Dogs and The End of the World

I will not try to disentangle the tangent-web that led me to a couple of articles about dogs, except to say that I think it involved "Tactical Carbine" classes, Mall Ninjas, and (I am absolutely certain about this last bit) the acronym "TEOTWAWKI".

For those who don't know, TEOTWAWKI means "The End of the World as We Know It".  I had to google the term, and in the process, I discovered these:

• Wild Dogs Pose Post-TEOTWASKI Danger
• More on Dogs and Predators

These articles can be summed up as follows:  If everyone lost their jobs, they'll let their pets loose, and a pack of 45 wild dogs with no fear of humans will be a VERY scary thing to face, even if you are carrying a lot of rounds of ammunition.  Oh, and I forgot to tell you:  either you're a predator, or you're prey, and all those PETA activists have been trying their darnedest to make us prey.

Although I try to imagine, every once in a while, what I would do if our society collapsed one way or another, I wouldn't consider myself a survivalist per se.  Nonetheless, these articles are interesting to think about!  And it doesn't take much imagination to see how the wild-dog scenario could arise, even without complete societal collapse.

Oh, and my favorite quote from these two articles is this:

Arizona recently outlawed trapping. When this happened, I wrote the rule (predator or prey) and stated that the coyotes would start attacking children within five years. I was wrong, it only took two years. In Phoenix last summer two children out playing where attacked and mauled by coyotes, luckily they survived the attack.

Rhythm, revisited

A little while ago I wrote a post, where I stated that it's tricky to get the rhythm of blogging right.  It still is, but that's not what this post is about.  :-)

A couple of days ago, after dinner, I loaded up the dishwasher to get it ready to go.  That  may not seem like news, but after two months of moving, getting a new washer and dryer, worrying that the washer is 220 Volts (what the heck?!?), discovering that the washer plugs into the dryer, unloading boxes, filling drawers, etc, it was nice to be able to load the dishwasher after dinner, roll it into place, and start it.

I think we're beginning to find the rhythm of our new place.  And that's a good thing! (although we still have a ways to go....)

Bullets without Brains?

Sebastian has analysis that challenges MAIG's latest study; I felt he did a good job at addressing the issues, and came to good conclusions.  I'm not quite willing to say it's perfect, but more because I don't trust my fuzzy memory of statistics, than because of any flaws Sebastian may have made.

I am a mathematician, after all, and not a statistician.

In his post, however, Sebastian linked to this article from the UK, discussing a UK police department relaxing the requirements for gun registration.  There are a few things in this article that cause me to cringe, and I wanted to point them out, independent from Sebastian's analysis.

First:  "A bullet doesn’t have a brain, its only intention is to kill."  How the heck can something that has no brain have any intentions?  Are bullets shot at a target just itching to kill something?  A bullet is nothing more than some sort of substance--usually metallic, but not necessarily--propelled by some means.

A bullet has no intentions, and it cannot have any intentions, unless we put some sort of decision mechanism in the bullet itself.  It merely follows the laws of acceleration and inertia, and when it comes to its resting place, it merely follows laws of energy transfer, dependent on the materials it comes in contact with.

Thus, this is a stupid statement, meant to rile up emotions against the police department.

Second:  Lucy Cope, of Mothers Against Guns, stated:

“That is a horrendous idea. The one [registrant] they skip could be the one.

“The blood will be on their hands.

"A bullet doesn’t have a brain, its only intention is to kill.

“Are Bedfordshire Police saying we will save money, but not lives?

“It’s sending out a very weak message.

"If they’re not doing checks, how to they know the gun is in the house?”

Mrs. Cope is essentially claiming that the Police can read the minds of those who apply for gun ownership, and that they can magically predict those who will, or who won't, use guns for nefarious purposes.  What makes the Mrs. Cope think that the Police--or any human, for that matter--are able to do this?  And why should the Police be responsible for the actions of any other person than themselves?  And, finally, is Mrs. Cope willing to admit that she herself has blood on her hands, when someone would have defended their life from a mugger, rapist, or murderer, but couldn't, because the gun they would have used has been banned?

