Category: News You Need to Know

Seymour Cray is that You

Uncle has a post that implies the father of super-computing, Seymour Cray, may not actually be dead but alive and well in Austin, TX:

The City of Austin Tuesday released photos of the web of tunnels a man dug underneath his East Austin home.

Under the yellow home are three stories of tunnels. For at least two years, neighbors suspected owner Jose Del Rio was up to something strange, but had no idea just how busy he’d been.

For those of you who don’t catch the reference Seymour Cray was known for this tunnel digging:

As Rollwagen tells it, Seymour Cray, the company’s elusive founder, has been dividing his time between building the next generation of supercomputers and digging an underground tunnel that starts below his Chippewa Falls house and heads toward the nearby woods. “He’s been working at it for some time now,” says Rollwagen, who reports that the tunnel is 8 ft. high, 4 ft. wide and lined with 4-by-4 cedar boards. When a tree fell through the top of the tunnel several years ago, Cray used the opening to install a periscope-equipped lookout.

Of course he wasn’t building a bunker or any such nonsense. In fact he was much more sane:

“I work for three hours, and then I get stumped, and I’m not making progress. So I quit, and I go and work in the tunnel. It takes me an hour or so to dig four inches and put in the 4-by-4s. Now, as you can see, I’m up in the Wisconsin woods, and there are elves in the woods. So when they see me leave, they come into my office and solve all the problems I’m having. Then I go back up and work some more.”

Yeah we computer people are always a little quirky.

The Top of the Bad Idea Mountain

What would you say if you enrolled in a college and they asked for a DNA sample? If you would say “OK here’s the sample” then you get to go into the room for those who can’t think ahead. If you would say “Fuck off” congratulations you are a far more intelligent human being.

UC Berkley is asking all students to voluntarily submit DNA samples as part of enrollment:

The students will be asked to voluntarily submit a DNA sample. The cotton swabs will come with two bar code labels. One label will be put on the DNA sample and the other is kept for the students own records.

Now it’s no surprise to anybody that getting a DNA sample from somebody is fairly easy and if somebody wants it they can get it with a little work. But volunteering such information to any government entity (UC Berkley is a state college) is just stupid. The UK has established a DNA database which they claim is used for the following reasons:

* quickly identify offenders
* make earlier arrests
* secure more convictions
* provide critical investigative leads for police investigations

In other words they have it so they can fuck you over easier. Sure an innocent person will say they have nothing to fear from such a database but the second some legal becomes illegal you are in a position to face charges or at least public scrutiny. Of course at the time only people arrested are added to their database but alas some want everybody in it.

But the big question I really have is why the fuck is a college asking for DNA samples? Well:

The confidential process is being overseen by Jasper Rine, a campus professor of Genetics and Development Biology, who says the test results will help students make decisions about their diet and lifestyle.

Once the DNA sample is sent in and tested, it will show the student’s ability to tolerate alcohol, absorb folic acid and metabolize lactose.

Oh I see make it sound fun and exciting so students will be suckered into it. The best way to establish a database is to sucker people into volunteering their information for it. Also the easiest way to find out your alcohol tolerance is to drink alcohol until you can notice side effects. It’s cheap, easy, and fun. But here is the icing on the cake:

The results of the test will be put in a secure online database where students will be able to retrieve their results by using their bar code.

I just love the term “secure online database.” Without knowing how the security is implemented how can you know it’s actually secure? I bet money within the first year of this database being online (so a year from today) some bright student will find a way to break into it.

The bottom line is you should never volunteer any information you don’t have to, especially something that could be used to nail you for something ten years down the road. The main thing to remember is you never know when you could be caught up in something that is under investigation and if your DNA shows up you could face massive public scrutiny even if you didn’t actually do anything.

Some Facts about the Ground-Zero Mosque

The latest event everybody has their knickers in a bunch over is a group of Muslims who want to build a giant mosque and cultural center near ground-zero of the 9/11 attacks. If you want to spark up heated and emotional debates over something this is the way to do it. Everybody I know is pissed as Hell about this. Personally I decided to look into the matter a bit before making a comment and there are a couple of things I found. First:

.”This is a place which is 600 feet from where almost 3,000 people were torn to pieces by Islamic extremists,” said Debra Burlingame, whose brother died in the attack on the Pentagon that day.

