Month: May 2015

Nothing to See Here

My Kindle Voyage arrived last night so I was playing with that instead of blogging. Admittedly it’s expensive but holy hell is it a wonderful reading device. The screen is really nice (at least compared to my first generation touch screen Kindle) and the back light doesn’t interfere with the e-paper legibility. Did I mention the return of the page flip buttons? I missed those and am glad they’re back. If you read a lot I highly recommend this thing.

Since Goodreads is integrated with the Voyage I created an account. If you want to know what I’m reading and what I’ve read you can follow me here (hint: it’s almost all science fiction and history).

Deus Ex is Our Future

Deus Ex is a great series of video games because it not only has great game play but also addresses the issue of transhumanism. As prosthetic technology improves we will certainly have people opting to have their squishy natural limbs and organs replaced by far superior mechanical versions. Even now prosthetics are becoming more capable. But they still lack one major feature, a sense of touch. That will soon change:

Daniel Moran, PhD, professor of biomedical engineering in the School of Engineering & Applied Science and of neurobiology, of physical therapy and of neurological surgery at the School of Medicine, has received a three-year, nearly $1.9 million grant from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) to test a novel device his lab developed that would stimulate the nerves in the upper arm and forearm. If it works, upper-limb amputees who use motorized prosthetic devices would be able to feel various sensations through the prosthetic, which would send sensory signals to the brain.

[…]

Moran and his team, which includes Harold Burton, PhD, professor of neurobiology; Wilson (Zach) Ray, MD, assistant professor of neurological surgery, both at the School of Medicine; and Matthew MacEwen, who will graduate with an MD/PhD in May 2015 and worked on this project for his dissertation, have developed a macro-sieve peripheral nerve interface designed to stimulate regeneration of the ulnar and median nerves to transmit information back into the central nervous system. The macro-sieve is made of an ultrathin, flexible material similar to a soft contact lens, is about 1/8th the size of a dime and looks like a wagon wheel with open spaces between the “spokes” that allow the nerve to grow.

At this rate we’ll have actual cyborgs within the decade. It’s amazing how quickly technology is advancing. Much of it is due to the development of every smaller power-efficient computers. Since technology is cumulative, that is to say technology builds on itself to create more technology, we may enjoy that almost utopian future dreamed of in the 1950’s (you know the one with flying cars and infinite energy provided by nuclear power).

Handling a Self-Defense Situation

Christopher Cantwell, who officially endorse me as a social justice warrior, got himself into a rather unpleasant self-defense situation. I’ve heard him discuss it on Free Talk Live and read numerous opinions about how he handled the situation. As this story is an intersection of anarchism (Cantwell, even though many of his writings would indicate otherwise, does consider himself an anarchist as I’ve learned) and gun rights I thought I’d offer my opinion (and don’t say you didn’t ask for it, you’re on my site so obviously you want to know what I think).

From what I’ve read and heard the situation began when Cantwell came across a physical altercation and pulled out his camera to record it. The people involved in the altercation decided they didn’t want to be recorded and the situation quickly escalated to the point where Cantwell felt threatened enough to draw his gun.

Cantwell and I may both be anarchists but we likely disagree on more things than we agree on. I mention this because it’s something I share with many gun rights advocates (the disagreeing with Cantwell part, not the being an anarchist part) and the general attitude of many of them seems to be that Cantwell acted stupidly. Because of the video and what he said about the situation I’m left to believe that the primary reason they find what he did to be stupid is because they just generally don’t like the guy and are unwilling to compliment him. The reason I believe this is because he actually handled the situation well.

The first criticism being aimed at him by his detractors is that he involved himself in the situation. Anybody who has taken a self-defense class will tell you that involving yourself in altercations between unknown individuals is not a wise idea. Of course standing aside could result in somebody being murdered. Therefore the question becomes whether the legal liability is so great that your conscious will allow you to walk away as somebody is potentially being murdered. I think Cantwell took a good middle path by recording the altercation. By doing so really can’t be said to have escalated the situation since his “involvement” was nothing more than being a witness. He didn’t approach the group and command them to knock it off or take sides. Instead he did the same thing any security camera would do, bear witness and make a record of what happened.

