Over time the USA has come to represent itself as the police of the world. We were there to police Vietnam and prevent the spread of communism in a domino effect to our doorstep. We have done many things including encourage dictators who torture and kill people just to keep allies in power.
In the end though, what do you expect of the police and when are you most disappointed in the police?
We expect the police to obey the law. We are most disappointed in the police when they break the law.
The USA cannot even have the appearance of breaking the law if it wants to be an effective fighter for justice. In this article it is discussed that a subdivision of a major company in the US is being brought up on charges for aiding in the transport of prisoners to places where there aren't any defenses to these prisoners rights.
I was a member of the US military for 10 years. I have to say that the idea of torturing military members for gain is not only unethical, but is illegal by treaties and laws which bind the US. The Geneva Convention covers military ethics and torture.
So, how is it that civilians are being kidnapped and whisked away to areas where who knows what is being done to them? Who knows? There is a significant problem with this setup in that it does not allow for oversight.
In the TV series 24 unethical actions are performed in cases of severe threat to a large population. Since it is a TV series, these things are well-defined. Nuclear weapon going off in the US territory and things like that.
But who determines what is a severe threat to a large population? What in fact consists of such a threat? Is there a commission that determines that the information x, y and z equals nuclear threat and unethical action should be taken to determine who is doing it, when it is going to happen and stop it from happening? Or is it some men in a closed room, talking to each other, afraid that another 9/11 might happen and going after everyone with the possibility of causing such an event?
Our society in the USA and our technological achievements are indicative of the openness of our society, not the decisions that are handled behind closed doors. McCarthyism is what happens when we enter closed sessions to discuss and jail people. It is the primary direction we are headed in at present.
But if we can't be a moral example to everyone - especially those groups that we go over to police, we simply don't have any authority or respect and no reason these people should follow us.
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
Public Official Sentenced to Death for Taking Bribes
Barbaric as it may sound China is sentencing one of its political servants for taking bribes.
China has in the past executed high level officials for this kind of behavior in the year 2000. The whole story is in this article.
We can do a little thought experiment. An administrator at the highest level of a branch of government takes bribes. Due to his actions several people die. Is the administrator responsible for those deaths? Most probably. Should he be prosecuted? Yes. Should he get the death sentence? Maybe. It depends on the circumstances. I think that death - even manslaughter changes in character if it is in the commission of a crime. However, I think death might be reserved for violent activities that result in death.
The current case against this former administrator is less clear. So far, nothing he did directly attributed to the deaths in question (at least according to the article). It appears that he is being punished as an example.
Yet.... Here in the US bribery seems to be rampant. Large swaths of politicians were implicated in a recent misadventure. It would see that the threat of death would be handy to smack our politicians in line. Execute one for taking bribes that result in the death of a citizen they are supposed to be protecting and you might see a lot less of this kind of activity.
Imagine for a moment that President Bush and Vice President Cheney were brought under charges because they brought the US in to the war in Iraq under false information. It really doesn't matter if they believed the data or not. They are ultimately responsible for our being in a war in Iraq at this moment. Going to war should be like executing a criminal for crimes. You can't do it unless every t is crossed and every i is dotted and complete conviction of the problem is outlined.
Clearly, they did not do their due diligence before banging the war drums and taking us off to war. There are many others in our government guilty of this at the time of the start of the Iraq war.
If the threat and knowledge that if they screwed up they could be potentially be put to death by their own government existed in Bush and Cheney when they pushed us off to war - do you think they would have actively pushed so much for war?
I'm not in favor of capital punishment or war except in very specific circumstances; however, Bush and Cheney's responsibility for many deaths and hardships deserves this kind of scrutiny.
They won't get it as there isn't anything in US law indicating that this kind of behavior is even criminal. Still, it is a nice path for a alternate-history science fiction book.
China has in the past executed high level officials for this kind of behavior in the year 2000. The whole story is in this article.
We can do a little thought experiment. An administrator at the highest level of a branch of government takes bribes. Due to his actions several people die. Is the administrator responsible for those deaths? Most probably. Should he be prosecuted? Yes. Should he get the death sentence? Maybe. It depends on the circumstances. I think that death - even manslaughter changes in character if it is in the commission of a crime. However, I think death might be reserved for violent activities that result in death.
The current case against this former administrator is less clear. So far, nothing he did directly attributed to the deaths in question (at least according to the article). It appears that he is being punished as an example.
Yet.... Here in the US bribery seems to be rampant. Large swaths of politicians were implicated in a recent misadventure. It would see that the threat of death would be handy to smack our politicians in line. Execute one for taking bribes that result in the death of a citizen they are supposed to be protecting and you might see a lot less of this kind of activity.
Imagine for a moment that President Bush and Vice President Cheney were brought under charges because they brought the US in to the war in Iraq under false information. It really doesn't matter if they believed the data or not. They are ultimately responsible for our being in a war in Iraq at this moment. Going to war should be like executing a criminal for crimes. You can't do it unless every t is crossed and every i is dotted and complete conviction of the problem is outlined.
Clearly, they did not do their due diligence before banging the war drums and taking us off to war. There are many others in our government guilty of this at the time of the start of the Iraq war.
If the threat and knowledge that if they screwed up they could be potentially be put to death by their own government existed in Bush and Cheney when they pushed us off to war - do you think they would have actively pushed so much for war?
I'm not in favor of capital punishment or war except in very specific circumstances; however, Bush and Cheney's responsibility for many deaths and hardships deserves this kind of scrutiny.
They won't get it as there isn't anything in US law indicating that this kind of behavior is even criminal. Still, it is a nice path for a alternate-history science fiction book.
PS3 Woes and Console Marketing
A recent article discussed the problems with PS3 sales and the idea that a $100 price cut would do little to boost sales against the Nintendo Wii or even just sales in general.
This article indicated that a $50 price drop would be insignificant and that a $100 drop in price for the PS3 would have minimal impact. At the end of the article it is noted that a $200 priced drop could have a significant impact, but that such a drop in price is not expected.
There are concepts; however, that are not discussed in the article.
The model for sales of the Microsoft XBox 360 and the Sony Playstation 3 is to sell the consoles at a loss and then after x number of video game sales per unit they would be flush and after y number of games sold per unit they would make money.
Employing this kind of logic to its end you find that in reality the price of the console could effectively be zero *if* you had the purchaser open a contract that they had to buy a certain amount of games over a specified period of time.
People could take it on and not buy any games and pay a higher than current price (nonsensical).
People could pay the same price with a contract indicating they will by at least 4 games over the next year. This is what Sony and Microsoft hope for anyway, so if they encode it like that it isn't a big deal and the higher price for the base model becomes justifiable - instead of a price increase (which technically it isn't).
For every rung on the price ladder - let's say $100 in price reduction, you have a contract level indicating that the user will buy x number of games over the next 2 years. You could take this all the way down to a price level of $0 for the console and the person signs a contract that they will buy 15 or 20 games over the next 3 years or something.
Listen, the reason people buy these units is to play the games. They want to buy the games. If you make them pay a hefty price for the console, they don't have much money to buy games. Buying a console makes little sense if you don't buy at least 1 game at the time of purchase. You might swing a few people to buy the Sony Playstation 3 while Blu-Ray players are still horrendously expensive, but this is a short-term win that doesn't really appear to be working anyway. The Nintendo Wii comes with a game, but in turn this just makes it easier for Nintendo owners to buy a game when they get the console and have 2 games to play.
The manufacturers want people to buy the games. The people want to buy the games, the only real limitation is the price of the consoles.
So, end console pricing immediately (if you need that kind of help, Nintedo is pretty secure at the moment in regard to pricing their consoles). Contract people to buy games for the unit to a good point where console cost would be absorbed completely. Hell, start up your own Game Club like the Science Fiction Book Club that I love to buy books from, overcharge for shipping, and offer specials on things that don't sell well and don't count them towards people's contracts to own their system!
These guys need to be inventive if they expect to keep this portion of their businesses alive.
This article indicated that a $50 price drop would be insignificant and that a $100 drop in price for the PS3 would have minimal impact. At the end of the article it is noted that a $200 priced drop could have a significant impact, but that such a drop in price is not expected.
There are concepts; however, that are not discussed in the article.
The model for sales of the Microsoft XBox 360 and the Sony Playstation 3 is to sell the consoles at a loss and then after x number of video game sales per unit they would be flush and after y number of games sold per unit they would make money.
Employing this kind of logic to its end you find that in reality the price of the console could effectively be zero *if* you had the purchaser open a contract that they had to buy a certain amount of games over a specified period of time.
People could take it on and not buy any games and pay a higher than current price (nonsensical).
People could pay the same price with a contract indicating they will by at least 4 games over the next year. This is what Sony and Microsoft hope for anyway, so if they encode it like that it isn't a big deal and the higher price for the base model becomes justifiable - instead of a price increase (which technically it isn't).
For every rung on the price ladder - let's say $100 in price reduction, you have a contract level indicating that the user will buy x number of games over the next 2 years. You could take this all the way down to a price level of $0 for the console and the person signs a contract that they will buy 15 or 20 games over the next 3 years or something.
Listen, the reason people buy these units is to play the games. They want to buy the games. If you make them pay a hefty price for the console, they don't have much money to buy games. Buying a console makes little sense if you don't buy at least 1 game at the time of purchase. You might swing a few people to buy the Sony Playstation 3 while Blu-Ray players are still horrendously expensive, but this is a short-term win that doesn't really appear to be working anyway. The Nintendo Wii comes with a game, but in turn this just makes it easier for Nintendo owners to buy a game when they get the console and have 2 games to play.
The manufacturers want people to buy the games. The people want to buy the games, the only real limitation is the price of the consoles.
So, end console pricing immediately (if you need that kind of help, Nintedo is pretty secure at the moment in regard to pricing their consoles). Contract people to buy games for the unit to a good point where console cost would be absorbed completely. Hell, start up your own Game Club like the Science Fiction Book Club that I love to buy books from, overcharge for shipping, and offer specials on things that don't sell well and don't count them towards people's contracts to own their system!
These guys need to be inventive if they expect to keep this portion of their businesses alive.
Nintendo Wii Stalking XBox 360
From this article statistics showing sales of the Nintendo Wii (on Sale for approximately 6 months now) are creeping up to the total sales of the XBox 360 which has been on sale since November of 2005.
There have been - worldwide sales of the XBox 360 of 10.86 million units. At present reporting there have been 7.29 million Nintendo Wii units sold.
The fundamental problem lies at two points.
1) Price.
2) Interactivity.
At the low price, consumers can take the risk of the Nintendo Wii being a piece of crap (it isn't). Although the baseline XBox 360 is only $50 US more, it lacks something that the Nintendo does have - which is the perception that it is fun for everyone.
Facing the fact, though, I do have a certain lack of understanding. As a program developer myself I understand that it really wouldn't take much to design your own controls that utilize concepts like the Nintendo Wii's controls. The software would take little longer to develop, granted.
It has been 6 months now, and except for some lame controller by Sony, neither Sony nor Microsoft have announced their own motion controller based initiatives.
Clearly, Sony and Microsoft beat Nintendo in graphics. It is not as clear that this dominance amounts to sales in units. In fact, the opposite might be true all things being equal except for the price of these advanced graphics.
No, the difference is the motion capturing controllers. Another difference are the type of games offered by the machines. Nintendo is definitely geared for fun and while depth and graphics quality might suffer - it is clear that people love things that put a smile on their face.
The dedicated gamers - seem like they are going to work when they play their games and the demands they place on their systems...
There have been - worldwide sales of the XBox 360 of 10.86 million units. At present reporting there have been 7.29 million Nintendo Wii units sold.
The fundamental problem lies at two points.
1) Price.
2) Interactivity.
At the low price, consumers can take the risk of the Nintendo Wii being a piece of crap (it isn't). Although the baseline XBox 360 is only $50 US more, it lacks something that the Nintendo does have - which is the perception that it is fun for everyone.
Facing the fact, though, I do have a certain lack of understanding. As a program developer myself I understand that it really wouldn't take much to design your own controls that utilize concepts like the Nintendo Wii's controls. The software would take little longer to develop, granted.
It has been 6 months now, and except for some lame controller by Sony, neither Sony nor Microsoft have announced their own motion controller based initiatives.
Clearly, Sony and Microsoft beat Nintendo in graphics. It is not as clear that this dominance amounts to sales in units. In fact, the opposite might be true all things being equal except for the price of these advanced graphics.
No, the difference is the motion capturing controllers. Another difference are the type of games offered by the machines. Nintendo is definitely geared for fun and while depth and graphics quality might suffer - it is clear that people love things that put a smile on their face.
The dedicated gamers - seem like they are going to work when they play their games and the demands they place on their systems...
Names and US Culture
In my previous post I admit to discovering that I was spelling Du'a Aswad's name incorrectly, which is very disappointing because the events around her death are very poignant to me.
Then I decided to do a little research. I remember specifically looking her up before I started writing articles about her.
I think her name is Du'a Asswad (two s's), but it seems that people have been cleaning it up to Du'a Aswad. Asswad is a mildly mocking thing to call people, but not what I'd consider a horrible profanity.
So, it seems this mildly insulting term has collided with reality and - a nice clean society that doesn't say things like 'asswad' has conquered reality and probably history as well.
It doesn't matter to me, it is just that I felt a little odd to have spelled her name wrong. It is probably all a result of translations of her name which is most probably in Arabic to phonetics that sound like it in English.
Then I decided to do a little research. I remember specifically looking her up before I started writing articles about her.
I think her name is Du'a Asswad (two s's), but it seems that people have been cleaning it up to Du'a Aswad. Asswad is a mildly mocking thing to call people, but not what I'd consider a horrible profanity.
So, it seems this mildly insulting term has collided with reality and - a nice clean society that doesn't say things like 'asswad' has conquered reality and probably history as well.
It doesn't matter to me, it is just that I felt a little odd to have spelled her name wrong. It is probably all a result of translations of her name which is most probably in Arabic to phonetics that sound like it in English.
Monday, May 28, 2007
The Honor Killing Will Be Televised!
Often the conservative Christians of the United States of America go after the media as creating violence. They claim that violence on TV equates to violence in reality; therefore, violence should be eliminated or reduced on TV.
It is easy to explain that this is in fact fascism and attempting to dictate to others what is morally correct and does not have anything to do with violence in reality, the prevention of violence or the creation of a better, safer world.
The honor killing of Du'a Aswad has had a profound impact upon me. Unlike the magazine articles about India and people aborting female fetuses and running a huge gap in the ratio of males to females and similar activities in China - Du'a Aswad's death was visceral.
However, the culture she came from and the entire region despises western movies and television. The video games that people claim encourage violence would be rarely occurring in their society just as computers themselves would be more valued and in fact more expensive.
The question is simple. What is the source of violence in the death of Du'a Aswad? It is clearly not television or movies. The source of her honor killing is both cultural and religious. Cultural in that Arabic culture had this element far before the current religions in the region had reign. Religious in that the religion is now hardly discernible from the culture and that the religious leaders in the region have not in the past, do not in the present and most likely will not in the future stand with a united front and say 'Honor killings are wrong and should not be allowed.'
On the other side of the spectrum you have a country like Japan. Their television and movies can typically far surpass the levels of violence in television in the United States of America. Despite this, their culture has lower incidence of violence in a much more cramped area. The theory that violence on TV and movies causes violence in the real world is nonsensical at best.
The cause of violence might simply be the combination of two factors: 1) The hormones in humans drives them toward violence in the face of helpless circumstances and 2) the lack of people being taught self-control and to override for the betterment of humanity their emotional needs that seem to require violence.
