This thenextweb post titled "Coolest Concept Phone From China - Ever" is certainly right about the title.
Even if this product never comes to fruition, it shows something we (in the USA for sure) need to sit up and take notice about.
Anyone who thinks that the Chinese are going to be satisfied as the offshore manufacturers of western designed products needs to understand this - that isn't going to happen. The common U.S. arrogance that somehow we retain a monopoly in innovation - where the hell did that come from in the first place - needs to come down a notch or two.
Remember the line from "Back to the Future" - "All of the really good stuff comes from Japan."
It is going to be China soon, unless we start re-energizing our attitudes about innovation and industry. And that means taking math, science, engineering, and the industrial arts seriously... very seriously.
Sadly, in a world where the main debates in education are about whether we teach solid science at all, and the private schools are largely the ones who don't, we have some huge hurdles to overcome first.
Ni hao ma?
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Locking You Out of Your Own Stuff
Let's say that you own an automobile. It is beyond the warranty period. There is a problem with the car, so you take it to the dealer to have it repaired.
When you get the car back from the dealer, it is fixed, but you discover they have also locked the hood so you can no longer access the engine. In fact, nobody can access the engine except them.
How would you feel about that?
Well that is exactly what Apple is doing if they repair your iPhone.
Of course you can always find, or make, the special screwdriver you need, but that isn't the point.
Here is the point.
A manufacturer has every right to design their stuff to be tamper resistant, and sell it that way. I am agreeing to the design specifications when I choose to buy the product. If I don't like what they do, I can always buy something else, or sit on the sidelines of the market. I've got no problem with whatever kind of fasteners Apple wants to put into a new iPhone.
BUT once I buy the product, it is mine.
If they modify the product in a way I do not agree to, especially one which diminishes its utility to me, I do have a problem with that.
Of course there isn't a helluva a lot I can do about it except this -
Apple today is the very monolithic IBM they railed against in the famous Superbowl commercial that launched the Mac. For the very reason that people bought Apple products then, I choose not to buy them now. For the same reason, I avoid (when I can) Microsoft products. That isn't as easy, but my desktop computer runs Ubuntu Linux, and the only Microsoft product associated with it is a mouse that I bought at Boeing Surplus Sales for $3 about 10 years ago.
We fortunately live in a world where we have some choices. We should work to preserve them. No product is a must have.
When you get the car back from the dealer, it is fixed, but you discover they have also locked the hood so you can no longer access the engine. In fact, nobody can access the engine except them.
How would you feel about that?
Well that is exactly what Apple is doing if they repair your iPhone.
Of course you can always find, or make, the special screwdriver you need, but that isn't the point.
Here is the point.
A manufacturer has every right to design their stuff to be tamper resistant, and sell it that way. I am agreeing to the design specifications when I choose to buy the product. If I don't like what they do, I can always buy something else, or sit on the sidelines of the market. I've got no problem with whatever kind of fasteners Apple wants to put into a new iPhone.
BUT once I buy the product, it is mine.
If they modify the product in a way I do not agree to, especially one which diminishes its utility to me, I do have a problem with that.
Of course there isn't a helluva a lot I can do about it except this -
Apple today is the very monolithic IBM they railed against in the famous Superbowl commercial that launched the Mac. For the very reason that people bought Apple products then, I choose not to buy them now. For the same reason, I avoid (when I can) Microsoft products. That isn't as easy, but my desktop computer runs Ubuntu Linux, and the only Microsoft product associated with it is a mouse that I bought at Boeing Surplus Sales for $3 about 10 years ago.
We fortunately live in a world where we have some choices. We should work to preserve them. No product is a must have.
Monday, January 17, 2011
Benjamin Franklin: First U.S. Geek
Benjamin Franklin is 305 years old today. He had a long life, even by today's standards, 84 years, a truly exceptional age in his time.He was a diplomat, philosopher, scientist, inventor, a maker long before the term was popularized by Cory Doctorow. If there had been hackerspaces in the 18th century, Franklin's home would have been one of them, that is if he settled in one place long enough.
This piece of Gizmodo summarizes a few of his inventions and hacks. Franklin may have been one of the last true polymaths who could learn significant knowledge about just about everything. A systems thinker.
