Transfers data wirelessly at 2.88 MBytes per second. It also doubles as a gun effective against squirrels, vegans, clowns, hippies, street urchins, hooligans, carpetbaggers & scalawags. Don't try it with the girl scout though. She shoots back.

H/T to Kevin I. of the Lewiston Pistol Club.

People who use Earthlink for their e-mail must have a very different impression of human behavior, because no one ever responds to their e-mail inquiries.  Every time I get an on-line order from an Earthlink user, our auto reply e-mail gets bounced, as we get the following message:

"I apologize for this automatic reply to your email. To control spam, I now allow incoming messages only from senders I have approved beforehand."

Usually followed by a hand-typed e-mail a day later-- some variation of;

"I placed an order from you guys the other day, but I never got a confirmation, so I reordered, and still got no confirmation.  What's wrong with you guys?  Please respond!!!!  Hello!!!????"

The world is a very impolite place for Earthlink users.  No one ever writes back.  I wonder if they ever wonder why.

Update:  We got two of these responses today.  Our only option is to use the old-fashioned telephone, assuming we get a phone number.  I've thought about writing a series of essays on communication skills.

I've never had a big problem with automated traffic law enforcement as long as it was used only for enforcement of moving violations and not for general surveillance.

Now you can add another objection to my list of objections. From Dallas:

Citywide statistics obtained by NBC affiliate KXAS-TV found that red light cameras do reduce accidents. That is a good thing.

But they do it by reducing red light violations, by as much as 29 percent from month to month at particularly busy Dallas intersections. On the face of it, that, too, is a good thing — but not, necessarily, if you rely on traffic fines to make up a healthy chunk of your budget.

Dallas lawmakers originally estimated gross revenue of $15 million from their 62 cameras this fiscal year, which ends June 30. But City Manager Mary Suhm estimated last week that the city would fall short by more than $4 million.

So Friday, the city turned off about a quarter of the least profitable cameras, saying it couldn’t justify the cost of running them.

Yeah, I'm naive, I take things at face value. I actually believed traffic law enforcement was to reduce personal injury and property damage, not just a source of revenue. I don't recall ever believing in Santa Claus and having the myth shattered, but this must be what it feels like.

Last night I wrote a simple encryption program. Basically it's "Encryption for Dummies". You can use it to encrypt text message such as email or even instant messages.

Here is the zip file: CryptLight_1_0_0_1.zip (225.56 KB)

Download it. Unzip it, read the ReadMe.htm file and you should know all you need to know about it. If it sounds like something you could use run Setup.exe and have fun.

As a test message use this with the passphrase of "Password" (without the quotes):

gmPtGYutvQCrqXMT++rFLwcN53qTuDpieDL/Z3svuIz4RnHNTCeJ+8aGC4Z2orZ9Zsen/rg7
8JG/Rm/cQ33D5bqSWqTXU4ctDCabZAKw2po=

Update: I forgot to mention, because of my exceedingly Microsoft centric view of the universe, this only works on Windows. I tested it on XP and 32 and 64-bit versions of Vista.

Update2: If you enter in corrupted cipher text and try to decrypt the program will crash. I have fixed it but haven't released new version yet. I'll wait for a few more days to get feedback and bug reports. Consider what you have as an Alpha release.

Sean said he has a dream. Now he just has to get a really big bonus this fall so he can bring it to Boomershoot 2009.

Mobile Tactical High Energy Laser (6 MB WMV).

Boomershoot enthusiast, Bruce, sent this to me. He wants one for the flat trajectory when shooting squirrels.

Sebastian points out new technology may make concealed carry more difficult.

What the people that develop these tools don't tell the politicians that will buy them is they are easy to defeat. Just as a tank can be defeated with a Molotov Cocktail, if you know what you are doing very simple and readily available materials can defeat multi-million dollar surveillance equipment.