Here is a link to the current wikipedia article on Du'a Aswad (and my discovery that I am apparently spelling her last name wrong).
It is easy to explain that this is in fact fascism and attempting to dictate to others what is morally correct and does not have anything to do with violence in reality, the prevention of violence or the creation of a better, safer world.
The honor killing of Du'a Aswad has had a profound impact upon me. Unlike the magazine articles about India and people aborting female fetuses and running a huge gap in the ratio of males to females and similar activities in China - Du'a Aswad's death was visceral.
However, the culture she came from and the entire region despises western movies and television. The video games that people claim encourage violence would be rarely occurring in their society just as computers themselves would be more valued and in fact more expensive.
The question is simple. What is the source of violence in the death of Du'a Aswad? It is clearly not television or movies. The source of her honor killing is both cultural and religious. Cultural in that Arabic culture had this element far before the current religions in the region had reign. Religious in that the religion is now hardly discernible from the culture and that the religious leaders in the region have not in the past, do not in the present and most likely will not in the future stand with a united front and say 'Honor killings are wrong and should not be allowed.'
On the other side of the spectrum you have a country like Japan. Their television and movies can typically far surpass the levels of violence in television in the United States of America. Despite this, their culture has lower incidence of violence in a much more cramped area. The theory that violence on TV and movies causes violence in the real world is nonsensical at best.
The cause of violence might simply be the combination of two factors: 1) The hormones in humans drives them toward violence in the face of helpless circumstances and 2) the lack of people being taught self-control and to override for the betterment of humanity their emotional needs that seem to require violence.
Here is a link to the current wikipedia article on Du'a Aswad (and my discovery that I am apparently spelling her last name wrong).
Friday, May 25, 2007
The de facto win of Cheney's daughter
I congratulate Vice President Cheney on the birth of a grandchild. It is something I only hope to live long enough to witness myself with my two sons or a third child if we actually choose to have a third child (we're thinking about it).
In this article, Cheney's daughter claims
Ok, so she doesn't want this to be political. Unfortunately, for her, you can choose your friends but you can't choose your family. She is a lesbian. She and her partner now have a child. I mark these both as good things; however, they are events that have repercussions.
For example, perhaps her family and herself are rich enough that matters of health insurance don't have a major impact on her life. For most of us, and I would think most gay and lesbian couples, this does have a major impact.
Right from the beginning - at birth, one wonders what she was able to enter in for father. Was she able to put in her domestic partner or was that not permitted? This has an impact on a whole slew of family issues such as divorce, permission to take the kid out of school when they get sick, etc. I'm pretty sure in documentation she looks like a single mother. That means she (and only she) can perform activities of a parent.
She may be able to file a guardianship with her domestic partner, but I'm not sure how legal this is when there is a current parent in charge of the child's life. Leave it for a minimum that there would be costs associated with setting up such a guardianship so that if there is a call and the little one needs help in school - that she isn't the only person in the world that can pick up the child.
Health insurance, I mention earlier, is also an issue for many of us. Without her partner listed on the birth certificate as in some way a parent, health insurance for the child can only flow from Ms Cheney. But throughout life we all have variations in employment. Most of us run a risk of being negatively impacted through the by-products of unemployment, specifically that unemployment pays some bills, but never really offers enough to pay the bills and for health insurance.
So, in Ms Cheney's case, it would seem this would matter little.
These things need to be thought about. They need legality to be set in precedent. She had a child and I'm sure she views her partner as a parent. Legally, this is most probably not true. This has an impact on her life which is probably minimized by wealth. This isn't true for most of us.
She may claim that her child isn't politics, but it is. It represents a de facto win for the gay and lesbian couples out there in having the right to have children. It also represents children of the future who will need care, in the case of a parent (biological) dieing and who takes over custody? Well, in a regular marriage that is clear. In a domestic partnership which many gay and lesbian couples are forced in to, this is not clear. It is not clear who has the rights of parenthood (and responsibilities, of course).
It really isn't fair that a person should be able to take on the responsibilities of parenthood and be a de facto parent; however, not get any of the rights of a parent.
In this article, Cheney's daughter claims
"This is a baby. This is a blessing from God," she said. "It is not a political statement. It is not a prop to be used in a debate by people on either side of an issue. It is my child."
Ok, so she doesn't want this to be political. Unfortunately, for her, you can choose your friends but you can't choose your family. She is a lesbian. She and her partner now have a child. I mark these both as good things; however, they are events that have repercussions.
For example, perhaps her family and herself are rich enough that matters of health insurance don't have a major impact on her life. For most of us, and I would think most gay and lesbian couples, this does have a major impact.
Right from the beginning - at birth, one wonders what she was able to enter in for father. Was she able to put in her domestic partner or was that not permitted? This has an impact on a whole slew of family issues such as divorce, permission to take the kid out of school when they get sick, etc. I'm pretty sure in documentation she looks like a single mother. That means she (and only she) can perform activities of a parent.
She may be able to file a guardianship with her domestic partner, but I'm not sure how legal this is when there is a current parent in charge of the child's life. Leave it for a minimum that there would be costs associated with setting up such a guardianship so that if there is a call and the little one needs help in school - that she isn't the only person in the world that can pick up the child.
Health insurance, I mention earlier, is also an issue for many of us. Without her partner listed on the birth certificate as in some way a parent, health insurance for the child can only flow from Ms Cheney. But throughout life we all have variations in employment. Most of us run a risk of being negatively impacted through the by-products of unemployment, specifically that unemployment pays some bills, but never really offers enough to pay the bills and for health insurance.
So, in Ms Cheney's case, it would seem this would matter little.
These things need to be thought about. They need legality to be set in precedent. She had a child and I'm sure she views her partner as a parent. Legally, this is most probably not true. This has an impact on her life which is probably minimized by wealth. This isn't true for most of us.
She may claim that her child isn't politics, but it is. It represents a de facto win for the gay and lesbian couples out there in having the right to have children. It also represents children of the future who will need care, in the case of a parent (biological) dieing and who takes over custody? Well, in a regular marriage that is clear. In a domestic partnership which many gay and lesbian couples are forced in to, this is not clear. It is not clear who has the rights of parenthood (and responsibilities, of course).
It really isn't fair that a person should be able to take on the responsibilities of parenthood and be a de facto parent; however, not get any of the rights of a parent.
Proportionality and Honor Killing of Du'a Aswad
In the USA we have some laws regarding the punishment of crimes. Specifically, cruel and unusual punishment is restricted. This laws have come in to conflict with certain death penalty cases in the US regarding lethal injection.
In the US and most countries we have laws that prescribe sentences for specific crimes. The duration of sentence is set to be proportional to the crime committed. Multiple crimes of the same nature are compounded with sentences often a few years each served sequentially.
This is not to say that there aren't problems with legal systems, punishment and rehabilitation of prisoners convicted of crimes. The system is flawed, but it is an honest attempt to be ethical when dealing with those who have been unethical or downright morally wrong.
So, perhaps a person gets 5 years penalty for stealing a car or life in prison without the possibility of parole if they kill a few people. Arguable, that these serve as punishments and will not likely play a role in the rehabilitation of these individuals.
What crime did Du'a Aswad commit? This is not totally clear as there was no trial of Du'a Aswad. Rumors that filtered to the media probably from her family indicated that she ran away from home to marry someone of a different religion. Later the news outlets recanted this statement. Apparently, she either just liked or was seen with a Muslim male.
So, we will make a couple of assumptions for a hypothetical case.
1) Marrying outside your faith is illegal.
2) As a female, being seen with a male of another religion is illegal.
In the court case, I think it is clear that Du'a would not be convicted of this crime. However, for the purposes of going through the case, even if she was guilty of the crime, what would be an appropriate punishment?
I think capture, annulment of the marriage and perhaps a house arrest plus some education on why this is wrong, perhaps visits from communal leaders saying that they are a small population and that if the women leave their society that their society may cease to exist.
I don't particularly agree with the logic of what would need to be taught, but that is what I would think of as proportional punishment for the crime (if it were an actual crime).
Please note that the punishment of killing Du'a or any other woman in a similar position will negatively impact the population of the small society just as much as if she had left that society. It really doesn't matter that she would be contributing to the numbers of Islamic people around these particular Kurds. They are already surrounded and outnumbered thousands to millions to 1.
Now, she wouldn't have been convicted of #1, but perhaps she could have been convicted of #2 - associating with a male of another religion.
Again, the proportional punishment, even if they went on a date - would be house arrest, education and some kind of probation. In reality, I don't see how such a law would be enforceable as women in a society will need to interact with males of other religions. The question would be what is allowed interaction and what isn't allowed.
By killing her as punishment, the actual perform an action that is against their own best needs.
It is ironic even, that in punishing her they do their own society damage on many levels.
It is odd, that the women of their society due the vast majority of the work and are what is required for their to be future generations of their society, and yet it is the women who live in the restrictive fear-based society. Wondering if any action they do might result in their deaths and afraid to associate with others because to associate with others is to court death.
In the end, the punishment leveled at Du'a is based on increasing the fear in all the women in their society that such actions to keep them in line. The problem with this is that it increases the dissatisfaction of women in their society. This in turn will eventually result in women defecting from that society through things like underground railroads and leaving to any society that might have the smallest trace of treating them better.
In the US and most countries we have laws that prescribe sentences for specific crimes. The duration of sentence is set to be proportional to the crime committed. Multiple crimes of the same nature are compounded with sentences often a few years each served sequentially.
This is not to say that there aren't problems with legal systems, punishment and rehabilitation of prisoners convicted of crimes. The system is flawed, but it is an honest attempt to be ethical when dealing with those who have been unethical or downright morally wrong.
So, perhaps a person gets 5 years penalty for stealing a car or life in prison without the possibility of parole if they kill a few people. Arguable, that these serve as punishments and will not likely play a role in the rehabilitation of these individuals.
What crime did Du'a Aswad commit? This is not totally clear as there was no trial of Du'a Aswad. Rumors that filtered to the media probably from her family indicated that she ran away from home to marry someone of a different religion. Later the news outlets recanted this statement. Apparently, she either just liked or was seen with a Muslim male.
So, we will make a couple of assumptions for a hypothetical case.
1) Marrying outside your faith is illegal.
2) As a female, being seen with a male of another religion is illegal.
In the court case, I think it is clear that Du'a would not be convicted of this crime. However, for the purposes of going through the case, even if she was guilty of the crime, what would be an appropriate punishment?
I think capture, annulment of the marriage and perhaps a house arrest plus some education on why this is wrong, perhaps visits from communal leaders saying that they are a small population and that if the women leave their society that their society may cease to exist.
I don't particularly agree with the logic of what would need to be taught, but that is what I would think of as proportional punishment for the crime (if it were an actual crime).
Please note that the punishment of killing Du'a or any other woman in a similar position will negatively impact the population of the small society just as much as if she had left that society. It really doesn't matter that she would be contributing to the numbers of Islamic people around these particular Kurds. They are already surrounded and outnumbered thousands to millions to 1.
Now, she wouldn't have been convicted of #1, but perhaps she could have been convicted of #2 - associating with a male of another religion.
Again, the proportional punishment, even if they went on a date - would be house arrest, education and some kind of probation. In reality, I don't see how such a law would be enforceable as women in a society will need to interact with males of other religions. The question would be what is allowed interaction and what isn't allowed.
By killing her as punishment, the actual perform an action that is against their own best needs.
It is ironic even, that in punishing her they do their own society damage on many levels.
It is odd, that the women of their society due the vast majority of the work and are what is required for their to be future generations of their society, and yet it is the women who live in the restrictive fear-based society. Wondering if any action they do might result in their deaths and afraid to associate with others because to associate with others is to court death.
In the end, the punishment leveled at Du'a is based on increasing the fear in all the women in their society that such actions to keep them in line. The problem with this is that it increases the dissatisfaction of women in their society. This in turn will eventually result in women defecting from that society through things like underground railroads and leaving to any society that might have the smallest trace of treating them better.
Thursday, May 24, 2007
Guardians of Du'a Aswad
What is it about Du'a Aswad's death and its circumstances that make it such a horrible thing for western people such as myself?
First let's look at a definition of a term:
Guardian:
The first two definitions are pertinent in the case of Du'a Aswad.
Often in the USA society, forms indicate parent or guardian when needing permission for minors or children to perform actions. Guardians are a subset of parents. The difference between parents and guardians is that parents are the actual father or mother of a child and guardians are protectors assigned by the government when parents are not available.
So Du'a Aswad's parents are her guardians - charged with the protection of their child. Protection of a child, in my definition, is encouraging that child to live and have a good future, hopefully a better future than your own (as a parent of guardian).
Ending the life of your charge or child is the exact opposite of protecting them as any parent or guardian is charged with doing.
Why would someone destroy their charge? Well, it is simple. They must have believed that it would serve a higher cause. In this case the higher cause was their honor - their access keys to getting to Heaven. In addition, they had a real-world concern that if she defected to Islam, she would have children which would then become the opponents of her birth-family.
Both of these reasons are based on selfishness and are actually lower on the scale than protecting your charge or child.
What good is heaven if your child dies horribly? What good is heaven or afterlife if those you love won't be there? Any parent should choose death for themselves if there is no other choice than death for their child. The child, inherently, has a higher chance of a longer future than the parent. The child, is the result of a marriage not the by-product of marriage. Long after my bones are dust I hope my children live on. I certainly don't care if I live eternity in Hell, as long as my children get a fair chance at a future.
So, in killing one's children or charges you have accomplished the opposite of your goal.
Then the secondary material-world reason for her death is that she would bear children that would eventually be the enemies of her birth-family.
This again, is just selfishness. If she has children and they don't happen to be the religion of her parents, does it matter? What matters is that humanity has a stable society and a stable future. Honor killing your daughter does nothing to advance stability of humanity. It only furthers small ambitions of being a stronger religion because you have more people on your side. Killing her is a way to prevent Islam from having more people on its side.
The survival of humanity depends on a great many things. Variety in the thoughts of humans that are not self-destructive in nature requires that there be different religions and people who do not believe in religions. A stable society depends on laws that are not oppressive to one group over another and that the members of that society obey those laws.
The premeditated killing of a woman in the town streets contributes to the destabilizing of humanity. The idea that justice and punishment is equally valid dished out by any citizen as it is from the government. If that were the case anything could be considered a crime, and anything could be summarily punished without due process at any time.
It seems that the 15 minutes of Du'a Aswad's posthumous fame are already over. CNN has moved on; however, hopefully this will be remembered and the point continued by others that such honor killings serve no-one except for the selfish needs of those performing those actions.
In the end, Du'a Aswad's family are now failures having failed to raise their daughter to maturity, but killing her mercilessly like some bug being tortured by a child.
First let's look at a definition of a term:
Guardian:
| 1. | a person who guards, protects, or preserves. |
| 2. | Law. a person who is entrusted by law with the care of the person or property, or both, of another, as a minor or someone legally incapable of managing his or her own affairs. |
| 3. | the superior of a Franciscan convent. |
The first two definitions are pertinent in the case of Du'a Aswad.
Often in the USA society, forms indicate parent or guardian when needing permission for minors or children to perform actions. Guardians are a subset of parents. The difference between parents and guardians is that parents are the actual father or mother of a child and guardians are protectors assigned by the government when parents are not available.
So Du'a Aswad's parents are her guardians - charged with the protection of their child. Protection of a child, in my definition, is encouraging that child to live and have a good future, hopefully a better future than your own (as a parent of guardian).
Ending the life of your charge or child is the exact opposite of protecting them as any parent or guardian is charged with doing.
Why would someone destroy their charge? Well, it is simple. They must have believed that it would serve a higher cause. In this case the higher cause was their honor - their access keys to getting to Heaven. In addition, they had a real-world concern that if she defected to Islam, she would have children which would then become the opponents of her birth-family.
