Month: February 2011

HP/Palms Unveiling Event

So today is the big day, HP/Palm will finally be unveiling new devices. It’s likely going to be a combo of one or two smartphones and a tablet. Either way Pre|Central will have a live blog going which will be available here.

Honestly I’m rather excited and hopeful that HP/Palm unveil something impressive that could rekindle people’s interest in WebOS.

Renewal of PATRIOT Act Provisions Fails in House Vote

Although nobody was paying attention anyways I thought I’d let you know that the attempt to fast-track renewals of certain provisions of the PATRIOT Act failed in a House vote last evening. If this were a landslide vote I’d have had a bit more confidence in our “representatives” but it narrowly failed to achieve the 290 votes by a mere 13.

The three clauses that are up for renewal are first the provision that allows the FBI to perform warrantless wiretaps, second the provision that allows the government access to any desired records on your person, and third the provision that allows the FBI to place people under surveillance who have no known ties to terrorist organizations.

This doesn’t mean the PATRIOT Act is dead. In fact the White House would prefer to have the three provisions extended until 2013:

The White House on Tuesday said in a statement that it “does not object” to extending the three Patriot Act provisions until December 2011 although it “would strongly prefer” an extension until December 2013, noting that the longer timeline “provides the necessary certainty and predictability” that law enforcement agencies require while at the same time ensuring congressional oversight by maintaining a sunset.

Hope and change ladies and gentlemen. The House and Senate both have competing bills for renewing these provisions of the PATRIOT Act. In face one of our all time favorite “representatives,” Feinstien, is on the case to rape your rights:

In addition to the House legislation, the Senate is considering three competing timelines, including proposals that would permanently extend the three provisions or extend them through 2013. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), both of whom have introduced competing proposals, said Monday that committee members continue to work toward an agreement but declined to speculate as to the end result.

Surprised? I didn’t think so.

Since the Cat is Out of the Bag

My interest in Palm’s WebOS should be well known to anybody who’s read this site for a while. Although I’ve had a lot of interest and did eventually get a used Palm Pre I never ended us using a new Palm device as my primary phone. The main reason was the fact their hardware was woefully behind once I finally decided to upgrade form my Palm Treo 755p.

Palm (well technically now HP but I like calling them Palm better) has been running a discount program form developers. If you’re a developer Palm will give you $200.00 off of an unlock Pre 2. It’s a pretty sweet deal when you consider it’s an unlocked phone that gives you access to WebOS 2.0. A couple of weeks ago I inquired with Palm about this program and they sent me back a couple of e-mails asking about the applications I was planning on writing. This was basically a quick screening process to ensure I wasn’t just trying to get a cheap unlocked phone, but instead actually planning on developing for the platform.

After a couple of e-mails they offered me a free Pre 2 for development purposes. I figured that was a pretty good deal and took them up on the offer. I’m not exactly sure when the phone will arrive but I was told it could arrive as early as this week (although being Palm is having their big event tomorrow I was told that was no guarantee).

Either way I didn’t say anything as I was unsure if this was something Palm was doing but wanted to keep if to developers expressing interest in the discount program. Well it seems that’s not the case and Palm has 100 99 Pre 2 phones they’re planning on giving out to developers free of charge. So if you’re a developer and have interest in WebOS you could get a hold of Palm via the Pre 2 discount program. It’s likely you can nab yourself free reference hardware (that will function properly on either T-Mobile or AT&T but will only have 3G speeds on AT&T).

Stay Classy Chrysler

You know what’s classy? Running a $9 million ad during the super bowl and then turning around and asking for more taxpayer dollars to continue bailing out your failed business:

“I am paying shyster rates,” Marchionne said, noting that Chrysler had no choice in 2009 but to pay the high interest rates the government set as part of its $15 billion Chrysler bailout. “We had no choice… I am going to pay the shyster loans.”

He called the loans “a thorn in my side.”

Chrysler’s also in talks with banks to refinance its debt and plans to have an “agreement in principle” by end of March, he said.

Marchionne spoke at an auto industry conference sponsored by JD Power at a hotel here ahead of the National Automobile Dealers Association three-day convention. He said he is hopeful that the company can win an agreement in principle for $3 billion in low-cost Energy Department retooling loan — a move that is necessary for Chrysler to win private financing, Marchionne said.

Emphasis mine. How about we just let Chrysler go bankrupt to some more competent company can buy up their assets and product cars that people of the world actually want to buy?

Why Minnesota’s Economy is in the Tank

I’m sure many of you have heard of Surly Brewing Corporation. They are a local Minnesota brewery who makes some might find beer. Yesterday they announced plans to for a $20 million expansion that would include a restaurant and beer garden. This sounded great to me as it would create some great private sector jobs in this state which are sorely needed.

Well it would be great except for the fact that Surly can’t start construction because of currently existing legislation. Once again the government is getting in the way of private enterprises. So what is this legislation? Well, in Minnesota, only small breweries are allowed to sell beer for on-site consumption. Once you get beyond an arbitrary size you are no longer allowed to run a restaurant and a brewery because that would just make too much sense (you know there was a special interest bar lobby that pushed this to avoid competition with local breweries).