In this particular instance what the developers probably aren't telling the potential buyers is that there is something called the Skin Effect. This is, in essence, a law of physics that says the higher the frequency of an electromagnetic wave the shallower the penetration of that wave through a conductor. It depends on the resistivity and magnetic permeability of the conductor but for copper a 1 Terahertz wave will have a skin depth of about 66 nm. The typical aluminum foil you buy at the grocery store has a thickness of 200 um which is over 3000 times thicker. I don't have the skin depth numbers for aluminum but I can tell you that lining your jacket with aluminum foil will make your jacket completely opaque to such machines. Even aluminized mylar balloons or "space blankets" will be opaque. Hence, these machines will not be able to see anything on the other side of the metal lined clothing. I expect even sequined purses and dresses will be opaque.

I've explained build breaks before and why they are big deal.

Last night about 10:40 the guy across the hall submitted a code change for review. About 11:35 someone else replied saying it looked good. At 11:49 the guy across the hall checked it in.

This morning I saw the request for a code review and took a look at it and thought, "Hmmm.... just one line was changed. I'll look at the bug report to make sure this is the right thing to do but it almost for certain should be fine as long as it passes the buddy build." Then I saw that he had already checked it in--without any mention of a buddy build. Hmmm... Okaaaaay.

Then I saw the email about the build being broken this morning. Then I saw the email about a new bug assigned to the guy across the hall. About 30 minutes ago another other guy showed up with a very large baseball bat* in the hall. I started laughing and went out to watch more closely. I stopped laughing and left when the thumping started. It wasn't going to be pretty.

I came back after a few minutes and the guy with the baseball bat was gone and I examined the guy across the hall for bruises. There were none showing so I'm assuming his clothes cover them all.

They take their coding processes seriously around here.

News from STI:

.22 Caliber Conversion Kit

STI international, Inc has joined with Bob Marvel to bring you the finest .22 conversion kits available anywhere. With these conversion kits, you can easily swap out your top end to go from one caliber to another- it’s like getting a second pistol for less than half the price. This will allow shooters to increase their trigger time while decreasing the cost of good training.

The improved Bob Marvel design locks the barrel in place for improved reliability and accuracy. The conversion kit may be purchased for either the 1911 (single stack) platform or the world famous 2011 (double stack) platform. The kit comes complete with adjustable sights, lock back on last round (single stack), an excellent extended 10 round magazine, complete cleaning kit, magazine loading tool, and a custom fitted hard case. The top end works on either 1911 or 2011 frames with only the magazine to replace if the shooter wishes to change frames. Extra magazines for the 1911 and/or 2011 are available.

It's an extra $35.00 for the 2011 frame over the 1911 frame but that is a small price to pay if you don't have the 1911 frame to put it on.

In competition I shoot an STI gun, I carry an STI gun and you should too.

I found the following line here:

Want to find some tools for fighting junk email?

It made me laugh. Actually a pretty good argument could be made for imposing the death penalty on people that send mass junk mail--assuming that sending junk mail should be considered a crime. As much as I hate spam I don't think it should be a crime, but the argument for making the offense punishable by the death penalty is an interesting intellectual exercise for me. I may have hinted at it here before, I'll have to see if I can find it and flesh it out a bit more sometime.

I listen to a lot of Audible.com books on my long commute (300 miles one way) between Moscow Idaho and Redmond Washington. This is one book that I can see raising my adrenaline level to "no sleep for you tonight" levels. From Audible:

In a hard-hitting and provocative polemic, Silicon Valley insider and pundit Andrew Keen exposes the grave consequences of today's new participatory Web 2.0 and reveals how it threatens our values, economy, and ultimately the very innovation and creativity that forms the fabric of American achievement.

Our most valued cultural institutions, Keen warns, our professional newspapers, magazines, music, and movies, are being overtaken by an avalanche of amateur, user-generated free content. Advertising revenue is being siphoned off by free classified ads on sites like Craigslist; television networks are under attack from free user-generated programming on YouTube and the like; file-sharing and digital piracy have devastated the multibillion-dollar music business and threaten to undermine our movie industry.