Both of these reasons are based on selfishness and are actually lower on the scale than protecting your charge or child.
What good is heaven if your child dies horribly? What good is heaven or afterlife if those you love won't be there? Any parent should choose death for themselves if there is no other choice than death for their child. The child, inherently, has a higher chance of a longer future than the parent. The child, is the result of a marriage not the by-product of marriage. Long after my bones are dust I hope my children live on. I certainly don't care if I live eternity in Hell, as long as my children get a fair chance at a future.
So, in killing one's children or charges you have accomplished the opposite of your goal.
Then the secondary material-world reason for her death is that she would bear children that would eventually be the enemies of her birth-family.
This again, is just selfishness. If she has children and they don't happen to be the religion of her parents, does it matter? What matters is that humanity has a stable society and a stable future. Honor killing your daughter does nothing to advance stability of humanity. It only furthers small ambitions of being a stronger religion because you have more people on your side. Killing her is a way to prevent Islam from having more people on its side.
The survival of humanity depends on a great many things. Variety in the thoughts of humans that are not self-destructive in nature requires that there be different religions and people who do not believe in religions. A stable society depends on laws that are not oppressive to one group over another and that the members of that society obey those laws.
The premeditated killing of a woman in the town streets contributes to the destabilizing of humanity. The idea that justice and punishment is equally valid dished out by any citizen as it is from the government. If that were the case anything could be considered a crime, and anything could be summarily punished without due process at any time.
It seems that the 15 minutes of Du'a Aswad's posthumous fame are already over. CNN has moved on; however, hopefully this will be remembered and the point continued by others that such honor killings serve no-one except for the selfish needs of those performing those actions.
In the end, Du'a Aswad's family are now failures having failed to raise their daughter to maturity, but killing her mercilessly like some bug being tortured by a child.
Respect for Persons : Du'a Aswad
A long time ago I took a course called "Contemporary Ethical Issues". This was a philosophy course, but it didn't have the dryness that I conceive of when I think about philosophy courses.
One of the ideas we covered years ago was "Respect for Persons". The central idea is "Do onto others as you would have them do to you."
How does this relate to Du'a Aswad and her being killed in an honor killing?
Well, in respect for persons it sets up moral values in terms that if you wouldn't want it done to you - you shouldn't do it to someone else. I don't think there is much question that all the men in the audience and the performance of her killing would not be comfortable with such a horrid death being performed against them. Indeed, it is unlikely these men believe such an act would ever be performed against them.
Respect for persons is only a partial philosophical answer as to why Du'a Aswad's death was immoral. After all people are so very different around the world. In India women have performed suttee, when the husbands die, ritualistically killing themselves in a burning mound. This practice has been abolished, but the question remains.
These women thought that it was perfectly ok for them (or others) to toss them in to a fire in the case of their husband dieing. It is clear; however, that the reciprocal is not true. If a wife dies, the husband does not sacrifice himself.
Clearly, if someone attempted to kill you or demanded that you kill yourself if your spouse dies, you would have a problem with it (unless you were temporarily suicidal at losing someone who had been close to you for a large part of your life).
Clearly, many people have different tolerances to what can be done to them. This results in a morality that would be so variable, so relativistic to be completely unclear as to the morality or immorality of any specific action.
So, all the people that I have read out there claiming that 'Do onto others as you would have them do to you' as being the greatest symbol of morality, you folks have problems. In order for this idea to work, everyone would need to have the same idea of what is acceptable or moral to be done to themselves and this is clearly not true.
A final NOTE: the very idea that Du'a Aswad's death was done to respect women is doublethink (as many middle eastern traditions involving women are doublethink). It is the exact opposite of what actually happened. Claims that middle eastern customs protect and respect the women all pretty much end and are exposed for the control factors they are when public distribution of knowledge that honor killings occur, and that honor killings are not uncommon.
One can only imagine the fear that women in the middle east live with every day that something they might do might accidentally result in their death.
One of the ideas we covered years ago was "Respect for Persons". The central idea is "Do onto others as you would have them do to you."
How does this relate to Du'a Aswad and her being killed in an honor killing?
Well, in respect for persons it sets up moral values in terms that if you wouldn't want it done to you - you shouldn't do it to someone else. I don't think there is much question that all the men in the audience and the performance of her killing would not be comfortable with such a horrid death being performed against them. Indeed, it is unlikely these men believe such an act would ever be performed against them.
Respect for persons is only a partial philosophical answer as to why Du'a Aswad's death was immoral. After all people are so very different around the world. In India women have performed suttee, when the husbands die, ritualistically killing themselves in a burning mound. This practice has been abolished, but the question remains.
These women thought that it was perfectly ok for them (or others) to toss them in to a fire in the case of their husband dieing. It is clear; however, that the reciprocal is not true. If a wife dies, the husband does not sacrifice himself.
Clearly, if someone attempted to kill you or demanded that you kill yourself if your spouse dies, you would have a problem with it (unless you were temporarily suicidal at losing someone who had been close to you for a large part of your life).
Clearly, many people have different tolerances to what can be done to them. This results in a morality that would be so variable, so relativistic to be completely unclear as to the morality or immorality of any specific action.
So, all the people that I have read out there claiming that 'Do onto others as you would have them do to you' as being the greatest symbol of morality, you folks have problems. In order for this idea to work, everyone would need to have the same idea of what is acceptable or moral to be done to themselves and this is clearly not true.
A final NOTE: the very idea that Du'a Aswad's death was done to respect women is doublethink (as many middle eastern traditions involving women are doublethink). It is the exact opposite of what actually happened. Claims that middle eastern customs protect and respect the women all pretty much end and are exposed for the control factors they are when public distribution of knowledge that honor killings occur, and that honor killings are not uncommon.
One can only imagine the fear that women in the middle east live with every day that something they might do might accidentally result in their death.
Monday, May 21, 2007
Anime
Anime has struck a significant chord with me. It started recently with Fullmetal Alchemist. While I had always watched a bit of anime, it wasn't with the avid behavior that I watch it now.
***please note most of the anime I watch is not for children. Some of it is, but this is a general anime entry on the things I like.
I related so closely with the character Alfonse Elric in the show that it was with great horror that I watch as his friend was killed inside his hollow shell. I liked the idea (which may not be true) that the writers were honoring Michael Moorcock by naming the boys last name Elric, which reminds me of Elric of Melniboné from his eternal champion series.
Years ago I saw the movie Ghost in the Shell. It was very impressive, but somehow, I was never the guy to find the specialized shop with the tapes(!) of things most people didn't see here often.
Eureka, I found to be such a great romance story (as well as a great many other things, including some horror elements) and on the whole a message of tolerance an unity between seemingly different beings.
Netflix has been the key to me getting in to anime on a whole new level. Inside Netflix I have explored many series, some good, some bad and many excellent. Some series like Gantz, show exactly what is acceptable in Japanese culture and what isn't in the USA. Gantz is very atheist/agnostic oriented in particular these ideas come out in the second series.
I wouldn't recommend Gantz for anyone under the age of 16. Most people would say older, but I understand and remember where I was mentally at age 16 and that the sex, religion, violence presented in Gantz is something that any 16 year old that hasn't been completely sheltered should be able to watch and ask questions about. Gantz is especially poignant with the trial and prosecution of a 10 year old in the USA along with another child in the beating death of a vagrant (figures in throughout the series).
Too bad, the TV series for Gantz seems to fall far short of the Manga. I have gotten in to reading the Manga for some series and find that the differences are compelling. Just like with books translated to movies there are elements that I wish the Anime appropriately addressed in the Manga. Unfortunately, Gantz is not available in English and the best key to understanding the series is a lengthy Wikipedia entry on the series.
Anyway, this has been a rather generalized view of what I would call my love for both Anime and Manga. It has inspired in me a desire to learn Japanese and about Japanese culture. Hopefully, I'll be able to work on that sometimes. A lot of the time, even though the Japanese pick on the US, I think that the ultimate partnership would be the Japanese and the US. Sometimes, I feel that I would get along better living in Japan, but I understand that just as I don't seem to fit here in the US, I probably wouldn't fit in Japan either, just for different reasons.
I'll write more and more in depth about Anime and Manga on this blog. They are subjects that I would love to share with a great many people, and in writing about the ideas and my own thoughts about these series, perhaps if my sons ever get the chance to read these entries they will understand what I get from these series.
***please note most of the anime I watch is not for children. Some of it is, but this is a general anime entry on the things I like.
I related so closely with the character Alfonse Elric in the show that it was with great horror that I watch as his friend was killed inside his hollow shell. I liked the idea (which may not be true) that the writers were honoring Michael Moorcock by naming the boys last name Elric, which reminds me of Elric of Melniboné from his eternal champion series.
Years ago I saw the movie Ghost in the Shell. It was very impressive, but somehow, I was never the guy to find the specialized shop with the tapes(!) of things most people didn't see here often.
Eureka, I found to be such a great romance story (as well as a great many other things, including some horror elements) and on the whole a message of tolerance an unity between seemingly different beings.
Netflix has been the key to me getting in to anime on a whole new level. Inside Netflix I have explored many series, some good, some bad and many excellent. Some series like Gantz, show exactly what is acceptable in Japanese culture and what isn't in the USA. Gantz is very atheist/agnostic oriented in particular these ideas come out in the second series.
I wouldn't recommend Gantz for anyone under the age of 16. Most people would say older, but I understand and remember where I was mentally at age 16 and that the sex, religion, violence presented in Gantz is something that any 16 year old that hasn't been completely sheltered should be able to watch and ask questions about. Gantz is especially poignant with the trial and prosecution of a 10 year old in the USA along with another child in the beating death of a vagrant (figures in throughout the series).
Too bad, the TV series for Gantz seems to fall far short of the Manga. I have gotten in to reading the Manga for some series and find that the differences are compelling. Just like with books translated to movies there are elements that I wish the Anime appropriately addressed in the Manga. Unfortunately, Gantz is not available in English and the best key to understanding the series is a lengthy Wikipedia entry on the series.
Anyway, this has been a rather generalized view of what I would call my love for both Anime and Manga. It has inspired in me a desire to learn Japanese and about Japanese culture. Hopefully, I'll be able to work on that sometimes. A lot of the time, even though the Japanese pick on the US, I think that the ultimate partnership would be the Japanese and the US. Sometimes, I feel that I would get along better living in Japan, but I understand that just as I don't seem to fit here in the US, I probably wouldn't fit in Japan either, just for different reasons.
I'll write more and more in depth about Anime and Manga on this blog. They are subjects that I would love to share with a great many people, and in writing about the ideas and my own thoughts about these series, perhaps if my sons ever get the chance to read these entries they will understand what I get from these series.
Errors in jounralism - spelling 101
Recently there have been calls for MySpace to reveal what it knows about child offenders that have been using their site. MySpace refused, indicating that they were prohibited by law to do that. MySpace did take down the suspected child offenders profiles.
Then there was a cry that MySpace is protecting pedophiles and blah blah blah... So, the attorney generals got their act together provided MySpace with the appropriate documentation and MySpace is to release the information to the authorities. This is not MySpace backing down as had been described in some articles.
This is a blog. I make mistakes. I make spelling mistakes, and I make mistakes where the statement sometimes written means exactly the opposite of what I was trying to say. It isn't a big deal, I'm no professional.
However, in this article, which was reasonably well written drops the ball at the end.
"Also an issue is the growing prevalence of spam in MySpace Groups, much of which redirects users to scatological porn sites so shocking and vial they aren't fit for adult viewing let alone viewing by children."
Vial? Did this article actually get vetted by an editor? This might pass a spell checked, but did the writer re-read the article before posting it? The word that is supposed to be there, you guessed it - was vile.
It seems that around the point of the spelling error in the article, the author began writing about morality and what people think is right instead of the facts in the case.
Yes, scatology is disgusting. Not fit for adult viewing? Well, there is certainly a portion of the population that does watch it, so clearly that is a value statement and a false one at that.
I'm not in to scatology or scheisse video (I know the word only because it was mentioned in a South Park episode and I had to look it up). But if someone else wants to have sex with feces all around them - they can go for it.
The Register normally puts out pretty good articles if I recall correctly, so maybe this one fell through the cracks.
Then there was a cry that MySpace is protecting pedophiles and blah blah blah... So, the attorney generals got their act together provided MySpace with the appropriate documentation and MySpace is to release the information to the authorities. This is not MySpace backing down as had been described in some articles.
This is a blog. I make mistakes. I make spelling mistakes, and I make mistakes where the statement sometimes written means exactly the opposite of what I was trying to say. It isn't a big deal, I'm no professional.
However, in this article, which was reasonably well written drops the ball at the end.
"Also an issue is the growing prevalence of spam in MySpace Groups, much of which redirects users to scatological porn sites so shocking and vial they aren't fit for adult viewing let alone viewing by children."
Vial? Did this article actually get vetted by an editor? This might pass a spell checked, but did the writer re-read the article before posting it? The word that is supposed to be there, you guessed it - was vile.
It seems that around the point of the spelling error in the article, the author began writing about morality and what people think is right instead of the facts in the case.
Yes, scatology is disgusting. Not fit for adult viewing? Well, there is certainly a portion of the population that does watch it, so clearly that is a value statement and a false one at that.
I'm not in to scatology or scheisse video (I know the word only because it was mentioned in a South Park episode and I had to look it up). But if someone else wants to have sex with feces all around them - they can go for it.
The Register normally puts out pretty good articles if I recall correctly, so maybe this one fell through the cracks.
Humor - Metallica and The Grim Adventures of Billy and Mandy
After that last blog entry I needed to do something humorous - or at least I think it would be humorous.
Do you watch the TV show on Cartoon Network - The Grim Adventures of Billy and Mandy?
Have you listened to music by Metallica, specifically "Stone Cold Crazy".*
Well, if you fit that - I want you to picture something.
Irwin, from The Grim Adventures of Billy and Mandy, singing "Stone Cold Crazy" By Metallica.
*OK, so you don't know the show, don't know Metallica or don't know that specific song. Here is what/why it would be funny. Irwin, tries to be hip on the TV show and says Yo after a lot of his sentences. Except, instead of being cool, it almost always sounds like he's saying Yo like it is a question. The song "Stone Cold Crazy" has a line in the chorus which goes "Stone Cold Crazy Yo" - and I can just picture Irwin singing this song.... Such a hard core song with such a contrast of singer...Would be hilarious... It would need to go with a video of it as well, though to really be dyno-mite!
Ahh if only I had an ounce of talent to pull this off myself, I would!
Do you watch the TV show on Cartoon Network - The Grim Adventures of Billy and Mandy?
Have you listened to music by Metallica, specifically "Stone Cold Crazy".*
Well, if you fit that - I want you to picture something.
Irwin, from The Grim Adventures of Billy and Mandy, singing "Stone Cold Crazy" By Metallica.
*OK, so you don't know the show, don't know Metallica or don't know that specific song. Here is what/why it would be funny. Irwin, tries to be hip on the TV show and says Yo after a lot of his sentences. Except, instead of being cool, it almost always sounds like he's saying Yo like it is a question. The song "Stone Cold Crazy" has a line in the chorus which goes "Stone Cold Crazy Yo" - and I can just picture Irwin singing this song.... Such a hard core song with such a contrast of singer...Would be hilarious... It would need to go with a video of it as well, though to really be dyno-mite!
Ahh if only I had an ounce of talent to pull this off myself, I would!
Sunday, May 20, 2007
An odd Juxtaposition
On CNN there is an article in the Tech section: Camera phone evolution has only just begun.