When the people involved in the altercation took notice of him they initiated another aggressive situation, this time involving Cantwell. First they commanded him to turn off his camera and then approached him when he refused. At this point leaving the camera on was the wisest decision he could have made because it create a record that shows he didn’t instigate the situation and even made an effort to back away. That’s a key point, as the aggressors approached he attempted to maintain space by backing away.

Where I disagree with that he did is when he informed the aggressors that he had a gun. My quibble with this is that you remove the shock factor drawing your firearm has and potentially convince you aggressors to draw their firearms that you were unaware they had. Having surprise on your side is good in a self-defense situation because it can cause your aggressors to stop for a second as they process the new circumstance. This is a minor quibble though as the situation didn’t change. Warning them that he was armed didn’t convince them to back off nor did they pull weapons on him. In the end it was one of those mid-situation tactics that you really have to decide for yourself based on the situation at hand as it’s unfolding.

In the end he drew his firearm and that convinced his aggressors that they should stop approaching and threatening him. As with most self-defense situations involving the defender drawing a firearm the situation was resolved without any shots fired, which is the best possible outcome when things have reached that point.

I really can’t see where Cantwell committed any major self-defense faux pas. People could argue that he didn’t have to involve himself by recording the altercation but if it ended up in a murder people would probably criticize him for not recording it. By choosing to record the situation rather than break it up he ensured his involvement was minimal and stood little chance of escalating matters. It’s a good middle ground between legal liability and decency.

Embrace the Machines

Self-driving cars are advancing quickly, which has lead to a debate. Many people don’t like the idea of self-driving cars because they believe the potential for software glitches to lead to a catastrophic crash is too high. I, on the other hand, can’t wait to buy a self-driving car. Software glitches are always a possibility but the truth is we humans are far more prone to error when driving then current self-driving cars have been. That’s because our species as a problem with complacency. When we do a task successfully so many times we become less cautious and allow ourselves to be distracted more easily. This is why humans suck at watching security monitors all day. It’s also why adding some intelligence to our vehicles makes a lot of sense. Recently the European New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) did a study on self-braking cars and found that they reduced rear-end collisions significantly:

While we’re still some way off seeing full-blown, self-driving cars winding their way across continental Europe, a more modest autonomous technology has found approval with safety bods. Research conducted by the European road safety research organisation Euro NCAP concluded that having a car automatically slam on the brakes to avoid low-speed accidents leads to a 38 percent reduction in rear-end crashes.

As you’ll note software glitches didn’t lead to an increase in crashes. And while software glitches could lead to isolated failures that almost certainly won’t be enough to offset the benefits of such a highly reduce rear-end collision rate. This also shows that there are things machines are better at than us squishy humans. Repetitive tasks, such as driving, are one of them.

Machines are not only incapable of getting bored but they are also better at maintaining awareness. A computer can monitor a vast number of sensors simultaneously whereas us humans have five sense that are very restricted (for example, our vision only sees forward and our sense of touch requires physical contact). If you think you can maintain better awareness than a self-driving car equipped with cameras, radar, laser sensors, radio communication to other self-driving cars, and a slew of other sensors you are mistaken.

The debate over self-driving cars shouldn’t be whether software glitches will lead to isolated catastrophes. It should be over whether self-driving cars, as a whole, will increase overall vehicle safety. Since machines are better at almost every aspect of driving (road rage is the only exception I can think of) than we are the debate is pretty much settled. That’s not to say wanting a car you drive yourself because you prefer to drive a car yourself isn’t a valid reason to buy one. But the concerns about safety risks involve in self-driving cars has been put to rest.