From Amazon:

Keen's relentless "polemic" is on target about how a sea of amateur content threatens to swamp the most vital information and how blogs often reinforce one's own views rather than expand horizons. But his jeremiad about the death of "our cultural standards and moral values" heads swiftly downhill. Keen became somewhat notorious for a 2006 Weekly Standard essay equating Web 2.0 with Marxism; like Karl Marx, he offers a convincing overall critique but runs into trouble with the details. Readers will nod in recognition at Keen's general arguments—sure, the Web is full of "user-generated nonsense"!—but many will frown at his specific examples, which pretty uniformly miss the point. It's simply not a given, as Keen assumes, that Britannica is superior to Wikipedia, or that record-store clerks offer sounder advice than online friends with similar musical tastes, or that YouTube contains only "one or two blogs or songs or videos with real value." And Keen's fears that genuine talent will go unnourished are overstated: writers penned novels before there were publishers and copyright law; bands recorded songs before they had major-label deals. In its last third, the book runs off the rails completely, blaming Web 2.0 for online poker, child pornography, identity theft and betraying "Judeo-Christian ethics."

First, my opinions are not those of my employer.

Second, I point you to the article titled EU fines Microsoft record $1.4bn.

Third, I bring your attention to a comment about the fine following the article:

Microsoft MUST be brought to account for its' practice of dominating by exclusion. If the company, Microsoft, continues to practice in a manner which refuses to be competitive, then it should be excluded from the EU. Nicholas Carton, USA
Nicholas Carton, Saint Louis, Missouri USA

Fourth, my opinion:

If people only knew how much time and effort MS spends groveling and trying to please these socialist jerks...

I am sometimes (and this is one of those times) of the opinion MS should tell the EU, "Then do without any of our products. Not only will your languages not be supported but all future versions of our software will not run without having at least intermittent Internet access and will not run if said Internet path traverses any part of an EU country."

But that's an emotional response without looking at the cost/benefit numbers. Rational analysis will require looking out for the stockholders best interests on a number of fronts. I know such a response would allow competitors access to a cash cow as well as cutting off MS income from this source. I just can't help wondering at what point the EU will push MS too far and the numbers no longer add up to continue trying to please the greedy socialists.

I wish MS were in a position to demonstrate to the EU they need MS more than MS needs them and had the courage to follow through on a very forceful demonstration of that.

Kirk has the story.

As I said before this brand of stupidity will be laughed out of the legislature. The companies pushing this should try a free market approach to making money on bullets.

H/T to Uncle.

640K ought to be enough for anybody.

Bill Gates
1981
[I'm listening, live, to Bill Gates tell us his vision for the future of our group. I'm reminded to not take everything he says as the word of god.--Joe]

After doing some thinking on the topic of microstamped bullets I've changed my opinion. I was vehemently opposed and couldn't imagine this would catch on. I was wrong on both accounts. I now think it is a great idea and I think it will do exceptionally well and will be accepted by the majority of shooters.

What I realized was the company pushing this (see Sebastian's post) was trying to use a government mandate instead of the free market. Which, of course, is nearly always a recipe for disaster. They will get much greater market acceptance with a free market approach.

I think that there are a lot of people that would pay another penny per bullet for something like "Mist Maker" engraved on their Speer TNT bullets. I'd pay an extra $0.02 per bullet so I could load up 9mm jacketed hollow points inscribed with "Please Don't Rape" for the women in my life to carry. In my case even at an extra $0.05 per bullet I'd order 1000 Berger .308 caliber 210 Grain Match VLD's engraved with Μολὼν λαβέ.

This article is very interesting for two reasons. The first is:

A group led by a Princeton University computer security researcher has developed a simple method to steal encrypted information stored on computer hard disks.

The technique, which could undermine security software protecting critical data on computers, is as easy as chilling a computer memory chip with a blast of frigid air from a can of dust remover. Encryption software is widely used by companies and government agencies, notably in portable computers that are especially susceptible to theft.

