wubwub

On the way to work, I saw yet another sign of the end-of-civilization.

I saw a group of kids waiting for the bus... right across the street from the school.

Note, this was a residential street, not a major thoroughfare. I would trust just about any 6 year-old to know how to safely cross this street. But here was a group of kids waiting to be picked up so the bus could pull into the parking lot across from their bus stop where the kids started and then let them off.

Imagine the situation. The kids have to get out there 5-15 minutes early to catch the bus, and it takes them longer to get into their seat than it takes the bus to get to its destination.

I blame the parents for being insane and not just letting their kids walk the extra 30 feet to get to school (remember, this is _not_ that dangerous a road. The kids are likely in as much danger walking to the stop as they are from walking across the extra road).

But I blame the school more for encouraging this kind of insanity.

In an age where we are worrying about overweight kids, surely walking should be _encouraged_ not discouraged. Especially when the distance is the width of one minor road.

If your house is directly across from the school, you shouldn't expect a bus to stop for you. And the school shouldn't provide one.

And if a kid did get hurt and a lawyer tried to sue the school for causing it, the lawyer should be disbarred for being too stoopid to practice law.

Funnee video.

NY Congressbeing Weiner calls Republican bluffs. They are all whining about "government-run healthcare", so Weiner proposes an Amendment that would abolish Medicade - the biggest government-run healthcare plan in the US.

After all, if the government is so bad at doing healthcare, and private insurance can do such a better job, then why not abolish Medicade and let private industry take over??

Of course, not a single Republican voted for the Amendment because they have no spine, integrity or conviction.

via reddit

Well here's a new story of stoopid people doing what they do best.

Seems an artist made a big sculpture depicting a DNA double helix. The fundamental element of genetics and the underpinnings of all life on earth. One of the most important discoveries of all time. But some people have a problem with it.

Some parents actually are complaining about the sculpture!

My favorite quote from the article:

“My daughter suggested that it was funny,” said John Copeland, whose 7-year-old daughter attends summer camp there. “She shouldn’t be talking to me about this. Now I’m forced to explain genetics to her, and why the Bible doesn’t say anything about it.”

Well, by all means! Don't take the opportunity to introduce your daughter to the wonder of science or use this chance to educate her... much better to just remove it. Out of sight, out of mind...

“Everybody is entitled to their own opinion regarding what art is,” said Garrotte. “If this piece weren’t visible to passersby and available for children to play on, I would not have a problem with it.”

You'd think they were talking about a pornographic picture or a sculpture of a murderer or some other obscenity. Not about a basic building block of nature!

I truly fear for our future...

I've been reading way too many stories about stoopid people lately... Reading this one didn't even kick off my satire radar...

I've posted before about how stoopid the war on drunk driving has become (I'm too lazy at the moment to look up my previous posts, just trust me on this one), but this one has to take the cake.

The Connecticut Supreme Court ruled that a man sitting drunk in the car without the keys in the ignition can still be prosecuted for drunk driving.

The court's 5-0 ruling came in the case of Michael Cyr, who was arrested in Manchester in February 2005 in a parking lot near a bar. He had started his car remotely and then sat in the driver's seat intoxicated, but never put the key into the ignition and didn't drive anywhere.

Now this is the guy's third conviction, so he is clearly a repeat offender and exactly the person the drunk driving laws should be targeting. But this is really ridiculous.

I know its beating the long-dead don't-use-electronic-voting-machines horse, but it still bears repeating until we get rid of this first batch of clearly corrupt batch of machines.

Bounced from The Brad Blog, at a public hearing about how incompetent Diebold was, the Western Region Manager for Diebold admits that their machine will delete ballots with no alert, no verification, and no logging.

Every time I read another article about how incompetent these machines are I really just can not fathom the depths of stoopidity this company must have plumbed to find project managers and coders that would design it this way. I would think that a CIS 101 student would be smart enough to design a better system and I know that any coder worth their salt would be embarrassed to have released such a shoddy product.