I wonder what he would make of today's world, especially what the USA has become. Though I am certain he would be impressed, I am less sure he would be entirely pleased.
He is one of two figures (who are actual people) to appear on U.S. paper currency who was never President of the United States. Who is the other?
Steve Jobs Taking Medical Leave of Absence
Steve Jobs has announced he is taking (another) medical leave of absence from Apple.
If not now, then sooner or later, Apple is going to have to confront the reality of a future without Steve Jobs. The company's weakness is that Jobs is the "inspired leader with many minions" style of leadership, and companies that lose these types of leaders tend to do poorly in the transition.
If Apple can continue to run the creative engine at the same pace, then I will gladly be proven wrong about this, and Jobs will have managed to get processes into place that continuously develop people's capabilities to contribute and solve problems "the Apple way." Time will tell.
Of course I don't think it is really possible to underestimate the impact that Steve Jobs has had on our modern society. And I wish him a speedy and full recovery.Team,At my request, the board of directors has granted me a medical leave of absence so I can focus on my health. I will continue as CEO and be involved in major strategic decisions for the company.I have asked Tim Cook to be responsible for all of Apple's day to day operations. I have great confidence that Tim and the rest of the executive management team will do a terrific job executing the exciting plans we have in place for 2011.I love Apple so much and hope to be back as soon as I can. In the meantime, my family and I would deeply appreciate respect for our privacy.Steve
If not now, then sooner or later, Apple is going to have to confront the reality of a future without Steve Jobs. The company's weakness is that Jobs is the "inspired leader with many minions" style of leadership, and companies that lose these types of leaders tend to do poorly in the transition.
If Apple can continue to run the creative engine at the same pace, then I will gladly be proven wrong about this, and Jobs will have managed to get processes into place that continuously develop people's capabilities to contribute and solve problems "the Apple way." Time will tell.
Saturday, January 15, 2011
Government and Marriage
This editorial on CNN.com, titled Why the Marriage Gap Is Bad for America raises some interesting issues.At its core, though, there is a fallacy of logic. The author equates "marriage" with "stable family." Then she invokes government intervention into the institution as a solution to the problem. I disagree on both counts.
Back in the days of cave painting and sleeping on bearskins, women were considered property. When possession was transferred from her father's family to her chosen mate's (in exchange for consideration), there was a ceremony marking the occasion.
Upon that transfer, the male could now have sex with this woman, as she now belonged to him. In many cases, little or none of this was her choice.
Thus, "marriage" was a social sanction for having sex. This is not to say that sex never happened outside of that structure, but there were considerable risks involved. Even in today's primitive societies, the penalties for sex outside of marriage - especially for women - can be draconian.
Fast forward a bit, and religious sanction of this union becomes predominant, but the effect is largely the same.
As western society became more secular, and religion moved out of the role of government, the secular governments moved into the role of "licensing" marriages, and churches were parallel, but not legally binding, authorities.
Until a couple of decades ago, marriage was a contract from which neither party could withdraw unless fault was found in the other. This, too, goes back to a religious tradition. It is nearly unique in law. What other contracts or partnerships exist from which voluntary withdrawal is simply not allowed except through misconduct of the other party? You may have to pay a penalty, but you can always break a lease.
What is the appropriate role of government today?
In most modern societies, marriage provides a structure establishing a legal partnership for obligations, sharing property, and should the need arise, and there is no prior agreement otherwise, a default structure for dissolving that partnership.
It unfortunately is still used to establish whether a loving relationship is "legitimate" and (far worse) whether any children resulting from that relationship are "legitimate," (Fortunately we are getting past that in most places.)
Then there is the "social conservative" angle.
To be clear, a "social conservative" is someone who believes in using threat of government sanction to impose their religious behavioral standards upon others.
To the social conservatives, marriage comes down to a license to have sex. In other words, sex is a sin unless it is sanctioned by an outside enforced agreement of fidelity called a "marriage." This is why they are in such an uproar over marriages between same-sex couples. Since that form of sex is a sin, government should be forbidding it, not licensing it. The same goes for poly marriages, though those have yet to be brought under attack in the courts. Wait.
