Governments and large political parties

March 23rd, 2010

The democrats want to steal from the rich and give to the poor.

The republicans want the rich to get richer which has the unfortunate side effect of making the poor poorer.

Stealing is out of the question. You do not have the right to just take what is mine.

Living in a world where the rich take advantage of the poor isn’t illegal but still is not a great way to live. The system won’t function that way forever.

Seems to me, both ways are broken. Democrats and republicans both lose.

Governments are guaranteed to fail.
In the rich times, they wouldn’t dare give back tax money, they can’t hold on to it and save it for a rainy day (all that unspent money? just sitting there? no way)

No they just spend more and make government bigger. Then during the lean times, when there isn’t as much tax revenue, they can’t make their payments to fund this larger government they have built.

And they fail.

I have the answer.

February 10th, 2010

All politicians are assholes. Nothing new there.

The only time they put aside their personal agendas and pretend to be working for the public good (which is their actual job) is when there is a crisis of some kind.

Everybody wanted to do the right thing after 9/11, everybody wanted to help after Katrina, all sorts of efforts were going to be made to help out in Haiti.

But when things go back to normal, the pretense of doing the right thing goes out the window to be replaced with doing what benefits them.

The answer seems pretty obvious. In order to get politicians to do their job, we must live in a state of crisis all the time.

We need hurricanes, and suicide bombers and plagues and economic turmoil and earthquakes. All The Time.

Of course the other simpler answer, and one that would raise everybody’s quality of life rather than lower it, would  be to simply get rid of the politicians.

Maybe we could outlaw it like witchcraft.

I have finally discovered the purpose of facebook.

January 29th, 2010

It used to be that you would only share the minutiae of your life with close friends, or people you saw or talked to frequently.
Facebook has made it possible to share the minutiae of your life with everybody at the same time with no extra effort on your part, thus severing any special bond you may have made with the few people you chose to share the details of your life with, because now the bar is set so low, people you don’t even know, know every little detail of your life.

More progress, I guess.

My my, the web sucks.

October 27th, 2009

In the 80’s you had a program running on a PC, and you selected a menu item by typing it’s number and hitting enter.

Rudimentary, but possibly still more efficient than clicking on a button with a mouse.

But the important point was, when you hit enter, the response was instant. Nowadays, you hit a web server and the response sucks.

Google is trying to change this by making chrome an OS so once again the weight will shift and the client will be thick/heavy/fat/smart and response will be better, but it will still under-perform my apple II because it’s going to be html based, which means when the presentation really needs to be put this box HERE, the program has to generate html that the browser then has to interpret to get the desired results. All very backwards, extra layer-y and error prone, just like SQL.

Somebody needs to come up with an important niche and write a client program that just blows away google’s best efforts, because they’re starting with such a broken playing field.

We are the facebook generation.

October 14th, 2009

our kids will always have facebook or something like it. they will never be separated from their childhood acquaintances such that 30 years later facebook will come along and reintroduce them

The technology tax.

October 5th, 2009

I figure that most people basically use their computers nowadays to surf the web, and read and send email.

Some do some programming, photography, and other less common things, but the vast majority generally  facebook, shop and read email.

Yet every few years you have to buy new hardware so you can keep doing these things.

Just the same rant really, that if people would write better software, everybody could save a lot of money.

I just had a brilliant idea

August 27th, 2009

Put speed limiters on strollers so even if it gets away from you and starts rolling down a hill, it won’t ever go so fast that you can’t easily catch up with it.

sshh

August 26th, 2009

I made sshh downloadable. You can read about it here.

Or download it here…

http://deadpelican.com/sshh_release_I_20090814.tar.gz

Or the prebuilt cygwin windows binaries…

http://deadpelican.com/sshh_release_I_20090814.cygwin.zip

Why overclocking means you get what you pay for.

August 24th, 2009

I spent a lot of time this weekend doing research to buy parts for a new machine.

One thing I realized is that people are stupid. Even technical people.

Specifically I’m talking about the overclocking crowd. Now I’m all about getting as much for your money as possible, but there are LOTS of people on newegg who complain that they overclock chips and they don’t work.

I don’t know if this is how it works anymore but in the good old days, intel or whoever would build a chip to the best specifications that it could, then test it. If it tested reliably as a 3ghz chip, it was sold as a 3ghz chip. If it only tested reliably at 2.5ghz, it was sold as a 2.5ghz chip.

Now in the days of quad cores, I can see where it would be hard to build a chip where all four cores tested reliably at 3ghz, which is why those chips are so much more expensive than the 2.8ghz for example. So people buy the 2.8ghz then try and overclock them and complain when they don’t work.

Do they not understand what’s going on? If it didn’t test reliably at a higher speed, then it’s not going to work reliably when you try and use it at that higher speed.

That’s why you pay more for it to go faster.

If you take your Chevy volt and try and go as fast as a Ferrari, it’s not going to work, the volt wasn’t tested reliably at ferrari speeds. That’s why you paid less than a Ferrari.

My BMW Z4 can get over 40mpg.

July 30th, 2009

The other day I was going to work and I remembered I didn’t have much gas in my car. The little low-gas warning light was already on when I started the car.

It’s got one of those little computer things that tells you how much gas mileage you’re getting and how many miles it thinks you have left in the tank.

It said I had 57 miles left, the drive to work is 35 miles, I figured I could make it. New car there should be no sludge at the bottom of the gas tank….

So I figured I should drive nicely. Now the little computer thing has to go by how much gas is in the tank and your driving pattern to determine how many miles you have left. I don’t know how far back in my driving history it goes to gauge but it’s more than today’s trip.

When I first got the car, I drove it nicely (since it was still in its  break-in period) and I got it to say I could get 400 miles to the tank when I just filled it up. I figured that was pretty good. But obviously that was pretty non-fun driving, especially for z4.

So I drove to work, got gas, reset all my computer settings, and went to the office.
Starting to drive home I noticed that it said I had 472 miles left in my tank. Not bad I thought, it must have remembered my driving style on my drive to work. Let’s see if I could get it to 500.

Well, as the miles clicked by the number went up, and I eventually got it as high as 512, and that was after having driven 20 miles or so, so I should be able to get at least 530+ miles out of  a newly full tank.
The mpg computer said I was getting 41.5 mpg.

A BMW z4.

Now of course this isn’t entirely fair. I had the windows open, the A/C off, it was all highway, manual transmission, and I think the trip from work to home is, on average, downhill (though there are plenty of up hills on the way.)

So my question is, if BMW can make a sports car that can put out 250 hp, that can still (if you try very very hard) get 41 mpg, why does EVERY OTHER CAR suck by comparison?

And it seems to me with a smaller engine and a lot of tweaking to force you to drive like I was driving, LOTS of cars should be able to get in the 30 mpg range, not just the mini.

So what gives?  How hard is it to make a car 10-20mpg more efficient than the going rate now?

You can forget all the hybrid stuff, and spend your money better on tweaking a known good platform.

I just don’t get it.