The development, which was described on the group’s Web site Thursday, could also have implications for the protection of encrypted personal data from prosecutors.

The move, which cannot be carried out remotely, exploits a little-known vulnerability of the dynamic random access, or DRAM, chip. Those chips temporarily hold data, including the keys to modern data-scrambling algorithms. When the computer’s electrical power is shut off, the data, including the keys, is supposed to disappear.

In a technical paper that was published Thursday on the Web site of Princeton’s Center for Information Technology Policy, the group demonstrated that standard memory chips actually retain their data for seconds or even minutes after power is cut off.

When the chips were chilled using an inexpensive can of air, the data was frozen in place, permitting the researchers to easily read the keys — long strings of ones and zeros — out of the chip’s memory.

“Cool the chips in liquid nitrogen (-196 °C) and they hold their state for hours at least, without any power,” Edward W. Felten, a Princeton computer scientist, wrote in a Web posting. “Just put the chips back into a machine and you can read out their contents.”

That's cool enough, but this is just as cool:

The issue of protecting information with disk encryption technology became prominent recently in a criminal case involving a Canadian citizen who late in 2006 was stopped by United States customs agents who said they had found child pornography on his computer.

When the agents tried to examine the machine later, they discovered that the data was protected by encryption. The suspect has refused to divulge his password. A federal agent testified in court that the only way to determine the password otherwise would be with a password guessing program, which could take years.

A federal magistrate ruled recently that forcing the suspect to disclose the password would be unconstitutional.

Not that a child pornographer may be able to get away with his crime but that you can password protect your data and the government can't force you to potentially incriminate yourself.

In my previous posting on microstamping I tried to be as objective as possible. Now I want to give my opinion.

Microstamped bullets

As much as the anti-gun people would like to implement something as expensive and worthless as microstamping of bullets matched to their cases and boxes I believe they will be laughed out of the legislatures. It is just too difficult and impractical to implement and even the police will complain at the paperwork and expense. Add in the ease with which stolen and re-manufactured ammo will defeat the technology and only the most rabid anti-gun people will support it. The police have a lot of influence anytime guns are brought up and without their support this technology will be defeated.

Microstamped firearms

The argument that microstamping of firearms will help solve crimes committed with guns is invalid. The only criminals that will be caught with this technology will be the stupid ones, those that committed crimes of passion, or those that had no plans to get away with the crime (murder-suicide types). In those cases the criminal would have been caught/detected anyway and the microstamping of the firearm will be irrelevant. There will be a few borderline cases where the microstamping does make a difference but the numbers will be insignificant. This is of little concern to the anti-gun people. Even if all crimes committed with guns were solved instantly they would still demand the banning of firearms. It's not about crime reduction, its about banning guns even at the cost of increased crime (see Washington D.C. and Chicago for example). That they tried less drastic measures and they failed will be one of the reason given for the more harsh measures which follow.

Microstamping of firearms, at this point in time, would be a great burden on manufactures. But I believe I have solutions to all the problems mentioned by NSSF as issues for manufactures. All those issues can be solved with a few changes in their processes. If so, then the promise of only adding a dollar or two to the price of the gun might become a reality. It will take some time and it will cost money to make the changes but ultimately it won't be major obstacle to microstamping. I'm not going to provide those answers here because it does no one any good. If I can come up with the answers in less than a day then so can a lot of other people.

As much as I would like for all manufactures to follow STI and Barrett's lead in refusing to do business with California and other anti-gun states the lure of having a less competitive market will mean some manufacture will fill the void. If there is a demand then someone will supply it. Just as with recreational drugs the price will be above free market levels and the quality may be lower but the demand will be filled. Once the boycott, if it ever becomes that, is broken by one or two manufactures then others will probably fold as well. The only question will be whether the manufactures will make guns specifically for sale in those anti-gun states or will they continue to sell non-microstamped guns in other states. I think the answer to that will depend on the "people of the gun". Will we pay a premium for an non-microstamped gun and/or will we mount an effective boycott against the manufactures that sell into the anti-gun states? I don't know the answer to that.

