Will North Carolina Ban Internet Sales?

Okay. Maybe the title is a bit of an exaggeration, but it is not far off.

Car dealerships feel threatened by online sales of the Tesla so they are sponsoring a law that would only allow dealerships to sell new cars.

If this passes kiss Internet shopping goodbye. It is called precedence.

Brilliant!

Many people hate advertisements. The thing is advertising reduces and sometimes removes the cost for a consumer to consume some form of media. You do not have to pay to listen to FM or AM radio because there are ads. Satellite radio you have to pay for since much of it is commercial free.

Online content and services need to make money in order to operate. Just having a website up and running costs money. I encountered the following and thought it was brilliant. A very capitalistic solution to security.

This dialog is a form of a captcha: an interactive applet that requires human interaction to prove a "bot" is not using a site en masse. Hence, captchas are a security mechanism to ensure only people are using a site and spam bots are not taking over.

By incorporating the ad into the captcha and typing in part of the ad, you get product retention. I imagine this form of advertisement must cost a little bit more, but what a brilliant idea. Advertisement retention and security all in one!

Something the Obama Administration got Right

AllGov.com is a nice website to get tipped off on different news stories about outrageous stuff the government is doing. However, the site takes a decidedly slanted left stance on the stories.

Both AllGov and the Sydney Morning Herald have given the Obama administration a little dig for something that they did right! It seems these two news organizations think it is unprecedented for an administration to label someone that leaks government secrets, even during a time of war, an enemy. The Obama administration considers WikiLeaks an enemy and that is unprecedented?

WikiLeaks is an enemy of the U.S.!

The only way I could be against the Obama administration on this would be their reason for doing so. We have to get into conspiracy theory here.

Could this just be a method to clamp down on free speech? The recent attacks on the U.S. in the Middle East in which the Obama administration blamed a YouTube video, blamed a private citizen that was arrested on "unrelated charges," tried to have this video taken down, shows the administration's abhorrence of free speech.

I, however, think they just got it right. Leaking government secrets is bad.

Second Warning! Environmentalists are coming for your Internet!

I alerted you last week about this with Green Peace. Now the New York times has done a story on how environmentally unfriendly the Internet is and the story is being repeated.

They are coming for your Internet! They are coming for your Capitalism!

The NYT article attacks the Internet based on data centers' power usage. They use a lot of energy and right now energy usage is framed as bad for the environment. To try to add punch to the story a straw man is set up:

A yearlong examination by The New York Times has revealed that this foundation of the information industry is sharply at odds with its image of sleek efficiency and environmental friendliness.

Environmental friendliness? I have never heard that about computers! I have read stories of how toxic it is to make computers. How low wages are paid to workers in China to build them and the factories spew out pollution. Throwing away a computer is awful for the environment because of the materials that comprise it, not to mention the Lithium batteries they house.

Environmental friendliness? Don't make me laugh!

Do a search for "internet environment friendly" and see what you get. Articles and posts about the effect of the Internet on the environment. Scads of companies claiming to have green hosting by being more responsible or being solar powered. Articles about how to make your use of the Internet more environmentally friendly. Years before this article people have been working on solving the environmentally unfriendliness of the web.

The article claims that 90% of the energy consumed by data centers is wasted. That is hard to believe that a company that wants to make money would throw it away. However, this is potentially possible if the energy bill is relatively low in comparison to other operating costs. That is something that the article does not cover. What are the energy costs compared to other operating costs?

The article just laments how much energy is wasted. How idle data in old emails or business archives is still powered but not accessed or used. How the energy is wasted. The companies are more concerned with having up time on the servers than energy efficiency. It is so easy to make energy consumption look bad when its cost is not compared or given any relevance to any other operating costs.

The article is puffed up with paragraph after paragraph restating the same problem over and over in different ways. However, the most amusing part of the article is when talking about the diesel generators that the data centers will have as power backup.