CNN typically doesn't change the science and technology articles over the weekend, so it has been there since at least Friday.
In this time the camera phone recording of the death of Du’a Khalil Aswad was released to the public.
The death of this young woman has been entered in to the public domain with many confusing pieces of information. At present it appears she was killed for being a 17 year old girl who liked a male who was not a member of her religious sect.
I am linking to the video here. Please do not watch it unless you have a very strong stomach. I will record in writing the contents of the video for those who cannot stomach watching. Even the written account may be hard to stomach.
Please note that it is a poor day to be a human to understand that this kind of behavior still happens.
Video at this link . Please note that this site has nudity but is one of the few places that had high quality footage of the events that are so disturbing.
It should be noted that this does not appear to be the entire video. I'm not even sure about the web site that is hosting it. There are a few camera phones on the scene (as shown on the camera phone itself) recording the process.
The video starts out with fast movement (and low quality) in a crowd that could be anywhere. You can hear some men talking loudly in a foreign language. You can hear a woman screaming something. There is some tugging in the crowd. The attack (and other videos confirm this) has already been in progress for some time.
You can see another person with a camera phone holding it up high and moving people out of the way to try and get a picture or video of what is going on.
You can see a person in a black shirt move quickly downward with their elbow in what looks like a wrestling move to hit an opponent. Then you see the girl on the ground in her underwear on her lower body, curled up in a fetal-like position.
She is moving, as the movements of a person deep in show, he hand touching her face. The face is not recognizable, but you can tell there is blood on it.
You can see the man in the black shirt again (or another person in a black shirt, kicking her and bracing himself against another person in the crowd.
There is a lot of movement and you lose sight of the woman.
A man walks by her and casually kicks her in the back of the head. You cannot see anything of the man's face, only his lower body.
You can see another camera phone capturing the incident. She isn't moving now, but she is in fetal position. I believe she is still alive at this moment. A man in tan either steps on her or kicks her and then picks her up partially by her red outer garment. She is moving to try and protect herself slightly to no effect. A number of people appear to kick her at this time. The movement may not have been conscious, she doesn't appear to be moving or defending herself anymore.
A man covers her lower body with a jacket. At the same time someone picks up her head and slams her head down on a large rock (approximately 1 ft across) on the ground. She doesn't react and immediately afterward follows a flurry of kicks from various men.
Several heel kicks are administered to her by a male in a black sweat suit with two white stripes running down its side vertically.
It sounds like a sports event. There is a 'ehhhh' by the crowd and an oh. But you cannot see past the person in front of the camera phone holder to understand what was done to the girl at this time.
She might be dead, but evidence from later in the video indicates that at this point in time she is not dead, thankfully, she appears to be unconscious.
When she comes back in to view you see a large cement block leaning on her head. There is no blood around her head on the ground at this point. Again, the individual with the sweat suit and the white stripes picks up the cement block and delivers what I believe to be the killing blow, directly to her head.
It is at this point that you can see the trail of blood leading from her head under her body emerge from under her body on the ground below her.
The individual with the black sweat pants appears to be hopping around and is wearing a red shirt. The trail of blood leading from her body continues to grow. She may not be completely dead and the body, the heart is still pumping and extending the size of the blood staining the road. The blood trail from her head extends in three trails, some which appear to be at least 3 or 4 feet long. This is life leaking away from the body.
There is yelling and what sounds like cheering at a sporting even throughout the sequence.
Concerned for decency, an individual adjusts the jacket that now covers her behind and partially her legs.
There is a lot of commotion, men carefully avoiding her blood trails as the leap around the scene. People taking pictures with their camera phones. One of the picture takes puts the camera within two feet of her head and clicks off a picture.
Someone picks up the block and throws it back down on to her - on the back this time instead of the head. The tell-tale ya yayayyayaayayayoi sound that middle eastern people make often when in celebration is made by one person and then taken up by many. The jacket is once again adjusted to cover her almost nudity.
A casual kick hits her in the back as an irregularly shaped stone (large) is thrown at her. The large cement block is once again thrown on to her dead back.
People are whisling (like at a baseball game) and even yayyyying like a person has thrown a strikeout ending the game in victory.
I am glad that I cannot understand the words coming from the voices recorded on the video.
A person in denim jeans casually walks by, avoiding the blood staining the ground and turns around opposite of the camera phone wielding person.
Being careful not to get blood on his shoes, one individual is standing on top of the irregularly shaped stone - balancing slightly most probably looking down at the dead girl. This person, I think gets down.
Another individual climbs up on one of the cement blocks and uses that same irregularly shaped stone to balance and kicks the dead girl twice, mostly with the heel.
He stumbles a bit and probably gets some blood on his sneakers. Someone knocks one of the cement blocks off her body.
After a lot of talking - a brief shot of the faces (not clear) of the people on the other side of the circle of men surrounding the dead girl.
There is a lot of jostling movement, in which it is hard to determine what is happening.
There is someone speaking loudly, with a beige shirt on , and pointing at the dead girl's body with the fingers of his hand. It appears that he has a teenage boy in the clasp of his hand and he forces the boys head in to camera view and back again. As if to say "See , this is what we do."
I'm not sure what this individual is doing, he appears to be attempting to pick her up or re-arrange her body. Blood drips from the side of her head that was on the road.
After some time passes , a man in a orange/red shirt crosses over her body, possibly kicking her in the process, he face is clearly visible (and why we cannot see exactly what his feet are doing).
A shot of many faces watching in close quarters. An enormous crows is revealed as the camera is raised to show everyone is there. It is not clear that all the people are there for this girls killing, but later on it will be apparent that they are.
There is a lot of confusion, people standing and talking. A man straddles the head of her body standing, apparently needing a better position to talk.
He and a few others begin moving the body. One man adjusts the jacket covering her underwear covered behind. Mustn't see the females uncovered behind. No, just kill her brutally. That's much better.
There is a lot of confusion and talking for some time. A man in a black jacket grabs her dead arms to pick her up.
Other men are helping him pick her up and they carry her almost like a dear on a post being carried between hunters.
Her body is being partially dragged and the jacket almost comes off her lower body. The men stop and adjust the jacket.
They begin to carry her again and pass a pile of large cement blocks like the two or three that were used on their victim.
The camera angle moves upward and the visibility of her body goes away. Now you see that along with the three or four people carrying her unceremoniously, that there are a number of men walking along as her body is being moved.
The camera angle changes again - to an overview of the crowd. The entire crowd moving in the same direction (with) the movement of her body.
That is the end of the video. We cannot tell exactly where the large group are taking her body.
There are a number of comments that I would make on this video and the culture behind it. It is clear that the primary participants in this film were her family and not Muslims.
However, the honor killing of this young girl is a cultural - pre-Islam Arab practice, which is indeed practiced by many Muslims in the region. Of course all Kurds, and all Muslims are not the kind of people who can do this.
My family knows Muslims who live in Trinidad and they are nothing like this.
It is, however, the enabling male-oriented religions that allow and endorse this kind of behavior. But it has taken me some time over the period of two days to even compile this description of the activity on the video. Tomorrow, it will be time to write about not only how wrong this is, but why it is wrong.
I'd offer my condolences to the family, but it appears that they are the cause of the death and deserve only condemnation.
CNN typically doesn't change the science and technology articles over the weekend, so it has been there since at least Friday.
In this time the camera phone recording of the death of Du’a Khalil Aswad was released to the public.
The death of this young woman has been entered in to the public domain with many confusing pieces of information. At present it appears she was killed for being a 17 year old girl who liked a male who was not a member of her religious sect.
I am linking to the video here. Please do not watch it unless you have a very strong stomach. I will record in writing the contents of the video for those who cannot stomach watching. Even the written account may be hard to stomach.
Please note that it is a poor day to be a human to understand that this kind of behavior still happens.
Video at this link . Please note that this site has nudity but is one of the few places that had high quality footage of the events that are so disturbing.
It should be noted that this does not appear to be the entire video. I'm not even sure about the web site that is hosting it. There are a few camera phones on the scene (as shown on the camera phone itself) recording the process.
The video starts out with fast movement (and low quality) in a crowd that could be anywhere. You can hear some men talking loudly in a foreign language. You can hear a woman screaming something. There is some tugging in the crowd. The attack (and other videos confirm this) has already been in progress for some time.
You can see another person with a camera phone holding it up high and moving people out of the way to try and get a picture or video of what is going on.
You can see a person in a black shirt move quickly downward with their elbow in what looks like a wrestling move to hit an opponent. Then you see the girl on the ground in her underwear on her lower body, curled up in a fetal-like position.
She is moving, as the movements of a person deep in show, he hand touching her face. The face is not recognizable, but you can tell there is blood on it.
You can see the man in the black shirt again (or another person in a black shirt, kicking her and bracing himself against another person in the crowd.
There is a lot of movement and you lose sight of the woman.
A man walks by her and casually kicks her in the back of the head. You cannot see anything of the man's face, only his lower body.
You can see another camera phone capturing the incident. She isn't moving now, but she is in fetal position. I believe she is still alive at this moment. A man in tan either steps on her or kicks her and then picks her up partially by her red outer garment. She is moving to try and protect herself slightly to no effect. A number of people appear to kick her at this time. The movement may not have been conscious, she doesn't appear to be moving or defending herself anymore.
A man covers her lower body with a jacket. At the same time someone picks up her head and slams her head down on a large rock (approximately 1 ft across) on the ground. She doesn't react and immediately afterward follows a flurry of kicks from various men.
Several heel kicks are administered to her by a male in a black sweat suit with two white stripes running down its side vertically.
It sounds like a sports event. There is a 'ehhhh' by the crowd and an oh. But you cannot see past the person in front of the camera phone holder to understand what was done to the girl at this time.
She might be dead, but evidence from later in the video indicates that at this point in time she is not dead, thankfully, she appears to be unconscious.
When she comes back in to view you see a large cement block leaning on her head. There is no blood around her head on the ground at this point. Again, the individual with the sweat suit and the white stripes picks up the cement block and delivers what I believe to be the killing blow, directly to her head.
It is at this point that you can see the trail of blood leading from her head under her body emerge from under her body on the ground below her.
The individual with the black sweat pants appears to be hopping around and is wearing a red shirt. The trail of blood leading from her body continues to grow. She may not be completely dead and the body, the heart is still pumping and extending the size of the blood staining the road. The blood trail from her head extends in three trails, some which appear to be at least 3 or 4 feet long. This is life leaking away from the body.
There is yelling and what sounds like cheering at a sporting even throughout the sequence.
Concerned for decency, an individual adjusts the jacket that now covers her behind and partially her legs.
There is a lot of commotion, men carefully avoiding her blood trails as the leap around the scene. People taking pictures with their camera phones. One of the picture takes puts the camera within two feet of her head and clicks off a picture.
Someone picks up the block and throws it back down on to her - on the back this time instead of the head. The tell-tale ya yayayyayaayayayoi sound that middle eastern people make often when in celebration is made by one person and then taken up by many. The jacket is once again adjusted to cover her almost nudity.
A casual kick hits her in the back as an irregularly shaped stone (large) is thrown at her. The large cement block is once again thrown on to her dead back.
People are whisling (like at a baseball game) and even yayyyying like a person has thrown a strikeout ending the game in victory.
I am glad that I cannot understand the words coming from the voices recorded on the video.
A person in denim jeans casually walks by, avoiding the blood staining the ground and turns around opposite of the camera phone wielding person.
Being careful not to get blood on his shoes, one individual is standing on top of the irregularly shaped stone - balancing slightly most probably looking down at the dead girl. This person, I think gets down.
Another individual climbs up on one of the cement blocks and uses that same irregularly shaped stone to balance and kicks the dead girl twice, mostly with the heel.
He stumbles a bit and probably gets some blood on his sneakers. Someone knocks one of the cement blocks off her body.
After a lot of talking - a brief shot of the faces (not clear) of the people on the other side of the circle of men surrounding the dead girl.
There is a lot of jostling movement, in which it is hard to determine what is happening.
There is someone speaking loudly, with a beige shirt on , and pointing at the dead girl's body with the fingers of his hand. It appears that he has a teenage boy in the clasp of his hand and he forces the boys head in to camera view and back again. As if to say "See , this is what we do."
I'm not sure what this individual is doing, he appears to be attempting to pick her up or re-arrange her body. Blood drips from the side of her head that was on the road.
After some time passes , a man in a orange/red shirt crosses over her body, possibly kicking her in the process, he face is clearly visible (and why we cannot see exactly what his feet are doing).
A shot of many faces watching in close quarters. An enormous crows is revealed as the camera is raised to show everyone is there. It is not clear that all the people are there for this girls killing, but later on it will be apparent that they are.
There is a lot of confusion, people standing and talking. A man straddles the head of her body standing, apparently needing a better position to talk.
He and a few others begin moving the body. One man adjusts the jacket covering her underwear covered behind. Mustn't see the females uncovered behind. No, just kill her brutally. That's much better.
There is a lot of confusion and talking for some time. A man in a black jacket grabs her dead arms to pick her up.
Other men are helping him pick her up and they carry her almost like a dear on a post being carried between hunters.
Her body is being partially dragged and the jacket almost comes off her lower body. The men stop and adjust the jacket.
They begin to carry her again and pass a pile of large cement blocks like the two or three that were used on their victim.
The camera angle moves upward and the visibility of her body goes away. Now you see that along with the three or four people carrying her unceremoniously, that there are a number of men walking along as her body is being moved.
The camera angle changes again - to an overview of the crowd. The entire crowd moving in the same direction (with) the movement of her body.
That is the end of the video. We cannot tell exactly where the large group are taking her body.
There are a number of comments that I would make on this video and the culture behind it. It is clear that the primary participants in this film were her family and not Muslims.
However, the honor killing of this young girl is a cultural - pre-Islam Arab practice, which is indeed practiced by many Muslims in the region. Of course all Kurds, and all Muslims are not the kind of people who can do this.
My family knows Muslims who live in Trinidad and they are nothing like this.
It is, however, the enabling male-oriented religions that allow and endorse this kind of behavior. But it has taken me some time over the period of two days to even compile this description of the activity on the video. Tomorrow, it will be time to write about not only how wrong this is, but why it is wrong.
I'd offer my condolences to the family, but it appears that they are the cause of the death and deserve only condemnation.
Thursday, May 17, 2007
Stem Cell Research
This article describes a break-through in stem cell research. It isn't the life-saving kind of break-through; however, it is a break-through in making sure men can have their hair when they get older.
I'm not totally against this kind of research. I believe stem cell research is important. What I don't believe is the order of precedence that we are engaging in with the research. Curing illnesses that threaten lives is far more important to pursue than curing baldness.
Scientists should find that it is ethically more important to cure diseases that are real ailments rather than a minor progression hair degeneration that occurs in many men and some women.
Then again, at age 35, with long, full white hair - I don't have anything to complain about.
My only hope is that some of the funds gained in curing baldness will trickle to important discoveries with stem cell research like stopping the degeneration of the brain under the balding head while we get older. There will come a time when I don't care about what my hair looks like, but surely there won't be a time when I don't care that I'm losing my mind.
I'm not totally against this kind of research. I believe stem cell research is important. What I don't believe is the order of precedence that we are engaging in with the research. Curing illnesses that threaten lives is far more important to pursue than curing baldness.
Scientists should find that it is ethically more important to cure diseases that are real ailments rather than a minor progression hair degeneration that occurs in many men and some women.
Then again, at age 35, with long, full white hair - I don't have anything to complain about.
My only hope is that some of the funds gained in curing baldness will trickle to important discoveries with stem cell research like stopping the degeneration of the brain under the balding head while we get older. There will come a time when I don't care about what my hair looks like, but surely there won't be a time when I don't care that I'm losing my mind.