Conclusion

I'm left without a strong argument against microstamping and I'm afraid ultimately our legislatures will be too. It won't make a measurable change in the solving of crimes but it won't hurt the non-criminal gun owner much either. I can't make a case for it violating the Jews in the Attic Test because I claim the technology can be easily defeated. I don't like it because it is worthless and it gives validity to "reasonable government restrictions" on firearms. Ultimately it will lead to government restrictions on defacing the microstamping just as the existing laws against destroying the serial numbers of firearms. The replacement parts will ultimately be tracked and even if you purchase a gun through a private sale without a 4473 being filled out the repair of the firearm, even on your own kitchen table, will result in your gun being, again, tied to you. But this incremental firearm registration will be not be a sufficient hurdle to block it's passage in the legislatures.

I believe the bottom line is that in order to stop state legislation mandating the microstamping of firearms we will mount an effective boycott of those manufactures that sell into those states. Against Federal legislation we will have essentially no defense.

I've been doing a little research into microstamping. High emotions on either side are not productive. I've tried to gather facts and sources for your own research.

This was instigated at the suggestion of Justthisguy in the comments.

First off I would like to point out there are two types of microstamping. Neither of which should be confused with "ballistic fingerprints".

The Technologies

Ballistic Fingerprints are Dead for Now

"Ballistics fingerprints" are a system where law enforcement obtains a bullet and cartridge casing from the manufacture for every new gun. Maryland and New York have passed laws requiring this and at last check not a single crime had been solved with this additional data and Maryland State Police were advising the money should be spent on something more effective.

Microstamping of Bullets

This concept is about putting matching serial numbers on the bullet, shell casing, and bullet box. Of course there would have to be a database that tracked the bullets from manufacture to the end user. It is impractical for many reasons.

I don't expect this to go anywhere in the immediate future.

Microstamping of Firearms

This is about putting unique codes (essentially a serial number) on the firing pin, breach face, ejector and extractor. Typically you will hear the example of the firing pin being marked but actually there will be markings in other places as well. Some people pretend it's a secret where these markings will be. Anyplace that strikes or presses against the shell casing is a potential location for imprinting the codes. This includes inside the chamber but those marking are at high risk of being sheared or smeared away in semi-autos during the extraction while there is still some pressure in the barrel and casing.

These codes will correspond to the serial number of the gun. The manufacture of the gun will be required to cooperate with law enforcement to find the distributor->retailer->initial buyer -- just like current firearm traces when law enforcement has the make, model, and serial number of a firearm.

This technology poses the greatest potential to be generally implemented and California passed such a law on October 13, 2007. This law mandates the technology be used on all new firearms sold in California beginning on January 1, 2010. It requires the microscopic codes be put in two or more places such they are transferred to the cartridge case.

For more information see Wikipedia on microstamping.

The Debate

Overview

The claimed benefit of the proposed technologies is the promise of making it easier to solve crimes committed with firearms.

The arguments against the use of the technology center on the ease of a criminal defeating the technology, the difficulty of manufacturers implementing it, the risk of innocent people being framed, and the increased costs to all gun owners.

Anti-gun advocates

Gun control advocate appear to be in favor of any restrictions on firearms and are in favor of all of the technologies. See also microstamping webpages for The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence and the Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence and their PowerPoint presentation.

Pro-gun advocates

This report on a paper from UC Davis provides some support for the case against microstamping of firearms but probably made a lot of errors and should not be considered strong evidence for the case against microstamping.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation, Inc. has a document on microstamping that outlines the problems from the manufacturer's viewpoint and the Association of Firearms and Toolmarks Examiners, and that it will not reduce crime. Other documents I found on the NSSF site probably have serious flaws and shouldn't be used as reference material.

