Daddy Warcrimes

Declaration of Occupation

2011-10-01T20:55:00.000-06:00

Yesterday, the "NYC General Assembly" release their "Declaration of the Occupation of New York City". I'd like to acknowledge the homage to the Declaration of Independence; if only the author(s) would have actually understood that document.

Just thought I'd address some of the finer points of it.

As one people, united, we acknowledge the reality: that the future of the human race requires the cooperation of its members; that our system must protect our rights, and upon corruption of that system, it is up to the individuals to protect their own rights, and those of their neighbors;

Very true.

that a democratic government derives its just power from the people,

All governments do. This is the nature of governments.

but corporations do not seek consent to extract wealth from the people and the Earth

Actually, yes they do, in the form of contracts. It's not like BOA is breaking into your house and stealing from your cookie jar. If you take out a loan, you have contractually agreed (consented) to the terms of that loan. These terms typically involve transfers of capital.

They have taken our houses through an illegal foreclosure process

Foreclosure is by definition a legal process. It is generally enacted for failure to pay a loan under the terms of that loan agreement.

, despite not having the original mortgage.

I'm pretty sure most of those agreements stipulate that a lender may transfer the loan to a third party.

They have taken bailouts from taxpayers with impunity,

In many cases, financial institutions were forced by the government to take these bailouts under duress. Even where that is not the case, this anger is misdirected. I'm as pissed about corporate bailouts as the next guy, but the problem is not with companies that are acting in self interest, but with a government that is not acting in the interest of the people. Not only shouldn't the federal government have the authority to provide welfare to corporations, but it in fact doesn't.

and continue to give Executives exorbitant bonuses.

As they are contractually obligated.

They have poisoned the food supply through negligence, and undermined the farming system through monopolization.

We have farm subsidies to thank for much of this. The rest, is simply a matter of market forces. Pesticides and modified crops are employed in order to ensure market demands are met. If market demands are not met, people go hungry. Sure, it would be nice to only eat locally grown organic foods, but I'm betting there would be quite a bit of starvation if that suddenly became the only option. Pesticides may give me cancer in 30 years, but I'll be dead in a week without food.

They have profited off of the torture, confinement, and cruel treatment of countless animals, and actively hide these practices.

Seeing as how animals hold little information of value, and haven't the means to communicate it, and how punishing them is rarely in the interest of a business, I'm guessing corporate animal torture is not widespread. Confinement, and cruel treatment... ok, but I'll not get in to weighing the benefits of such treatment.

Hiding these practices? Of course they do. We all hide our less attractive habits; do you want them to display it out in public?

They have continuously sought to strip employees of the right to negotiate for better pay and safer working conditions.

A contract invariably requires at least two parties. The military and the courts are the only entities that can demand labor without the consent of the second party. Corporations have no such authority.

They have sold our privacy as a commodity.

This could mean a couple of things but my cursory search revealed no elaboration. Assuming they mean companies that profit from personal information, we must inquire how they obtained that information. Did they break into your house and steal your high school yearbook? Did they hack into your personal computer and download your address book? Or did you give it to them under the terms of use for a service they provided?

They determine economic policy, despite the catastrophic failures their policies have produced and continue to produce.

Solution: Stop creating economic policy. A free market will self regulate. Intelligent design requires an omnipotent, or at least intelligent designer. Government ineptitude requires that we employ economic natural selection else a sustainable financial ecosystem is not even remotely possible.

They have donated large sums of money to politicians, who are responsible for regulating them.

This is called free speech. Individuals do it too.

They continue to block alternate forms of energy to keep us dependent on oil.

Block it? In what way? I see alternative forms of energy all over the place. The fact that they aren't providing it probably has more to do with the viability of those forms. We are dependent on oil because the cost of replacing our infrastructure (to include vehicles, fueling stations, power plants, etc.) greatly outweighs the potential benefits of discontinuing it's use.

They purposefully keep people misinformed and fearful through their control of the media.

Damn that freedom of speech.

They continue to create weapons of mass destruction in order to receive government contracts.

No shit? You mean military weapon systems don't materialize out of thin air?

Protesters, many of your concerns are legitimate, but grossly misdirected. You have the right to assemble and petition for a redress of grievances, but please reconsider who you are petitioning. These corporations have no motivation to hear your pleas, and ultimately are not the problem. Solutions can be found in free market principles; the appropriate course of action is remove the authority of the government to direct market forces.

Hey, Wall Street Protesters

2011-09-30T20:18:00.000-06:00

Since you don't really seem to have any clear idea of what you're doing, perhaps I can make a recommendation.

Follow this map

Anonymous: you're begining to piss me off

2011-08-10T21:37:00.001-06:00

This post will either be ignored, or subject my internetings to severe harassment. Probably the first since nobody reads this blog.

I can certainly sympathize with this group as they bring awareness to problems on the net. Internet censorship, protection of privacy, these are important issues. None of this forgives their methods. Their utter disrespect for private property and free choice is disgusting.

Anonymous, or at least a splinter group, announced last month that it will target Facebook over privacy concerns. Since I can't say for sure who it is, let's just call them the perpetrators.

Let's get something straight, Facebook has access to your private information that you give them. They use that information for profit and potentially to gain favor with other agencies.

Thank the Lord for our great Internet protectors for saving us from the evils of our own free choices. Save us from posting our private information on the Internet after agreeing to EULAs that we don't read. Save us from our own stupidity.

For people who claim to oppose censorship, there seems to be a good number who wish to censor it themselves.

Free speech requires platforms. If you want to broadcast on the radio, you need a radio. If you want to hang a banner, you'll probably want a printing press. If you want to communicate on the Internet, you'll need some kind of service for it. These services do not come without a cost. They require programmers, moderators, graphic designers, servers, data service, power, and real estate.

This stuff costs money. It must be funded in some way. There are several models available.

Model 1: Paid service. Would you pay to use Facebook? I can't go a week without getting spammed with some kind of petition to protest against an imagined plan to do just that.

Model 2: Sell adspace and use personal information to target that marketing. Pretty sure that's what they're doing now.

Model 3: Grants and donations. I'm sure the authoritarian ideal is to have it funded by the government. As a frequent user of government communication systems, I can assure the uninitiated that they suck. Even the government realizes that their systems are not that effective, which is why every federal agency has a Facebook presence.

I am reluctant to use this term, but the plan to "destroy" Facebook is pretty much terrorism. What will the end result be? Do you expect FB to change it's policies? Best case is that you convince all companies to remove their presence altogether. That will leave us with what? What is the alternative service that the activists will allow us to use?

If you don't like the current model, don't use it. Build an alternative (P2P OSS social networking would be awesome). Denying others from making the election is censorship, no matter how noble your intentions. Do not depose the corporate tyrant to replace it with an anonymous one.

New video and recent happenings

2011-07-28T10:46:00.001-06:00

The last couple of weeks has been a bit hectic with the computer crashing, and a major event at work. Part 2 of my multibox video was delayed until I could pull it off of my old hard drive.

I'm up and running now with a more powerful machine, and a redesigned apartment that should not only give me more flexibility to record audio and video, but also maintain a bit of sanity as I will no longer be sharing the computer room with my wife. This of course comes at the expense of our living room, which we never used anyway.

This week's video is a day early because for some reason I thought it was Friday (trying to make the releases consistent). I've done an open mic style cover of Soul to Squeeze by the Red Hot Chili Peppers.

I'm uploading covers under the hope that Youtube and the appropriate agencies will find it in their hearts to collect royalties from Youtube's ad revenue rather than delete my account.

I am working on recording a song I wrote some 15 or so years ago, but I have no clue when it will be ready; not for a few months I suspect.

In the mean time, I've got a few other ideas. Really just trying to figure out my place on Youtube.

New Computer

2011-07-19T22:35:00.000-06:00

Well, sort of anyway.

About a week ago my main machine (the one with all my videos and capability for editing) died. It was either the MOBO or CPU (doesn't really matter which).

My new machine is assembled, and fortunately the OS booted without too much fuss (try that in Windows) but I'm not 100% just yet.

Problem # 1: I've got 6BG of system memory, but Ubuntu is only showing 2.

Problem #2: I have relevant files stored on two Parallel ATA drives, and no such port on my new motherboard. I do however have a new 2TB disk, and an old USB device that I can connect the old drives to. Just a matter of a simple cp -R and wait for a few hours.

If we're lucky, part 2 of the multibox series will be ready this week.

I love self righteous idiots

2011-07-12T07:36:00.000-06:00

A dumbass decided to use the Army Reserve's Facebook page to spout off his conspiracy theories. Private messages follow:

Daddy Warcrimes
Highly inappropriate for the Army Reserve page. That, and you're an idiot.

------------------------------
The comment:
Dean Berry (07/12): Š - AMERICAN TROOPS ARE IN THE MIDDLE EAST BECAUSE THE "JEWS" WHO OWN THE FEDERAL RESERVE WANT A BILLION MORE INTEREST-PAYING CUSTOMERS. They're making up or engineering excuses to invade these countries so they can replace all the NON-INT...EREST-CHARGING Islamic banks with Fed-like Rothschild banking mafias. Also, the "jews" are using their media to train Americans to hate Sharia law, not because it gives secondary status to women ("jews" couldn't care less about anyone's status but their own) but because it prohibits the collecting of interest. STOP BELIEVING THE JUDEO-COMMUNIST PROPAGANDA!!! DEAN BERRY MINISTRIES
24 minutes ago
Dean Berry
Guilt is why so many of you guys are committing suicide. You know you're murdering people, and you will be spending eternity in hell.
23 minutes ago
Dean Berry
You look really wise smoking that pipe.
Too bad wisdom is determined by your actions not your appearance. AMERICAN TROOPS ARE IN THE MIDDLE EAST BECAUSE THE "JEWS" WHO OWN THE FEDERAL RESERVE WANT A BILLION MORE INTEREST-PAYING CUSTOMERS. They're making up or engineering excuses to invade these countries so they can replace all the NON-INTEREST-CHARGING Islamic banks with Fed-like Rothschild banking mafias. Also, the "jews" are using their media to train Americans to hate Sharia law, not because it gives secondary status to women ("jews" couldn't care less about anyone's status but their own) but because it prohibits the collecting of interest. STOP BELIEVING THE JUDEO-COMMUNIST PROPAGANDA!!! DEAN BERRY MINISTRIES
19 minutes ago
Daddy Warcrimes
So long as you're not going with me, I can accept going to hell.

Murder is unjustified homicide. Killing in war is considered justified. Further, I've never killed anyone, but I'm sure that point is completely unimportant to you.