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Sony PS3 sales vs Wii
Sony has pitched a claim that their sales are brisk and that it is hard for them to keep PS3's on the shelves.
But this is totally untrue. Many people have been writing comments on articles indicating that the PS3 is easy to find in stores where people have difficulty still in finding the Nintendo Wii.
Sony released information today that came out in articles like this one - which indicates that they have overproduced Sony PS3s compared to what has actually sold.
The article states pretty clearly that Sony has produced 5.5 million Playstation 3s and sold 3.6 million. So, nearly 1.9 million Sony PS3s sit on shelves or worse, distribution centers that have not sold.
They have indicated already that they don't make money on selling the console so the money invested by Sony in these devices is more than the $600 price tag. So, at a minimum Sony has $1,140,000,000 in PS3s that have not sold. Check that folks, 1 billion 140 million dollars with of PS3 gathering dust in warehouses and store shelves somewhere.
This isn't the kind of thing you hear from Nintendo, who apparently missed their mark for sales because they couldn't produce enough of their game console. This is bad too, but not like Sony.
A lot of the articles out there say this was a bad year for Sony, but that things are looking up. We'll see. One of the main problems with manufacturing is cost of storage if you produce too much when demand is down. Currently, I'm sure Sony is being optimistic and continuing to produce more PS3s. But they are already 1.9 million units in the hole, and the number of units on hand will only increase unless sales really goes up.
The problem with supply and demand in this case is that Sony's supply is really high, but demand doesn't really appear strong. Typically this would mean that Sony's prices would have to come down (significantly) to encourage sales; however, since they already don't make money on the consoles, they really can't lower the price any more without cutting significantly in to features or digging a deeper hole for each console sold.
But this is totally untrue. Many people have been writing comments on articles indicating that the PS3 is easy to find in stores where people have difficulty still in finding the Nintendo Wii.
Sony released information today that came out in articles like this one - which indicates that they have overproduced Sony PS3s compared to what has actually sold.
The article states pretty clearly that Sony has produced 5.5 million Playstation 3s and sold 3.6 million. So, nearly 1.9 million Sony PS3s sit on shelves or worse, distribution centers that have not sold.
They have indicated already that they don't make money on selling the console so the money invested by Sony in these devices is more than the $600 price tag. So, at a minimum Sony has $1,140,000,000 in PS3s that have not sold. Check that folks, 1 billion 140 million dollars with of PS3 gathering dust in warehouses and store shelves somewhere.
This isn't the kind of thing you hear from Nintendo, who apparently missed their mark for sales because they couldn't produce enough of their game console. This is bad too, but not like Sony.
A lot of the articles out there say this was a bad year for Sony, but that things are looking up. We'll see. One of the main problems with manufacturing is cost of storage if you produce too much when demand is down. Currently, I'm sure Sony is being optimistic and continuing to produce more PS3s. But they are already 1.9 million units in the hole, and the number of units on hand will only increase unless sales really goes up.
The problem with supply and demand in this case is that Sony's supply is really high, but demand doesn't really appear strong. Typically this would mean that Sony's prices would have to come down (significantly) to encourage sales; however, since they already don't make money on the consoles, they really can't lower the price any more without cutting significantly in to features or digging a deeper hole for each console sold.
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
H1B Visa - my experience
This blog entry was inspired by reading this current article on CNN.
There are many anecdotal stories about how someone they know lost work, compensation or benefits due to H-1B Visas.
I have my own story - and this story didn't happen to someone else - it happened to me. This is a first person account. I will leave the names of the company out of it. Although the diligent reader can scour my blog for my name, my name is so common that I could be anyone throughout the country.
There is a company that I have done work for as a consultant in the SAP scope. It is a large company of about 12000 people. I wrote a specialized system in .NET to handle their warehousing needs. They have two primary facilities and one central warehouse. The goods need to get to the primary facilities, regardless of if SAP is up or down. The programs need to run on small form factor devices such as Microsoft Windows Mobile devices.
So, my system, connects and posts data to SAP, connects and retrieves master data from SAP, contains its own custom database and a series of services that run periodically to get the data and perform postings when SAP is down. It is a fairly complex system written in .NET, where I also wrote the custom function modules in SAP to perform postings and there is custom data inside of SAP including custom tables to record errors and transactional data. There are other subsystems for specific activities such as inventory counts to overcome some of the problems inherent in the SAP system. (Inventory Counts in IM can only have up to 300 items and the client has thousands of items in each storage location)
The client is composed of two major segments. There is the primary company and there is an external entity which controls all the IT aspects. I interact a lot with both segments. Some time ago I was offered a job by the IT segment.
This seemed like a really good thing. I would be able to get really in to the system and do things that people can do in the long-term instead of just short 2-month contracts.
A few months later I find that the IT company has hired an H-1B Visa person on, and the opening for me was mysteriously consumed by "We have some internal problems with budgeting." So, I was pot luck out of a job, no big deal at this point.
Then, on my last contract with the client, guess who I had to train? The H-1B Visa employee they just hired. I spent a considerable amount of my last contract training him, because it appears that they hired him - he had the wrong skill set. He had no experience with .NET and he had no experience with SQL Server and he had no experience with SQL Server Agent jobs (the facility I use for writing services) and I had to teach him, not only the business end of the transactions, not only the infrastructure of the system, but I had to teach him the basics of .NET programming, SQL Server architecture, SQL Server interaction with .NET programming (how to interact with the database, call stored procedures, parameterized queries, regular queries), the SAP .NET Connector, how it works, basic database funcitonality, SQL Agent operation, the use of the classes I used for file transfer protocol, and how the web pages look and work on the handheld devices, everything I knew about how the handheld devices operated, etc...
And there is a lot of etc, and there is a lot of me having to go over things multiple times and there is a lot of explaining basic architecture over and over again before we even get to explaining the business side of the transactions.
He took very few notes. Since then, I haven't had any more contracts with the client. It is possible that the primary client may hire me, but may also be prevented from doing so because of non-solicitation and non-compete clauses.
So, now I don't have that opportunity for work, the possibility of me getting a job to support my family vanished (and this need is greater now since with two young children I want to work for an employer instead of with an consulting company). There are actually lots of reasons why I'd like to work for an actual employer.
But, this is how H-1B Visas affect people in the real world. The H1-B visa holder is young, single, not from this country, doesn't own a house, and has relatively low expenses and relatively low experience.
The point of the H1-B visa is that companies, when they cannot find people with the knowledge they need in the US, go to H1-B visa to get people from other countries that do have that knowledge.
Clearly, the intent of the program was completely violated. I am the ideal candidate for their job as the person that wrote the system, but still they went with a H-1B Visa holder and transferred it over - and they are probably paying him tens of thousands of dollars less than I would demand. I'd probably demand 120K. They are probably paying him 80K.
There are many anecdotal stories about how someone they know lost work, compensation or benefits due to H-1B Visas.
I have my own story - and this story didn't happen to someone else - it happened to me. This is a first person account. I will leave the names of the company out of it. Although the diligent reader can scour my blog for my name, my name is so common that I could be anyone throughout the country.
There is a company that I have done work for as a consultant in the SAP scope. It is a large company of about 12000 people. I wrote a specialized system in .NET to handle their warehousing needs. They have two primary facilities and one central warehouse. The goods need to get to the primary facilities, regardless of if SAP is up or down. The programs need to run on small form factor devices such as Microsoft Windows Mobile devices.
So, my system, connects and posts data to SAP, connects and retrieves master data from SAP, contains its own custom database and a series of services that run periodically to get the data and perform postings when SAP is down. It is a fairly complex system written in .NET, where I also wrote the custom function modules in SAP to perform postings and there is custom data inside of SAP including custom tables to record errors and transactional data. There are other subsystems for specific activities such as inventory counts to overcome some of the problems inherent in the SAP system. (Inventory Counts in IM can only have up to 300 items and the client has thousands of items in each storage location)
The client is composed of two major segments. There is the primary company and there is an external entity which controls all the IT aspects. I interact a lot with both segments. Some time ago I was offered a job by the IT segment.
This seemed like a really good thing. I would be able to get really in to the system and do things that people can do in the long-term instead of just short 2-month contracts.
A few months later I find that the IT company has hired an H-1B Visa person on, and the opening for me was mysteriously consumed by "We have some internal problems with budgeting." So, I was pot luck out of a job, no big deal at this point.
Then, on my last contract with the client, guess who I had to train? The H-1B Visa employee they just hired. I spent a considerable amount of my last contract training him, because it appears that they hired him - he had the wrong skill set. He had no experience with .NET and he had no experience with SQL Server and he had no experience with SQL Server Agent jobs (the facility I use for writing services) and I had to teach him, not only the business end of the transactions, not only the infrastructure of the system, but I had to teach him the basics of .NET programming, SQL Server architecture, SQL Server interaction with .NET programming (how to interact with the database, call stored procedures, parameterized queries, regular queries), the SAP .NET Connector, how it works, basic database funcitonality, SQL Agent operation, the use of the classes I used for file transfer protocol, and how the web pages look and work on the handheld devices, everything I knew about how the handheld devices operated, etc...
And there is a lot of etc, and there is a lot of me having to go over things multiple times and there is a lot of explaining basic architecture over and over again before we even get to explaining the business side of the transactions.
He took very few notes. Since then, I haven't had any more contracts with the client. It is possible that the primary client may hire me, but may also be prevented from doing so because of non-solicitation and non-compete clauses.
So, now I don't have that opportunity for work, the possibility of me getting a job to support my family vanished (and this need is greater now since with two young children I want to work for an employer instead of with an consulting company). There are actually lots of reasons why I'd like to work for an actual employer.
But, this is how H-1B Visas affect people in the real world. The H1-B visa holder is young, single, not from this country, doesn't own a house, and has relatively low expenses and relatively low experience.
The point of the H1-B visa is that companies, when they cannot find people with the knowledge they need in the US, go to H1-B visa to get people from other countries that do have that knowledge.
Clearly, the intent of the program was completely violated. I am the ideal candidate for their job as the person that wrote the system, but still they went with a H-1B Visa holder and transferred it over - and they are probably paying him tens of thousands of dollars less than I would demand. I'd probably demand 120K. They are probably paying him 80K.
Monday, May 14, 2007
Something wrong with 'Mom saves Daugter' video on CNN
I watch the news videos on CNN, some are very good and it beats watching TV and commercials.
So, naturally as a parent I am attracted to a story about a Mom saving her daughter - who is 4 years old just as my son is 4 years old.
The story is here . Apparently, a mother loads her little girl in to her minivan and forgot something in the house. She goes in to the house to get it leaving her little girl in the car with the engine running.
The little girl went to change something on the CD player and put the car in gear and launched the vehicle in to reverse where it landed in a lake. The car sunk quickly, but the mother actually saw the car sinking and rescued her daughter.
I am very happy for her and her daughter for surviving.
So, you say, what is wrong with this story?
I'll tell you my surprise to see the make and model of the van that the story is attached to, a Honda Odyssey, and it appears to be the same year as my Honda Odyssey - 2007.
Now, Honda, for more than a decade, locks out the gear selector when the car is in park - unless - you depress the brake. This is not a Chrysler, who claims to be very family oriented, but still doesn't do this on my wife's grandmother's new Chrysler 300.
So, I did a test, I walked out to my car and I turned it on, and without depressing the brake, I attempted to move the gear selector. With all my strength (5' 9", 195 pounds, male, moderate strength) I could not move the selector. I'm pressing the button down and everything. The only way to move it would be to break it, and I'm not sure even I have the strength to do that.
So, someone is lying. Either a) the mother left the car in reverse when she went to get the stuff or b) the little girl pressed the brake when she moved the girl selector or finally the locking mechanism for the gear shifter didn't work (very unlikely).
All I have to say is these people better not besmirch Honda or attempt to sue Honda on this, unless they can prove their claims that the gear shifter locking mechanism didn't work.
So, naturally as a parent I am attracted to a story about a Mom saving her daughter - who is 4 years old just as my son is 4 years old.
The story is here . Apparently, a mother loads her little girl in to her minivan and forgot something in the house. She goes in to the house to get it leaving her little girl in the car with the engine running.
The little girl went to change something on the CD player and put the car in gear and launched the vehicle in to reverse where it landed in a lake. The car sunk quickly, but the mother actually saw the car sinking and rescued her daughter.
I am very happy for her and her daughter for surviving.
So, you say, what is wrong with this story?
I'll tell you my surprise to see the make and model of the van that the story is attached to, a Honda Odyssey, and it appears to be the same year as my Honda Odyssey - 2007.
Now, Honda, for more than a decade, locks out the gear selector when the car is in park - unless - you depress the brake. This is not a Chrysler, who claims to be very family oriented, but still doesn't do this on my wife's grandmother's new Chrysler 300.
So, I did a test, I walked out to my car and I turned it on, and without depressing the brake, I attempted to move the gear selector. With all my strength (5' 9", 195 pounds, male, moderate strength) I could not move the selector. I'm pressing the button down and everything. The only way to move it would be to break it, and I'm not sure even I have the strength to do that.
So, someone is lying. Either a) the mother left the car in reverse when she went to get the stuff or b) the little girl pressed the brake when she moved the girl selector or finally the locking mechanism for the gear shifter didn't work (very unlikely).
All I have to say is these people better not besmirch Honda or attempt to sue Honda on this, unless they can prove their claims that the gear shifter locking mechanism didn't work.
Thursday, May 10, 2007
Information Insecurity
100,000 people had their security breached because an institution did not practice adequate security. This kind of breach is terrible even if it doesn't lead to actual issues with the individuals whose information has been compromised.
The risk, of something happening to any individual security office has gone up. How many of them would need to be compromised for there to be a serious security breach?
Not to mention that the TSA officers that have weapons information were listed on the hard drive as well. It really isn't that hard to find employee types and determine which ones could be holding guns, despite some articles stating that the TSA indicates it would be difficult to determine.
It doesn't matter how difficult to determine it is, whoever has the drive has it indefinitely.
Basic questions the TSA has been asked about this drive that they don't know. They don't know if it was encrypted. How can they not have anyone who knows if that drive was encrypted or not?
It isn't like only a few people have been affected by security breaches. I am a veteran and was notified during the last major breach that my information was lost. Fortunately, it was recovered by luck.
But where is the liability on the part of these institutions? Unencrypted personal data. Unsecured laptops outside of secure facilities. Portable hard drives with 100,000 records of private information?
The government needs to make new rules in regard to information security. It won't be the grunt terrorist that gets us in the future, it'll be an information leak that affects thousands of people and then they all go to capitol hill to complain.
Reference Article: Air Marshall info among 100,000 records lost on TSA Hard Drive
The risk, of something happening to any individual security office has gone up. How many of them would need to be compromised for there to be a serious security breach?
Not to mention that the TSA officers that have weapons information were listed on the hard drive as well. It really isn't that hard to find employee types and determine which ones could be holding guns, despite some articles stating that the TSA indicates it would be difficult to determine.
It doesn't matter how difficult to determine it is, whoever has the drive has it indefinitely.
Basic questions the TSA has been asked about this drive that they don't know. They don't know if it was encrypted. How can they not have anyone who knows if that drive was encrypted or not?
It isn't like only a few people have been affected by security breaches. I am a veteran and was notified during the last major breach that my information was lost. Fortunately, it was recovered by luck.
But where is the liability on the part of these institutions? Unencrypted personal data. Unsecured laptops outside of secure facilities. Portable hard drives with 100,000 records of private information?
The government needs to make new rules in regard to information security. It won't be the grunt terrorist that gets us in the future, it'll be an information leak that affects thousands of people and then they all go to capitol hill to complain.
