Posts tagged: rant

Jan 18 2010

How Opinions and Guesses Become Policy

Here’s a story that shows how little evidence there can be behind the things we’re taught as settled fact by governments and media.  (Hat tip: Illinois Pedant.)  The IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which wants the power to tell us all how big a car we can have and how often we can use our backyard grills, made a claim that all the glaciers in the Himalayas would melt by the year 2035 due to global warming, with a 90% degree of certainty.  And of course, therefore we must Do Something.  Now it turns out that claim was based on one guy’s guess.  The meat of the article: Read more »

GD Star Rating
loading...
Nov 17 2009

School Days

I don’t make much of a secret of the fact that I think our schools are worse than worthless.  I don’t go around telling people what they should do with their kids, but if someone asks me what I think about education, I’ll give them an honest answer.  I think kids would be better educated and we’d be better off as a society if we burned down all the schools and started over.  I’ll go into all the reasons for that sometime when I have all day to type, but I’m always on the lookout for examples that back me up. Read more »

GD Star Rating
loading...
Oct 12 2009

Old News

There are many web sites out there that make me think, “Man, why didn’t I think of that?”  So many ideas seem obvious once someone else thinks of them, but they weren’t beforehand.

One of my favorite recent finds of this type is News from 1930.  Each day, he quotes and summarizes a bunch of articles from the Wall Street Journal of the same day in 1930.  (The page I linked to was a Sunday so the Journal wasn’t printed that day, so he picks some favorites from the week.)  Some typical selections: Read more »

GD Star Rating
loading...
Sep 14 2009

Quincy Rocks Again

From Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit, on his time at the 9/12 Tea Party in Quincy (H/T Quincy News):

QUINCY WRAPUP: I’ve been involved with a lot of events over my life, from civil rights protests to rock concerts to science fiction conventions, and I’ve never been involved with an event that ran with such well-oiled efficiency. I was going to say “ruthless efficiency,” but of course it was cheerful, considerate Midwestern efficiency and not ruthless in the least. The Quincy folks were charming hosts, and threw a dinner party for us last night where all the food was homemade, and delicious.

Read more »

GD Star Rating
loading...
Jul 29 2009

There’s Plenty

Comments after the video:

Read more »

GD Star Rating
loading...
Jul 17 2009

I Don’t Get It

(I always feel like I should apologize for political rants, since I don’t think that’s what people come here for, but you’re getting one today.  Sorry.)

If Dick Durbin were a Republican or a radio talk-show host, he’d be apologizing and trying to hold onto his job today.  During a debate over allowing the District of Columbia to use tax money to fund abortions, someone pointed out that 41% of pregnancies in D.C. are already aborted, and wondered if maybe that isn’t enough.  After all, Democrats are always saying it should be safe, legal, and rare.  Forty-one percent isn’t rare, it’s normal.  Our senator from Illinois responded by saying it’s high in D.C. because it has a large percentage of African Americans, who have a higher rate of abortion.  That’s true, but it’s the sort of thing you’re not even supposed to notice today, let alone say out loud on the Senate floor.  And he seems fine with it, and even with paying to increase it.

I understand the reasons why people want abortion to be legal.  I disagree with them, but I can understand them.

What I don’t understand is why one of our two major political parties is so incredibly gung-ho about it.  Since President Obama took office, there has been a steady stream of executive orders and legislation to fund or expand access to abortion.  One of his first acts was to rescind the ban on using foreign aid for abortion.  Democrats fight the slightest limits, like states requiring the same parental notification for minors that would apply to any other medical procedure.  The latest version of the health care bill allows Medicaid to pay for abortions, which will probably cause the US Catholic bishops—who would have enthusiastically supported socialized health care otherwise—to come out against it.  Obamacare could have sailed through Congress if they hadn’t dragged abortion into it, but they just couldn’t resist.  And here Senator Durbin and company can’t even wait for that in D.C.; they’re trying to ease restrictions on funding there with special legislation.  They’re spending more political capital on this one issue than on anything else: the economy, our foreign wars, anything.