Since I have see the exact text copied twice now, I'd say that qualifies as spam as well.
15 minutes ago
Dean Berry
Jesus, please put this junk in hell right away. He knows he deserves it. And come to him in his dreams, please, give him a little taste of what hell will be like. Show him the Holy Bible, nowhere does it say murder is justified. And please aid us in our fight to jettison these communists from your Christ-ordained America. In Jesus' name, Amen. DEAN BERRY MINISTRIES.
9 minutes ago
Daddy Warcrimes
Jesus has come to me in my dreams; and we have an understanding.

Murder is not the same as homicide. Murder is by definition not justified, but killing in many cases is. Take for example Exodus 22:2
6 minutes ago
Dean Berry
You're murdering muslims to install k_ke banks. Also to steal their oil AND HEROIN. You must not be much of a man if you can't see this. And you're certainly not much of a Christian. All evidence points to the "jews" you worship as the perpetrators of 9/11. Of course, you have to be man enough to peruse something other than their "news" media to ascertain this. HEROIN! America will be made upright soon, and all traitors will be tried for High Treason. To be executed when found guilty. Will you be one of them or will you do the right thing and spill the beans on how many women and kids you've murdered. It's becoming too late.
And don't compare yourself to God's armies. You work for the synagogue of satan. This is what Jesus/God called the "jews" you worship. You're the armies of satan.
a few seconds ago
Daddy Warcrimes
I'll come clean right now; I've murdered exactly zero. I killed a lizard with a stick when I was a kid, and shot a butterfly a few years back. Does that count as murdering muslims?

I'm confused here. You claim to be a Christian, I do not. Christ was a Jew. Wouldn't that make you a "Jew worshiper"?

It's clear that I'm not going to change your views on this, as all you want to do is repeatedly spout the same accusations without citing any evidence. You have caused me great amusement this morning though.

Caylee's Law

2011-07-10T15:33:00.000-06:00

Facebook has brought my attention to "Caylee's Law", which is the result of people pissed off about the recent Anthony trial.

I've got several problems with this plan, and I shall now enumerate:

1. Knee jerk reaction laws are normally the worst kind.

2. The woman was convicted of a crime, and has spent years in jail as a result.

3. She was found not guilty of the serious crimes because there was no proof that she committed any. Beyond they lying to the police, I have not seen any proof that a crime was even committed. This is not a failure of the justice system, but a success.

4. "that a new law be put into effect making it a felony for a parent, legal guardian, or caretaker to not notify law enforcement of the disappearance of a child within 24 hours". Two issues here:
a. Many jurisdictions will not allow missing persons reports until after 24 hours.
b. Not every ward is a 3 year old girl.

5. "This way there will be no more cases like Casey Anthony's in the courts", translation: "We don't like this lady and we wish her to be punished even though she was exonerated by the court."

6. "The case of Caylee Anthony was tragic, and there is no reason for another case like this one to hit the courts" Exactly, it was a waste of time and money to prosecute a case with such a poor collection of evidence.

7. I can only see such laws resulting in an overburdened law enforcement community. Police will be so busy with teenagers breaking curfew that actual missing kids will go unnoticed.

8. Why in the hell are these million+ people petitioning the president and congress? Missing persons are not a federal issue.

9. Laws for neglect already exist, and ought to adequately address the situation.

Justice is not derived from popular opinion. Convictions must be made with proof beyond reasonable doubt. Sometimes the person you think did it will not be punished. This is especially true if you can't even prove that a murder took place.

I don't have a solution, but we need to accept that creating additional laws is not going to make our planet into a utopia.

Multiboxing Part 1

2011-07-08T08:02:00.000-06:00

Part 1 of my multibox series.

In this episode, I'm covering the accounts, key broadcasting, and the launch script.

Goings on

2011-07-07T15:52:00.000-06:00

With my moderate Youtube success (which I define as not vomiting and burning my clothes after viewing) I'm fighting the urge to puke out a bunch of videos all at once.

Right now, I'm shooting for once a week, with Fridays as the release day. The day is subject to change, and the rate is subject to adjustment.

Expect some open mic style videos, and WoW guides in the near term, and hopefully some full production songs (including one or more originals) later on. Commentary videos are also being considered.

One area in which I am severely deficient is drums, so if you're a drummer or drum machine programmer, I solicit your help. Contact me if interested (here, on Youtube, or Facebook).

I'm also considering reviving the idea of a community driven cadence project. I'll announce it if I can work out the details.

Johnnie Cope

2011-07-01T19:17:00.000-06:00

Many moons ago I was grabbing some Taco Bell, listening to radio. A show called The Thistle & Shamrock was on (yes I sometimes listen to NPR) doing a special on the Jacobites.

Ceolbeg's version of Johnnie Cope came on and I was terribly impressed. I wanted to learn it for open mic performances. Sadly, I couldn't find his record at the time except through shipping from overseas. As much as I liked it, I wasn't going to pay $25 for one song.

I looked over the lyrics, listened to a few other interpretations, and tried to create a reasonable facsimile. The result I've recorded and posted on Youtube for your enjoyment.

Vocals were recorded with a Rhode NT-1 condenser mic.
Guitar is a Taylor 30th anniversary using the built in pickups.
Both through a M-Audio Fast Track Pro recorded by Audacity in Windows.
Editing done In Audacity in Ubuntu.
Video editing in OpenShot.

Since I originally arranged the song, music download services have popped up, and not long ago I was able to purchase Ceolbeg's Seeds to the Wind through the Ubuntu One Music Store.

Youtube and domain

2011-07-01T10:11:00.000-06:00

I've gone and registered DaddyWarcrimes.com which will be an easier way for the two people who actually read this to find me.

I'm also picking up a new hobby of creating videos for Youtube. Not entirely certain where that will lead, but I'm intending to do WoW macro guides, music, and maybe some Army stuff as well.

First WoW video is a guide to mouseover healing

Also have some of my old band videos posted there. Check out the channel at http://www.youtube.com/user/Dadywarcrims. Subscribers are always welcome.

Net Neutrality

2011-03-15T14:24:00.001-06:00

The interwebz are changing folks, and many of us won't like it.

Let's look at the the concept of net neutrality. The basic premise is that web content shouldn't be filtered or prioritized.

Sounds good. I go after a wide variety of content on the web, and I don't want to have to pay extra just because I want to look at midget porn one day.

Is there a problem with it..... of course. This is the Daddy Warcrimes blog after all, and I can't just leave it that simple.

First problem: the consumer.

We have grown to expect flat rates on services, because we are too inconvenienced by paying different charges from month to month. Metered rates for communication are so old school; individual bandwidth usage can fluctuate dramatically from month to month so best just to pay a flat rate.

Enter the unlimited data plan. These are great, so long as your ISP can provide unlimited data. The reality is that bandwidth is finite, and at some point it's limit will be reached.

For many years, ISPs have had a bandwidth surplus. The could reasonably assure their customers a portion of that bandwidth based on usage trends. Yes, the total guaranteed bandwidth far exceeds their actual capabilities, much in the same way that there are more gym members than there are treadmills. Not everybody is going to be using it at the same time. It's a perfectly reasonable model.

Now fast forward. Online video streaming is becoming quite popular. People are downloading rather than renting movies. Bandwidth usage is exploding and nearing the capacity of the providers. At some point unless modified, speeds will slow. Try downloading a full feature film and see if your youtube videos don't load a little slower. Same concept on a larger scale.

It's an even bigger problem with cellular data providers as their networks are less suited to it than your home connection.

Here are some solutions:

1: Restricting content.
The popular idea among providers (especially cell companies) is to charge fees for access to high bandwidth servers (e.g. Youtube). It makes sense for guys who watch a lot of Youtube, and those that watch none, but for the occasional viewer is marginalized. You can look at it as charging for something they don't provide, or giving a rebate to those who don't hog bandwidth. Either way is a valid argument. Net neutrality would prohibit this kind of restriction or extra fee.

2: Metered internet.
You are charged by the number of 1s and 0s you transmit and receive. This would likely not go over well considering our migration to fixed rate services.

3: Bandwidth caps.
You are allotted so many 1s and 0s, and anything over you get charged extra. This is currently in use by many providers including my cell service.

4: Upgrade infrastructure.
This takes time and costs money. If you want continuing service without sacrificing your unlimited plan, you might just have to pay extra for a premium provider.

Any of these choices are reasonable, and not one of them requires FCC regulation. The best solution is for the ISPs to figure it out, and for the consumer to vote with their wallet.

Government fix for the economy (b)

2010-09-23T09:00:00.000-06:00

b.What to keep

So we've got some general guidelines from the previous post, so let's look at some of the things the federal government should be doing.

Military.

Authorized by Article I section 8. The military is useful for violently protecting our interests against foreign aggressors, and suppressing insurrections from internal ones.

Regulation of commerce.

The federal government's role is to ensure roads, rails, and shipping lanes exist for the facilitation of interstate commerce. This applies to avenues that connect or completely bisect states, and those that interact with foreign parties.

Interstate airspace can reasonably be designated and employed under the supervision of a federal entity.

Over the air electronic communication need be controlled because it is used at the exclusion of others. If I am broadcasting at 50 watts and you're next door blasting 500 watts on the same frequency, you have interfered with my right to communicate. The federal government need only regulate those broadcasts that cross boarders. If you have a radio tower in the middle of Texas, it's probably a state issue

Postal service.

The government is obligated to maintain lines of communication between the states. Postal service is intended for communication of state matters rather than advertisements.

Yeah, that's about it. Now while these programs are needed, there are many parts of them that are not.

The military for example can be maintained with a much smaller scope of operations. Overseas operations including Iraq, Korea, and Germany are not vital to the defense of our territories. Wasteful spending on unneeded equipment could easily be cut, were the producers of said equipment not located in districts represented by legislators addicted to the federal teat.

Commerce has been excessively regulated to the point where the federal government can dictate what you grow in your own back yard. We do not need the USDA to regulate food prices; they will eventually regulate themselves.

The FCC if it only dealt with cross border open air communications could significantly reduce it's staff and cost. Instead they are more worried about who's boob is flashing at the Superbowl than actually protecting the rights of citizens to communicate.

The BATFE under the guise of interstate commerce actively interferes and infringes upon the rights of firearm vendors and consumers. They don't really care if a felon has a gun since the state can take care of it (here I am in agreement), but they will shut down a guns store lightning fast if one of their forms has a "Y" instead of "Yes".

The postal service is a fairly obsolete service that could be mostly replaced by private industry. Certified mail still has value for legal matters, but for the most part our couriers are doing little more than passing out handbills. It is a significant drain on the treasury compared to it's actual functionality.

Government fix for the economy (a)

2010-09-22T15:09:00.000-06:00

a. Principles

The title of this post is slightly misleading. My proposal here is how to fix the federal government with their policies toward the economy. I do not propose to have the government take action that will improve the economy. We must first recognize that the government does not control the economy. They can't; all they can do is interfere.