Let's get government out of the business of who is having sex with whom altogether.
The institution of "domestic partnership" is all government should apply. And even that should simply be a default structure, which can be altered by mutual agreement of all parties. The agreement is basically a prenup. It defines how property rights are established, obligations for child care, survivor rights, and establishes a relationship of "family" in the eyes of various social institutions who restrict services to family members.
We eliminate "marriage licenses" altogether, and replace them with a simple fee-for-service for recording the document.
Wait a minute - why record anything? I sign, you sign, she signs, we get it notarized, and its good to go. What does government need to do at all? Let's save the tax money for important things.
If a religious couple wants to "get married" they can do it in a church, just like the old days. There is no reason the church can't sanction the agreement. It is just the government doesn't recognize different levels of them.
Just a ramble for thought.
Back in the days of cave painting and sleeping on bearskins, women were considered property. When possession was transferred from her father's family to her chosen mate's (in exchange for consideration), there was a ceremony marking the occasion.
Upon that transfer, the male could now have sex with this woman, as she now belonged to him. In many cases, little or none of this was her choice.
Thus, "marriage" was a social sanction for having sex. This is not to say that sex never happened outside of that structure, but there were considerable risks involved. Even in today's primitive societies, the penalties for sex outside of marriage - especially for women - can be draconian.
Fast forward a bit, and religious sanction of this union becomes predominant, but the effect is largely the same.
As western society became more secular, and religion moved out of the role of government, the secular governments moved into the role of "licensing" marriages, and churches were parallel, but not legally binding, authorities.
Until a couple of decades ago, marriage was a contract from which neither party could withdraw unless fault was found in the other. This, too, goes back to a religious tradition. It is nearly unique in law. What other contracts or partnerships exist from which voluntary withdrawal is simply not allowed except through misconduct of the other party? You may have to pay a penalty, but you can always break a lease.
What is the appropriate role of government today?
In most modern societies, marriage provides a structure establishing a legal partnership for obligations, sharing property, and should the need arise, and there is no prior agreement otherwise, a default structure for dissolving that partnership.
It unfortunately is still used to establish whether a loving relationship is "legitimate" and (far worse) whether any children resulting from that relationship are "legitimate," (Fortunately we are getting past that in most places.)
Then there is the "social conservative" angle.
To be clear, a "social conservative" is someone who believes in using threat of government sanction to impose their religious behavioral standards upon others.
To the social conservatives, marriage comes down to a license to have sex. In other words, sex is a sin unless it is sanctioned by an outside enforced agreement of fidelity called a "marriage." This is why they are in such an uproar over marriages between same-sex couples. Since that form of sex is a sin, government should be forbidding it, not licensing it. The same goes for poly marriages, though those have yet to be brought under attack in the courts. Wait.
Let's get government out of the business of who is having sex with whom altogether.
The institution of "domestic partnership" is all government should apply. And even that should simply be a default structure, which can be altered by mutual agreement of all parties. The agreement is basically a prenup. It defines how property rights are established, obligations for child care, survivor rights, and establishes a relationship of "family" in the eyes of various social institutions who restrict services to family members.
We eliminate "marriage licenses" altogether, and replace them with a simple fee-for-service for recording the document.
Wait a minute - why record anything? I sign, you sign, she signs, we get it notarized, and its good to go. What does government need to do at all? Let's save the tax money for important things.
If a religious couple wants to "get married" they can do it in a church, just like the old days. There is no reason the church can't sanction the agreement. It is just the government doesn't recognize different levels of them.
Just a ramble for thought.
Friday, January 14, 2011
The Voice of the People in the People's Republic
BEIJING – A Chinese court announced Friday it will retry a farmer sentenced to life in prison for evading highway tolls after a massive public outcry over his heavy punishment.The back story is here:
China to Retry Farmer Given Life for Evading Tolls
To be clear, this was not simple toll evasion, the accused apparently forged military license plates and otherwise disguised his truck as a military vehicle to dodge some $500,000 in road tolls over a period of time.
Tough it wouldn't be anywhere close to life in prison, neither would it be a ticket or misdomeanor here in the USA.