To guard against a power failure, they further rely on banks of generators that emit diesel exhaust. The pollution from data centers has increasingly been cited by the authorities for violating clean air regulations, documents show. In Silicon Valley, many data centers appear on the state government’s Toxic Air Contaminant Inventory, a roster of the area’s top stationary diesel polluters.

An example used to illustrate the evil of the energy usage was Amazon. In 2010 they were to be fined $554,476 for the use of diesel generators without a permit. It was bargained down to $261,638. Since then Amazon now has the proper permits.

Did you catch that? Running polluting diesel generators without a permit is awful. Pay the government to get a permit to run diesel generators then everything is honky dory. Did the generators magically become clean because of the permit?

The story tells of research that has been done to make energy usage more efficient but it has not been adopted in general. Some companies are working on the problem though.

No one knows what innovations will be next. This problem, if it is a problem, could be resolved a year from now with a brilliant invention.

What is really needed is a sane energy policy. This story is just a ploy to get people to stop using energy. We instead need a policy to make energy more abundant. Stop shutting down coal plants. Let the KeyStone pipeline go through. We can try wind and solar but only as a supplement, not the solution. We need everything, not the shutting down of sources because they are not culturally popular. Other countries aren't which puts us at a disadvantage.

Heed my warning. This attack on the Internet through energy usage is just another prong in the attack of capitalism! Push back!

The Obama Campaign's YouTube Temper Tantrum

The Obama campaign has a skin as thin as Obama himself. They are like a crybaby in the schoolyard that doesn't get their way.

Here we have a video of Mitt Romney taken out of context. It starts with a clip of Romney stating that he was taken out of context and then cuts to a definition of "context." Really? the definition? Have they forgotten the interview Obama had with Stephanopoulos? Remember Stephanopoulos read the definition of "tax" and Obama said he was stretching?

Obama ends up showing he does not understand what a tax is because he thinks the definition of a tax is reaching, false, a far cry from what it really is.

Now the Obama campaign just mucks things up. Shows the definition of "context" then violates it. Then thanks Romney. And ... what? What is the point?

Candidates can say stupid things along the campaign trail. We know when Obama said he visited 57 states he meant 47. We just make fun of it because the press covered it up but would blare McCain gaffes as if it made him unfit for office. The only gaffer unfit for office is Biden. His are so numerous he must be a moron.

This "context" video is not a gaffe. It was planned and time was spent on it. It makes no sense and makes the campaign look like it is run by resentful tweens that were not invited to a birthday party.

But it gets better.

The video about Romney's tax returns complains that Romney has overseas investments. That's bad? It's not illegal. The U.S. economy and businesses are doing poorly. Wouldn't you put your money where it will grow?

Also, Romney is betting against the American dollar because he has invested in four other currencies? Not illegal. And it is not betting against the dollar but diversifying. America has had its credit rating downgraded twice! Why would you put all of your money in one basket? The Euro is also tanking. No one knows what currency will stay strong.

But Obama and his campaign would not understand this. Obama considered working at a business as being behind enemy lines. How could he be expected to understand the value of a dollar?

So the video goes on to complain that Romney has released only two years of tax returns. Take a look:

Didn't that just sound childish? Romney has complied with the law. He did what was right. But like a little crybaby the campaign complains "but your dad showed us 12 years, and H.W. Bush showed us 19 years, and ..." well, you saw. Are children running this campaign?

Have they forgotten about the fact that Obama has not released his school records? He was touted as one of the smartest men to ever run for president. Other candidates released their school records. It is a bit foolish to demand something of your opponent that you have not done for four years.

The video ends asking what is Romney hiding. Really? Obama's autobiography didn't even tell what really happened. His author bio said he was born in Kenya. He was in office for two years before he showed his birth certificate. What is Obama hiding?

Do you get the feeling the Obama strategy is based off of "I know you are but what am I?"