The Republicans are for private gun ownership, right?  Ok, imagine that a Republican president’s first act was to sign an executive order allowing the NRA to use foreign aid for firearms purchases and training in other countries.  Then every week or so, there would be new legislation floated or inserted into another bill, pushing to make bazookas or machine guns legal, or to say parents have no say in whether their kids own guns, or to provide federal funding to give guns to poor people who can’t afford to buy their own.  Say they passed laws to override city and county ordinances that prohibit the carrying of guns.  Say no Supreme Court nominee could be appoved unless he declared his unwavering dedication to making sure all Americans have easy and affordable access to guns.

That’d be insane, right?  It’d be political suicide to press so hard on one very divisive issue.  Yet that’s exactly what the Democrats are doing.  There are a ton of voters out there who would vote Democrat in a second (especially millions of Catholics who don’t already) if the Dems would just stop pushing abortion.  They wouldn’t even have to become a pro-life party: just stop making it their dealbreaker issue.  Dick Durbin, like many Democrats, was anti-abortion when he was in local politics, but when he went national and wanted to gain prominence in the party so he could chair committees and the like, he switched completely.  A Democrat at that level can be pro-gun, pro-war, even pro-tax cuts.  He can oppose his party’s platform on anything else, but they’re absolutists on this one issue.

I just don’t get it.

GD Star Rating
loading...
Jun 29 2009

Then They Came for My Cows

Imagine that the seat belt law were expanded tomorrow.  Imagine that it not only required you to wear a seat belt, but each of your seat belts had to be marked with a number and that number registered with a government agency.  Each time a seat belt left your property, you would have to notify that government agency when it left, where it went, and for how long.  You would also have to record every other person who used that seat belt.  All this would be recorded in a master database, so that any time a seat belt failed to save someone in an accident, it could be traced back to everyone who ever used it or owned it, to try to determine what went wrong.

Read more »

GD Star Rating
loading...
Jun 03 2009

Give Me Two Tin Cans and a String

A cell phone is a great thing to have—except when you actually have to deal with it.  It provides a nice feeling of security when you’re driving, knowing that if you have engine trouble, you won’t have to walk to the nearest house and borrow a phone.  And it’s nice when you’re at the hardware store and you realize you don’t know what size bolt you need to finish that project.

Read more »

GD Star Rating
loading...
Feb 10 2009

Stimulate This

I try not to pay too much attention to the news, because, to be honest, most of it doesn’t have anything to do with me.  Severe weather reports, boil orders, local stuff like that, sure; but national and world news usually isn’t relevant enough to my life to get worked up over.

Still, occasionally something gets so much press that it’s hard to avoid hearing about it and forming an opinion, and this “stimulus” package silliness falls into that category.  When President Bush overspent by 1.5 trillion dollars over eight years, everyone rightly recognized that as wasteful spending “on the backs of our grandchildren” and so on.  But now President Obama promises to out-borrow and out-spend Bush in a much shorter time period, and people actually think this is a good idea?

Photo from Flickr.com

Photo from Flickr.com

When did we start believing the idea that we could make ourselves prosperous by spending lots of money—especially money we have to borrow?  And as someone said, if borrowing and spending a trillion dollars is a good idea, why not two trillion?  Why not ten gazillion?  Why not just stimulate us all into great wealth?

Read more »

GD Star Rating
loading...
Dec 03 2008

Actionscript: Not Actually a Script, and Very Poor Action

Learning a new programming language is never exactly easy, but it’s like learning a new spoken language: once you know a few, it’s easier to pick up the next one. They all share things in common, so you don’t have to learn everything from the ground up. It’s become a routine: I go find a tutorial or a very simple “Hello, World!” program written in the language, and start looking for things I recognize. “Ok, it has C-style syntax, OO like Java, and a regex package like perl’s.” With those basic impressions, a few examples, and a function library, I’m ready to start writing or fixing programs in that language. Proficiency takes time, but I can get started right away.

Or, that’s how it usually works. Not so much with Actionscript, the language Flash programs are “written” in. Those are sarcasm quotes around “written,” because apparently most Flash programs aren’t written, they’re designed or “staged.” Now I know why Flash became so popular so fast: you didn’t have to use the keyboard to make Flash doohickeys. Making most Flash programs is like making a movie or an animated drawing. You load up the Flash builder program, insert a movie or draw some stuff on the “stage,” and tell it where you want things to move and what you want to happen if someone clicks on something.

