Month: August 2011

Vacation Time

Dear readers it has come time again for my annual vacation. I’m going to be taking the week off and heading to Defcon on Las Vegas. Why do you care? Ultimately because my vacation will directly interfere with this blog as I’m not really planning on making promises to write up posts during my off time (for me a vacation means skirting all of my responsibilities, not just my job).

Never fear though because I’ve planned ahead and have some material pre-written for the days I’ll be gone. I’ve written a sort of mini-series that will provide one post a day and then threw in some miscellaneous posts for good measure. It’s unlikely that I’ll be posting while I’m at Defcon because that place is a war zone when it comes to network and honestly nothing can be considered truly safe. I’m not saying you won’t see any posts I haven’t already pre-written but I’m making no promises that you won’t.

So while I’m away you’ll likely notice only a reduction in the number of posts that appear per day and that those posts likely won’t be related to anything that happened after today. Let me close by saying this… FUCK YEAH VACATION TIME!

Don’t Ask the State if Something is Legal, They’ll Just Arrest You

A Swedish citizen decided he wanted to build a personal nuclear reactor. Kudos for having true ambition but alas he made a mistake, he asked the Swedish Radiation Authority if it was legal so they had him arrested:

Despite the man’s frank and full disclosure of his experiment, his activities only came to the attention of the authorities a couple of weeks ago when he contacted the Swedish Radiation Authority (Strålsäkerhetsmyndigheten) to inquire if it was legal to construct a nuclear reactor at home.

The man was told that somebody would be sent to measure the levels of radiation in his flat.

“When they came they had the police with them. I have had a Geiger counter and have not detected a problem with radiation,” the 31-year-old told the local Helsingborgs Dagblad (HD).

The man was arrested by the police and taken in for questioning. He admitted to his plans and was later released.

It would probably have been less hassle had the man just attempted to build a reactor and seen whether or not it worked. Let this be a lesson, don’t ask the government is something is legal or not; if what you’re asking about is illegal it’s illegal to ask about it.

I Don’t Think That Word Means What You Think It Means

I’m pretty sure Godwin’s Law should be modified a bit for politicians. Anytime a politician makes a comparison to terrorists the argument should be considered over and the politician who made the comparison should be considered the loser of the debate. Apparently opposing an increase in taxes is something that should land you on one of the terrorist watch lists according to Mike Doyle and Joe Biden:

Biden was agreeing with a line of argument made by Rep. Mike Doyle (D-Pa.) at a two-hour, closed-door Democratic Caucus meeting.

“We have negotiated with terrorists,” an angry Doyle said, according to sources in the room. “This small group of terrorists have made it impossible to spend any money.”

Biden, driven by his Democratic allies’ misgivings about the debt-limit deal, responded: “They have acted like terrorists.”

Well if my name isn’t already on one or several of your watch lists you better toss it on because I oppose any increase of taxes on any person (I don’t give a shit if it’s the “rich” or “poor” who get the increase, I oppose it). I also love Biden’s other comment:

Earlier in the day, Biden told Senate Democrats that Republican leaders have “guns to their heads” in trying to negotiate deals.

How do you like the taste of your own medicine asshole? The government enforces all of their laws, rules, and regulations by putting guns to the heads of American citizens. You bastards on Capitol Hill make it very clear that if us serfs violate one of your innumerable laws you’ll use force against us. Hell according to Joe Biden that must make himself and every other member of our government a terrorist.

For All Those Who Think Cutting Government Expenditures Would Be Bad

When it comes to the debate about the debt there seems to be two camps; the people who say we must increase taxes (the people who are wrong) and those who say we must cut government expenditures (the people who are right). What’s funny about this debate is that those who claim we can’t cut the amount government is spending without killing all the puppies and kittens in the country don’t realize one crucial fact, which Ron Paul brings up:

Federal revenues for 2012 likely will amount to about $2.2 trillion, an amount roughly equal to the 2004 federal budget. To balance the 2012 budget, Congress simply needs to adopt 2004 spending levels. Was the federal government really too small just 8 years ago?

