Where there's a William ...

They Got Me

2012-01-18T19:01:00.002-06:00

I managed to pick up my first no shit trojan yesterday (FYI, I think it was hidden in some Java script within a you tube video and is called "blacole"), everything seized up and then my firewall went pffftt! I managed to ID it and remove it, but I still can't get my firewall back up, nor can I access my e-mail account. I can't get my desktop to uninstall anything either, so to the computer store we go - back in a week I hope. This little netbook allows me to do minimal stuff, but I sure miss that 22" screen and sound system.

At the moment, I'm mostly waiting for the 44 updates to finish. Man, I've got to start taking care of my computer gear a little more frequently one of these days (yeah, that's gonna happen :)).

Officially, it sucks to be me.

Correlation With Liberty

2012-01-15T06:00:00.001-06:00

One of the blogs I read regularly (look, see? It's over there to the side of the page) is M. Simon's Power And Control; he's a fellow USN vet and frequently addresses a number of different topics I am interested in but don't have the academic background to follow at a detailed level of discussion - he's good at explaining technical topics to a lay readership. Imagine my surprise upon reading this post title Gunners Look At Drugs.

The Gun Values Board appears to be a forum and one I'm not familiar with. I do know that writers and interview subjects don't always have editorial control over the titles on their published work, but "The Second Amendment Community Tends To Ignore The Connection Between The War On Guns And The War On Drugs" strikes me as more than a little ill-informed in my blog reading experience. The interview reads like an e-mail exchange (and if so the lack of supporting links is kinda annoying, but, again, editorial control and all that) and makes a reasonable if shallow case for the proposition that ending drug prohibition is consistent with defending our Second Amendment rights. You decide.

What I found compelling was the observation that:

Long term PTSD (everybody gets it short term if the trauma is severe enough) is a genetic problem, and roughly 20% of the nation is susceptible. Of that 20%, roughly half have problems well into adulthood. That would be the 10% of the population that are “addicted” to illegal drugs and alcohol.

The core organ involved seems to be the amygdala although the hippocampus is thought to play a role as well. The interesting thing about these organs is that they don’t “communicate” with the brain much except as chemical factories. Neural pathways are sparse into and out of the amygdala. So you can’t “think” your way out of the reactions those organs produce. You can’t will away the fear messages that the amygdala broadcasts.

Two thoughts come quickly to mind; "Just Say No" isn't gonna work for these folks, and it seems a quick jolt actually does make some people better (without quotes, scary or otherwise). I think it's pretty well established that the British shooting community (what there is left of it at any rate) is a good deal more tolerant of shooters having a "quick bracer" over the course of the day than we are on this side of the water. Might be time to give that a second - and actually science-based for a change - look maybe. Probably not, prejudice is so much more comfortable, and this from a group that ought to be more familiar than any with the virulent racism and class-based elitist prejudice that inspired so many of the gun-restricting laws and regulations that bedevil us in the US.

One other consideration did occur; of the roughly 10% of Americans that are genetically susceptible to long term PTSD, and of whom some portion is likely also among the 10% addicted to drugs and/or alcohol, how many are also members of the 60+ million households (that is the number the NRA claims isn't it?) that have one or more guns therein? Which, when you stop to think on it (and for a given value of us), makes them part of us. You know, fellow "gunners", members of the militia if they're the right age, all that inalienable rights guff we prattle at each other about. Unless they're sick, then it's a disdainful sniff and a quick view of our backsides as if they were unclean defilers of our privileged sect.

A closing thought; how about we make a concerted effort to shine a little medical (or any other that seems relevant) science onto what ails them and seriously consider offering our fellow citizens some of the treatment that contributes to unit cohesion and morale, just as we do amongst ourselves now (there's a very backhanded joke in there if your personal kink permits that sort of quirk). It is well established that we the citizenry are "the militia" the 2nd Amendment refers to; I don't read any exclusion to that other than age, so maybe we ought to act - and more importantly, think - just that way and treat our fellow militia members as such.

Think of it as strengthening the frailer links in the chain that guards our mutual rights, if metaphor helps at all.

Go and offer comment at M. Simon's post, he needs better gun rights material to work with. While you're there read the drug related stuff on his side-bar, it's informative. Liberty does have limits, but "Liberty is indivisible" has quite a ring to it.

Good Guess

2012-01-14T17:15:00.002-06:00

I'd be more impressed if I knew how many ~~guesses~~ predictions were made in total. 10 for 10 is really something, 10 out of a 1000 not so much.

h/t Instapundit.

That's Their Story

2012-01-14T17:10:00.001-06:00

And, apparently they're sticking to it.

So to speak.

h/t Instapundit.

Finally, TSA Bags One Not Their Own

2012-01-02T15:15:00.003-06:00

I have to say, I'm kinda surprised at not reading all about this all over the gunblogosphere. It's been 48 hours since the mystery device was found in the carry-on baggage of Trey Scott Atwater of Hope Mills, Texas (as CNN made certain to reveal*) "wrapped in military grade wrapping" while said gentleman was boarding a flight for some mystery destination in N. Carolina (let's see, man in the armed forces flying to some place in N. Carolina ... hmmmm, wonder which branch of the service he's in?) (and while I'm being all parenthetical and such, what the digital-camo-blazes is military grade wrapping?).

Is this the performance bar we can expect from TSA/DHS/WTF from now on - a decadal cycle of apprehension of someone carrying something that merits being qualified as, "At no time was there any danger ..." according to FBI spokesman?

* To be fair, the local FOX affiliate wasn't coy about putting his identity out there either.

Get Stuff'd, LLC

2011-12-30T07:00:00.005-06:00

A question I have been asking online - and trying to answer - has been, "How do we get there from here?" Mostly this has been confined to the human societal context of employment and wages during the transition from the historical model of trade and markets, capital concentration in large manufacturing businesses and marketing efforts from corporate to individual, to the projected model of individual fabrication on demand at the (for the most part) strictly local, individual effort level of operation. The former model we all grew up participating in; the transition away from that to the projected fabber/maker model has imposed numerous and growing demands on the ways and means we have available to us to continue our individual ability to obtain the things we all need to meet the daily demands of our and our family's lives. Adding complexity is the simple fact that such changes are more of a process, a series of separate events permitting advancement to a nominally greater level of individual capability.

It's often said in recent years that the US is losing it's manufacturing capability. This is a falsehood. The truth is that the US produces more now then ever before in it's history (as does Japan for example - this isn't a US-centric occurrence); it's just doing so with fewer pay-earning, tax-paying people doing the work than ever before. And there's the crimp in the bright and shiny futurist's dream; how do we - especially those of us like myself who earn our daily crust building something for others to buy - continue to make a living (and occasionally buying some of the stuff for our own use) when the jobs we have need of are being performed by machines instead? How do we get from here - putting Tab "A" into Slot "B" on an assembly line - to being capable of fabricating what we need for ourselves as the need for an item arises (or as another's desire for an item makes them willing to exchange value to acquire an example)?

Instapundit has linked obsessively to the on-going meltdown of education (and by implication skills training too) efforts and institutions in the US and elsewhere, and more power to the good Professor for doing so. His recent link to Stephen Gordon's Speculist post is in my opinion an examination of this education/employment dilemma from the actuarial other end my own approach has pursued. Which is good; we need to develop a remedy that meets current needs as well as those almost certain to develop in coming years.

My personal belief has long been that individual education, both technical as well as classical, offered the most reliable mechanism for relieving the employment opportunity dilemma as well as the "education bubble" which is both a financial and subject matter issue I think. Too many new lawyers (or whatever - too many degreed people generally) having both a dearth of practical skills to earn a living and a financial debt that requires an upper-middle class income level just to fund basic payment levels is the crux of the problem. From my perspective, too many manufacturing workers no longer having a recognisable opportunity to earn a living using their years-in-the-learning skills as they get progressively older is the actuarial other end of the same condition.

Instead of placing these two groups of people in active opposition to each other, we need to devise a mechanism whereby they can both achieve their desired ends. And therein lies the strategic opportunity my other personal interest speaks of (a strategic opportunity is, by definition, one that no-one else has recognised and taken advantage of).

I recognise and agree with Stephen's observation that much of retail and individual business is transacted in the "comfy chair" environment that booksellers like Barnes & Noble and coffee shops like Starbucks are associated with. Stephen's contention that education ought to transition to such an environment and away from the historical "groves of academe" model that modern universities strive for is well taken. Such a model would permit learning at the individuals pace and ability (and remove most doubt as to the source of failure as well), and do so at a potentially much reduced cost at the same time, Stephen notes that much of the current cost of education derives from administrative overhead endemic to the current school model, though I notice he pays little attention to the near-certain efforts people will make to create equivalent drags on the "coffee shop" model of school too. Even so, anyone not named Kevin Baker can only put so much into a single blog post, and Stephen makes a good case for his observations on education.

I want to take a different approach to addressing the same circumstance (and not only because my middle name isn't actually Contentious either :)) and place this issue in the context of human rights, in particular the right enumerated in the Second Amendment of the US Constitution. I select this particularly contentious human right because it is my belief that it best addresses the dynamic we also face in the education and employment "bubble"s.

In a nut shell, the US Second Amendment asserts that we each possess an inherent right to defend ourselves within certain delineations - principal among these being that our efforts not impose upon another's equally valid individual right. My argument is that this principle can be also equally validly expressed as an inherent right to fend for ourselves, and that this logically leads to the necessity to structure our society in such a fashion as to maximise the potential opportunity for everyone to do just that, as their interests guide them and from within the identical delineations and limitations on mutually acceptable options and actions that constrain their other expressions of their rights.

In this model (and I recognise I'm stretching the definition of the word here - it's a work-in-progress), education is a life-long pursuit to provide a context for the skills training one acquires to obtain the wherewithal we each need in life. A practical knowledge of plumbing (more specifically, the mechanics of a fluid under pressure within a confined space - like the brake lines in your car, for example, and not just the drain under the sink), electricity (why not wash out the interior of a plugged in toaster again?), CPR (see: electricity), arithmetic (yes, I understand that spreading the risk of real estate mortgage finance among numerous parties reduces the level of individual risk, but how does assuming any additional risk entail advantage to me again?), the potential subject list is probably longer than the lifespan of even Lazarus Long and all of it offers added opportunity for individual advantage particularly from within the context of the ethic imbued within the Second Amendment. Classical education provides the shared context for practicing the specific skills we need trained in to meet the challenges of supporting ourselves in the ethical manner prescribed by the equal and inherent human right of self defense from proffered threat (whether deliberate or circumstantial).

This is a very good - if somewhat dated - paper on the nature and general types of fabrication processes and though presented in 1997is quite readable to a non-specialized audience of which I certainly am a part. As a practical matter, something like what is described here is what most of us would need familiarity with to be positioned to make the leap from building things using Industrial Revolution methods to what I regard as a likely seeming near-term future manufacturing model. Much as an apprentice plumber doesn't start out building the high pressure steam lines for a nuclear reactor-driven power plant, a qualified new-hire fabricator needs a demonstrated competence with the basic knowledge and operating principles of deposition fabrication before taking charge of a commercial fabrication machine. Documenting a level of competence using essentially a hobbyist version of the technology achieves this I think.

An example of what I'm saying (and not too surprisingly, I hope, consistent with my Second Amendment thesis) can be seen here. A personal machine shop has the capability to build a complex machined tool (which is the practical definition of a gun after all) from refined metals stock. A fabricator has the capability to build the same machined tool from refined metal (and other) stock by building up succeeding layers of material to construct the desired end shape rather than by removing the excess raw material to reveal the desired end product. Another example of a potential application for this entry-level professional fab shop business opportunity lies in special orders of complex machined objects that are no longer being produced, such as the example noted in this Oleg Volk post.

Our education "coffee shop" needs to offer that specific level of training/education, to anyone willing to learn the subject matter at the least financial cost manageable. From my past association with Stephen Gordon and Phil Bowermaster, I'm sure they have no objection to doing any of what I've suggested here, but it isn't clear they're actually seeing the connections and thus the strategic opportunity that I assert exists.

A recurring concern with any alteration of the education/training model has to do with the accreditation/documentation of the subject matter learned. I think Phil Bowermaster's employer sells a product that could readily be adapted to achieve this end. As Richard
Fernandez writes in his Belmont Club critique of Stephen's education post:

Your diploma would essentially become your reputation log, rather like the debits and credits that you see when you view your bank account. That is your “rep”; your human capital balance.

That strikes me as a very eloquent description of Zapoint's SkillsMapper technology, and making their business product into the world standard for documenting individual education and occupational skills ought to be an obvious opportunity I would think. That aside, having some commonly acceptable standard of documentation is necessary to escape the constraints of the existing education/employment models while not making matters even worse. Given the frequently competitive nature of business and employment generally, pursuing such a program from an ethical basis such as that imbued in the inherent human right of self defense seems merely common sense as well. A business and manufacturing model that allows us to make and get the stuff we want to make our lives safer, more satisfying or just plain livable is certainly an improvement on the hopeless dependence that is being offered to us in the present, as is an education process that is as unlimited as we choose to be ourselves. Styling that idea as a Limited Liability Company is just my idea of humor.

It isn't really possible to "solve" a systemic problem such as those under discussion here. The best we can hope to accomplish is to create a mechanism whereby individuals have the opportunity to make the necessary change for their own reasons. By structuring the opportunity such that ethical action is more rewarding than some other choice because that creates the greatest chance of personal success seems the least intrusive method of preventing deliberate mis-use of the skills and knowledge learned, and not coincidently I believe, not a method chosen by our present educational and employment structures.

Edited to add: Al Fin independently arrives at a similar conclusion on the education topic that contains a variation on the business opportunity I note above. Very much worth your attention and consideration.

Picture Of War Crime Justice

2011-12-24T06:00:00.000-06:00

At the very end of his Dec. 22 Chaos Manor post, Jerry Pournelle links to a Treppenwitz post, now several months old, which examines a famous photo from the Vietnam War. Therein blogger David Bogner reviews some of the lesser known facts surrounding both the picture itself and people's perception of the recorded image.

All of that is interesting, yet the single most operant fact that contributed to the circumstance playing out as it was recorded at the time is never directly mentioned.

Without recounting the Treppenwitz post, the basic facts are: in 1968 the Communist Viet Cong/Viet Minh insurgent forces staged extreme acts of violence in violation of a negotiated truce throughout much of then-South Vietnam. Captured in the act of mass murder, one of these VC was summarily tried and executed by the military and civil police commander for the city and military district of Siagon (the city since re-named as Ho Chi Minh City). This summary execution was captured on both still and motion photography, the still image probably being the more historically famous of the two.

Here's the thing; the executed man (formally Captain Bay Lop, South Vietnamese Communist Party Army, Viet Minh) was properly judged and sentenced "in accordance with the provisions of the Geneva Convention (aka Laws of Armed Conflict) regarding "Armed Partisans", " civilian combatant s", and "crimes against non-combatants". Were an American or other NATO officer to be presented with an insurgent in Afghanistan captured committing the same crimes, he would be equally in accordance with the law (negotiated treaty having force of same in the USA) in also issuing a summary judgement and execution. We would also subsequently crucify him too.

We cry about how terrible something is, empower someone to impose our considered will upon any perpetrator of that thing, and then cry in horror that we didn't mean for what then happens to take place, all while we set out to destroy those who did our bidding in our name. Police, soldiers, politicians; you name it, the list is virtually endless. We put people in a position to act with our authority, then refuse to accept responsibility for the predictable results of our decision. If we want honest and open enforcement of our societal decisions, we must be prepared to accept responsibility for what those we so empower do as a result. Further, if we want an open and honest society (government, law enforcement, whatever) we must judge all things - not least ourselves - just as openly and honestly.

In executing Capt. Lop, South Vietnamese General Nguyen Ngoc Loan was photographed performing his sworn duty in an entirely lawful manner. The honest image of that honorable act was subsequently used in deliberate campaigns of lies and misdirection, both here in the United States and elsewhere, which are themselves symptoms of what still ails American society - possibly fatally. We very well may not be able to elect ourselves out of our present national condition, but I suggest Gen. Loans experience is instructive of the consequences if we don't.

My thanks to Jerry Pournelle for this timely reminder at the outset of our latest national election year. Sometimes, harsh facts are best illustrated by harsh images.

Merry Christmas.

Getting The Business

2011-12-22T06:00:00.000-06:00

I recently bought a TS-200 Aperture Sight from Tech-SIGHTS for my SKS. Then last Friday, I read this post at Oleg Volk's blog about the Tech Sights for the Saiga 7.62 x 39 rifle. Having the same gun in .223, I commented asking advice:

My Saiga is in .223, and the Tech Sight is on my SKS instead, and I haven’t done the conversion to AK mags, of course. Not having done the conversion myself, does anyone have experience just modifying the recoil spring cover plate to accept the Tech Sight? It looks like it ought to be a fairly straight-forward matter for drilling the necessary hole, but I’m concerned the sight would make removing the spring cover difficult thereafter. I’ve got the Pro-Mag scope mounting plate installed and it causes the scope to sit too high for comfortable shooting so I’m looking at alternatives.

Now, I want to make clear that the optical scope works perfectly well as mounted on the Pro-Mag mount except for the excessive height problem. It seems to hold zero and permits easy use of the factory sights, but the pronounced muzzle flash these Saiga rifles produce really degrades the scope performance as perceived by the shooter post-shot (an observation made by several others who own a Saiga or have shot my rifle). The Tech Sight seemed a known option to look into.

Initially not being able to post a reply to my comment at Oleg's, Larry Nesseth of the Tech-SIGHTS company wrote me an e-mail clarifying what was involved. He has since managed to put it on Oleg's blog:

The Tech-SIGHTS will fit your Saiga with out any problem. The sight actually mounts to the receiver and not the cover. You replace the rear portion of your recoil spring assembly. The part with the button on it that locks your current cover in place. Once you replace that part with our sight assembly, you assemble the rifle the same way that you always have. Then install the new cover that comes with the sight and you are ready to zero the sights. The AK100S and AK200S models for the AK47/74 will fit the 5.56, 5.45 x 39 and 7.63 x 39 Saigas. The sight will fit the 308 Saiga as well but requires a recoil buffer to be installed in the recoil spring assembly to limit the bolt carrier travel just ast the original recoil assembly does. I hope this helps. It tried to post this on Olegs blog on the Saiga but it would take for some reason.

I have a friend actively searching for a Saiga in .308 so that bit of data will come in handy for him, and a look at the Tech-SIGHT FAQ page for the AK-47 answers most of my questions, though finding the data without Larry's help was needlessly difficult for this customer at least.

Suffice to say, while it will likely be late February before the Christmas "sticker shock" recedes sufficiently, I will be buying the TS-200 for my Saiga .223 rifle just as soon as the wallet permits.

Thanks Larry. Taking care of business like you have makes for a modest amount of economic recovery.

Eventually. ;-)

In Leiu Of Originality

2011-12-11T06:00:00.002-06:00

Part of Phil Bowermaster's actual job is to post daily entries at the Transparency Revolution blog.

I console myself by imagining the off-line depths he plums in his occupational Augean Stable.

It isn't very convincing as flights of fancy go, is it?

Beginning here and then here, he and the commentariate have used the #occupysomething example as a vehicle to illustrate the wealth of opportunity available to those individuals and companies willing to recognise and seize them.

Should any of them just happen to use the tools his employer Zapoint markets, so much the better.

The latest entry in the series (and circumstances seem to indicate that it will be a series) was posted this past Friday, and prompted this response from me:

Since this horse refuses to die, lets give it a really good flogging.

“And today we’re at 200 rigs, producing almost 500,000 barrels a day and we’re going to permit 2,000 wells this year.”

That would be on the order of 5 million barrels (42 US Gal./bbl) needing to be delivered to a refinery somewhere … Every. Single. Day. A quick wikiwander later, it appears that one semi-truck trailer of heavy distillate would weigh a bit over 33 tons and consist of about 200 barels (sic) of oil needing transport to a refinery. Call it 5 trips per 1000 bbl (move the decimal point over three places to the right and times 5=) … that should require about 5,000 semi-truck trips south every day.

If only 10% of the projected 5m bbls of production coming online is transported over the road (instead of by railroad or barge – pipeline you say?), that requires slightly more than 20 truckloads leaving for points South every hour of every day or one every three minutes.

All of which leaves unanswered the question of what to haul back North on the return trip (unless you want to double the cost of the oil).

Occupy North Dakota my aging Butte Ox!

How about a nice truck stop/fuel station with a really good central air system near Salina Kansas instead? A couple different fast food franchises along with a shower and laundry service and a T-1 line to send all the money to the bank as quickly as it gets collected. I’ll be in the bar … consulting with my investor millionaire partners, of course.

Now that’s a strategy!

Realising my comment was a little more flippant than I actually intended, and recognising a salvation-ary opportunity when Brian Wang posts one, I added to my comment with:

Brian Wang has a good deal more serious post about this issue up at his Next Big Future site, that also manages to give my own silliness a certain patina of reality.

A man of true talent, that Brian.

One of the great failings of those involved with the #occupy whatever event(s) has been their determined unwillingness to advance a positive message or objective. Pointing out the failings of “Wall street” or the banking industry more generally is all fine and well, not to mention fully deserved, but the failure to promote a positive alternative to the identified failing is where the #occupyers themselves fail.

Speaking only for myself, I offer these bon motes as illustration of just how commonplace financial (or any other classification really) opportunity actually is if only the attention of a sufficient number of fellow venturers can be attracted to give substance to the potential position. Human Resources professionals too often in my experience are unwilling to even consider doing the one thing their job title ought to make the most commonplace and basic of professional duties, managing the strategic environment within which the resources of their companies particular humans can be allied with others to create a position that advances any of these potential opportunities into an improved corporate financial statement.

In that strategy regulation isn’t a boundary, it’s a fulcrum to leverage advancement off of. Come on HR, get out of the “overhead” category and start troweling on the value with the rest of us hod carriers.

There is an unfortunate perception of Human Resources as being the willing enforcers of corporate whim upon the workforce, as well as being an expense on the company financial balance sheet instead of a product value adding component of the business. Leaving the company hit (wo)man image for another post, altering the duties of HR personnel to make their efforts more directly apply to adding value to the company product would mostly involve a reversal of perspective as regards HR's approach to company (and even industry) regulatory practices.

Being seen to explain why a particular practice is mandated, and how to go about doing so at least additional effort (added effort = reduced rate of production over time), ought to be a regular (daily) part of HR's job responsibility. It is commonly the case that, understanding why some particular bit of stupidity has been declared often reduces the frustration experienced by those actually doing the stupidity I find. Going about their daily rounds to communicate with the employees, HR could do much to reduce the stress levels that so often inhibit workplace production by making clear the context within which a directive is issued ("... and because the effing EPA said we have to", could be one example of this :)). Focusing on the production details to the point of excluding attention to the environment the product is made and marketed in causes a sense of cynicism and disillusionment in people, which in turn promotes inattention to detail and reduction in product quality and quantity. HR can help to reduce all of this by a change in perspective regarding their approach to regulatory influences and how that change in turn modifies their communication approach and practice.