Minneapolis’ Finest Mace a 10 Year-Old

Officer safety is a huge concern for the Minneapolis Police Department (MPD). When you’re a cop you can never been too careful. For example, if you come across a 10 year-old boy at a protests can you be certain that kid isn’t going to rough you up? Of course not! That’s why you need to mace him:

Minneapolis authorities launched an investigation into police response during a downtown street protest that turned unruly Wednesday night in which chemical spray used by officers hit a 10-year-old boy.

Police Chief Janeé Harteau and Mayor Betsy Hodges called a news conference Thursday asking witnesses to come forward.

“It is critical for everyone involved that we complete a thorough investigation, so I need the public’s help,” the chief said. “We must have the full set of facts.”

I’m betting this is going to be another case of “we investigated ourselves and found that we did nothing wrong.” But this shows that the officers of the MPD are either so pathetic that they’re afraid of a 10 year-old boy or are so sadistic that they like to cause children great deals of pain.

Past Performance Does Not Guarantee Future Results

On my wrist is a device for measuring the passage of time. It is made by Seiko, purely mechanical, and hopelessly outdated. Why do I say it’s outdated? Because it measures the passage of time by the oscillation of a balance wheel. It’s also powered by a mainspring that can keep the watch running for approximately 40 hours. The general workings of the movement are very similar to the general workings of a 100 year-old pocket watch. In the 1970s a new type of movement became popular. It used the oscillation of a quartz crystal to measure the passage of time. Not only is this more accurate than relying on the oscillation of a balance wheel but it’s also cheaper to manufacturer, immune to magnetism, can remain powered for five years on a single battery, and doesn’t need any lubrication. Wristwatches with quartz movements are superior in every way to their mechanical brethren. Why do I wear a mechanical wristwatch? Because I enjoy all of the gears, springs, and levers working together to measure the passage of time. What does this have to do with anything? Quite a lot, actually.

Yesterday I was involved in a discussion about the Tesla Model 3. I see the Tesla vehicle as a major leap in automobile technology. Not only does it decouple the power source from the vehicle it’s also mechanically simpler than a gasoline powered vehicle. Having a 200 mile range also makes it very useful to anybody living in an urban area that makes a fairly short commute every day. Since the Tesla car offers so much it was guaranteed that somebody would bitch about it.

Another person in the discussion wrote the Tesla off as worthless because it didn’t fit her use case. She needs to make periodic 350 mile trips, which is outside of the Tesla Model 3’s 200 mile range. I pointed out that the Tesla is still in its infancy and battery improvements would likely advance rapidly and give the car greater range. Her response was to claim battery technology advances only over decades.

This is a common fallacy people fall into. They use current trends to make predictions about the future. But technology doesn’t advance linearly. It advances exponentially. That’s because breakthroughs in one field can lead to improvements in other fields. My wristwatch is an example of that. For hundreds of years tools to measure the passage of time relied on mechanical parts. Their complexity made them expensive to manufacture. After hundreds of years of little improvement the quartz movement was released to the world and it was greeted with open arms. People snapped up quartz wristwatches at such a pace that designers of mechanical wristwatches began calling that period the Quartz Crisis. Advancements in electronics had propelled instruments of measuring the passage of time forward.

But that’s not the only example. Humans have been using the bow and arrow for thousands of years. By the 1900s it would be safe to say there wasn’t much left to learn about bows and arrows, right? Wrong. In the 1960s a revolutionary design called the compound bow was released. By utilizing cams a compound bow was able to not only store more energy but also allow the archer to hold the bowstring at full draw longer by reducing the weight to almost nothing. When you draw a compound bow there is a lot of weigh initially and then it tappers off. Even after thousands of years humanity found a way to revolutionize the bow and arrow.

I work in the computer field, which sees constant advancements. Few people stop to consider how far computers have advanced in a few years. In my pocket is a computer that is more powerful than my eight year-old desktop. Not only is it more powerful but it’s also more power efficient. And it’s has 24/7 Internet connectivity thanks to a high-speed wireless technology that was little more than an idea a decade ago.