Reference Article: Air Marshall info among 100,000 records lost on TSA Hard Drive
Wednesday, May 09, 2007
IE 7 - slow to open up tabs, slow to start
I do have an appreciation for IE 7. It is a nice web browser. However; sometimes it really makes me wonder.
When I start up IE 7, it is almost always slower to get its UI up on the screen. Then it ponders for a minute to open up the initial web page. This got so annoying to me that I set my home page to blank.
Then, when you open up tabs it has an annoying habit of telling me how great tabbed browsing is and that I just opened a new tab. How wonderful - for a complete novice. And did you notice? It took a long time for IE 7 to connect to the text file on your own PC to bring up this little informative note on tabbed browsing.
So, I quickly set that to blank as well. Oddly enough, my machines are not slouches and it still takes a bit of time to get the blank page up with IE 7. Once you get going everything seems to run smoothly. The browser seems to work well in most cases.
Firefox in task manager takes up 21,068 k of memory, opened to a blank page in a single tab.
IE 7 takes up 37,588K opened up and with a single blank page on a single tab.
And this is part of the major difference between the browsers. If it takes up less memory during operation then it takes less time to load that application in to memory. Microsoft has a horde of programmers and most of them are very good. They need to apply themselves to various issues inside of Internet Explorer. Reducing the memory footprint of the application, increasing start-up speed, increasing new tab creation speed.
All these things add up to a browser that is good, without being great. That is disappointing given Microsoft's advantage in size and availability of manpower. Honestly, they should be able to squash Firefox into nonexistence by releasing a better performing, more capable browser.
It is nice that they compete with so many software providers on so many fronts; however, the bast majority of people who purchase new PCs will be sitting there going on the web and using their web browser. To get name brand recognition and be out in front of people with a good face all the time, IE 7 needs to not only be better than Firefox, it needs to triumph over Firefox.
This is the same position many domestic auto manufacturers find themselves. After years of mediocre performance - they need to produce cars that are far in excess of the Japanese high sellers to gain market reputation that leads to them triumphing over the Japanese and not just a competitor.
When I start up IE 7, it is almost always slower to get its UI up on the screen. Then it ponders for a minute to open up the initial web page. This got so annoying to me that I set my home page to blank.
Then, when you open up tabs it has an annoying habit of telling me how great tabbed browsing is and that I just opened a new tab. How wonderful - for a complete novice. And did you notice? It took a long time for IE 7 to connect to the text file on your own PC to bring up this little informative note on tabbed browsing.
So, I quickly set that to blank as well. Oddly enough, my machines are not slouches and it still takes a bit of time to get the blank page up with IE 7. Once you get going everything seems to run smoothly. The browser seems to work well in most cases.
Firefox in task manager takes up 21,068 k of memory, opened to a blank page in a single tab.
IE 7 takes up 37,588K opened up and with a single blank page on a single tab.
And this is part of the major difference between the browsers. If it takes up less memory during operation then it takes less time to load that application in to memory. Microsoft has a horde of programmers and most of them are very good. They need to apply themselves to various issues inside of Internet Explorer. Reducing the memory footprint of the application, increasing start-up speed, increasing new tab creation speed.
All these things add up to a browser that is good, without being great. That is disappointing given Microsoft's advantage in size and availability of manpower. Honestly, they should be able to squash Firefox into nonexistence by releasing a better performing, more capable browser.
It is nice that they compete with so many software providers on so many fronts; however, the bast majority of people who purchase new PCs will be sitting there going on the web and using their web browser. To get name brand recognition and be out in front of people with a good face all the time, IE 7 needs to not only be better than Firefox, it needs to triumph over Firefox.
This is the same position many domestic auto manufacturers find themselves. After years of mediocre performance - they need to produce cars that are far in excess of the Japanese high sellers to gain market reputation that leads to them triumphing over the Japanese and not just a competitor.
Firefox Handly Feature - Web Page Search
Recently I wrote an blog entry on Firefox, and a commenter indicated that Firefox was an incredible tool in which Microsoft's IE 7 was a tool that made things harder to do.
Well, here is a concrete example of the difference between IE 7 and FireFox.
When you are on a web page and hit control-F to find text on that page what happens?
In IE 7 (and previous versions, this functionality appears to have avoided update) a small dialog window pops up over your page covering some of the text you are going to search. You type in what you want to search for and the page scrolls to the text and moves your search window down. It highlights the text, but it isn't entirely what I want in a search tool. You can close the search tool as necessary to stop it from blocking the text, but to start up the search again you have to control-F to bring it back up.
Firefox will perform actions that at first you might think are similar to the IE 7 way of handling searches.
Firefox will open an extended status bar, with an entry box for your search text. You type in to it what you are looking for and hit next. It scrolls the web page as necessary and highlights the text. You can hit the next or previous button as necessary to continue your search of go back to a previous search hit. The search bar on the browser does not block any text. It stays at the bottom of the screen waiting if you need it again - it need not go away for you to read a paragraph of text.
It is a vital difference (to me) in blocking or not blocking text when I'm performing a search on a web page. Why? Because I fully expect to read the paragraph where the hit happened to determine if what was found is what I need or if I have to search again. On the IE 7 model (or just IE for the past 10 years...) this involves more actions on my part to clear up the text to read what I'm looking for - either moving the dialog window or closing it completely. This works out to be a huge annoyance when what I was reading turns out to not be what I'm looking for and I have to re-open the search dialog.
So, definitely, score 5 points to Firefox for the previously mentioned session recovery capability. Score another 2 points to Firefox for making text searches of web pages easier.
Score: Firefox 2 - 7 , IE 7 - 0 .
Well, here is a concrete example of the difference between IE 7 and FireFox.
When you are on a web page and hit control-F to find text on that page what happens?
In IE 7 (and previous versions, this functionality appears to have avoided update) a small dialog window pops up over your page covering some of the text you are going to search. You type in what you want to search for and the page scrolls to the text and moves your search window down. It highlights the text, but it isn't entirely what I want in a search tool. You can close the search tool as necessary to stop it from blocking the text, but to start up the search again you have to control-F to bring it back up.
Firefox will perform actions that at first you might think are similar to the IE 7 way of handling searches.
Firefox will open an extended status bar, with an entry box for your search text. You type in to it what you are looking for and hit next. It scrolls the web page as necessary and highlights the text. You can hit the next or previous button as necessary to continue your search of go back to a previous search hit. The search bar on the browser does not block any text. It stays at the bottom of the screen waiting if you need it again - it need not go away for you to read a paragraph of text.
It is a vital difference (to me) in blocking or not blocking text when I'm performing a search on a web page. Why? Because I fully expect to read the paragraph where the hit happened to determine if what was found is what I need or if I have to search again. On the IE 7 model (or just IE for the past 10 years...) this involves more actions on my part to clear up the text to read what I'm looking for - either moving the dialog window or closing it completely. This works out to be a huge annoyance when what I was reading turns out to not be what I'm looking for and I have to re-open the search dialog.
So, definitely, score 5 points to Firefox for the previously mentioned session recovery capability. Score another 2 points to Firefox for making text searches of web pages easier.
Score: Firefox 2 - 7 , IE 7 - 0 .
Wii Scary
I own a Nintendo Wii. Unlike many people, I didn't spend hours in line waiting for it. I was lucky. I went to the local target that I knew was going to get 70 Wii machines and waited an hour before opening to ensure that I got my machine.
There is little doubt that Nintendo is making money on the console itself, unlike Microsoft and Sony. Even if Nintendo was not making money on the console itself, they would have made money on the number of games alone that I have purchased for the device.
1) Wii Play
2) Rayman's Raving Rabbids
3) Zelda
4) Sonic and the Secret of the Rings
5) Excite Truck (which I use as an MP3 player sometimes)
Virtual Console Games
1) Mario 64
2) Sonic the Hedgehog
Accessories:
1) Nunchuck Controller
2) 1GB SD card (not nintendo)
Perhaps that isn't enough, but a number of titles upcoming and out already are on my list of games I want to get. There is a FPS (First Person Shooter) that comes in Rayman's Raving Rabbids that has totally turned me on to the idea of a FPS for the Wii - a full one. Rayman's only let's you control where you fire like some arcade shooters, where I am from the Castle Wolfenstein 3D, Doom, Doom 2 generation - and yearn for full control of motion.
Soon, I'll have my choice of an Alien Syndrome FPS and Metroid Prime Hunters for Wii will be coming out soon.
Not to mention that I've gone totally Japanese and own three Nintendo DS devices - one for me, my wife and my 4 year-old son. My favorite game has to be Big Brain Acadamy. It is hard though, to neglect Elite Beat Agents and New Super Mario Brothers.
So, for the Wii, I can't wait for Big Brain Acadamy. I'm even thinking of getting a Pokemon game or two - as long as there is a way to inter-operate between the Wii and the DS. I think, with a little work, a motion sensor and WiFi connection, the Nintendo DS could even be used as a controller for the Wii.
This would be a combination of two great worlds. Motion sensing controlling and touch sensing. I could imagine a game where you are playing by waving your DS around (hopefully with a strap of some sort) and then quickly struggling to scribble on its screen or do something on the DS screen.
Anyway, my thoughts for the moment on the Nintendo. I think they will do well against their competitors.
There is little doubt that Nintendo is making money on the console itself, unlike Microsoft and Sony. Even if Nintendo was not making money on the console itself, they would have made money on the number of games alone that I have purchased for the device.
1) Wii Play
2) Rayman's Raving Rabbids
3) Zelda
4) Sonic and the Secret of the Rings
5) Excite Truck (which I use as an MP3 player sometimes)
Virtual Console Games
1) Mario 64
2) Sonic the Hedgehog
Accessories:
1) Nunchuck Controller
2) 1GB SD card (not nintendo)
Perhaps that isn't enough, but a number of titles upcoming and out already are on my list of games I want to get. There is a FPS (First Person Shooter) that comes in Rayman's Raving Rabbids that has totally turned me on to the idea of a FPS for the Wii - a full one. Rayman's only let's you control where you fire like some arcade shooters, where I am from the Castle Wolfenstein 3D, Doom, Doom 2 generation - and yearn for full control of motion.
Soon, I'll have my choice of an Alien Syndrome FPS and Metroid Prime Hunters for Wii will be coming out soon.
Not to mention that I've gone totally Japanese and own three Nintendo DS devices - one for me, my wife and my 4 year-old son. My favorite game has to be Big Brain Acadamy. It is hard though, to neglect Elite Beat Agents and New Super Mario Brothers.
So, for the Wii, I can't wait for Big Brain Acadamy. I'm even thinking of getting a Pokemon game or two - as long as there is a way to inter-operate between the Wii and the DS. I think, with a little work, a motion sensor and WiFi connection, the Nintendo DS could even be used as a controller for the Wii.
This would be a combination of two great worlds. Motion sensing controlling and touch sensing. I could imagine a game where you are playing by waving your DS around (hopefully with a strap of some sort) and then quickly struggling to scribble on its screen or do something on the DS screen.
Anyway, my thoughts for the moment on the Nintendo. I think they will do well against their competitors.
Tuesday, May 08, 2007
Illigal Immigrants and Terrorism
Fully 1/2 of the alleged attackers planning to attack Fort Dix were illegal immigrants to the US.
Illegal immigration is a very complex topic; however, it should be noted that while these guys were in the country, they were illegal (inherently breaking the law), they drove cars with no license, drove cars with no registration, car insurance or even a basic training course.
Of course, in New Jersey where property tax is a hot topic - all three illegals went to high school here and cost their neighbors money for their free ride in school.
And what do they do with their free ride through school? They try to kill us...
So, a definite connection is made now between illegal immigrants and terrorism. I don't want it to be impossible for people who want to be here to come here. But our system right now doesn't do anything on a local level to enforce immigration laws. That's a problem.
Illegal immigration is a very complex topic; however, it should be noted that while these guys were in the country, they were illegal (inherently breaking the law), they drove cars with no license, drove cars with no registration, car insurance or even a basic training course.
Of course, in New Jersey where property tax is a hot topic - all three illegals went to high school here and cost their neighbors money for their free ride in school.
And what do they do with their free ride through school? They try to kill us...
So, a definite connection is made now between illegal immigrants and terrorism. I don't want it to be impossible for people who want to be here to come here. But our system right now doesn't do anything on a local level to enforce immigration laws. That's a problem.
Fort Dix Terror Plot
I live here in New Jersey. Currently I live close enough to the World Trade Centers to see the smoke in the aftermath.
But most of my life I lived in Howell, New Jersey and for a number of years I was a member of the New Jersey Air National Guard ad McGuire AFB.
I knew Big Blue when it was Big Blue and not what it is today, Big Beige. I was around to know the guys and talk to them about a certain club on base that used to be a stripper club.
So, headlines about a proposed attack on Fort Dix which shares boundaries with McGuire AFB certainly brings in my attention.
I've seen some pictures lately of the base in a lot of the articles and I'm happy to note that Fort Dix is now a closed base. When I was over there the Air Force Base was a closed base (meaning it had guarded gates) and Fort Dix was wide open. I even remember getting kind of lost leaving from a drill weekend and wandering around in Fort Dix.
Perhaps it is a result of 9/11 that the army bases are closed bases now, but it is a good thing in general for security. In a world with so many people in it, and a country like the USA with a large population as well, it would be difficult to imagine that there aren't people who don't wish us all well.
How we react to that fact will determine what kind of people we are.
Even with the newer gates on Fort Dix, I find that the gates themselves are targets. People commute in to the bases on daily basis. The gates themselves in these circumstances have a lot of people at them (in cars waiting to get in plus the soldiers running the gate).
It would be foolish to think that the gate itself wouldn't be a target. Our roads in the US are designed to be long and straight where a suicide bomber in a large truck could build up momentum. So, I think that a general (not a frantic and scared) review of the entrances of the military bases and their defensibility from suicide attacks should be in order.
Some recommendations would be:
1) More gates or gates that allow more cars to pass through at a time (meaning we'd have to have more people to man the gates to certify vehicles as they go through the gates as well).
2) No straight roads moving in to the bases.
3) Speed bumps of significant size to impede high speed vehicles.
4) Watch towers manned or unmanned and remotely controlled with weaponry.
There was a base in Germany that I heard about (a US base) in which the gate was armed with a system that would push the cement (and the car on it) up and away from the gate if someone attempted a breach.
Now, that would be neat. It was unfortunately, in the story told to me, used on a normal person coming through the gate. The guard asked for ID and didn't see it, even though it was offered (which can happen) and got nervous and fired the mechanism.
I wasn't told of anyone being hurt. But it does show that every day use of a gate needs to be weighed against over-the-top security.
Anyway, I'm glad these guys were caught and that no-one was hurt.
But most of my life I lived in Howell, New Jersey and for a number of years I was a member of the New Jersey Air National Guard ad McGuire AFB.
I knew Big Blue when it was Big Blue and not what it is today, Big Beige. I was around to know the guys and talk to them about a certain club on base that used to be a stripper club.
So, headlines about a proposed attack on Fort Dix which shares boundaries with McGuire AFB certainly brings in my attention.
I've seen some pictures lately of the base in a lot of the articles and I'm happy to note that Fort Dix is now a closed base. When I was over there the Air Force Base was a closed base (meaning it had guarded gates) and Fort Dix was wide open. I even remember getting kind of lost leaving from a drill weekend and wandering around in Fort Dix.
Perhaps it is a result of 9/11 that the army bases are closed bases now, but it is a good thing in general for security. In a world with so many people in it, and a country like the USA with a large population as well, it would be difficult to imagine that there aren't people who don't wish us all well.