For guidance, we look first to our charter, our founding documents. The declaration of independence for intent, the constitution for governance, and the federalist papers for context.

The declaration of independence tells us that the purpose of government is to protect rights including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The misunderstanding we face is that many do not appreciate the difference between a right and an entitlement.

A right is an authority to act. Protection of that right means that the government has a role to ensure our exercise of that right is not interfered with. This means if someone is trying to kill me, the government has a role to try and prevent it. It also means the government cannot interfere with rights

While we have the right to speak, we do not have an entitlement to platform. If you want to put signs up in your yard I cannot stop you; but that does not permit you to put up signs in my yard.

You have a right to work and receive money for that work. You do not have an entitlement to a job or salary. These things must be earned by merit.

Now we know the sorts of things governments are generically supposed to do.

The purpose of the federal government is to unify the states, and provide a common protection. Basically any disputes that affect multiple states, or involve parties outside of our union are in the realm of the feds. Spain invades Florida, that's a federal issue. Florida invades Alabama, same thing. For other issues, they should not be involved.

What does any of this have to do with the economy? Absolutely nothing. That is my point; the federal government should not be interfering at all.

The gay thing - Part 1: Gays in the military (d)

2010-09-17T09:00:00.003-06:00

Part 1: Gays in the military

d. Plan of action

None of this well end well unless thoughtfully enacted. Rather than just complain about the status quo, it seems prudent to offer suggestions on implementation.

1. Stop any pending separations for homosexual conduct.

2. Modify article 125 of the UCMJ to exclude consensual acts between adult humans (I'm a pretty open minded guy, but we don't need goat humpers in the Army; the Navy can have them if they want). It really makes no sense to allow gays to serve openly when only conventional intercourse is permitted. This of course will be a victory also for hetero troops who might enjoy the occasional BJ.

3. Educate the troops. Standard practice when there are significant changes to the rules. Ensure the training stresses that discrimination, harassment, etc. will not be tolerated.

3.1 Create a website and hotline to report discrimination, harassment, etc. A special team to evaluate these problems and command response. This can be discontinued or integrated into the E.O. program after a year or so.

4. Create a special team to locate any service members previously discharged for homosexual conduct. If they still meet the same medical and moral (i.e. criminal) requirements as when they were discharged, offer them reinstatement in their previous status with a complete resumption of lost benefits and incentives (bonus, GI bill, etc.). The assessing authority will grant liberal exceptions to policy to allow them to return in the same grade and specialty.

5. Use recruiting records to attempt to contact any applicants that were previously disqualified and inform them of the change.

5.1 Discretion would be a good policy here; the service representative would take care not to disclose the sexuality of the applicant to 3rd parties.

6. (optional) Raise recruiting standards to compensate for the influx of applicants.

6.1 Lower recruiting standards once we realize that the homosexual population will not create a very significant increase in applicants.

7. At the very first sign of harassment or discrimination, identify the offending parties and administratively stomp the living dog snot out of them. Repeat as needed.

The gay thing - Part 1: Gays in the military (c)

2010-09-16T11:06:00.002-06:00

Part 1: Gays in the military

c. Social implications

There are all sorts of surveys and statistics to show that homosexuals would experience discrimination if openly serving in the military. This would would in turn diminish unit morale and cohesion. All of that is true, and none of it matters.

The fact of the matter is that the objection to homosexuals is no greater than objections to an interracial military, female service members, or even acceptance of multiple religions. All of these face discrimination, and all discrimination reduces unit cohesion.

If cohesion were such a great concern to military readiness, shouldn't we have an army of all white male celibate upper middle class protestants who played on the high school football team? Even if we could gather such a force sufficient to serve the nation's interests, would it be in our interest to have such a segregated force?

Our nation was founded in no small part on the concept of individual liberty. It's not about majority rule, but the rule of individual rights. If our military does not reflect that, than we are not living up to those values.

If the rules change, there will of course be consequences. I mean serious consequences. There will be hazing, hostile work environments, discrimination, and yes even sexual assaults and murders. Moreover, it will come at a great expense of time and training resources to educate the troops on the policies, and implement controls to mitigate these consequences.

The question then becomes, is it worth it? The answer if you haven't already guessed is yes. Why is it worth it? This is a tricky answer, so please pay very close attention:

PERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS ARE NONE OF THE GOVERNMENT'S BUSINESS.

The government should not care who you're humping while in the military because the government should not care who you are humping. Really hard concept isn't it? I'll get into that more in part 2.

Of all the social concerns our military faces, homosexuality is a relatively minor one (well behind gender and geekdom). Our military must represent our society, not what a bunch of self righteous whack jobs want our society to be.

The gay thing - Part 1: Gays in the military (a-b)

2010-09-15T09:16:00.001-06:00

Part 1: Gays in the military

a. Semantics

Let me start by saying the phrase "repeal 'Don't ask, don't tell (henceforth DADT)'" is quite misleading.

re·peal
[ri-peel]

–verb (used with object)
1. to revoke or withdraw formally or officially: to repeal a grant.
2. to revoke or annul (a law, tax, duty, etc.) by express legislative enactment; abrogate.

-noun

3. the act of repealing; revocation; abrogation.

DADT was enacted in 1993. It did not change the rules for homosexuals serving in the military. It changed the rules of the military to prohibit them from inquiring without justification. Right now if a service member with homosexual tendencies does not commit homosexual acts (as defined by the UCMJ and applicable service regulations) while obligated to the military, they will not experience any lawful consequences.

Were DADT to be repealed, it would allow the military to inquire to the sexual orientation of all current and future service members without provocation. This would of course give a whole arsenal of charges to commanders with an agenda (articles 83, and 107 come to mind)

So the real question is whether to enact new laws to prohibit discrimination based upon sexual orientation.

b. Motivations

Let's not kid ourselves, the real reason for the prohibition is that the authorities believe that homosexuality is immoral, and they do not want immoral people to defend the nation. Despite all the other excuses we might hear, that is the true motive.

Were it truly about readiness, order, and discipline the military would ban all sexual behavior for it's troops (as they do in theater). Now if the military wants to do that (and congress makes the appropriate changes to the U.S. code) I have no problem with it. It is not a practical measure because we would have a much smaller military, but it is at least a reasonable one that is concerned with readiness rather than image.

From a military readiness standpoint, a BJ has significantly less potential for impact than a session of traditional intercourse. There is reduced risk of disease transmission and pregnancy (relevant to male and female service members). There is really no logical justification why the latter is permitted and the former punishable by court martial.

Illigal Immigration (part 2)

2010-05-02T09:41:00.000-06:00

Continuation from a previous post.

3. Taxes. Illegals either by participating in the underground economy or by holding low paying jobs pay less in taxes (on average) than their citizen counterparts. The problem here is actually income tax. Earned income is probably the worst metric for tax obligation we could come up with. It's too simple to avoid. With the progressive tax rates currently implemented, half of the population pays no tax at all.

If you want illegals to pay their fair share, make a fairer tax system.

4. Government services. This is probably the worst part. Children of illegal residents are enrolled in public schools; medical services are being provided without compensation.

The problem is not the illegals, the problem is the socialism. Citizenship shouldn't matter at the hospital if you pay the bill. It doesn't matter at a school if you pay the tuition. There would be a revolution today (well maybe not today, but 20 years ago) if you had to prove your legal standing when buying a hamburger. You should not need to show a green card in order to get a haircut.

Money, trade, just compensation is what entitles you to the products or services of another. Why are certain categories of services exempt from this rule?

We cannot legislate human nature. There will always be those who abuse the system. The only way to prevent the abuse is to eliminate the system. If I donate to a charity that I later find to be corrupt, I can discontinue my donations. When government is the charity, my donation is always under duress.

Illegal Imigration

2010-04-29T18:04:00.000-06:00

This is one of those issues where I think all the vocal sides are entirely missing the point.

Why is illegal immigration a problem? Let's look at the individual detractors claimed by those who want to stop it:

1. Jobs. This seems to be the main issue that illegals are taking jobs away from citizens.
2. Crime. A lot of them become involved in identity theft and the drug trade
3. Taxes. They operated in the underground economy and aren't paying their fair share.
4. Government services. They abuse laws requiring health care providers to treat them without compensation. They enroll their children in our schools.

All valid reasons to be upset. Let's look at these individually

1. Jobs. Many immigrants come here to work, so yes, they take jobs. These are typically low paying unskilled labor. Is there such a surplus of jobs in this country that Americans cannot handle it? With approximately 10% of the country unemployed, it stands to reason that there should be plenty of natural born citizens standing outside Home Depot, or sweating in the fields.

We have come to believe that hard work is beneath us. That we are entitled to a high paying job regardless of the demands of the market.

The solution is not to throw out immigrants, but to convince Americans to work. The only way to do this is to make unemployment unprofitable. As Benjamin Franklin said, "I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it.".

Talk to a man who is out of work. When he tells you of all the places he has applied that did not hire, ask how many landscaping firms he applied to.

2. Crime. Illegal immigration has been associated with narcotics, gangs, and other criminal endeavors.

How often do you here about street gangs trafficking in alcohol? Why are there not bootleggers and moonshiners like there were in the '20s? What happened to the mobsters? When you make a previously legitimate enterprise illegal, criminals take it over.

The speakeasies of yesteryear are the crack houses of today. Instead of moonshiners in the Appalachians, we have pot farmers in the national parks. The legality of these substances has nothing to do with their demand. Prosecution of the distributors has not affected the supply. All our efforts to enforce morality have not made us a moral people. The only thing it has done is provide a steady occupation to those who do not value our societal rules.

We are spending billions of dollars each year on drug enforcement. We are sponsoring foreign nations to spray herbicides. The majority of our prison population consists of drug offenders. What do we have to show for this expenditure? Nothing. Since we declared the war on drugs in 1971, the drug using population has stayed about the same.

Now don't get me wrong, drugs are bad. But to continue this sort of spending without any real results is insane.

If you are a criminal, who do you call when you get robbed? Criminals will target illegal immigrants because their victims will not report the crime out of fear of deportation. Immigrants make good targets because a large number of them cannot obtain bank accounts (lack of valid identification) so all their savings are on hand. Some just stay as victims, some enlist in gangs to help protect their neighborhood.

Criminal activity always attract criminal activity. When you create crimes through legislation where none existed before, the barbarians take over the industry.

Stay tuned next time when I talk about taxes and government services.

Mall tan

2010-04-28T09:00:00.001-06:00

Now I'm not really the demonstrating type, but while I was in D.C. last week I came up with a near perfect idea for a protest.

Effective July 1st of this year, the federal government will impose a 10% tax on indoor tanning services. The purpose behind this is to fund the new health care laws.