Did every puppy and kitten die in 2004? No, so clearly reducing our spending to levels found nearly six years ago won’t cause the end of this country. Think about that for a second, we can balance the country’s budget but simply returning to the same spending level we had six years ago. It’s that simple. Why are we even having this huge show on Capitol Hill when the answer is that fucking simple? Oh yeah, because the show isn’t about what will best serve the American people, it’s about political maneuvering and ensuring blame for the poor economic conditions is placed on the other party.

And By Misconception You Mean Anybody Who Disagrees With You

The Red Star recently asked it’s readers (all five of them) what they believed should be changed about the Letters to the Editor section. Needless to say the submissions were interesting to say the least:

What makes the most sense to me would be to put the letters based on misconception in a special section, or not to publish them at all.

I often cringe when the Star Tribune publishes such letters, because I think it inevitably implies a stamp of approval to some extent of that underlying misconception. But I do think it is useful to know what people are thinking, thus my idea for a special section, despite the obvious difficulty for the Star Tribune to relegating such letters/readers to a “dunce section.”

If the Strib doesn’t have the heart/spine to do that, I feel not publishing would be best, and let those other opinions come out in readers’ commentary online.

Long live the Star Tribune! Thanks for all the good work.

JIM DUSTRUDE, MOUND

What Jim is really saying is, “Anybody who disagrees with me is obviously wrong and thus should be relegated to a special section or simply not published at all. Also I like to sodomize myself with retractable batons.” OK maybe he didn’t say that last part but he did say the first part.

Guess what asshole? Just because somebody disagrees with you doesn’t mean their opinion is based on misconceptions.

I think that the foremost consideration needs to be realization that publishing a letter lends credibility to the ideas expressed therein, simply because most people will assume that the Star Tribune would not publish nonsense. An immediate follow-up to that is that the Star Tribune only tarnishes its reputation by publishing nonsense, because a significant number of readers will recognize nonsense when they see it.

Publishing letters at random or even selecting representatives of all points of view just leads to a meaningless cacophony. I understand that the newspaper cannot referee every letter that comes in, but I think best effort should be made to filter out blatant nonsense.

I also understand that the purveyors of nonsense will accuse the Star Tribune of editorial bias. To those, I recommend that the Star respond that freedom of the press only applies to people who have presses.

DAVID PERLMAN, NEW HOPE

David is also suggesting that opinions that don’t agree with his beliefs shouldn’t be published. Hell he flat out says publishing a representation of all sides is a bad idea. Can you tell that the Red Star is read mostly by statist pricks who view themselves as being beyond the possibility of error? Thankfully not all is lost:

Isn’t it interesting that some people don’t think anything is worth printing if it doesn’t agree with their own views? I personally enjoy reading some of the more ridiculous (my perception) letters, as it gives me some sense of who else is out there — pretty scary sometimes, but necessary for one’s own survival strategies.

I do notice, however, that several contributors’ names pop up rather frequently. If there are so many submissions on a daily basis, surely these favored few could be put on the back burner for awhile in favor of others.

JEANNE TORMA, MINNEAPOLIS

Although Jeanne is basically saying, “I like to read letters from people who are wrong because it further cements my belief in being right.” at least she’s not for simply censoring everything she disagrees with.

Obviously the Red Star is free to do whatever it pleases, just as I’m free to do whatever I please on this site. But it’s comical to read letters from people who flat out state that they want letters that disagree with their believes to be thrown in the trash instead of published. Maybe the Red Star could hire these people and start a council to determine what letters should and shouldn’t be published. The paper could even give this council a catchy name like the Paper Soviet. They could even start witch hunts to weed out council members who aren’t “true” soviets.

You Reap What You Sow

I’m not against the concept of unions as I believe anybody who wants to voluntarily join together with others is a right. What I am against though is when unions use the government’s monopoly on force to make companies comply with the demands of unions. Here’s how I see it, you’re more than welcome to start a union to fight for increased pay, benefits, and conditions just as the company is more than welcome to fire all of your asses if your demands are too high or you’re not willing to negotiate. The concept is called free association, I can choose to associate with you and you can choose to associate with me but neither of us are required to associate with one another.