But this isn't about tolls in China.
This is about the people being heard in the People's Republic.
Note that countries with the word "People's" in their name (or both of the words "democratic" and "republic" and especially countries with all of those words like the DPRK) tend to be none of the above.
China's government is much like a corporate bureaucracy. Officials are essentially promoted on merit and political connections and move up in the ranks, eventually becoming the CEO. The board of directors are a group of senior party officials who make sure everything is cool with their view of what good communism looks like.
The harsh sentence in this case was likely a political message meant to set an example so that others contemplating defrauding the government would think twice. It is meant to demonstrate the power of government to harshly punish fraud against it.
But the people didn't buy it.
Not much opportunity here for "the people" to have anything to say.
But, of course, there are 1,300,000,000 of them, give or take, and sheer weight of numbers has serious implications.
Simply, if significant numbers of them feel the government is no longer serving China, the government has to listen and respond. Failure to do so is going to open the door for social unrest, the greatest threat to a stable government in China ("stable" meaning "staying in power").
Why is this the case? Because there is no mechanism within the current system in China for the people to alter the government's direction or policies.
If the people feel they have no voice, and are discontent enough - the people begin to understand a basic truth of all nations:
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.Ironically, the government in China lives in fear that the people will realize this is true.
Thus the government has to be responsive to public outcry, indeed, sometimes more responsive than might be prudent. In this case they backed down.
China is starting to see inflation. Bills are rising faster than incomes. They are entering into a trying period, IMO.
Tunisian Government Falls to Protests
Protesters enraged over soaring unemployment and corruption drove Tunisian President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali from power Friday after 23 years of iron-fisted rule, an unprecedented popular uprising in a region dominated by strongmen who do not answer to their people.Governments are interesting things.
Even the most dictatorial ones stand only because enough of the people ascent to their legitimacy.
No government can stand if a critical mass (and much smaller than the majority) of the people decide it is no longer legitimate, and refuse to be governed.
I am sure officials in Beijing are paying attention to this.
They were almost there in 1989, and that fuse still smolders.
Illegal Sex Drives
Even though it wanders through the topics of a dating site, sex, child molesters and pornography, this post is about freedom of beliefs, thoughts and feelings. That must be one of the most basic and fundamental freedoms out there. The Bill of Rights addresses government intrusions into our expression of beliefs, thoughts and feelings, but does not address the freedom to have them in our heads. And why should it? In 1789 it was inconceivable that someone's true beliefs, thoughts and feelings could even be known without external expression, much less regulated.
This little essay was inspired by one of the matching questions on OKCupid. For those who don't know, OKCupid is a free dating site. One of the features is you are presented with the opportunity to answer questions, some presented by the staff, but most created by other users. The questions are all multiple choice. Many of them are designed to split moral or ethical hairs, which isn't a bad idea on a dating site.
And yes, I have a profile there, and yes I have answered a ton of those questions. I will leave it as an exercise for the reader to figure out who I am there. :)
Anyway, one of the more interesting questions is:
Let's start out with why child pornography is illegal in the first place.
The act of producing child porn grievously violates the basic rights of children.
Possession of the product is made illegal in an (probably futile) attempt to reduce demand for the product. I am not convinced that it works, but I can at least understand the logic.
Now, let's go to the person who consumes child porn.
His offence here is fueling demand for an industry that grievously violates the rights of children. We want him to stop doing that, so we make possession illegal in order to increase the risks he must accept to have it. The logic follows (for some) that demand will drop, and some of the incentive for producing child porn will dry up. Some will act to reduce those legal risks. Others, who cannot overpower their sex drives, will not. More about that later.
But if no children are impacted in any way in the production of the product, haven't we accomplished the original intent? If computer generated material, as repugnant and offensive as it is, were available, and substituted for the real thing, would that not reduce the demand? It might even reduce the demand to near zero.
Let me say, again, that the ultimate goal here is to protect the kids from predation.
Even if we were to accept the solution is to immediately lock up all of the predators for life (or, I suppose kill them if you are so inclined), they aren't "predators" unless or until a kid has been victimized, so that solution still requires sacrificing a kid to be the victim.