The plan is simple: on July 1st at 12:00 noon, be at the capital mall (preferable near the reflecting pool just West of the capitol building, but if that's too crowded there is plenty of lawn around), dressed in the most revealing manner allowed by law, lay out and get some sun.

If you are not entirely satisfied with how you look in a swimsuit, all the better. Bonus points will be awarded to very large men in Speedos.

Happy easter

2010-04-04T07:25:00.001-06:00

Today we remember Jesus, who rose from the dead many years ago, thereby becoming the first documented zombie in the Juedeo - Christian traditions. Zombie Jesus walked into a market one day and this scared a rabbit. Rabbits have an instinctual fear of the mobile deceased. The rabbit in it's flight knocked over several baskets of eggs. Thus began the age old tradition of hunting for eggs on easter.

So remember folks, center mass for humans, headshots on the undead, and avoid hippies.

Obligitory post about the medicinal takeover (part 2)

2010-04-01T08:16:00.003-06:00

Since my last post generated so much feedback (a whopping 4 people responded here and on Facebook) I ought to do a follow up (that the same 4 people will read). Apologies to those who have already ready seen this on FB; I'm just not that creative.

Stacey on FB asked, "but what happens when my perfectly healthy child suddenly develops leukemia so the insurance company cancels my insurance and now I have $100,000 in medical bills I can't afford to pay?"

This question unfortunately has many answers. It also prompts the questions, why does health care cost more than a person can afford, and would it be better with the government running it?

Answering in reverse order: no, health care is worse when run by the government. Every example of socialized medicine is evidence to this. Every government program is a demonstration of inefficiency.

I recently read that certain Army commanders are selling unneeded equipment (specifically, spent small arms brass) as recycled scrap metal rather than as usable, reloadable casings. They are doing so at a significantly reduced price (Army paid less for leftover brass). Why are they doing this? Because money from recycling programs goes back to the command, where money from equipment sales goes back the the government's general fund.

Government agencies are designed so that the more money they waste, the more they get. While I find waste to be acceptable with essential government services (military, law enforcement) there is no need to impose that waste on programs that can be handled by the private sector.

Every time you add a layer of administration, costs can only go up. No matter how efficient, you still must pay the administrator. In an electrical circuit, any redirection, any added wire creates resistance that ultimately increases the power consumption of the circuit.

So why then does medicine cost so much? Government and insurance. Health care providers are limited in what they can charge to the current socialist programs currently in place. To offset their losses to these programs, they charge more to those with the means to pay, thereby creating an additional layer of socialism. Even with private insurance, providers have to juggle costs in order to be profitable. They employ dedicated staff just to manage the different insurance payments.

Let's use an analogy. Imagine you own a car dealership. Imagine you have as many cars stolen from your lot as you have sales. Your options are to improve security, track down the thieves, or charge more to the people who actually pay for cars. In the case of medicine, we've chosen the 3rd option.

Insurance policies have been designed around what the consumer has demanded. Unfortunately, what we have demanded is quite stupid. We want our insurance to pay for routine checkups, minor injuries, pain killers ans Viagra. News flash, THIS IS NOT INSURANCE! What we now call health insurance is a maintenance program. Does your car insurance pay for oil changes? Does your home owner's policy pay for gardening? These are routine events that we are expected to redress ourselves, not extreme emergencies that we cannot afford.

So to the first question, what does one do in the leukemia situation?

First, get an insurance plan that actually covers emergencies and won't drop you for using it. The basic theory of the free market is that you set policy with your wallet, not with the government.

Second, for those who still cannot afford the care they need, employ the charity of your neighbors. America is full of charitable people; even in our current situation, we can still afford to donate millions to Haiti. The difference between charity and socialism is the mandate. Given the choice, I would much rather give $100 to a family with a sick child over paying the federal government to build turtle tunnels in Florida.

Obligitory post about the medicinal takeover

2010-03-31T11:52:00.004-06:00

Once again dear readers (both of you) it is time for my quasi-annual blog post.

Let's start out with how Daddy thinks health care should work in the ideal world:
1. Get sick
2. Go to doctor
3. Get treatment
4. Pay doctor
5. Get better (hopefully)

Compare this to other transactions:
1. Get hungry
2. Go to restaurant
3. Order a cheeseburger
4. Pay for cheeseburger
5. Eat cheeseburger

Even the insurance thing I can understand even if I feel it is less than ideal.

Insurance operates under the theory that most people will not experience catastrophic events, and can pay a modest fee. For the few that do experience catastrophic events, they would not be able to afford the costs to correct it.

If we look at auto, or homeowners insurance, the can easily identify trends where the cost of insurances is scaled with the risk of catastrophe. Drivers with accidents have higher insurance costs. Drivers with safer designed cars pay less insurance. Those with home security systems get insurance discounts.

So why have we decided that a 25 year old choir boy should pay the same for health insurance as the 80 year old crack addict with a pack a day habit, 8 DUIs, and herpes?

Does this make sense to anyone? Does this seem like a reasonable business model?

Why don't I open up a burger joint, charge $20 a month so you can eat whenever you get hungry. That plan might have worked if I knew how many burgers you ate a month, but more likely is I'm going to have to charge you $500 a month for your 'hunger insurance'.

Since no one can be denied, and everyone will pay the same, how can it be economically sane for an insurance company do anything but charge more?

How can an insurance company afford to operate in conditions such as these? They can't, and I'm fairly certain that's what the socialists are counting on.

Add-on wars

2009-05-03T20:49:00.007-06:00

Those of you that play WoW may be aware of the add-ons. WoW more or less pioneered a method of interface modifications where anyone can create a modification using Lua code.

Now game modifications aren't a new concept, but the fact that Blizzard has provided resources to do this is fairly novel. They have allowed for customization, but still have means to deal with what they consider cheating.

Now most software based game modifications (notably excluded are hardware based Game Genie or Game Shark) are historically written by fans who want to expand their gameplay. Many of these add-ons were in fact licensed under the GPL (if you don't know, look it up).

Add-ons are various and many. They are spread out all over the interwebz. Needless to say, it can be quite confusing to sort through them all. An obvious solution is is to create a website where add-ons might be centrally stored and distributed. Enter websites like Curse and WoWinterface.

These solutions of course are not perfect. They depend on the permission of the add-on copyright holder, and a sufficient number of add-ons. Competing websites too diminish the completeness of each other.

Then there was an unconventional solution: WoW Matrix. This is a cross platform (works under Windows, Mac, and even Linux which is not supported by WoW) program that downloads, extracts, and installs add-ons without having to browse for them. It replaces at least 2 pieces of software, and greatly simplifies the process. To top it all off, it alerts you to new versions of your add-ons and updates as needed. The disadvantage of this is that it is more or less a parasite that uses the bandwidth of the hosting site, and circumvents the viewing of revenue producing advertisements on those sites.

Needless to say, Curse and WoW Interface don't like WoW Matrix very much. Thier solution: change their download links to block WoW Matrix. This of course is a perfectly legitimate and not dishonorable method; I have no complaint about it.

They didn't stop there. Anyone who has used WoW add-ons for any length of time knows that when WoW is updated, many add-ons stop working. Curse and WoW Interface know this too, so they deliberately timed their blockage with the release of WoW version 3.1. A legitimate, but not so honorable move. The only purpose I can see behind this was to discredit WoW Matrix, who could not anticipate the change and could not adjust for alternate loctions for the new add-on variations. Now WoW Matrix users, some with dozens of add-ons had few working add-ons

Many of the less than computer savy players have no idea how to download, extract, and install an add-on without some assistant computer. Curse has their own program, but it is slow, only works with Curse hosted add-ons, and only works in Windows (to their credit, a Mac version is in Beta).

WoW Matrix is adjusting by hosting all add-ons that it has a license to. Most of these are the GPLed add-ons.

Here's what's really pissing me off. The add-on Cartographer was written by an employee of Curse. This add-on was previously distributed under GPL. This version can redistributed and modified at the discretion of the licensee. The author of course as a Curse employee can't release a new version under GPL, because then WoW Martix would be allowed to distribute it. They have deliberately replaced the GPL from their current version.

Now if I were a programmer, familiar with Lua, and had any interest in Cartographer (which I don't because it isn't very good for my purposes) I would take the last GPLed version, and create a derivative work. However, since I have none of those things, I'll just recommend that course to others.

I think I got it figured out

2009-04-20T17:44:00.002-06:00

So, the president isn't going to raise taxes for those making under $250K. Let's just say he only means federal income tax since he's already raised my tobacco tax.

So:
Step 1: Raise taxes on those making over $250k.
Step 2: Print a ton of money backed by....... nothing
Step 3: Spend that money
Step 4: Massive inflation
Step 5: Things cost more because money isn't worth as much
Step 6: Raise the minimum wages continuously over the next several years (because those mean employers are exploiting those poor workers)
Step 6a: Employers have massive layoffs because they can't afford to pay minimum wages......nah, let's not worry about that now.
Step 7: By the end of it all, everyone left with a job that works full time for a reasonable wage will be earning over $250k, and we can tax them to our hearts content (those evil rich people)

The economy of efficiency

2009-02-14T23:34:00.005-06:00

Efficiency is the concept of accomplishing a task with minimal resources.

For example: If a train leaves Chicago for Boston traveling at 60 MPH, and a train leaves from Boston for Chicago at 90 miles an hour, the train from Boston makes more efficient use of time.

Note here that we're only considering the resource of time. If we were trying to make more efficient use of fuel, the Chicago train would probably win.

Let's look at light bulbs. If bulb A costs $2 and bulb B costs $4, bulb A is makes more efficient use of money. Now if bulb B lasts 3 ties as long as A, bulb B is more efficient. If they they both have the same life span but bulb A uses $5 less worth of electricity over it's lifetime, A is more efficient.

The point is that we have to consider all of our resources and determine where we need to improve efficiency. The goal of efficiency is to reduce the use of a specific resource while still accomplishing the task.

In a modern society, the resource is simple and universal; money. We want to do the same thing with less money so we can spend our money somewhere else. The end state is improved quality of life, or at least that's the goal.

Let's go back to our light bulbs. We've changed over to light bulb C that costs a little more, but lasts longer and uses less power for the same performance. We're now spending less in the long run on bulbs and electricity. There are however some broader effects.
The power company is not making less money because we're consuming less power. Light bulb company A is now going out of business because nobody buys their product at all. The light bulb store had to lay off half of their staff because people aren't buying as many light bulbs. The freight company that delivered the bulbs fired half it's truck drivers for the same reason. Next year freight company doesn't buy as many tucks, so the truck making company fires it's truck makers.