That’s all fine if you’re making a simple movie with a little interactivity, which seems to be what the language was originally designed for. But they’ve extended it with a full slate of classes and features to make it a full-featured programming language capable of doing anything. Problem is, 99% of the tutorials on the net assume you want to make a movie, not write a program. If you want to make anything more complicated than Duck Hunt, finding out how is tough. Adobe rivals Cisco in providing reams and reams of documentation that make it impossible to figure out how to do step one. I literally spent a couple hours figuring out how to compile my first program, since I wasn’t using the GUI builder. Then I had to learn this unholy combination of Actionscript and MXML that you have to feed the compiler to build the simplest program in the first place. I never found a straightforward “my first program” tutorial that said: install this program, put these lines in a file, and run this compiler command to create your first program. That’s insane.

Then there’s the language itself. Maybe it was a scripting language at version 0.1, but it’s not now, so the name doesn’t even make sense. Version 3.0 looks so much like Java I don’t know why they bothered coming up with it. Both languages are (or soon will be) open-source, so we’ll have two almost identical free languages battling for….bragging rights for Sun and Adobe, I guess. It’ll be like watching the Cowboys play the Raiders—can they both lose somehow?

An assortment of functions and classes shouldn’t be able to call itself a programming language unless it has a “sleep” function. The setInterval() and setTimeout() functions are useful for certain types of timing, but what about when you just want to delay the program a second and continue where you left off? No, can’t do that; it’d violate someone’s notion of good OO programming practice or something. But what if I have a 3D array (maybe a 3D chessboard) and I want to go through it space by space, doing something to each one and pausing a second between them? In perl, it couldn’t be easier:

for $x (0..7){
  for $y (0..7){
    for $z (0..7){
       do_stuff_to($array, $x, $y, $z);
       sleep 1;
    }
  }
}

That’s so simple I bet a non-programmer could understand it without much explanation. It loops through the variables $x, $y, and $z, and for each combination of those three, it calls the function do_stuff_to with those values and then pauses a second. Simple and intuitive. It keeps my looping variables inside the loops where they belong, so when the loops are over, they wink out of existence and stop using up resources. It matches the way I picture it in my head: start down the first row of the first column, then the next, etc., pausing a second between each space.

Not so simple or intuitive in Actionscript. You have to do something like this:

var x:int = 0;
var y:int = 0;
var z:int = 0;
var intervalID:uint;
function sillyLoopTimer():void{
    if(x>7){
        x=0
        y++;
        if(y>7){
            x=0;
            y=0;
            z++;
            if(z>7){
                return;
            }
        }
    }
    x++;
    do_stuff_to(array, x, y, z);
    clearTimeout(intervalID);
    intervalID = setTimeout(sillyLoopTimer,1000);
}
sillyLoopTimer();

Granted, this probably isn’t the most elegant code because I’m new at this way of doing it, but it’s how the examples I’ve seen do it. Now we’ve got a function that simulates the loops by incrementing the variables and checking bounds as it goes along. The variables have to be defined outside the function so they maintain their values between calls, so they won’t die off when the looping is done. (The compiler might be smart enough to figure out they won’t be used anymore, but you can’t count on it.) It’s not intuitive anymore, because now it says, “Ok, go do stuff to the first space, then set a timer for one second to go do stuff to whatever space these variables are pointing to a second from now.” Since the variables exist outside the function, if I forget and reuse them somewhere else, who knows what space I’ll be doing stuff to the next time the timer fires.

I’m sure this all makes sense in Computer Science 302, but it’s not much for practical programming. These new languages all seem to be designed to be used by committees of people with as little programming skill as possible but fancy GUI builders. (Judging by online examples, that function above really should have been named mySillyTimerLoopWithTheLongName(), and the looping variables should have been loopVarX, loopVarY, and loopVarZ. These languages seem to encourage ridiculously long names for everything.) Why, oh why, couldn’t PerlTk have been the one to take over the web applet market way back when? I guess all the perl programmers were too busy writing server-side code and getting actual work done.

I’ll keep plugging away at this (or switch to Java, which at least has Timer.sleep()), since I need it for a game I want to write. I’m sure once I learn some more of these workarounds and idiosyncrasies, I’ll be able to make some progress without tearing my hair out, but I don’t know if I’ll ever like it.

GD Star Rating
loading...

WordPress Themes