Dismissing a technology because of past performance is idiotic. The phrase “past performance does not guarantee future results” is traditionally used to note that a previously successful person many not necessary be successful in the future. But it also applies to technological advancements. Just because it took decades to advance battery technology before doesn’t mean it’s going to take decades to advance it again. New materials could be developed tomorrow that allow for lighter batteries that can store more energy and survive more recharge cycles. Suddenly the Tesla Model 4 could have a range of 1,000 miles on a single charge and outlast any gasoline-powered vehicle.

As a general rule I don’t bet against technological advancements. That’s synonymous with saying I don’t bet against markets. The reason I’m so optimistic about market solutions is because markets are constantly advancing. Problems we don’t even know we have are being solved right now. Did you know that pulling your cellular phone out of your pocket is inconvenient? I bet you didn’t. But smart watches exist that allow you to keep your phone in your pocket for longer and enough people enjoy this solution that an entire market is being built around the technology. Markets are the opposite of government. Governments stagnate. Markets advance. When people claim markets can’t solve a solution they are making a sucker’s bet. Just because a market solution to a problem doesn’t currently exist doesn’t mean one won’t exist in the future. Even if a market solution hasn’t be developed over a thousand years doesn’t imply one won’t exist tomorrow.

When a statist predicts anarchism will fail they are making future predictions based on current trends (i.e. the world is currently a statist shithole so it will always be a statist shithole). This is why I don’t take them seriously and never accept their predictions of doom and gloom if the world ever frees itself from the statism.

They’re Finally Getting the Right Idea

The economically ignorant have been demanding the minimum wage be set at $15.00 per hour. If you understand basic economics you know that minimum wage laws don’t guarantee a living wage but merely make it illegal to hire entire swaths of people. Nobody is going to hire a teenager with no skills if they have to pay them $15.00 per hour. And a minimum wage of $15.00 per hour makes no sense for a teenager because they usually live at home, are fed by their parents, and have few bills. They live for a lot less money than an adult raising three kids. And if a business owner does decide to hire them for less then $15.00 per hour they will get a visit from the gang in blue who will either issue a fine or kidnap the owner.

But my biggest criticisms of people advocating for the minimum wage to be raised is their lack of belief. Why only $15.00 per hour? Why not jack it up to $20.00 per hour or even $100.00 per hour? Thankfully the Freedom Socialist Party (an oxymoron if there ever was one) has stepped up to the plate and is demanding minimum wage be raised to $20.00 per hour:

But Doug Barnes, the party’s national secretary, told The Huffington Post on Saturday that the group relies heavily on donations from low-wage workers and could not afford to pay much to an inexperienced designer.

“We’re practicing what we’re preaching in terms of continuing to fight for the minimum wage,” Barnes said, making his first public comment on the controversy. “But we can’t pay a lot more than $13.”

He said the party’s revenues would increase if the minimum wage were raised to $20 — and he’d even prefer $22, at least in Seattle. The city will begin phasing in a $15 minimum wage in April.

“Our donor base would all be affected, and the low-wage workers who support us with $5 to $6 a month would be able to give more,” he said. “That would affect our ability to pay higher wages as well.”

I love his reasoning. Raising the minimum wage will result in more money for the Freedom Socialist Party. How capitalistic of him!

But I do give him credit for at least believing in what he preaches to the extent of demanding an even more absurd minimum wage. Maybe he could kick start the minimum wage inflation movement where minimum wage will be set to inflate by at least two percent every year! That way we could render almost everybody unemployable and the underground economy would flourish.