Now we come to the real problem: efficiency leads to superfluous resources.
Our major resource of concern as previously stated is money. What do we do when have superfluous money? There are actually a couple of options:
a. Improve efficiency
This means that we'll take the money we saved by switching to bulb C and invest in a new fuel efficient car. This option of course is limited as we can only improve efficiency to the point that technology allows. After we have upgraded all of our resource consuming habits, what do we then do with the excess money?
b. Improve lifestyle
This was the ultimate goal of efficiency. I want to spend less on light bulbs so I can afford a steak dinner every Friday. I want to spend less on gas so I can save up for a new plasma TV.
c. Conserve
Put the money in the bank, put canned food in the pantry, stock up on ammo, save up for the kid's college, etc.
d. Address prior obligations (i.e. pay off debts)

Option a continues to circulate money, but is the fastest way to eliminate resource demand.
Option b creates new resource demand.
Option c depending on the application can circulate money or stop circulation. If you're storing wads of cash in your mattress, there is no circulation. If you're stocking up on consumables or even keeping your funds in a bank, circulation continues.
Option d circulates money to those to whom we are obligated, and they have the same options we did with our surplus.

We can apply this principle to automation as well. The purpose behind automation is to allow for fewer man-hours to accomplish the same task. If I have have a filing cabinet with 5000 records and I need them sorted alphabetically, this could take hours. To perform the same task when the records are stored in a computer database, the task takes a few seconds. Automation invariably results in less people work.

This brings me to the ultimate purpose behind this essay: electronic health care records. Beyond my personal reservations about having my medical records floating on the internet for anyone designated by the government to see (remember folks, just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you), the fact that this project is lauded as means of creating jobs is absurd.

Automation does not create jobs, it eliminates them.

Bread and circuses

2009-02-12T20:35:00.003-06:00

If anyone hasn't guessed guessed by now, I don't like what's going on in the fed today.

The problem is largely due to expectations; the American population expects the Fed to fix all their problems for them, and the Fed thinks they can actually accommodate them.

Obama's going to get me heath care, Obama's going to get Osama, Obama's going to fix the economy, Obama's going to get me a job, Obama's going to get me a new kitchen.

Now the President nor the rest of the fed isn't doing much to discourage these notions which means one of a couple things:

1. They're content to let the idiots be idiots so long as it keeps them in power. In this case we should remove them from office for being unethical.
2. They actually think they can provide all of these things to the people. In this case we should remove them from office because they're morons.
3. They are deliberately misleading the public in order to gain power and further their personal agendas. In this case they should be removed from office and tried for treason.

Let's be realistic; the president isn't going to give you a new kitchen. You're already on a 2 year waiting list for public housing, what makes you think more money in a failed program will somehow fix it?

We have the same military we've had since 2001, you think change out a couple of people will somehow make Bin Laden appear? If we do catch him, do you really think it's going to make that much of a difference other than a short term morale boost?

When the fed mandates better benefits at McDonalds, and McDonalds has to downsize to pay for it, even more people will be out of work, therefore have no work related benefits.

The government heath care currently in place already sucks. This is because the government sucks at providing services. A new universal health care system run by the government will suck universally.
It will cost more than comparable private insurance, but unlike private insurance we'll be paying for it whether we want to or not. That's right folks, it's not free; nothing is. It will be completely inefficient (because it's the government) and cost everyone a ton of money. Low income people will have poorly managed and limited availability health care, just like they do now. The middle class will now be forced to use the same limited availability and poorly managed system because they won't be able to afford private insurance after their taxes. The wealthy while they still might be able to afford private insurance will still be paying a ton for everybody else to have shitty health care.

Then we have a plan to "stimulate" the economy. Anyone who looks at the proposals can easily see that the results will not be worth the cost. The biggest problem is the assumption that the fed has some control over the economy, which they don't.

A year, two years from now when these "new" programs fail to deliver as promised (and they will fail) what do we do then? Will we spend more money on more worthless projects? Will we get mad at the blues and elect a red congress (that way we can blame someone else a couple years later)? Or will there be riots in the streets, looting and robbing because the government didn't meet their expectations?

Personally I think that's the order of likelyhood since we never learn from our mistakes, but I don't plan on being unprepared in the event of public backlash.

My Linux Conversion

2008-12-10T21:53:00.005-06:00

So this will probably end up being a pretty long story. It spans years and pock marked with minor developments.

To start at the beginning, I first really began using computers about the time that Windows was first becoming available (3.0 I believe). Mind you I didn't have this fancy Windows stuff... I was on a top of the line 286 processor with 1 MB of RAM. I had Geoworks for a GUI but never used it. No need, I had DOS. On a related note, I still use DOS. The command line is very often the easiest way to accomplish complex file management task quickly, and with batch file it provides for simple automation of routine tasks.

When the `95 revolution came out, I was not impressed. The operating system had begun to take over the the machine, and do things that I didn't want it to. This is what really turned me off from Windows; by default it categorized all users as idiots and just did everything for you. Not only did this waste system resources with unneeded functions, but it stifles further learning.

I went from that hand-me-down 286 to a fancy new win95 machine sometime in early 98. I kept that thing until about 2000 when I upgraded to a shiny new98 machine around 2000 (win2k didn't install for some reason, and ME sucked....friend built it). After a bunch of false starts and stupid software decisions, I started to really learn the OS. When I discovered Black Viper, it really started to perform to it's maximum potential.

My current machine is an HP built for XP media center purchased in 05. I got it mostly for games. My intent was to set up two machines side by side; one for internet, one for every everything else. The reason for this was that I had learned the internet was a dangerous place filled with resource wasting spyware/adware code that my Windows machine would happily installed just by thinking about the internet. Granted this was less common since I had grown and learned, and formatted, and reinstalled repeatedly (had my format down to a science). Sanitary browsing practices eliminate most of your unwanted code, but never 100%.

It wasn't until I tried to download America's Army v 2.7 or so that I looked at an alternate browser. IE 6 had worked good enough for a while, but it wouldn't download a file that big. Not very trusting, I installed Firefox just for that download, and it worked perfectly. I confess, I had a lot of reservations about this odd software that wasn't MS owned. It worried me; how could I trust it? So of course I researched. Research led to interest, and when I discovered the add-ons, I was hooked.

Firefox led me to look more into open source software. I had been using some OSS for years (namely CDex) but never paid attention to the license. The inevitable result was really learning about Linux.

Reading up on Linux, I liked what I heard. I had a spare hard drive in my old machine (now running 2k) so I formatted it and looked for a distro.

Suse didn't download, and neither did Fedora. Debian downloaded and installed just fine, but the desktop seemed unattractive, and the sound didn't work right off (damn turtle beach card). Ubuntu installed just fine, and the sound problem resolved when I connected the digital output. For quite a while (until it died about 2 years back) it was my internet machine, while I did everything else on XP.

Sometime later during a virus scan on the XP machine discovered something bad on the B drive that I didn't even know I had. This drive was actually my restore partition, and as often happens, the malware installed itself there where I could not delete it (thanks Windows). The solution was obvious, disable system restore ( which is worthless), format the partition. Now I've got 8 GB on my hard disk not being used; what a perfect opportunity to install Linux. Now there's something I find quite appropriate about using the Windows system restore partition for Linux.

Well, my old machine died, the parts went to the wife's PC, and I got her old Mac for my internet machine.

A few months back, XP decided to upgrade to SP3. Windows upgrades are normally not a problem but this one left the OS completely unbootable. I could still boot Ubuntu (7.10 at the time) but I had some difficulty running WoW with it.

After a complete re-image with the XP recovery disks, I decided to hit Ubuntu a bit harder. The recovery disk left my entire hard disk in the original partitions, and completely wiped out my previous Ubuntu install (Windows ate my Linux as the saying goes). The install also took a full day, and then another day or two to remove crap software, disable annoying RAM wasters, and install updates (SP3 excluded)

This time I decided to resize partitions to give me more room for Linux. I ended up with about 100 GB for Windows, 5 for root, 3 for swap (the 8 gigs at the front of the drive reserved for recovery), 30 for usr, and 65 for home. Might not be a great way to partition, but it's working so far (also left some unformatted space between partitions for later expansion)

Ubuntu install takes an hour or so, then some minimal configuration to allow proprietary formats (namely MP3 and video files). I used the proprietary driver for my ATI video card (integrated) and also installed Wine with some minor configuration.

I backed up my WoW before any of the formatting, so that just involved a 1 hour copy over the home network from my Linkstation (big time saver over downloading all of those updates from the net). WoW ran horribly with Wine, but it ran.

Everything I had read told me that ATI video sucks for Linux, and Nvidia has a better reputation even in Windows, so I decided it was time for an upgrade. Armed with list of well supported cards from Ubuntu's web site, specs of my computer, and a general idea of what I wanted, I set off for Best Buy (because there is no Fry's here). The poor guy in the computer department was so confused when I told him what I was trying to do; he kept assuring me that all the cards would work with whatever version of Windows I was using.

The endstate was that I now have a dual monitor (digitial and VGA) card with onboard RAM (freeing up system memory). Not a spectacular card (the wife's video card puts my entire computer to shame) but more than adequate for my needs.

Setting it up in XP was easy enough. I have experience with dual monitors under XP at work, and it came with a Windows disk.

Linux was a bit harder, since I had to learn how to do it under this OS, but with the Nvidia Settings app, it's super easy.

When they say Nvidia has great Linux drivers, they ain't kidding. WoW runs perfectly with this new card.

That was pretty much all she wrote. Other than installing the new expansion (WOTLK) I've been MS free for a couple of months.

And yes, I'm completely ignoring the fact that I haven't posted anything of any significance in over a year.

Activity

2008-09-10T05:08:00.002-06:00

Just a quick note that I haven't posted here in quite a while, and probably won't for a while.

The militia

2007-08-23T19:43:00.000-06:00

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The anti freedom movement declares somehow that the second amendment refers to the National Guard. This I don't get at all.

How it can refer to an agency created over 100 years after it's ratification?
How is it the rest of the Bill of Rights protects the rights of individuals, but the 2nd only protects the "rights of the government"
How does a government have rights?
Why would we need to amend the constitution to provide for a militia, when the constitution already provides for it?
In what manner does "the people" mean "the state"?

The term "militia", has until recent times meant an amateur military organization. An army is a dedicated professional force which would be augmented by the militia in times of emergency. The militia is sometimes formed and trained at the time it is needed.

The original militia consisted of all eligible persons. Eligibility used to consist of white, able bodied men between 18 and 45. They were required to provide their own arms and ammunition.

The inappropriately named Militia Act of 1903 created the National Guard which is a very poor representation of a state militia. The Guard is a professional army, uniformly trained and equipped. It is subordinate to regular army and must obey the regulations of the federal government before those of the state.