Technology advocates

Todd Lizotte is a co-inventor of firearms microstamping. Here is a video of him describing and demonstrating the technology. He also commented on David E. Petzal's Field and Stream blog. I have extracted his comments from this blog and uploaded them here. One of his arguments is the following (a copy and paste with typos intact):

I am not sure a defensive strategy to protecting rights has ever worked. A proactive stretgy always keeps the fight off in the distance. Microstamping does not change the status quo, all data is at the manufacturer. No registration, no licensing and no imaging.

What many people are not aware of is there is a new 3D mapping imaging system being produced. We helped successfully defeat ballistic imaging for new firearms, however the ATF and its vendor are not giving up, the ATF has a $500 Million system in place for linking current ballistic imaging data from crime labs. The company who built that system, located in Quebec, needs to expand its market, it needs to capture the new firearm market.

The old system they built can not accurately imaging new firearms, however it is possible for the new 3D system to work at a much larger expense.

Microstamping neutralizes the need for imaging all togther.

In the end I am for being proactive, instead of being reactive.

If you want to see how bad it could really get, google 3D ballistic imaging and see how costly that system will be, since that system will require all info on the pruchaser and firearm to be entered into a government controlled criminal database.

I am not sure most people understand this fact.

Microstamping is a perfect technology --- completely benign and all data remains at the firearm manufacturer.

In essence of what he is saying is the alternative to microstamping the firearm is a much more expensive version of the "ballistic fingerprint" system implemented with better technology and the associated additional databases.

Conclusions

Because no new database is required, only an additional entry in the manufacturer's database with the serial number, firearm microstamping gets around a number of the arguments against "ballistics fingerprints" and bullet/casing microstamping. For this reason I expect the anti-gun people to push this technology the hardest and have the most success with it.

The best argument against microstamping of firearms is the manufacturing process does not lend itself to serialization of multiple parts. The firing pins are made by some supplier, the extractors, ejectors, and slides by other companies. The manufacture of the gun itself may just assemble the pieces. Each of the serialized parts must be matched with the frame that has the actual official firearm serial number. The code on these serialized parts are not visible without a microscope and all would have to be verified and recorded in database during the assembly process. This will make it expensive and error prone. This argument will not gain much traction with the anti-gun people because increasing the expense of firearms is not regarded as a problem.

The next best argument is probably that criminals can easily defeat the technology. This seems indisputable. Changing of firing pins, extractors, ejectors, and barrels is commonplace in the gun community. A few minutes with an grinding stone on a Dremel tool will obliterate the laser etching without affecting the functioning of the firearm. The counter arguments are somewhat weak; 1) Criminals aren't very smart; and 2) There are redundant markings.

The framing of innocent people is probably the weakest of the arguments against firearm microstamping. The powder residue and other forensic evidence will eliminate most planted shell casing from the real shell cases involved in the crime. Multiple stampings from reloaded shell cases also are probably easily eliminated with the available forensic evidence. It will slow down the process however, but probably no more than it would if they were to do it with existing forensic technology and this appears to be a non-problem. Of course this assumes the prosecutors and law enforcement are forthright and trustworthy in dealing with the evidence. I am inclined to believe this is generally the case but the actual instances of unethical actions of our government officials is much higher than I am comfortable with.

Pretty Pictures

The following pictures are from Forensic Technology and show the level of detail possible with modern microscopes.

Update: The following pictures are from The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence's PowerPoint presentation:

Primer after 2500 rounds through a Thompson SMG.
Glock firing pin after 1400 rounds (image reversed).
Primer from a Glock after 1400 rounds.

Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM) image from Glock showing smearing of the primer.

Via Sebastain we have this awesome picture. I love the balls of water suspended in the air. Today we can see things that a 100 years ago people probably didn't even imagine.

An individual would need intimate knowledge of firearms and microstamping, plus the appropriate tools, in order to render the technology ineffective. These tools are certainly not "household items," nor would the common street criminal be expected to have the knowledge necessary to defeat the technology.

[...]

One can also imagine the scene at a shooting range as criminals or gang members wander around and gather spent cartridge cases in bags. Conspicuous? One would certainly think so, and Americans should expect the owners of such ranges to engage in more responsible business practices.