The worst part of all this is that good vote counting software is incredibly easy to write (HINT: Write only tables) and adequately secure counting software is not that much harder (HINT: change the default passwords), but because of the criminally corrupt nature of this round of product it will be decades before the public will trust another electronic system.

So the take away message is that if you have to vote for anything, make sure you do it by hand on paper. And if your local district wants electronic machines, make sure the machines are open to full testing by anyone, not just corrupt company shills.

I blogged a while ago about our current moral panic about sexual predators that is leading people to worry that every man is a potential predator.

Today's entry is from the Wall Street Journal

When children get lost in a mall, they're supposed to find a "low-risk adult" to help them. Guidelines issued by police departments and child-safety groups often encourage them to look for "a pregnant woman," "a mother pushing a stroller" or "a grandmother."
The implied message: Men, even dads pushing strollers, are "high-risk."

Its not like I've been seeing a rush of articles about this topic, but I have noticed it and I do get nervous sometimes when out with the kids without wubwife.

Here's a couple other related links.

Bad outcomes of "Sex Offender Paranoia". In particular is the tragedy noted in 8 where a young girl drowned when she wandered away from her parents. A man saw the girl wandering loose but didn't stop to help for fear that he would be accused of abducting the child.

In the Reddit discussion on the link, a man details his run-in with the law because he dared to help a few little kids with their shoes.

I mean, really... WTF???

Grabbed this one off Pharyngula: Oklahoma school administrators accuse a student of witchcraft. (the ACLU is involved too)

Just the thought that anyone in 21st century America would even think witchcraft is real is scary. But its one thing to think your bible tells you to fear witches, and entirely another to violate a teenager's rights because you think she is casting hexes.

And make no mistake about it, this trouble is being brewed up because hysterical theists. They already believe in unprovable invisible things, so its easy for them to just add a few more ridiculous claims tot he mix.

"It's hard for me to believe that in the year 2000 I am walking into court to defend my daughter against charges of witchcraft brought by her own school," said Timothy Blackbear. "But if that's what it takes to clear her record and get her life back to normal, that's what we'll do."

Is it really a big surprise for anyone outside of the paid-politicians in D.C that entrenched energy companies don't think new energy ideas are feasible in the near-term??

For the past decade we've been funneling money to the current energy producers to "encourage" them to do research into new energy solutions. And not surprisingly, very little has come of the money.

Is it really that fucking surprising to anyone? Of course these companies are slowing down research. The research could point to new technologies that will undermine their core business. Technologies that will undoubtedly be embraced by younger, more nimble companies that will eventually usurp the old fossils.

Now that Obama has a new green energy policy, the old companies are basically saying "slow down there, nothing new is coming soon". And of course its not coming soon from them. They have an extremely vested interest in it not coming anytime soon. The farther off new tech is, the longer they can wait before spending any money to modernize. The longer they can keep off competition, the more they can make now.

Just imagine what we could be seeing now if, instead of spending money on the group that does not want change and improvements, and instead invested it like venture capital for new-tech start-ups.

The big companies will be part of the new tech world, but not until they are forced to face real competition from companies offering real new solutions. And they wont have to face competition until we start sending money to companies that know we can do it now, not later.

I planned on watching the hilights of the inauguration on YouTube, but ended up watching it live.

When it came time for the oath there was a minor flub between Roberts and Obama. When it happened I told wubwife that the wacko wingnuts would be all over the mistake and sure enough Chris Wallace started it up:

Well, again, we're wondering here whether or not Barack Obama in fact is the president of the United States

Keep it classy, guys...

Also at the LA Times

A 17-year-old girl has sex with a 14-year-old boy and is charged with misdemeanor sexual assault.

Just the previous day, a 17-year-old boy was charged with a felony for having sex with a 14-year-old girl (who told him she was 16).

source: Sheboygan Press

Today's episode of Security Theater

Here's a disturbing little blurb: Apparently as recently as 2007 all you needed to bring a gun on a plane was a basic government ID and a "Flying While Armed" form...

