…and proves he’s a bigger dumb ass than I thought.
But Metcalf is now challenging some of his more vocal critics with four questions. Here they are:
1. If you believe the 2nd Amendment should be subject to no regulation at all, do you therefore believe all laws prohibiting convicted violent repeat criminals from having guns are unconstitutional? Should all such laws be repealed?
YES. If it’s ok for them to be out of prison then it’s ok for them to have the means to defend themselves.
2. Do you also believe all laws establishing concealed-carry licenses are unconstitutional?
YES. I think any and all laws that restrict carrying arms in any fashion are unconstitutional.
3. Do you have a concealed-carry license anyway?
YES, I do. Because I’m not an idiot and don’t feel like going to jail for carrying a firearm for self defense.
4. Are you thereby violating the Constitution yourself?
This one proves yet again (like his misunderstanding of the word “regulation” in the 2nd Amendment) that Metcalf doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Citizens can’t violate the constitution, only government can.
Metcalf has proven repeatedly that he doesn’t understand the US Constitution or the business he used to be in.
..but it’s not. It’s doing exactly what it’s supposed to do.
This is a VERY good post about the fundamental limits of predictive analysis. It also proves my theory that government (NSA) snooping isn’t about finding terrorists because it can’t. It’s about digging up dirt on political enemies, which is what secret police have ALWAYS been about.
“All this should arouse a sense of humility about our ability to predict events, risks and crashes of one kind or another. In other words, risk cannot be entirely eliminated. Beyond a certain point, we’re sacrificing treasure, civil liberties and energy for not just zero gain but negative return, as the treasure squandered on the quixotic quest for zero risk carries a steep opportunity cost: what else could we have accomplished with that treasure, effort and energy? ”
That would be a valid question if the goal of Total Information Awareness was legitimate. Unfortunately it’s not. It’s about protecting the political class and they don’t care how much we have to pay for it.
My with my experience with Nokia was similar.
Journalist Lauri Malkavaara’s missive to Nokia stated that “I ordered my own iPod touch, turned it on, and knew immediately how to use it. I have used the device now on a daily basis for over six months, and I have not even thought about any manuals. The logic of the device opens up right away. It is no wonder that it is a huge success all over the world.”
Malkavaara then went on to describe how difficult it was to figure out how to do just about anything on the Symbian phones that were being sold at the time, concluding with “By putting a telephone like the E51 onto the market, Nokia has squandered its most important legacies: to produce telephones in such a way that they are easy to use. This will cause problems for Nokia.”
Instead of listening and changing the design strategy for Symbian, Malkavaara says that “Nokia bosses started calling me, wanting to explain Nokia’s strategy.”
I once had a meeting with Nokia engineers about the Roofhopper, a mesh WiFi radio. I tried to suggest some improvements based on my experience with the radio and was told by the engineers that Nokia wasn’t interested in hearing from customers, they had designed the radio the way it was and that was that.
I knew right then that Nokia was doomed.
In 2007 the “i” in iPhone was a nice little nod to the Internet in your pocket while fooling the people into thinking you were selling a phone. Now that it’s 2013 you can drop the gag and stop calling it a phone. Sure you can make calls on it but you can make calls on your notebook and desktop computers too and no one calls them phones.
It’s a pocket computer first and sometimes a phone second.
Time to think up a new name.
Before last week, SQRPT was produced on three computers. One was an Asterisk PBX that handled the incoming DID (for the call-in number), one does the Skype and the other records the show, sends it to the Icecast server and receives the calls from the call-in line. There is also a hardware mixer that connects to the audio I/O on the last two computers and handles the mix-minus between Skype and the call-in line.
Here is a view of everything but the PBX which was in a data center.
I’ve always wanted to run everything on one computer but the requirements for the show were so complex and the number of audio channels required made it impossible. Fortunately, by using OS X, I was able to combine some functions into more than one computer and only use three instead of 5.
For the last month I’ve been working on running the PBX in a Virtual Machine on the Skype iMac and for last week’s show we used it live. That means I can now retire the dedicated PBX server and SQRPT is down to needing just two computers.
But now I’m working on a fix for that using Ardour and Jack OS X. Jack lets you create virtual audio channels between applications and Ardour is a digital audio workstation that will (theoretically) do the mix-minus between Skype and the call-in line and let me also do the recording and Icecast streaming ALL ON ONE COMPUTER!
Thank god we don’t do video too…
Good luck with that. If you refused administrative punishment and requested a court-martial you’ll be breaking rocks for a few years.
Says the beta male.
Oh yeah, milk that franchise.
Yes, actually, I do think I’m better than you.
LOL! Pawnbroker. Still butt hurt over a blog post from 5 years ago. You sad little man.
Oh, how quaint.
No tactical benefits to OC? I guess that’s why the cops never open carry… Oh wait.
Screw it, that’s good enough.
(Cross posted from Facebook because blogs are dead.)
This morning I was listening to journalists complain about how hard it is to get paid for doing journalism. And I thought, “It’s interesting how much “journalism” relied on limited access to media distribution.”
It turns out that when ANYONE has access to a “press” then the actual value of “journalism” approaches its intrinsic value of zero.
They used an example of doing a story on the iPhone 5, about how you’d have to talk to Apple and then Interview Johnny Ive and then take a camera crew to China, and how expensive that would be. And I wanted to say, “It’s expensive for YOU to do it but someone will do it for free.”
Being a “journalist” will be tough but the news will still get out because people will still do it. It’s like that Little Green Footballs blog and the Dan Rather Documents. That was his one big story and he’s never done anything else of note. But that ONE thing happened and if millions of people are reporting about ONE thing that happens, one thing they were there for or that one thing they’re an expert on, then we’ll be better informed than ever and we won’t have the mass media filter deciding what is news and what isn’t.
Of course then we’ll have to have a conversation about Google.
In light of the Senate trying to define “Journalist” it’s time to repeat something I said before.
The first amendment “freedom of the press” isn’t about journalism. “the press” referred to in the amendment isn’t “The Press” as we refer to news reporting organizations today. It’s about the freedom to publish.
“freedom of the press” is literally the printing press. It’s the freedom to publish without government interference.
To make that freedom just about journalists, and to argue about who is a journalist, cheapens it.
Since the creation of the Internet, freedom of the press is more important than ever. The Internet is the modern printing press.