Coalition to Stop Gun Violence & the Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence
Microstamping Technology: Precise and Proven
[Another example of the anti-gun bigots being clueless about the real world. Apparently they haven't heard of a Dremel tool or picking up your brass for reloading.--Joe]

From the Washington Post, Studies Say Clearing Land for Biofuels Will Aid Warming:

One study -- written by a group of researchers from Princeton University, Woods Hole Research Center and Iowa State University along with an agriculture consultant -- concluded that over 30 years, use of traditional corn-based ethanol would produce twice as much greenhouse gas emissions as regular gasoline. Another analysis, written by a Nature Conservancy scientist along with University of Minnesota researchers, found that converting rainforests, peatlands, savannas or grasslands in Southeast Asia and Latin America to produce biofuels will increase global warming pollution for decades, if not centuries.

Also in the same article:

There is an urgent need for policy that ensures biofuels are not produced on productive forest, grassland or cropland.

Oh, so you expect you can just start growing corn or some other high energy crop on a bare, wind swept rock?

And finally this:

This is a good way of showing where we are, not where we're going to be," said Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), who is chairman of a House global warming panel and who helped write the energy legislation. Noting that the measure set benchmarks requiring any new ethanol plants to produce a fuel that is 20 percent more efficient than gasoline, and even more stringent standards for advanced biofuels,

I have a sneaking suspicious they misspelled that guys name. I'm thinking it should be Malarkey.

Ethanol has less energy content that gasoline. Unless they can produce something other than ethanol from the biomass the end result is they are doing the equivalent of legislating PI is equal to 3.00.

I'm laughing all the way to the bank.

If only I could have convinced Barb when we were in the baby making business we needed some help:

LONDON (Reuters) - British scientists have created human embryos with three parents in a development they hope could lead to effective treatments for a range of serious hereditary diseases within five years.

Researchers from Newcastle University, in northern England, presented their findings at a medical conference at the weekend, a university spokeswoman said on Tuesday.

The IVF, or test-tube, embryos were created using DNA from one man and two women.

Both women have could carried babies that were from all three of us. However great an idea I think this is I am sure Barb will manage to find some fault with it. She is kinda funny that way.

Ry reports on a new Army sniping record from Afghanistan by a Arfcom member. Awesome!

If you are wondering at all the amazing sniping shots coming out of Afghanistan you aren't alone. I knew the high altitude would make a difference but I didn't know exactly how much until I ran some numbers through Modern Ballistics. Below you see the numbers for the .50 BMG shooting a high end bullet/cartridge with a gun zeroed at sea level for 1000 yards at a target at 2300 yards (2100 meters) away for various altitudes. Notice the difference in expected group size as the altitudes goes from 0 to 10000 feet. Notice the windage difference. All those things help but still, the shooter and spotter had to be top notch and have a little luck as well. Assuming a target of 18 inches wide and 24 inches tall the altitude difference changed the odds of a hit from about 10% to 20% (not shown).

Good job SnakeaterM24!

Firearm: Default
Cartridge: .50 BMG HMI with 750 gr. A-MAX
Conditions: Standard Conditions.
Range: 2300
Altitude (ft):           0   1000   2000   3000   4000   5000   6000   7000   8000  10000

Interesting. They are making it into a chain. I wonder if they will be opening a "store" in Nevada. Not that Dr. Joe would have anything more than academic interest or maybe buying some stock.

Contrary to what this web page says, Craig Eisler did have something to say about the feral child they found in the Word source code.

Crag and the Mac Office team are in a different building from our son James who also works on Office but I'll still ping him to see if he knows anything more about the incident.

Most Yahoo employees will feel that, A., we lost, and B., there is no way in hell that I am going to work for Microsoft.