It took them until 2007 to tighten marshal rules to require advance authorization and increased screening of IDs.

You've really got to wonder if anyone with any brains even bothered to think about these things when they were making up the rules.

South Carolina Residents Will Have To Settle For Bumper Stickers

I can't find the earlier link, but I've commented before on the utterly ridiculous "I Believe" license plates that were enacted in South Carolina. Well, luckily someone actually noticed that the plates were blatantly Christian and were patently unconstitutional.

What really makes the whole thing sick is that the idiots who proposed the law are openly and unabashedly admitting that they don't care that the law was unconstitutional

Asked by a reporter if he would support a license plate for Islam, Rep. Bill Sandifer replied, “Absolutely and positively no…. I would not because of my personal belief, and because I believe that wouldn’t be the wish of the majority of the constituency in this house district.”

via The Daily Profaner

Ok, so its about time for Wubling #1 to get his driver's permit (which in-of-itself is a scary thing).

In order to get his permit, he has to have a birth certificate and his SS card.

Well, I can't find his SS card so wubwife goes to the SS office to get a new one.

In order to get his SS card, we need his birth certificate (which she brought along), and one form of "identification" which could be a school or activity ID or even a report card.

That is just pointlessly stoopid. We already have his birth certificate which has lots of security features to prevent duplication or forging, but it would take about 10 minutes with a word processor to make up a believable report card because it's not like the SS office would have any clue if the report card is real or not. And they would accept all kinds of "activity ID"s, so that would take just a few more minutes to fake.

Yet more useless "feel good" regulations that annoy more than they could possibly help. :-/

Here's a good list from Cracked:
The 7 Dumbest Things Ever Done by Airport Security.

There may be more dumb things done, as well as more dangerous things done, but this list does hit on some of the best of the dumbest.

I ran across the following on the TSA's Website:

TSA Week at a Glance (November 10, 2008 - November 16, 2008)
* 11 passengers were arrested due to suspicious behavior or fraudulent travel documents
* 35 firearms found at checkpoints
* 2 artfully concealed prohibited items found at checkpoints
* 12 incidents that involved a checkpoint closure, terminal evacuation or sterile area breach

As a service to you, I'm going to translate that into English:

* 11 passengers were arrested due to suspicious behavior or fraudulent travel documents

2 people questioned why they had to take off their shoes at the scanners
1 person made idle jokes in the long lines
3 people smudged food their boarding passes
1 paraplegic refused to get out of their wheelchair
4 people spoke english with a middle-eastern accent

* 35 firearms found at checkpoints

35 idiots forgot to unpack their guns

* 2 artfully concealed prohibited items found at checkpoints

2 people forgot a pair of tweezers at the bottom of their purse

* 12 incidents that involved a checkpoint closure, terminal evacuation or sterile area breach

12 bottles of water spilled on the floor.

I just got a call from a Congress-Being (well, one of the Congress-Being's minions).

The call was about an email I had sent earlier this year. She dug into the info more and gave me a few updates on the issue as well as a link to the USDA site.

The USDA [not the FDA! dumb mistake on my part there] regularly inspects dead cows at meat packing plants for mad cow. Using some statistical gamesmanship, they determine the whole supply is ok for US consumption based on sampling some small percentage (what they call a "statistically valid" sample size).

The Creekstone Farms Premium Beef in Kansas wanted to test all its cows rather than some small percentage as an extra stamp of assurance. This kind of "going the extra mile" is a normal part of the ways businesses try to distinguish themselves from their competitors. Its why people think paying lots more for a Mercedes is better than paying less for an "equivalent" Ford. (In particular, Creekstone wanted to try and sell the meat overseas, and overseas markets are very nervous about mad cow these days.)

To do the testing, the USDA has these very expensive tests. Creekstone offered to buy the tests and do the testing itself in-house but the USDA said no. And a district court agreed with the government.