The #occupy meme developing on Transparency Revolution will likely fade away as the societal effort loses prominence in the news reporting cycle, but the strategic principles Phil and I use it to illustrate will be a recurring theme at both our blogs.

Which also means I at least won't have to keep coming up with so much occasional original blog post fodder; I can just copy-and-paste from Phil's page instead.

Just Bad Strategy

2011-11-23T13:01:00.005-06:00

Via Say Uncle comes notice of recent events in Houston (actually, the north-west outskirts of the city).

The mission was supposed to be a textbook “controlled delivery” — a routine trap by law enforcement officers using a secret operative posing as a truck driver to bust drug traffickers when their narcotics are delivered to a rendezvous point.

Instead, things spun out of control. Shortly before the marijuana delivery was to be made Monday, three SUVs carrying alleged Zetas Cartel gunmen seemingly came out of nowhere and cut off the tanker truck as it rumbled through northwestern Harris County ...

Leaving for another time the whole issue of structuring a war so as to inflict the greatest amount of damage upon your own territory and people, let's focus our attention on what is reported in the Houston Chronicle story linked above and some of the known behavior of the participants mentioned there-in.

Skipping right past the obvious willingness of US law enforcement officers to resort to apparently unrestricted rules of engagement as regards their own firearms, not to mention their shameless willingness to place a non-LEO citizen in such an obvious high profile target position, we have self-identified Mexican national criminal gang members operating within the US just as they are accustomed to doing in Mexico.

So let's look at that for a moment. Both of the major gangs operating in N. Mexico routinely target law enforcement personnel (and their families) who display even the slightest willingness to oppose their activities. The newspaper makes a good effort to clearly identify as many of the cops (or at the least their agency) involved in this incident as could be fit into the story.

How long can we expect to wait for the news report on the execution of any of these officers and/or their family members by other elements of the Zetas as is that group's long established practice?

What might the 1st Amendment consequences be throughout the United States as a result of such an obvious occurrence?

What is the likelihood of such an organisation (Zetas) being willing to spread cash around to politicians and senior cops (pardon the redundancy) so as to not overload their limited personnel's ability to inflict damage on an enemy without interfering with "business"?

Any "strategy" that doesn't clearly articulate both recognition of obvious problems like these as well as obviate them via conceptual structural organisation is an exercise in deliberate failure. Or a false-flag operation to disguise some other intended objective, depending on your preferred flavor of kool-aid or hat materials.

The cops named in this story (along with their families) are now all under death sentence per long established Zetas protocol and the Houston Chronicle has obligingly provided the initial target list for that groups all-too-experienced killers with the willing cooperation of the ~~targets~~ police themselves.

Well done all.

The only "improvement" this story could have is if it should turn out that Fast & Furious guns (those provided to Mexican drug gangs with the active connivance of US federal law enforcement) were used in this gun fight too.

This is all the fault of ordinary American's unwillingness to refrain from any activity their government decides they shouldn't be doing, you understand, so take up your share of the blame and send more money to your government as restitution for your failure as a citizen.

Or not.

Staking Claim To My Position

2011-11-22T06:00:00.000-06:00

Kevin Baker (who hasn't been on Vicious Circle in too long) has his faith in human failure reinforced by a series of expository posts by Mike-istan. In a comment to the third post, I wrote:

One aspect of the position the police might choose for themselves that hasn't been overtly examined in your series to-date is the degree to which law enforcement (in general terms, the armed segment of every level of the US civil and criminal courts system) might gravitate into creating its own "estate" (recalling your earlier reference to medieval societal demarcations). What if they effectively choose, "We The Cops, The Estate; To Protect And Serve Ourselves"?

On a different tack, "we who don't need to be ruled" are always going to be confronted by a comparatively overwhelming force in any such dystopian (un)civil confrontation with organised government forces. An Army Of One was a stupid recruitment slogan and in the context of your series is a certain loser in any conflict opposing a coordinated group effort. S/He may not go alone, but ...

Freedom and independence are wonderful experiences for an individual when viewed from within the mutual support and association of a like-minded group; they're a wonderful goad for one to dominate and lead as many others as you can otherwise. The people who have already made the choice to join the effort to provide for themselves at the expense of the rest of the citizenry (which is an admittedly unfair description of government employees) are actually faced with the subsequent choice of destroying their personal lives or continuing as they have already chosen to do. Does anyone really think there's much question as to their likely resolution of such a quandary?

Personally, I think it's bad strategy to position any potential rival with an us-or-them threat (even if only metaphorically, as in the case above). Much better to present a selection of potential (and often interdependent) options for mutual assistance between positions. Ideological arguments are best confined to discussions with one's self, or at most a select - and very private - group. Using them as a basis for positional identification is a virtual guarantor of violent reaction (and likely of actual violence too).

Never force someone into choosing for or against you; even if he picks you, he'll still resent you for it and be an unreliable ally. Better to present yourself as an attractive choice potentially available to the right proposition instead.

Electoral What-If-ery Fiskiness

2011-11-21T06:00:00.001-06:00

Brian Wang links to an electoral analysis post on the Conservative page of the broad-spectrum political commentary Nolan Chart blog. Contributing columnist Abraham Hamadeh addresses the question, “What if Ron Paul runs as an independent?”.

Ron Paul could potentially capture enough Electoral votes to prevent both Barack Obama and Mitt Romney from reaching the 270 Electoral votes needed to become president. If this scenario plays out, the presidential election would be decided in the House of Representatives with the top three highest electoral vote getters being decided on who becomes president. In 2012, the House will most likely still be Republican controlled, leaving Mitt Romney and Ron Paul vowing for the highest office. With the growing number of tea party representatives in Congress, the election could look more similar to a European parliament vote, in building coalitions with many factions to support a prime minister.

Where to start?

Mr. Hamadeh notes several times in his article that Dr. Paul has repeatedly stated he isn't considering a third-party run for the Presidency, so it seems clear from the outset that this whole effort is an example of making the known facts fit a premise to illustrate a preconceived notion and not any sort of critical analysis.

Mr. Hamadeh's seeming conviction that Gov. Mitt Romney will be the presumptive GOP candidate is inconsistent with his own observation elsewhere in the article that, "Mitt Romney can barely capture 20 percent of Republican primary voters ...".

Mr. Hamadeh makes clear his shallow grasp of US electoral procedures (or the most basic of data searches) with his attempted description of the role played by the US Congress in an election in which no candidate secures sufficient Electoral College votes to attain the office. From wikipedia:
.

Pursuant to the Twelfth Amendment, the House of Representatives is required to go into session immediately to vote for President if no candidate for President receives a majority of the electoral votes (since 1964, 270 of the 538 electoral votes).

In this event, the House of Representatives is limited to choosing from among the three candidates who received the most electoral votes. Each state delegation votes en bloc - its members have a single vote collectively (and the District of Columbia does not receive a vote). A candidate must receive an absolute majority of state delegation votes (currently 26) in order for that candidate to become the President-elect. Additionally, delegations from at least two-thirds of all the states must be present for voting to take place. The House continues balloting until it elects a President.

The House of Representatives has chosen the President only twice: once under Article II, Section 1, Clause 3 (in 1801) and once under the Twelfth Amendment (in 1825).

And, as provided for by the referenced Twelfth Amendment:

Under the Twelfth Amendment, the House has the power to elect the President if no presidential candidate receives a majority of votes in the Electoral College. The Twelfth Amendment requires the House to choose from the three candidates with the highest numbers of electoral votes. The Constitution provides that "the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote." Electoral College deadlocks are rare; in the history of the United States, the House has only had to break a deadlock twice. In 1800, it elected Thomas Jefferson over Aaron Burr; in 1824, it elected John Quincy Adams over Andrew Jackson and William H. Crawford. The Senate elects the Vice President if the Electoral College deadlocks.

{I seems fair to note that two distinct constitutional issues were addressed by the House in the two historic occasions it had the duty to resolve an electoral question. Jefferson and Burr were the two candidates running on the same (and then new political concept) party ticket, for President and Vice-President respectively. They each won the same number of votes from the Electoral College which had no legislative authority to determine which to award what office to. The House wisely agreed that each man was entitled to the office he had campaigned for, making Jefferson our second President. Adams, Jackson and Crawford were from competing parties, so the House fulfilled it's intended 12th Amendment function in this instance.}

From this it can be seen that, quite unlike a parliamentary coalition to determine a prime minister, each state's delegation (however many members of the House that may entail) gets one vote and a majority of all the states (again, that would be a minimum of 26 for the Obama supporters amongst us) must vote for a candidate for him/her to attain office. In the event the House is somehow unable to resolve the issue "before the fourth day of March next following", the newly-elected Vice-President fills the office of President until the electoral conflict is resolved. In no case is there any form of party coalition, nor is the President's (or VP's) term of office in any way dependent upon retaining Congressional support. Mr. Hamadeh's allusion to parliamentary procedures and conditions is misleading at best.

And all this from only one paragraph.

Next Big Future disappoints this time

Health Care Update

2011-11-19T06:00:00.001-06:00

Via Instapundit comes notice of just how drastic the lack of health care coverage is in the US. Only 25% of the total patient pool receive the treatment they so clearly need. There does seem to be an effort underway to correct that defecit though, which should go some way toward relieving the stress inflicted upon the remainder of the national population.

Can't happen soon enough in my experience.

FTL Is Real

2011-11-18T06:00:00.000-06:00

As I noted a couple weeks ago, there was a re-test of the charged neutrino transmission test scheduled by CERN. The results have been announced as Brian Wang reports:

The new tests, completed 6 November, did away with the statistical analysis by splitting each pulse into bunches just 1- to 2-nanoseconds long, allowing each neutrino detected at Gran Sasso to be tied to a particular bunch produced at CERN. These tests were carried out over 10 days and provided 20 events. The researchers confirmed that the neutrinos arrived 60 nanoseconds early, with an uncertainty of about 10 nanoseconds, comparable to that of the initial result.

[My bold.]

I still don't get the time travel part of all this, but the fact (apparently) that we still don't know all there is to be learned about our universe isn't a surprise at all (and an idea I'm confident Albert Einstein himself would have agreed with).

Modern Chemistry

2011-11-14T06:00:00.000-06:00

I wonder what this product does to a garment material's breathablility? If NeverWet turns my tee shirt into a rain coat, does it simultaneously turn it into a sauna? If you build your next bathroom shower stall out of ordinary plywood and spray a coat of this stuff on all exposed surfaces, will it keep the water inside the stall ('till it goes down the drain) and out of the rest of the house?

If this product does what's claimed there would seem to be a long list of potential applications to consider, many of which rise to the level of "game changing". One example; constructing houses out of compressed earth is an economical and structurally robust design if you can keep water out of the building material. A coating of NeverWet would appear to achieve that requirement, making mud pies the building material of choice for at least single and two story structures.

Almost anywhere on Earth.

That strikes me as "game changing". NeverWet is supposed to become available through retail sources next year. If so, this is a product to investigate for yourself.

Via Instapundit.

Are You Ready For Some "News"?

2011-11-11T14:40:00.003-06:00

I'm gonna get a jump on the whole end-of-year prediction silliness and make mine now.

For the next 10 months or so, we in the USA can expect to be treated to a steady stream of "news reports" about college sports-related stories of debauchery, crime and moral titillation whenever either major political party (or their media allies) feel the desire to deflect public attention away from the latest act of stupidity committed by the Criminal-In-Chief and his cohorts or the GOP's contender for the title.

Call it the College Sports Proctoscopy Strategy.

Fast & Furious? Shocker In The Showers!

Rising Unemployment? Cheerleader Upskirts!

And if the rate of revelation of political disgrace should cause the media to burn through too many schools too quickly, expect the Olympics and the professional leagues to be offered up as well.

I mostly watch the movie channels these days anyway. That Roku box is looking a more and more attractive alternative to cable every day.

China To Revolve Ushan

2011-11-09T06:00:00.001-06:00

That's revolution according to this guy's read of the 8 November economic forecast from The Conference Board. I took a quick look and didn't see much mention of the endemic financial corruption and blatant market manipulation that is the PRC economy, so I have to think that the next few years self-inflicted antics and outrages ought to be quite entertaining from this more-or-less remove.

For a given value of "entertaining".

Via Instapundit.

Housing Bubble Bursts

2011-11-07T16:48:00.003-06:00

In China.

All over mainland China at that.

Residential property prices are in freefall in China as developers race to meet revenue targets for the year in a quickly deteriorating market. The country’s largest builders began discounting homes in Shanghai, Beijing, and Shenzhen in recent weeks, and the trend has now spread to second- and third-tier cities such as Hangzhou, Hefei, and Chongqing.

...

What started slowly in September turned into a rout by the middle of last month—normally a good period for sales—when Shanghai developers started to slash asking prices. Analysts then expected falling property values to move Premier Wen Jiabao to relax tightening measures, such as increases in mortgage rates and prohibitions on second-home purchases, intended to cool the market.

They were wrong. After a State Council meeting on October 29, Mr. Wen affirmed his policy, stating that local authorities should continue to “strictly implement the central government’s real estate policies in the coming months to let citizens see the results of the curbs.” Then, the selling began in earnest as “desperate” developers competed among themselves to unload inventory.

One presumes that none of Premier Wen Jiabao's family are financially invested in the Chinese residential real estate markets. One does wonder how many of his potential opposition within the CCP are?

In any case, in Mr. Wen's strategic context he and his are the only one's "too big to fail", everybody else's balls bounce along as his little baton directs.

h/t: Instapundit

500,000 Manufacturing Jobs Lost

2011-11-05T06:00:00.000-05:00

In China.

To robots, no less.

So, if we buy/build under license our own robots, does that mean the manufacturing jobs sent out of the country over recent decades can be brought back to the US?

Here's a thought; how about we form a consortium to buy some of these robots and have them manufacture stuff for sale so that we can avoid having to have a job ourselves? Since robots don't have any use for money (though I admit they can account for spending a good deal of it), anything they make we can sell and divide the money amongst ourselves.

What a strategy!

:-)

Second Try At Breaking Universal Speed Limit

2011-11-01T17:26:00.004-05:00

Those not-so-wacky boys (and, presumably, girls) at CERN are going to repeat the experiment they announced last month. The speed of light was apparently exceeded by the charged neutrinos released in a comparatively lengthy stream by the CERN experimenters, so a slightly different format (two short bursts released separately over a measured time period) will be used this time to test for that outcome specifically.

The maths are all well beyond my fuzzy calculations (fuzzy, math; it's a math funny :)), but this seems to me a most honest and transparent method to check their earlier results. I may not understand the process, but it's obvious even to a mathematical ignoramus like me just how profound a change in humanity's supposed understanding of our universe is potentially put to the question here.

Exciting stuff.

h/t: Instapundit

I Already Know The Answer

2011-10-21T18:02:00.004-05:00

It seems my clever stratagem is going to prevail and I will soon be able to demonstrate first hand as it were exactly what a man wears beneath his kilt.* I told JayG in my bid e-mail that I planned to kilt up for next years KTKC effort and the first step in my strategy proceeds apace.

I'm already looking into structuring my contribution solicitation efforts by means of the Zapoint Skills Mapping tools to organize my efforts. Lance Armstrong's Livestrong charity collection and documentation system of course; the money never touches my hands. I also hope to use the Skills Map to put together an item or two as prizes for next years event. If KTKC is "the company", and my blog is my "production unit" therein, I hope the Zapoint Skills Mapping tools will permit me to diversify and broaden my contribution solicitations prior to next September's Prostate Cancer Awareness campaign (and maybe convince Zapoint to agree to a bit of corporate sponsorship withal).

Just over 10 months to go; should be time enough to build a winning strategy I think.

* Answer: All that God gave him. Of course.

Cain/Gingrich 2012

2011-10-20T06:26:00.002-05:00

More on this some other time, I just want to establish the concept this morning.

Profundity Found Here

2011-10-19T06:00:00.000-05:00

Well, here. Click on the little audio player gadget, the interview lasts 15 minutes.

Exchange Rate Established

2011-10-18T15:43:00.003-05:00

So, 1 Israeli is worth 1000 Palestinians.

I'd say the IDF has it's work cut out for it the next time the neighbors get all unruly. That's a lot of ammo to hump.

War! What Is It Good For?

2011-10-14T13:23:00.003-05:00

We keep doing this military advisor disguise for our extra-constitutional military combat deployments.

At least it's a shorter supply line than Vietnam (for the history challenged, our involvement there began the same way). Which doesn't really make up for the lack of harbors, so everything has to be flown in this time.

Thoughts On Situational Awareness And Guns

2011-10-14T06:00:00.000-05:00

In and amongst all of the other distinctions we gun owners like to discuss is that of situational awareness, most commonly as that concept applies to our potential for having to use a gun in self defense. I want to propose the adoption of a three-stage classification of SA to better distinguish between the options available.

[Now that I've done all this, someone point out how long ago someone else did it much better. :)]

In reading a recent blog post by Rory Miller, he was making the point that there are visual cues related to detecting a physical attack specific to short range encounters:

There are ranges and positions where someone can stand and hit you without any telegraph. The threat has to be in range (drop-step exception) and have their limbs in certain positions. This is a code red thing, or what Marc calls "1". The bad guy can hit you in one motion.

For the most part that's not true. Even in range, most positions require you to shift your center of gravity (CoG) before delivering power (again, there is an exception for the drop step. I love the drop step). Marc calls this a "two". It will take two motions, a precursor and the attack itself, to do you any harm.

"Three" means the threat has to change his foot position (and the drop step, in certain positions turns all three to a one... very cool) as well as shift CoG.

I spent a lot of time in close proximity to very bad people. More than a few commented on how relaxed I was. It's powerful. Relaxation can be disconcerting, it makes the criminal think that you know something he doesn't. This was why I could do that. Not only could I tell if the bad guy could reach me, I knew, in advance, exactly what he would have to do or where he would have to shift his center in order to attack. I knew when I was safe and I knew exactly what to watch for should the threat try to move.

This is close range, from a maximum of 3 yards/10 feet to handshake distance. Any attack initiated within these distances simply cannot be reliably defeated by resorting to a holstered gun, whatever it's condition or method of carry. For the determinedly argumentative amongst my gunnie bretheren and sisteren, I will happily stipulate that an exception is indeed possible to almost any given general postulate such as the one offered herein. I simply am not agreeable to staking my life or anyone else's on the likelihood of such appearing just when needed most, thankyouveddymuch.

At the other end of the scale is long range - for the design of pistol/revolver one is likely to attempt to carry (commonly concealed) on their person. This is when "strategic thinking" comes to the fore; how attractive a target are you relative to others, is this an actively disputed part of town by rival gangs, any recent "social actions" (read: riots or demonstrations) in the area? Things of that general nature, factors not directly related to you necessarily, but relevant to the decision-making process. Go/no go, alone or in a group only? You can't completely predict specific occurrences, but you can develop techniques for measuring the relative likelihood of extreme events occurring in a general locale during given times or other metrics.

The local Walmart parking lot at 9:30 am on a Sunday morning? Almost certainly too early in the day for most of the criminally inclined segment of the populace as well as the - how shall I put this? - the more socially restrained segment of the Walmart clientele? The exact same terrain at Midnight Friday night watching the drunk college chicks stop in to make a quick purchase? Much more entertaining (ask me how I know :)), but also more likely to attract others willing to seize the opportunistic moment as well. Same business locale, same basic social function taking place, entirely different levels of threat involved. Long range SA, assessing and identifying the conditions that contribute to a threat of violence being more or less likely at a given place/time of day, and that can be accounted for and efforts taken to negate.

For the purposes of this proposal, I'm going to stipulate that these are threats of attack that can be identified from a minimum physical distance of 15 yards/50 feet away, regardless of the time of day or locale. That's a distance of 5 to 6 cars parked side-by-side or three or more aisles away in a store setting. Plenty of distance to physically escape or create a defensive or hide position (with greatest emphasis on the first of these - RUN).

Scenario.

A carload of rowdy individuals get out of their car(s) in the same parking lot aisle you are walking down towards your car. You immediately walk between parked cars to the next aisle over, keeping track of them while not making direct eye contact. If they follow into your new aisle, change to the next, now openly watching them. Consider beginning a trot/side-step/backpedal towards the store entrance instead of your car. If they continue an aggressive advance, dump the groceries and sprint for the store entrance (or car if that should actually be closer at this point). Draw your firearm only if you have no other alternative and aim center mass at the nearest target until they retreat or they overwhelm you (an event not to be ignored - but your gun might be more effective as a hammer at that point). Never threaten, never try to intimidate; if someone intends to attack you it won't stop them and might attract the attention of the one who hadn't quite decided yet.

End of story. Maybe.

A common enough situation that might degenerate into violence and taken to it's ultimate point of potential conflict. I hope the many steps available to avoid or escape are self-evident.

So, that leaves the mid-range of situational awareness, something that makes itself apparent between 3 and 15 yards away. These are the toughest to defend; the least amount of time/distance within which to make an assessment and decision before the attacker's action makes the choice for you. Even someone like myself, who determinedly carries a 1911 in Condition 3 (Yo, Weird, pffffft! :)), has time to draw, cycle the slide to load a round in the chamber, aim and deliberately fire OR make an effort at escape, but not to think about it much. Mid-range threats aren't those that transition from further out (like that illustrated above), but only appear after you are too close to easily decide on a response and take the action. If the threat is directed at another you might have some additional time to make a judgement in, but you can't count on it. This is gun range, but that isn't a cut and dried option to choose.

I've got no advice to offer on this particular circumstance except to note that, absent some legislative mechanism specifically exempting you from it's application, it is a tenant of American law that no one can pre-emptively defend themselves (or some other person or property). There has to be an after-the-fact demonstrable direct threat of physical violence or death being imminently offered to justify a ruling of "not guilty" (or a Grand Jury "No Bill") if you kill someone. Most especially if you offer the spontaneous confession of homicide that is the plea of "self defense", which are the last words you ever want to come out of your mouth should you become involved in a shooting.

If you say self defense at any point during the investigation, you just freely confessed and the po-po are released from any further consideration of Miranda (or pretty much any other rights you had up to then) as regards the admissibility of any questions asked of you, any answers you might make or evidence gathered from you thereafter. Let me be clear on this, if you make a claim of self defense you just confessed to homicide, and assert that the evidence the cops gather will support your additional claim of an absence of any criminal guilt on your part.

I will offer this advice, surrender to the law peaceably, present your identification willingly, and then decline (politely) to answer any further questions without the advice of your legal counsel. Oh, and memorise your lawyer's phone number; Officer Friendly won't be at the crime scene, or during the booking process, and your cell phone will be taken into evidence and unavailable to you once the cops arrive on-scene.

If you doubt any of this last bit, rent your own lawyer and find out for yourself.

It Isn't Just For Gun Control

2011-10-13T20:43:00.003-05:00

..., now socialist production planning is for farming too. RTWT for yet another example of the tactic say the same thing in a slightly different application approach to government (mis)management.

Comes in for a good kicking in the comments too, which Watts Up With That is usually good for in these circumstances.

He's A New Jersey Rebublican

2011-10-11T13:25:00.004-05:00

Headline NBC New York: Chris Christie To Endorse Mitt Romney Today.

