It is a truism of politics that even if there isn't a candidate that you want to vote for, there's surely someone that you would vote against.
The problem with this is that it presumes that the 'other' candidate is at least acceptable; what isn't usually taken into consideration with that saying is what to do when one is less than impressed with EITHER of the mainstream candidates.
The most obvious solution is to simply continue to apply the principle by voting for neither of them. The value of this option becomes even more significant when the two main political parties have become so polarized, so entrenched, so dominant that they skew and bias the political scene so thoroughly that alternative candidates are marginalized and excluded -- effectively denying the voting public the free exercise of the franchise.
I would suggest that it is well past the time for the voting public to make it known that they do not appreciate what the election process has devolved to, that they do not like being limited to just one or two candidates from the two main political parties, and that they do NOT want the current process to limit them to just a couple of 'mainstream' parties.
Personally, I'm more than a little disgusted with the way political campaigns have become a blood sport, the general malaise most people have about the process, the political pandering, and being obliged to vote for what I consider the lesser of two evils. I, like most people, am disgusted with the whole process and resulting jackassery. What used to be sarcastic comments on the state of politics have become entirely too true: "The opposite of 'pro' is 'con', so the opposite of Progress is Congress", "Politicks comes from the Latin 'poly', meaning many; and 'ticks', a species of blood-sucking parasites", "No one's life, liberty, or property are safe while the Legislature is in session", "Giving money and power to Government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys", and so on. Think about the other, similar, sayings that you know -- and whether or not you think they're more true now than they were in years past.
If you are less than impressed with the political process, or you aren't entirely committed to voting for one of the main candidates, then I would encourage you to join me in sending a message to those that are supposed to be our public servants: that it's nigh time they cleaned up their act, started working WITH each other instead of at cross purposes, and started making it possible for us to have the kind of government that we want, DOING what we want: vote for anybody but either of the two mainstream candidates -- hell, vote for Ralph Nader, or Ron Paul, if that's what it takes. Hell, write in Adolf Hitler, if that's what it takes to make it painfully clear that you're not voting for either of the other two. If you don't have a 3rd-party alternive in a particular race, then vote for whoever the challenger is for an office. Voting for Nader or someone else might sound risky ("But what if he actually gets elected!"), but it isn't, really: there are undoubtedly enough people still going to vote Republicrat or Demolican that Nader (or whoever) getting into office is unlikely in the extreme. What voting for him WILL do, however, is let the other parties know that there is a significant portion of the voting public that is less than pleased with them -- and that's the point that needs to be made.
Friday, October 17, 2008
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Modern Medicine
I had the "pleasure" of a physical at the doctors office today.
Blood pressure - OK
Pulse - OK
Temperature - OK
Heart - OK
Lungs - OK (even for me being a smoker)
Cholesterol - OK
Weight - OK (even lost a few pounds since last time)
General health - OK
I did manage to cause mild hysterics with the nurse when she took my temperature: instead of a regular thermometer (or even one of the sexy digital under-the-tongue jobs), she used one that took my temperature via an ear -- which prompted me to comment "Brings a whole new meaning to the phrase 'stick it in your ear', doesn't it?". Once she'd settled down again, she said she'd be using that for the rest of the day...
All in all, it has been determined -- to some degree of certainty -- that I am not, in fact, dead.
w00t.
Blood pressure - OK
Pulse - OK
Temperature - OK
Heart - OK
Lungs - OK (even for me being a smoker)
Cholesterol - OK
Weight - OK (even lost a few pounds since last time)
General health - OK
I did manage to cause mild hysterics with the nurse when she took my temperature: instead of a regular thermometer (or even one of the sexy digital under-the-tongue jobs), she used one that took my temperature via an ear -- which prompted me to comment "Brings a whole new meaning to the phrase 'stick it in your ear', doesn't it?". Once she'd settled down again, she said she'd be using that for the rest of the day...
All in all, it has been determined -- to some degree of certainty -- that I am not, in fact, dead.
w00t.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Disenfranchisement
One of the cornerstones of American democracy is that pretty much everyone is allowed to exercise their voting franchise.
