Well if you want to know what an Al Gore Presidential campagin would sound like you should check out this book or the flick by the same name. Off hand I think if he is as zeroed in on this as he appears he may have a harder time picking back up the presidential trail than I thought. That he is convinced I have no doubt. That he is very persuasive in this book I can bear witness too.
Also if you are one of the many people steamed by Crichton's "State of Fear" book you should deffinately pick this one us as it is the Yin to the Yang.
My initial impressions ? The book is Thick but isn't dense. Its printed on glossy paper (says 30% recycled) which is very Media centric. Highly illustrated. This book under no circumstances will ever be confused with a text book. It bounces back and forth from personal rambles by the man to chorus punchline segments shouting global warming global warming global warming. To give you an idea about what I mean about not dense... it is 370 some pages long and I read it comfortably in about 2 and half hours. It is quite litereally a page turner as you are constantly turning pages. The exeption being the brief personal interludes.
There are no footnotes. Kind of odd actually considering how many studies are being refferenced throughout. I imagine there is enough information in most places to hunt down any study in question... just that there is no formalized refference, No page number citations etc.. There are lots of quotes and lots of statements of fact and yet little in depth discussion of the issues at hand. Very much a politicians account. It is emotional, poignient, and catchy. It is also one sided as hell with little to no attempt to dig into the details. This is like a nature documentary brought to you by Jerry Bruckheimer. Long on the hype, excitemnt, pictures of boats in the middle of the dessert, glaciers dissapearing, and fears of 20 foot ocean level increases. But short on the boring details.
There are a lot of pictures. And they are captivating. There are lots of charts. And they are alarming with dramatic trends ominously rising at the present day... or in some cases 50 years from now. Yet the charts I can't help but notice are carefully drawn so that the trends ARE easily descernable. Doesn't mean its not a good idea. Clear illustrations are a good thing. The pictures are dramatic. Boats stranded in a dessert of a dried up sea. Glaciers that are no more. An ice shelf that dramatically dissapeared in hours rather than decades (as predicted).
I mostly point these things out simply to show that the book has flaws. On the other hand compared to your average magazine article its a regular encyclopedia. So it all depends on what your comparing it too. It is also very very very approachable and there is enough information here for someone really interested in the issue to dive a bit deeper into the mess that is global warming.
One thing I did find interesting was the Kyoto Protocol bits. Gore had a hand it it comming together and he tosses out there a couple of cheap shots about the US and Austrailia being the only ones to not have signed it yet.
1) this is a long way from the US or Australia not doing anything about carbon emmissions.
2) "As we said from the very beginning, we will not submit this agreement for ratification until key developing nations participate in this effort," Gore declared. "This is a global problem that will require a global solution." (CNN) Seeing as the key issue of no time table or even provisions for developing nations (China and India) having to abide by any limitations on their emmisions I would say his comment from 98 still holds water.
Me personally I think the Kyoto Protocol is nonsense. Especially considering what this book tries to show. By 90 we were already belching out most of the carbon we are now. Going back to 90 standards, only with all the major developming natures approaching the developed worlds levels for their populations will still be no solution to carbon emmissions. In the meantime China, India and several others get free rides and nations like the EU and Russia develop a new source of income trading carbon emmission vouchers. If such an idea is going to work we need to figure a sustainable per capita carbon emission foot print and work to reach that point. The problem is that short of a major change in the basic method of human industrial power most of our posturing in the manner the Kyoto protocol suggests will simply be arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. If Global warming is the boogey man it is made out to be then going back to 90 isn't going to help. We have to go back to pre-industrial levels which means either closing our cycle (not just liberating more and more via fossil fuels) or developing an entirely new means of energy.
I am not saying we need do nothing. Just saying that sometimes plans like Kyoto can be far more dangerous than they seem. Using it as a goal could lead us to thinking we had done what we needed to do. At best Kyoto would be a first step... and frankly that is its biggest power if you ask me. And we HAVE signed it. We have admited a problem and that I think is the biggest use of Kyoto. Not the absurd system which it proposes for sorta limiting current growth from known producers while completely ignoring the corners from which the most new explosive growth will come from. The very fact that current per capita emmissions in undeveloped countries is miniscule is the very reason they need to be dealt with in a carbon policy. China is already number two and yet its per capita emmsion rate is a fraction of that of the US. Put them at 90's US levels and they would be producing several times what the US was at the time. Thats the joy of a Billion people population (to the US 300 million or so).
In light of that I would have to say that quote from gore in 98 is something of an inconvenient truth in and of itself. Ok that was a cheap shot. By and large I really do think Gore put together a great global warming primer. I think if he had speant a bit more time defusing the common misconceptions rather than a brief few pages toward the back then it would have been damn near perfect. They also could have used the website to link out to all the numerous studies that form this incredible scientific consensus Gore continually points too. As is they left an awful lot of open ground for counter attacks.
Sunday, May 28, 2006
Friday, May 26, 2006
Firefly
You know. Geek and science fiction utter space nut that I am it is amazing that it took me so long to actually take in this series. I saw a couple of episodes while it was running and I went to see the movie. But The only thing worse than the haphazard way the network aired it is comming in the middle of a deep, dense character study. And the Movie played on the whole history of the show.
However now I have seen the series end to end and folks this thing is awesome. Watch it in the Order Weadon wanted to show it with the last 3 episodes and it just leaves you salivating for more. They bottled lightning on this thing. Absolutely amazing that this show is not still going. Hopefully they will succesfully manage to ignite a new series as this thing is one of the first new shows in a long time.
I seem to recall that Star Trek had a similar begining where it aired initially and got cancled and then an uproar from fans got it put back on. I kinda poo pooed all the fan hoopla about this show but now I understand why they are so upset. A good story, good characters and a good universe for them to be set in.
However now I have seen the series end to end and folks this thing is awesome. Watch it in the Order Weadon wanted to show it with the last 3 episodes and it just leaves you salivating for more. They bottled lightning on this thing. Absolutely amazing that this show is not still going. Hopefully they will succesfully manage to ignite a new series as this thing is one of the first new shows in a long time.
I seem to recall that Star Trek had a similar begining where it aired initially and got cancled and then an uproar from fans got it put back on. I kinda poo pooed all the fan hoopla about this show but now I understand why they are so upset. A good story, good characters and a good universe for them to be set in.
Thursday, May 25, 2006
Big Brother in Schools
Schools are taking on a new role By choosing to peruse their students myspace pages looking for illegal activity. Frankly if I were a student in this school system I would want to arrange a myspace offensive where everyone posted that they were doing illegal things. Just to lay down too much noise for the school district to deal with.
This is silly. If anything the school should simply forward any 'evidence' they find to the proper authorities. If and I stress IF that bears any fruit in terms of legal action then after they are determined guilty by due process of law they can then be subject to appropriate measures of school discipline. Not before. Not During. Not even if the courts find them innocent but the schools do not agree. That is not their job. It be nice if school systems started paying more attention to actually educating their students rather than trying to police them.
There is this seemingly little honored concept of innocent until proven guilty. Perhaps the New Jersey school system has heard of it? It is sort of a keystone of US Jurice Prudence.
This is silly. If anything the school should simply forward any 'evidence' they find to the proper authorities. If and I stress IF that bears any fruit in terms of legal action then after they are determined guilty by due process of law they can then be subject to appropriate measures of school discipline. Not before. Not During. Not even if the courts find them innocent but the schools do not agree. That is not their job. It be nice if school systems started paying more attention to actually educating their students rather than trying to police them.
There is this seemingly little honored concept of innocent until proven guilty. Perhaps the New Jersey school system has heard of it? It is sort of a keystone of US Jurice Prudence.
Saturday, May 20, 2006
The Davinci Code
Well I went to see the movie last night. If you don't know the plot and don't want to know then do not read on.
For the fans of the book the movie represents a fairly well done adaptation. Lovers of the puzzles and codes in the book will be dissapointed as the time for them was cut short. The key sequence of exposition with Teabing explaining what all the fuss is about is the centerpiece of the movie. Which is a good thing and a bad thing. It is likely what the complaints of the critics are all lodged around. The movie watches like a high budget history film with a cheezy action plot to move people along from point to point and force them down roads they would otherwise never take.
Ultimately the basic tennant of the film, that Jesus was Married to Mary Magdelene and had heirs and that his bloodline might in fact still be present to this day, is not new. It is a pretty common debate that is largely seen as one on the edge of academic credibility. If you likened it to 'cold fusion' theories in science you would have a good idea of the standing of the various theories used in support of this notion. So what is the big fuss about if the theory holds little to no academic backing? I think because it does so in a very interesting manner. You see most history is taught from the stand point of conclusion. IE we KNOW this and we KNOW that and THIS is why. The secret of the Davinci Code is that it goes back one step in the historical process and prsents the evidence for AND against the idea. And shows that perhaps the questions have not been answered as well as most would assume.
For example the whole issue of the gospels that were not included. Folks stuck on the magdalene marriage issue start arguing interpretations of various gospels included and not included etc while the regular joe kind of gets a puzzled expression on their face and slowly they raise a hand to ask a question. What do you mean gospels that were not included ???? Once they learn this was in fact the case it is a hook for the story... regardless of what the real issue was with the selection. Thus the thundering herd of humanity rushes to answer its curiosity and it finds.... A mess. A big mess that is at best difficult to sort through for even the most dedicated of scholars. And one which then begins to raise an awful lot of questions in the minds of folks who have never paused to think about these things. If you ask me that is what has the church up in arms here.
For the fans of the book the movie represents a fairly well done adaptation. Lovers of the puzzles and codes in the book will be dissapointed as the time for them was cut short. The key sequence of exposition with Teabing explaining what all the fuss is about is the centerpiece of the movie. Which is a good thing and a bad thing. It is likely what the complaints of the critics are all lodged around. The movie watches like a high budget history film with a cheezy action plot to move people along from point to point and force them down roads they would otherwise never take.
Ultimately the basic tennant of the film, that Jesus was Married to Mary Magdelene and had heirs and that his bloodline might in fact still be present to this day, is not new. It is a pretty common debate that is largely seen as one on the edge of academic credibility. If you likened it to 'cold fusion' theories in science you would have a good idea of the standing of the various theories used in support of this notion. So what is the big fuss about if the theory holds little to no academic backing? I think because it does so in a very interesting manner. You see most history is taught from the stand point of conclusion. IE we KNOW this and we KNOW that and THIS is why. The secret of the Davinci Code is that it goes back one step in the historical process and prsents the evidence for AND against the idea. And shows that perhaps the questions have not been answered as well as most would assume.
For example the whole issue of the gospels that were not included. Folks stuck on the magdalene marriage issue start arguing interpretations of various gospels included and not included etc while the regular joe kind of gets a puzzled expression on their face and slowly they raise a hand to ask a question. What do you mean gospels that were not included ???? Once they learn this was in fact the case it is a hook for the story... regardless of what the real issue was with the selection. Thus the thundering herd of humanity rushes to answer its curiosity and it finds.... A mess. A big mess that is at best difficult to sort through for even the most dedicated of scholars. And one which then begins to raise an awful lot of questions in the minds of folks who have never paused to think about these things. If you ask me that is what has the church up in arms here.
Friday, May 19, 2006
Laptop Buying Guide For a confusing time
Dual Core, Single Core, 64bit computing vrs 32 Bit, Windows Vista, shared graphics vrs dedicated cards and widescreens in various resolutions. AMD, Intel, DVD, Dual layer DVD. DDR memory.. dual channle DDR memory.