This is the first thing to note, it’s not being build at ground-zero just near it. Another thing to note is:

The 13-story mosque and cultural center will be built on the site of a four-story building that was a Burlington Coat Factory retail store until 9/11, when part of a plane’s landing gear crashed through the roof. The building, which will be razed, currently houses a mosque.

So the building that is being demolished to make room for this giant mosque housed… a mosque. This isn’t a new establishment, just a much larger version of what was already there. And then we have:

The New York City Mayor’s office says “It’s private property, and the area is zoned for uses that include this one.”

I bring up this point because most of the people I know who are pissed off about this are also huge believers in property rights and the right to do what you want on your own property. If you want the absolute right to do whatever you want on your property you should extend the same courtesy to others (otherwise it’s not a right it’s a privilege that you enjoy). Personally I think this is the biggest and most important point of this entire story.

But let’s ask an unbiased and neutral source about this:

Pamela Gellar, executive director of Stop Islamization of America, blasted the organization behind the plans, Cordoba Initiative, and its leader, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, saying the project is “an insulting flag of conquest of Islamic supremacism.”

Um… never mind.

Let me be fair and ask the man who heads the organization that is going to build this facility:

Though the Cordoba Initiative’s website calls part of the $100 million-plus project a mosque, its founder, Imam Rauf, says the project is not a mosque but a community center for all faiths that will include recreational facilities, a prayer space and a 500-seat theater that can be a part of the neighborhood’s trendy Tribeca Film Festival.

Rauf insists the effort is meant to help heal the wounds of 9/11, “We’ve approached the community because we want this to be an example of how we are cooperating with the members of the community, not only to provide services but also to build a new discourse on how Muslims and non-Muslims can cooperate together to push back against the voices of extremism.”

I’m sorry that seems way too much like political speak. Maybe a better idea would to be use that money to fund programs that could help fightback extremism and thus enhance the overall American perception of the religion. Heck I’m not the only one who thinks that:

But Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, president of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, says there are more productive ways to fight Islamic extremism.

“Even when they have the resources, they are using it for a place of worship, a cultural center for organizations,” he said. They are not using it for a counterterrorism research center.

“They are not using it to lead the war like Americans need to see us do and they are wasting our resources, not to mention that being close to the hallowed ground that is so sensitive in the souls of the families of 9/11. I think it is extremely poor judgment.”

I agree with that. It seems this is really a waste of resources as far as trying to increase the public perception of Islam in America. Likewise it won’t do anything to help fight extremism either (it’s akin to holding hands around a fire and singing in my opinion). And you can say it’s insensitive due to the fact anybody with a brain could see it would piss off a lot of people, but frankly I don’t give two shits about that.

The fact of the matter is there was already a mosque on the property in question which was shutdown after the 9/11 attacks. Further the property is privately held and hence the owner has the right to do whatever the Hell they want. If they want to build a giant monument of a middle finger with a sign that says “Fuck you New York!” that’s their right in my not so humble opinion.

This does seem like a poor move politically. It sure isn’t going to gain anybody points in popular opinion field. But they have a right to build it and what I think is irrelevant.

EDIT 2010-08-16 21:25: I forgot to add in a link to where I got my information. Sorry about that, it’s corrected now.

Stupid Threats

So Arizona passed a piece of legislation that has pissed a good chunk of the country off. Needless to say Los Angeles voted on a boycott of all goods and services coming from Arizona to make a point. Of course as Arizona Corporation Commissioner Gary Pierce points out it seems that Los Angeles is insinsere in that threat [PDF]:

In fact, approximately twenty-five percent of the electricity consumed in Los Angeles is generated by power plants in Arizona.

If an economic boycott is truly what you desire, I will be happy to encourage Arizona utilities to renegotiate your power agreements so Los Angeles no longer receives any power from Arizona-based generation. I am confident that Arizona’s utilities would be happy to take those electrons off your hands. If, however, you find that the City Council lacks the strength of its convictions to turn off the lights in Los Angeles and boycott Arizona power, please reconsider the wisdom of attempting to harm Arizona’s economy.

Very well played Mr. Peirce.