Once again instead of just being able to go about legitimate business a private company has to hire a lobbying firm in the hopes of getting a stupid law repealed. If the law can be repealed then said the legitimate business can actually go about helping the local economy by creating new positions for the currently unemployed. No wonder Minnesota’s economy is in the tank, legitimate businesses aren’t allowed to actually do business.

More Red Star Stupidity

Yet another Letter to the Editor dealing with guns finds its way into the Red Star. This one was written by a Mark Weber of Minneapolis and thankfully it’s short:

Those who agree with the Feb. 4 letter writer who touted a safety record of 65 million gun owners not killing anyone must take great comfort in the fact that a very high percentage of people driving under the influence of alcohol make it to their destination without causing a traffic fatality.

I absolutely love this complete failure at attempting to use logic. He tries to compare owning a firearm with driving under the influence. This argument doesn’t make any sense for the simple reason that owning a firearm is perfectly legal for most people while driving under the influence is never legal. Comparing completely unrelated things doesn’t make for a good argument.

I’ll give it a try myself and you tell me if it makes sense. Those who touted a safety record of 65 million gun owners not killing anybody must take great comfort int he fact that unicorns are eaten by trolls. If I were to enter a debate with you and use that argument you’d probably just (rightfully) declare yourself the victor and walk away.

Driving under the influence would be akin to a felon purchasing a firearm which will remain illegal even if Minnesota repeals it’s ridiculous permit to purchase law. You know why? Because the federal background check will still be performed and thus known felons will be denied the ability to purchase said firearm. I can’t wrap my head around the whole idea that somebody would actually listen to some of these people and nod their head in agreement.

Why Fraud Pays

Why do people continue to do fraud? Because it pays well, often even if you’re caught. Take for example this case over at Bruce Schneier’s blog:

Here’s one scareware operator who sold “more than 1 million software products” at “$39.95 or more,” and now has to pay $8.2 million to settle a Federal Trade Commission complaint.

A man was in charge of an Internet scam where a pop-up appears in your web browser informing you that your computer is infected with some kind of malicious software. These pop-ups then try to get you to purchase software that will disinfect your machine. The problem is these are scams and no reputable anti-malware developer would use such tactics (as it would be the end of their business likely). The software author charges a said amount for the software (in this case $39.95) and that’s that.

Well if you have 1 million customers who paid you $39.95 and are required to pay the FTC $8.2 million you’re only paying $8.20 per sucker leaving you with $31.75 in profit for each person who fell for your scam. That’s a pretty good profit.

According to the story the FTC will use the money to pay back the customers who were suckered into the deal. If this is the case that means each sucker will not be getting all of their money back (we’ll call this a fine for being dumb) or their reimbursement will be subsidized by tax money (which would be a horrible idea). Honestly I’m betting money the FTC never gets around to paying those suckers back.

Let this story also be a lesson to you, don’t fall for scams that claim your system is infected.

The Evolution of Attempting to Repeal Minnesota’s Permit to Purchase Law

I’ve been following the progress of the bill to repeal Minnesota’s redundant and ridiculous permit to purchase law. What I think is interesting is how this bill has evolved. The bill first started off as HF 161 which would have extended the validity of permits to purchase to five years [PDF].

This would have made sense in that you’d only have to renew the purchase permit as often as a carry permit. In Minnesota a permit to carry also works as a permit to purchase so those of use with carry permits never have to obtain separate permits to purchase. Likewise permits to carry are good for five years before you have to retest. Nobody could ever give me a good reason why a permit to purchase was only good for a year while a permit to carry was good for five years, they should have both been good for five years.

Well apparently HF 161 was amended with the following [PDF] which just eliminates the stupid permit to purchase all together. I’m not sure how this bill went from simply extending the validity period of a permit to purchase to eliminating it completely but I’m glad it did.

A few law enforcement organizations are opposed to repealing this requirement and cite claims of the state background checks being more thorough. I believe this has more to do with the fact that they like having the authority to tell who can and can not exercise their right to bear certain arms (you don’t need a permit to purchase for shotguns or “sporting purpose rifles” just handguns and “assault-weapons”).

If the state background checks actually caught anybody that would have been missed by a federal background check I can guarantee you that the law enforcement organizations would be touting out each and every instance to prove their point. The fact that they haven’t brought out a single instance leads me to believe it’s never happened or has happened so rarely that bringing up the numbers would be embarrassing considering the cost of doing these additional background checks.

White House Delays Requirement of Reporting Near-Border Gun Purchases

It seems the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives (ATF) didn’t get what they wanted from the White House. Word came down that the executive branch of our federal government has delayed the reporting requirement:

White House budget officials dealt federal firearms investigators a setback Friday when they rejected an emergency request for a rule meant to help catch gunrunners to Mexico.

There are two things that are interesting about this situation. First it seems this ruling would establish a restriction of your right to privacy depending on where you decided to live. That is to say people near the border of Mexico have less of a right to privacy than somebody living in Washington. Double standards are so much fun. The second thing of interest is the fact the ruling is asking for the impossible:

The decision delays for at least two months a proposed requirement that gun dealers along the Mexican border report anyone who buys two or more assault weapons in five days. White House officials said the delay will give the public more time – until Feb. 14 – to comment on the proposal.

How can you report on something that doesn’t exist? The term “assault weapon” isn’t an actual classification of any firearm type I’ve heard of.