Frankly I don't think there has ever been a more confusing time to purchase a computer. I am focusing on Laptops here but the general information applies by and large to any current computer purchases.
First off lets talk 64 bit computing. I can go into long deep dark technical mumbo jumbo about the benefits of 64 bit computers. But the bottom line is this. If you don't know why 64 bits would help you.. and I mean knowing exactly and specifically why you need a 64 bit base address/instruction computational power then frankly for the time being 64 bit is going to get you absolutely zilch. In fact till driver re-writes iron themselves out it will probably give you more headaches than anything else.
Sales people will tell you horror stories about the comming of Windows Vista... ignore them. Mainstream need for 64 bits caused by the new OS is probably a good 3 years out. Certainly 2 baring a very bizare mass exodus from XP when the initial vista release happens early next year (supposedly). As such there is no reason to be bothered about 64 bits because A) in 2 to three years someone that will need 64 bit computing will buy a new system anyway. B) If you are not the kind of person who buys every 2-3 years then you won't care cause you will have a system that works for you.
So its not a don't buy thing. Its a don't spend more to have it thing unless you have a specific need for it. Again, If you don't know if you have a specific need for it then the answer is in all likely hood you don't. if the system you like has it and it falls in your budget range then great. But no big loss if it does not.
Dual Core. Now on the other hand this is a very big deal indeed. While dual core is not twice as fast as single core it is bringing a very large change to the computing experience in that finally the system has more than one main busy body to do all the work. Think of the number of cores as being akin to the number of secretaries available to do the work. Till very recently most systems only had one Secretary. They continually upgraded how fast the single secretary could do work but it was still just one secretary. So if any one task tied the secretary up completely you were shit outta luck. Dual core is like having Two secretaries. So something can tie up the first secretary and the second will chug right along doing other things. And as most people know even the single setup has gotten pretty good at appearing to do multiple things at once. Well now the system can ACTUALLY do two things at once rather than simply be so fast that it appears to be doing two things at once. The future is multiple core architechture.
The short version is you want Dual Core. And amazingly enough its normally not even a price hike over other options. The CPU manufacturers are offering the new dual core chips at essentially the same price as similar speed single core chips of equivalent technology. The only reason in the world not to get a Dual core system right now is because the options are far more limited (still not many systems which have them) and while they are identical in price to similar powered single core systems... they are not budget chips (older spec tech that exists at the cheapest end of the spectrum) so if you are going cheap then it may be a problem. However that only applies to the extreme budget level laptops (sub 1000). Starting at 1000 there are plenty of dual core options. I would strongly reccommend getting one if you are spending 1000 or more on your machine.
Choosing a chip speed. The longer you are thinking of using your system then the higher the chip speed you should consider buying. This has less to do with the speed and more to do with the quality of the manufacturing. You see it is a great rule of thumb when buying chips is to look a the full range of options and then opt for one or two steps down from the absolute screaming fastest possible. Why ? The fastest chips are pushing their tech to the limit... consider them race cars. Durability and reliability can often be an issue over the long term... the chip is always going to be racing along near its max potential. But the thing about most chips is that the lower speeds are not different chips. They are in fact the SAME chips. Just that in testing they prooved incapable of performing at the outter limits consistently enough to make the 'cut'. The first cuts are your mainstream cars that are high quality and all but bullet proof. The remaining cuts are simply less and less capable chips and when you land in the cheapest budget areas you are often dealing with the just above complete rejection chips.. or a top notch chip that is simply out moded tech. Knowing the difference there is what makes it hard to know what the good deals are in the budget systems. But that first or second tier chip is actually the chip the manufacturer expects to make. Its the chips that came out of the process in the middle of the bell curve. And as such almost always proove the most rock solid performers so long as they are kept withen their limits. If you have every heard of over clocking and wondered what it was all about. Well it is about taking these lower rated chips and actually jacking up their speeds to the next level. Its a gamble. Not always a bad gamble but still a gamble. It works because it behooves manufacturers to leave a comfortable margian of error in their grading process. Thus most of the chips are indeed capable of running at higher speeds... it is that very fact that makes them more reliable in their assigned range.
RAM. This is probably the single most misunderstood component of computers these days. People tend to get focused on the CPU that they forget about the RAM. Most typical system builds by stores like Comp USA and internet ordering sites like Gateway offer 'cheap' systems where they tout the CPU while the under spec the RAM. You want the highest speed the system can handle. And these days at least 1gb, and prefferably that 1gb on a single stick of RAM rather than split into two. If you have to get a cheap budget system the one single thing you should not compromise on is the amount of RAM. Max the system if you can (2gb typically). It is the best money you will ever spend on a computer component.
Screen/Size. I group these together with laptops because the size of the LCD is what is most responsible for determining the overall size and portability of the package. If you are wanting a highly mobile system then you do not want to consider anything over a 15.4 inch screen... and very few systems with that size of a screen would be what someone would call Svelt. For a great exception take a look at the Mac Book pro with that size. More typically for highly mobile systems you will deal with 14 or lower screen sizes. Wide screen vrs standard aspect (box or rectangle). Widescreen is one of those things that if you have never used one you probably won't miss it. But if you ever try it then you won't go back. Hence widescreen is a pretty good thing. In either case the thing to look for is the resolution. 1024 X 768 is a combination of numbers you will see an awful lot of. Especially in the budget end.. and to some extent in the ultra mobile setups. By and large you want to get something with at least a 1280 x something. standard aspects will be 1280 x 1024 while wide screens will often be 1280 x 800. Unless you go for a 17 inch screen you are fairly limited in your choices here. And if you see any of the 1650 x 1050 15.4 options you had best find an example to make sure the size of the information on the screen is easy for you to read (can get microscopic).
Each company has its own way of reffering to their screen technology. But really it boils down to matte or glossy. Make sure you see an example of the various screens. An investigation to best buy or similar store were you just peruse the laptops looking for the screens that impress you the most is a very good idea. Make a note of the terminology/model numbers ascociated with the display and then later when you are sorting through your various choices for a laptop you will be able to judge their screens. All in all screens are a HUGE useablity factor. A good screen can be the difference between a machine you hate to use and one which you love to use despite speed issues. A poor performer with a shitty screen will be a constant bur and annoyance. Be warned that the majority of the laptops at the cheap prices use very low quality displays and components.
keyboards/mouse etc... Often overlooked in laptops. But flimsy keyboards and poor build quality can lead to reliability issues. Check out examples from the various manufacturers and make sure to note systems that simply do not strike you as high quality. Typing a few lines on several laptops at a store if possible is a great way to do this. And it can be a real eye opener for folks. Many people are scared to touch the systems and thus never compare details like this. Similar testing should be done with the mouse. Though here I reccommend checking out review sights as users that own them will have a better chance to encounter the quirks... many of the touch pad mice are very sensitive to heat and if the laptop components are poorly placed then they can get hot and very erratic.
Hard Drives. After RAM this is the component that has the most to do with having the system work faster. Most systems these days have a cpu that is plenty fast. Even the el cheapo's. What really seperates the noticeable difference in useuability are hard drive size and spin speeds and RAM. 5400RPM drives are the typical choice. If you need long battery life then you are stuck with this option. 7200rpm drives suck down considerably more juice. The next thing to pay attention to are the HD cache's. The larger the cache the less often the drive actually has to go looking on the platters for recent information. A 5400rpm drive with a large cache can often perform comparably to a 7200rpm drive with a small cache except under specific circumstances. large caches can also cut down on HD activity so that can also extend battery life. Low end HD's have only 2mb of cache. The upper end seems to be around 16mb these days. This is a case where the more there is the better. If you system is typically going to be plugged in and not sitting directly on your lap then 7200 RPM 8mb cache (and up) hard drives are the way to go.
Connectivity. Identify any needs you have here. Wireless is the biggest must have in my book for a laptop. Some folks poo poo it. But I don't know anyone yet who gets introduced to wireless laptops on the couch that don't love it. Mostly a moot point as it is currently all but impossible to buy a lap top without it. The other considerations are the multi card reader slots. these are for things like compact flash, memory sticks, sd etc... from digital cameras and mp3 players. These are about half and half it seems. If you have some of the periphials that use these cards then a built in reader is very handy for easing transfers. Another one to keep an eye out for is blue tooth. Blue tooth seems to slowly but surely be in the process of making wires to periphial items obsolete. Printers, mice, phones, gps recievers etc are all examples of devices that are now available to connect wirelessly with your system via blue tooth. MP3 players are not far away. Laptops can ammass a surprising number of cables for all the various toys that connect to them. Blue tooth is a good way to eliminate many of them... and potentially enable you to use resources wherever you go. Wireless connectivity means you can have more than one person able to access a periphial unlike when it is physically connected and only one person can have the cable attached at once. This is deffinatly a less common option on systems but one which is well worth it if you have devices that take advantage of it. One great example is wireless bt headsets for cell phones. These could be used to connect to your laptop to use VOIP (internet phone calls) without needing some retarded headphones and boom microphone setup.
Finally DVD recording. If this is a big deal for you then dual layer capable systems are the way to go and you will have to make sure it is an option most times. If its a non issue for you then single layer burners are very common equipment... the budget systems normally have DVD reader CD burning combo drives.
Graphics. For the officianados and folks that want to do things like Photoshop work or run games. Get a dedicated graphics card with at least 128 mb of dedicated memory. If you are interested in running the vista aero stuff that is also a good minimum though knowing microsofts history I would advise getting 256mb or even higher. Otherwise if you are not doing any graphics intensive work (viewing snapshots does not qualify... am talking about in depth image manipulation or video editing tasks) then shared memory will most likely do you well. If you have two systems that are otherwise equal and one has a dedicated card and the other has shared memory I would suggest going with the dedicated carde. Often even if the dedicated amount of memory is less than the shareable amount. Its similar to that dual core thing. A dedicated graphics processor and memory is a widget that can do something at the same time as the main processor. Sharded graphics actually use the CPU and system RAM. Thus in dual core systems with shared graphics what you are going to see happen is large shareable graphics options that essentially turn one of the cpu cores into a graphics processor and you will be back to single core. If you are doing just typical office ap work, email, web browsing, then this isn't going to be an issue. But when you start doing some heavy lifting graphics it will cause a noticeable performance issue on your system... if it is capable of doing it at all.
Well I think that about covers it. recap.
64 bit is largely something to ignore. But not a bad thing if it is in the system you finally decide on. Just shouldn't be a real driver for your choice.
Dual Core... Is very good. You want. You should get. Easiest reccomendation I can make.
RAM - Fastest speed the system will handle and as much of it as you can afford. On one stick if possible.
HD - 5400 rpm for battery life. 7200 rpm for performance. 8mb cache minimum, preferably 16mb.
Screen - I would reccomend Wide screen with at least 1280 X 800 resolution. Systems intended to be portable should not have more than a 15.4 screen. And that is pushing it. 15.4 are the hybrid systems somewhere between highly mobile systems and the sedentary desktop replacement systems. And be warned, some 15.4's are deffinatly aimed at being desktop replacements as well.
Disc Drive - Unless you really need something small do not get a system that does not have one. Modular systems are a good idea. These are suspect number one for wearing out and modular systems means they are easy to replace. Normally it also means you can add an extra battery for long cordless operation.
Overall build quality - often overlooked due to brand prefference or falling in love with something you never see. Take the time to demo various models whether they interest you or not just to get a feel for the range of build quality and how different it feels/sounds etc... Small detail that has a lot to do with long term happiness with a system.