Of course, there are those of us that wonder about the sense and rationality of some of the folks on the 'other side' of an issue, but we generally don't limit the right to vote except for the insane, mentally impaired, or felony criminals.
I would suggest that we, as a nation, consider changing that policy for the simple reason that there are (unfortunately) those that do not exercise their voting rights in a reasoned, thoughtful manner: those that latch onto a particular issue (to the exclusion of everything else) to decide how their vote should be cast, and the folks that don't bother to keep up with the assorted issues brought up by the candidates and thus enter the polling booth ignorant as newborn babes.
Then there are those people that see only one aspect of a particular candidate to the exclusion of everything else. Finally, there are those individuals such as the author of this disjointed, rambling gibberish.
Consider that the missive in question was a letter to the editor: the author had ample time to think through what he wanted to say and how to say it -- and yet still produced and submitted that kind of drivel. While it is possible to make out what the individual was trying to say, does anyone really think that it benefits our political process to allow someone like that to actually cast a ballot?Are we to believe that the kind of mind (and I do use the term loosely in this case) that produced that is going to be capable of distinguishing the subtleties and implications of political discourse?
No, I think our nations founders were being wildly optimistic to make the voting franchise as easily exercised as they did -- and that it's time we correct that oversight.
Of course, there are those of us that wonder about the sense and rationality of some of the folks on the 'other side' of an issue, but we generally don't limit the right to vote except for the insane, mentally impaired, or felony criminals.
I would suggest that we, as a nation, consider changing that policy for the simple reason that there are (unfortunately) those that do not exercise their voting rights in a reasoned, thoughtful manner: those that latch onto a particular issue (to the exclusion of everything else) to decide how their vote should be cast, and the folks that don't bother to keep up with the assorted issues brought up by the candidates and thus enter the polling booth ignorant as newborn babes.
Then there are those people that see only one aspect of a particular candidate to the exclusion of everything else. Finally, there are those individuals such as the author of this disjointed, rambling gibberish.
Consider that the missive in question was a letter to the editor: the author had ample time to think through what he wanted to say and how to say it -- and yet still produced and submitted that kind of drivel. While it is possible to make out what the individual was trying to say, does anyone really think that it benefits our political process to allow someone like that to actually cast a ballot?Are we to believe that the kind of mind (and I do use the term loosely in this case) that produced that is going to be capable of distinguishing the subtleties and implications of political discourse?
No, I think our nations founders were being wildly optimistic to make the voting franchise as easily exercised as they did -- and that it's time we correct that oversight.
Monday, October 13, 2008
Saturday, October 11, 2008
Delusions of Competency
More and more, I'm starting to think that people should have to be tested for competency before they're allowed to use different kinds of technology.
What I mean is that before someone is issued, say, a debit or ATM card that requires them to use something like the little terminals in the grocery store, there should be some way of ensuring that the individual actually knows how to use the card before being turned loose on an unsuspecting public. If they can't demonstrate competency, they simply aren't given it in the first place.
I bring this up because a couple of days ago, I was in line (yes, at the grocery store) behind someone that wanted to use a debit/credit card of some kind to pay for their stuff. The problem was that the person basically had no idea how to do it: first, they ran the card through the reader the wrong way no less than 3 times, then had to have it explained to them which button to push for their particular card (after they guessed wrong TWICE), another explanation of what a "PIN" was (followed by much soul-searching as they tried to recall what it was), and ending with being told that they also had to press another button to actually approve the debit. All in all, what should have been perhaps 30 seconds ended up occupying a good five minutes. Throughout it all, the clerk demonstrated an inordinate level of patience and tolerance; I'd have been tempted to tell the moron to give up and go home.
Similarly, I've been behind people at an ATM who act like it's the first time in their entire life that they've encountered such a thing: that all the menus and other on-screen information is in a foreign language, and that each press of a button results in the machine doing anything BUT what they want it to -- so that they have to completely stop what they're doing and try it again (perhaps even a couple of times) from scratch while the line builds behind them.
As part of the 'licensing' process, there would be a probationary period after someone gets a particular bit of technical equipment -- the idea being that they not only have to demonstrate they know HOW to operate it, but WHEN, as well: an induhvidual using their shiny new cell phone in a theater gets the phone taken away for a period equal to the probationary period, for example.