The problem with Mrs. Cope's statement is this:  she believes that humans have no free will, and that humans kill each other because "bullets intend to kill" and, because they lack brains, they have to vicariously live their desires through humans.  Unfortunately for her claims, it is humans with brains that have free will, and it is because of this, that the police cannot predict who will, or will not, kill people.

Finally:  "Lucy Cope...created [the] anti-gun campaign group Mothers Against Guns after her son was shot outside a London nightclub in 2002."

This is a story about the registration of shotguns--guns that are very awkward to carry around in a place, like London, where carrying a bicycle chain for self defense purposes is illegal.  Is it possible that he was shot with a shotgun?  Yes.  Is it likely?  Heck no!  It's far more likely that he was shot with a pistol--a pistol that has been banned since 1998.

But it isn't just about handguns.  All sorts of violent crime has increased since the banning of pistols, including gun deaths.  Would Mrs. Cope have been satisfied had her son been stabbed to death instead?  Or strangled with a rope?  Or would she have preferred her son's head to be smashed in with a hammer, or a rock?  Or beat to death with fists and feet?

Mrs. Cope would do well to ask herself:  is she really against guns?  Or is she against violence?  I, for one, am against violence, and I would like to see everyone be committed to non-violent action whenever possible.  An important key to ending violence, however, is legalized, justifiable, self defense.  And pistols are the most important self-defense tool we have.

Why Newt Is Wrong

It is my understanding that Newt Gingrich had a vision for Government:  that, because we now have computers, Government can be even more efficient than before, and so Bigger Government would lead to better society.

I always had the sense that he was wrong, and because of this Vision, the idea of Newt as President gives me the willies.  As I have read this testimony before Congress, given by a Silicon Valley CEO against Government intervention, I realize why Newt is wrong.

The problem, in part, is this:  Government, even with computers, is no match for the daily, even hourly, decisions made by hundreds of millions of individuals, who, taken together, have better knowledge about the worlds around them than any collection of bureaucrats will ever have--even with computers.

But this isn't the only reason why Newt is wrong--and this is the insight:  Government bureaucrats won't be the only ones who get computers.  If a computer can extend the ability of a bureaucrat in making better decisions, then, surely, a similar computer can extend the ability of an individual to make better decisions as well.  Thus, the ability of bureaucracies to gather information and make decisions will always be dwarfed by individuals making decisions about the world around them.

I would take it one step further:  even if, by some magic decree, we could make the computers of individuals disappear, and ensure that only bureaucrats will have computers, the decisions of those hundreds of millions of individuals will always be better than the decisions made by those tens of thousands of bureaucrats.

Spirited Individualism always trumps Big Government.


NOTE:   I discovered this essay through Paul Graham's Five Founders essay.

Oh, Flourescent Light, How I Hate You So

As we moved into our new place, we discovered three of those twirly-bulbs:  one in our bedroom, one in the hallway, and one in the kitchen.  We hated the blue light these cast on these rooms, so we replaced them at our first opportunity.

We have a long bulb in the kitchen, a secondary light, that produces a more yellowish light; we like this light, except that after it's been on for a few minutes, it buzzes, and it gets louder as time progresses.  And now my desklight is beginning to do the same.

Why can't flourescent lights just burn out like good incandescents do?  Or just last forever, like those modern LED lights are expected to do?  Instead, they flicker, or they buzz, or both[1]...and I'm certain that some fluorescent light designer, somewhere, is probably working on even more ways for fluorescent lights to be able to torture people.

Of course, all this would only be a minor annoyance, if it weren't for the fact that Government has banned incandescents, starting in 2012.  Thus, I will now be left with the choice of evil fluorescents, or expensive and untested LED lights.

Why, oh why, can't Government just leave us alone?!?



[1] Not to mention that both "features" can cause migraines, or at least, make the life of someone who already has a migraine considerably more miserable!

Brains! I need braaaiiiiins!

This last week has been brutal.  I decided to wake up two hours early every day so that I could make up work; the result has made me a bit of a zombie.  Hence, I'm hungry:  "Brains!  I need braaaiiiiins!"