Connectivity - Wireless, all in one card readers and BT are the biggies. USB is damn near universal as is a single fire wire port. Another thing to look for is S-video out and VGA/DVI monitor outputs. S lets you put out a signal to a TV with an S input. THe others are so you can use regular computer monitors (bigger screens) which can be nice to have at home if you don't have a stand alone desktop system. Basically it allows you to turn your lap top into your 'grey computer box'.
AMD vrs Intel chips - Opinions vary all over the place on this. Currently Intel is the only Dual core laptop chip provider in town. Thus by and large I am saying buy Intel. AMD has annouced its X2 chip that is also 64 bits. If I had to buy a system now I would get an Intel Core Duo. If I could wait a year. I would hold out and flip a coin between a merom 64 bit Intel dual core or AMD X2 64 bit chip from AMD. Price would most likely be the real key. AMD may well have a slight performance edge but its a bench mark edge. Funtional difference to the end user from either chip will be almost undetectable without a stop watch and an anal retentive nature for noticing very small details. If you ask me the only legitimate argument between the chips will be the one over power usage. Most likely they will be very similar as well. For now Intel has the tech lead with 65nm chip etching vrs AMD's 90nm. But for various reasons AMD is able to make up the ground in other areas with different design decisions... the real bottom line of which the difference is very small in most cases. Now when AMD gets down to 65nm with Intel then it might be a different story.
And that about covers it. Long ramble about info that will soon be out of date.
Frankly I don't think there has ever been a more confusing time to purchase a computer. I am focusing on Laptops here but the general information applies by and large to any current computer purchases.
First off lets talk 64 bit computing. I can go into long deep dark technical mumbo jumbo about the benefits of 64 bit computers. But the bottom line is this. If you don't know why 64 bits would help you.. and I mean knowing exactly and specifically why you need a 64 bit base address/instruction computational power then frankly for the time being 64 bit is going to get you absolutely zilch. In fact till driver re-writes iron themselves out it will probably give you more headaches than anything else.
Sales people will tell you horror stories about the comming of Windows Vista... ignore them. Mainstream need for 64 bits caused by the new OS is probably a good 3 years out. Certainly 2 baring a very bizare mass exodus from XP when the initial vista release happens early next year (supposedly). As such there is no reason to be bothered about 64 bits because A) in 2 to three years someone that will need 64 bit computing will buy a new system anyway. B) If you are not the kind of person who buys every 2-3 years then you won't care cause you will have a system that works for you.
So its not a don't buy thing. Its a don't spend more to have it thing unless you have a specific need for it. Again, If you don't know if you have a specific need for it then the answer is in all likely hood you don't. if the system you like has it and it falls in your budget range then great. But no big loss if it does not.
Dual Core. Now on the other hand this is a very big deal indeed. While dual core is not twice as fast as single core it is bringing a very large change to the computing experience in that finally the system has more than one main busy body to do all the work. Think of the number of cores as being akin to the number of secretaries available to do the work. Till very recently most systems only had one Secretary. They continually upgraded how fast the single secretary could do work but it was still just one secretary. So if any one task tied the secretary up completely you were shit outta luck. Dual core is like having Two secretaries. So something can tie up the first secretary and the second will chug right along doing other things. And as most people know even the single setup has gotten pretty good at appearing to do multiple things at once. Well now the system can ACTUALLY do two things at once rather than simply be so fast that it appears to be doing two things at once. The future is multiple core architechture.
The short version is you want Dual Core. And amazingly enough its normally not even a price hike over other options. The CPU manufacturers are offering the new dual core chips at essentially the same price as similar speed single core chips of equivalent technology. The only reason in the world not to get a Dual core system right now is because the options are far more limited (still not many systems which have them) and while they are identical in price to similar powered single core systems... they are not budget chips (older spec tech that exists at the cheapest end of the spectrum) so if you are going cheap then it may be a problem. However that only applies to the extreme budget level laptops (sub 1000). Starting at 1000 there are plenty of dual core options. I would strongly reccommend getting one if you are spending 1000 or more on your machine.
Choosing a chip speed. The longer you are thinking of using your system then the higher the chip speed you should consider buying. This has less to do with the speed and more to do with the quality of the manufacturing. You see it is a great rule of thumb when buying chips is to look a the full range of options and then opt for one or two steps down from the absolute screaming fastest possible. Why ? The fastest chips are pushing their tech to the limit... consider them race cars. Durability and reliability can often be an issue over the long term... the chip is always going to be racing along near its max potential. But the thing about most chips is that the lower speeds are not different chips. They are in fact the SAME chips. Just that in testing they prooved incapable of performing at the outter limits consistently enough to make the 'cut'. The first cuts are your mainstream cars that are high quality and all but bullet proof. The remaining cuts are simply less and less capable chips and when you land in the cheapest budget areas you are often dealing with the just above complete rejection chips.. or a top notch chip that is simply out moded tech. Knowing the difference there is what makes it hard to know what the good deals are in the budget systems. But that first or second tier chip is actually the chip the manufacturer expects to make. Its the chips that came out of the process in the middle of the bell curve. And as such almost always proove the most rock solid performers so long as they are kept withen their limits. If you have every heard of over clocking and wondered what it was all about. Well it is about taking these lower rated chips and actually jacking up their speeds to the next level. Its a gamble. Not always a bad gamble but still a gamble. It works because it behooves manufacturers to leave a comfortable margian of error in their grading process. Thus most of the chips are indeed capable of running at higher speeds... it is that very fact that makes them more reliable in their assigned range.
RAM. This is probably the single most misunderstood component of computers these days. People tend to get focused on the CPU that they forget about the RAM. Most typical system builds by stores like Comp USA and internet ordering sites like Gateway offer 'cheap' systems where they tout the CPU while the under spec the RAM. You want the highest speed the system can handle. And these days at least 1gb, and prefferably that 1gb on a single stick of RAM rather than split into two. If you have to get a cheap budget system the one single thing you should not compromise on is the amount of RAM. Max the system if you can (2gb typically). It is the best money you will ever spend on a computer component.
Screen/Size. I group these together with laptops because the size of the LCD is what is most responsible for determining the overall size and portability of the package. If you are wanting a highly mobile system then you do not want to consider anything over a 15.4 inch screen... and very few systems with that size of a screen would be what someone would call Svelt. For a great exception take a look at the Mac Book pro with that size. More typically for highly mobile systems you will deal with 14 or lower screen sizes. Wide screen vrs standard aspect (box or rectangle). Widescreen is one of those things that if you have never used one you probably won't miss it. But if you ever try it then you won't go back. Hence widescreen is a pretty good thing. In either case the thing to look for is the resolution. 1024 X 768 is a combination of numbers you will see an awful lot of. Especially in the budget end.. and to some extent in the ultra mobile setups. By and large you want to get something with at least a 1280 x something. standard aspects will be 1280 x 1024 while wide screens will often be 1280 x 800. Unless you go for a 17 inch screen you are fairly limited in your choices here. And if you see any of the 1650 x 1050 15.4 options you had best find an example to make sure the size of the information on the screen is easy for you to read (can get microscopic).
Each company has its own way of reffering to their screen technology. But really it boils down to matte or glossy. Make sure you see an example of the various screens. An investigation to best buy or similar store were you just peruse the laptops looking for the screens that impress you the most is a very good idea. Make a note of the terminology/model numbers ascociated with the display and then later when you are sorting through your various choices for a laptop you will be able to judge their screens. All in all screens are a HUGE useablity factor. A good screen can be the difference between a machine you hate to use and one which you love to use despite speed issues. A poor performer with a shitty screen will be a constant bur and annoyance. Be warned that the majority of the laptops at the cheap prices use very low quality displays and components.
keyboards/mouse etc... Often overlooked in laptops. But flimsy keyboards and poor build quality can lead to reliability issues. Check out examples from the various manufacturers and make sure to note systems that simply do not strike you as high quality. Typing a few lines on several laptops at a store if possible is a great way to do this. And it can be a real eye opener for folks. Many people are scared to touch the systems and thus never compare details like this. Similar testing should be done with the mouse. Though here I reccommend checking out review sights as users that own them will have a better chance to encounter the quirks... many of the touch pad mice are very sensitive to heat and if the laptop components are poorly placed then they can get hot and very erratic.
Hard Drives. After RAM this is the component that has the most to do with having the system work faster. Most systems these days have a cpu that is plenty fast. Even the el cheapo's. What really seperates the noticeable difference in useuability are hard drive size and spin speeds and RAM. 5400RPM drives are the typical choice. If you need long battery life then you are stuck with this option. 7200rpm drives suck down considerably more juice. The next thing to pay attention to are the HD cache's. The larger the cache the less often the drive actually has to go looking on the platters for recent information. A 5400rpm drive with a large cache can often perform comparably to a 7200rpm drive with a small cache except under specific circumstances. large caches can also cut down on HD activity so that can also extend battery life. Low end HD's have only 2mb of cache. The upper end seems to be around 16mb these days. This is a case where the more there is the better. If you system is typically going to be plugged in and not sitting directly on your lap then 7200 RPM 8mb cache (and up) hard drives are the way to go.
Connectivity. Identify any needs you have here. Wireless is the biggest must have in my book for a laptop. Some folks poo poo it. But I don't know anyone yet who gets introduced to wireless laptops on the couch that don't love it. Mostly a moot point as it is currently all but impossible to buy a lap top without it. The other considerations are the multi card reader slots. these are for things like compact flash, memory sticks, sd etc... from digital cameras and mp3 players. These are about half and half it seems. If you have some of the periphials that use these cards then a built in reader is very handy for easing transfers. Another one to keep an eye out for is blue tooth. Blue tooth seems to slowly but surely be in the process of making wires to periphial items obsolete. Printers, mice, phones, gps recievers etc are all examples of devices that are now available to connect wirelessly with your system via blue tooth. MP3 players are not far away. Laptops can ammass a surprising number of cables for all the various toys that connect to them. Blue tooth is a good way to eliminate many of them... and potentially enable you to use resources wherever you go. Wireless connectivity means you can have more than one person able to access a periphial unlike when it is physically connected and only one person can have the cable attached at once. This is deffinatly a less common option on systems but one which is well worth it if you have devices that take advantage of it. One great example is wireless bt headsets for cell phones. These could be used to connect to your laptop to use VOIP (internet phone calls) without needing some retarded headphones and boom microphone setup.
Finally DVD recording. If this is a big deal for you then dual layer capable systems are the way to go and you will have to make sure it is an option most times. If its a non issue for you then single layer burners are very common equipment... the budget systems normally have DVD reader CD burning combo drives.
Graphics. For the officianados and folks that want to do things like Photoshop work or run games. Get a dedicated graphics card with at least 128 mb of dedicated memory. If you are interested in running the vista aero stuff that is also a good minimum though knowing microsofts history I would advise getting 256mb or even higher. Otherwise if you are not doing any graphics intensive work (viewing snapshots does not qualify... am talking about in depth image manipulation or video editing tasks) then shared memory will most likely do you well. If you have two systems that are otherwise equal and one has a dedicated card and the other has shared memory I would suggest going with the dedicated carde. Often even if the dedicated amount of memory is less than the shareable amount. Its similar to that dual core thing. A dedicated graphics processor and memory is a widget that can do something at the same time as the main processor. Sharded graphics actually use the CPU and system RAM. Thus in dual core systems with shared graphics what you are going to see happen is large shareable graphics options that essentially turn one of the cpu cores into a graphics processor and you will be back to single core. If you are doing just typical office ap work, email, web browsing, then this isn't going to be an issue. But when you start doing some heavy lifting graphics it will cause a noticeable performance issue on your system... if it is capable of doing it at all.