How we react to that fact will determine what kind of people we are.
Even with the newer gates on Fort Dix, I find that the gates themselves are targets. People commute in to the bases on daily basis. The gates themselves in these circumstances have a lot of people at them (in cars waiting to get in plus the soldiers running the gate).
It would be foolish to think that the gate itself wouldn't be a target. Our roads in the US are designed to be long and straight where a suicide bomber in a large truck could build up momentum. So, I think that a general (not a frantic and scared) review of the entrances of the military bases and their defensibility from suicide attacks should be in order.
Some recommendations would be:
1) More gates or gates that allow more cars to pass through at a time (meaning we'd have to have more people to man the gates to certify vehicles as they go through the gates as well).
2) No straight roads moving in to the bases.
3) Speed bumps of significant size to impede high speed vehicles.
4) Watch towers manned or unmanned and remotely controlled with weaponry.
There was a base in Germany that I heard about (a US base) in which the gate was armed with a system that would push the cement (and the car on it) up and away from the gate if someone attempted a breach.
Now, that would be neat. It was unfortunately, in the story told to me, used on a normal person coming through the gate. The guard asked for ID and didn't see it, even though it was offered (which can happen) and got nervous and fired the mechanism.
I wasn't told of anyone being hurt. But it does show that every day use of a gate needs to be weighed against over-the-top security.
Anyway, I'm glad these guys were caught and that no-one was hurt.
Shaving Cream Cans
You know sometimes I wonder at the mental faculties of large companies.
There is a problem with shaving cream cans - at least with the metal ones.
They are made of a metal that rusts. That rust is encouraged by the high amount of water vapor present in a bathroom, where the shaving cream can will reside.
So, this isn't nuclear science. They have a couple of options:
1) Don't make the shaving cream can out of a metal that rusts.
2) Make the shaving cream can as usual, but coat it in a substance on the bottom so it will not rust.
3) Make the bottom of the shaving cream can out of something that doesn't rust
Not only is it a waste to use such a good amount of metal for a stupid shaving cream can, but it rusts wherever it is placed in my bathroom. Then, that rust is never easy to remove. Somehow it appears to bind itself to the surface making extraordinary effort in scrubbing to remove the offending rust.
What, do the people that work at these places and create the packaging not use the products? Do they enjoy removing the rust in their bathroom?
Do they think I might enjoy a little rust on my bathtub so my kids can rub their hands in it and then stick it in to their mouth? (Nevermind that they really shouldn't be doing that, kids do whatever they want to no mater what you tell them. Currently, my 4-year-old is in a state of - let me do exactly the opposite of what daddy asks me to and see if he gets pissed off.)
There is a problem with shaving cream cans - at least with the metal ones.
They are made of a metal that rusts. That rust is encouraged by the high amount of water vapor present in a bathroom, where the shaving cream can will reside.
So, this isn't nuclear science. They have a couple of options:
1) Don't make the shaving cream can out of a metal that rusts.
2) Make the shaving cream can as usual, but coat it in a substance on the bottom so it will not rust.
3) Make the bottom of the shaving cream can out of something that doesn't rust
Not only is it a waste to use such a good amount of metal for a stupid shaving cream can, but it rusts wherever it is placed in my bathroom. Then, that rust is never easy to remove. Somehow it appears to bind itself to the surface making extraordinary effort in scrubbing to remove the offending rust.
What, do the people that work at these places and create the packaging not use the products? Do they enjoy removing the rust in their bathroom?
Do they think I might enjoy a little rust on my bathtub so my kids can rub their hands in it and then stick it in to their mouth? (Nevermind that they really shouldn't be doing that, kids do whatever they want to no mater what you tell them. Currently, my 4-year-old is in a state of - let me do exactly the opposite of what daddy asks me to and see if he gets pissed off.)
Camera Storage Capacity to Detail Captured
I recently purchased a new still camera, the Fujifilm S700 or S5700.* This is a 7 Mega pixel camera with a 10X optical zoom.
Our current camera (and we are keeping it) is a 6 MP Fujifilm E550. Part of the reason we purchased the S700, was because it was really cheap for getting a new camera that was newer and better than our old camera.
So, we bought the camer, - it was $220 at BJ's, with a $20 rebate and then we purchased $28 - 3GB SD card to go in it.
2 GB! I hear there are people working on an 8 GB SD card, if it isn't out there already.
So, where is the problem, you say?
Well, technically, there isn't a problem. So far as I can tell, the S700 is a better camera in every way than our E550, with the exception that they are different camera types and the E550 is a slimmer model.
No, the problem is one of perception. I have a SD card, that is 2GB's in size and it will hold something like almost 900 pictures.
Now, I like taking picture, especially of my kids, but the chances of me using 900 picturs in a single setting are pretty slim. The chances of the camera even being able to take 900 pictures on a single charge are also, pretty slim.
So, the problem is this, I think that digital cameras in general, should be able to utilize the storage space they can potentially have. To me that means that cameras should have huge sensors that capture an array of the current sensors data. If you had an array of 4 sensors the same size as the current sensor you would be able to capture a lot more data (and need a lot more lens) and still you wouldn't fill up the SD card with 100 pictures (which is what I take on average)!
These MP monsters would be so detailed that it would be an incredible feats for eyes.
Anyway, overall the camera is really good. I'll probably talk about it more later. Like I said, it handily beats my E550 in every way except for physical size. The photo quality, to my non-professional eye - is great. Very few blurry auto-focus missed shots except when I do a sequence of pictures in a row (an experiment I admit) and the video quality appears to be very good.
*The nomenclature was about as clear as mud. At BJ's it was a S700 on the tag, S5700 on the box. There I was wondering if I had the correct camera. Then, even in the box and documentation there are some discrepancies as to the name of the camera. Good thing it is a good camera or I'd be confused and pissed off, right now I'm just confused.
Our current camera (and we are keeping it) is a 6 MP Fujifilm E550. Part of the reason we purchased the S700, was because it was really cheap for getting a new camera that was newer and better than our old camera.
So, we bought the camer, - it was $220 at BJ's, with a $20 rebate and then we purchased $28 - 3GB SD card to go in it.
2 GB! I hear there are people working on an 8 GB SD card, if it isn't out there already.
So, where is the problem, you say?
Well, technically, there isn't a problem. So far as I can tell, the S700 is a better camera in every way than our E550, with the exception that they are different camera types and the E550 is a slimmer model.
No, the problem is one of perception. I have a SD card, that is 2GB's in size and it will hold something like almost 900 pictures.
Now, I like taking picture, especially of my kids, but the chances of me using 900 picturs in a single setting are pretty slim. The chances of the camera even being able to take 900 pictures on a single charge are also, pretty slim.
So, the problem is this, I think that digital cameras in general, should be able to utilize the storage space they can potentially have. To me that means that cameras should have huge sensors that capture an array of the current sensors data. If you had an array of 4 sensors the same size as the current sensor you would be able to capture a lot more data (and need a lot more lens) and still you wouldn't fill up the SD card with 100 pictures (which is what I take on average)!
These MP monsters would be so detailed that it would be an incredible feats for eyes.
Anyway, overall the camera is really good. I'll probably talk about it more later. Like I said, it handily beats my E550 in every way except for physical size. The photo quality, to my non-professional eye - is great. Very few blurry auto-focus missed shots except when I do a sequence of pictures in a row (an experiment I admit) and the video quality appears to be very good.
*The nomenclature was about as clear as mud. At BJ's it was a S700 on the tag, S5700 on the box. There I was wondering if I had the correct camera. Then, even in the box and documentation there are some discrepancies as to the name of the camera. Good thing it is a good camera or I'd be confused and pissed off, right now I'm just confused.
Firefox Browser - Continued Innovation - vs IE 7
I first wrote about the FireFox browser in March of 2005. Since then I typically install it on all of my Windows PCs (but not the Macs, Safari is good enough in that realm).
There are still some disturbing problems with the browser. Most of these problems, I suspect come from web pages that support IE only. Since IE added multiple tab browsing the scales have tilted back towards Microsoft's IE 7 if it weren't for one very special attribute of FireFox.
I've been having some trouble with one of my PC's. It needs a bios update, but it has Pheonix Bios, and you just can't download any update, it has to be one for your specific motherboard and I don't remember what it is. I'll take a look at it sometime and see if I can figure it out.
The end result is that this machine crashes, typically in multimedia operations. No blue screen, no - hey you might want to save before the ship goes down, just down and bounce in a reboot instantly.
FireFox, which I've been using for the most part, has a way to recover sessions. The best part of it is that all you have to do after starting FireFox in order to recover your previous session is click a button.
This is particularly handy in that even in cases where I've been writing in a text box in a tab, this information will be saved (not in every case, though). It remembers your cookies, and even if you were logged in to Comcast e-mail.
This is powerful stuff. I think there is even a setting for it to remember your session even when you just close the program. I'll think about that one, there could be benefits and detractions to it.
But in terms of saving the information as I was writing an entry on IIDB forum, boy it saved me a lot of anger and frustration. Saving frustration is important to me. IE7, doesn't do this, or at least not yet.
I noticed when IE 7 came out that Microsoft employed a neat way to close the tabs. FireFox, you had to move your mouse all the way to the right edge of the screen to close a tab. Microsoft had it right on the tab. Shortly afterwards, FireFox fixed this. It certainly seems a lot like one-upsmanship, but FireFox really did something useful with the session recovery.
Good job guys, it is nice to see programmers to go, since I am at least in part a programmer.
There are still some disturbing problems with the browser. Most of these problems, I suspect come from web pages that support IE only. Since IE added multiple tab browsing the scales have tilted back towards Microsoft's IE 7 if it weren't for one very special attribute of FireFox.
I've been having some trouble with one of my PC's. It needs a bios update, but it has Pheonix Bios, and you just can't download any update, it has to be one for your specific motherboard and I don't remember what it is. I'll take a look at it sometime and see if I can figure it out.
The end result is that this machine crashes, typically in multimedia operations. No blue screen, no - hey you might want to save before the ship goes down, just down and bounce in a reboot instantly.
FireFox, which I've been using for the most part, has a way to recover sessions. The best part of it is that all you have to do after starting FireFox in order to recover your previous session is click a button.
This is particularly handy in that even in cases where I've been writing in a text box in a tab, this information will be saved (not in every case, though). It remembers your cookies, and even if you were logged in to Comcast e-mail.
This is powerful stuff. I think there is even a setting for it to remember your session even when you just close the program. I'll think about that one, there could be benefits and detractions to it.
But in terms of saving the information as I was writing an entry on IIDB forum, boy it saved me a lot of anger and frustration. Saving frustration is important to me. IE7, doesn't do this, or at least not yet.
I noticed when IE 7 came out that Microsoft employed a neat way to close the tabs. FireFox, you had to move your mouse all the way to the right edge of the screen to close a tab. Microsoft had it right on the tab. Shortly afterwards, FireFox fixed this. It certainly seems a lot like one-upsmanship, but FireFox really did something useful with the session recovery.
Good job guys, it is nice to see programmers to go, since I am at least in part a programmer.
Angelic Layer and Science
It might not have come out yet in this blog, but my wife and I are huge anime fans. I've been watching just about anything that I can from shows on cartoon network, Adult Swim, Netflix rentals, YouTube (Japanese recordings with English Text) and even a fan site BleachPortal.net to get in my fix of anime.
I search for anime shows that my son can watch. I'll let him watch stuff that is much more violent than most parents - I don't believe that what people watch on TV leads to what people do in reality. If this were the case then it would be quite clear that Japanese culture should be far more violent than United States Culture - and this is directly opposite to available information.
To the topic of this particular post: Angelic Layer is a low-violence and low-person violence anime that my son likes to watch. Young children control dolls on a field called the Angelic Layer where those dolls become capable of following the user's mind commands to do things on the layer. There is a lot more to this show, like a slight sexual tension between the main character and one of the male characters that so far in two disks hasn't resulted in anything more than a he likes her - and the guy getting all embarrassed. The main story line follows the main character as her doll battles other dolls on the Angelic Layer and she becomes a competition player. So, the violence that does happen in the show are dolls fighting dolls, no blood, still a little violence; however, it is clear on the show that the fighters are not people - even though they look like people.
Recently there have been articles like this one - depicting a game system with an add-on device that allows the user to use their mind to control the actions of their character inside of a console game. This immediately brought to my mind the idea of Angelic Layer. The art of moving things in the real world is far more difficult (especially given the activities of the dolls in Angelic Layer) than moving pixels in a game.
On the other hand, we are increasingly becoming more capable in the robotic arena. If this is the direction we are going with in gaming, there isn't a reason why we couldn't in ten years create something very much like Angelic Layer.
I search for anime shows that my son can watch. I'll let him watch stuff that is much more violent than most parents - I don't believe that what people watch on TV leads to what people do in reality. If this were the case then it would be quite clear that Japanese culture should be far more violent than United States Culture - and this is directly opposite to available information.
To the topic of this particular post: Angelic Layer is a low-violence and low-person violence anime that my son likes to watch. Young children control dolls on a field called the Angelic Layer where those dolls become capable of following the user's mind commands to do things on the layer. There is a lot more to this show, like a slight sexual tension between the main character and one of the male characters that so far in two disks hasn't resulted in anything more than a he likes her - and the guy getting all embarrassed. The main story line follows the main character as her doll battles other dolls on the Angelic Layer and she becomes a competition player. So, the violence that does happen in the show are dolls fighting dolls, no blood, still a little violence; however, it is clear on the show that the fighters are not people - even though they look like people.
Recently there have been articles like this one - depicting a game system with an add-on device that allows the user to use their mind to control the actions of their character inside of a console game. This immediately brought to my mind the idea of Angelic Layer. The art of moving things in the real world is far more difficult (especially given the activities of the dolls in Angelic Layer) than moving pixels in a game.
On the other hand, we are increasingly becoming more capable in the robotic arena. If this is the direction we are going with in gaming, there isn't a reason why we couldn't in ten years create something very much like Angelic Layer.
Monday, May 07, 2007
Bioethics of biology used to destroy
In an article: Fire ants may have met their match on CNN they discuss a very important finding. The use of a virus that naturally occurs within fire ants to destroy them.
Is it ethical to use a virus to deliberately kill insects? I think it is. The fire ants in question do not naturally occur in the Northern United States of America and have no natural predators in this region. The article briefly talks about importing another species in to the US that is a natural predator to the ants. I think that this would not be an optimal solution. Introducing a second species even if successful still leaves you with now two introduces species competing with local species for limited resources.
The question is if the implementation of the virus to destroy as many fire ants as possible will be ethically done - and not to the ants, I mean to other species, the ecology and to humanity.
Whatever pathogen is generated to go after the fire ants will need to be significantly tested against all species of insects that are rungs in our ecology. Imagine if they don't do such testing and ants that we need are also killed? This would be a bigger disaster.
I think appropriate testing can be done. I hope the testing will be done. Currently there is no legislation forcing companies using biological agents to perform such testing. The FDA doesn't hold any authority in this scope, as the product does not impact (directly) food eaten by humans.
So, here's to hoping everyone does the due diligence and tests any solution in development appropriately.
Is it ethical to use a virus to deliberately kill insects? I think it is. The fire ants in question do not naturally occur in the Northern United States of America and have no natural predators in this region. The article briefly talks about importing another species in to the US that is a natural predator to the ants. I think that this would not be an optimal solution. Introducing a second species even if successful still leaves you with now two introduces species competing with local species for limited resources.
The question is if the implementation of the virus to destroy as many fire ants as possible will be ethically done - and not to the ants, I mean to other species, the ecology and to humanity.