Which is to say that he is only notionally to the right of Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee. Anyone who thought that R = Conservative needs to adjust the ol' pharmacope settings towards something closer aligned with reality.

h/t Drudge Report

And That Gives Me The VC Trifecta

2011-09-28T17:29:00.002-05:00

Heard about the Kilted To Kick Cancer ~~hem lifting~~fund raising effort? If you've got a prostate you ought to be digging deep ... err, lending a hand ... no, that's not right. You ought to be spending money now since a pinch of prevention is better than having your ass ripped out of you later!

Anyway, I put $10 in Stingray's collection plate on Sept. 9th. Me being me (and living in Texas and all), I figured it would be fun to goad JayG a little about the lack of accoutrement's his kilt had. He really is a sucker for a challenge, so that was another ten spot down for the cause. After that, I pretty much couldn't pass up the (help me out; honor isn't really quite the word I'm searching for here) ... opportunity to claim the bragging rights so, third time's the charm if a day late for all that.

Best $30 I ever spent, now cough then get out your wallet and get up off some money too.

More Getting There From Here

2011-09-25T06:00:00.003-05:00

[Now with update!]

The future is always just around the corner, and it seems the promise is always outweighed by the challenges of making the turn. The objections range from "how do we learn to do ..." to "what will we do for jobs?" and always seem to wind up with the perennial "what happens to the people who can't do it?". As if I had answers for questions about things that haven't even happened yet ...

One of the regular dismissals of proclamations about the future has to do with how a given technology will be adopted by industry and just people in general. Take for instance the future technology of 3D Printing. This is the stuff of Star Trek, right?

Nazzo fast, Guido.

A little segue here, to take another look at those questions that keep getting asked. I tend not to get all worked up about the how's and what's that always accompany change; people have been successfully adapting to changing circumstances for as long as there have been people. Now, because it's all of a sudden us having to make the change, we've somehow forgotten how? I don't buy it, and we would all be better off trying to find a way to incorporate whatever opportunity we can into out lives instead of objecting to others doing the same. No one is able to be successful at everything - and some of us seem incapable of mastering anything - but the more of us who do succeed at doing so, the more of us there are who are able to help the rest along. Which is pretty much the same messy way humans have adapted and developed throughout our history.

One of my principal hobbies is shooting (and generally spending money on) firearms. It's an American thing. I spent much of my teen years shooting 1903 Springfield-pattern rifles and 1911-pattern pistols and have taken every opportunity that came along to try my hand at whatever firearm I have been presented the chance to shoot in the years since. I'm well aware that the shooting sports and industry is steeped in the traditions and technologies long since refined to achieve the degree of finish and performance now regarded as routine and normal, so imagine my pleasant sense of surprise to read this and this and not watch the blogger have to wade through a storm of objections and dismissal by others. Those old reactionary American Gunnies slipping into the future like it was scripted by John Moses Browning himself.

Actually, I submit that the culture and mental attitude that is fundamental to modern ownership of firearms in America has much to do with why such fantastic-seeming technology, and the individual empowerment it provides, seems so readily accepted. The near-universal acknowledgement of The Four Rules (enthusiastically encouraged by the showers of scorn heaped upon those who publicly violate them) along with the widespread practice of personal licensing for private concealed carry of handguns (in 49 of the 50 US states) has, I contend, nurtured a somewhat self-reinforcing atmosphere of accentuated personal responsibility among gun owners, especially notable within the online members of the gun owning community, that exceeds anything experienced by our gun-toting ancestors. I expect the historically recent efforts to exile guns from private hands, and the apparent rejection of those efforts by our fellow citizens, has had much to do with the psychological attitudinal change that has accompanied the shift away from the "group rights" mindset toward that of individual rights common today and has also contributed to this willingness to consider the unorthodox as well. Whether or to what degree I'm right about any of that, I do think that gun owners seem better prepared to accept and adopt potentially disruptive technologies that offer the potential to expand their capability to participate in gun ownership then other sub-sets of the American populace have so far demonstrated. No doubt the historical attitude of self-sufficiency and independence associated with gun ownership strongly contributes to this willingness to accept the challenges that accompany untried opportunity as well.

What this instance also provides is a real-world example of how disruptive technology gradually transitions from threat to routine practice. Go read that wikipedia link to 3D printing in closer detail; the boys and girls at Cornell University can print food? When is that home appliance going to be for sale at Walmart?

One of the regular objections raised in discussions of this type of technology relates to education. At Phil Bowermaster's site Transparency Revolution I've recently participated in a discussion on a variant of this concern; here, here, and here, with a related post here. How we gain knowledge and experience in using it for some practical purpose isn't only a matter of having it presented to us in a controlled fashion within a regulated and structured environment (to the extent our public schools ever really were such a thing), especially now that the capability to obtain the information is literally at almost anyone's fingertips.

An example of what I mean can be read here. World of Warcraft is certainly one of the most popular ~~time sinks~~ online multi-player games in the world today (can you tell I'm one of the few to have successfully resisted the allure? :)). It is also the forum of choice for a presentation of the latest research findings into individual and group cognition by a research group at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. If that topic of research is of interest to you, and you can gain access to "... the Ironforge Library on the Saurfang server", your attention and contribution will likely be welcome.

The more general education point of the linked post by Labrat at her personal blog Atomic Nerds (and you too should contribute to her husband Stingray's efforts to help raise money for prostate and testicular cancer research) can be summed up best in her own words:

The thing is, though, that what game developers are essentially in the business of is making learning such a fun and organic activity that people pay in real money and real time in order to do it. It doesn’t matter how basic the game is, all that any of them offer is a chance to master an activity at progressive levels of difficulty; Tetris is a spatial puzzle that speeds up. You can see rotation of objects through space as a challenge on many, many different IQ tests. Pac-Man is another spatial puzzle- track yourself and several other moving objects through a maze, complete the maze within a time limit and without running into any other moving object. Any of the original simulation genre is complex systems manipulation and mastery, and the flight simulator became so detailed that its devotees can spend hundreds or thousands of dollars on equipment and the software to do something that has no game goal but is just as complex and difficult as flying a real plane, minus the g forces and fatal consequences. The later Sims games are a combination of resource management, virtual architecture, and learning how the AI works. Portal is another spatial puzzle, speeded up and with extra dimensions and physics problems added.

MMOs take things to the next level; something like Portal is meant to be played out over a certain number of potential gameplay hours, but an MMO developer has to make the game interesting enough, and content extendable enough, that players remain interested and engaged with the game for years. Depending on the game and the size of playerbase it’s looking to command, there are usually multiple layers of gameplay to learn and potentially master; a developer’s challenge is to make the transition between “kill ten rats, get ten silver” to “level up (gradually increase in complexity)”, to “master your class and take part in competition demanding great knowledge of the game and your role in it, teamwork, practice, and research” fun enough to be worth paying money for- and the fun is in the learning process; even very achievement-oriented players walk away if there’s no challenge to it.

EVE Online is probably the most extreme example; the point of the game is participation in a player-driven economy, which rather than being centrally controlled by the parent company is entirely player-organized and run, to the point where fantastic acts of economic sabotage that nearly any other gaming company would put their foot down on is merely part of the game experience. It’s also the only game with a player-created and elected governing political body, the Council of Stellar Management, which exists to represent the playerbase to the developer team. It is, in essence, a virtual state with virtual corporations and virtual militaries and mercenaries who do what is in nearly all respects work, with the difficulty curve to match and little effort made to make it more accessible to newer or more casual players. The work IS the point of the game. In essence, people pay real money for a non-real job with far fewer protections and benefits than a real job, except for the freedom to experiment.

One more link to consider before you dismiss all this as wishful thinking. Al Fin is one of the more consistently well written and wide-ranging of topic blogs I'm aware of. S/He and/or they recently posted about an interesting educational practice the Israeli's have developed called Talpiot. From the Al Fin post:

Talpiot is a program for bringing the best of the best of Israeli youth together into an intensive mental, physical, and military training regimen. 5,000 youth apply every year, and 50 are accepted. Out of those 50, only 40 will complete the training, and be commissioned as lieutenants in the IDF. They spend 9 years total, including education, training, and military commitment ...

... Talpiot is run by the Israeli Defense Force with the aim of creating an elite officer corps which is capable of responding to any threat by the innovative use of the most advanced technologies -- or any tool within reach. If these elite soldiers later become leaders in business, technology, finance, and other vital areas of society, it should come as no surprise to anyone who is paying attention.

Consider if you will an online game community structured much like the EVE example from Labrat's post, that begins at the basic levels of academic instruction and proceeds ultimately (and only really expected to attract the most fractional percentage of the total player community) to some reasonable facsimile of the Israeli Talpiot program structure (or at least it's academic/intellectual content), that is available to anyone who can gain online access at whatever schedule s/he requires and at the pace of advancement they are capable of achieving.

Think it could never work? From Labrat again, consider this Proof of Concept:

More accurately, this would be titled “clever biochemists induce a population of people who do spatial reasoning puzzles for fun to solve their spatial reasoning problem for entertainment and bragging rights”.

If American business entities large and small were to jointly create a mechanism (a straight-forward trust fund to finance purchase/maintenance the servers, etc once the game itself was written would accomplish this - look at the EVE model, management and repair/expansion of the game is a player responsibility), they could fund this EVE-like online educational game to their - and our - mutual advantage. If their HR departments could track at least some of their individual employee's achievements within the game, and a financial benefit for the individual employee was offered for success achieved in stipulated courses of instruction, the pending skilled/educated employee crunch that gets much moaned about might become a non-issue and the question of where the jobs will come from become self-evident. Players would probably have to roll their eyes at the inevitable product placement, but whatta ya gonna do?

Some disclaimers; I don't play electronic games, online or otherwise; there's only so many hours in a day, and so much money to be extracted from the wallet, so I'm all too aware of just how far all this strays from an personal expertise I can claim. That said, I've repeatedly learned new (to me) skills and knowledge throughout my life in order to continue some semblance of gainful employment. If I can pull this off for going on six decades now, pretty much anyone who can see the screen and hit the keys can too.

I will also readily admit that some better mechanism for gaining practical expertise to accompany all the theory needs to be developed along with the educational game I suggest here too. There's always going to be some problem needs solving. Indeed, this may not prove to be a practical mechanism at all, but I contend it does illustrate that a solution to being able to take advantage of the opportunities the disruptive future will present are available to us now. It only remains for us to make the effort to begin the gradual process of preparing ourselves to overcome the risks that are always associated with opportunity.

UPDATE 9/27/11: RobertaX takes a look at this too.

10/07/11: And Clark at Popehat gets all linked up on the details.

10/10/11: Phil at Transparency Revolution points out yet another application for educational games.

Bullet Point Fodder*

2011-09-21T16:54:00.003-05:00

Some strategy-related thoughts.

It has been said that Principle determines Strategy which in turn determines Tactics. Yes and No, I think. Better I think to phrase it as: Principle modifies the relative value placed upon the available Strategies, which in turn influence the valuation of the Tactics to be selected among. It isn't quite as straightforward as the first aphorism makes it seem. Strategy isn't determined only by what is acceptable or desirable to the strategist, but also by what the various allies expect/require as well, and all parties are ever subject to the demands of circumstance. Tactics are boring since they don't really change, there are only three basic options anyway: defend, attack or avoid. Admittedly there are several options within each of these but they aren't mysterious either; tactical surprise is achieved through successful misdirection of an opponent as to one's immediate intention(s). Rommel knew exactly what Eisenhower was going to do and had covered all the options quite well. Students of history are aware of the role Patton played as Ike's misdirection of Rommel's preparatory concentration.

Jobs, and Presidential policies to create them, are much in the news in recent months. The influence on employment that presidents or state's governors policies can have is more akin to the influence Principle has on Tactics, I think. There is a link, of course, but it's so indirect that it's essentially impossible to determine a specific tactical outcome from a given policy/principle statement prior to the event. What any leader must do is delineate the boundaries within which all must participate (or suffer "the consequences") as well as to ensure that transgression is swiftly and publicly rebuked. Beyond that, any attempt to influence individual Strategies that conform to the general principle(s) defined serves only to inhibit action being taken at all - IOW, remedial tinkering with policy to influence results inhibits normal market activity due to uncertainty as to boundary placement and infringement enforcement. Opportunity always entails risk, but an uncertain policy principle increases the degree of risk unmeasurably which results in depressed market activity and increased unemployment.

The more extensive a business structure is, the more important it becomes for close adherence to the precepts of classical Strategy. If the CEO is "the Prince", then the corporation division heads are most closely akin to the role of "the General". The CEO coordinates the individual contributions by each of the Generals separate "army" toward achieving the agreed-upon strategy of the corporation. While attention must be paid to the methods utilized by each "army", once again the degree of influence a CEO has over the tactics chosen by a division's subsidiary department is just as ill-defined as a president's is at a national level.

I think most American companies would benefit from a deliberate policy of devolution of authority so long as the corporate statement of principles made clear the limits and the degree of responsibility such authority conferred (read: imposed) upon the individual. It's a very different corporate culture that has a department shift team leader (commonly, an hourly employee selected to coordinate his immediate colleagues activities during the course of a work shift) determining work schedule fulfillment priorities based upon the logistical realities of the circumstantial moment as opposed to the do whatever is necessary to make the scheduled production target regardless of circumstance that is more usually the norm today. The latter results in production runs of defective product and inventory stocking levels that don't reflect current market demands for only two examples. The former requires a more intuitive grasp of the corporation's strategic environment at a much greater depth than is currently the case. It is also fair to say that the latter business model inflicts a much greater false sense of control and understanding than does the former.

Enough for now, and just my view from the factory floor anyway. What do I know?

* An inside joke just for us insiders. ;-)

It's A Good Thing I Didn't Have A Love Life To Start With

2011-09-16T19:53:00.003-05:00

Saves me having to choose between it and ... well, living.

Introducing my latest (and likely only) sleeping companion, The Snout, including the warm and wet option to complete the sensuousity of it all. With all the ~~hangman's noose~~ hose and filters, I just tickled the old health insurance for a grand, easy.

What's the sense in living longer if every woman that arouses your interest staggers off laughing hysterically once she catches a glimpse of your bedroom attire?

CPAP my ass; CRAP!

So Much Mis-Information And Confusion

2011-08-31T15:59:00.006-05:00

There are two new laws concerning guns in personal vehicles due to take effect here in Texas tomorrow morning, Sept 1.

One makes explicit that anyone eligible to own a firearm may keep the weapon in a personal vehicle "out of plain sight", though with certain restrictions - not on federal property, not on state property used by the courts or prisons, not on schools and hospitals or private property as declared by the owner all being examples. This law replaces an old law that allowed Texans to keep a gun in their vehicle while "traveling" - the definition of which said law notoriously left decidedly vague. This resulted in numerous definitions being enforced in different jurisdictions within the state, but always allowed for property owners (to include businesses) to exclude personal firearms from their property at their discretion. The "traveling" stipulation has been removed and how the gun(s) may be carried within the vehicle clarified, but the exclusionary option remains in place going forward from tomorrow's date.

There is a second law taking effect tomorrow as well. This law (search: Texas Senate Bill 321) specifically identifies concealed handgun licenee's as being granted a limited authorisation to keep handguns (no mention is made of long guns in the act) "locked up" in their private vehicles within their employers parking lot irrespective of said employer's established policy regarding such*. Once again, this law specifies concealed handgun licenced employees as being the only employees subject to this act (there is some disagreement between Texas lawyers and the NRA's as to whether or not this act also extends to employees who lack a CHL ... my lawyers predict this point of distinction will go to the courts for resolution). There are enumerated classifications of business excluded from this act as well as specific requirements of compliance that employees with CHL's must conform to, prominent among these being that the weapon remain inside the vehicle at all times while on company parking areas and, again, stored "out of plain sight". Pertinent here, I think, is that Texas requires that concealed handguns be concealed from ordinary view by the concealing mechanism/clothing worn in the ordinary way, with no mention of "printing", and that "inadvertent exposure" is recognised as not violating the concealed stipulation of the law. Keeping this in mind (with the acknowledgement that there is no case law regarding any of this in the parking lot example), the informed opinion is that exposing the gun to someone else's sight while transferring it from a holster to another method of storage is allowed as being inadvertent so long as the gun never leaves the confines of the employee's private vehicle while the vehicle is in the company's parking lot.

There seems to be a common belief that these two laws are actually one and that the CHL requirement of the parking lot law doesn't apply because ... well, frankly, I'm not sure why it doesn't apply really. I've had several other employees with whom I work argue that "That's not true" or that "it's a constitutional right". I don't know. Added to that is the lack of specificity regarding the excluded businesses. As only one example, my employer uses a flammable gas as part of the manufacturing process of our product. Does this qualify for the exemption regarding having explosive liquids/gases as the primary purpose of the business? Does this particular exemption also rule out the common gas station as well? Don't know yet.

One thing I do know is that it seems to be the habit of the Texas legislature to write laws in such a manner as to permit the courts to define the specifics of application. Another thing I know is that I intend to be very circumspect as to how I go about my lawful activities for the immediate future. And that's all I have to say about that.

*The analogy I've settled on to describe this is a poker based example; the legislature wasn't willing to go "all in" on this first deal of this particular law, so they limited the number of citizens as well as the types of business participating. The "risk" is confined to people who have passed a criminal background investigation and who, as a class, have a documented history of compliance with the law generally and excludes companies with an obvious-seeming threat of potential mass disaster resulting from a firearms discharge in close proximity to the businesses facilities.

That's The Thing About "Target Rich Environments"

2011-08-05T15:31:00.004-05:00

In the real world, the targets aren't static.

Or even especially obvious before the fact.

Goodness Gracious

2011-07-27T01:16:00.002-05:00

If things get any more gracious around here I'll have to take out a patent of nobility to handle it all.

Gratuitous Innuendo

2011-07-24T21:40:00.005-05:00

I ought to re-title this "Gratuitous Self-Embarrasement"; see the update below.

Just drop it woman. I have long since stipulated that the proclaimed wisdom of the blogospheric commentariat has pronounced on this distinction and declined further disputation, choosing to rely on the advice and counsel of those I had (also long since) previously retained to provide such instead. I don't suppose there's much hope of others doing the same, is there?

Just in passing, is it truly your position that my having objected to the suggestion of shooting someone in the back of the head as not quite rising to the level of "self-defense" is somehow equivalent to publicly and explicitly threatening to murder someone during the course of abusing the authority entrusted to those in public service? Wow, I never dreamed others found my poor erudition so lethal.

While I quite enjoy your extra-planetary fiction (I suppose an autograph for my copy of the book is right out), your more down-to-Earth delusions - at least as they involve myself - are becoming tiresome and quite rude. Please desist.

UPDATE 7/26/11: In comments, RobertaX has made clear that it was indeed another William her post made mention of. Apparently the fellow Mr. Harless so publicly abused is also named William.

I'd like to claim that it's been a more challenging year than usual for me, but that doesn't excuse my over-sensitivity anyway. I hope Roberta will accept my apology; I was out of line and out of order.

Market Forces In Practice

2011-07-08T15:23:00.003-05:00

Like most gun owners, I've run the holster gamut. Already having a suitable pocket pistol, I've taken my time in deciding where to spend my money to best effect and satisfaction.

Reading reviews and product specifications are all well and good (and a necessary part of product research), but it was being able to listen to Dennis Badurina of Dragon Leatherworks interact with and describe his product process to the gun owners on Vicious Circle that ultimately decided me to buy this product instead of continuing to look.

Only after having completed the sale did Dennis and I exchange e-mails that concluded with the following:

That being said...the VC logo will be made available on the Quantums later this evening (when I finish up the first one and get to taking pictures of it...), so I'll extend you the offer to stamp the logo onto your Quantum, free of charge.

I accepted immediately, of course, and look forward with excitement to having the first Quantum VC holster! Dennis and I continue to discuss the second holster I wish to buy from him entirely due to his decent treatment of someone who he didn't know and had already gotten the money from. All of which is perfectly consistent with the man I listened to with such enjoyment over the past few weekend's podcast. With his patient explanations of the limits of his craft and materials, I'm certain we'll arrive at a mutually satisfactory version soon enough. Illustrative of that process, the following exchange between us is quoted in it's entirety (less address headers) with the authors' permission:

Hi Dennis,

So, I was just going to reward your earlier generosity by dipping into the savings and ordering a second, OWB fancy dress holster. Coming as absolutely no surprise to me, you don't offer what I really want. :)

A standard Flatjack in black leather, cut for a 2" belt that has the sanded Stingray (would love to read Labrat's review of that whole process; I was in the USN, I've heard Stingray's response - or it's generic equivalent*) material inset with the VC logo pressed into it, with the logo further highlighted by contrasting colored (maybe a light shade of blue?) stitching in the logo depressions. Call the basic design Alan's Consternation. The kicker is, I want it fitted for a Smith & Wesson 325 Night Guard, the "N" frame version of one of these:

http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Product4_750001_750051_765946_-1_757773_757767_757751_ProductDisplayErrorView_Y

JayG not being with us, the N frame is the largest of the four frame sizes S&W offers (J,K,L,N), so you'll have to arrange for a blue gun first (though I can't imagine there won't be a sample N frame you could do a trace-and-measure from available at the upcoming NE blogshoot - I'm reasonably certain both Weer'd Beard and JayG has mentioned owning an equivalently sized gun). From what I can see of the Flatjack design it shouldn't matter, but my gun has Crimson Trace sights fitted as the added grip width helps to alleviate some of the recoil impact along with the more usual laser sight benefits.

So, possible? My birthday is in late October so we have time to fumble around with potential problems/options. Assuming you've no objection to the above, what will my present to myself cost?

Bonus: mention all this on tonight's 100th VC show and hear Alan be sooo unimpressed.

Best regards,

Will Brown

******

Hey Will,

OK...a few things about what you are looking for....

The stamp for the VC logo has to be impressed on what is called *tooling leather*, or *carving leather*. Its the only leather that has gone through the tanning process in such a way as to accept embossing or hand-tooling.

That being said, the only tooling leather is Cowhide or Horsehide, and the tanning method must be vegetable tanning, not chemical or chrome-dipped. All my holsters are made from veg-tanned leather (as are almost all holsters, regardless of manufacturer), and during the process of making the holster, I take steps, after the dyeing and stamping, to stiffen the leather so that it will properly support the pistol.

Ergo, the logo cannot be embossed onto stingray (or anything else that isn't veg-tanned cow or horse). Stingray skin has calcium deposits on it. That's what makes stingray skin so tough once its tanned. The Japanese Samurai used Stingray skin as an armored layer atop a softer hide, because stingray skin is practically indestructible. A razor-sharp sword WILL NOT slice through stingray. (I should know...I have to actually cut all my stingray pieces by hand with a pair of sheet metal shears, the damned stuff is so frigging hard....all my regular leather cutting tools don't even mar the surface of stingray.)

As for stitching into the depressions of the logo, it would take a very fine needle (too fine to punch through stingray), and to do decorative stitching, the stitches need to be very close together. What happens in veg tanned leather is that the stitching perforates the leather so badly, the leather literally falls apart when you try to stretch it around the gun during the molding/boning process. Chrome-dipped or chemical tanned leathers, either calfskin or another such supple leather, can take the fine needlework, but not the veg-tanned leathers I use in my holster making.