I Don’t Like this One Bit

Joe Huffman brings up a scary decision that just made it’s way out of the Supreme Court. The case that was just decided pretty much gives the government power to incarserate you indefinably. Of course this case involved a sex offender which is why speaking against the ruling will automatically get you hatred from your peers but alas I could care less so here we go:

In a broad endorsement of federal power, the Supreme Court on Monday ruled that Congress has the authority under the Constitution to allow the continued civil commitment of sex offenders after they have completed their criminal sentences.

Yes that’s right even though you’ve completed your sentence handed down by a judge after conviction by a jury the federal government can chose to extend your punishment after the fact. The very scary part here is the fact the extension of punishment doesn’t even have to pass muster with a jury but only a judge:

The federal law at issue in the case allows the government to continue to detain prisoners who had engaged in sexually violent conduct, suffered from mental illness and would have difficulty controlling themselves. If the government is able to prove all of this to a judge by “clear and convincing” evidence — a heightened standard, but short of “beyond a reasonable doubt” — it may hold such prisoners until they are no longer dangerous or a state assumes responsibility for them.

We all know phrases like “beyond a reasonable double” and “clear and convincing” translate into “whatever the fuck we want” when spoken by the federal government so neither of those two clauses fill me with confidence. Likewise a single judge could very well decide that you stay in jail for life even if you were only sentenced to 10 years.

So now we come to the big problem what to do with people in prison whom are still deemed a potential threat to society? In essence in order to keep such a person in prison we have to give up some of our liberty to the government. I’m a big believer in Benjamin Franklin’s quote, “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Personally I don’t believe the risk of losing any liberty could possibly outweigh the potential danger of releasing a prisoner even if they are dangerous.

Of course I’m not one to just complain without offering some kind of potential solution so here it is. If a person is charged with a sex offense (a real one not a bullshit one like taking a piss in public) make part of the punishment committing the offender to a mental facility where he or she can receive treatment and can not be let loose until a psychological evaluation has been passed (and by passed I mean judged by a board of psychologists chosen in a similar manner to a jury not a single doctor). Obviously it’s not a perfect solution but it would offer two things: a method of ensuring a dangerous person is not released into society and the said dangerous person can get treatment for their problem which simply imprisoning them doesn’t accomplish.

But simply stating somebody is a possible danger to society and keeping them locked up indefinably even though that goes beyond the handed down punishment is a violation of essential liberties. This type of power is far too dangerous to hand to the federal government, an entity that has proven itself time and time again they don’t give a shit about your rights.

More On Arizona SB 1070

As I mentioned earlier I do not like Arizona’s new law on grounds that it’s vaguely written and ignores presumption of innocence. Of course with all the screaming, pissing, and moaning over this bill I’ve been trying to figure out why the Hell it was passed in the first place.

Like most issues this one is not black and white. I admit I don’t pay a whole lot of attention to the crime rates of other states unless it comes up in an anti-gun article trying to use those rates to promote their campaign of disarmament. Looking further into SB 1070 the main argument appears to deal with the fact that Arizona has a slight crime problem. First and foremost Phoenix kidnapping capital of the country.

This seems to be the main justification for the passing of the bill, crime. But of course the issue isn’t black and white even with that information. See most of the kidnappings appear to be drug and gang related. But most importantly most of the crime committed by these illegal immigrants is against… illegal immigrants:

Police in the desert city say specialized kidnap rings are snatching suspected criminals and their families from their homes, running them off the roads and even grabbing them at shopping malls in a spiraling spate of abductions.

“Phoenix is ground zero for illegal narcotics smuggling and illegal human smuggling in the United States,” said Phil Roberts, a Phoenix Police Department detective.

“There’s a lot of illegal cash out there in the valley, and a lot of people want to get their hands on it.”

Last year alone, Phoenix police reported 357 extortion-related abductions — up by nearly half from 2005 — targeting individuals with ties to Mexican smuggling rings.

So now I have the justification of the new bill. By targeting illegal immigrants specifically Arizona could stand to dramatically lower their overall crime rate. The problem is the implementation still sucks as it’s vague and gives the police the authority to target individuals without anything more than reasonable suspension.

Another School Attack in China

Seriously what the fuck is going on over there? This is the fourth school attack in that country this month. This time a man used a hammer to beat down five kids. But according to the anti-gunners if we ban guns from schools no more mass attacks will happen (a China proved yesterday when 28 kids and three adults were stabbed by a man with a knife, which are illegal to carry around in China).