Actually, today I'm doing better than I did the past couple of days.  On Monday, I tried to get up early out of principle, but realized that, since my wife had a doctor's appointment, and my daughters were still asleep in the bedroom (we have yet to set up their beds...but then, for the last month or so, they've been sleeping in the living room), I might as well just go back to sleep myself.  I became fully zombified on Tuesday and Wednesday, though; due to a headache, I tried waking up only an hour early yesterday.  Today, I slept until I normally wake up, because yesterday I had a migraine.

In addition to trying to catch up on hours at work, I wanted to get into the habit of waking up early so that I could work on personal projects.  As a result of this "test run", I will only get up early on Monday and Thursday; if doing so is still problematic, I may have to convince my employer to let me work 6-hour days.

It's a curse that I haven't yet come to terms with:  I tend to sleep deeply, and if my sleep is too disrupted, I get migraines.  Since I would like to pursue my own work, though, I need to come to terms with this, somehow.

I have a t-shirt with Albert Einstein on it, and printed on it "Be Creative".  One morning, asked myself "What would Einstein do?"  I quickly realized that Einstein won't be of much help:  he slept in until noon!  :-)

On Dependency Theory and Freedom

For some time, I've been wondering:  would it be possible to create some sort of "Dependency Control System"?  This topic has been on my mind recently because I'd like to create a CLtOS ("Common Lisp the Operating System"), and it would be nice to use something like Debian Linux's "aptitude" to install things, and to make sure that the dependencies work out nicely.

As I read this blog about Redundancy vs. Dependencies, I thought it would be nice to have a Dependency Control System for individual projects.  Does something like that exist?

In my efforts to find out, I stumbled on Dependency Theory.  In a nutshell, this states that, in a global economy, the Rich Countries naturally exploit the Poor Countries, keeping them poor, because poor countries are a good source of cheap labor and goods, and a nice dumping ground for obsolete technologies.

Unfortunately, I know of one good counter-example to this theory:  The United States.  Our country wasn't always a Rich, Dominating Superpower.  Indeed, at the time of our Founding, superpowers had funny names like "England", "France", and "Spain".  What made us different?  Individualism.  A determination to be Free.  A desire to try anything at least once, and a distrust of government.  While, to a certain degree, we are a Nation of Laws, we have also been a Nation to Ignore Unjust Laws or Even Laws We Just Don't Like.

What about Third World Countries?  Social Order--an attempt to make things ideal by making a multitude of laws, enforced by hordes of bureaucrats.  Hernando de Soto, in his book "The Mystery of Capital", has a very vivid explanation on how it's nearly impossible for a business in these parts of the world to legally operate, or for individuals to move into cities and build homes.  Thus, a single "factory" has to operate in small rooms, scattered about the city; families who wish to live in a home will build a small shack, and then gradually acquire the materials to expand this shack to a nicer home; and if a bureaucrat or police officer discovers any of this, bribes need to be paid--often periodically.

In other words, these countries don't respect freedom to conduct business without State interference.  And that, more than anything else, is what keeps these countries from prospering?

What lessons can we take from this?

First, Hernando de Soto tries to make businesses in Third World Countries legal, and tries to lessen the bureaucratic burden (which, apparently, is dangerous work:  lawyers and bureaucrats who like the system will go so far as to threaten de Soto's life!).

Second, for decades, we've been adding to our own regulatory boondoggle.  The latest examples are Obamacare and Financial Reform (about 3000 and 2000 pages, respectively, or something like that), but we also have things like OSHA, the EPA, the ADA, and even the Civil Rights Act, that put regulatory and civil liability burdens on our businesses.  Additionally, we have lots of State and local laws that add even more to the burden[1].  What can we expect to happen to our society, to our prosperity, if we continue down this course?

[1] My father-in-law, for example, recently had to file a building permit for a house he built twenty-five years ago.  What is the point of building permits, except to limit our freedom?  And what point is there in filing a building permit twenty-five years late?