Well I think that about covers it. recap.
64 bit is largely something to ignore. But not a bad thing if it is in the system you finally decide on. Just shouldn't be a real driver for your choice.
Dual Core... Is very good. You want. You should get. Easiest reccomendation I can make.
RAM - Fastest speed the system will handle and as much of it as you can afford. On one stick if possible.
HD - 5400 rpm for battery life. 7200 rpm for performance. 8mb cache minimum, preferably 16mb.
Screen - I would reccomend Wide screen with at least 1280 X 800 resolution. Systems intended to be portable should not have more than a 15.4 screen. And that is pushing it. 15.4 are the hybrid systems somewhere between highly mobile systems and the sedentary desktop replacement systems. And be warned, some 15.4's are deffinatly aimed at being desktop replacements as well.
Disc Drive - Unless you really need something small do not get a system that does not have one. Modular systems are a good idea. These are suspect number one for wearing out and modular systems means they are easy to replace. Normally it also means you can add an extra battery for long cordless operation.
Overall build quality - often overlooked due to brand prefference or falling in love with something you never see. Take the time to demo various models whether they interest you or not just to get a feel for the range of build quality and how different it feels/sounds etc... Small detail that has a lot to do with long term happiness with a system.
Connectivity - Wireless, all in one card readers and BT are the biggies. USB is damn near universal as is a single fire wire port. Another thing to look for is S-video out and VGA/DVI monitor outputs. S lets you put out a signal to a TV with an S input. THe others are so you can use regular computer monitors (bigger screens) which can be nice to have at home if you don't have a stand alone desktop system. Basically it allows you to turn your lap top into your 'grey computer box'.
AMD vrs Intel chips - Opinions vary all over the place on this. Currently Intel is the only Dual core laptop chip provider in town. Thus by and large I am saying buy Intel. AMD has annouced its X2 chip that is also 64 bits. If I had to buy a system now I would get an Intel Core Duo. If I could wait a year. I would hold out and flip a coin between a merom 64 bit Intel dual core or AMD X2 64 bit chip from AMD. Price would most likely be the real key. AMD may well have a slight performance edge but its a bench mark edge. Funtional difference to the end user from either chip will be almost undetectable without a stop watch and an anal retentive nature for noticing very small details. If you ask me the only legitimate argument between the chips will be the one over power usage. Most likely they will be very similar as well. For now Intel has the tech lead with 65nm chip etching vrs AMD's 90nm. But for various reasons AMD is able to make up the ground in other areas with different design decisions... the real bottom line of which the difference is very small in most cases. Now when AMD gets down to 65nm with Intel then it might be a different story.
And that about covers it. Long ramble about info that will soon be out of date.
Tuesday, May 16, 2006
Immigration Debate
After the Presidents address last night I had to say something about immigration in general. And I found a focus around which to vent my feelings from a morning Talk Show I listen to a great deal. The two hosts are usually very sharp and opinionated but that rarely make ill informed statements and normally go through the trouble to view an issue from more than one side. But their statements regarding the plight of illegal immigrants in the US struck me as highly uninformed and as such I took the time to send them an E-mail which I am simply going to paste below. The statement that set me off was that the simple fact that people had broken the law meant that the moral high ground was ours in terms of casting them out or ignoring their requests to have the same rights.
Hello Rick and Bubba,
Monkey grass (suppose that works for a first time E-mail as well).
I have listened to your show now for about 5 years. In that time I have very much enjoyed the way you cover both the amusing and the serious with a candor and thoughtfulness that is so uncommon in today's media. While I have not always agreed with your positions on some issues I have yet to be incapable of understanding your point of view. That is until this morning when I was listening to your review of President Bush's speech in regards to Immigration. Particularly your statement that the moral high ground is held by the law. I would beg to disagree and ask that you pause a minute to truly consider whether or not the law is indeed in the right in regards to immigration. That the millions of illegal immigrants crossing the Mexican border are breaking the law is not in doubt. However, for the most part they are not doing this in lieu of a legal option... many of them are doing it because it is their only option. Does this make them 'right'? It certainly means they have broken the law. Was Mr. Luther King 'right' to break the laws of segregation? Laws are imperfect and just because someone has decided to break one does not mean they must then by definition be morally wrong. Is this the case with illegal immigrants? I am not sure to tell the truth. But I think the issue is far more in doubt than the two of you indicated during your show this morning.
For starters.
USCIS Forms
Please find the form on that site which a Mexican Citizen would fill out in order to gain legal permission to immigrate to the United States. Please take the time to research it. But I can tell you that despite the enormous number of forms there you will not find a simple "I wish to immigrate to the USA in order to become an American Citizen" form. The only option that a Mexican citizen could even initiate on their own behalf would be I-526 for an entrepreneur. Essentially it is the buy your way in option and requires an investment of 1,000,000 unless otherwise stated.
In fact the ONLY current means by which a foreign national who is not rich may seek on their own behalf to immigrate to the United States is through the so called lottery visas. The Citizens of the following nations are ineligible to apply
*CANADA, CHINA (mainland-born), COLOMBIA, DOMINICAN REPUBLIC, EL SALVADOR, HAITI, INDIA, JAMAICA, MEXICO, PAKISTAN, PHILIPPINES, POLAND, RUSSIA, SOUTH KOREA, UNITED KINGDOM (except Northern Ireland) and its dependent territories, and VIETNAM.
found on: Diversity Visas
*
So for example an Iraqi citizen could apply for a one in a million chance at receiving an immigrant visa, yet, someone from Mexico cannot even do that.
I bring this up because it is not like the millions of border jumpers are simply taking the easy way out. In most cases they are taking the only option available. As the President pointed out the reality is that there are those in predicaments such that they will attempt to gain entry into the United States no matter what awaits them at the border unless they have a better (and realistic) option. And for the most part they are not seeking to destroy the US. Far from it. They are seeking the chance at having freedom and a shot at making life better for themselves and for their children. And they seek it by the only means open to them. If you were in their shoes would you do differently?
Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breath free.
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me.
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!
/Emma Lazurus, 1883
/Once these famous words were a great description of the United States Policy in regards to immigration and many to this day think they still apply. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Until such time as people are again free to seek entry to the Unite States and can do so on their own behalf we should remove this famous Plaque from the Base of the Statue of Liberty and in its place put "Closed : Unless you have something we want". Even in the case that they have something we want (skilled labor) even then most of the available visa's are temporary and not even open to immigration. There are still relatively open immigration tracks for immediate family members and spouses of American citizens though by no means as open as most people would think. For work there only exists an immigration track for skilled workers.
So, we have failed to give them a legitimate means to come into our nation. And we have paid the consequences. As a result this process has allowed yet another second class citizenry to form in our society for the purposes of doing our dirty work. One with little to no voice who are for the most part happy to simply be ignored and left alone as they exist on the fringes of society because it is so much better from whence they came. It did not become us with Indentured Servitude. It did not become us with Slavery. It did not become us with Share Cropping or of course with Jim Crow. In every one of those examples we had some legal means by which the people of the time felt they were morally justified in the system they had put in place. Our current method is pure genius. By coming here in the first place they knowingly broke the law and as such we don't feel bad about how they are treated or that they do not enjoy the same rights. Yet we have created a situation which insures they will continue to come of their own free will and have not even provided them with a legitimate legal option. None of those earlier institutions of second class citizenry are a credit to our past. In fact the existence of those systems represent some of our dirtiest and smelliest laundry. And here we are with yet another system in place allowing for us to benefit and exploit a second class citizenry in a way in which we feel OK about it, and in fact feel fine and get indignant about when they have the unmitigated gall to stand up and request to be seen as equal. I'll give us credit... we are getting better at this. The current situation is certainly more ambiguous than our last attempt at a legally separated society known as the doctrine of "separate but equal".
As for the idea that sealing our border will make us any more secure against agents of terror? I have to laugh at that notion. We are not fighting a war where we face border incursions on any kind of scale that fortifications can ever hope to contain. We are fighting individuals and ideas. How effective was the Berlin Wall at stopping individuals? How well did it stop the flow of ideas? How utterly obscene and wrong was that horrid mass of stone and steel? How happy were we when it was torn down? How sad should we be that we now want the equivalent for our southern border? Throwing all our technological might at sealing a border from people desperate for nothing more than to pursue the American dream is beneath us. Building 'The Great Wall" went out with the Ming Dynasty. And at least the Chinese had the Mongol Hoards as an excuse. All we have is a mass of people desperate to live in a law abiding society and to work themselves into the ground for a chance to make life better for themselves and their children. For 200 years we have in the spirit of Motel 8 "Left the light on" For folks seeking a better life. But lately it seems we have turned it off, left the back door unlocked and decided to get mad at folks that enter where they have always been welcomed before... but only if they draw attention to themselves. Is this truly the America we want? It certainly isn't the one I learned about in school. Sure we can just lock the door and stop trying to have it both ways. But this nation rose to greatness on its openness. I think our future greatness relies on us remaining so. If we do truly seal our border we had best do it with a true open door for those to walk through legally. And it shouldn't be an impossible process filled with suffocating unrealistic bureaucratic red tape.
In closing... perhaps nothing I have said changes your mind. Really and truly that was not my intent. I only hope that perhaps I opened your eyes to the fact the situation is one which perhaps merits greater attention. The comments I heard on your show this morning were the first in 5 years of listening which struck me as un-informed and ill conceived... and it was very unlike what I have come to expect during my morning routine getting ready for work.
Perhaps if you have made it this far you are wondering why this issue strikes such a nerve with me. Well I am currently in the midst of marrying someone from the United Kingdom. Far from being angry at the many people who abuse and circumvent the immigration process, I have come to understand that the process is broken. Nobody should have to go through what we have had to Endure... and our process is far from over.
K1 Visa Experience
Details our experience thus far. If you check it out keep in mind that we are both young, of good health, college graduates, no criminal record, prior marriages, dependents or anything else to complicate matters. We are just two people who want to get married who happen to come from different nations and who are trying to do it by the book. Getting the Visa has taken 6 months. Getting True Permanent Resident Status will take 2 years. The process of becoming a Citizen (if she wants to) can start after 5 years and commonly takes 2-3 years to complete. Mayhap you think this sounds good and fair. But to date nobody I have educated as to the real process for marrying someone for another country has thought the process just or fair at all.
Thank you for any time you have spent on this rant... I sometimes get carried away. A long time listener.
Hello Rick and Bubba,
Monkey grass (suppose that works for a first time E-mail as well).
I have listened to your show now for about 5 years. In that time I have very much enjoyed the way you cover both the amusing and the serious with a candor and thoughtfulness that is so uncommon in today's media. While I have not always agreed with your positions on some issues I have yet to be incapable of understanding your point of view. That is until this morning when I was listening to your review of President Bush's speech in regards to Immigration. Particularly your statement that the moral high ground is held by the law. I would beg to disagree and ask that you pause a minute to truly consider whether or not the law is indeed in the right in regards to immigration. That the millions of illegal immigrants crossing the Mexican border are breaking the law is not in doubt. However, for the most part they are not doing this in lieu of a legal option... many of them are doing it because it is their only option. Does this make them 'right'? It certainly means they have broken the law. Was Mr. Luther King 'right' to break the laws of segregation? Laws are imperfect and just because someone has decided to break one does not mean they must then by definition be morally wrong. Is this the case with illegal immigrants? I am not sure to tell the truth. But I think the issue is far more in doubt than the two of you indicated during your show this morning.