There are union protests going on at several American Crystal Sugar because the company finally got fed up with the union’s demands and dumped them for non-union employees:

The union representing sugar beet processors says more than 1,200 employees were turned away from entering seven American Crystal Sugar plants in Minnesota, North Dakota and Iowa Monday morning.

The current labor contract expired at midnight Sunday after production workers overwhelmingly rejected the company’s final offer Saturday.

Replacement workers arrived in vans before dawn. In East Grand Forks, security guards were posted at the plant entrances and a line was spray painted outside the doors — a line union employees were told not to cross. WDAZ-TV reports about 120 union workers showed up about 6:15 a.m., but were turned away. Some stayed to picket the plant.

[…]

After the union rejected the company’s offer Saturday, American Crystal Sugar Vice President Brian Ingulsrud said the union rejected a 13 percent pay increase over a five-year contract plus a $2,000 signing bonus.

Negotiations require both sides to give to reach a mutually agreeable solution. Although American Crystal Sugar man an offer to increase the wages of union workers by 13% in a time of economic hardship (plus a $2,000 signing bonus) the union decided that wasn’t enough and refused to accept the offer. Here’s the other thing about negotiations, your side has far less power if is willing to walk away and they will walk away if they find you’re demands are too high. American Crystal Sugar found the union’s demands to be unreasonable and thus game them the finger and hired new employees who are likely to cause fewer headaches.

Of course the union claimed that the negotiations are not about pay but on granting the union a monopoly on labor:

“These negotiations are not and never have been about pay,” Riskey added on Saturday. “The company’s offer still has major loopholes allowing non-union contractors to replace union workers and makes health insurance unaffordable. Any raise is meaningless if our health care costs increase even more or if management can eliminate our jobs and replace us at will.”

What company is going to accept terms where they’re unable to hire non-union employees? That’s basically asking the company to tie their hands behind their back during future negotiations. If I owned a company I would never agree to terms that prevent me, the owner, from running things as I damn well pleased. In exchange for not having to deal with such nonsense I’d ensure I paid my employees well so I wouldn’t have to go through the hardship of hiring and retraining new people constantly.

The union is literally saying that they want a monopoly on hiring employees for American Crystal Sugar. I understand why the whole lot of them were replaced although I’m sure if union employees were willing to leave the union and return to work American Crystal Sugar would have no issue rehiring them (although the union might break that employee’s kneecaps). I also love the final part:

Health costs would go up an average of about $1,000 per employee, which is significantly less than their pay increase, the company said. The union says their out-of-pocket health care costs, on average, would more than double.

You wanted your “free” government provide healthcare and now you got it, and you’re going to have to pay dearly for it. Welcome to government interference in the market, the more power you give the government the higher the cost of providing goods and services in that market. The national unions strongly supported the Health Insurance Company Enrichment Act and are now reaping what they sowed. Sadly they made sure all of us got fucked along with them.

My Thoughts on Raising the Debt Ceiling

I don’t think I’ve talked any about the current “debate” over whether or not the government should raise the debt ceiling. The reason I haven’t talked about it is the same reason I put the word debate in quotations, I don’t view this as a debate at all but simply political theater. You know damn well that the government will raise the debt ceiling, they’re too addicted to unlimited money not to.

If you’ve been reading this site for very long it’s probably obvious that I oppose raising the debt ceiling because it would hopefully force some semblance of a balanced budget. Overall though I find it rather absurd that the government has the power to raise it’s own credit limit.

Right now our government is like an 18 year-old kid who just received a credit card. As many 18 year-old kids have no concept of managing money our hypothetical kid goes out on a giant spending spree and maxes out the card’s $1,000 limit (number arbitrarily selected). Keeping with our government is the kid analogy, through some stupid mishap in the contract the kid was allowed to raise his credit limit whenever he wants. Instead of trying to pay off the $1,000 that he owes the kid decides he’ll just raise his credit limit by another $1,000 worry about paying the money back later. He keeps doing this through the years and eventually ends up with a debt of $100,000 dollars which he has no hope of every paying back.