"But if they like the child pornography, even if it is computer generated, they might be predators, so we should lock them up."
True, but they might not be predators. They might hate their disposition and really try to fight it.
In fact, they might be using this non-kid simulated porn as an outlet for their drives so they are less tempted to hurt kids.
And now we have a moral dilemma. Even if such a law were effective (which it isn't), taking away the product does not change the people who want it. In fact, it would make them harder to identify. Is that what we want?
Remember, the goal is to protect the kids from predation.
Human sexual drives being very complex things, some people (mostly male) are sexually attracted to kids. We do not possess any capability to change that, try as we might.
We find the behavior unacceptable, and even find the drive itself to be repugnant.
But the drive is not going to go away.
IF our primary goal is to protect kids from predation, should we be using everything in society's power to help these people channel that drive in a direction that does not involve actual kids?
Taking away every possible fantasy outlet does NOT reduce the drive. Doing so likely leaves these people with only one possibility, one we do not want to contemplate, and experience has shown that the sex drive overpowers self discipline in many cases. (Remember, this is the same thing that is driving a lot of serial killers...)
Is it illegal to have unacceptable thoughts and feelings if they are never actually acted upon?
If that were the case, who not be guilty of SOME unacceptable thought or feeling at some point?
Is it unacceptable to have literature depicting murder, rape, incest? Or is it just illegal to get turned on by that?
No, it is the act that we are forbidding because it is the act that crosses the line from fantasy to grievously violating the natural rights of another human.
Do we really want to protect kids?
Then what alternatives could we provide as an outlet for these drives?
Think about it.
This little essay was inspired by one of the matching questions on OKCupid. For those who don't know, OKCupid is a free dating site. One of the features is you are presented with the opportunity to answer questions, some presented by the staff, but most created by other users. The questions are all multiple choice. Many of them are designed to split moral or ethical hairs, which isn't a bad idea on a dating site.
And yes, I have a profile there, and yes I have answered a ton of those questions. I will leave it as an exercise for the reader to figure out who I am there. :)
Anyway, one of the more interesting questions is:
"Should possession of computer generated child pornography be illegal? Assume it can be 100% confirmed that no children were involved."I found that an interesting question to contemplate. My reply sparked an interesting response from another member, and that, in turn, inspired me to think some more and write this post.
Let's start out with why child pornography is illegal in the first place.
The act of producing child porn grievously violates the basic rights of children.
Possession of the product is made illegal in an (probably futile) attempt to reduce demand for the product. I am not convinced that it works, but I can at least understand the logic.
Now, let's go to the person who consumes child porn.
His offence here is fueling demand for an industry that grievously violates the rights of children. We want him to stop doing that, so we make possession illegal in order to increase the risks he must accept to have it. The logic follows (for some) that demand will drop, and some of the incentive for producing child porn will dry up. Some will act to reduce those legal risks. Others, who cannot overpower their sex drives, will not. More about that later.
But if no children are impacted in any way in the production of the product, haven't we accomplished the original intent? If computer generated material, as repugnant and offensive as it is, were available, and substituted for the real thing, would that not reduce the demand? It might even reduce the demand to near zero.
Let me say, again, that the ultimate goal here is to protect the kids from predation.
Even if we were to accept the solution is to immediately lock up all of the predators for life (or, I suppose kill them if you are so inclined), they aren't "predators" unless or until a kid has been victimized, so that solution still requires sacrificing a kid to be the victim.
"But if they like the child pornography, even if it is computer generated, they might be predators, so we should lock them up."
True, but they might not be predators. They might hate their disposition and really try to fight it.
In fact, they might be using this non-kid simulated porn as an outlet for their drives so they are less tempted to hurt kids.
And now we have a moral dilemma. Even if such a law were effective (which it isn't), taking away the product does not change the people who want it. In fact, it would make them harder to identify. Is that what we want?
Remember, the goal is to protect the kids from predation.
Human sexual drives being very complex things, some people (mostly male) are sexually attracted to kids. We do not possess any capability to change that, try as we might.
We find the behavior unacceptable, and even find the drive itself to be repugnant.