For starters.
USCIS Forms
Please find the form on that site which a Mexican Citizen would fill out in order to gain legal permission to immigrate to the United States. Please take the time to research it. But I can tell you that despite the enormous number of forms there you will not find a simple "I wish to immigrate to the USA in order to become an American Citizen" form. The only option that a Mexican citizen could even initiate on their own behalf would be I-526 for an entrepreneur. Essentially it is the buy your way in option and requires an investment of 1,000,000 unless otherwise stated.
In fact the ONLY current means by which a foreign national who is not rich may seek on their own behalf to immigrate to the United States is through the so called lottery visas. The Citizens of the following nations are ineligible to apply
*CANADA, CHINA (mainland-born), COLOMBIA, DOMINICAN REPUBLIC, EL SALVADOR, HAITI, INDIA, JAMAICA, MEXICO, PAKISTAN, PHILIPPINES, POLAND, RUSSIA, SOUTH KOREA, UNITED KINGDOM (except Northern Ireland) and its dependent territories, and VIETNAM.
found on: Diversity Visas
*
So for example an Iraqi citizen could apply for a one in a million chance at receiving an immigrant visa, yet, someone from Mexico cannot even do that.
I bring this up because it is not like the millions of border jumpers are simply taking the easy way out. In most cases they are taking the only option available. As the President pointed out the reality is that there are those in predicaments such that they will attempt to gain entry into the United States no matter what awaits them at the border unless they have a better (and realistic) option. And for the most part they are not seeking to destroy the US. Far from it. They are seeking the chance at having freedom and a shot at making life better for themselves and for their children. And they seek it by the only means open to them. If you were in their shoes would you do differently?
Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breath free.
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me.
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!
/Emma Lazurus, 1883
/Once these famous words were a great description of the United States Policy in regards to immigration and many to this day think they still apply. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Until such time as people are again free to seek entry to the Unite States and can do so on their own behalf we should remove this famous Plaque from the Base of the Statue of Liberty and in its place put "Closed : Unless you have something we want". Even in the case that they have something we want (skilled labor) even then most of the available visa's are temporary and not even open to immigration. There are still relatively open immigration tracks for immediate family members and spouses of American citizens though by no means as open as most people would think. For work there only exists an immigration track for skilled workers.
So, we have failed to give them a legitimate means to come into our nation. And we have paid the consequences. As a result this process has allowed yet another second class citizenry to form in our society for the purposes of doing our dirty work. One with little to no voice who are for the most part happy to simply be ignored and left alone as they exist on the fringes of society because it is so much better from whence they came. It did not become us with Indentured Servitude. It did not become us with Slavery. It did not become us with Share Cropping or of course with Jim Crow. In every one of those examples we had some legal means by which the people of the time felt they were morally justified in the system they had put in place. Our current method is pure genius. By coming here in the first place they knowingly broke the law and as such we don't feel bad about how they are treated or that they do not enjoy the same rights. Yet we have created a situation which insures they will continue to come of their own free will and have not even provided them with a legitimate legal option. None of those earlier institutions of second class citizenry are a credit to our past. In fact the existence of those systems represent some of our dirtiest and smelliest laundry. And here we are with yet another system in place allowing for us to benefit and exploit a second class citizenry in a way in which we feel OK about it, and in fact feel fine and get indignant about when they have the unmitigated gall to stand up and request to be seen as equal. I'll give us credit... we are getting better at this. The current situation is certainly more ambiguous than our last attempt at a legally separated society known as the doctrine of "separate but equal".
As for the idea that sealing our border will make us any more secure against agents of terror? I have to laugh at that notion. We are not fighting a war where we face border incursions on any kind of scale that fortifications can ever hope to contain. We are fighting individuals and ideas. How effective was the Berlin Wall at stopping individuals? How well did it stop the flow of ideas? How utterly obscene and wrong was that horrid mass of stone and steel? How happy were we when it was torn down? How sad should we be that we now want the equivalent for our southern border? Throwing all our technological might at sealing a border from people desperate for nothing more than to pursue the American dream is beneath us. Building 'The Great Wall" went out with the Ming Dynasty. And at least the Chinese had the Mongol Hoards as an excuse. All we have is a mass of people desperate to live in a law abiding society and to work themselves into the ground for a chance to make life better for themselves and their children. For 200 years we have in the spirit of Motel 8 "Left the light on" For folks seeking a better life. But lately it seems we have turned it off, left the back door unlocked and decided to get mad at folks that enter where they have always been welcomed before... but only if they draw attention to themselves. Is this truly the America we want? It certainly isn't the one I learned about in school. Sure we can just lock the door and stop trying to have it both ways. But this nation rose to greatness on its openness. I think our future greatness relies on us remaining so. If we do truly seal our border we had best do it with a true open door for those to walk through legally. And it shouldn't be an impossible process filled with suffocating unrealistic bureaucratic red tape.
In closing... perhaps nothing I have said changes your mind. Really and truly that was not my intent. I only hope that perhaps I opened your eyes to the fact the situation is one which perhaps merits greater attention. The comments I heard on your show this morning were the first in 5 years of listening which struck me as un-informed and ill conceived... and it was very unlike what I have come to expect during my morning routine getting ready for work.
Perhaps if you have made it this far you are wondering why this issue strikes such a nerve with me. Well I am currently in the midst of marrying someone from the United Kingdom. Far from being angry at the many people who abuse and circumvent the immigration process, I have come to understand that the process is broken. Nobody should have to go through what we have had to Endure... and our process is far from over.
K1 Visa Experience
Details our experience thus far. If you check it out keep in mind that we are both young, of good health, college graduates, no criminal record, prior marriages, dependents or anything else to complicate matters. We are just two people who want to get married who happen to come from different nations and who are trying to do it by the book. Getting the Visa has taken 6 months. Getting True Permanent Resident Status will take 2 years. The process of becoming a Citizen (if she wants to) can start after 5 years and commonly takes 2-3 years to complete. Mayhap you think this sounds good and fair. But to date nobody I have educated as to the real process for marrying someone for another country has thought the process just or fair at all.
Thank you for any time you have spent on this rant... I sometimes get carried away. A long time listener.
Sunday, May 14, 2006
The New Al Gore
I suppose this entry could be considered an update on my thoughts regarding the 2008 presidential election. Which if you haven't figured it out yet is probably going to shape up to be one of the most pivotal elections in US history. It is absolutely amazing how many issues are comming to a head currently and we have a president going down in flames. The top candidates to replace him hail from the never before.... legitimate women candidates on BOTH sides of the table.
I still think Condi is a bit weak as a Republican Candidate... and her proximity and rise under the Bush administration is potentially going to be a burden if the current administration continues to flame out like this. However her stock has risen considerably since I last discussed this issue more than a year ago when I considered her at best a VP candidate.
Hillary is still looking quite strong. She hasn't done anything to hurt her self and she has made many many many moves to the center. Perahaps the most visible her ridiculous charge on the video game industry rating woes. Come on Hillary... with a war on and a portential move into Iran brewing you couldn't think of anything better to jump on?
But look out folks here comes a guy we all more or less thought was gone. Mr. Al Gore He is back, he is loose, he grew himself a personality, a sense of humor and even got official props from the internet community for what the media turned into his biggest goof. Remember the oft played spoof "I INVENTED THE INTERNET". Well he certianly didn't invent it but as a memeber of a key subcommitte in the senate he had a great deal to do with its acendency and he has since been well recognised for his efforts. This is like if webster had taken Quayels potato'e' gaff and redefined the worde to include the 'e'. Only in this case Gore's claims were correct where Quayles were just another sad slip of the tounge from an otherwise highly intelligent person.
He says he isn't a contender in '08 but he is popping up in an awful lot of places lately and the democratic party needs someone to come together behind. Until this recent ressurgence by Gore the only real candidate was Hillary and the baggage of Bill is very very heavy there. It wouldn't take a whole lot to swing the builk of the democrats to another horse. If Gore keeps up this return to center stage he is going to be a serious contender for president. In fact I almost hope he takes this new humor and frank admission of his flaws on through the entire journey. The US is ready for a change in presidential candidates. My guess? If he starts stiffining back up and goes all 'presidential' he will be brushed aside in favor of Hillary.
On the other hand it is quite possible he really has removed himself from that realm. But if he keeps goign like he will have beat of the democratic national party with a stick. Cause the guy has a vibe going and the last time I recall anything remotely like it was back in 92 when another southern boy with a glib sense of humor was making the rounds. Remember the presidential candidate that actually got up on stage and played a sax for cryin out loud ?
I still think Condi is a bit weak as a Republican Candidate... and her proximity and rise under the Bush administration is potentially going to be a burden if the current administration continues to flame out like this. However her stock has risen considerably since I last discussed this issue more than a year ago when I considered her at best a VP candidate.
Hillary is still looking quite strong. She hasn't done anything to hurt her self and she has made many many many moves to the center. Perahaps the most visible her ridiculous charge on the video game industry rating woes. Come on Hillary... with a war on and a portential move into Iran brewing you couldn't think of anything better to jump on?
But look out folks here comes a guy we all more or less thought was gone. Mr. Al Gore He is back, he is loose, he grew himself a personality, a sense of humor and even got official props from the internet community for what the media turned into his biggest goof. Remember the oft played spoof "I INVENTED THE INTERNET". Well he certianly didn't invent it but as a memeber of a key subcommitte in the senate he had a great deal to do with its acendency and he has since been well recognised for his efforts. This is like if webster had taken Quayels potato'e' gaff and redefined the worde to include the 'e'. Only in this case Gore's claims were correct where Quayles were just another sad slip of the tounge from an otherwise highly intelligent person.
He says he isn't a contender in '08 but he is popping up in an awful lot of places lately and the democratic party needs someone to come together behind. Until this recent ressurgence by Gore the only real candidate was Hillary and the baggage of Bill is very very heavy there. It wouldn't take a whole lot to swing the builk of the democrats to another horse. If Gore keeps up this return to center stage he is going to be a serious contender for president. In fact I almost hope he takes this new humor and frank admission of his flaws on through the entire journey. The US is ready for a change in presidential candidates. My guess? If he starts stiffining back up and goes all 'presidential' he will be brushed aside in favor of Hillary.
On the other hand it is quite possible he really has removed himself from that realm. But if he keeps goign like he will have beat of the democratic national party with a stick. Cause the guy has a vibe going and the last time I recall anything remotely like it was back in 92 when another southern boy with a glib sense of humor was making the rounds. Remember the presidential candidate that actually got up on stage and played a sax for cryin out loud ?
"Nickle and Dimed": by Barbara Ehrenreich
This is a good if unsurprising book about how rough it can be trying to get by these days on minimum wage in the US.
Barbara does a decent job showing that the world of the minimum wage worker is not necesarrily one in which people can thrive as they once did. It is no longer a living wage. Rarely do such jobs ever come with benefits worth speaking of, if any at all.
I particularly loved her portrayals of the absurdities faced by many of these people in confrontations with management. Not being allowed to take bathroom breaks when needed. Not being able to drink water on the job. Etc... Having worked some of these types of jobs myself it was nice seeing these ridiculous and petty power trips brought to public attention.