The USDA's claim is that 1) Creekstone's people weren't qualified to do the testing and 2) the tests would give a false assurance of safety...

Errrr... this is all well-and-good, but if the people aren't qualified to do the testing then the USDA should make a way for them to get qualified and/or offer to do the tests for a certain amount and then let Creekstone decide if they wanted to pay. The testing is done by contractors anyway, so why can't Creekstone just hire the same contractors to do more testing of its meat?

But the second point bothers me more. If the tests would give a false assurance of safety, then why are we using the same tests to give US citizens assurance that our meat is safe?


So while the call was great, and its nice that occasionally someone in DC listens to their emails, the problem still is there that the USDA should not be in the business of setting a maximum level of safety if the company wants to go that extra mile.


Here are some links from the USDA on mad cow...

This situation is weird to start with, but not at all surprising.

An 8th grade girl sends nude pics of herself to a boy and the boy is now being charged with child pornography!

The laws are majorly fucked up here.

First off, the boy didn't take the pic and may not have asked for the pic or in any way invited the girl to send the pic. He may have not even been aware or interested in the girl. But the law still treats the girl as the "innocent victim" and the male as the automatic perpetrator of the crime.

Secondly, and more importantly, there _are_ kids who are sexually active in middle school. IMHO, most kids that young are too young for this kind of stuff, but that does not mean all kids that age are too young.

It is stoopid to think that sexually active kids won't do the same basic things that sexually active adults do, namely send nude pics of themselves to potential or current mates. And it is simply idiotic to attempt to apply laws meant to target adults with problems (real pedophiles) with such a broad brush like in this case. A 13 year old sexually active kid having a sexual relationship with a peer should not be a crime.

Since I didn't include a contribution of $100,000, I don't expect my concerns to get anywhere. But what the hell, might as well complain anyway...

I just was reading a decision by the DC federal court of appeals supporting a FDA USDA [of course the USDA would deal with this not the FDA like I previously commented... duh!] decision preventing a meat packer company from testing all of its cows for mad-cow.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-08-29-mad-cow_N.htm

Why is the FDA USDA _preventing_ a company from bringing a more-safe product to its customers? Why is it _preventing_ a company from going above-and-beyond what is required by law?

The only reason for the FDA USDA to prevent a company from doing more than what is asked is because the FDA is more concerned for the interests of big-business meat packers than they are for the interests of the citizens.

The FDA USDA can and should provide minimum guidelines for food safety, but "maximum guidelines"???

Perhaps I should "contribute" $100,000 so that my concerns might get heard and not just the concerns of the corporations...

Followup to an earlier posting wondering just who the FDA works for which I can not find now which is really annoying tho perhaps I just never got around to blogging it in the first place...

Really, what the fuck?? First, we have the FDA telling a company that it can-not test all of its cows for mad-cow. Now a court has agreed that the government can restrict how safe people can be...

I'm usually complaining about how the government over-regulates safety, but here they are telling a company that it has a maximum amount of safety it is allowed to provide???!!!

Come on, I dare _anyone_ to defend this ruling and the initial decision...

The _only_ reason for the original FDA ruling preventing the company from doing all the testing it wants is because then consumers would start wondering why all companies weren't doing more testing and that would cut into the profits of big meatpackers.

The original dispute was purely a bought-and-paid-for decision by political appointees. If we had even a remotely functioning government there would be bribery investigations going on, but unfortunately all we get is more of the same crap while the government does more to support big-business than to protect citizens.

What a load of crap!

The Mythbusters (also) love to tear apart and show how things work (or don't work as the case may be). They don't take other people's word for it on claims of what works.

The vulnerabilities of RFID are widely known on the 'Net and to anyone with a lick of common sense, but RFID companies have so far been successful at keeping the general public in the dark about how vulnerable their information and safety is.

The Mythbusters would have helped spread the news of RFID's weaknesses, but they were shut down by companies who place their own bottom lines over any idea of security or safety.
Just sad...



Via boingboing