The closest thing we have to a real militia is the selective service. The only problem with this agency, is that those conscripted fall under the authority of the regular armed forces. A true militia would answer to the government. While the militia would often fight along with the army, their command met at the commander in chief.

I am no fan of conscription, and I would like to see the selective service eliminated. Compulsory service is never as effective as volunteer service. Those forced to serve are often a distraction to operations rather than an asset. If a nation can't find sufficient staff for their war, that is a clear indication that the people do not support it (voting at it's best).

What I propose is a national militia. This force would be composed of all volunteer citizens, of the age of majority, non-felons, and more or less able bodied (more specific standards of course would be developed). These militiamen would be required to provide their own arms and ammunition (also to certain reasonable standards... a .22 just wouldn't do) and be subject to activation for domestic defense only. An initial period of training would be provided and periodic training conducted at the convenience of the member. The government would be responsible for the administration, and providing personnel and facilities for training. No equipment, ammunition, or salary would be issued. The only advantage would be qualification (and preference) to purchase from the Civilian Marksmanship Program. In order to have a well equipped militia, the CMP would start selling surplus selective fire rifles to militia members.

I think it's a reasonable solution for everyone concerned. The militia would return, and serve it's intended function. As an added benefit, it takes away one more stupid anti-gun argument.

And no more Walgreens

2007-08-20T20:10:00.000-06:00

Walgreens is a wonderful store with a collection of products that are difficult to find elsewhere. For example, I buy all my pipe cleaners there. I bought batteries for my Glock's mounted light/laser combo there (weapon accessories with $8 batteries are not kitty toys). I even had my passport photo for the concealed carry license application taken there.

So I found it quite ironic to find this sign put up the other day:
Now this is in know way shape or form the correct sign, but the intent is obvious.

So, I sent a message off to the Walgreens website to inquire whether or not this is local policy (that way I know to complain to). That was all I asked, but I got this response (with some smart ass remarks added in):

Dear Mr. Warcrimes, ok, that was changed

Thank you for your concern regarding the issue of concealed weapons on Walgreens property. We exercise our right to restrict the presence of firearms on our property for the security of our employees and customers. question answered, but they continue By doing this, we believe but obviously haven't researched we will reduce the chance of injury in the event any criminal activity occurs in the store like when you hired a felon as a security guard who shot a guy over a pair of sunglasses?. We realize others may have a different opinion only those of us who know how to read, but we believe this is the safest for robbers looking for pharmaceuticals and employed security with limited background investigation approach based on our extensive retail experience because I'm sure they've had a lot of problems with people who have undergone extensive background checks and training.

Thank you for sharing your concerns. We hope you’ll give us another chance to serve you in the future Walmart carries pipe cleaners and batteries too so...... fat chance.

Sincerely,

Marci T.
Consumer Response Representative

Since this is a Walgreens policy and not just local, I guess I won't shop at any of them. After all, they believe it might be unsafe, and who am I to argue with their extensive retail experience? I mean, I just have training and experience in security and self defense and I've researched facts about how armed self defense is the most effective way to deal with violent crime. I mean come on, they believe it's the best way; how can facts compare to unfounded belief?

Comparing guns to cars

2007-08-20T19:41:00.000-06:00

One often cited argument for greater restrictions on firearms ownership is the registration and operator licensing of motor vehicles. Many will conclude that since we can do it for cars, we can do it for guns.

Let's forget for the moment that the ownership and use of arms is a natural right (inalienable or God given if you prefer) guaranteed (not granted) by the Bill of Rights, and consider a land where firearms are actually treated like automobiles.

First let's talk about a driver's license. A driver's license permits a person to operate certain motor vehicles on public roads.

A person who does not drive on public roads requires no license. Many vehicles are not permitted on public roads and therefore require no license to operate. Other vehicles (such as bicycles) are allowed but still require no license. A license is not required to drive on private
property. No license is required to own any motor vehicle, just to operate certain vehicles under certain conditions.

Applying this criteria to guns, we can conclude that no license would be required to own a firearm, or operate one on private property.

Licenses could be issued to operate a firearm in public, but might only be required for certain types of firearms. Other firearms might not be allowed to be operated in public at all.

BB and pellet guns pose little danger so like bicycles and roller skates, should require no license to shoot in public. Anything using powder would need a license to fire in public. Laws would of course be in place to ensure safe shooting in public (wear safety equipment, signal your intentions, right of way, etc)

Other weapons that are unsafe to operate in public should also have no license. Since minibikes aren't street legal, one shouldn't fire a full auto Uzi in a shopping center (way to dangerous). Exceptions are of course made. Streets are sometimes blocked off for parades or road
construction, thereby allowing typically unauthorized vehicles to operate.

It should also be noted, that a person may be in possession of a vehicle in public, without any license required. They can even have the means to operate said vehicle (i.e. the keys) and fuel. They only stipulation is that they aren't permitted to drive it there. Compared to firearms, this
would mean anyone can carry a loaded gun ready to fire, and they would only break the law if they pulled the trigger without a license (other crimes not withstanding). Driving without a license is a relatively minor offense and is generally excusable in an emergency (escaping a
flood, or seeking urgent medical care for example). Comparatively, shooting a person is against the law, but self defense is a valid legal justification.

Registration again is only for certain vehicles that are to be used on public roads. To drive on private property, or just to own a vehicle requires no registration. Skateboards and go carts need no registration. So why register firearms that aren't going to be fired in public except
in emergencies?

Selected for promotion

2007-08-10T17:19:00.000-06:00

I'm starting to lose faith in the Army. Some how I've been selected for promotion to Sergeant First Class (aka E7, or 3 up 2 down)

What they fail to realize is that I'm just going to make more decisions, and my superiors rarely like the results.

So, I get a few hundred dollars more a month, wear an extra rocker, and continue doing what I have been for the past couple of years. Real smart Army .... but I love you.

Zombies and Hippies

2007-08-09T20:09:00.000-06:00

Zombies are a big concern of mine. I consider the animation of the recently deceased to be inevitable and the public at large is ill equipped to deal with it (although there is improvement in this area).

Popular zombie theories include the creatures consuming some portion of their human victims. Romero's zombies as well as Brooks's ingested any available part of the human body as well as other animal life. Return of the Living Dead zeds specifically sough human brains. Resident Evil explained the phenomenon as a reduction to basic instinct. 28 days/weeks later employed very non-traditional zombies who did not eat at all.

There is a good chance that when there is no more room in Hell, Zack will be biting.

Now, then we have hippies. This subculture has a tendency to gather in large groups and individually or collectively self medicate. A narcotic of great popularity is Cannabis. The calming effects of Marijuana combined with the typical philosophy of the hippy make him a very non-combative subject.

Take the conditions of a hippy gathering (this could range from a dozen to several hundred) and introduce the mobile deceased. Zack eats a hippy and with it a significant quantity of tetrahydrocannabinol. A well document side effect of THC is increased hunger; our zombie will soon be looking for his favorite snack item. Meanwhile, former hippy now shambler with his own chemical imbalance will treat his own case of the munchies. The passive nature of the hippy gathering will restrict their willingness to enact proper quarantine.

The combination of these factors serves to severely aggravate the already high rate of zombie infection.

So remember the 5 H's of a zombocolypse: stay away from hospitals, highways, handcuffs (police), HMMWVs (military), and hippies.

"Assault Weapon" Features

2007-06-15T16:37:00.000-06:00

The Brady Bunch has on their website this list of "Assault Weapon"
features and why they are evil

* A large-capacity ammunition magazine, enabling the shooter to continuously fire dozens of rounds without reloading. Standard hunting rifles are usually equipped with no more than 3 or 4-shot magazines.

All hunting rifles are based upon military weapons.
A lever action 30-30 (originally used by cavalry) typically holds 6 rounds. The M1 Garand (battle rifle turned hunting rifle) holds 8. The Mauser riles (which are the basis for most bolt action hunting rifles) hold 5-8 depending on the model. Muzzle loading arms have 1 round, the
M-1 carbine holds 30.

Most states limit magazines to 5 rounds; most rifles marketed for hunting are designed with that limit in mind. These laws are intended to encourage clean kills. The capacity of hunting rifles has nothing to do with it's functionality in hunting. A 30 round magazine would be useful in hunting, but the law typically prohibits it.

There are 2 main reasons that modern military rifles have higher capacity magazines:
1. The ammunition is smaller. More rounds can fit in a magazine of equal size.
2. Technology now allows for larger magazines that feed reliably.

The above statement from the Brady's assumes tat the only purpose of a firearm is for hunting which is absolutely untrue. 48 states allow citizens to carry firearms for self defense. Self defense is recognized as a legitimate use of firearms pretty much everywhere in the US. Police use firearms to uphold the law, the military uses them to defend the country. While hunting laws prohibit larger magazines from being useful in hunting, there are still plenty of other lawful applications where the full capacity has impact.

* A folding stock on a rifle or shotgun, which sacrifices accuracy for concealability and for mobility in close combat.

A well made folding stock does not reduce accuracy. When extended, it provides the same amount of support as a fixed stock.

A folded stock does make a weapon more concealable than it would be with the stock extended. It is not however more concealable than any other rifle. Federal law mandates that a rifle be no less than 26" long and have a barrel not less than 16". I somehow can't see my 32" AR-15 with buttstock collapsed being more concealable than my 26" long shotgun.

Folding stocks also include telescoping adjustable stocks. These are very useful when a rifle is used by more than one person. My wife is much shorter than I. The adjustable buttstock on my rifle allows us both to shoot it comfortably and therefore accurately.

* A pistol grip on a rifle or shotgun, which facilitates firing from the hip, allowing the shooter to spray-fire the weapon. A pistol grip also helps the shooter stabilize the firearm during rapid fire and makes it easier to shoot assault rifles one-handed.

The US Army defines the M16 rifle as "shoulder fired". The M16 (and it's civilian equivalents) are designed with the buttstock inline with the barrel and bolt to allow for more accurate firing. A pistol grip is used because early styles could not be practically fitted to the design.

When a hand is close to level with the shoulder, it's angle is best suited to grip an object more vertical than horizontal (such as a pistol grip). When the hand moves downward to the hip, the angle changes so that it is better suited to grip a horizontal object (such as the stock of a non-pistol grip rifle). I have fired using both types of grips from the should and from the hip. My observation is that a pistol grip is better suited for shoulder firing while a more horizontal grip is better suited for hip firing.

I don't know what "spray-fire" means, and the Bradys aren't sharing their definition. With firearms I've heard the term "spray" used to describe fully automatic fire. Fully automatic firearms are covered by entirely different laws (and therefore would be exempt from any "assault weapon" law. I have added pistol grips to non-pistol grip rifles, I only noted less wrist fatigue not any difference in control.