I recommend this book to any interested in a gritty and personal slog through minimum wage life. It is far from all encompassing, it deals with spot issues and only a few locations. What it does do well is give you a first hand view of the world at the bottom of the employment ladder these days. And if you do not have a feel for that reality it is hard to claim you understand how these issues can be dealt with.
Barbara does a decent job showing that the world of the minimum wage worker is not necesarrily one in which people can thrive as they once did. It is no longer a living wage. Rarely do such jobs ever come with benefits worth speaking of, if any at all.
I particularly loved her portrayals of the absurdities faced by many of these people in confrontations with management. Not being allowed to take bathroom breaks when needed. Not being able to drink water on the job. Etc... Having worked some of these types of jobs myself it was nice seeing these ridiculous and petty power trips brought to public attention.
I recommend this book to any interested in a gritty and personal slog through minimum wage life. It is far from all encompassing, it deals with spot issues and only a few locations. What it does do well is give you a first hand view of the world at the bottom of the employment ladder these days. And if you do not have a feel for that reality it is hard to claim you understand how these issues can be dealt with.
Saturday, May 13, 2006
"Fair Tax" by Neal Boortz and John Linder
Well I talked about Fair Tax a while back and that was before I read this book. I found a few nits I would like to pick with them.
First for those that don't know the Fair Tax is a proposition to eliminate the current tax code and replace it with a 23% national sales tax on all retail goods and services... and to do it cold turkey. IE one year would be done the old way and the next would be on the Fair tax. Taxes would only be collected on goods and services purchased at retail. It would also be an inclusive tax... IE the listed price on the shelf would be inclusive of the tax... not a tack on at the register.
Boortz and Linder do a good job of talking economics regarding the current hidden embedded taxes in retail goods. They also point out how if the current tax scheme were eliminated that it would kill all of the emebedded tax cost for goods and that the laws of supply and demand would rapidly drop the costs to current margin levels. Well this is true and I agree with them. Though methinks they are a bit optomistic about how fast this would occur... granted I agree that the bulk of the price drops would happen relatively quickly but it would take a while for folks to get all the way down to the bottom. However here is nit one.
The idea is that embedded costs will drop and that the fair tax will bring it right back up. IE you won't go to the store and pay 23% above current rates. Current cost of goods will drop 23% only for it to be replaced by the tax. In other words you simply change the accounting. Instead of it being embedded it is a known component of the cost added in one place instead of buring along the way in the cost of doing business. And unlike sales tax it would be on the listed price. The nit ? That means after the fair tax is passed and the goods do their pricing reshuffle from hidden cumulative tax to a clearly defined rate at the till I now have more purchasing power than I did before. The reason this bothers me is that they claim this thing is revenue neutral. I like the idea of having more purchasing power. But that can't happen if after buying the same amount of goods I have money left over. Because before that is money the government already had... PLUS they got the money from embedded taxes on goods. 1+1 = 2, 1+0 = 1. It seems to be that Boortz and Linder are in effect saying 1+0 = 2.
Even if prices remain the same and retail costs suddenly increase 23% due to the addition of the fair tax and I now still only clear what I did before after purchasing a years worth of goods and services uncle sam STILL didn't get the same amount as he didn't have his hand in the collection process that determined that original price. That money goes into the businesses.
How does this work. Well lets take some round number. You make 10,000. 23 percent goes to uncle sam as income tax so you get 7,300. You go out and buy a 1,000 item. As a part of that 1,000 there is another 23 percent embeded tax cost (cumulative tax costs built into the process that brought the product to sale) so its real cost is 770 and uncle same takes your 2300, and the 230 for a grand total of 2,530. Now if you remove the income tax and you take home all your 10,000 and the price of the good drops to 770 because the embedded tax is removed and the Fair tax then tacks on the added 230 that keeps the price at 1000 then uncle sam got the same 230 that was there before. But he doesn't get your 2,300. Thus I have a hard time seeing how this change is supposed to be revenue neutral.
Another nit is the issue of the poor. The stipend idea is great. IE that poverty rates are used to determine an across the board prebate that is meant to offset the taxes paid on the first X amount of goods/services. However there is still no getting around the fact that while the rich spend more money than the poor... they still spend less of the their income during the course of a year and save more. Now that your yearly tax rate effectively becomes a factor of how many goods and services you purchase then if you don't spend all of your money your effective tax rate goes down. So with the Fair Tax those who can save the most will have the effective lowest tax rates while those who must spend almost all of their money will effectively have the highest tax rates. that alone is going to make this plan a very hard sale.
Now seriously I like the idea. If it really removes the yearly filling headache it may be worth more than a little pain to accomplish it. But I am not sold on it being what its proponents claim it to be. The revenue neutral concept is based on a predicted massive upswing in the economy that would raise more money than the current situation.
How could it go wrong ? Employers simply keep that money you never saw before and either bank it or cut it as an expindeture in order to drop prices even further... leaving you without your expected rise in take home pay and potentially to be faced with at least temporarily price spikes that will exists for a short while before market forces cause them to deflate. This also means people will not have the supposed extra added buying power that is supposed to fuel this so called economic boom that fair tax would usher in.
Damnit... I want this thing to work I hate arguing like this poking to many holes in something I actually like. But I think there are problems here that are not being addressed. We NEED change in our tax code. It must be simplified and a consumption based tax sounds like a damn fine way of doing it. So please folks lets patch up the wholes and get this one out there.
As for the idea that all the expat dollars would come flowing back home ? That may be a bit of a pipe dream. Nothing in what they suggest has a lowering of american labor costs. And convaluted tax burdens or not there is no way current labor costs will compete with the absurdly low cost of doing business over seas. It may well manage to swipe some of the international capital market that has shied away lately from the US... but frankly we are still quite strong in that department as we still have the most liquid market in the world.
First for those that don't know the Fair Tax is a proposition to eliminate the current tax code and replace it with a 23% national sales tax on all retail goods and services... and to do it cold turkey. IE one year would be done the old way and the next would be on the Fair tax. Taxes would only be collected on goods and services purchased at retail. It would also be an inclusive tax... IE the listed price on the shelf would be inclusive of the tax... not a tack on at the register.
Boortz and Linder do a good job of talking economics regarding the current hidden embedded taxes in retail goods. They also point out how if the current tax scheme were eliminated that it would kill all of the emebedded tax cost for goods and that the laws of supply and demand would rapidly drop the costs to current margin levels. Well this is true and I agree with them. Though methinks they are a bit optomistic about how fast this would occur... granted I agree that the bulk of the price drops would happen relatively quickly but it would take a while for folks to get all the way down to the bottom. However here is nit one.
The idea is that embedded costs will drop and that the fair tax will bring it right back up. IE you won't go to the store and pay 23% above current rates. Current cost of goods will drop 23% only for it to be replaced by the tax. In other words you simply change the accounting. Instead of it being embedded it is a known component of the cost added in one place instead of buring along the way in the cost of doing business. And unlike sales tax it would be on the listed price. The nit ? That means after the fair tax is passed and the goods do their pricing reshuffle from hidden cumulative tax to a clearly defined rate at the till I now have more purchasing power than I did before. The reason this bothers me is that they claim this thing is revenue neutral. I like the idea of having more purchasing power. But that can't happen if after buying the same amount of goods I have money left over. Because before that is money the government already had... PLUS they got the money from embedded taxes on goods. 1+1 = 2, 1+0 = 1. It seems to be that Boortz and Linder are in effect saying 1+0 = 2.
Even if prices remain the same and retail costs suddenly increase 23% due to the addition of the fair tax and I now still only clear what I did before after purchasing a years worth of goods and services uncle sam STILL didn't get the same amount as he didn't have his hand in the collection process that determined that original price. That money goes into the businesses.
How does this work. Well lets take some round number. You make 10,000. 23 percent goes to uncle sam as income tax so you get 7,300. You go out and buy a 1,000 item. As a part of that 1,000 there is another 23 percent embeded tax cost (cumulative tax costs built into the process that brought the product to sale) so its real cost is 770 and uncle same takes your 2300, and the 230 for a grand total of 2,530. Now if you remove the income tax and you take home all your 10,000 and the price of the good drops to 770 because the embedded tax is removed and the Fair tax then tacks on the added 230 that keeps the price at 1000 then uncle sam got the same 230 that was there before. But he doesn't get your 2,300. Thus I have a hard time seeing how this change is supposed to be revenue neutral.
Another nit is the issue of the poor. The stipend idea is great. IE that poverty rates are used to determine an across the board prebate that is meant to offset the taxes paid on the first X amount of goods/services. However there is still no getting around the fact that while the rich spend more money than the poor... they still spend less of the their income during the course of a year and save more. Now that your yearly tax rate effectively becomes a factor of how many goods and services you purchase then if you don't spend all of your money your effective tax rate goes down. So with the Fair Tax those who can save the most will have the effective lowest tax rates while those who must spend almost all of their money will effectively have the highest tax rates. that alone is going to make this plan a very hard sale.
Now seriously I like the idea. If it really removes the yearly filling headache it may be worth more than a little pain to accomplish it. But I am not sold on it being what its proponents claim it to be. The revenue neutral concept is based on a predicted massive upswing in the economy that would raise more money than the current situation.
How could it go wrong ? Employers simply keep that money you never saw before and either bank it or cut it as an expindeture in order to drop prices even further... leaving you without your expected rise in take home pay and potentially to be faced with at least temporarily price spikes that will exists for a short while before market forces cause them to deflate. This also means people will not have the supposed extra added buying power that is supposed to fuel this so called economic boom that fair tax would usher in.
Damnit... I want this thing to work I hate arguing like this poking to many holes in something I actually like. But I think there are problems here that are not being addressed. We NEED change in our tax code. It must be simplified and a consumption based tax sounds like a damn fine way of doing it. So please folks lets patch up the wholes and get this one out there.
As for the idea that all the expat dollars would come flowing back home ? That may be a bit of a pipe dream. Nothing in what they suggest has a lowering of american labor costs. And convaluted tax burdens or not there is no way current labor costs will compete with the absurdly low cost of doing business over seas. It may well manage to swipe some of the international capital market that has shied away lately from the US... but frankly we are still quite strong in that department as we still have the most liquid market in the world.
Tuesday, May 09, 2006
Another bone to pick with Friedman
In "The World is Flat" Freidman talks about the ambition gap. The idea that American kids just don't want it as baddly. That companies outsource their work and cut costs by more than half and get more productivity out of their workers than they did from American hires. First off my personal experience with the end result of Indian outsourcing, both in the form of getting Rajib on the phone and in getting piss poor excuse for tech support from a two week trainee HS dropout, has given damn little evidence of this so called productivity increase. They might field twice as many phone calls but two times zero is still nothing the last time I checked. But hey thats anecdotal evidence and hardly a large sample. Anyway back to this so called ambition gap. Frankly he is comparing apples and oranges. He goes to great lengths to show how something like call support is a bottom of the barrel job here and one which atracts the best of the best in India. The pay is comisurate with that fact in India... and in the US. Comparing the ambition of someone working a shit job to one who feels lucky to have it is asinine. Pay american tech support folks the same in the US economy that ~$4000 gets in the Indian economy and I bet your so called ambition gap gets quite a bit smaller.