Whatever pathogen is generated to go after the fire ants will need to be significantly tested against all species of insects that are rungs in our ecology. Imagine if they don't do such testing and ants that we need are also killed? This would be a bigger disaster.
I think appropriate testing can be done. I hope the testing will be done. Currently there is no legislation forcing companies using biological agents to perform such testing. The FDA doesn't hold any authority in this scope, as the product does not impact (directly) food eaten by humans.
So, here's to hoping everyone does the due diligence and tests any solution in development appropriately.
Childhood Horror
Ages ago (at least it seems that way) I used to have a recurrent nightmare/waking dream. The idea was very simple, that there were spiders in my ears (or some other insect).
So, a CNN video shows a kid that has lived through it. Apparently, two spiders crawled in to his ears while he was sleeping in the top bunk of his bed. Perhaps, being closer to the ceiling the spiders thought it was an inviting place to live.
His parents took him to the doctor, and flushed 1 living and 1 dead spider out of his ears. Let's hope they didn't lay any eggs.
I think, I've gotten over the horror of what it would be like to have insects burrowing under my skin or in my ears or attempting to eat me. I understand now that this kind of thing happens although infrequently here in the USA.
In Africa many predatory insects eat portions of the human body. Worms burrow in through the skin on the feet and things like that. Heck, there are of course worms that can take up residence inside your intestines. Knowing about the thousands of mites and things like that living in the bed, eating your dead skin, spiders crawling around your bed and accidentally falling in to your mouth at night. I mean, insects are simply something we need to live with, and on a close proximity despite the fact that we aren't really aware how close they are on a daily basis.
So, anyway, have pleasant dreams.
So, a CNN video shows a kid that has lived through it. Apparently, two spiders crawled in to his ears while he was sleeping in the top bunk of his bed. Perhaps, being closer to the ceiling the spiders thought it was an inviting place to live.
His parents took him to the doctor, and flushed 1 living and 1 dead spider out of his ears. Let's hope they didn't lay any eggs.
I think, I've gotten over the horror of what it would be like to have insects burrowing under my skin or in my ears or attempting to eat me. I understand now that this kind of thing happens although infrequently here in the USA.
In Africa many predatory insects eat portions of the human body. Worms burrow in through the skin on the feet and things like that. Heck, there are of course worms that can take up residence inside your intestines. Knowing about the thousands of mites and things like that living in the bed, eating your dead skin, spiders crawling around your bed and accidentally falling in to your mouth at night. I mean, insects are simply something we need to live with, and on a close proximity despite the fact that we aren't really aware how close they are on a daily basis.
So, anyway, have pleasant dreams.
Thursday, May 03, 2007
Mac Mini Update
Well, we finally took the Mac Mini and the LCD monitor that it doesn't work with over to the Mac Store in the Mall.
They tried a few things and in the end the guy at the store said, "Maybe try a different monitor."
I know for a fact that there isn't anything wrong with the monitor. We get the grey opening screen for the startup of the Mac and that is it.
I also know, that when I installed Windows Vista on the machine that used that monitor, I experience the same issues.
So, what did OS writers forget about monitors with their next generation OS?
Bleh, so I want my father-in-law to have a larger monitor than that 5 year olf 15" CRT. I guess I'll have to buy something, but I'll be wondering when I buy it - will this work with the Mac Mini?
They tried a few things and in the end the guy at the store said, "Maybe try a different monitor."
I know for a fact that there isn't anything wrong with the monitor. We get the grey opening screen for the startup of the Mac and that is it.
I also know, that when I installed Windows Vista on the machine that used that monitor, I experience the same issues.
So, what did OS writers forget about monitors with their next generation OS?
Bleh, so I want my father-in-law to have a larger monitor than that 5 year olf 15" CRT. I guess I'll have to buy something, but I'll be wondering when I buy it - will this work with the Mac Mini?
Wednesday, May 02, 2007
Censorship and Digg
Censorship is abhorrent to people even if the removal of that knowledge would be beneficial. There are many TV shows, Anime and movies about people who don't remember their past (or parts of it) and the show is the journey to learning the truth about the past.
So, encryption algorithms were 'smuggled' out of the country in a book - the source code and keys a long time ago. This was when the US government was passionate about keeping the highest level of encryption only in the US. I know, it was a really stupid idea on the US part.
I mean really. All they did was prevent US software security firms from competing on a global level. Now other businesses have that business. The economics for these companies in the US to have multiple versions of the software just to have lower power security on the stuff they ship out of the US - foolishness.
Especially in the age of the internet when this book with the source code probably wasn't the first way that source code left the US.
So, now we have a problem with encryption again. We are not a culture that believes in censorship (as a whole) and yet we let a law pass that basically states that if you have any discourse on the security of multimedia products, you are liable.
And this blew up on Digg. Digg was told to remove content because the articles contained an encryption key to secure new style media. The users revolted.
It isn't that all their users are interested in ripping HD-DVD content. It is the fact that they are being told they cannot read material.
The media companies have made their own problems. Unfortunately for the, by not allowing discussion on the weaknesses of their encryption - their encryption is breakable - and it appears that it is relatively easy to do.
I'm glad Digg changed their mind. If they face a lawsuit I think it will be a first amendment battle to end all battles. Copyright vs Freedom of Expression. If we go in order of precedence in our government documents - 1st amendment should outrank copyright protection. They really need to amend the constitution to mandate censorship - and they should be forced to do so if they want to limit public discourse.
So, encryption algorithms were 'smuggled' out of the country in a book - the source code and keys a long time ago. This was when the US government was passionate about keeping the highest level of encryption only in the US. I know, it was a really stupid idea on the US part.
I mean really. All they did was prevent US software security firms from competing on a global level. Now other businesses have that business. The economics for these companies in the US to have multiple versions of the software just to have lower power security on the stuff they ship out of the US - foolishness.
Especially in the age of the internet when this book with the source code probably wasn't the first way that source code left the US.
So, now we have a problem with encryption again. We are not a culture that believes in censorship (as a whole) and yet we let a law pass that basically states that if you have any discourse on the security of multimedia products, you are liable.
And this blew up on Digg. Digg was told to remove content because the articles contained an encryption key to secure new style media. The users revolted.
It isn't that all their users are interested in ripping HD-DVD content. It is the fact that they are being told they cannot read material.
The media companies have made their own problems. Unfortunately for the, by not allowing discussion on the weaknesses of their encryption - their encryption is breakable - and it appears that it is relatively easy to do.
I'm glad Digg changed their mind. If they face a lawsuit I think it will be a first amendment battle to end all battles. Copyright vs Freedom of Expression. If we go in order of precedence in our government documents - 1st amendment should outrank copyright protection. They really need to amend the constitution to mandate censorship - and they should be forced to do so if they want to limit public discourse.
Gene Therapy for the Blind
As a parent of two children when I read about some of the horrible diseases out there that can affect children and on in to adulthood I find that the world sometimes can be a scary place.
So it is nice to read an article on a horrible disease that scientists are working to cure or at least alleviate the problems of this disease.
The disease is Leber's congenital amaurosis. Basically as a child gets older their eyesight degenerates and will be blind by their 20s. I couldn't imagine if my children had this disease.
Here is the article that first brought this science exploration to my attention through Google News.
The treatment involves gene modification. Years ago there were a lot of debates on the ethics of gene modification therapy. It was noted in other places that this kind of debate ceased in the popular media when the procedures yielded results that will actually cure children's diseases.
There are dangers with this treatment. It is a technology that is still in its infancy. There is an incident mentioned in this article about two children who underwent a similar surgery being infected by the carrier virus and developing cancer. One hopes they are using a different carrier virus and that this is in fact the cause of the cancer.
Right now, modeling the human body well enough for computer simulations to map out how these operations will affect the human body are not possible. Until then human trials will be necessary to determine the efficacy of a procedure.
One can only hope that the scientists need a minimum of iterations to determine the correct methodology.
Here are some additional articles on this subject in the news:
Docs Perform Gene Therapy Operations
Hope in Sight
eCanadaNow
This is my 100th blog entry.
So it is nice to read an article on a horrible disease that scientists are working to cure or at least alleviate the problems of this disease.
The disease is Leber's congenital amaurosis. Basically as a child gets older their eyesight degenerates and will be blind by their 20s. I couldn't imagine if my children had this disease.
Here is the article that first brought this science exploration to my attention through Google News.
The treatment involves gene modification. Years ago there were a lot of debates on the ethics of gene modification therapy. It was noted in other places that this kind of debate ceased in the popular media when the procedures yielded results that will actually cure children's diseases.
There are dangers with this treatment. It is a technology that is still in its infancy. There is an incident mentioned in this article about two children who underwent a similar surgery being infected by the carrier virus and developing cancer. One hopes they are using a different carrier virus and that this is in fact the cause of the cancer.
Right now, modeling the human body well enough for computer simulations to map out how these operations will affect the human body are not possible. Until then human trials will be necessary to determine the efficacy of a procedure.
One can only hope that the scientists need a minimum of iterations to determine the correct methodology.
Here are some additional articles on this subject in the news:
Docs Perform Gene Therapy Operations
Hope in Sight
eCanadaNow
This is my 100th blog entry.
Tuesday, May 01, 2007
WWYD
There are lots of battles about the existence of Jesus. Some are scholarly battles, some are emotional battles and some are simply two entrenched sides that simply cannot communicate.
I humbly offer my thoughtful argument about the existence of Jesus.
What would you do (WWYD) if you had Jesus capabilities?
Make a list.
Then compare it to what Jesus did.
Decide if you could have been a better Jesus than Jesus was. If you think you could have been a better Jesus, then perhaps, the all-powerful, all-knowing Jesus did not exist. Clearly if you can conceive of what you would do as Jesus and Jesus didn't accomplish those goals, he either didn't exist, wasn't as powerful or knowledgeable as people claim.
So, I've come up with my own list.
1) I'd create a series of books containing the knowledge of science that can be attained with a human mentality. These books would be written in all the existing languages of the time and all future languages, because as the son of god, I'd be able to do that.
2) I'd write many stories showing the commonality of human existence and that tolerance of others is really tolerance for yourself.
3) I'd live for as long as possible to ensure that my healing abilities and wisdom would be available for as long as possible. Consider, that since Jesus was the son of god he should be able to live as long as Methuselah, Noah, or Adam. So, Jesus should be able to live for hundreds to a thousand years with no problem. In fact, Jesus should be able to live longer since he's the son of god and not just your ordinary human.
4) I would be able to change the minds of the leaders of humans whenever they were going down the 'wrong' path. By wrong, I basically mean the path for fighting over resources, ideology, etc. This power is demonstrated by god against Pharaoh, so it should be no problem. Even if, as Jesus, I wouldn't have complete control over the country's leader's mind, at least highly influence would help prevent some death and destruction.
5) I would note in any common calendar form (of the present or the future) the time and place of natural disasters that would result in massive loss of life. This way, people would have full knowledge of their decisions in terms of Earthquakes, hurricanes, meteor hits or any other natural disaster that foreknowledge would result in saved lives.
6) I'd have lots of children. Since Jesus is 1/2 god, then his children would in turn, be 1/4 god. That presumably would be more god than the rest of us have. The children of Jesus, I should think, would have better capabilities than ordinary humans and could serve to fill the Earth with people who are healers, can read and write, have knowledge beyond the knowledge of the average person and can act as judges in conflicts to preserve the existence of humanity and the improvement of humanity on in to the future.
7) I would take the time to educate people personally and found institutions for learning. Further, I'd bless or aid the graduating students who have learned a lot with good luck (better than the normal person) so that they too, could be a path to helping other humans.
8) I'd teach about and in turn have others teach about basic hygiene. God might not want me to prevent disease totally but paradoxically allow me to treat disease; however, I can do what I can to prevent disease from spreading. If I could I'd have a powwow with god and request that diseases not be of the lethal variety.
So, did you have any good ideas on what you would do if you were Jesus (WWYD)? Better than my ideas or in addition to my ideas? I'd love to hear about them.
But the critical questions should be asked. Why didn't Jesus do them? Why did he foolishly waste his life when his living for hundreds of years was more than possible and the amount of people he could have helped directly could have been many times greater than committing suicide by governmental execution? Having a line of Jesus descendants through time helping humanity - is there some reason this would be a bad idea? If there was one person that needed to have a few hundred kids over his lifetime, it would be Jesus.
If he offered proof of his existence to the people of his time and they did not need faith, his existence on through time wouldn't have affected people being able to go to heaven (if in fact anybody gets to go to heaven) so why not choose to live?
I humbly offer my thoughtful argument about the existence of Jesus.
What would you do (WWYD) if you had Jesus capabilities?
Make a list.
Then compare it to what Jesus did.
Decide if you could have been a better Jesus than Jesus was. If you think you could have been a better Jesus, then perhaps, the all-powerful, all-knowing Jesus did not exist. Clearly if you can conceive of what you would do as Jesus and Jesus didn't accomplish those goals, he either didn't exist, wasn't as powerful or knowledgeable as people claim.
So, I've come up with my own list.
1) I'd create a series of books containing the knowledge of science that can be attained with a human mentality. These books would be written in all the existing languages of the time and all future languages, because as the son of god, I'd be able to do that.
2) I'd write many stories showing the commonality of human existence and that tolerance of others is really tolerance for yourself.
3) I'd live for as long as possible to ensure that my healing abilities and wisdom would be available for as long as possible. Consider, that since Jesus was the son of god he should be able to live as long as Methuselah, Noah, or Adam. So, Jesus should be able to live for hundreds to a thousand years with no problem. In fact, Jesus should be able to live longer since he's the son of god and not just your ordinary human.
4) I would be able to change the minds of the leaders of humans whenever they were going down the 'wrong' path. By wrong, I basically mean the path for fighting over resources, ideology, etc. This power is demonstrated by god against Pharaoh, so it should be no problem. Even if, as Jesus, I wouldn't have complete control over the country's leader's mind, at least highly influence would help prevent some death and destruction.
5) I would note in any common calendar form (of the present or the future) the time and place of natural disasters that would result in massive loss of life. This way, people would have full knowledge of their decisions in terms of Earthquakes, hurricanes, meteor hits or any other natural disaster that foreknowledge would result in saved lives.
6) I'd have lots of children. Since Jesus is 1/2 god, then his children would in turn, be 1/4 god. That presumably would be more god than the rest of us have. The children of Jesus, I should think, would have better capabilities than ordinary humans and could serve to fill the Earth with people who are healers, can read and write, have knowledge beyond the knowledge of the average person and can act as judges in conflicts to preserve the existence of humanity and the improvement of humanity on in to the future.
7) I would take the time to educate people personally and found institutions for learning. Further, I'd bless or aid the graduating students who have learned a lot with good luck (better than the normal person) so that they too, could be a path to helping other humans.
8) I'd teach about and in turn have others teach about basic hygiene. God might not want me to prevent disease totally but paradoxically allow me to treat disease; however, I can do what I can to prevent disease from spreading. If I could I'd have a powwow with god and request that diseases not be of the lethal variety.
So, did you have any good ideas on what you would do if you were Jesus (WWYD)? Better than my ideas or in addition to my ideas? I'd love to hear about them.
But the critical questions should be asked. Why didn't Jesus do them? Why did he foolishly waste his life when his living for hundreds of years was more than possible and the amount of people he could have helped directly could have been many times greater than committing suicide by governmental execution? Having a line of Jesus descendants through time helping humanity - is there some reason this would be a bad idea? If there was one person that needed to have a few hundred kids over his lifetime, it would be Jesus.
If he offered proof of his existence to the people of his time and they did not need faith, his existence on through time wouldn't have affected people being able to go to heaven (if in fact anybody gets to go to heaven) so why not choose to live?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)