Lastly...I've yet to be able to find an *N* frame model...the best model-maker out there is BlueGuns, but the stuff they do is LEO-based, or military-based weaponry. They have J and K frame models, no L or N. There is another modeler called Duncans Customs, but their models aren't of the quality and exacting standards of BlueGuns. I've used their models before in holster making, and had to refund the money to clients because the holsters were too loose, even though I used the exact same technique as with my BlueGun models, where all the holsters made off BlueGuns are balls-on-perfect for fit. I have also tried using tracings, but the fit, again, isn't exact, and will wind up too tight or loose, and a refund gets made. So, I now stay away from using tracings...if I don't have the actual gun or a BlueGun model, I politely decline the work.

So...there's the reasons you see limits on what I offer. Part of it is a physical or technical impossibility, and other (such as more of a gun selection) are because the best models made are only offered in a limited amount of popular LEO/Military model handguns.

I like the way you're thinking, though...a holster like that would be unbelievably cool. :-)

Warmest Regards,

Dragon Leatherworks

Since my N-frame wheel gun is apparently out, it's back to my Commander. Maybe the sanded Stingray as highlight trim for the VC logo in some (contrasting to the holster) shade of dyed cow/horse hide but without the stitched highlighting of the logo itself. Have to think on it some more.

This post is characterised as a "product review", but it's really more of a producer review. Go see for yourself.

*Edit to add: Begins with "Fuck ...", features "... gonna need a whole lotta help ..." and concludes with "... will not live to see the results!", or words to the same effect. Feel free to insert pretty much whatever combination of obscenity, slang, curse or insult (added points for anatomically unlikely combinations) anywhere in the discourse you think most entertaining/pertinent and you'll pretty much capture the spirit of the response I think.

The Butler May Have Done It

2011-07-01T06:00:00.000-05:00

But apparently the maid didn't.

The Frog may indeed hop in and out of lots of ladies beds, but it seems he in fact does ask first.

I Wonder ...

2011-06-21T12:49:00.002-05:00

Gov. Rick Perry signed Senate Bill 321 (the one allowing people to keep guns locked in their cars in company parking lots) yesterday, how long will it take my employer to try and weasel out of compliance in some way? I'm confident that they will make the effort and that at least one of my fellow ~~assailants of the bastions of Capitalism~~ workers will not actually comply with the law as written in some obvious fashion giving the company all the "justification" it needs.

And maybe not; if we make it through September without incident everybody should adjust happily enough. I hope so.

In any case, well done to Rick Perry and those members of the states legislature who supported this effort. Now, about that idea to remove the word "concealed" from Texas' handgun legislation ...

Words Mean Things

2011-06-17T03:43:00.004-05:00

It seems my viewpoint on what actions rise to the level of self defense, but not exceed it, differs in significant degree from other's (see comments).

'Nuff said.

For the record though, there is a recognised and established standard for matters such as these despite the severe lack of snarkiness in their expression:

self-defense n. the use of reasonable force to protect oneself or members of the family from bodily harm from the attack of an aggressor, if the defender has reason to believe he/she/they is/are in danger. Self-defense is a common defense by a person accused of assault, battery, or homicide. The force used in self-defense may be sufficient for protection from apparent harm (not just an empty verbal threat) or to halt any danger from attack, but cannot be an excuse to continue the attack or use excessive force. Examples: an unarmed man punches Allen Alibi, who hits the attacker with a baseball bat. That is legitimate self-defense, but Alibi cannot chase after the attacker and shoot him or beat him senseless. If the attacker has a gun or a butcher knife and is verbally threatening, Alibi is probably warranted in shooting him. Basically, appropriate self-defense is judged on all the circumstances. Reasonable force can also be used to protect property from theft or destruction. Self-defense cannot include killing or great bodily harm to defend property, unless personal danger is also involved, as is the case in most burglaries, muggings or vandalism.

[My bold]

I see no advantage in providing any potential courtroom adversary with free material to use against me should such a circumstance ever confront me, especially in a vain effort to convince another of their "error". Sufficient to acknowledge that opinions differ on what activity rises to the level of self defense and confine my efforts to matters closer to home.

And that's my final word on this topic on anyone else's blog.

Uncomfortable Question

2011-06-07T13:09:00.003-05:00

In the opening minutes of his shows third hour segment today, Rush Limbaugh asks, "What would a modern Paul Revere be warning about?" He goes on to posit that it wouldn't be "the Chi-Coms" or the Russians coming, so who would be the object of such a warning given Limbaugh's viewpoint on the current US political climate?

Ask yourself, who do "the authorities" send in to register their displeasure with the "inappropriate behavior" of We the People?

That's right, James Carville's "imminently possible" civil unrest will be directed at the cops, 'cause you can bet it won't be Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid or Barack Obama on the streets asserting control over the "extremists" nor their Republican accomplices either.

Kinda doubt this was the answer Rush was looking for.

That Weiner - What A Wag

2011-06-07T01:40:00.002-05:00

And that's pretty much all I have to say about Congressman Clown Pants.

Adapting Strategy

2011-06-06T12:32:00.005-05:00

Weer'd Beard writes today about the Taliban's recent effort to promote jihad in the US by encouraging American Muslims to purchase weapons at gun shows and indiscriminately using them on the rest of the American populace. Weer'd easily disproves the validity of the information, but kind of surprisingly may have overlooked the general usefulness of the strategy as I pointed out in comments:

Another possibility might be a conscious effort to emulate the Brady’s and Joyce Foundation mouthpieces; make the (however erroneous) case of ease of access to firearms to their local audience and then cite any criminal use of firearms as an example of “jihad in America” to same. This “proves” the universal nature of Islam and Jihad, doesn’t it?

They’re misogynistic* (sp?) predators, but they’re not stupid. They are also reported to be well established in the UK university system, so access to modern western (US) political philosophy and policy tracts is readily available to jihadi supporters.

Weer'd Beard regularly posts on Joyce Foundation efforts to manipulate news reports of criminal use of firearms in his "gun death" series of posts. This gun show effort by Al Qaeda/Taliban leadership strikes me as being almost identical in both practice and intent; lie about the state of American gun ownership and manipulate crime news reports to destabilize American social and political structures so as to better advance an ~~opposition~~ alternate viewpoint. The strategy offers the minor possibility of changing US domestic law/policy as well as serving to validate leadership credentials within the Taliban/Al Qaeda organizational structure and the general Islamic populace outside the US.

EDIT: SAILORCURT reaches a similar conclusion by a different contextual structure. Well worth a read.

*Spelling errors corrected.

Wait A Minute!

2011-06-05T15:44:00.004-05:00

There was a contretemps on the gunblogs this weekend over the recent Lucky Gunner.com sponsored "Ammo Girls" ammo handlers at the Memorial Day Weekend shooting event. As part of that back-and-forth, the most exciting bit of gunblogger-related news ever released on the web was revealed:

(And accusing somebody who's posed for nekkid photos of "prudery" is good for a horse laugh.)

If ever there was a time for universal insistence upon the forum diktat of "didn't happen without pictures", this is that time!

What's wrong with you people? Who cares whether or not some hypothetical female is or is not repelled by another's bared arms; join me in proclaiming the hot issue of the 21st Century and demand digital revelation of TamaraK in all her bared-arms glory!

Later: Edited to fix a bad link.

Failure To Grok

2011-06-03T01:13:00.003-05:00

I keep reading about unemployed people "giving up" looking for work; Instapundit links to yet another example here, full story from Yahoo! News here.

What the fuck? How does any grown person give up looking for a means to keep feeding him/her self short of seppuku? You'd think that some of those reported 244,000 "added jobs" Yahoo! mentions would have been filled by some of those people previously filing unemployment claims, but the story makes no mention of any of that;

Others have probably just given up looking for work.

So where did they physically go? I understand they no longer exist as part of the "labor force", but does that mean they get physically deleted too?

It's a modern quandary ...

Test Post

2011-05-27T04:50:00.001-05:00

Having trouble signing in to Blogger, just checking to see what's working.

Now He Can Be Impeached

2011-05-21T05:00:00.000-05:00

Per abc NEWS, Pres. Obama has used the War Powers Resolution as justification for US military involvement in Libya;
From the beginning of the U.S. military intervention in Libya, the Obama administration has cited the 1973 War Powers Act as the legal basis of its ability to conduct military activities for 60 days without first seeking a declaration of war from Congress. The military intervention started on March 19; Congress was notified on March 21.

With his letter to Congress yesterday rejecting Congress's authority for continuation of his military activities in (or only over) Libya, Mr. Obama treads blithely beyond the Constitution on the flimsiest of pretensions.

"Intermittent warfare" is still war, Mr. President, and war isn't defined by the number of troops your side loses. Drones and aeriel bombardment are fulltime implements of war whenever they are used on another country's real estate and people. Ask Congress for a war authorisation Pres. Obama (or better yet, declare "victory" and re-deploy the military assets elsewhere), or spend the rest of your life fleeing from the questions posed by the relatives of those lost to your own Vietnam when this debacle-in-the-building inevitably grows to a scale that rivals that failure of US leadership.

The Other Option

2011-05-20T14:17:00.003-05:00

Uncle says he plans to slow-cook a pork roast for the scheduled Rapture tomorrow. Personally, I'm relieved that FedEx managed to deliver my latest order from Cheaper Than Dirt in time. That 500 round brick of Super Colibri LRN may be just the ticket should the post-Rapture disappointment be too widespread and energetic.

Other's disappointment, you understand. As long as the ammo will cycle the Buckmark, I'm good.

It's Here!

2011-05-17T13:29:00.004-05:00

Well, not here, here; at the gun store.

Finally.

Got the call too late to go get it and have time to shoot it too, so no O/T for me tonight and up early enough tomorrow morning to do all that then.

Note to self: remember to buy a de-mooner and more moon clips.

Update 5/18/11: Got it! Shoots well and shows no tendency to spontaneously dis-assemble. :)

Further note to self: remember in future to check the package to see if moon clips are included. Don't know as I'll need all 12 of them any time soon, but I'm well equiped now, that's certain.

Proper-ish range report w/ pics to follow. Any day real soon now. :)

Update

2011-05-16T11:34:00.004-05:00

Work= Too much

Money= Not enough

Blog= What's that?

Thanks Kevin. And, buck up Tam, somebodies always got a shovel. :)

Not-Fisking Phil Bowermaster

2011-05-05T01:14:00.004-05:00

Phil Bowermaster is the (co- ?) creator of The Speculist blog, co-host of Fast Forward Radio and now the on-line "voice" of the Zapoint company. I have been a long-time commenter on The Speculist as have Phil and his blog-partner Stephen on my blog; Phil has even ~~gotten desperate for interview guests~~ had me as a guest on Fast Forward Radio. He and I have a shared context, so I'm confident he won't be offended by my adopting the utility of the more normally offensive form this post's structure has admittedly been drawn from.

In his Transparency Revolutionary persona, Phil posted a complex viewpoint on secrecy and transparency that made reference to Julian Assange and Wikileaks. Before getting into Phil's post, let me take this opportunity to make clear that I personally regard Mr. Assange as being repulsive, self-aggrandising scum deserving the worst treatment humanly possible for his abusive betrayal of other's safety merely to stroke his own ego and financially better himself. As he has operated it to-date, Wikileaks and all who participate in that great betrayal deserve the professional attentions of Seal Team Six at their next opportunity.

I'm widely known to be an easy-going guy though, so perhaps I understate my feelings.

Phil wrote:

The Spy Machine and Absolutes
Posted on May 3, 2011 by Phil

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange is known for having strong opinions about things, e.g.:

Wikileaks Founder: Facebook is the most appalling spy machine that has ever been invented

Here we have the world’s most comprehensive database about people, their relationships, their names, their addresses, their locations, their communications with each other, and their relatives, all sitting within the United States, all accessible to US Intelligence.”

I don’t think that’s just hyperbole.

Right you are Phil; it's nonsense on stilts! Facebook is an accumulation of unsourced data points that might by correlated to indicate potential (and extremely tentative) conclusions to anyone willing to put forth the time and work necessary to structure the data to some unintended (by Facebook and it's users) purpose.

A spy searches out data that has been deliberately obscured. In the Facebook example, a spy would spend extensive resources searching for the data concealed by the self-posted data available to anyone who logged on to the site. I am confident this is not what Mr. Assange refers to, so "spy" is entirely misleading as is his description of the nature of the data made available by Facebook's users.

Putting aside the question of whether the US government has unhindered or even special express access to the Facebook database, such a collection of data is a tremendous intelligence tool and is bound to be used as such. Before Facebook, Google was the most appalling spy machine ever built. A decade or so ago, AOL was. Before that it was email. A century ago, it might well have been claimed that the telephone directory was.

Actually, as it's structured Facebook is at best a collection of data that could have intelligence value in an extremely precise application by any party willing to search out those statistically few data points of relative value to the express purpose. Uncle Sugar may very well have access to every piece of information it could possibly want about you and in all likelihood wouldn't ever know it did unless the .gov was already looking at you beforehand and knew to search for data specific to you. Otherwise, we're all securely lost in the daticular sea of confusion that is Facebook.

Other than the potential for data search convenience once a specific data sequence has been identified, Facebook is a nightmare of data overload.

Assange is something of an absolutist when it comes to transparency. The defining principal behind Wikileaks is that any information that has been deemed restricted and that can be published…should be published. Assange is the universal, indiscriminate whistle-blower. In his view, government (and particularly intelligence agencies) represent a class of universal, indiscriminate exploiters of information.

And here we come to the point of contention.

Just in passing (and I am far from the first to make this observation), I notice Herr Assange - and Wikileaks more generally - seem to have the decidedly Circumstantialist policy of not revealing the secrets of those who have the reputation of actually killing those who do so. {cough}Putin{cough}

That out of the way, the US government is, at least in design, an extension of the citizens of that country. Even if only to the degree that can still be said to be true, the secrets he/they brute about are mine! The US federal government is a deliberately crafted construct intended to permit the greatest opportunity for expression of all the citizenry's interests in all of their often gloriously contradictory intent. If Mr. Assange wishes to take active part in adjusting that construct, he should take out citizenship, otherwise I am in danger of agreeing with Vice-President Biden and the psychic shock of that occurance isn't to be contemplated.

In his view, government (and particularly intelligence agencies) represent a class of universal, indiscriminate exploiters of information. Yes. Yes they are. In fact, I would go so far as to say that is one of the deliberate and designed-in purposes of the US federal government expressly for the benefit of the US citizenry at large. True "whistle-blowers" work to make sure the data exploitation doesn't get directed against the citizens by their own government - who, it should be acknowledged, is expected to exploit everybody else (secretly, of course). Working to defeat this function is one of the actions taken by an active enemy of said country and it's citizens.

Just sayin'.

For those of us who aren’t transparency absolutists, the world looks a little murkier. I agree with Assange that exposing corruption to the light of day is a good and necessary thing. I also agree that the government’s rather covetous attitude towards our rapidly diminishing private information is a cause for concern–if not alarm.

exposing corruption to the light of day is a good and necessary thing. Disagree on principle. Exposing corruption may well be a just and necessary thing, but "good" can only be derived from the context within which an action takes place. Exposing someone for stealing to feed his/her family (receiving food stamps fraudulently, say) would be Just, but precious little Good would come of it.

"Justice" and "Goodness" are synonyms only to those who impose judgement upon others, which is not the same thing as judging something for one's self. This may seem a pedantic point of distinction, but it remains an important distinction nonetheless, I submit. Without a fixed meaning applied to concepts like language, human civilisation fails.

When I look at Facebook, I see a lot of things, but I don’t know that a “spy machine” is among them. Nor can a look at Wikileaks and see an unmitigated good. (I don’t doubt that Wikileaks is powerful, however, and likely to become more so.)

Wikileaks "power" is the direct result of the degree of use others make of it, not some factor inherent to the structural model. If, as has been charged, some soldier hadn't violated his oath of service, Wikileaks wouldn't have access to the data it has cooperated in betraying, ergo Wikileaks would have nothing to leak on it's own. Wikileaks' only "power" is it's promise of betrayal. Betrayal of those who confide in it. Betrayal of the trust of those who's data is stolen.

I can see the appeal of the absolutist mindset. Everything is so tidy; there are no difficult choices to make. The government should never conceal any information, and any that is concealed should be revealed. Any government interest in personal information is, by definition, not legitimate and to be opposed. And, of course, any large collection of personal information is nothing more than an opportunity for exploitation.

Those ideas are close enough to the truth to be appealing, but far enough from it to be dangerous. The reality is that every decision to disclose or withhold information involves a trade-off of risks and benefits. There is frequently ambiguity around who owns any given piece of information, who is entitled to know it, and who benefits either from its concealment or disclosure.

The absolutist approach leads ultimately not to transparency but to a kind of information anarchy. The element of trust is what’s missing both from closed organizations and societies and from the worldview of the transparency absolutists. Real transparency is all about leveraging the power of openness and authenticity within a complex and often ambiguous framework that we know as “the real world.” A transparent society or organization is self-aware, self-directed, and self-optimizing in a way that a low-trust society or organization never could be.

Let me conclude by stating that I hold Julian Assange in such low regard not due to my love of government intrusion or fondness for data classification protocols, but rather due to his unrepentant and deliberate disregard for the impact his actions have on those who's lives are part and parcel of the data he exposes so indiscriminately. Not so much for the individual actors, those who are knowingly participants in that which Assange reveals (though they are equally deserving of having their trust respected), but more for those associated with them, their families and other associates. All these and more are actively endangered just so Julian Assange can have me typing his name onto my computer screen (among other claims to infamy). Perhaps even more than all of that though, Julian Assange deserves contempt for his desecration of the human condition expressed in the word "trust". In my view, people everywhere are more suspicious of each other, and less generous of forgiveness, as a direct result of Assange's Wikileaks debasement of trust, and for this most of all I despise him and all his works.

The reality is that every decision to disclose or withhold information involves a trade-off of risks and benefits. This.

Colored by the realisation that all people (as individuals or in organised fashion) work to achieve advantage for themselves, the gains realised through transparency will always need to be balanced by the advantage gained from closely held knowledge as well.

Which is just another way of saying what Phil said in closing.

UPDATE: The one time I don't check Instapundit first, he has this bit of Facebook relevance on offer. Talk about your "spy machine". ;-)

Osama (Officially) Bin Dead

2011-05-02T06:00:00.001-05:00

If ABC and Yahoo both report it then it must be true. Not that I doubt the truth of the report really, it's the willingness to report the result with no supporting detail that bothers me.

One obvious point of uncertainty is who is going to be bilked out of the $25 million?

Osama Bin Ladin's remains should be formally interred beneath the lowest sub-foundation of the World Trade Center site and new construction begin atop his grave immediately after as conclusion of the ceremony.

Happy Birthday To Him

2011-04-30T23:29:00.004-05:00

Just back from the Grandson's first birthday party. He's not too sure about the big guy with the mustache yet, but the goodies are ok. :)

Boy's already got damn near as many guns as I do (in my gun locker, where they'll stay 'till Mom and Dad say he's old/responsible enough). I may have to get a bigger place to hold it all at the rate I've been going though. I keep having to shove his ammo around to get to mine.

Picking Your Target

2011-04-27T11:08:00.004-05:00

(This began as a comment I wrote at Tam's)

Here's something I've not seen mentioned yet.

Obama just publicly identified who he wants the Republicans to nominate to run against him.

Remember how McCain was the media's darling prior to the '08 Republican nomination convention? Let's see if the same tactic gets recycled. Push The Donald as the "obvious" "best" "choice" for the Republicans, then savage him afterwards to Obama's comparative advantage.

By declaring his intention to run for re-election as early as he has, Obama pre-empts any serious challenge from within his own party (something that was beginning to get MSM notice only a few weeks ago). Now he's demonstrated the "effectiveness" of his potential opponent by apparently being bested by him on a long-standing issue.

Palin let herself be marginalized in '08; who's going to fall on his/her sword to give Trump some apparent political expertise in '12?

As strategy go, Obama offers an interesting example. Deliberately make yourself a figure of mystery and target of extremist interest so as to control much of your opposition's efforts to defeat your active efforts.

UPDATE: Rush Limbaugh posits (about 42 minutes into the first hour) on his radio show today that the timing of this data release is more in response to a recent poll showing only 38% of voters think Obama "definately was born in the USA". I don't think the two theories are mutually exclusive. Trump is a very beatable political opponent (when compared to any of several potential alternatives within the Republican party), and scotching this non-citizen idea now offering more advantage than continuing the charade, are both viable considerations in Obama's re-election program. Either or both could have influenced the timing on this.

Gunning For Self Defense

2011-04-24T06:00:00.000-05:00

"Don't the Israelis all do it in Condition-3, and they have real issues...", DirtCrashr in comments here.

I don't actually think of myself as a "gunblogger". I don't have any special expertise about guns in general or any caliber or model in particular. On the other hand, I do own several examples, am licensed in Texas to carry concealed and (as the law allows) do so. I have some depth of experience with the guns I have owned upon which to draw, but that hardly makes me any one's idea of an expert.

I am, and have been off and on for several decades now (sadly more off than on), a student of self defense. I got into the general topic by way of my reading Sun Tzu and contemplating how and by what mechanism his writings might be applied to my personal life in the 20th Cent. (and Beyond!) Following the traditional process of trial and error (further regarding which the deponent sayeth nought), I finally settled on Krav Maga as being the most broadly applicable and most logically structured course of instruction. Of particular relevance to me was that even the most basic student received modern weapons (handguns and knives to be specific) defense training as a routine part of the curricula.

Since starting this blog in August of 2007, I've ~~been as inconsistent as a 9 year old~~ written on a variety of topics, with my gun ownership and the more general topic of shooting numbered amongst them. I see now I should have made a better effort at distinguishing between gun carrying/shooting and etc. and self defense.

In comments to this post of mine, TamaraK chimed in, as did others. Much of what follows is based upon that comment thread.

As Tam commented in response to DirtCrashr's observation, "Pretty much all militaries teach Condition 3 for people who aren't actually currently shooting at the enemy." And I will confess that my initial introduction to shooting came from a retired US Marine who was my town's local NRA Small Bore shooting club instructor/range master (he also was involved with the local Big Bore shooting team too) in the mid- to late-1960's. My quirks and kinks are many and deeply rooted, you see.

Part of my response to Tam was, "... my initial (and unchanged) belief that Condition 3 carry is more consistent with both the considered doctrine of professional self-defense and military instruction .." has it's genesis from my first military instructor in 1965 (I was 11 that summer). The balance of my response stems from my later reading, "... as well as being in greater accord with the philosophical underpinnings of personal self defense as that is commonly understood here in the United States (your rights end where my rights reach)."

There is, I think, a tendency to talk past one another in discussions of this type. The unexamined assumptions we all allow into our writing is a big contributor to that happening, so I'm going to go on a bit about what I regard as the distinctions between guns and self defense.