Furthermore he talks about the ambition of Chinese workers in terms of hours spent in the lab. Of Indian's willingness to dampen their accents. Rather than atributing these things to workers in a desperate situation doing what they have to do to make it he atributes it to imbedded cultural factors. I take it he doesn't have a grandfather who talks about walking 18 miles barefoot uphil (both ways) through the snow to school... or working 20 years without a week of vacation or whatever other example he could care to come up with from an Indian or Chineese worker in the form of incredible drive to succeed. The thing is americans have worked that hard. And where it benefits them they still work that hard today. But we also worked damn hard to make it so that folks didn't have to kill themselves just to have a chance. They didn't have to spend all their time working at the expense of their family just to get ahead.
Do kids these days take to much for granted. YES. Does that mean they should have to go back to walking "18 miles through the snow" ? Hell no. Theres a baby in that thar bath water so don't be so quick to throw it out. Again. Put american kids on equal footing with Indian/Chineese workers and I have little doubt they will be up for the challenge. But as I mentioned in my last post that will never happen with current exchange rates.
Friendman talks about the education gap and how fewer and fewer American students are studying engineering. And how these emerging nations are minting them left and right. He seems to think it odd that American kids see the reality of competing with forign engineers that make less than minimum wage (in terms of what it costs the company) as something to avoid. Its a no win game. The idea of so called 'value' added engineering being the sole domain of Yankee ingenuity is absurd. Our historical predilection for smart folks comming up with smart ideas has everything to do with the fact that folks who did so were well rewarded. The idea that you can avoid the problem of outsourcing by just going to value added engineering (being creative etc..) makes about as much sense as when the moron in a movie tries to get away from an onrushing vehicle by running down the road in front of it.
The other problem with his notion of simply moving to value added engineering is it is patentently absurd to think that can be the solution for the masses. You get to value added (or Creative control) positions by spending your time in the trenches. You move up to personal service and expertise in tech support by spending time in the trenches. Well in this new economy the trenches are rapidly dissapearing for Americans. There is a ladder to climb but the bottom rungs are missing and you don't get to just start at the top. Friedmans assertions that American kids expect to start at the top aside... they are very inteligent at realising where opportunities lay and where they do not. You can't get to the top if you can't get your foot in the door. Just how exactly is an american engineering student supposed to cut their teeth these days? Yes more advanced and creative engineering jobs are opening up every day in America... but they are jobs that require experience. And the jobs that are dissapearing the fastest are those where folks GAIN that experience.
In the end I think Friedman made a mistake saying the world is flat. True enough cheap communications means India can provide Wall Streets back room. But the problem is I can't build a better distributed backroom in the US no matter what I do. Labor costs to much due to the exchange rate. Chinese manufacturing is an even more obvious example. The fact that you CAN'T feasibly build a factory in California to compete with the low cost of Chinese manufacturing despite the fact it is 5000 miles closer shows that the world is ANYTHING but flat. The playing field ANYTHING but level. The door has been opened one way for India and China. The world will be flat when The US can be India's backroom, Or India the US backroom... and the choice is determined by who does it better.
Furthermore he talks about the ambition of Chinese workers in terms of hours spent in the lab. Of Indian's willingness to dampen their accents. Rather than atributing these things to workers in a desperate situation doing what they have to do to make it he atributes it to imbedded cultural factors. I take it he doesn't have a grandfather who talks about walking 18 miles barefoot uphil (both ways) through the snow to school... or working 20 years without a week of vacation or whatever other example he could care to come up with from an Indian or Chineese worker in the form of incredible drive to succeed. The thing is americans have worked that hard. And where it benefits them they still work that hard today. But we also worked damn hard to make it so that folks didn't have to kill themselves just to have a chance. They didn't have to spend all their time working at the expense of their family just to get ahead.
Do kids these days take to much for granted. YES. Does that mean they should have to go back to walking "18 miles through the snow" ? Hell no. Theres a baby in that thar bath water so don't be so quick to throw it out. Again. Put american kids on equal footing with Indian/Chineese workers and I have little doubt they will be up for the challenge. But as I mentioned in my last post that will never happen with current exchange rates.
Friendman talks about the education gap and how fewer and fewer American students are studying engineering. And how these emerging nations are minting them left and right. He seems to think it odd that American kids see the reality of competing with forign engineers that make less than minimum wage (in terms of what it costs the company) as something to avoid. Its a no win game. The idea of so called 'value' added engineering being the sole domain of Yankee ingenuity is absurd. Our historical predilection for smart folks comming up with smart ideas has everything to do with the fact that folks who did so were well rewarded. The idea that you can avoid the problem of outsourcing by just going to value added engineering (being creative etc..) makes about as much sense as when the moron in a movie tries to get away from an onrushing vehicle by running down the road in front of it.
The other problem with his notion of simply moving to value added engineering is it is patentently absurd to think that can be the solution for the masses. You get to value added (or Creative control) positions by spending your time in the trenches. You move up to personal service and expertise in tech support by spending time in the trenches. Well in this new economy the trenches are rapidly dissapearing for Americans. There is a ladder to climb but the bottom rungs are missing and you don't get to just start at the top. Friedmans assertions that American kids expect to start at the top aside... they are very inteligent at realising where opportunities lay and where they do not. You can't get to the top if you can't get your foot in the door. Just how exactly is an american engineering student supposed to cut their teeth these days? Yes more advanced and creative engineering jobs are opening up every day in America... but they are jobs that require experience. And the jobs that are dissapearing the fastest are those where folks GAIN that experience.
In the end I think Friedman made a mistake saying the world is flat. True enough cheap communications means India can provide Wall Streets back room. But the problem is I can't build a better distributed backroom in the US no matter what I do. Labor costs to much due to the exchange rate. Chinese manufacturing is an even more obvious example. The fact that you CAN'T feasibly build a factory in California to compete with the low cost of Chinese manufacturing despite the fact it is 5000 miles closer shows that the world is ANYTHING but flat. The playing field ANYTHING but level. The door has been opened one way for India and China. The world will be flat when The US can be India's backroom, Or India the US backroom... and the choice is determined by who does it better.
The Letter From Iran
Recently the leader of Iran sent Bush a letter. As the news has endlessly pointed out this letter represents the first official communication between these two leaders since the Carter administration. Granted its not like Iran and the US have not had any dialog over the years but sometimes the distinctions are important. In this case we are being told the Letter is meaningless and had no import. I would like to be able to judge that for myself. Where are the translations for the public to read? What did this man feel compelled to break a 27 year 'official' silence to say? Inquiring minds want to know. Redact the damn thing if you have to but let us see what the guy had to say. From the initial dismissal it sounds like they could release the whole thing as it has been called irrelevant.
The rhetoric surrounding the Iran situation sounds familiar as I am sure many have noticed. After the last intelligence debacle regarding the so called WMD threat posed by Iraq I am going to be far far far less willing to take this administrations say so on what they THINK are Iran's intentions. Rice has accused the letter of not dealing with the US request to cease Enrichment. Well I personally am not sure the US has delt with why Iran should not be allowed to enrich or just why the US thinks that is not all they intend to do. Suspicion that they MIGHT do something wrong is not valid justification for invading a country. You know that whole Innocent until proven guilty thing can be a bitch when it gets in the way of getting what you want. And pre-emptive strikes only carries weight as a rational reason for waging war if it turns up ye olde smoking gun. They tried this mess with Iraq and the smoking gun didn't turn up. That means WE made a bad choice and WE have a poor track record of this kind of assesment and WE should have to explain ourselves. And most importantly its means WE shouldn't be rushing off the DO IT ALL AGAIN.
Now don't get me wrong. If Iran so much as blinks wrong in terms of what they are doing with their program I am all in favor of "Shock and Awe II: Steel Rain over Tehran". We really really really do not need a country with an idealogical leader who doesn't have a whole lot of problem with bringing about the appocalypse pointing Nuclear weapons at folks. But frankly I think the next invasion of a soverign nation over the possibility they pose a threat to world stability should be a decision made by the world. IE the UN without coercion by the US or under threat of veto or being over ridden by the security council should decide that invasion is the proper course of action. And if the world decides it is not called for THEN THE US SHOULD ABIDE BY IT. That is what it means to have an international demmocractic system of justice. Again we must practice what we preach. And sometimes that means that our desires get over ridden.
As the pre-eminent power the US has a difficult role to fill. In the end we have to do it better. We have to be cleaner. And with our ideals we HAVE to practice what we preach. Right now we are not doing that. For example take Guantanamo. We are holding folks outside our system of law because of a technicality and because it is conveinient and it does not look good. We invaded a country because we felt the regieme needed to be changed due to the fact it represented a potential threat. That Saddam was a rabid dog that needed dealing with is not in doubt. But we dealt with him poorly starting way the hell back when we backed the guy in his bid for power in the first place. And to top it all off we made the decision unilaterally. If we had turned up smoking guns we would have looked great... the saviours of the world. Instead we are the nation that cried wolf and who is embroiled in a NASTY occupation effort that could take decades to sort out. If we continue in this vein then sooner or later we are going to be seen as a mad dog much like Germany was around WWII. They too were mighty. They too had no single peer militarily in the world. But history has shown again and again that no nation is so mighty that it cannot fall once it oversteps its bounds.
Bush aint Hitler... and the Republicans aint the Nazi's. But I have a harder and harder time beliving that the US has not begun to seriously overstep its bounds. After all the road to hell is paved with good intentions and it doesn't matter if you get there through trying to be evil... or if you do it by accident. In the end we are going to be held accountable for our deeds and at the moment the ledger isn't looking so hot.
The rhetoric surrounding the Iran situation sounds familiar as I am sure many have noticed. After the last intelligence debacle regarding the so called WMD threat posed by Iraq I am going to be far far far less willing to take this administrations say so on what they THINK are Iran's intentions. Rice has accused the letter of not dealing with the US request to cease Enrichment. Well I personally am not sure the US has delt with why Iran should not be allowed to enrich or just why the US thinks that is not all they intend to do. Suspicion that they MIGHT do something wrong is not valid justification for invading a country. You know that whole Innocent until proven guilty thing can be a bitch when it gets in the way of getting what you want. And pre-emptive strikes only carries weight as a rational reason for waging war if it turns up ye olde smoking gun. They tried this mess with Iraq and the smoking gun didn't turn up. That means WE made a bad choice and WE have a poor track record of this kind of assesment and WE should have to explain ourselves. And most importantly its means WE shouldn't be rushing off the DO IT ALL AGAIN.
Now don't get me wrong. If Iran so much as blinks wrong in terms of what they are doing with their program I am all in favor of "Shock and Awe II: Steel Rain over Tehran". We really really really do not need a country with an idealogical leader who doesn't have a whole lot of problem with bringing about the appocalypse pointing Nuclear weapons at folks. But frankly I think the next invasion of a soverign nation over the possibility they pose a threat to world stability should be a decision made by the world. IE the UN without coercion by the US or under threat of veto or being over ridden by the security council should decide that invasion is the proper course of action. And if the world decides it is not called for THEN THE US SHOULD ABIDE BY IT. That is what it means to have an international demmocractic system of justice. Again we must practice what we preach. And sometimes that means that our desires get over ridden.
As the pre-eminent power the US has a difficult role to fill. In the end we have to do it better. We have to be cleaner. And with our ideals we HAVE to practice what we preach. Right now we are not doing that. For example take Guantanamo. We are holding folks outside our system of law because of a technicality and because it is conveinient and it does not look good. We invaded a country because we felt the regieme needed to be changed due to the fact it represented a potential threat. That Saddam was a rabid dog that needed dealing with is not in doubt. But we dealt with him poorly starting way the hell back when we backed the guy in his bid for power in the first place. And to top it all off we made the decision unilaterally. If we had turned up smoking guns we would have looked great... the saviours of the world. Instead we are the nation that cried wolf and who is embroiled in a NASTY occupation effort that could take decades to sort out. If we continue in this vein then sooner or later we are going to be seen as a mad dog much like Germany was around WWII. They too were mighty. They too had no single peer militarily in the world. But history has shown again and again that no nation is so mighty that it cannot fall once it oversteps its bounds.