But the drive is not going to go away.
IF our primary goal is to protect kids from predation, should we be using everything in society's power to help these people channel that drive in a direction that does not involve actual kids?
Taking away every possible fantasy outlet does NOT reduce the drive. Doing so likely leaves these people with only one possibility, one we do not want to contemplate, and experience has shown that the sex drive overpowers self discipline in many cases. (Remember, this is the same thing that is driving a lot of serial killers...)
Is it illegal to have unacceptable thoughts and feelings if they are never actually acted upon?
If that were the case, who not be guilty of SOME unacceptable thought or feeling at some point?
Is it unacceptable to have literature depicting murder, rape, incest? Or is it just illegal to get turned on by that?
No, it is the act that we are forbidding because it is the act that crosses the line from fantasy to grievously violating the natural rights of another human.
Do we really want to protect kids?
Then what alternatives could we provide as an outlet for these drives?
Think about it.
Thursday, January 13, 2011
Viruses in the Genome
Years ago - I wish I could find it - a paper by Brian Kernighan talked about the theory of computer virus code. This was in the very early days. He pointed out that the ultimate point of vulnerability was in the opcode generation code of the compiler. Malicious code embedded there would be difficult to detect except by an examination that very few people could make. Since the compiler is used to create, not only the operating system itself, but future versions of the compiler, this code would be ultimately be embedded in the very genome of the operating system itself.
Now fast forward (or even rewind a few millenia).
This article in Discover Magazine, The Insanity Virus describes viral code that is embedded in our very DNA. How did it get there?
The original article is about how one of these viruses, that we all carry might, under certain circumstances, be the cause or trigger for a wide range of mental illnesses. That is really interesting as well, but not so profound (at least to me) as the idea of infecting the compiler happening in nature.
Now fast forward (or even rewind a few millenia).
This article in Discover Magazine, The Insanity Virus describes viral code that is embedded in our very DNA. How did it get there?
Sixty million years ago, a lemurlike animal—an early ancestor of humans and monkeys—contracted an infection. It may not have made the lemur ill, but the retrovirus spread into the animal’s testes (or perhaps its ovaries), and once there, it struck the jackpot: It slipped inside one of the rare germ line cells that produce sperm and eggs. When the lemur reproduced, that retrovirus rode into the next generation aboard the lucky sperm and then moved on from generation to generation, nestled in the DNA. “It’s a rare, random event,” says Robert Belshaw, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Oxford in England. “Over the last 100 million years, there have been only maybe 50 times when a retrovirus has gotten into our genome and proliferated.”It seems that Professor Kernighan's thinking was not so original after all. Nature was way ahead of him. This viral code is embedded in the compilers - the cells that produce sperm and eggs - and ensure that the DNA they carry also includes code to embed the sequence into the next generation.
The original article is about how one of these viruses, that we all carry might, under certain circumstances, be the cause or trigger for a wide range of mental illnesses. That is really interesting as well, but not so profound (at least to me) as the idea of infecting the compiler happening in nature.
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Illegal = Unregulated
Oleg Volk makes a really interesting point on his blog.
Let's say, for the sake of argument only, that not only was firearm ownership completely illegal, but that nearly all existing guns have been rounded up.
Let's say that making or owning a gun is a serious felony - much like making or owning, say, heroin or crack cocaine.
Still, there are going to be people who, for their own reasons, want guns.
Now we have highly restricted supply, and reduced, but relatively high demand compared to that supply.
What does that do for prices?
Making a STEN gun or something like it is relatively cheap and easy. It is EASIER to make a fully-automatic submachine gun than to make a semi-automatic rifle or a handgun. Much easier. The STEN was mass produced during WWII for less than $10, which would still be less than $100 at regular labor rates today. Any reasonably well equipped metal shop is capable of doing it. In fact, small, portable machine tools are much cheaper and more available today than the every have been. A serious hobbyist can afford them.
Add to that the potential of, say, 3D printing technology for a lot of low stress parts that, in the past were made of metal because there was no viable alternative.
This isn't rocket science. The only critical part, really, is the barrel. And even that isn't difficult.
The suppressor? Even easier.