I don't think it'll ever happen, but I can always dream, can't I?
What I mean is that before someone is issued, say, a debit or ATM card that requires them to use something like the little terminals in the grocery store, there should be some way of ensuring that the individual actually knows how to use the card before being turned loose on an unsuspecting public. If they can't demonstrate competency, they simply aren't given it in the first place.
I bring this up because a couple of days ago, I was in line (yes, at the grocery store) behind someone that wanted to use a debit/credit card of some kind to pay for their stuff. The problem was that the person basically had no idea how to do it: first, they ran the card through the reader the wrong way no less than 3 times, then had to have it explained to them which button to push for their particular card (after they guessed wrong TWICE), another explanation of what a "PIN" was (followed by much soul-searching as they tried to recall what it was), and ending with being told that they also had to press another button to actually approve the debit. All in all, what should have been perhaps 30 seconds ended up occupying a good five minutes. Throughout it all, the clerk demonstrated an inordinate level of patience and tolerance; I'd have been tempted to tell the moron to give up and go home.
Similarly, I've been behind people at an ATM who act like it's the first time in their entire life that they've encountered such a thing: that all the menus and other on-screen information is in a foreign language, and that each press of a button results in the machine doing anything BUT what they want it to -- so that they have to completely stop what they're doing and try it again (perhaps even a couple of times) from scratch while the line builds behind them.
As part of the 'licensing' process, there would be a probationary period after someone gets a particular bit of technical equipment -- the idea being that they not only have to demonstrate they know HOW to operate it, but WHEN, as well: an induhvidual using their shiny new cell phone in a theater gets the phone taken away for a period equal to the probationary period, for example.
I don't think it'll ever happen, but I can always dream, can't I?
Friday, October 10, 2008
The (inde)Terminator
I'm continuing to make progress on my 'bot project.
I decided to make the circuitry for it modular, so I can incrementally improve on (or add to) each section without having to completely redesign everything with each upgrade. Toward that end, I've got the main control and (motor) drive boards; I plan to add a sensor board, and then perhaps an 'environment' board. The way I'm going to accomplish all that is to stack the boards one on top of the other, and use one of the built-in capabilities of the microcontroller to let each of the drive/sensor/other boards pretty much do it's own thing with oversight by the main logic by using what is called a 'two-wire interface' (an alternative to the trademarked Inter-IC [or I2C] system developed by Philips).
I've breadboarded the main controller, and verified that it does what I need/want, so I've gone ahead and laid out a printed circuit board for it:
The board is actually only 3-1/2 inches on a side; the four big dots are where the spacers will be between the boards, and "J2" there on the bottom left is the TWI connector that all the boards will share. The stuff along the righthand side is the power supply and regulation, while J3 and J4 along the top are the digital input/output lines. J5 is to let me add 3 additional analog signals, Just In Case :-)
If you're into this kind of thing, here's the schematic diagram:
When I go to a more advanced 'bot, I can swap out the circuit above with something with more computational horsepower; going to a larger platform means just changing out the motor drive board, and so on. It's a little more effort up front, but will simplify future updates or upgrades by limiting the number of ways I can shoot myself in the foot: I'll only have to figure out what's wrong with the 'new' section, instead of troubleshooting the whole 'bot...
I decided to make the circuitry for it modular, so I can incrementally improve on (or add to) each section without having to completely redesign everything with each upgrade. Toward that end, I've got the main control and (motor) drive boards; I plan to add a sensor board, and then perhaps an 'environment' board. The way I'm going to accomplish all that is to stack the boards one on top of the other, and use one of the built-in capabilities of the microcontroller to let each of the drive/sensor/other boards pretty much do it's own thing with oversight by the main logic by using what is called a 'two-wire interface' (an alternative to the trademarked Inter-IC [or I2C] system developed by Philips).