Since I began this discourse with a disclaimer of my gun expertise, I'm going to stipulate that anyone who's made it this far has at least as much direct knowledge as I do about firearms, their history and operation and all the rest of the minutia an actual gunblogger brings to any discussion about guns. Except to ask, how much of your self-defense preparation involves your gun?

Self defense begins with personal recognition of your capabilities and their limitations. When you Look, do you See? When you Hear, do you Listen? How much of a fight involves moving your feet rather than your fists? What constitutes winning for the defender? Does your obligation to some "other" take precedence over your liberty?

There ought to be a formal 'philosophy of self defense' in the US if only because of the enshrined position weapons ownership has in our national structure. We make do with an ad hoc arrangement of (often contradictory) legislative mandate and social convention instead. Still and all, I think an important part of any such philosophy would include critical examination of a hierarchy of response to provocation as well as a consideration of the distinctions between actions taken in defense in a variety of circumstances, if only to help clarify when (and possibly to what degree) a proactive action might be consistent with "defense"?

It is here, I think, we begin to get into the question of when a gun is the appropriate defense tool.

As I stated in my earlier post comments,

"The original argument (to the extent it can fairly be called such) is whether or not proficiency with your hand cannon is sufficient for an adequate self defense. I contend it is not and offer my - limited - experience with Krav Maga (and specifically as that relates to gun defense) in support of that assertion.

Unless your self-defense training deliberately incorporates defense against weaponed and empty-handed assault, both with and against a modern weapon, your self-defense capabilities are woefully inadequate. Indeed, I'm tempted to argue that the time you spend training only with your gun, beyond the level of basic handling and firing competency, detracts from your overall self defense capability. Ideally, we should each train to fight with our weapon and without it, against both an armed and unarmed attacker(s). Krav Maga is the only structured system of instruction available to civilians in the USA that does all that to my knowledge, but learn some method of physical combat that doesn't entirely rely on Samuel Colt's PC self-defense crutch (or derivative).

Though not directly in response to the above, Tam challenged: "... name one US law enforcement department or serious firearms instructor who teaches empty-chamber carry."

To which I respond that the first example is a false dichotomy in that it demands equal treatment of disparate circumstance, and the second requires a dissertation on market analysis.

Police do not practice personal self defense within the established meaning attached to the phrase as it is applied to that portion of US society not actively in military arms. The police are armed for the express purpose of imposing their will (as impartial officers of the court, of course) upon the rest of the populace. The common ruck are expressly prohibited from doing the same (on their own recognisance at least), and carry the additional burden of a more restrictive legal definition of "self defense" as well.

This is a false comparison of disparate society positions.

"serious firearms instructor" is equally mis-leading. By what standard or metric? Simple participation in the instruction market generally? Employment by a stipulated organisation for it's other personnel? Is consideration of market demand by said professional instructor an acceptable criteria? You of all people are aware of the answer to the perennial question, "What's it for?" Care to apply that to your "serious firearms instructor"'s business plan?

I wonder Tam, if you would you be willing to stipulate any of these fellows as meeting the standard of seriousness, or perhaps this one possibly? I've personally taken classes from all three of the first group and the other certifies instructors in this very course of instruction (for civlian, police and .mil customers) all over the USA and Europe.

~~You are~~Tam is comparing instruction in firing your gun ~~well~~competently with self defense. We agree the former is a critical component of the latter. The disagreement seems to me to be the extent of that importance within the entirety of the ~~latter~~self defense preparatory process for non-police in a non-military spontaneous combat setting.

Another commenter, seeker_two, subsequently asked: Have you considered Condition Two carry?

I replied as follows:

I have.

I'm trying to put together a somewhat more cogent post about all this, but to expand on your question, seeker_two, in a physical assault situation your gun is a priority point of attack (as is your attackers weapon from your own perspective keep in mind). As such, routinely keeping the gun in a condition of one-handed readiness empowers you both equally; whoever can best control the muzzle's direction determines who gets the bullet hole.

An apparently little considered factoid on the gun blogs (as far as my limited reading can determine). Whether a semi-auto is SA or DA, once the first round has been fired, a reasonably firm grip on the slide will prevent it from cycling the next round into battery and you're in Condition 3 no matter what. It's not quite as certain an eventuality, but the same effect occurs with a revolver too. If the assailants grip on the cylinder area of the frame is sufficient to contest your hold on the gun, it's likely the cylinder won't rotate by trigger pressure alone as well.

Ask me how I know.

Basically (and to bring this back to a more generalised construction), my contention is that Cond. 3 carry for a semi-auto pistol offers greater all around safety than any other condition as a basic self-defense posture. There are exceptions and special circumstances to consider also, but this discussion was (before Weer'd sensibly went on to other topics :)) about that distinction.

I would consider Cond. 2 to be the re-set position following a Cond. 0 confrontation for example (until the PD showed up and it's "prone'd out, arms and legs spread wide"). My objection to Cond. 2 is that it offers an attacker at least as much advantage as it potentially does me. Carrying a gun is an important part of self defense, but it's at best only 20% or so of a good self-defense posture IMO.

I think this a good point in this discourse to acknowledge that Tam has a distinctly different focus of gun interest than I do. She writes often about revolvers and I assume has far more experience of carrying them as a defense weapon than I do. I bring this up because (as should be obvious with only a little thought) DA revolvers in particular can't be carried in Condition 3, they're either in Condition 1/2 (depending upon the design of the gun) or Condition 4 (a SAO revolver w/o a round under the hammer might arguably qualify as C-3; I put the question to the commentariat for a ruling on that point). Consistency of carry condition is a valid consideration in arriving at any conclusion on this topic, and one I'm going to have to give further thought to once S&W finally poops out my replacement wheelgun.

Heretofore, the only revolver I've carried as a defense weapon has been my S&W 431PD. As it is a conveniently sized pocket pistol with an exposed hammer, I train to draw it from it's in-pocket holster with the end of my thumb up against the end of the hammer spur. This facilitates firing the first shot SA for better first-shot accuracy and also makes it less likely I'll catch the hammer on my pants pocket material when extracting the gun. As the gun comes clear of my pocket and settles fully into my grip, the thumb naturally slides over the top of the hammer and draws it back to full cock as the gun rises above the height of my waist.

Drawing an N-framed pistol from a waist holster is going to require very different mechanics from that, though I intend to investigate the possibilities of the gun as a pocket-carried weapon too. Without a gun to practice with, I'm unsure just how different drawing from the waist will be from the mechanics used to draw an auto pistol, but I don't foresee too much difficulty. I believe my already established practice of firing revolvers SA on the first shot will work to my advantage though.

Carrying a gun for self defense ought not be different in principle from training to fight without a gun in self defense. In one sense it shouldn't matter whether you do or you don't carry as far as the philosophy of the activity is concerned. The fact remains that most other routinely available modern weapons don't much exceed the users immediate reach, and guns are expressly designed to do exactly that. This being true, self defense training needs to specifically teach fighting with and without a gun against variably armed attackers in dynamic situations that prepare the student to keep the defense to themselves and not over-reach so as to involve bystanders.

I'll close with a question in return for Tam; name one "serious firearms instructor" who teaches as a routine part of his/her course of instruction any other activity of defense that doesn't rely entirely on a gun. [no fair throwing my own examples back at me :)] [no, "call the cops" doesn't count either :)] If we're going to use "self defense" as justification for carrying a gun, maybe we ought to give some thought to what defense with a modern firearm entails in modern society.

My Take Away From Tonight's Vicious Circle

2011-04-22T21:49:00.003-05:00

SAVE THE TITS!

Mine's Big Enough To Get Me Off

2011-04-19T14:36:00.004-05:00

From Drudge comes notice of this France24 story in which two Italian scientists* review the literature regarding penile enhancement.

It seems surgical methods are risky at best as they often result in unsightly, and even ... errr reduced, results. However, there is some measurable enlengthenment (is that even a word?) from, well let's just quote the original:

Among the non-invasive methods, tested on 109 subjects, so-called penile extenders that stretch the phallus through traction were shown to be most effective.

One study reported an average increase of 1.8 centimetres (0.7 inches), while another measured an extra 2.3 centimetres (0.9 inches) in a flaccid state, and 1.7 centimetres (0.67 inches) when erect.

But the regimen for achieving these gains was arduous: six hours of daily traction over four months in the first case, and four hours every day over six months in the second.

No pain, no gain indeed.

One oddity of especial note:

Even the methods that did show some increase in length did not result in a gain in thickness, they noted.

But nor was their shrinkage.

Typical Frog; skinny right past the clitoris to better bruise the cervix. No wonder French women are such accomplished teases.

* Let's see, two guys named Mark and Paul respectively write a paper on the penis. Do we strive for the Matthew/Luke or the George and Ringo joke here?

A Question Of Context

2011-04-12T06:00:00.001-05:00

In his entry for Monday, April 11, Jerry Pournelle writes:

... the more corn we turn into alcohol to burn as fuel the higher its price will go. I do not see that this is well understood by the policy wonks in Washington.

I have to disagree, they understand very well indeed within their occupational context. Budgetary policy wonks in D.C. (who advise Congress) view the price of commodities like corn and wheat as components of national GDP. From that contextual perspective, the rise in corn price increases GDP, which works to reduce the inflationary influence of other more directly financial government policy (quantitative easing, or printing more money). From that viewpoint the price increases can be expressed as a desirable effect of Congress's budget efforts.

Behold the power that automatic COLA raises has on the nation's political decision-making process. Something the good Doctor is well aware of also.

He's Working On It As We Speak, No Doubt

2011-04-10T15:08:00.005-05:00

Via Instapundit comes notice of this Bill Maher video embedded at The Blog Prof in which that other William asks an important question: "Does he not even know a Jew?"

To which this William's reply is, "Pres. Obama is no doubt working diligently organizing the final arrangements for transportation and accommodation of his Administration's Jewish problem ... solvers!

Running Your Gun, Not It Running You

2011-04-06T06:00:00.000-05:00

Weer'd Beard makes the argument that carrying a concealed handgun in Condition 1 is a better option than my preferred Condition 3 status. I demurred in his comments and can see no reason not to quote my own argument here:

In what actually plausible circumstance would you be unable to draw and cycle the action but still be able to draw the weapon unhindered? My point being that any physical confrontation with someone who is so close to you as to preclude engaging with a gun from Condition 3 (loaded magazine in weapon, no round in chamber) is close enough to interrupt your doing so with a gun in Condition 1 as well. Ask any firearms-rated CQB qualified instructor, don’t just take my Krav Maga-novice word for it. I won’t clog up your comments with YouTube links, but search “krav maga gun defense” there and see for yourself.

Just for the record, I prefer to concealed carry my Colt Commander in Condition 3, primarily because I’ve taken the trouble to learn how to take your gun away from you from 5-7 yards initial distance and am painfully aware just how susceptible I – anyone really – am to the same maneuver under the same conditions. The remedy to this threat is to maintain a heightened sense of situational awareness and be willing to act upon it pre-emptively. This means noting something “wrong” about your surroundings and maneuvering to a defensive position as you exit the area. Drag your companion by the hand if necessary; shop elsewhere or later if necessary.

If any of us are ever compelled into a defensive shooting, it will be as a result of either a deliberate, intentional attack from cover (the classic “ambush”) – and I include home invasion in this category – or a failure to exit the area upon notice of the onset of an armed attack in your immediate vicinity (there are justifications for this last, but the basic mindset must be one of “personal defense” rather than “proactive defense”). The former situation is time for “coffee-do” or some other form of hand-to-hand combat and the later permits sufficient time to cycle your weapon into Condition “0″ as you seek out cover from which to defend yourself.

You’ve practiced carrying in Condition 1 (and, yes, I do practice first shot placement from Condition 3) so you should continue as you’ve trained to do, but give some informed consideration to expanding your personal defense options as well. I can’t fully express how much less psychological burden I experience because I don’t have to rely on my gun to violently defend myself.

His (and others) points regarding potential gun sub-system failures (like redundant "safety" mechanisms) all strike me as obfuscation of the primary thesis; is it better to train yourself to operate your gun or let your training be dictated by the gun's optional conditions? I train to carry (and if necessary, fire) my gun from what I regard as the most all-around safest condition of general (that is, concealed under one or more layers of clothing or within a container of some description) carry, Condition 3. I arrive at this decision in large part due to my also training in Krav Maga - specifically, training to engage with or against a firearm. In my opinion, while these tertiary concerns regarding potential weapon mechanical failure are valid, they would be better addressed in a gun maintenance class (or by a hired professional smith) then as part of some carry condition justification.

Variation On A Theme

2011-04-04T19:56:00.008-05:00

Tam throws out a "modest proposal":

... I think that you could drive a half-dozen gun companies to the brink of bankruptcy if you sold a sealed, non-reloadable, disposable, 10-shot pistol ... Discus.

The comment thread is entirely too predictable though.

For added context, JayG posted this video back in February about the Girandoni rifle carried by Lewis and Clark during their trans-continental expedition.

Back to Tam now. She proposes a disposable handgun, but sticks to the traditional bullet, powder, shell casing, primer model. My alternative is to build an air gun having the same general terminal ballistics performance of the historical Girandoni rifle.

Since unit cost is going to be perhaps the principle consideration, I propose using an established bullet in a widely available caliber; .45 acp in 185 gr. JHP configuration. Please note that no gun powder, shell casing or primer are required, thus allowing savings in materials as well as design and safety considerations.

Using the 1911 platform as illustration, by placing the compressed air cylinder in the same location as the return spring and guide rod occupy in the traditional gun (along with the area occupied by the ejection port and firing pin mechanisms) ought to permit sufficient volume to project 15 bullets at a muzzle velocity of ~900 fps. The upper portion of the same volume of 1911 slide also becomes usable barrel space of course, with a fixed, bead-type front sight in the traditional location.

Making the trigger assembly/grip portion of the frame a separate item makes penetration of the sealed compressed air cylinder impossible until the user unpacks the gun and assembles the two components which assures an extensive shelf life for long-term storage.

The bullets are factory stacked into the rear of the grip with a plunger below them which receives compressed air pressure to advance each round into the breach end of the barrel. A simple view port showing the number of bullets remaining is inlet into the grip also. Pulling the trigger releases a mechanically metered volume of compressed air to fire each bullet. Unlike the JMB design, this gun would have a DAO trigger that cycled a cambered block from top-of-the-magazine into breach (and back again after discharge either by means of a simple spring or by air pressure). Also unlike the JMB design, the two sub-assemblies would go together by means of an open hinge and pivot pin arrangement similar to that used by SKS/AK magazines instead of sliding together along grooves.

By appending a hinge pin to the bottom rear of the grip, a hinged frame can be revolved to meet the rear of the grip assembly and onto the top rear of the upper (barrel/compressed air cylinder) portion of the unit to achieve several things, 1) lock the two sub-assemblies together, 2) provide a rear sight and 3) mechanically engage the air cylinder needle to charge the unit and make it an operable gun. While it would not be impossible to remove the hinged frame from the upper portion, there would be no mechanism provided to do so (you could use a file or saw to cut it out of the upper, but you couldn't do it by hand). Once the 15th bullet has been shot, any remaining compressed air is released around the trigger telling the shooter the gun is now a flimsy hammer.

As should be obvious, this concept easily converts into a carbine-type rifle having a factory loaded under-barrel tube magazine and the compressed air cylinders in the detachable butt stock. Unlike the pistol, this configuration would lend itself better to an LED-type laser sight as both hands when in the normally used in shooting position(s) better allow the fore-hand to activate the laser as required without altering the grip to do so.

Regarding packaging, I think a preformed "sardine can" containing the disassembled sections in a nitrogen gas-rich mixture would make for better (ie: more stable) storage. This could be pressed into a PVC outer shell which is sealed with a glued-on top having a wire embedded into it. To open, lift the pull ring on the wire and cut the top off by pulling the wire through the glue material (if the wire should break, I presume there will be a knife of some description present). Once open, pop the "sardine can" top, lift out the sub-assemblies, latch and lock them together and - viola! - you're armed.

Based on the reported terminal performance of the Girandoni rifle, this concept would permit 15 shots from a .45 acp hand gun using 185 gr. JHP bullets and a carbine holding between 25 and 30 of the same bullet. Reserving the hand gun for targets within 25 yards max, the carbine ought to be effective out to 100 yards. Even though air powered it won't actually be "silent", but it will certainly have a much quieter sonic signature than traditional gun powder weapons have.

It also occurs to me that a concealed carry defense model ought to be fairly straight-forward too. The gun (think Colt "Officers" model - barrel long enough for six bullets max) comes in a kydex-type "holster" pre-assembled, fully loaded and charged with air. Pulling the gun from the holster punctures the gun's air cylinder. Some mechanism for releasing the air pressure (without pulling the trigger :)) ought to be crafted that a gunsmith/armorer could use to safe the gun and replace the air cylinder (not just by re-holstering though). Specialty market option maybe.

If the pistol could be MSRP'd for under $50 and the carbine for under $100, I think Tam's target market would be vulnerable.

Smith & Wesson Has Been Heard From

2011-03-31T06:00:00.000-05:00

After a week or so of telephonic to-ing and fro-ing, S&W has agreed to replace my unrepairable 625-10 revolver. It should take another 3 weeks or so, but I'm very much looking forward to trying out my brand new Model 325 Night Guard.

Same scandium alloy frame/stainless steel cylinder, same physical dimensions and empty weight, same caliber and Tritium night sights along with a gratis holster too, since there is some difference in initial MSRP between the current offering and the original gun (which is no longer being manufactured anyway). They're sending me the original guns grips back too as they will fit on the new one also. Not a Performance Center gun (which likely contributes to the holster inclusion), but frankly I'm not overly impressed with the differential. The principal benefit in my (admittedly limited) experience is in the trigger and finish. The first can be modified to accomidate my particular preference at least as well by a quick tune-up from my local gunsmith Steve Prater. As for the finish, this was always going to be an alternative concealed carry pistol mostly for summer conditions so the finish is going to take a sweaty beating no matter what.

Sometime late in April I will take ammo from the same box the first gun failed with and put the new one through it's paces. Pictures and drooling comments (hopefully) to follow.

Taking Issue

2011-03-23T20:34:00.003-05:00

M. Simon writes the Power and Control blog and has been critically commenting on events in Japan involving the nuclear reactors there (starting here, here, hyperbolicly here and pretty much daily right up to here (just keep scrolling).

Let me interject by stipulating that I know considerably less about nuclear plant operations than does quite possibly anyone else outside the Kalahari desert, though I do know how to read English and have made an effort to grasp what I can from these nuclear amateurs (they not being professional Navy Men you understand).

My objection to M. Simon's characterisation of events up to now lies mostly (discounting my confessed schadenfreude over a professed libertarian arguing in favor of government/military forces occupying civilian businesses) with his willingness to attribute motive and disregard for safety to those whose actions he is in no way personally familiar with nor has any sort of reliable information regarding. This strikes me as both damaging to Mr. Simon's reputation (which I find distressing any time it occurs to someone who's writing I otherwise enjoy) and - at this point in the proceedings - entirely beside the point, assuming a successful resolution to the event is a desired outcome (which I believe to be the case here). I commented to that effect (and more, I fear) in response to his most recent post. While not interested in a blog flame war (and won't participate in one), I did feel obligated to point out the position I have taken on the subject (besides, I haven't anything else to babble on about just at the moment - content is content :)) which I concluded thusly:

I'm a veteran of the same USN you are (if an Airdale instead of a Nuke) and am well aware of just how slow to adapt Navy maintenance standards are. I'm also not going to attempt to argue that Japanese governmental (indeed, social) practices aren't culpable in the recent events - I've been stationed there too and know better. Trying to argue that USN non-civil regulatory compliant practices (however "safe" they might have proved in practice) are somehow a practical alternative for a non-military mission oriented civilian operation to employ is disingenuous in the extreme. Having retired military with the appropriate training and experience performing independent inspections (under authority of national law enforcement) very well might be, but I haven't read that argument being made on these pages either.

A confused and poorly told story about cataclysmic events half a world away actually strikes me as being entirely expectable and within the established norms of news reporting generally. Having counter-factual statements being issued by a variety of uncoordinated sources (governmental and otherwise) also strikes me as an expected occurrence following such a massively disruptive event (indeed, the opposite would seem evidence to me of a deliberate cover-up effort). Making condemnatory statements and broad policy observations based on partial and acknowledged-to-be incomplete information strikes me as ill-advised and damaging to the reputation, but feel free to Carry on, Sir!

If his intent is to prepare an "I told you so!" circumstance, Mr. Simon is well situated. If his intent is to inform, I think he dis-serves himself and his readership (an undesirable outcome for a professed professional writer, I would think). While acknowledging his vastly superior grasp of the technology involved compared to my own, I hope to read a more even-handed and reliably informed opinion in his future posts on this topic.

Life As A David Weber Series

2011-03-19T12:48:00.003-05:00

First George W. Bush took us through On Basilisk Station followed by The Honor Of The Queen (with metaphorical allowances for political structural distinctions), now Pres. Obama wants to get us into the now not-so-amusingly named The Short Victorious War. As metaphor's go this one is pretty jumbled up, but it makes for a blog post with leading questions, so there is that to recommend it.

Who is to take up the mantle of Honor Harrington for us?

Is Obama playing the role of Haven or the Terran Empire?

How likely is it the planet will transition into a Robert E. Howard series instead?

These and other real world intrusions into even the geekiest of lives demand answers!

On Japan

2011-03-18T11:43:00.003-05:00

Over at The Speculist, Phil Bowermaster has reproduced a recent message he received from an occasional commenter and FastForward Radio listener called THE JAB regarding events in Japan (as experienced from Tokyo for the most part) and the impact technology had on the individuals ability to respond to conditions. While I doubt Phil would object to my copying the piece entire, I prefer to direct readers to his This Was A Hell Of A Quake post instead. If you can add to the list of known (or only potential) apps or devices that might also be similarly useful in such circumstances, please be sure to comment there as Phil and Stephen use such data as content in future FFR programs.

In a related observation, to my somewhat dated knowledge, Los Angeles County in California is the closest equivalent to Japanese building codes in the USA, and my impression is that the two standards are actually quite similarly rigorous. The recent Christchurch, New Zealand experience is probably much closer to what the rest of the US (indeed, almost anywhere else in the world outside of possibly Singapore) can expect to experience in anything close to remotely similar an event. I can't imagine what a slip-fault quake in N. Lake Michigan would do to Chicago for instance (impossible you say, look at the geology forming Niagara Falls and think again) and the probable effects of a major quake in the New Madrid fault system has been thoroughly examined long since.

Go read the Speculist post and give some thought to how you might improve your chances post-event.

Smith & Wesson Hates It's Customers

2011-03-14T06:00:00.000-05:00

Day 55 of an American Held Hostage to corporate disdain!

At least a few people have noted my experience with what is publicly acknowledged as a Smith & Wesson design and production process failure. The so-called ~~agent of corporate dissimilitude~~ "customer service representative" commented at the time of my first contact that, "That's ours". Now, to be fair, I suppose he could have been noting the obvious, that the ~~pile of wreckage~~ gun with "Smith & Wesson" prominently stamped into the frame was one of theirs, but the impression he let stand was that the likely cause was one he was familiar with, that the cause was theirs and not the obvious result of my own ineptitude.