Think this is a fantasy? Think again - and the AK is much more complicated than a STEN.
Now this does not have to be a quality weapon. It doesn't need a long lifetime. It just as to work for committing whatever crime is on their mind.
My analogy to heroin and cocaine was deliberate. Anything desirable which is "banned" does not go away. It just goes underground. ANYONE who wants to buy hard drugs can get them. Yes, there are risks, but those risks do not deter the trade at all. There is too much money to be made.
In fact, it is those very drug dealers who will be the market for these guns. They have cash, an underground economy, and are skilled at smuggling.
All of that, of course, assumes that the "ban" on guns is effective, and that our borders are sealed against them.
Did I say borders?
Do you REALLY think that the fully automatic M16 rifles being used in Mexico came from gun stores in Arizona? Hardly. They come up from Columbia and other points south.
Of course the U.S. border with Mexico is hermetically sealed. Nothing and no one gets through it without our knowledge.... right?
Oh, wait, where do all of those drugs come from?
Not to mention the population of Mexico?
No, a "total ban" on guns in the USA is not going to create a "gun free" America.
And if someone is going to make an illegal gun that would put them in prison for a very long time if they were caught, why should they restrict, in any way, its capability?
Let me be clear that I fully realize this is an emotional and sensitive subject. People should be able to feel safe. But we are not acting rationally in response to the fear. Think it through. What will happen? And then what? And then what? Rather than knee-jerk reactions like "Just ban all guns" we have to, first, realize and understand our true limitations in dealing with the problem, and second, take the time that we don't make it worse in our zeal to "do something."
The more control we try to impose, the less we have.
Let's say, for the sake of argument only, that not only was firearm ownership completely illegal, but that nearly all existing guns have been rounded up.
Let's say that making or owning a gun is a serious felony - much like making or owning, say, heroin or crack cocaine.
Still, there are going to be people who, for their own reasons, want guns.
Now we have highly restricted supply, and reduced, but relatively high demand compared to that supply.
What does that do for prices?
Making a STEN gun or something like it is relatively cheap and easy. It is EASIER to make a fully-automatic submachine gun than to make a semi-automatic rifle or a handgun. Much easier. The STEN was mass produced during WWII for less than $10, which would still be less than $100 at regular labor rates today. Any reasonably well equipped metal shop is capable of doing it. In fact, small, portable machine tools are much cheaper and more available today than the every have been. A serious hobbyist can afford them.
Add to that the potential of, say, 3D printing technology for a lot of low stress parts that, in the past were made of metal because there was no viable alternative.
This isn't rocket science. The only critical part, really, is the barrel. And even that isn't difficult.
The suppressor? Even easier.
Think this is a fantasy? Think again - and the AK is much more complicated than a STEN.
Now this does not have to be a quality weapon. It doesn't need a long lifetime. It just as to work for committing whatever crime is on their mind.
My analogy to heroin and cocaine was deliberate. Anything desirable which is "banned" does not go away. It just goes underground. ANYONE who wants to buy hard drugs can get them. Yes, there are risks, but those risks do not deter the trade at all. There is too much money to be made.
In fact, it is those very drug dealers who will be the market for these guns. They have cash, an underground economy, and are skilled at smuggling.
All of that, of course, assumes that the "ban" on guns is effective, and that our borders are sealed against them.
Did I say borders?
Do you REALLY think that the fully automatic M16 rifles being used in Mexico came from gun stores in Arizona? Hardly. They come up from Columbia and other points south.
Of course the U.S. border with Mexico is hermetically sealed. Nothing and no one gets through it without our knowledge.... right?
Oh, wait, where do all of those drugs come from?
Not to mention the population of Mexico?
No, a "total ban" on guns in the USA is not going to create a "gun free" America.
And if someone is going to make an illegal gun that would put them in prison for a very long time if they were caught, why should they restrict, in any way, its capability?
Let me be clear that I fully realize this is an emotional and sensitive subject. People should be able to feel safe. But we are not acting rationally in response to the fear. Think it through. What will happen? And then what? And then what? Rather than knee-jerk reactions like "Just ban all guns" we have to, first, realize and understand our true limitations in dealing with the problem, and second, take the time that we don't make it worse in our zeal to "do something."