Bush aint Hitler... and the Republicans aint the Nazi's. But I have a harder and harder time beliving that the US has not begun to seriously overstep its bounds. After all the road to hell is paved with good intentions and it doesn't matter if you get there through trying to be evil... or if you do it by accident. In the end we are going to be held accountable for our deeds and at the moment the ledger isn't looking so hot.
Sunday, May 07, 2006
Iran as a nuclear power ?
IRAN seems to be on the road to causing a serious confrontation over Nuclear proliferation. I am very seriously mixed on this issue. If, and I stress IF, Iran only wants nuclear material generation capacity for power generation alone then they have a serious beef with the limitation being placed on them by the UN. On the other hand if the claims they only want to use power generation as a mask for nuclear weapons development are legitimate then the UN may very well have a reason for its meddling in Iran's affairs.
This is the ultimate example of the problem of the UN. Iran is challenging the limitations placed on it as a secondary member of the world power structure. The UN is rightly viewed as largely a rubber stamp for the security council's desires... The US in particular. I think it is time that the UN either be dissolved, or it needs to be revamped into a true world governing system. And if we are so interested in promoting democracies to the world then we need to create a true democratic world governing body. Rather than the farce of the UN system. Sure the UN 'leader' is elected. But the over ride veto of the super power nations makes it a joke. The UN general assembly is largely a dog and pony show that takes a back seat to the security council.
That said I certainly don't see the major powers abdicating their sovereignty to the UN any time soon. However I think Iran has a legitimate beef. France has the right to pursue greater and greater use of nuclear power generation... why not Iran? Obviously because we don't trust them. But here comes that wonderful old saw about innocent until proven guilty. We went around and around this debate before finally striking first against Iraq in a move largely predicated on the idea of do unto Saddam before Saddam could do unto us. Only that backfired and we found that Saddam was most likely not anywhere near ready to do anything unto us.
Is Iran different? Is the Sky REALLY falling this time? Is a wolf REALLY after the sheep? Is it just me or is anyone else feeling that this threat of a random Islamic fundamentalist created mushroom cloud story is starting to sound an awful lot like the Boogey man stories our parents scared us with as little kids? Have we gone from conversion to Christianity by the sword in the crusades... To political power transition at gun point? I don't know. There are strong arguments to be made against allowing Iran to develop into a nuclear power. Considering some of the commentary by its leadership it isn't all that crazy to have serious doubts about just what exactly it hopes to gain out of a more comprehensive nuclear infrastructure. And close examination of their fundamental beliefs can raise serious questions about how constrained they would feel in deploying nuclear weapons. But at the same time they are a sovereign nation. And just like we believe in 'We the People' and equal rights. Nations have certain inalienable rights with regards to decisions about what they will do. And if the UN wishes to pass sanctions against certain technologies and ban their use.... it would be best if such a ban were equally enforced on all nations. Else we find ourselves in a prejudiced system that is not interested in equality or democracy.. but one which is interested in dictating what works best and is most convenient for those already in power.
This is the ultimate example of the problem of the UN. Iran is challenging the limitations placed on it as a secondary member of the world power structure. The UN is rightly viewed as largely a rubber stamp for the security council's desires... The US in particular. I think it is time that the UN either be dissolved, or it needs to be revamped into a true world governing system. And if we are so interested in promoting democracies to the world then we need to create a true democratic world governing body. Rather than the farce of the UN system. Sure the UN 'leader' is elected. But the over ride veto of the super power nations makes it a joke. The UN general assembly is largely a dog and pony show that takes a back seat to the security council.
That said I certainly don't see the major powers abdicating their sovereignty to the UN any time soon. However I think Iran has a legitimate beef. France has the right to pursue greater and greater use of nuclear power generation... why not Iran? Obviously because we don't trust them. But here comes that wonderful old saw about innocent until proven guilty. We went around and around this debate before finally striking first against Iraq in a move largely predicated on the idea of do unto Saddam before Saddam could do unto us. Only that backfired and we found that Saddam was most likely not anywhere near ready to do anything unto us.
Is Iran different? Is the Sky REALLY falling this time? Is a wolf REALLY after the sheep? Is it just me or is anyone else feeling that this threat of a random Islamic fundamentalist created mushroom cloud story is starting to sound an awful lot like the Boogey man stories our parents scared us with as little kids? Have we gone from conversion to Christianity by the sword in the crusades... To political power transition at gun point? I don't know. There are strong arguments to be made against allowing Iran to develop into a nuclear power. Considering some of the commentary by its leadership it isn't all that crazy to have serious doubts about just what exactly it hopes to gain out of a more comprehensive nuclear infrastructure. And close examination of their fundamental beliefs can raise serious questions about how constrained they would feel in deploying nuclear weapons. But at the same time they are a sovereign nation. And just like we believe in 'We the People' and equal rights. Nations have certain inalienable rights with regards to decisions about what they will do. And if the UN wishes to pass sanctions against certain technologies and ban their use.... it would be best if such a ban were equally enforced on all nations. Else we find ourselves in a prejudiced system that is not interested in equality or democracy.. but one which is interested in dictating what works best and is most convenient for those already in power.
Wednesday, May 03, 2006
The World is Flat
There is a book out there called "The World is Flat". I am about half way through it and hope to finish it but I can't help but be distracted by what seems to me some serious oversights thus far in the authors thinking. First off if you didn't guess the flat aspect he is refering to is the new reality of economics. The driving force behind outsourcing and off shoring manufacturing is what he is reffering to as the new "Flat" earth. And he is right. At least in how he has chosen to approach the subject matter. Advancing communications technology and hyper efficient long haul supply chains have opened up a far more competitive world economy than has ever existed before.
The thing is... I think he is wrong to say the world is flat in this manner. Indian outsourcing due to cheap digital connections has very little to do with a flat playing field and everything to do with absurdly disadvantageous currency exchange rates for the US worker. On a flat playing field two players of equal talent would have essentially the same chance at a job. This is not the case. Take equally educated and experienced programers, one in the US and one in India and there is no contest. Due to exchange rates you can hire the equal services of the Indian programmer for a fraction of the cost of the US programmer. Even if the US worker is more skilled you can afford more than one Indian programmer for the cost of a single US programmer. In fact at current rates you can hire about 5 of them. In the general scheme of things 5 programmers will net you more results than 1.
That isn't Flat. Thats Rigged. We ought to be trying to sign other nations up to the Dollar... similar to the way the Euro has enveloped continental Europe. Hell lets adopt the Euro and force the UK in with us... and Canada and Mexico and India and China and Russia. Lets put the world on the same currency. Then with a world wide 1-1 currency we will see just how flat the playing field is after all. Right now the world is flat in the way a horse race is flattened. The stronger racers are weighted down to give the others a fighting chance. The stronger your currency, the stronger your handicap.
I don't mind competing with Indian IT workers. I don't mind competing with Chinese Labor. I do not even mind if these folks can undercut me and offer to do things for less. After all thats the bread and butter of the invisible hand and capitalism. However... thats not what is happening. Indian programers are not undercutting western programmers. In fact the money they are paid gives them more purchasing power in their economy than the rates their western counterparts are paid. They are not undercutting. They are benifiting from currency inequalities. The US worker has no means by which to compete with this. Again that means that it is not... I repeat NOT a level playing field.
IMHO A "FLAT" world economy, that is to say a level playing field, is one in which equally skilled workers have equal opportunity at being hired for a job. That most certainly is not the current state of affairs. To Friedman's credit he is not suggesting such a state exists. He simply says that we should cede any such jobs as can be done adequately via long supply lines and digital communications to countries with favorable exchange rates generating 'cheap' labor. I find that horribly short sighted. For one these are the bulk employers. They are the tasks which have created the ever so important American middle class. We should not give them up lightly or under such anti competitive circumstances. And yes... exchange rates like those that exist between the US and Asia/India constitute anti competitive circumstances. So by all means bring on this Flat world. Lets level the playing field... for the US worker as well as the Indian, Asian and Russian. But lets not kid ourselves and suggest that such a situation exists at the moment. So long as such absurd inequalities exist in the various currencies involved then the playing field will never be Level.
The thing is... I think he is wrong to say the world is flat in this manner. Indian outsourcing due to cheap digital connections has very little to do with a flat playing field and everything to do with absurdly disadvantageous currency exchange rates for the US worker. On a flat playing field two players of equal talent would have essentially the same chance at a job. This is not the case. Take equally educated and experienced programers, one in the US and one in India and there is no contest. Due to exchange rates you can hire the equal services of the Indian programmer for a fraction of the cost of the US programmer. Even if the US worker is more skilled you can afford more than one Indian programmer for the cost of a single US programmer. In fact at current rates you can hire about 5 of them. In the general scheme of things 5 programmers will net you more results than 1.
That isn't Flat. Thats Rigged. We ought to be trying to sign other nations up to the Dollar... similar to the way the Euro has enveloped continental Europe. Hell lets adopt the Euro and force the UK in with us... and Canada and Mexico and India and China and Russia. Lets put the world on the same currency. Then with a world wide 1-1 currency we will see just how flat the playing field is after all. Right now the world is flat in the way a horse race is flattened. The stronger racers are weighted down to give the others a fighting chance. The stronger your currency, the stronger your handicap.
I don't mind competing with Indian IT workers. I don't mind competing with Chinese Labor. I do not even mind if these folks can undercut me and offer to do things for less. After all thats the bread and butter of the invisible hand and capitalism. However... thats not what is happening. Indian programers are not undercutting western programmers. In fact the money they are paid gives them more purchasing power in their economy than the rates their western counterparts are paid. They are not undercutting. They are benifiting from currency inequalities. The US worker has no means by which to compete with this. Again that means that it is not... I repeat NOT a level playing field.
IMHO A "FLAT" world economy, that is to say a level playing field, is one in which equally skilled workers have equal opportunity at being hired for a job. That most certainly is not the current state of affairs. To Friedman's credit he is not suggesting such a state exists. He simply says that we should cede any such jobs as can be done adequately via long supply lines and digital communications to countries with favorable exchange rates generating 'cheap' labor. I find that horribly short sighted. For one these are the bulk employers. They are the tasks which have created the ever so important American middle class. We should not give them up lightly or under such anti competitive circumstances. And yes... exchange rates like those that exist between the US and Asia/India constitute anti competitive circumstances. So by all means bring on this Flat world. Lets level the playing field... for the US worker as well as the Indian, Asian and Russian. But lets not kid ourselves and suggest that such a situation exists at the moment. So long as such absurd inequalities exist in the various currencies involved then the playing field will never be Level.
Samsung Q1 pricing released
Yep its out ... and it is running $1100. I don't get it. You can buy a tablet PC with better specs for that now. I think the UMPC has a future. But at this price it isn't going to go anywhere fast. At this price it isn't going to be a PDA. With those specs and lack of easy full scale input it isn't going to be someones full time system unless they have very specific needs. This form factor has advantages but this price just points out its awkwardness. Not to many folks are going to buy this as a complementary device at this price point. Ah well moores laws will get after it before to long. I imagine in a year or so the price will drop down into the more realistic 400-500 range.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)