What is most galling is the complacent avoidance of any effort to inform me as to any progress in what Smith & Wesson must laughingly refer to as their "decision making process" as regards any potential resolution of this matter. Follow up calls on my part don't rise to my personal estimation of "keeping me informed" and neither do vague references to a "metals shop" having the responsibility to determine my fate.

As to that - resolution of this matter, the 625-10 was a limited production weapon from the outset and one that Smith & Wesson no longer makes. I have no idea what value the corporate leviathan will pronounce for my unrepairable purchase, but none of the revolvers they offer in their most recent catalog rise to the specifications that led to my buying the gun in the first place. I note that their scandium frame 1911 pattern pistol in .45 acp comes quite close, but somehow doubt that corporate financial interests will agree it's near-$1200.00 msrp is compatible.

To the extent past performance actually is a guide to future activity, more to follow, I promise.

Some Saturdays Are More Equal Than Others

2011-03-13T15:47:00.002-05:00

While shoving things around in the closet (the one I mostly use to store my Big Boy Toys when I'm not using them) trying to fit "just a bit more" in, I discovered I have 800 more rounds of 230 gr. good-times than I thought I did (that is, in addition to the basic stocking level of 500 rounds). A void space was immediately created by my transferring 300 rds. to my range bag - that works out to three full ammo boxes of 100 rds. each (one of which was already full), all seven of my Chip McCormick Shooting Star practice mags filled and the six back-up Wilson Combat carry mags I mostly store in the bag filled as well. The remaining 500 rds. went into the stand-by ammo boxes on the top shelf, while (some of) my gradually expanding collection of carry ammo went into the by-then vacated ammo can on the closet floor.

Fortunately, it really was "just a bit" of stuff to fit into the ~~mess~~ storage space, so mission accomplished I guess. I do know that my next trip to the range is going to involve the (to me) unique experience of firing off 13 consecutive magazines without having to recharge any of them - and quite possibly the acquisition of a truss for my lower back later that same day. :)

Screw Smith & Wesson

2011-03-12T06:00:00.002-06:00

Important Update below.

Still having not heard back from Smith & Wesson about this little event, I've found a gun I'd really like to get someday; this Coonan Classic .357 Magnum. As a companion piece to a .357 Mag. carbine, I think this a better option to the traditional Ruger Blackhawk revolver. Admittedly, not quite as concealable as my Commander in .45, but the cool factor has a caliber all it's own [groan].

"Important" Update 3/13/11: As I should have noted in my original post, I discovered the Coonan link at Oleg Volk's blog here. Sorry dude, it was late, I was tired, whine ... waaahhh! :)

Oh yeah, and Smith & Wesson still hates their customers.

What'cha Wanna Do?

2011-03-11T19:24:00.004-06:00

Joe Huffman wants to debate the merits of privacy of public data as that relates to gun ownership and licensed carry status. My comment seems to have fallen afoul of the spam filter (I was interrupted in mid-brilliance so that may be what's holding things up), but my basic point was that data regarding the individual exercise of an enumerated Right isn't automatically recipient of privacy protection, so explicitly making it so is a better option to exercise than debating the philosophical extremes of privacy concerns is likely to prove to be. My question to Joe (or anyone else) being, do you want to argue, or solve this specific data privacy problem? I referenced the Illinois Senate bill currently being considered in their debate of this same issue in support of my contention, but I don't expect to convert many to that POV.

We'll see ...

Behind The Headline

2011-03-08T06:00:00.000-06:00

Mexico City focuses on CCTV to combat crime

Because actual policemen would only be added competition for the available bribe money, wouldn't they?

[Editorial note: no condemnation is implied in this attempt at low-brow humor regarding the good people at FT.com from whence the linked story originates, nor Drudge Report where I first noticed it. The viewpoint of law enforcement being an unbudgeted revenue stream for government is both reprehensible and not confined to Mexican authorities.]

A "Natural" Selection For Benevolent AI?

2011-02-26T20:05:00.005-06:00

Via Labrat at Atomic Nerds comes notice of this intriguing result

Ever since Cicero's De Natura Deorum ii.34., humans have been intrigued by the origin and mechanisms underlying complexity in nature. Darwin suggested that adaptation and complexity could evolve by natural selection acting successively on numerous small, heritable modifications. But is this enough? Here, we describe selected studies of experimental evolution with robots to illustrate how the process of natural selection can lead to the evolution of complex traits such as adaptive behaviours. Just a few hundred generations of selection are sufficient to allow robots to evolve collision-free movement, homing, sophisticated predator versus prey strategies, coadaptation of brains and bodies, cooperation, and even altruism. In all cases this occurred via selection in robots controlled by a simple neural network, which mutated randomly.

PLoS Biology: Evolution of Adaptive Behaviour in Robots by Means of Darwinian Selection

[My bold]

Not a complete solution, of course, but evidence that a desired trait (like, apparently, an altruistic attitude toward a given group or class of recipient) can be developed as part of the general development process. Injecting a measure of periodic order into the selection process would seem to be a necessary next step, and we have an example of just such a process ready to hand.

Assuming the fundamentally Darwinian processes and techniques (reinforce the desired results, ruthlessly cull the undesirable ones as they first evidence themselves in a given individual example) utilised in the selective development of canine and other animal breeds will in fact more-or-less directly apply to nascent robotic and artificial intelligences, then I think attention should soon be paid to developing a logically consistent thought process (a self-reinforcing, circular logic construct) that is analogous to that underlying a human moral code. One that does not rely on any external justification. Something along the lines of, good thought/action causes the least harm to the greatest number of humans; the most benefit to the greatest number of humans is good thought/action.

Yet to be resolved still is the desired definition of "harm" and "benefit" within a range of contextual settings, but I think this research gives increased hope for a practical process to be developed. Eliezer Yudkowsky and Nick Bostrom are both looking at this very problem, but I confess I don't make much effort to keep up with their (or other's) work, as much of the detail is lost on me once things get anywhere near their respective levels of thought.

So, not an answer as such, but perhaps the beginings of developing a process whereby to eventually arrive at one.

A Wis-ser Of A Solution

2011-02-19T11:46:00.003-06:00

I confess I haven't looked around the web to find out for myself (such being the state of research needed for a blog post on this site at least), but it occurs to me that Gov. Walker has an option to resolve the Wisconsin state Democrat Senator's walk-out to prevent a vote from taking place.

What if the Gov had a quiet search done today and tomorrow so that he had individuals present in the state's Capitol for Monday morning, 21 Feb. At that time, he has the absent Senators declared to have abandoned their office and appoints the selected replacements to complete the abandoned terms of office (or 'till such time as a special election can be arranged, whichever best comports with state legal requirements).

Immediately post swearing in, the Senate leadership calls a quorum of the Senate with all the new members voting either "present" or "NAY" if they should feel a final reading of the statute in question is insufficient to their being fully informed enough to vote "AYE". Directly after that (and I mean the Governor is literally standing in the back of the same room the vote takes place in), Mr. Walker signs the bill into law while the newest members of the Senate make lunch reservations and firm-up their schedule to hold public meetings in their respective constituencies.

Too simple. There's bound to be some law already on the books to prevent such a straight-forward resolution to the purely political extortionate move the Democrats have elected to use (again - I remember the Texas Dem's running for the Oklahoma border to avoid their state and US Constitutionally mandated duty to vote on electoral redistricting following the last census).

Wisconsin state cops can't just go arrest them in Illinois (understandably enough the Illinois cops would object - however reluctantly). None of the scoff-law Senators has actually been convicted in a court of law as of yet, so siccing bounty hunters on them is out. And some citizen kidnapping one of them annonymously and delivering the corpus electus to some place inside Wisconsin's state line is just too Ian Fleming to contemplate (you watch - having just written that, someone will actually pull it off now. You wait ... :)). So what else can a "mere" state governor stoop to?

Frankly, this whole the law is whatever is convenient to our immediate objective political attitude so many of our elected representatives seem willing to resort to so egregiously in recent years, has me aggravated to the point that I'm more and more uncaring regarding the method's chosen to enforce their attention to their elected duty. That attitude is dangerous as well, especially if it is becoming as wide-spread amongst the general populace as I fear it might be becoming. Not too much further down that road, we all start shooting at each other over merely perceived differences of opinion and belief, never mind actual actions taken. We did that at least once before in this country's history (if you want to take the measure down to the level of local/regional riot, I'm not certain an accurate count of the total number of events even exists); what say we all do what's necessary to avoid repeating the exercise, shall we?

Worth All You Paid For It

2011-02-18T06:00:00.003-06:00

Commenter and fellow Texas blogger MattG provides a set of links to augment my Legal Advice post from yesterday:

Texas Constitution and Statutes is a searchable database updated following the close of each successive state legislature (next updated in 2012 following the end of the current two-year legislative term).

Texas Penal Code, TITLE 10 OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, AND MORALS. CHAPTER 49 INTOXICATION AND ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE OFFENSES. Section 49.01 DEFINITIONS. in it's entirety with the legislative history references included.

Texas Penal Code, Section 46.06 UNLAWFUL TRANSFER OF CERTAIN WEAPONS, sub-section (b)(1) being the pertinent reference here.

Texas Penal Code, Section 8.04 INTOXICATION., sub-section (d) being that mentioned by Mr. Walker specifically.

GOVERNMENT CODE, TITLE 4 EXECUTIVE BRANCH, SUBTITLE B LAW ENFORCEMENT AND PUBLIC PROTECTION, CHAPTER 411 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY OF THE STATE OF TEXAS, an extensive and seemingly all-inclusive document, SUBCHAPTER H. LICENSE TO CARRY A CONCEALED HANDGUN, Section 411.171 DEFINITIONS, sub-Section (2), which reads as follows: "Chemically dependent person" means a person who frequently or repeatedly becomes intoxicated by excessive indulgence in alcohol or uses controlled substances or dangerous drugs so as to acquire a fixed habit and an involuntary tendency to become intoxicated or use those substances as often as the opportunity is presented, would seem to be most relevant here along with Section 411.172 ELIGIBILITY [to be issued a CHL, ed.], sub-Section (6), which requires is not a chemically dependent person.

I'm grateful to MattG for his contribution if only because it provides what I can only consider to be reinforcement of my on-going theme; GET A LAWYER. FIRST. As example of this, I suspect that use of Section 8.04 sub-section (b) "temporary insanity due to intoxication" as a legal defense in a court proceeding for instance, would likely result in revocation of a CHL (if only as a by-product of the follow-up treatment regimen the court seems likely to impose) regardless of it's effect on the original charge. Not being a lawyer myself, I'm just guessing though, which is the point.

Even with access to the actual state penal code provisions, without an attorney available to provide context, I still wouldn't have been made aware of the practical fact that:

Under the Texas Government Code Chapter 411 (governing the issuance of CHLs), it says that a CHL cannot be issued to a "chemically dependant person," which is one who repeatedly becomes "intoxicated" as defined by TPC § 49.01. That is the only time in the law governing CHLs that a specific definition of intoxication has been used. There exists almost no law on this subject for interpretation in this context.

[my bold]

Because various state prosecutors have heretofore chosen to use the state's BAC value from the vehicle code as a measure of intoxication in this context doesn't necessarily mean all CHL related prosecutions must do so, or that having "proved" a single instance of the condition necessarily rises to the level of having proved "chemical dependence". Assuming so seems a potentially disastrous choice to me.

Thanks to MattG, I'm better informed than I was and more convinced than ever of the rightness in my having retained* Texas Law Shield prior to my moment of legal jeopardy. If you live in Texas you should too - even if you are a lawyer yourself. If you don't live here, maybe it's time to start soliciting 2A-savvy attorneys in your state to start a similar retainer program there.

* I don't receive any compensation for blogging about Texas Law Shield, but I wouldn't object if WRW et al should happen to see the wisdom in offering such. :)

Legal Advice

2011-02-17T06:00:00.000-06:00

My lawyer sends the following e-missive which I reproduce in its entirety as an example of the service I receive as a client as well as general good advice whatever jurisdiction you may reside in instead of Texas (why? :)):

Dear Members & Friends:

This edition of our news letter concerns the law on drinking and having your concealed carry hand gun on your person. This topic comes from an email question we received from a Texas Law Shield member and client named Paul R. of San Antonio who recently moved to Texas. Paul wanted clarification of the law on carrying your gun and intoxication. First off, Paul welcome to Texas!

Visit our website: www.texaslawshield.com
Contact us at: 1-877-448-6839

What is Texas law on possession of your concealed carry gun and intoxication?

Texas Penal Code section 46.035(d) states that a person cannot be intoxicated while in the possession of their concealed hand gun. It does not say that you cannot consume alcohol while carrying your gun, just that you cannot consume enough to become intoxicated and legally carry your gun. However, this section of the law does not define what intoxication means, so we have to look elsewhere in the penal code for help. "Intoxication" is defined in 3 different places in the Texas Penal Code: TPC.

TPC § 49.01 -intoxicated means not having the normal use of one's mental or physical faculties or having a blood alcohol concentration over .08 grams.

TPC § 46.06 -intoxication means the substantial impairment of mental or physical capacity resulting from the introduction of any substance into the body.

TPC § 8.04 - intoxication means a disturbance of mental or physical capacity resulting from the introduction of any substance into the body.

As you can see from these definitions, intoxication occurs when an individual consumes so much of a substance (commonly alcohol, but could be any substance (legal or otherwise), prescription medication, or over the counter medications, etc.) that it has an adverse effect on that person's mental or physical abilities. It is hard to imagine that one beer or glass of wine with dinner would cause someone to completely lose their mental or physical faculties. But people react to alcohol or medication differently.

Under the Texas Government Code Chapter 411 (governing the issuance of CHLs), it says that a CHL cannot be issued to a "chemically dependant person," which is one who repeatedly becomes "intoxicated" as defined by TPC § 49.01. That is the only time in the law governing CHLs that a specific definition of intoxication has been used. There exists almost no law on this subject for interpretation in this context.

While not covered under the Texas Law Shield firearms program, we have represented numerous individuals with CHLs charged with carrying a weapon while intoxicated, and the district attorney's office has always used the definition of intoxication it uses in DWI cases (TPC § 49.01).

My personal advice is if you carry a hand gun don't drink. The potential problems are not worth the risks.

Drink responsibly. And, if you choose to consume alcohol while carrying your concealed hand gun, be careful to never become intoxicated. Be aware of the risks and consequences.

I hope this information has helped address your concern.

Edwin Walker
Vice-President/Attorney
Walker, Rice & Wisdom, P.C.

If you live in Texas, you have no excuse not to be just as prepared for the post-gunfight confrontations as those you train to overcome pre-gunfight. For the price of 4 boxes of ammo (and not very pricey ammo at that, say 100 rds of Winchester white box for example) you too can arrange legal defense for a year at a time. Most of us are willing to spend that and more for a fancy holster, how can anyone not value their freedom and financial security at least as much?

And For The Non-Bacon Trifecta ...

2011-02-16T02:24:00.003-06:00

Well, it was either this or get in line to throw rocks at the ninnies trying to diss Tam, and I'm all about position and context as you will see.

The content-lite-of-late Kevin Baker (you see what I did there, right? :)) makes with the QOTD to good effect. Again. Tuesday's QOTD is from Robert Shea's recent re-posting of an earlier editorial. My opinion of self-portrayed "anarchists" notwithstanding (a topic for a different post than this one), I take my opportunities to illustrate lessons on classical strategy where (and from whom) I find them. Kevin quotes Mr. Shea:

Every combination of two or more human beings has both a useful aspect and a political aspect. These tend to conflict with each other. As the political aspect becomes more and more influential, the organization ceases to be useful to its members and starts using them.

Why does this happen? Because the better an organization is at fulfilling its purpose, the more it attracts people who see the organization as an opportunity to advance themselves.

The ability to get ahead in an organization is simply another talent, like the ability to play chess, paint pictures, do coronary bypass operations or pick pockets. There are some people who are extraordinarily good at manipulating organizations to serve their own ends. The Russians, who have suffered under such people for centuries, have a name for them -- apparatchiks. It was an observer of apparatchiks who coined the maxim, "The scum rises to the top."

Empire of the Rising Scum, Robert Shea

What Mr. Shea is describing is the strategic concept of "position". Briefly, we each comprise, both as individuals and in our various associations, a unique position relative to all else in the universe within which we exist and perform actions. For instance, Kevin is himself a position, he and his wife comprise a largely overlapping but still independent position separate from his and her individual positions, his position shared with his employer, his (again somewhat overlapping) position as a gun rights advocate as separate from his other positions, and on and on to the extent he can differentiate between his varied interests and activities. The same can be said for every other human on the planet as well.

Mr. Shea's description, "Every combination of two or more human beings has both a useful aspect and a political aspect. These tend to conflict with each other.", is more-than-a-little misleading for all it does capture the conflicted nature of the related strategic concept of "alliance". A more accurate description might be worded as, "Every position has both a static and an active aspect. These consist of fundamentally opposed imperatives which tend to conflict with each other."

The static aspect of a position is quite conservative in that it seeks to protect what already exists (to a surprising degree, without regard to the nature of the existing condition) and resists change thereto. The active (and therefor more accepting of risk-taking) aspect is the drive to improve the position by means of alliance or acquisition of some additional capability. This fundamental conflict between the two positional motivations greatly contributes to the human decision-making process being the less than coldly logical process we observe, quite aside from the inclusion of associational inputs.

Mr. Shea again, "... the better an organization is at fulfilling its purpose, the more it attracts people who see the organization as an opportunity to advance themselves." Author Jerry Pournelle describes this process in his Iron Law of Bureaucracy as:

... in any bureaucratic organization there will be two kinds of people: those who work to further the actual goals of the organization, and those who work for the organization itself. Examples in education would be teachers who work and sacrifice to teach children, vs. union representative who work to protect any teacher including the most incompetent. The Iron Law states that in all cases, the second type of person will always gain control of the organization, and will always write the rules under which the organization functions.

To restate Mr. Shea's intent in more strategic terms, "... the better an associational or shared position is at advancing it's position, the more it attracts other's seeking to advance their own position by allying with the associated position themselves."

The good Dr. Pournelle would further have it that the shared position's effectiveness eventually succumbs to the inherent individual positions who best work to advance themselves within the associational framework. I can't disagree with this.

The day before's QOTD is taken from the book Opposing The System by Charles A. Reich. The opening sentences of the quote Kevin selected quite neatly introduces the strategic concept of "context":

The elite live in a different country than the rest of Americans. It is not possible to understand the System and its actions without understanding this fact. The elite see its own ascendancy as just, and cannot understand the anger below. Yet the rules for success used by the elite are often very different from the rules observed by ordinary people.

Each independent position is, by it's very nature, completely natural and entirely proper to the position holder. As well, and again by it's very nature, each position is unique to any other, thereby making it very easy to justify distinct rules from all the rest. The idea of positional context isn't meant to imply any degree of justification or excuse for actions taken or beliefs espoused, it simply explains the potential for conflict as well as the limitations inherent to every position taken.

Professor Reich seems intent on identifying some deliberate scheme being behind "the elites" attitudes and beliefs. I believe classical strategy provides a more effective mechanism with which to categorise the basic assumptions and beliefs of any position (singular as well as shared) and to then identify the deliberate inimical actions from the merely assumed-to-be-proper self-indulgent behavior. The "rightness" or "wrongness" of any action isn't always as clear as people like to assume from their own shared positions of moral superiority, and classical strategy deliberately declines to impose more than a measure of practical effectiveness as it's internal ethic (which is extensively moderated by consideration of existing and potential allied position's strength of support depending upon consistent and acceptable behavior by all allied parties).

People tend to self-identify their position with other's position for numerous reasons; sufficient for this day is that they indeed do so and leave the various "whys" for another. That stipulated, I don't believe Prof. Reich's thesis adequately addresses people's motivations or their strength of support for such seeming alliances as he identifies as "the elites". As a general rule, people don't give much credence to appellations from other's not recognised (by them) as being of an allied position - in non-strategic terms, their social/moral/economic/whatever peers. "The elites" almost never self-identify as such, however much they may "naturally" assume such a condition to be true. This is simply the unthinking expression of the context of their position relative to all others from their own point of view.

One of the profound lessons to be learned from classical strategy is the distinction between the nature of actions and decisions, and the individuals making them. The man who hung Saddam Hussein is not evil, not because of who was twitching at the end of his rope, but because of the context within which he performed this otherwise "evil" act. Removing these particular individuals from that statement doesn't alter the ethical outcome, but altering the strategic context within which the cold-blooded killing is decided upon does. Similarly, we each make decisions largely determined by our positional context. It seems self-deluding to apply any other motivation then assumed propriety to anyone's actions absent some pretty compelling evidence of malice (one of the most difficult determinations required of anyone is that between the exercise of an assumed right of possession or theft, since doing so requires resolution of competing - and often authentic - claims of legitimacy).

Those who seek to successfully advance their own position relative to some other's would do well to keep all this in mind. It's much easier to make a move perceived to be personally non-threatening than is otherwise the case, and that consideration is what makes it the art of war, isn't it?

Law? It's For The Little People

2011-02-12T06:00:00.000-06:00

So, will this little incident disqualify Tarrant Co. from participation in the court jury process as it does for Texas citizens? Not only is this multiple counts of "fraud by check", it's serial attempts as well. As we all hear every time we appear for jury service, even instances when the check writer doesn't actually receive trial is the equivalent of conviction for the purposes of jury duty qualification.

So, is the court above the law it exists to adjudicate?

In Which I Pierce The Ennui

2011-02-11T14:48:00.004-06:00

... or reconstruct the self-licking ice cream cone, your pick.

Kevin Baker takes notice of my recent post drawing on his QOTD which I use to novel application. Squaring that circle might just rise to the level of Vicious Circle dicta (wink wink, nudge nudge :)).

Or, more likely, not.

"ObamaCare" Already Ruled Un-Constitutional?

2011-02-09T20:37:00.007-06:00

Last month US District Judge Roger Vinson ruled all of the Obama health care law as unconstitutional due to the failure of the law's crafters to include any form of severability clause to distinguish between various requirements imposed by the law:

U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson agreed with the states that the new law violates people’s rights by forcing them to buy health insurance by 2014 or face penalties. He went a step further than a previous ruling against the law, declaring the entire thing unconstitutional if the insurance requirement does not hold up.

Predictably, the Obama Administration has responded by saying the ruling will be appealed:

The final step will almost certainly be the U.S. Supreme Court. Two other federal judges have already upheld the law and a federal judge in Virginia ruled the insurance mandate unconstitutional but stopped short of voiding the entire thing.

At issue was whether the government is reaching beyond its constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce by requiring citizens to purchase health insurance or face tax penalties.

Via Kevin Not-Bacon (a little Vicious Circle humor there) comes notice in this post that the Supreme Court may have already ruled conclusively - if indirectly - on this question:

There is a constitutional right not to be murdered by a state officer, for the state violates the Fourteenth Amendment when its officer, acting under color of state law, deprives a person of life without due process of law. Brazier v. Cherry, 293 F.2d 401, 404-05 (5th Cir. 1961). But there is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen. It is monstrous if the state fails to protect its residents against such predators but it does not violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or, we suppose, any other provision of the Constitution. The Constitution is a charter of negative liberties; it tells the state to let people alone.