That’s where our government is, they have a multi-trillion dollar debt that they can’t hope to pay back so they’re not worried about it. Nobody has called us on our debt yet (and most of it his held domestically anyways) so why worry about it? But the fact of the matter is our government is insolvent and could never payback the debt if needed. I would love to see some attempt of fiscal responsibility by leaving the debt ceiling firmly where it is but I know it won’t happen, it’ll get raise now and again next year and again the year after that.

The entire “debate” is political theater with the Republicans trying to pander to the fiscally responsible and the Democrats pandering to those who want free shit. Both parties fully intend to continue giving free shit but they want to be able to point at the other party and blame them for the increasing debt/lack of free shit.

EDIT: 2011-08-01 6:07: I wrote this power last night before going to bed and this morning saw that the cronies on Capitol Hill reached a “deal” to raise the debt ceiling. I could have deleted this power as it hadn’t been published yet but I’m leaving here because I like demonstrating when I’m right; it boosts my ego.

We Need More of This

What if there was an election and nobody ran? That’s what happened in the small North Carolina town of Tar Heel:

In the North Carolina town of Tar Heel, residents won’t have to worry about Big Government. It’s looking like No Government.

Nobody’s on the ballot for November elections, a county elections official told CNN Monday.

“The town had two weeks to file and no one stepped up to the plate,” said Cynthia Shaw, director of the Bladen County board of elections.

Granted this happened in a very small town but I’d love to see such things occur in large cities and even whole congressional districts. With very few exceptions those running for political seats aren’t doing it because they want to represent the people, they do it because they want power to wield of people. It would be nice to see people no longer jockeying for power or being willing to play the political game. As you can see by watching any major debate those outside of the political faction who want to control the everyday lives of American citizens are shut out by those inside. Politics is nothing but a giant play for power and we’re the ones who are getting fucked.

I wouldn’t feel bad at all if my congressional district had no “representation” at either the state of federal level. Why? Because having nobody willing to run would make the statement that there isn’t anybody in the district who wants to have power over others. On top of that anybody who would actually represent me is never going to get a voice in government bodies run almost entirely by statists, so what the hell do I care?

The Coolest Flying Drone Out There

What if I told you there was an unmanned drone that was developed to fly around, sniff Wi-Fi networks, and eavesdrop on GSM phone conversations? You’d probably get angry and yet another device developed by Motherland Homeland Security to spy on the citizens of the United States. In this case your rage would be misdirected because this drone was developed by a private individual trying to raise awareness of the poor security found on many Wi-Fi and all GSM networks:

At the Black Hat and Defcon security conferences in Las Vegas next week, Mike Tassey and Richard Perkins plan to show the crowd of hackers a year’s worth of progress on their Wireless Aerial Surveillace Platform, or WASP, the second year Tassey and Perkins have displayed the 14-pound, six-foot long, six-foot wingspan unmanned aerial vehicle. The WASP, built from a retired Army target drone converted from a gasoline engine to electric batteries, is equipped with an HD camera, a cigarette-pack sized on-board Linux computer packed with network-hacking tools including the BackTrack testing toolset and a custom-built 340 million word dictionary for brute-force guessing of passwords, and eleven antennae.

“This is like Black Hat’s greatest hits,” Tassey says. “And it flies.”

On top of cracking wifi networks, the upgraded WASP now also performs a new trick: impersonating the GSM cell phone towers used by AT&T and T-Mobile to trick phones into connecting to the plane’s antenna rather than their carrier, allowing the drone to record conversations and text messages on a32 gigabytes of storage

How fucking cool (and scary) is that? Truth be told the security on many devices that we commonly use today is completely nonexistent. Last year there was a demonstration at Defcon showing that it’s very possible for an average person to get the equipment necessary to spy on people using GSM phones (CDMA, as far as I know, is still safe from non-government snoopers).