I also fail to see how a pistol grip makes it easier to shoot one handed, nor why it should matter. A pistol grip supports the rifle from the front rather than underneath. For one handed shooting, I see the pistol grip as less than ideal and would contribute to the muzzle dropping.

I know of no laws that prohibit one handed rifle shooting. Perhaps amputees should be discriminated against when it comes to firearms.

* A barrel shroud, which is designed to cool the barrel so the firearm can shoot many rounds in rapid succession without overheating.
It also allows the shooter to grasp the barrel area to stabilize the weapon, without incurring serious burns, during rapid fire.

A barrel shroud depending on the weapon will have different functions.
On early machine guns (fully automatic type not covered by assault weapon laws) they contained a liquid coolant to prevent heat damage to the barrel. Most modern barrels are air cooled, the barrel shroud on these is a safety device to prevent burns from a hot barrel. A rifle forearm provides the same function, and is common on what they call "sporting" rifles. A shroud that fully encloses the barrel actually inhibits cooling since it restricts airflow.

* A threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor, which serves no useful sporting purpose. The flash suppressor allows the shooter to remain concealed when shooting at night, an advantage in combat but unnecessary for hunting or sporting purposes. In addition, the flash suppressor is useful for providing stability during rapid fire, helping the shooter maintain control of the firearm.

A flash suppressor is designed to reduce the muzzle flash and subsequent temporary blinding effect on the firer associated with low light shooting. This is very useful to those who hunt predators at night or game in the early morning. A hunter may need to follow up with another shot or follow the wounded animal, both are made more difficult by compromised night adapted vision.

The devices are known as flash suppressors, not flash eliminators. A rifle that fires at night produces a very visible signature, even when equipped with a flash suppressor.

A flash suppressor does little to affect the stability of a rifle. A compensator or muzzle brake helps reduce the impact of a recoiling weapon. Holes or ports cut into the end of a barrel a similar effect but are not covered in any law.

The ban on threaded barrels did not prevent the use of pin on or welded barrel attachments.

* A threaded barrel designed to accommodate a silencer, which is useful to assassins but clearly has no purpose for sportsmen. Silencers are illegal so there is no legitimate purpose for making it possible to put a silencer on a weapon.

Silencers useful in military operations are also functional in self defense and sports. The report of a firearm is loud and will cause hearing damage. A silenced firearm can reduce or eliminate the need for hearing protection when firing. This is useful to hunters who must be aware of their surroundings by using all senses, or for self defense when one can't ensure that everyone nearby has adequate hearing protection.

Silencers are not illegal under federal law. They are highly regulated and banned in some states, but they can be legally obtained.

Like the flash suppressor, silencers can be attached without a threaded barrel.

* A barrel mount designed to accommodate a bayonet, which obviously serves no sporting purpose.

A bayonet mount these days serves little purpose even in the military.
In the hands of civilians it's purpose is primarily for collectors who wish to have an accurate representation of military arms.

The measure of "sporting purpose" I find absurd. If I want to decorate my buttstock with stickers it serves no sporting purpose, but it also doesn't expand upon the criminal use of the weapon.

Firearms were not invented with sporting purposes in mind. These are weapons of war and defense that in some cases have been adapted to hunting or target shooting.

The Bradys have concluded that self defense, resistance to invasion, and resistance to tyranny are not legitimate actions, but hunting for sport is.

Hunting arms have always been based upon military arms. When the Army used lever guns the hunters had muzzle loaders. The Army gets bolt action and the hunters use lever. Now the military is using semi-auto and the most popular hunting rifle design is bolt action. Semi-autos are beginning to work their way in. M16 variations have been popular for pest control and new calibers are being developed for larger game. They are just as accurate as their more traditional counterparts and more ergonomic. In a few years I expect most hunters will be using semi-auto rifles.

What I find most disturbing about their justifications is the blatant
contradiction:

"A folding stock ..., which sacrifices accuracy"
"A pistol grip ..., which facilitates firing from the hip, allowing the shooter to spray-fire the weapon. A pistol grip also helps the shooter stabilize the firearm ..." (yes, both sentences describe the same feature)
"...allows the shooter to grasp the barrel area to stabilize the weapon..."
"...the flash suppressor is useful for providing stability..."

Ban the features that reduce stability and accuracy, ban the features that increase stability and accuracy.

Compliance Parts

2007-06-13T17:19:00.000-06:00

I hear quite a few opinions on compliance parts, and after some research I've decided that most of them are uniformed.

Q: So, in order to have a legal AK or AK variant, how many "compliance parts" must your rifle have?
A: Between 0 and 6

The law requires that no non-sporting rifles or shotguns be imported.
None. You cannot buy an imported non-sporting rifle unless it was imported before 30 November 1990.

The tricky part is that you can build or assemble a rifle or shotgun, but you must not make a non-sporting weapon from imported parts. Even trickier, you can use imported parts, but no more than 10. The BATFE considers the following to be parts:

(1) Frames, receivers, receiver castings, forgings or stampings *
(2) Barrels *
(3) Barrel extensions
(4) Mounting blocks (trunions) 1
(5) Muzzle attachments 1
(6) Bolts *
(7) Bolt carriers *
(8) Operating rods
(9) Gas pistons *
(10) Trigger housings
(11) Triggers *
(12) Hammers *
(13) Sears
(14) Disconnectors *
(15) Buttstocks *
(16) Pistol grips *
(17) Forearms, handguards *
(18) Magazine bodies *
(19) Followers *
(20) Floorplates *
* Present on all AK rifles
1 Present on many AK rifles

I have a MAK-90, which was designed specifically for the infamous Clinton "Assault Weapon" ban. It has no bayonet, no grenade launcher, no flash supressor/compensator/muzzel brake, and a non folding/fixed length thumbhole stock. How many compliance parts does this need? Zero.

The MAK-90 is a "sporting rifle", it is entirely and legally imported.
So long as it remains a sporting rifle, I'm OK.

Since we don't have the "Assault Weapon" ban anymore, I'm going to change things up a bit. I never liked the MAK-90 stock and a muzzle brake makes shooting more enjoyable. If I replace the stock I'll need pistol grip too. Let's go with an M-4 style telescoping stock.

Uh oh, that will make the rifle non-sporting (i.e. ergonomic), we'll need to count the imported parts. Muzzle brake, barrel, handguard, gas piston, bolt carrier, bolt, receiver, trunion, hammer, trigger, disconnector, buttstock, pistol grip, magazine body, follower, floorplate. That's 16 parts.

The stock, grip, and brake are all made in the US by TAPCO so now I'm down to 13 parts. To finish this remodeling I need to remove or replace to additional parts. One solution would be to have only US made magazines, but those are expensive ($20 a pop) and I already have 5 imported mags, let's find something more useful. I'm going with the handguard to match my new stock and grip (down to 12), and let's replace the trigger, disconnector, and hammer (because it comes in a set, and the stock set sucks).

Now what was previously a 100% imported sporting rifle is now a non-imported non-sporting rifle. It only has 9 imported parts and the modifications were easy. Total cost, about $500.

So what if I want to build my own from a kit? We're going to have the same number of parts (16). Lets start with a demilled AK import for about $100. These are former military rifles (non-sporting) that have been cut at the receiver so they are now just spare parts. Since we have to replace the receiver we might as well do it US. $15 for a blank one that you fold, weld, and heat treat (for personal use only, get them mail order). Down to 15. Trigger group, you can't use the old fire control group anyway because it's full auto; $40 and down to 12. I don't want to replace the bolt or carrier because they're more expensive. $16 gas piston, and a $10 compensator, and we're down to 10. Another option is again the magazines; if you don't already own some it might be worthwhile to go all US. Total cost, under $200 minus tools. Figure about $300 if you buy a completed receiver.

Been busy

2007-06-13T16:48:00.000-06:00

It's been about a month since my last entry. What have I been doing?

Knocked down a garage.

Put up a fence

Made my rifle more evil.

Eeeeeeeeeevillllll

Wiring

2007-05-13T18:02:00.000-06:00

This weekend has been for wiring.

First step was to cut some holes for the new outlet boxes. One in the closet, one in the living room, one in the spare bedroom. Pilot hole with a large drill, then cut the space for the new box with a jigsaw. The walls are plaster (1916 vintage) and destroyed a total of 6 jigsaw blades. I used my new long flexible drill extender with a 10" bit to get under the house. Then I crawl under the house with drill and 3/4" spade bit to expand the holes (3/4" bit didn't fit on the extender). We ran coax and network wire from the bedroom and living room to the basement, then the network wires (3) up to the closet. Also a string of Romex up to to the closet from the basement.

End state: new power outlet in the basement. 2 network plugs and a cable plug in the living room. Network and cable in the spare bedroom. Power, cable, and 3 network plugs in the closet. Now we won't be tripping over the extension cord and CAT V cable running across the house and can watch TV outside of the kitchen.

I have G.A.S.

2007-05-12T10:02:00.000-06:00

Gun Acquisition Syndrome as I have found out first hand is just one of the variations of the more generic Gear Acquisition Syndrome.

I first experienced G.A.S. as Guitar Acquisition Syndrome. 12 guitars, 5 amplifiers, many effects, 2 mixers, 4 microphones, and miles of cable were not enough to satisfy my cravings. I now have substituted guns for guitars and have been guitar purchase free for over a year.

While it can't be cured there are some things you can do to minimize the impact of your addiction on your family and friends:

Stick to one type of gear. Guns and guitars can be affordable, but not when combined. If you start adding fishing poles, power tools, and computers the effects are more readily noticed.

Acquire investment pieces. Your loved ones will be more understanding if you buy gear that will increase in value. Have something you can leave for your children when you go.

Invest in gear that your family can also enjoy. I recommend an AR-15 with a telescoping stock. It's low recoil, accurate, easy to operate, and the adjustable stock allows it to be quickly set up for any user. With a good rail mount system, everyone can have their own favorite optic too. Be careful not to pass on the affliction, especially if you will ultimately fund their habit.

Never sell your gear if it can be avoided. Any sold gear will leave you feeling empty and you will eventually be moved to replace the piece. Replacement gear will always cost more and will never be of the same quality. It's not uncommon for the G.A.S. afflicted to buy 2 or 3 guns (at a higher price than the original) to replace one sold before.

My guitar G.A.S. is currently in remission. I have to be extra careful that I don't sacrifice my guitar collection to support my gun collection. I know the guitar bug could come back at any time and it would be terrible to not have my Blue Voodoo there to comfort me.

Uniform changes

2007-05-12T09:12:00.000-06:00

So here's the latest idea for a new uniform:
http://www.army.mil
Here's what I like:
It's a combat uniform. In combat soldiers wear body armor. There's no need for thick material under body armor, so it's now eliminated. Remove a layer so we are less prone to overheating.