The more control we try to impose, the less we have.
Ethics and the Afterlife
I just changed an answer to an OKCupid question.
It was along the lines of whether a belief in the afterlife makes someone a more ethical person.
I had originally answered that it didn't matter.
After thinking about it, though, I think it causes problems, at least in the Christian model.
At least as I understand it, in most Christian sects, as long as someone repents and professes belief prior to death, then everything they did in life is forgiven and, perhaps after a brief period in the penalty box, the deceased's soul spends eternity in a relatively pleasant existence.
Of course, fail to do this, and there are more unpleasant alternatives available. There are lots of cartoons about this.
But the fundamental tenant seems to be that the only thing for which one is never forgiven is failure to believe in the deity.
Think of the number of heinous acts that have been carried out through history in the name of god by someone confident they will be forgiven later.
Indeed, the Catholic Church made a great deal of money with this scam back in 14th and 15th centuries by selling, for money, "indulgences" that were kind of a carbon offset for sin. (selling carbon offsets is the same thing today, but that is another post)
Kill, main, lie, cheat, steal, screw your neighbor's wife, beat off, think about anything you want - as long as it is all cleared up before you actually croak, you're cool.
Again, at least as I understand it, Islam carries a similar line of thought. It is perfectly OK to murder and grievously injure fellow human beings - even in some cases other Muslims (so long as they are a different sect than you), in the name of god, because only the judgment of the god matters.
Take away belief in the afterlife, and things change.
The only way to get forgiveness is in THIS life. You are judged in life for the life you actually lead.
Actually we all are, by those people around us and the people who we affect as we pass through. What would they say about you, what do they say about you?
Of course all of us have the choice of making these in-life judgments important to us. We choose to consider them, or not. But if I decide I don't like being judged that way, then there is for me only one way to change it. I cannot appeal to any uber-being. I have to deal directly with the people I life with.
Which option causes more pause for thought?
And is it not that pause for thought that, in turn, raises the possibility of an ethical life?
It was along the lines of whether a belief in the afterlife makes someone a more ethical person.
I had originally answered that it didn't matter.
After thinking about it, though, I think it causes problems, at least in the Christian model.
At least as I understand it, in most Christian sects, as long as someone repents and professes belief prior to death, then everything they did in life is forgiven and, perhaps after a brief period in the penalty box, the deceased's soul spends eternity in a relatively pleasant existence.
Of course, fail to do this, and there are more unpleasant alternatives available. There are lots of cartoons about this.
But the fundamental tenant seems to be that the only thing for which one is never forgiven is failure to believe in the deity.
Think of the number of heinous acts that have been carried out through history in the name of god by someone confident they will be forgiven later.
Indeed, the Catholic Church made a great deal of money with this scam back in 14th and 15th centuries by selling, for money, "indulgences" that were kind of a carbon offset for sin. (selling carbon offsets is the same thing today, but that is another post)
Kill, main, lie, cheat, steal, screw your neighbor's wife, beat off, think about anything you want - as long as it is all cleared up before you actually croak, you're cool.
Again, at least as I understand it, Islam carries a similar line of thought. It is perfectly OK to murder and grievously injure fellow human beings - even in some cases other Muslims (so long as they are a different sect than you), in the name of god, because only the judgment of the god matters.
Take away belief in the afterlife, and things change.
The only way to get forgiveness is in THIS life. You are judged in life for the life you actually lead.
Actually we all are, by those people around us and the people who we affect as we pass through. What would they say about you, what do they say about you?
Of course all of us have the choice of making these in-life judgments important to us. We choose to consider them, or not. But if I decide I don't like being judged that way, then there is for me only one way to change it. I cannot appeal to any uber-being. I have to deal directly with the people I life with.
Which option causes more pause for thought?
And is it not that pause for thought that, in turn, raises the possibility of an ethical life?
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
Study Finds U.S. Kids Getting Lots of Radiation
U.S. Kids Getting Lots of Radiation Scans, Study Finds
Click the paragraph to read the entire article.
Just one thought.
How about we start with the airport?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)