I've breadboarded the main controller, and verified that it does what I need/want, so I've gone ahead and laid out a printed circuit board for it:
(click to view 'full size')
The board is actually only 3-1/2 inches on a side; the four big dots are where the spacers will be between the boards, and "J2" there on the bottom left is the TWI connector that all the boards will share. The stuff along the righthand side is the power supply and regulation, while J3 and J4 along the top are the digital input/output lines. J5 is to let me add 3 additional analog signals, Just In Case :-)If you're into this kind of thing, here's the schematic diagram:
(click to view 'full size')
When I go to a more advanced 'bot, I can swap out the circuit above with something with more computational horsepower; going to a larger platform means just changing out the motor drive board, and so on. It's a little more effort up front, but will simplify future updates or upgrades by limiting the number of ways I can shoot myself in the foot: I'll only have to figure out what's wrong with the 'new' section, instead of troubleshooting the whole 'bot...
Monday, October 6, 2008
Congress? We don' need no steenkin' Congress...
At least that seems to be the result of an opinion poll courtesy of Rasmussen Reports.
From the article:
From the article:
If they could vote to keep or replace the entire Congress, 59% of voters would like to throw them all out and start over again.and
Only half (49%) believe that the current Congress is better than individuals selected at random from the phone book. Thirty-three percent (33%) believe a randomly selected group of Americans could do a better job and 19% are not sureand
...there is agreement across party lines when it comes to whether or not most Members of Congress understand legislation before they vote on it—25% of Democrats say yes along with 24% of Republicans and 24% of unaffiliated voters.Anybody with me on implenting the first option?
Saturday, October 4, 2008
Recreation
Went out with a couple of friends last night to a local microbrewery by the name of "Angry Hank's".
I'd never been in the place before, but after last night's experience, the only thing I can think of that might be making "Hank" angry is that so damn many people are drinking his most excellent beers.
I started the evening off with an obligatory trial of something they call "Dog Slobber" -- I mean, come on, doesn't that just BEG investigation? Well, it was pretty damn good beer: a brown (but not 'dark') ale, it had a nice flavor and a little more of a kick than I expected. When I looked at the big chalkboard that Hank's has on the wall, I saw that they were nice enough to indicate the alcohol content of their different brews (as part of the descriptions). The lowest alcohol level they serve is 4.5%; the highest is 6.5 -- that is, anywhere from half again to double the strength of regular 'commercial' brews such as Budweiser, Michelob, and the like.
After I finished my Dog Slobber, the next thing I sampled was their Griz Wizz (are you noting a 'theme' here?). Definitely a different flavor, it was more of a pilsner -- though still a trifle darker.
The last thing (by Montana law, brewpubs must limit customers to 3 beverages per evening; Hanks issues everyone a wristband that they put a mark on each time you make a purchase -- 3 strikes and you're 'out') was their seasonal beer "Oktoberfest": more of a red than brown, it was 6.5% and bloody fucking good. It kinda snuck up on me, though; it was good enough that I really didn't realize how fast I was drinking it until the alcohol started to kick in. I was feeling pretty good and mellow about that time...
Nice thing about Hank's is that they offer what are called 'growlers': a glass jug (with their logo on it) that can be filled for home consumption. Growlers appear to be half-gallon sized, and I'm told that they hold four pints. I don't know if there's any limit on how many growlers can be bought at a time, but I may well find out -- Hank's offers some damn fine brews!
I'd never been in the place before, but after last night's experience, the only thing I can think of that might be making "Hank" angry is that so damn many people are drinking his most excellent beers.
I started the evening off with an obligatory trial of something they call "Dog Slobber" -- I mean, come on, doesn't that just BEG investigation? Well, it was pretty damn good beer: a brown (but not 'dark') ale, it had a nice flavor and a little more of a kick than I expected. When I looked at the big chalkboard that Hank's has on the wall, I saw that they were nice enough to indicate the alcohol content of their different brews (as part of the descriptions). The lowest alcohol level they serve is 4.5%; the highest is 6.5 -- that is, anywhere from half again to double the strength of regular 'commercial' brews such as Budweiser, Michelob, and the like.
After I finished my Dog Slobber, the next thing I sampled was their Griz Wizz (are you noting a 'theme' here?). Definitely a different flavor, it was more of a pilsner -- though still a trifle darker.