Here's what I don't:
1. Recruiting slogans have no place on a combat uniform. This is especially true when the slogans are stupid and change every couple of years.
2. There are no provisions on this shirt for a name tape or U.S. Army tape. No rank insignia, and where does one put the SSIFWS (aka combat patch)?

Even more of a nerd today

2007-05-10T18:49:00.000-06:00

I decided to try writing an article for Wikipedia.

Here it be

I'm sick and tired

2007-05-08T00:09:00.000-06:00

In the literal sense. I've come down with a nasty cold and I'm still recovering from that sleep deprived AT.

News:
AT is done. The SGM got mad because my class on SPORTS didn't take 30 minutes like he had planned. Couple of things here
1) How can it possibly take 30 minutes to explain corrective action with a weapon?
2) Why did they expect 30 minutes for the class when I told them I needed 5?
3) How can one effectively teach weapons skills with Power Point?

Ordered my M-1 Carbine
Found a sling and oiler combo at a gun show a month or so ago.
Saturday in Garden City I finally got my hands on some 15 round magazines at $10 each. I bought 5. Now I just need the rifle and ammo.

One more place I won't shop

2007-04-24T21:18:00.000-06:00

Casey's general stores have joined the ranks of Kwik Shops and announced with required signage their prohibition on concealed handguns. Unfortunately, I pumped 1.6 gallons before I saw it.

What really irks me is these businesses and in some cases government agencies can't even put up the proper sign. I've spent well over $1000 and countless hours studying in class and on my own in order to legally carry. These geniuses can't even take 5 minutes and $.02 worth of paper to research and print out the right damn sign!

Casey's is not the worst example. Their signs are just 20 feet from the door.
The malls must have some sort of conspiracy going on. All mall entrances are posted, but the stores with direct parking lot access are not. The Hays mall has the wrong size signs
Kwik shops for the most part seem Kosher, except for one in Salina that has it's sign half obscured by a cigarette advertisement.
Gutierrez Mexican Restaurant had this lovely wrong (in so many ways) sign:

Too small, printing around the graphic, and they misspelled Smoking.

Hays medical center has printing on their sign. (unfortunately, it's hard to boycott the only hospital within 50 miles)
Hess clinic has a revolver in their sign when the graphic obviously shows a semi-auto (and they have printing as well)
The city of Lawrence can't even put up the right signs. Riley county is telling stores that their wrong signs are right.

The proper sign regulations can be viewed here.

Update: The Casey's stores in the local area have removed their signs.

Somehow I passed the board

2007-04-21T09:06:00.000-06:00

I beat one other guy, don't be too impressed. So next month I get to go to another board (yay?).

The first guy was nervous. Now he's got the CIB so I doubt he was scared or intimidated, but public speaking is a unique situation that requires experience to do properly. I on the other hand was a front man for a rock band, I performed at open mic, I took public speaking and drama classes, and I spent 6 months giving briefings to hundreds of MOBing and DeMOBing soldiers. I'm no pro, but I have experience. On top of that I always keep a knife in my pocket so in the worst case, I can take out at least 3 of them (they're old, but SFC A. could have given me some trouble). So long as you kill more of them than they kill of you, you win.

Board highlights,
Drill and Ceremony:
"What regulation covers drill and ceremony?" Ok, since the Army decided to change the numbering of it's FMs a few years back, I haven't really bothered remembering any of the new numbers. I knew it was 3-22.5 or 3-21.5. However, he asked what regulation, and D&C is not in any regulation that I am aware of so that's what I answered. Next NCO (SFC A., gotta love 'em) restated it as "What Army publication...". I answered with FM 3-22.5; wrong! Fortunately nobody noticed so I still got the points.

Leadership and counseling:
"What are the 5 types of counseling?" I remember 2 types and only 2 types; event oriented and performance/professional growth oriented. And so I answered. They tried to extract more from me with questions like, "What type of counseling does the 1SG give when a soldier first arrives at the unit?". Answer, "Sergeant, that would be event oriented counseling." For this one, I stuck to my guns, bad form in a board to change your mind.
Turns out I was wrong. I was going of the 1999 edition of 22-100 and one was published in October 2006 (hey, I never said I studied). Performance and professional growth are now 2 types of counseling making it a grand total of 3. FM 22-100 (sorry, FM 6-22 now. There's another 2 questions I got wrong) lists 6 examples of event oriented counseling; examples, not total. I have no idea where he got 5 from. Theory...... nope ASG has it right, but he could be going off an old version. Aha! I just looked at the PDF guide on ASG. It's dated September 2006! Still doesn't explain 5 types; I may be remembering wrong too.

AAR: I wasn't friendly enough. Apparently, I'm supposed to show that I'm an approachable career counselor in a board setting...... I'm still trying to figure out how that's possible.

After the board, I had to gather and sign some documents for a congressional investigation. One of the soldiers I recently reenlisted would have been qualified for a bonus, but wasn't. By the time we could document that he was eligible to reup, he had over 20 years TIS so no bonus.

This trip I took my POV because my wife was with her mother for doctors' appointments, I picked her up in Salina. On the way back, I stopped at the Bullseye indoor range to look for some M-1 Carbine magazines and other things. I've been interested in getting a snub-nosed .357 mag for a back up gun. What has worried me is the recoil. Well I had the opportunity so I rented a Smith and Wesson, a lane, and bought 50 rounds and 2 targets. I don't know the model of the gun; it was stainless steel, 2" barrel, exposed hammer. Ammo was 158gr lead reloads.
Recoil is noticeable, but manageable. Less than the model 29 .44 With 6" barrel I fired before; more than bigger .357s that I've tried. I had no problem with this gun weak hand and double action. I'd still shy away from anything lighter. Steel is cheaper than titanium anyway.
Accuracy is bad, but what do you expect with a 2" barrel? I was grouping about 6" at 8 yards when actually aiming. In contrast: with Sue (my 6" .357") I've had 2" groups at 10 yards. The snubbie is definitely an "Oh shit" weapon.
Fouling worries me a little. After about 15 rounds, the weapon became more difficult to load and unload. I think this may be just a generic downside to revolvers. However, I doubt if I'd even carry 15 rounds for a backup gun. If you need to reload a backup gun, it's time to find a rifle.
Items of interest:
Taurus .357 snubbie in stainless for $359. It's an exposed hammer design and I'm not quite sure if I want hammerless, or maybe one of those snagless hammers.
FN 5-7 for about $1000. I don't ever expect to buy one, but it would be neat to try.

Stopped at Smokey Valley in Lindsborg too. Only item of interest was a S&W hammerless .357 snubbie for $550.

Aikido news: The Manhattan dojo is planning a seminar with 6th dan Penny Bernath. I'll have to see if I can make it.

We're learning

2007-04-19T22:31:00.000-06:00

Columbine: students hid under desks. They made no effort to escape, they to no action to protect themselves.

Virginia Tech: Students knocked over desks to hide behind. They jumped from windows. They barricaded the doors; one professor did so with his body.

We're learning. We've learned that action needs to be taken. We know that giving the bad guy whatever he wants is not an option when he wants your life. Now we need to learn what actions to take.

Note: once again the shooter killed himself before police could correct the situation. This is why I'm armed. I will not wait in line to be executed. I'm not going to hide behind 3/4" of particle board. A shooter that is suppressed or killed cannot effectively fire upon innocents; that's why the police have guns. Other shootings might have been worse, but armed citizens and armed police stopped them.

Virginia Tech is a safe place; nothing like that ever happened there. That's what the students and faculty are saying. It's true; these things don't happen anywhere .... until they do.

We cannot eliminate the means by which people kill each other (other than by eliminating people). The best we can hope for is to minimize it, either by institutional security, or by personal security. The costs of institutional security are great in terms of money, time, and liberty. Personal security only costs those who participate, and it actually increases liberty.

Not so big day

2007-04-19T20:53:00.000-06:00

First, I get up in the morning early and can't find my tie. Last year I went to the pre-board to find that I was supposed to be in greens.

So 3 hours later after a stop to pick up a new tie (my wife is a wonderful woman, she happened to be with her mom in Salina and got one for me), I arrive in Wichita (20 minutes late) and everyone asks me why I'm there.

Long story short, I missed one of the 800 daily e-mails that changed the date to tomorrow (get to do it all over again). I also found out the uniform is ACU. So a another 3 hour drive back. Picked up the camcorder for tonight's test only to discover the power cable is missing (that sucks)

On to the test:
Most of the class (about 10) were testing for 5th Kyu. I was Uke for one of them and the rest took turns. I was the only one testing for 4th Kyu (I'm the most experienced in our dojo besides Sensei). At the start of the test, I was already tired (as was Uke who had just tested for 5th Kyu). I noted some minor mistakes but I think it was a good performance none none the less.
Sensei critiqued us after the fact. Most of what he said about mine I hadn't heard of before. He spent most of his time with the 5th Kyu candidates so I pretty much tried to figure out the techniques on my own.
End result, we all passed. I'm 4th Kyu now as far as this dojo is concerned. I've already accepted the idea that my rank might not be recognized when I move (provided there's even a dojo there) but so long as I'm learning I'm happy.

Big day tomorrow

2007-04-18T21:22:00.000-06:00

Early day tomorrow because I'm driving to Wichita for a Career Counselor of the Year pre-selection board. This would be a fun thing (I've enjoyed boards in the past) but the timing is off. Work is busy, I'm now married, and the best part is that I have an Aikido test in the evening. The board is supposed to be done at 1400 which means it will probably go until 1600. My class starts at 1900 so it could be close. I think this is the time to substitute my biography (which I have not prepared) with the Insane Clown Posse's "I want my shit" (which I have prepared). I could do the Humpty Dance but everyone would be expecting that.

I've been doing the Aikido thing for 3 years now and this is my second test (4th Kyu). The progress has been rather slow the past 2 years (Sensei keeps pace with the mode and I have more experience than the rest of them) but it is progress none the less. Training with less experience Aikidoka is good because if I ever need it, the real Uke will not be trained. New students really bring out the concept that Uke is never wrong.

It's never been about the rank for me, I'm just happy to learn. If I wanted rank I could be a TKD grand master in a year or so. Or I could just call up Ashida Kim and order my certificate. Black belts cost $5 and arrive within a week.

Tests are good. For me I get the chance to do extra practice and focus on specific techniques. For Sensei, he gets to see the results of his teachings.

First post

2007-04-18T21:06:00.000-06:00

Everyone rejoice, DW has a blog now.

Honestly I don't know if I'm going to stick with it this time either. I've got a lot of projects still to finish/work on/start (note to self, add to do list)

Not going to bother with long introductions. If you don't know me yet, check out some of the forums I post on, or just stick around.