1 2 3 4

GreenPeace is coming for your Internet

Nothing, I mean nothing is okay for the "Green Movement" if it is man made. Environmentalists won't be happy till we are naked and living in caves. Green is all about devastation.

What is up on the chopping block now? Streaming media. Why? Because instead of buying physical media people are downloading the same thing over and over again in a streaming form. This means we need server farms. Server farms need electricity. Producing electricity is bad for the environment.

It is better to buy a CD than stream it. It is more "green." Even though it is made of plastic? I guess it is all about the "carbon footprint." Get rid of that pesky CO₂. Planet doesn't need it. Plants don't need it, do they?

Greenpeace has been highlighting the threats to the environment that big internet companies are through their server farm energy consumption.

There is a wacky solution. With as cheap as storage is becoming, have everything ever made on a storage device and you pay to unlock items. No way hackers would find a way around that, is there?

Again, these people will not be happy till we have nothing. A pile of dirt is more important to them than a person.

Get their goat and participate in CO₂ day!

Government Contest to Create a Sexist and Racist App

Reducing Cancer Among Women of Color App Challenge

That is the app contest in which there is $100,000 in prize money.

From the HHS post:

“This app challenge is an example of our work to reduce health disparities, building on the HHS Action Plan to Reduce Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities,” said J. Nadine Gracia, M.D., M.S.C.E., acting deputy assistant secretary for minority health.

Since there is a disparity among white women and ethnic women in cancer prevention and treatment, Health and Human Services want an app just for ethnic women. Forget about raising health standards for all women, or all people, but spend money on just a portion of the people.

Reeks of the concept of "fairness." Equal outcome, not equal opportunity. Will there be a $100,000 contest for white women or ethnic men or white men? Spend the same amount of money on all groups? Wouldn't that be fair? Or do we dump money on isolated groups, no matter how much it is, till everyone has an equal survival rate?

This is the new institutional racism under the banner of fairness and equal outcome.

One of the conditions of the app is it must be multilingual. Basically, make sure people that have not assimilated to the American culture by learning English can still use the app. Can't help but hear a "dog whistle" in that requirement.

***sigh***

I just don't have the energy to fully and properly complain about this app and the goals of the agency. Not to mention some of the potential security issues like the downloading of medical files and information. Isn't that just what you want on your smart phone if it is stolen?

Where is the sanity check on these things?

"How to Personalize Learning" class taught via impersonal webinar

This is by no means a controversial story, but the irony of it just bears mentioning it.

The Department of Education held a class via webinar to teach and discuss how to personalize the classroom to get children interested in learning. The stated class topic:

how to personalize learning in a classroom full of diverse students with varying interests, skills and learning styles.

The idea seems to be a bit touchy-feely and perhaps emphasizes the teacher bending to the students instead of the students paying attention, but I didn't take the class. I am just going off of the description. But they are trying.

My two cents on the subject, and it adds to the irony. With the way people are becoming tech junkies and seem to be living more of their life through the view of handheld and tablet computers, the best way to catch students attention and get them to learn might be to make school more impersonal and done through this medium. I think it is bad for the human condition, but the impersonal touch might be more effective.

This is not an Internet Hoax

Arizona will make it possible to prosecute you for posting something offensive on the net.

A.  It is unlawful for any person, with intent to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy or offend, to use a telephone any electronic or digital device and use any obscene, lewd or profane language or suggest any lewd or lascivious act, or threaten to inflict physical harm to the person or property of any person.  It is also unlawful to otherwise disturb by repeated anonymous telephone calls electronic or digital communications the peace, quiet or right of privacy of any person at the place where the telephone call or calls communications were received.

Get it directly from the horse's mouth and click here.

Sorry. No commentary. Not necessary. We all know what everyone else thinks about this.

Arizona State Legislature

Do you like your Internet?

Again, do you like your Internet?

Do you want to see your favorite political site disappear?

The great thing about "Drinking with Bob" is that he gets all angry for me.

SOPA! SOPA! SOPA!