The last thing (by Montana law, brewpubs must limit customers to 3 beverages per evening; Hanks issues everyone a wristband that they put a mark on each time you make a purchase -- 3 strikes and you're 'out') was their seasonal beer "Oktoberfest": more of a red than brown, it was 6.5% and bloody fucking good. It kinda snuck up on me, though; it was good enough that I really didn't realize how fast I was drinking it until the alcohol started to kick in. I was feeling pretty good and mellow about that time...
Nice thing about Hank's is that they offer what are called 'growlers': a glass jug (with their logo on it) that can be filled for home consumption. Growlers appear to be half-gallon sized, and I'm told that they hold four pints. I don't know if there's any limit on how many growlers can be bought at a time, but I may well find out -- Hank's offers some damn fine brews!
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Geek mode: ENGAGED
I've gone ahead and gotten one of the little $15 Tonka toys (that I previously mentioned) with the thought of using an Arduino-based controller as the 'smarts' for experimenting with robotics. What I ended up getting was the skid-steer 'Bobcat' front-end loader (that's a 6" steel ruler right in front of the tread, to give you some idea of size):
There were other variants I could have gotten (a dump truck, bulldozer, and a different design of front-end loader), the others all ran at what I considered to be a little fast for what I want to do. You can see that the thing is remotely-operated from the little handset on the right; the three buttons result in the thing making 3 different noises: (L-R) a spoken "Caterpillar!", generic rock music, and air horn. The left joystick is forward/reverse, while the right joystick raises/lowers the bucket.
I've already disassembled the thing, and gotten it into a form that I can build on -- removal of the hand controller and some of the extraneous (for my purposes) bits, and added some mounting posts for the circuitry I'll be building:
I've basically pulled the 'cab' and bucket (saving both with the idea of possibly using them later), leaving all the innards available. The yellow and white wires are to the drive motor, and the red and blue pair are for the bucket motor (yes, I've left it in, though I dont plan to use it right away -- later, maybe). There's plenty of space between the motors (underneath the top cover) that I'll likely end up filling with more Stuff :-)
I'm not expecting to do anything dramatic with this lashup; this is just the basis for a learn-by-doing period so I can get the basics down.
There were other variants I could have gotten (a dump truck, bulldozer, and a different design of front-end loader), the others all ran at what I considered to be a little fast for what I want to do. You can see that the thing is remotely-operated from the little handset on the right; the three buttons result in the thing making 3 different noises: (L-R) a spoken "Caterpillar!", generic rock music, and air horn. The left joystick is forward/reverse, while the right joystick raises/lowers the bucket.I've already disassembled the thing, and gotten it into a form that I can build on -- removal of the hand controller and some of the extraneous (for my purposes) bits, and added some mounting posts for the circuitry I'll be building:
I've basically pulled the 'cab' and bucket (saving both with the idea of possibly using them later), leaving all the innards available. The yellow and white wires are to the drive motor, and the red and blue pair are for the bucket motor (yes, I've left it in, though I dont plan to use it right away -- later, maybe). There's plenty of space between the motors (underneath the top cover) that I'll likely end up filling with more Stuff :-)I'm not expecting to do anything dramatic with this lashup; this is just the basis for a learn-by-doing period so I can get the basics down.
Monday, September 29, 2008
Goofy shit
Sometimes, some really goofy shit pops into my head. F'rinstance:
It's said that the measurement unit of a 'foot' came about because it was the length of an actual person's foot. So... if a mile is made up of 5280 feet, does that mean some poor bastard had to walk heel-to-toe for a mile, counting how many times he had to put a foot down? If so, I gotta wonder how many times he had to start over again when he lost count. Were there people around, deliberately trying to fuck up his counting ("873. 1,719. 88. 3,944.")?
It's said that the measurement unit of a 'foot' came about because it was the length of an actual person's foot. So... if a mile is made up of 5280 feet, does that mean some poor bastard had to walk heel-to-toe for a mile, counting how many times he had to put a foot down? If so, I gotta wonder how many times he had to start over again when he lost count. Were there people around, deliberately trying to fuck up his counting ("873. 1,719. 88. 3,944.")?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