As an agorist the best feature of minimum wage laws is that they push people into the underground economy. People aren’t going to stand by and starve simply because it’s illegal for anybody to hire them. They’re going to offer their services illegally. That means they won’t pay taxes on their income and will starve the state of some resources. Anybody partaking in illegal services isn’t going to pay sales tax, obtain permits, or do anything else that might tip the authorities off. Part of the reason I want to see minimum wage jacked up is because it will cause the underground economy to expand at a rapid pace. Socialists may have funny economic ideas but that doesn’t mean their ideas are without merit.

DRM, Not Even Once

Keurig, the manufacturer of a machine that makes a single cup of coffee, recently implemented Digital Rights Management (DRM) (and oxymoron of a term, I know) on its latest model to prevent users from using cheaper third-party coffee grounds in the machine. This did not sit well. In its lust for money by forcing people to buy its overpriced coffee in addition to its coffee maker Keurig managed to pummel its stock price:

Sales of Keurig brewing machines and accessories tumbled 23% in the first quarter compared to the prior year.

The company had a lot of excuses, but the basic problem is there are too many Keurig machines in stores and people aren’t buying them, especially the newest Keurig 2.0 model.

“We do have some headwinds,” said Chief Financial Officer Fran Rathke on a call with analysts.

Investors are fleeing the stock. Keurig (GMCR) dropped 10% Thursday when the market opened for trading. Shares are now down more than 25% this year.

It’s a big change for the company which had been one of the hottest stocks in 2013 and 2014 and does over $1 billion in sales.

CEO Brian Kelley says he’s listening to consumers and is ready to make changes. The biggest frustration for customers is that the 2.0 model only brews Keurig branded coffee cups.

Let this be a lesson to other companies. If you try to control how your customers use your product you’re going to have a bad time. Companies like to use the combination of DRM and selling a device that relies on consumables at a loss. The most famous market that has built an industry around this combination are printers. Most printers are solder either at a loss or for no profit with the expectation customers will buy overpriced printer ink from the manufacturer. DRM is usually used to prevent third-party ink cartridges from functioning although the schemes are almost always bypassed.

Keurig thought it could get away with such a scheme for its coffee maker. But I think Keurig made a fatal mistake. If you’re going to use DRM you really should use it from the start. When consumers are used to using your product in a certain way they probably won’t be happy if your change the rules on them. And when entire companies exist from selling a product that’s used in you’re device you’re going to have some major players investing resources into bypassing your DRM scheme.

Keurig really fucked up and their stock price shows it. This should be a lesson to every company that DRM is something you shouldn’t even try once.

Your Government at Work

When people discuss government waste the topics of extravagant dinners, vacations, lifetime healthcare for politicians, etc. usually come up. However the topic of law enforcement doesn’t come up nearly enough. Truth be told federal law enforcement agents are some of the biggest wasters of tax victim money out there. Consider the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI). One minute it’s creating terrorists for it to stop and the next minute it’s investing years into studying the lyrics of a song with several other alphabet soup agencies:

You know the song. You also know the lyrics are completely indecipherable. However, with Ely’s death, there’s been renewed attention to the fact that the FBI spent nearly two years investigating the damn song. It is just as ridiculous as it sounds, but the FBI has released the file on its investigation and it’s a rather hilarious read. It turns out it wasn’t just the FBI, but involved the FCC and the Post Office:

Apparently people reported that the song Louis Louis was obscene so the federal government decided it need to investigate just in case it had to stop down some free speech. But it gets better. Wasting money of fruitless investigations isn’t the only way the FBI has to waste money. Failing to call up other government agencies that could actually solve the investigation immediately is another way it likes to waste money:

Also, as Marc Randazza notes, it took nearly two years for someone in the FBI to think, hey, isn’t the song registered at the Copyright Office down the street? Maybe we should send someone over there to find out what it says? This was after the FBI had reached out to the record label (who gave them the accurate lyrics) along with the original author of the song, Richard Berry, who told them the lyrics.

Government waste comes in many forms and a lot of those forms have to do with enforcing victimless “crimes”. Even if the lyrics of Louie Louie were obscene no crime was committed because offensive lyrics don’t harm anybody.