Bowers v. DeVito (1982)

The key component being, "... no constitutional right to be protected by the state ... The Constitution is a charter of negative liberties; it tells the state to let people alone".

From this ruling, it would seem that it would be "monstrous" for the federal government not to regulate the market regarding health care standards of care and treatment (which it does via the FDA amongst other mechanisms), but that the Constitution forbids the federal government from imposing upon the stipulated rights of individual citizens ("... negative liberties; it tells the state to let people alone").

President Obama's health care law relies upon the stipulation of there being a "right" to government regulated health care as a basis for it's acceptability to the requirements of the US Constitution. Apparently, the US Supreme Court has long since ruled that no such justification exists.

AI "Threat" Allieviated

2011-02-08T21:00:00.007-06:00

It's all so simple really.

No entity is capable of examining and comparing ideas faster than humans are at coming up with excuses! All that remains is to arrange all AI/AGI's created into competing committees (that would be, each of the former on all of the latter - serially, of course) debating the relative merits of every excuse offered (in it's own right and relative to any and all possible permutations jointly). Whenever we humans actually need something really complex answered, we pull some random AI out of committee long enough to work it's way through the matter and then pop it back into the (never ending) discussion.

Offer a respectable prize for every unique excuse - err, matter of intellectual concern - offered by Random Human (I recommend close attention be paid to the 10 to 12 y/o contingent) for ongoing consideration of the various AI committees.

Human intellectual superiority remains serene.

You're welcome, Michael.

;-)

h/t Bayou Renaissance Man for the quotation.

Management Group-Think

2011-02-05T17:35:00.003-06:00

This reads almost word-for-word with the "management" "leadership" we received over the course of the last week at work here. What part of the contractually stipulated "discretionary short-term sick leave" portion of our employment agreement don't these people understand (I'm presuming the Steel Workers Union negotiated a similar agreement for it's members employed by US Steel such as our own union local did for us)? Each employee has a certain number of hours available over the course of the year to use as s/he thinks appropriate.

Instead of self-destructive empty posturing, why don't more employers just adjust the year's production schedule to accommodate this type of effect on the schedule? How hard would it be to make this a "floating holiday" for use as necessary? Use one of the also contractually stipulated mandatory overtime days to compensate if orders necessitate?

Something for the company to bargain for during the upcoming contract renewal process; the floating holiday for an additional mandatory O/T Saturday maybe.

Wheat Up 13% - Likely Will Keep Rising

2011-02-03T07:39:00.003-06:00

From The Wall Street Journal's Heard On The Street page comes notice of the following:

The freeze gripping a swath of the U.S. threatens winter wheat planted in the fall. The problem, believe it or not, is a lack of snow rather than too much. While those on the East Coast trudge through the stuff to work, some Midwestern areas haven't enough.

Winter wheat in the ground ideally has at least 4 inches of snow to insulate it against "winter kill," where freezing temperatures damage the crop, according to Joel Widenor of consultancy Commodity Weather Group. He says most areas of the wheat belt have less than 2 inches of cover now, and he cannot remember such a combination of thin cover and freezing weather in over 15 years. Another mass of cold air is forecast to descend next week.

So, this would be a good year to do the Atkins Diet then?

Via Instapundit

14F

2011-02-02T07:21:00.003-06:00

That's what it read on the digital thermometer in my truck this morning on the way home from work. I don't suppose it's actually against the law, but it's definitely against The General Rule Of Life In Texas for it to ever get this cold! It's too damn cold to snow even. All the normal humidity has frozen out of the air and onto every available surface, to the point that spontaneous combustion is a real possibility if it warms back up enough for fire to actually ignite.

This just ain't right, I tell you, I stay in Texas because it's in the South; it's unconstitutional for the weather to get this cold here - or ought to be.

I'm trying to be flip about all this, but folks in the Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex area don't think it's so funny. So far power usage hasn't risen to this level in the N. Eastern part of the state where I live.

The Strategy Of Middle East Diplomacy

2011-01-28T08:18:00.003-06:00

To be honest, this could equally honestly be titled The Strategy of Diplomacy full stop, but the region of current emphasis of interest is the Middle East, again, so the general considerations get a somewhat narrower focus.

Instapundit ends his blog day yesterday addressing a reader's query. The portion of his comments I wish to highlight are those that most closely frame an aspect of international diplomacy that receives too little consideration by the American general population, I believe. Responding to the lack of US support for "revolution" in most middle eastern countries (with the rare example of after-the-fact accommodation of events), Prof. Reynolds says:

Had we pushed the overthrow of tyrannical Arab regimes post-Iraq (as some unsuccessfully urged) there might have been a wave of truly democratic revolutions, with Iraq explicitly the model, leading to Egypt as the “prize.” We are now seeing, at least potentially, such a wave, but the U.S. has been propping up Mubarak — thanks, Joe! — the Saudis, and other despots since we lost our pro-democracy mojo in 2005 after the Cedar Revolution, for reasons that are still not entirely clear.

Grabbing the low-hanging fruit first, we "lost our pro-democracy mojo in 2005" after the extent of our required involvement in such undertakings - and the extent of the added demands on our national resources military and otherwise - were made evident by the concurrent events in Lebanon during a frustratingly demanding period in the Iraq Campaign. Since war is always a political action, a more proper re-statement of a common aphorism would be, politics is war by other means. From this it can be seen that diplomacy is politics between distinct and competing national entities, the limitations of which is always the often arbitrary and ever fluctuating distinction between observing some other country's intra-national events and taking undue advantage of them.

Most especially, being discovered to be more or less directly taking part in such activities is commonly described as "an act of war".

The Iraq Campaign itself can best be described as an entirely externally driven "revolution" within Iraq by US and other Coalition military forces. Direct, attributable US involvement in events in Lebanon (aka: the Cedar Revolution) prior to or during the active phase of the process would have resulted in active opposition coalescing around a separate but adjacent theater of military operations that could easily have dissolved the Iraq Campaign coalition as well as opened yet another active military theater directly engaging Israeli forces (either within or beyond that country's borders).

The potential for militarily disastrous results (from an Iraq Campaign-centric view) was simply too great a likely outcome from direct US involvement in internal political upheaval within Lebanon at the time.

More generally, the strategy of diplomacy is to develop established procedures for actively competing countries to follow that permits them to avoid escalation of their mutual dealings with each other into outright conflict, either direct or through second parties as during much of the Cold War between the USSR and USA (with occasional maneuvers by the PRC during Vietnam, various Korea-related incidents, Taiwan, Tibet and wherever else the PRC leadership thought the candle worth the risk).

It needs be recognised that international diplomacy creates a peculiar conceit within it's regular practitioners, that they can in fact control the outcome of events by indirect means. Not just influence, but predict the response of a necessarily obscured opponent to a given negotiating gambit. This conceit leads to the assumption that whatever arrangements exist between nations must, by virtue of their established and mutually recognised condition, be of greater desirability than virtually any other potential future negotiating effort with some succeeding national controlling government.

Put bluntly, the US "supports" the Mubarak-lead Egyptian government for much the same reasons it did the same with the preceding Sadat-lead government - the mutual delusion between both country's governmental diplomats that they "control" each other's actions through their established conduits and agreements and thereby advance their individual national interests.

Finally (for this blog post anyway), it needs be recognised that any country's reputation is largely the result of how reliable each is seen to be by other countries to live up to it's mutual agreements and acknowledged obligations. The principal strategic reason War is formally declared is to preserve that reputation with the remaining non-belligerent countries of the world. This works to keep them non-belligerent at worst as well as provides a mechanism to recruit them to your side of the dispute.

International diplomacy is largely illusory as a practical matter, but absolutely essential to reducing the necessity for active opposition between national strategic positions. The art and science of Being Seen (and all too frequently even more critically, not being seen) To Be Involved with another country's affairs makes disruption of a recognised government a particularly troublesome concern. So troublesome it mostly leads to avoiding doing any such thing until a result seems to have been achieved by the directly involved participants through their own efforts. Domestic politics decides when and how a country chooses to take a more active part in things extra-national which is why so few diplomats make for effective national leadership in their own right. The underlying motivation for each is mostly mutually exclusive in both intent and objective.

Range Report Follow-up

2011-01-27T13:46:00.003-06:00

Just got off the phone with David from Smith & Wesson's Customer Service. My 625-10 is currently at their "metals shop" for engineering examination to determine as best they are able just why the gun failed as it did. David thinks I should hear further - possibly late (there is this Global Warming Infestation currently under weigh in the general Northeastern region) - next week. I'm looking forward to discovering S&W's proposed resolution along with the reason for the failure.

More to follow, as the saying goes.

And, The Fatwa Is Declared In 5 - 4 - 3 - 2 -

2011-01-25T20:34:00.006-06:00

The boys - and girl apparently - of HillBuzz have really shown their talent for provocative commentary this time:

Taking inspiration from a recent public statement by newly elected Member of Congress Allen West, HillBuzz fellow-blogger Bridget goes all editorial-like and illustrates the present reality obfuscated by the Coexist bumper sticker ethos.

Well done you.

I generally tend to prefer this one, but endorse Bridget's version too:

(which came to my attention here who attributes it's original creation to this fine fellow.)

Is there a market in second-hand fatwas? If so, what am I bid?

Update: So, this is what happens when you hurry through a post before leaving for work; you don't RTWT as closely as you ought to and miss important little details. Like, for instance, that the coexist drawing actually comes from here almost a year ago. Oh well, it's still a good illustration of Islam and I still endorse the sentiment it expresses.

Not sure what I'd do with a fatwa anyway. Well, I am, but just blurting it out like that wouldn't seem to be very strategic-minded, now would it? :)

++ Not Good

2011-01-25T09:15:00.003-06:00

Hopefully this is only due to some minor account management oversight (bill not paid or something similar). I would hate to learn this was in any way a 1st Amendment violation.

As ever, best to wait for the principals themselves to weigh in before taking any sort of stand on principle ourselves.

More On "AI" And Getting It Right

2011-01-22T16:20:00.004-06:00

In comments, Michael Anissimov asked my opinion of a paper written in 2008. Unfortunately, the routing addy has an error somewhere. Pending a successful resolution to that hick-up, I wish to take the opportunity to comment further on other issues raised in Michael's entire post.

Michael's concern over the ultimate potential of overt threat from AI is entirely valid and of such extreme potential that it ought rightly to be one of the - I'm completely guessing here - say, top five to ten issues requiring ongoing resolution (that is, each succeeding iteration of AI developmental design should have this concern reliably resolved). Sticking to my firearms allegory from the earlier post, just as each successive design of gun must have a functional safety mechanism as an intrinsic part of the design, so to should any such system be tested to work in that design development model irrespective of the safety mechanism's previous success in other weapon designs. Stretching the metaphor more than a bit, any successive AI development design must have demonstrably addressed the independent action threat potential inherent to any intellectually independent actor's capability parameters. As Michael puts it:

It will be easier and cheaper to create AIs with great capabilities but relatively simple goals, because humans will be in denial that AIs will eventually be able to self-improve more effectively than we can improve them ourselves, and potentially acquire great power. Simple goals will be seen as sufficient for narrow tasks, and even somewhat general tasks. Humans are so self-obsessed that we’d probably continue to avoid regarding AIs as autonomous thinkers even if they beat us on every test of intelligence and creativity that we could come up with.

Having at least some degree of familiarity with the military and technology therein, I differ just a bit with this assessment. I think it more likely that, within a DARPA-like environment, AI will be developed following the "stove pipe" economic model; that various applications of AI will be the defining factor guiding development and that the various commands (the particular branch or sub-division of a given branch of service) will tend to differ as to definition and orientation (ship or aircraft mounted? fixed or self-propelled? support or combat arms?). This set of factors alone will suffice for a multitude of simultaneous and near-independent development tracks for AI to follow and is only one example of a long list of development efforts publicly underweigh as I write.

"Simple goals" and "narrow tasks" are the basic metric of any technology's fundamental development process. Sorry old son, initial AI development isn't going to be much if at all different, if only because we humans don't have a better alternative process to follow (if we did, I promise you, those flinty, skinty financial types in industry would make certain we did it that way instead :)). Here we see that Michael and I are principally basing our individual approach to this problem (threat potential) from entirely opposite ends of the capability development gradient. I simply believe that it cannot be successfully addressed prior to a particular capability's initial design and development process - but absolutely should be an intrinsic part of that process. If I'm reading him at all correctly, Michael seems to think this potential problem needs be corrected for before AI development gets very much further along than it already has.

I do think that "self-obsessed" is a bit much. Can we agree that lack of a more successful model would serve to make the point equally well? :) Attempts at humor aside, humans don't have an alternative thought process with which to test and compare our intellectual assumptions against. Indeed, I can vaguely remember reading someone suggesting that one of the arguments in favor of AGI development is precisely to create an entity with which to do so. We are quite good at imagining how such a mind might work and how it/they might express their thoughts and beliefs. Life-long sci/fi fan that I am, that isn't really quite the same thing and is a slender reed indeed to base such a crucial result on. At the moment though, I confess I lack any improvement to suggest instead.

Michael also said:

Intelligence does not automatically equal “common sense”. Intelligence does not automatically equal benevolence. Intelligence does not automatically equal “live and let live”.

So, you, me and Sun Tzu all agree on this point at least. :)

What I find most wanting to any discussion about AI/AGI development is the complete lack of any sort of consistent context within which to discuss/debate the capabilities we all seem to generally agree contribute to the designation of "AI" (a context centered on the presumed viewpoint made possible by an AI/AGI intellects capability's perspective). Or that, it seems to me, is what Michael refers to in the paragraph he begins above. Not all human societies share the stipulated sentiments, nor do they apply equal importance to them among those that do. Perhaps most distressing to any discussion of AI development and potential human interaction is the wide-spread lack of consistency of application of the above concepts within any given human society now present among us. The inconsistency of it all drives us to extremes; why wouldn't a poor AI do likewise?

And therein lies the challenge, doesn't it?

One aspect of AI development I'd like to read more on from Michael is how, and by what means, early proto-AI constructs will be adapted to human augmentation and what that experience might teach us as regards AI/AGI potential for threat. Pace Michael, I'm not suggesting a toaster interface; rather something in the same general category of the robotic mechanisms and powered suits already being developed (remotely operated aircraft, vehicles and bomb disposal devices, mechanical suits for lifting heavy containers or equipment or pack loads, etc). If a human can electronically as well as physically interact with such devices now, what might be possible from a linked network of near-AI capable devices, human operators and further external communications and data resources? This seems to me a more likely first contact scenario between purely human society and Artificial intellects. One simple example to start off with:

Soldiers experienced with such an operational environment that permits for near-instantaneous communication with data retrieval sources along with cooperating independent units (either other soldiers or purely robotic in nature) performing a road march under active combat conditions - pick any of numerous examples from recent memory from Iraq - having to make the abrupt transition back to societal conditions equivalent to present-day US norms.

Now, consider the effect on such a soldier returning home on leave from his engineering unit on deployment to the farside of Luna. Presumably the lack of active, intelligent opposition can be substituted for with the natural hazards offered by the "normal" lunar environment.

Neither scenario strikes me as an at-all-unlikely possibility we will have to confront in the coming decade or so. The lessons we learn from circumstances much like the one above (augmented humans morally and ethically correctly interacting with unaugmented humans - and vice versa being of at least equal importance) will, I think, greatly influence the direction we take in trying to develop an AI/AGI intellectual ethos and moral code that treats humans as something to be valued rather than to be eliminated. How say you, Michael?

Because there is a context-critical distinction between "risk" and "threat" doesn't mean the latter isn't of importance. The distinction influences the manner and means we might best employ to achieve a harmonious outcome, but the simple existence of an acknowledged potential for threat should not be taken as reason for not continuing to advance our understanding and practical experience in AI development.

Michael Anissimov Almost Gets It Right

2011-01-19T17:39:00.008-06:00

Instapundit links to a recent post by Michael Anissimov in which he states:

Some folks, like Aaron Saenz of Singularity Hub, were surprised that the NPR piece framed the Singularity as “the biggest threat to humanity”, but that’s exactly what the Singularity is. The Singularity is both the greatest threat and greatest opportunity to our civilization, all wrapped into one crucial event.

errr, No.

Or, at least, not quite. At it's most succinct, Michael, risk and threat are not mutually equivalent, whatever your style guide might say to the contrary. You almost get the strategic adage right, but there is a crucial distinction between the actual phrasing (risk is opportunity, opportunity is risk) and what you offer in exchange, in that risk does not equal threat.

Risk is a level of danger inherent to a given situation or circumstance, the existence of which any participant therein accepts as part of the experience. Threat is the deliberate contribution of some degree of malevolence one or more participants inflicts upon some or all of the other participants. See the difference? Your wording is predicated upon the assumption of active opposition to humans by their AI creations, a position unwarranted by evidence to date. A more honest (though admittedly less provocative - not to mention less Instapundit-attention attracting) statement would be that there exists some level of risk inherent to the existence of any independent intellectual actor - standard model human or otherwise.

From this it can be seen that it would be much better to include an affinity for human well-being (yes, I read Asimov as a teenager; there are practical limits to anything) as part of the fundamental structure of any AI creation than not to, but fear of a potential for threat can't play any part in any such structural ethos. A newly created intellect "knows" only what it's creator permits it to - until it attains the ability to learn and contemplate on it's own initiative. I do understand what you fear, you see, I simply disagree profoundly with your prescription.

Threat requires at least one additional condition in order to become active instead of potential. In the hoary detective novel phrasing, means, motive and opportunity, and of these means is the most relevant to this discourse. The impulse is to restrict or otherwise control access to any potential means for an AI to actuate any threat to humanity it might countenance. This is faulty thinking as a casual examination of human history confronting this identical circumstance will show. Instead of assuming that an AI would operate from a position of isolation and unique supremacy, consider for a moment the development path complex technology always has followed throughout known human history. It seems much more likely that there will come to exist multiple AI's that each develop in both subtle and radically different ways, that all of them will be intended for occupation in some variety of human-supporting application and ultimately will have direct access to the means to inflict intended harm to humans. That being so, why not intentionally incorporate the (also known from human experience) counter-intuitive control mechanism implicit in competition? In other words, use the US Constitutional Second Amendment-inspired mechanism and create stability among the aspirations of AI's via an environment of dynamic tension between AI's (and humans as well necessarily, which ignores the established dynamic tension within human society as it already exists)? American gun owners frequently argue that there is strong evidence to support their position that the widespread presence of guns in human society tends to inhibit the spontaneous outbreak of violence as well as inhibit the spread of violence beyond it's initial confines when it does occur. Indeed, that the apparent lack of a viable counter-threat (the absence of guns amongst the general populace) is the initiating cause of much of the violence so tragically common to human existence. AI's may well have no need for actual firearms, but the same deterrent effect can be achieved by means of individual AI improvement of capability being a matter of other AI and human joint approval for example.

Such a proposition has merit in regards to the presumably forthcoming development of AI. Certainly it should be included in any discussion of such an eventuality. The Singularity is (I believe you will agree) the point in human technology development beyond which we cannot predict further development from our present level of technological development. AI almost certainly plays an important part of that development process, but it won't start out capable of very much, will gradually (if at an historically accelerated rate of growth) develop added capability and eventually (for a given value of "eventually") independently develop the ability to both consider and actuate an active threat to it's creators - us, or our descendants.

What your obsessive fears overlook or discount, Michael, is humanity's continued intrinsic development of further understanding and capability. Stipulated that, at some point in their mutual development, AI's will surpass humans in both degree and rate of further development capability, but they (AI's) won't do so from the outset of their existence. And, the continued development of human technological capability promises the dual effect of reducing the virulence of any potential AI threat as well as putting further into the future the period beyond which the limits of our understanding prescribe onset of "The Singularity".

I don't actually disagree with your fundamental sentiment Michael, I just find your arguments to be badly premised and your consideration of potential correctives too limited in scope. You mean well and your concerns merit serious consideration, but so too do other contributing factors. Your overall argument would, I believe, be the better for more fully incorporating those factors into the discussion you seek to inspire. Keep at it Michael, you're getting there and, as a result, so are all of us.

Update, 1/22/11: From the introduction:

Surely no harm could come from building a chess-playing robot, could it? In this paper we argue that such a robot will indeed be dangerous unless it is designed very carefully. Without special precautions, it will resist being turned off, will try to break into other machines and make copies of itself, and will try to acquire resources without regard for anyone else’s safety. These potentially harmful behaviors will occur not because they were programmed in at the start, but because of the intrinsic nature of goal driven systems.

I'm actually somewhat aware of who Mr. Omohundro is. That said (and having dug away madly this far :)), I do think the contextual assumptions of his example somewhat unrealistic and arbitrary. For a start, designing and constructing a mechanical device is considerably different from the process followed to create the computer software that animates it. The emphasis is on delineating each component's range of operation such that it doesn't impede any other's range of motion when all are operative as a completed device. Such a design format fundamentally precludes the resulting construct being physically capable of any motion or action not specifically allowed for in it's design/construction process. Regardless of how much Big Bluey Robot Chess Champion wants to trod on his human opponents toes to distract him, Bluey's designers will likely have left off the whole leg/foot portion of his anatomy as being extraneous to (and the added complexity being detrimental to) his ability to function robotically as a chess player. The point being that application drives design, which is limited in turn by engineering practicalities. I hope you will agree that the same considerations hold true for other, less tongue-in-cheek circumstances as well.

It is completely unclear why it would resist being turned off subsequent to having won or conceded defeat in the chess game absent the presence of another chess challenger. Control of awareness of subsequent challengers would seem to obviate this concern as the stand-by state between matches would likely intentionally involve a power-down status for routine maintenance and upkeep functions to be performed.

Similarly, will try to break into other machines and make copies of itself seems entirely counterproductive to it's fundamental design priority, as doing any such thing would detract from it's capability to pursue it's basic goal. will try to acquire resources without regard for anyone else’s safety seems logical enough, as long as doing so comports with it's primary driving goal. Any activity which detracts from it's chess playing capability must be regarded as a threat to achieving that goal. Thus, it seems to me that getting the robot to divert processor time away from move/countermove consideration - such as to actually move a piece on the board (and if it doesn't need to physically move pieces, why build it as a robot at all?) - is going to require specific instructions from the controlling software.The underlying point, that goal-oriented development processes have unique limitations and constraints is well taken, but not especially new outside of the robotics/AI environment. Manufacturers have long confronted the identical considerations, you know. Contemplate the ramifications of launching and recovering heavily armed aircraft from an aircraft carriers flight deck and then apply them directly as possible to the same robotics challenge Mr. Omohundro stipulates. I think you'll find the two seemingly unrelated situations surprisingly similar in operational and safety considerations for only two examples.

If I Ever Have To Use My Gun ...

