the inclusion of those two tiny little words in the Pledge of Allegiance.

See, even if there were no opposition to its use, the pro-undergodlies (or at least the ones in the mainstream and the ones who put the phrase there in the first place) intend the words to be used as a statement of religion. Public school officials, as agents of the state, by leading schoolchildren in the recitation of The Pledge including the words “under God” may thus be seen clearly as an explicit support of religion and in vivid contrast to those who would practice none.

So, if the plaintiff claims that the phrase holds religious significance and the defense does not disagree, then it would seem that the High Court has a rather short set of arguments to consider.

Perhaps another day I will analyze the proper role of government in religion, but today I’ll conclude by saying that judicial precedence holds that there must be a “separation of church and state” and that the use of the phrase violates this precedence.

But the Supreme Court doesn’t often follow reason. I find them rather capricious and would not feel comfortable wagering on the outcome of the case. I will, of course, be watching with some bemusement.

Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at 02:36 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Category: In the News
Post contains 983 words, total size 6 kb.

October 13, 2003

Say, Orca, Did Swimming Over Near the Navy Base Make You Want to Crawl Up on the Beach and Just Die? Me either.

CNN: Report: Navy to limit sonar to protect whales

Several points to make about this:

1) The cruel irony of the fact that CNN reported this on the same day that they reported about chips in monkey's brains that allow them to interact with a computer just by thinking about it isn't lost on me.

One step forward, two steps back.

I guess it's only one step back but still. It's sad to me.

2) I like whales and all. Well, as much as a rational person can really like whales in a casual sense. Flipper was cool, right? And remember that movie Orca? But you know what I like more than whales? The Navy. And I would like the Navy to have all the best Navy toys like SONAR that we can get for them.

Also, I do not like this "Natural Resources Defense Council." Look at what they were doing here: Capitalism Magazine: Mahogany, Peru and Poverty: US Firm Fights NRDC's Eco-Libels Blasted eco-ninnies.

I think I'm going to stop recycling now because of them.

3) I don't know why I keep reading CNN. I need to find a real news source to keep up with because this article is an excellent example of how CNN is run by a bunch of crazed, tree-hugging, communist-leaning, "idiotarian" bozos. Look closely at the story.

We have the court case.
We have the agreement.
We have the evidence of the whales bleeding from their precious little ears.

What's missing?

How about some information on this sonar system, CNN? How does it work? Why does it do that? Why does the Navy prefer it over the other system? Give us some more information so we can decide for ourselves whether or not this sonar system is so bad.

Based on the opposition alone, I'm inclined to think that it's a REALLY good sonar system now. It probably kills terrorists on contact and cures baldness and makes mocha frappachinos and votes according to libertarian political values.

4) OK. I think I just had three things to say about it. I just think it's so totally lame that the Navy doesn't get to use its new, cool sonar.

Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at 05:12 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Category: In the News
Post contains 387 words, total size 2 kb.

More Brain Chips, Please!

CNN: Researchers: Monkeys use mind to move objects

OK. Scientists rock. This is freaking amazing. That's all there is to it.

Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at 10:22 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Category: In the News
Post contains 25 words, total size 1 kb.

October 12, 2003

Dr. Trey-Dawg's Marvelous Anti-Stoopid Medicine (Patent Pending)

Student who revealed CD copying secret could be sued

If I were a brilliant scientist and I invented a new medicine to cure people of being completely stupid, the government would allow me to patent my medicine and sell it.

Patents, you see, are protection offered to special types of intellectual property. Here's what the US Patent Office says:

A patent for an invention is the grant of a property right to the inventor, issued by the Patent and Trademark Office. The term of a new patent is 20 years from the date on which the application for the patent was filed in the United States or, in special cases, from the date an earlier related application was filed, subject to the payment of maintenance fees. [...]
The right conferred by the patent grant is, in the language of the statute and of the grant itself, “the right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, or selling” the invention in the United States or “importing” the invention into the United States.

I don't mean to get all kinneygarten on y'all about intellectual property, but there is a common lack of awareness on the topic and I would like to represent for a sec and keep it real for all you true playas out there.

Patents do not protect your invention from being discovered by other people. It also doesn't protect other people from talking about how your invention works. It doesn't protect your secret recipe from being published on the internet. Patents don't even give you the right to stop people from having television shows listing the weaknesses of your product.

Patents only give you the "right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, or selling' the invention"

So, SunnComm Technologies Inc., please go sit down.

Posted by: Flibbertigibbet at 04:40 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Category: In the News
Post contains 305 words, total size 2 kb.

171kb generated in 0.2069 seconds; 82 queries returned 252 records.
Powered by Minx 1.1.4-pink.

Search Thingy

Monthly Traffic

Pages: 55068
Files: 7360
Bytes: 3.4G
CPU Time: 70:59
Queries: 3834555

Content

Posts: 4425
Comments: 7266

Check out my shared items from Google Reader!

Feeds

Contact me

JUNK at this domain over here

Read my full review of these products under my State of the Arts category!

Amazon.com Widgets

ss_blog_claim=5a311c4634462c9de45be0f648829c2c

SEO - create one way text link ads to your website for top search engine listings.
Forex Analysis - investing in stock markets, market analysis
Sofas
Jokes From India - jokes from india contains a huge selection of jokes from the various parts of india and also some universal jokes.
Forwarding Agent - www.venthill.com.my/shipping-forwarding.html

October 31, 2003

October 30, 2003

October 27, 2003

October 26, 2003

October 23, 2003

October 22, 2003

October 21, 2003

October 20, 2003

October 19, 2003

October 17, 2003

October 14, 2003

October 13, 2003

October 12, 2003

Search Thingy

Links

Recent Comments

Categories

Archives

Monthly Traffic

Content

Feeds

Contact me