Not that I'm a hardware geek, or anything...

A couple of weeks ago, I ran across a reference to a hardware tinkerer's board called Arduino. It looked pretty dang cool to me, so I went ahead and ordered one -- which arrived a few days ago.

So far this weekend, I've been having a blast playing with the thing: trying different things just to see what it's capable of, experimenting with a few ideas I've had, and generally just amusing the hell out of myself with it.

Being a computer AND hardware/electronics type, one of the things that I simply had to do was have a try at building a little robot with it, using some of the myriad of loose parts I hoard: battery power, a couple of dinky little DC motors to drive/steer it, and a few rudimentary sensors so I could change the programming in it different ways -- bump-n-run, hide from (or seek) light, mill around aimlessly, and so on.

I've enjoyed myself immensely; Elf, however, hasn't been quite as pleased: having the little 'bot wandering around has thrown a serious monkey wrench in her world. At first, she was curious about it, and followed it around my apartment -- at least, up until it 'attacked' her (changed direction toward her, and wouldn't be dissuaded by the multitude of slaps she gave it). Apparently convinced that it was a feline-oriented Terminator, she then spent a couple of hours watching it from afar so that she'd be ready to defend herself when it ran amok. When she finally decided that it wasn't really trying to kill her, she settled down considerably -- except for the fact that the 'bot kept annoying her. I honestly didn't program the thing to seek her out (it isn't that 'powerful' of a platform); she simply kept laying down in places where it would eventually turn up. About the umpteenth time it disturbed her nap (which she voiced complaints about), she finally decided to take refuge on her cat tree. Now all she does is grumble at it whenever it wanders too close.

Me vs. U.S. Census

In yesterdays mail, I got a personal letter from the dipshit that has been trying to get me to answer his goofy-ass Census Bureau questions -- this despite the fact that every time the twit turned up at my door, I was rude to him, and refused to respond to any of his other messages. You'd think that a reasonable person would get the hint; but this gonzo has apparently taken dedication to his job FAR beyond what any rational person would.

So, this afternoon, I contacted the people that are supposed to be supervising him (the Denver Regional Office!!), and let them know -- in no uncertain terms -- that I didn't want to hear from him ever again. I also informed them that if I WAS contacted by him in any size, way, shape, or form, I would file a stalking complaint with the police.

Naturally enough, the dingbats in Denver wanted to know all my particulars; I advised them that if I wanted to pass that information out, I would have answered his questions in the first place -- and, further, that I already had more Government than I needed (or wanted!). As the coup de grace, I suggested that if they REALLY wanted to know anything about me, what I was doing, and so on, that they see if they could get it from one of the government agencies that's involved in monitoring U.S. citizens communications.

Bear does *what* in the woods?

Hat tip to the Presurfer

Boo farookin' Hoo

Bush: Olympic boycott would insult Chinese

Cry me a farookin' river, willya?

Dubya is going to go witness the farce that will be the opening ceremonies of the Summer Olympics in China.

Yo! Dubya! This is the same China that f*cked up one of our airplanes in International airspace, manipulates its currency to keep its products cheap in the rest of the world, masterminded Tiananmen Square, implemented a draconian one-child policy that includes forced abortions, uses slave labor in factories, doesn't even enforce its own government policies (unless, of course, someone publicly gets caught at it), and has a host of other 'issues'.

And you don't want to insult them? Here's a thought: how about showing them that the U.S. has some principles that we're ready to actually stand for? And that they need our money a WHOLE lot more than we need their fucking doggie chew toys and other cheap-ass crap?

Dickhead.

The flip side

After yesterdays reminder of the freedoms we enjoy, I'd like to toss out a few things for people to think about -- as in whether or not we're still enjoying those same freedoms and liberties that so many have fought (and died) for. That said, here's some food for thought (courtesy of a Fark Photoshop 'contest' for national landmarks that we need):

Let's try not to forget these, 'kay?

Congress of the United States begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

1. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
2. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
3. No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
4. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
5. No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
6. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.
7. In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
8. Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
9. The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
10. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

More famousness

The Billings Outpost has posted the next of my articles in the Science and Technology section.

Go on over and have a look at it... you know you want to :-)

Big Brother is watching

Okay, so now we're pretty much screwed, methinks.

The 114-page wiretapping bill looks like it's going to be passed -- and when it is, private communications will be at the mercy of whatever twit happens to be in the Whitehouse:

1. There doesn't seem to have been any kind of 'compromise' between the Whitehouse (and by extension, Republicans) and Dems; Dubya is getting pretty much anything and everything he wanted -- if not more.
2. The bill doesn't add anything to the capabilities of the National Security Agency, CIA, or any of the other similar or related organizations. The NSA has always been able/willing to keep an eye on any communications that 'exited' the United States; all that's really changed is that now they can use a bigger vacuum cleaner to suck up all the data.
3. Now the telecoms are given an advance blanket protection against being sued by the customers they're betraying -- all they have to do is tell a FISA court "The President said it was okay!", and they're off the hook.
4. No guarantee (or even vague promise) that this law is the One True Way of dealing with the issue of surveillance, wiretapping, and the like -- after all, the FISA system was supposed to be the One True Way, until Dubya decided he didn't like it and went on to violate it (and, incidentally, the Constitution). So the next "We know what's best for you" government we get could scrap this abomination in favor of something even MORE intrusive.
5. The law isn't even clear about who's supposed to be doing what, or what the limits are. One report on it declares
   

   To be fair, wiretapping is so classified, and the language of the bill so opaque, that no one without a "top secret" clearance can say with any authority just how much surveillance the proposal will authorize the government to do. (The best assessment yet comes from former Justice Department official David Kris, who deems the legislation "so intricate" that it risks confusing even "the government officials who must apply it.")

I've just got one question about all this.

Why are we allowing our own government to do to us the very same things that we used to slam the former Soviet Union used to do?

Days like this - I've had them

Return of the DimTwitties

Some may recall that a few months ago, I had a little 'adventure' with the gits from the U.S. Census -- they wanted to know about me, and I didn't want to tell them. The dipstick that kept sending letters, informational brochures, and stopping by in the hope that I'd cooperate finally gave up -- or so I thought.

I've received Official Notification that they're finishing up whatever temporary 'So, how's life been treating you?' metric, and that they'll be visiting again.

Since I didn't tell them anything in the first place, I kinda figured somebody would have had sense enough to remove my address from their list: I mean, they told me the first go around was to set a 'reference' for a second visit that would see how things had changed over the past few months. When I didn't cooperate the first time, that should have pretty much put the kibosh on them coming back -- even if I answered their questions THIS time, they don't have any way of knowing what kind of change those answers represented.

On top of that kind of beaurocratic stupidity, the dipshit that I drew as my contact point decided to be a smart-ass by leaving a 'cute' comment on the paperwork he left on my door while I was out of my apartment. That, in and of itself, was enough to convince me to not only not answer their questions again, but to be rude (and possibly profane) when the jackass turns up again. I'll be making it clear, in no uncertain terms, that not only am I not going to answer any of their questions, but that I'm highly annoyed that they can't/won't take 'NO!' for an answer - and that even if I did answer, I'd respond with an outrageous lie to everything they asked.

Think they'll finally get the hint?