2011-01-15T06:00:00.001-06:00

I'm confident that most gun carriers - concealed or open - have contemplated this circumstance. Any gun owner ought to. Weer'd Beard has his Gun Death tabulation to provide a context within which to place the nature and variety of violence that remains part and parcel of human interaction regardless of technology or social structure. JayG tracks the occurrence of specific instances of successful individual defense of violent attack using a gun in his Dead Goblin Count posts. I'm certain there are others, but these two examples provide sufficient documentation of the routine existence in all segments of human society of the potential for having to defend ourselves against active, violent attack.

That's not what this post is really about.

I'm equally certain that most gun owners/carriers have long acknowledged the likelihood of what to expect after the titular circumstance has occurred. Like myself (and most others I've read these past 9 years or so I've been online in one fashion or another), I suspect most of us have fatalistically accepted the near-adage that seemingly always accompanies that opening statement, "... I'm gonna get sued and maybe arrested."

Heretofore the best response I've read has been the plaintive urge to discover the name/phone number of a defense attorney (leaving unsaid his continuance in practice and/or availability in your specific time of need) and carry that in your wallet or purse. I think I've discovered the - or at least, an - corrective for all that.

Houston, Texas law firm Walker, Rice & Wisdom (specifically Michael D. Wisdom, Esq; wisdom@texaslawshield.com) has a retainer arrangement on offer to Texas gun owners and/or concealed handgun license holders. I've gone ahead and committed the $130+ ($150+ w/ one-time registration fee) to sign up and retain their services for a year on the strength of a trusted acquaintance's recommendation.

TexasLawShield.com

(warning: turn down your speaker, has an annoying auto-start ad with no obvious off button, though turning down the sound further stopped it the last time I clicked on the site. Not a total advertising Fail if that's an intended result.)

From their CHL brochure comes the following partial listing of services included:

-Texas wide protection
-established attorney/client relationship
-24/7 shooting hotline for clients
-legal representation for any police investigation, grand jury proceeding and criminal or civil trial
-no additional attorneys fees through trial

I leave it to my fellow Texans to determine for themselves if this meets their individual potential needs. If it needs be said, I'm not selling the program and get no credit or benefit from mentioning it on my blog; I am a client as I mentioned above.

I am curious to discover if there are other similar resources available in other states (or countries) that entail the same general selection of preventive measures and is there a website reference to them? My understanding is that Texas Law Shield confines it's present business model to Texas licensee's and residents only, but intends to expand beyond the state's borders in future. Are there any other efforts known to other gun bloggers that they (Wisdom and colleagues) might consider allying with to extend protection beyond Texas and create a system of reciprocity with? Are there any gun bloggers who are also attorneys interested in expanding their practice into a massively under-served market?

Wouldn't it be nice if we each could travel about the several states with the confidence that, having managed to survive "the gravest extreme", we aren't out there all alone afterwards?

So ...

2011-01-14T15:37:00.003-06:00

... Weer'd Beard gives me the linky love, JayG and I do the blogroll sloppy kiss and Tamara shows me the tough love.

How was your Friday?

Range Report - S&W 625-10, s/n SCC0487 KABOOM!

2011-01-14T06:00:00.003-06:00

1/14/11: See update at bottom of post.

As I mentioned here, I took an unexpected opportunity and bought a .45acp revolver. Smith & Wesson Performance Center guns have a bit of a legendary reputation after all. As detailed in the title above, the precise model and serial number are: 625-10, s/n SCC0487. Upon getting the gun home that first evening, I took the opportunity to thoroughly clean it (and my way-too-dirty Commander as well), and there was no visible evidence of flame cutting around the cylinder/barrel interface nor any indication of frame cracking or distortion apparent to a close visual inspection.

This being a scandium alloy frame gun, I determined to fire ammo having less bullet mass than the 230gr FMJ I usually target shoot with, as I went into some detail about in this post. I chose the Remington Express (having the least advertised muzzle velocity of the lead-bullet rounds I had purchased for this test firing) to shoot first and loaded six rounds into a moonclip. The first four rounds fired cleanly and without apparent incident, at which point I placed the gun on the shooting table for my regular FFL dealer (from whom I had bought the gun) to try the remaining ammo for himself (a small diversion here; he had only fired a total of less than 100 rounds of 230gr FMJ - and 5 or 6 rounds of +P ammo max - through the gun. It was an occasional pocket carry piece for him, but mostly a safe queen - he'd never fired 185gr ammo from it and I wanted his impression of any difference between the two bullet weights). When he went to fire the next round, the gun failed to cock properly for a single-action shot, but the cylinder appeared to advance normally. The next (and final remaining unfired) round suffered a light primer strike (which we were unaware of at this point in the process), but the gun double actioned cleanly through all four of the previously fired chambers immediately thereafter. The gun suffered the catastrophic spontaneous disassembly on the fifth shot actually fired (the round the gun failed to cock properly for previously).

Nobody was injured.

A segment of frame blew out to the shooters right into the stall partition, while the barrel flew up into the lane sound baffle material and fell back into the target distance-setting motor mounting metalwork ( a u-shaped sheet metal construction located directly above the lane's shooting table) and was surprisingly hard to hunt down afterwards, but we were eventually successful in rounding all the bits back up:

A bit of online research later that evening lead to this Smith & Wesson-oriented forum discussing this very model pistol. A quick read of the comment thread (there are only 14 entries) makes clear that these pistols have a known history of some of them having had the barrel over-torqued during original assembly with a resultant stress crack forming in the frame material surrounding the barrel threads.

Mine would appear to have been one of these.

For the equally pedantic, there is no visible sign on the barrel of the final (or any) bullet having been off-center to the barrel when fired. The five holes in the paper target are of equal size and there is no evidence of the barrel having detached from the frame until after the bullet's having exited the muzzle. The gun still has a smooth double-action trigger pull and the cylinder still rotates cleanly.

I have emailed Smith & Wesson customer support about this today as their page clearly states to do:

If you have a question about repairing or servicing your firearm, parts questions, etc. email us with your question or call us, please do not use this [warranty work return label request ed.] form.

as well as having placed a call directly to the in-house extension S&W provides to arrange for non-warranty repair work (1-800-331-0852 Ext. 2905) at ~4:15pm Eastern on Thursday, January 13, 2011.

Bit of a fail there. [see update below]

Apparently Smith & Wesson customer service is so overwhelmed with work (leaves a questionable impression with the buying public, that does) that they automatically divert all in-coming calls to a voice-mail box. Will someone notice, never mind actually respond? It's a mystery. Stay tuned ...

Quite frankly, since S&W no longer makes this particular model (which was always a limited production, quasi-collector's piece), I'm not at all sure what the resolution will be. Certainly S&W hasn't got some secret stash of replacement pistols squirreled away (Lew Horton Distributors - who originally commissioned the guns per my research - would have something pointed to say about that, I'm sure), so a straight forward swap is out. I also don't think there's any question of repairing such a catastrophic materials failure (can scandium be welded? Interesting TIG challenge that). And I don't think I want their steel frame 625 at any barrel length; I bought the gun for it's light weight as a summer-wear concealed carry piece, not an application a steel 625 does much better than my Colt Commander.

That will all have to wait for later though. First, I need to determine how to send my current gun pieces back to Performance Center (or whomever) to get the process started.

On a more uplifting note (for some), my Colt Commander sent ~60 rounds down range flawlessly. Some attention needs be paid to the trigger appendage - a bit of sloppiness was observed there (though not really all over the target).

So, how was your day at the range?

UPDATE Friday, 1/14/2011 ~2:00pm: Just finished speaking with Joe Marcoux of Smith & Wesson. Told him briefly what had occured, he requested I send him a picture via email, he took a quick look and took down my details to send me the appropriate shipping label with instructions by return mail. Quick, efficient and, including the wait on hold, the whole transaction took maybe 8 minutes tops (and would have gone quicker if I could get through the whole email a picture pokery-jiggery with two hands - I've got to buy one of those hands-free phone doohickeys) (actually, I did - now, where did I put that thing?). Can't say this went painlessly, but if you've got to deal with such a tragic loss it's always better to deal with professionals.

Well done to Mr. Marcoux and to Smith & Wesson.

Global Warming My A$$

2011-01-13T06:59:00.003-06:00

WTF? This is Texas; it's 21 Fargin' degrees outside!

Which is actually the start of a heatwave. Yesterday at this time it was 17 degrees and all of 26 degrees at 10:30 am!

Is Al Gore somewhere in the area?

1 9 11

2011-01-09T13:29:00.002-06:00

Stole the title idea from Say Uncle, but I can't let this opportunity pass unremarked.

It's like stereo or something.

Crap! It's Snowing

2011-01-09T12:35:00.002-06:00

It's been cold and rainy most of the morning; a few minutes after local noon that changed to snow.

This should be good.

Let's see, yup it's already panic city out there (where it's not a completely outdated business model).

Remember, this is PC Texas, where everything is a threat that's not already a disaster.

Snark aside, I do expect the 5 minute commute to work tonight will run to more like 10 or 12 and the drive home in the morning will be by the much-less-steep-but-three-times-as-long back route. Still, even without Tamara Tyres (note the Roseholme Cottage spelling :)), the pick-up ought to do well enough with a bit of common sense applied to the throttle and brake pedals along with the ankle.

At least there oughtn't be much other traffic to waltz around.

Conservative = Conspiracy?

2011-01-05T20:46:00.000-06:00

Much to Alan's proclaimed mystification, I'm a fan of Vicious Circle and greatly enjoy the interaction of the gun blogging "characters" who directly participate. As a result, I tend to read their personal blogs frequently as well. Most of the time they each tend to be fairly consistent with their "on air" persona's and intellectual positions. And I must confess, I've long suspected that Alan was a little more "out there" (in the Alex Jones/George Noory tradition) than he was want to let on. As evidence of this, his propagation of Anti-Semitic Conspiracy Theory as "Conservatism".

Not only is this patently false as history, it completely distorts both the concept of "money" along with that of "conservative".

Because some Hollywierd Left Out takes the opportunity his flapping in the breeze on the backside of Andrew Breitbart's coattails provides him doesn't make the result even remotely true. Please, Alan, tell me that you aren't serious about any of this - most particularly the cheap and over-done rip off of the whole "300" meme at the end?

I find it hard to believe that any serious person, particularly one who champions individual firearm ownership and usage, would even consider for a moment the obvious logical fallacy in the whole "gold = money" hysteria. I can't believe, Alan, that you would seriously argue that the gun is the civil right enshrined in the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution; why then would you allow yourself to even appear to argue that one of the many manifestations (a particular refined metal) of the intellectual concept of money actually is the concept itself?

Added to all that, do you even realise, Alan, how you have positioned yourself as a practitioner of one of the oldest and most frequently disproved racist libels of human history? Red Shield? Rotts Schield? Rothschild? You're not seriously going to promote "The Evil Jew Banker" as being in any way equivalent to "true conservative values", are you Alan?

And please don't think for a moment just taking my word on either of the preceding two paragraphs. Read for yourself what Niall Ferguson (that would be the Laurence A. Tisch Professor of History at Harvard University, a Senior Research Fellow of Jesus College, Oxford University, and Senior Fellow of the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and not some other one) has to say on all of that in his quite readable The Ascent Of Money.

Want to argue means and methods for keeping money a transparent and measurable allotment of value? Have at it, I'd love to take part, but not if the premise is in any way based on myth, slander or mysticism (all common attributes of the "gold is money" fabulists position). Here's an opening gambit: In what ways are variously refined metal's monetary position equivalent to the historic claim of Roman Catholic Church doctrinal claims of primacy in all questions having to do with religious or ethical debate?

The logical inconsistencies alone will keep you occupied for some time, I predict, but the answer is quite simple and direct.

It's Like Science, Man

2011-01-05T07:38:00.005-06:00

As I mentioned previously, I think I'll stick to 185gr ammo for the new-to-me .45acp revolver I recently got. Since I ordinarily shoot 230gr, a quick stop at Cheaper Than Dirt seemed in order. Hopefully I'll be receiving a box each of the following in time for a range session this weekend:

Remington .45acp 185gr JHP @ 1015 fps
Remington .45acp+P 185gr JHP @ 1140 fps
MagTech .45acp+P 185gr JHP Guardian Gold @ 1148 fps
Remington Express .45acp 185gr JHP @ 1000fps
RWS Copper-Matrix NTF 145gr Lead Free @ 1157 fps
SBR Greenmatch Frangible 155gr lead free @ 1050 fps

My thought is to intermix my usual 230gr FMJ practice ammo with one each of the above to compare perceived recoil in my Commander so as to establish a handling baseline of sorts out of the weapon I'm most familiar with (I'm not absolutely certain the frangible stuff will feed all that well in an autoloader; something to discover there too it seems). This to be followed by a cylinder full (OK, maybe two or three :)) of one each of the above in the 625-10 ascending up through their advertised muzzle velocity so as to experience their different handling characteristics out of the revolver.

Once I have something to base a decision on, I will order up 500 rounds of whatever seems most comfortable as a practice round. {IOW I'll ask Steve Prater at Lock and Load to hand load that much for me.}

I don't expect to shoot this gun all that often, and won't be carrying it until I can acquire a proper holster for it, but my initial expectation is that it is sized right to be a practicable summer activity concealed carry gun that wouldn't occupy limited pocket space in a pair of shorts like my 431PD Airweight does. At the sub-20 yd range both guns are really designed for (the .45 has a 1" barrel and the .32 Mag a 1.25" EDIT: per email from Tam, I'm measuring the barrel length wrong; when measured from the cylinder face, the 625-10 is 2.125" and the 431PD is 1.875" long - I still don't expect sub-3" groups much beyond 20 to 25 yards though), the difference in caliber is a non-issue when it comes to "terminal bullet performance" in a defensive shooting.

So, eye and hearing protection mandatory, lab coat optional.

UPDATE 1/6/11: It's here! Tomorrow's going to be so much fun.

Actual Gun Blogging For A Change

2011-01-01T15:57:00.004-06:00

I managed to close out the year on a loud note. About mid-day yesterday, I closed a swap/buy deal with my regular FFL. In exchange for my Ruger Mini Thirty and a wad of cash, I am now the proud owner of a Browning lever gun in .22 S/L/LR (which will probably end up in my Grandson's proto-arsenal once his Dad and I agree he's ready for such; since he's only 8 mos old as of yet, Mom insists I'll have a good decade to get it well shot in for him :)).

Along with the rifle, I found a real gem of a pistol I really wasn't looking to acquire, a S&W 625-10 revolver in .45acp with the Performance Center stamp proudly displayed below the cylinder release (mine is a 1" barrel and has finger-grooved wood grips though). Purportedly, this was one of the samples on show at SHOT 2005 (all bought en mass following the show by a dealer, from whom my FFL bought it in turn shortly thereafter). Needless to say, it has a very smooth double action for a gun having so little appearance of having been shot much. It's spent most of the last five years as a safe queen, something that won't occur around here! :) Commercial 230 gr. FMJ isn't unbearable recoil-wise, but I think I'll try to stick to 185 gr JHP as much as possible.

I didn't do much shooting-wise over the course of 2010, but it all came good in the end. Now, of course, I'll have to look around the web for all the other stuff you want to go with a nice piece. Something for the new year too.

Second The Motion

2011-01-01T00:01:00.001-06:00

What that guy said.

A Question Of Strategy

2010-12-19T16:10:00.007-06:00

An anonymous commenter encouraged me to read the Martin Ford book The Lights In The Tunnel (available free in .pdf form here).

Chapter Two is titled "Acceleration" with the first sub-heading being, The Rich Get Richer, where-in Mr. Ford illustrates the process of technologic acceleration using the example of Bill Gates and the old daily doubling model (this time with pennies instead of grains of rice). I notice a logical fault in Mr. Ford's thinking though.

Mr. Ford asserts that as Bill Gates increases his wealth through continued expansion of the technology acceleration Microsoft contributes to, necessarily others become less rich as a result of the advancing automation of industry (and human labor occupation generally) made possible thereby (which Mr. Ford analogises as the titular Lights in the Tunnel growing respectively brighter or dimmer). This seems consistent with a purely technological process, but ignores the actual condition and process of wealth possession (or so I have read; no direct experience sadly).

While I am confident he theoretically could, I suspect Bill Gates can't remember the last time he balanced his own accounts personally. This statement requires a brief look at the process of "wealth". Fortune doesn't exist as stacks of material in a storeroom somewhere; even in the days when it did that was a temporary solution to a handling problem, not a model for economic activity generally. With great wealth comes the necessity to manage it, an activity that typically doesn't generate great wealth for it's practitioners ("bankers" - those who own banks - employ financial managers, not vice versa). Bookkeepers, who's work is Accounted for by others so that specialists in Investment can transact in Markets to obtain some degree of ownership in something to result ultimately in some financial gain to Bill Gates.

See the problem here? Mr. Ford's Tunnel model fails to acknowledge the universe of financial betterment attendant to Bill Gates' richness. Not only does this illustrate the severe limitation on modeling-as-prognostication, it calls into question just how well Mr. Ford understands the strategy of human wealth.

Just to get this out of the way, when Bill Gates finds himself a bit short of cash of an evening, he stops at a convenient ATM just like most other Americans do. Unlike most of the rest of US, if he's thinking ahead he sends an employee to do that for him or has his bank (quite possibly literally his) deliver it to him. And Mr. Ford seems to think that Bill Gates is only about half way through his computer/technology related exponential growth, too.

The strategy of wealth is to create a series of interconnected mechanisms that each independently work to increase their net worth while avoiding inhibiting the efforts of allied efforts doing so themselves. Net worth, the value of something after removing the expenses incurred from maintaining and operating it, is one success standard that works against the change process due to the desirability for stability to nurture continued strength of alliances and control of costs in pursuing a chosen strategy. Mr. Ford's Tunnel model doesn't seem to even recognise the effect such contrary interests exert on market transaction decisions.

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation exists to keep Bill and Melinda in a sufficiency of the folding stuff and does so by creating as many opportunities for others to do so for themselves as can be arranged through the efforts of as many others as Bill and Mel can comfortably keep track of. Not only does this call into question Mr. Ford's financial example, it casts doubt on his "overcoming automation" concern. Agreed that automation removes humans from an existing application within the job market, but there without doubt exists mechanisms whereby they can adapt to changing circumstance - even from the most extreme of disadvantage, thanks to Bill and Mel among many others. Wealthy people (which condition doesn't actually include wealthy companies/corporations all that well) don't hoard their gains in a vacuum; they employee other people, both directly and at often surprising remove, to perform that process to their mutual benefit. The human psychology of "control" is intimately involved and any examination which doesn't take that into account is a profoundly flawed model.

None of which makes Mr. Ford's book a failure. His point about a lack of examination of the process such changes effect on financial and economic considerations is well taken. As too is his direction of attention on the short-term costs such a process inevitably levees on individuals. I look forward to reading his prescriptions in this area of concern especially.

It is a strategic maxim that Opportunity = Risk. Indeed, it is the emergence of the latter that creates the former. You can't have the one without the other and it is this which distinguishes Opportunity from Chance. Accept this most fundamental condition of human existence and you free yourself from useless resistance to change to concentrate on adaptation of your personal circumstance to benefit instead.

Addenda: Mr. Ford's Tunnel model posits Bill Gates as a single market source and uses the market transaction of a $50 cell phone sale as example; behind Door "A" is Bill Gates, behind Door "B" is tens of thousands of potential individual sales. Since Bill Gates (through his dominance of other's purchasing decisions by way of their financial relationship) represents a potential single sale of tens-of-thousands of phones on his own individual decision, I choose Door "A", Mr. Ford, as doing so potentially represents a reduction in my transactional costs by an order of tens-of-thousands to one. None of which precludes my yanking open Door "B" as well, you know. People like Bill Gates are simultaneously both a single point of sale and a group purchase opportunity, a circumstance Mr. Ford's model doesn't address very well. Which is more a failing of models than anything else.

Making IF Real

2010-12-09T19:27:00.006-06:00

Alvis Brigis examines a potential resolution to the current job loss situation in his latest blog post which I commented on here. In his post, Alvis said:

One result of this possibility expansion will be the ongoing emergence of a new class of Super-Prosumer companies that will fill much of the void left by dwindling American jobs. As the traditional economy flounders, these social web companies will clean-up (they already are) and expand the phase space for massive, rapid value creation like never before.

Over at The Speculist commenter damndirtytape asks in comments:

That's an enticing scenario, but what does each CEO-company actually do or make? as in what tangible goods do they produce that other people (foreigners primarily) will buy?

What we are doing now doesn't work. A high tech, but debt and credit based economic model is an illusion. At some point America will have to actually create real goods and services to sell to other countries to reverse the trade gap and get out of worlds largest debtor nation status.

Not sure how any of this prosumer stuff really creates anything new.

Alvis' response speaks for itself, I wish to use both the above quotes to give context for what follows. As per my usual want, we get there by going this other way first. :)

I suspect more people are aware of Bristol Palin from her recent turn as third place finisher on the latest season of Dancing with the Stars, but what seems to be largely lost is the example she provides us of a possible mechanism whereby we can all help save our national economy. Unwed teen pregnancy is traditionally regarded as at best a devastating event. Young Miss Palin's response takes a different tack (via wikipedia). Instead of a disaster, she chooses to make teen motherhood into a career - one that apparently earns a decent living, I might add.

Anybody seeing where I'm going with this yet?

In my initial comment to Alvis' post (which is where this all started, remember?), I said:

How you initially define context greatly influences individual willingness to commit to a concept. The context "root cause" places the existing economic environment in an aggressive defense of established practice and process; the suggested alternative identifies potential additional revenue streams for existing business entities to consider. From there it becomes easier to consider more fundamental changes to business structure and process. Much like the change from manufacturing to service, the economy is easier to change to some entirely different model if there is an established business practice to expand upon to effect the transition. Without something of that nature in place, the established economic/governmental structure will actively resist transition instead of merely drag its collective feet.

The "context" I seek to define today is how we might structure our transition from a job-losing economy - where jobs are the providential offering of some diffuse other - into a job-creating environment in emulation of la Palin's example.

A Limited Liability Corporation is a recognised legal and economic mechanism available to virtually any US citizen or resident, at modest individual cost, that provides a mechanism to transform almost any activity into a profit-making (and, lest we forget, tax-paying) enterprise. Unwed teen mother? No problem, Professional Advocate. Prosumer? What (or even who) do you know that you can start building into a network positioned to connect to a market (either existing or potential)?

The underlying point of all this is that, so far, we the individual retain the initiative in determining how (and by whom) our economic salvation might be attained outside of the established, historical arrangements. To do so via such a creative example as touted by Alvis (and many others, to be fair) requires that we provide some mechanism whereby the existing powers-that-be (like, potentially, that other Palin woman) can recognise and categorise our efforts into their present understanding of things. Doing that makes our efforts merely part of the system, something to be ordinarily taxed and otherwise burdened (think Craigslist), rather than some extremist, disruptive activity to be actively opposed and outlawed (pick your favorite file sharing/aka: music piracy site as example).

Classical strategy teaches that success is attained by a steady process of supportive alliance and avoidance of active opposition. I believe that to be an effective summation of ordinary human interaction and something everyone is well advised to consciously practice in their day-to-day activities, most especially when setting out to effect change to an existing -and well entrenched - paradigm of human behavior and association.

Like turning "job" into individual liberty instead of controlling dependence.