Former Yahoo employee who wishes to remain anonymous
Microsoft and Yahoo!: Happily Ever After?
[After they get their Borg implants and take a couple swigs of Microsoft Brainwash they'll be fine.--Joe]

We have two cell phones on the same account.  My wife lost her phone while traveling.  I told her to go to a "Big Giant Phone Company" booth in any town and get another phone.  Big Giant Phone Company calls me, with her standing there, and wants a copy of my driver's license.  Great - they're protecting me against fraud.  I fax them my license while on the phone with them.  All is OK.  They hand my wife her new phone and she can now make and receive calls on her old number.

But there's a problem.  This new phone is booby-trapped.  They had all her account information, they set up her new phone and personally handed it to her after having verified my account identity.  But she can't get any of the many voice-mail messages that are pouring in, and she’s at a Big Expensive Out-Of-Town Convention and all.

They HANDED HER a new phone IN PERSON that doesn't work.  She the user, is forced to set up the voice mail.  But that can be done ONLY AT CERTAIN TIMES of the day and ONLY if she has my Social Security Number (already faxed them my GD driver's license).

Dear, Big Giant Phone Company,  Why do you harass and attempt to thwart your customers with this idiocy?  What do you think WE the paying customers have to gain from being harassed and thwarted by you?  Why should I ever spend another nickel with you if I can avoid it?

And while I’m venting:  Why does Verizon need a 37 digit account number, when anyone is this country of over 300 million can reach me with my 10 digit phone number?  Can you say, DUUHH!?

We've all head the news about the satellite that's going to make reentry some day soon.  They say it's a spy satellite and that it contains hazardous materials.  I don't know what that tells most people, but to me, even the term "spy satellite" says, "nuclear power on board".  So, is that uranium or plutonium?  I guess it would have been too much trouble to go and either refuel the bird's rockets, or at least remove the fissionable material?

There are some aspects of security the government is and should be responsible for. But when you give the government too much "responsibility" (power) it becomes a source of insecurity. Guns are probably the example most of my readers will readily identify with. The government has a need for weapons but it must never have a monopoly on weapons. To do so would change the fundamental relationship between a free people and their government.

Information is a weapon as well. Giving the government too much information puts innocent people at risk. Read IBM and the Holocaust or for a hint read my Jews in the Attic Test and think about it a little bit.

Here we get still another glimpse of why governments collecting data on people is risky:

Here's an ugly prediction that you can take to the bank: as the amount of data that the feds collect on innocent civilians grows, so will the number of people who are victims of crimes that were made possible by unauthorized access to a government database. I'm not just talking about identity theft, though that is a huge danger with Real ID, but violent crimes as well. As I explained in the OneDOJ post linked above, this prediction is just Metcalfe's Law at work:

This is, of course, a fundamental problem inherent in the very nature of any massive, centralized government data-sharing plan that spans multiple agencies and connects untold numbers of state and federal law enforcement officers: the usefulness of such a system to any one individual (a white hat or a black hat) grows roughly with the square of the number of participants who are using it to share data (Metcalfe's law). So the more white hats that any of these programs manage to connect to each other, the more useful the network as a whole will be to the small handful of black hats who gain access to it at any point.

There is another ugly prediction you can take to the bank when these incidents happen: The politicians will always propose solutions that involve more money and more power being handed over to the government.

Sebastian tells us about a Random Conversation About Fingerprinting. A woman (who happens to be very anti-gun) doesn't want to get her fingerprints taken just so she can be a crossing guard near a school. Sebastian compares it to gun owners exercising constitutionally guaranteed rights having to submit fingerprints first. Which leads to his observation:

What goes around, comes around. You can’t expect to empower the state to take away liberty from people you find undesirable, and then expect the state to respect your liberty when you end up in the cross hairs. When you find yourself in that situation, the people who’s liberties have already been trampled on may not be sympathetic enough to help you.

Of course this reminded me of the famous Niemoller quote and I mentioned it in the comments and figured that will be the end of it. But then commenter ParatrooperJJ says the FBI just checks the fingerprints and discards them after they come back clean. That set off my alarms because just a few days ago this came out:

FBI effort will build biggest biometric database

The FBI i