They’re biding their time

As expected, via the Washington Post:

“Unless we get some leadership from the White House, we’re not going to take this kind of political damage bringing up something that would never become law,” said Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-Tex.), a gun-control advocate.

They are just waiting until after the 2008 election. They want to win the White House first. Then they will go after our guns.

Quote of the day–Francis L. Wellman

But as yet no substitute has ever been found for cross-examination as a means of separating truth from falsehood, and of reducing exaggerated statements to their true dimensions.

Francis L. Wellman
The Art of Cross-Examination
[I have lots of falsehood and exaggerated statements to wade through in the PNNL case. There is so much of it that there won’t be anything of substance left when I’m done with their so-called “evidence”. I disposed of probably half of it during my deposition. The rest will tossed in the trash during the course of discovery. It’s a very, very “target rich environment”.–Joe]

It’s all about feeling safe

From The Roanoke Times January 31, 2006:

A bill that would have given college students and employees the right to carry handguns on campus died with nary a shot being fired in the General Assembly.

Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker was happy to hear the bill was defeated. “I’m sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly’s actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus.”

As the evidence from today illustrates it was not actual safety. Just feeling safe. Feeling safe yielded the largest mass shooting in US history. A bunch of people lost their lives today because some politicians deprived the people of their right to keep and bear arms. Those politicians should be tried for accessory to murder.

[Thanks to Jerry. I did little more than copy and paste his email to make this post.]

Quote of the day–James Huffman-Scott

No mercy. No quarter.

James Huffman-Scott
[After hearing of the unethical and illegal behaviors of PNNL in my lawsuit. I have substantial evidence they did not begin to comply with our interrogatory. My blogging will be light until I have taken them down. The trial is scheduled for the end of January.–Joe]

Quote of the day–Joe Lockhart

From the position of the federal government, we would acknowledge that there are limits to what we can do. But there certainly should be no limits to what we try to do.

Joe Lockhart
White House spokesman
April 22, 1999
Regarding Federal role in stopping school violence (two days after Littleton CO school shooting).
[No limits? Even if they try to violate the constitution? I’m get a really bad feeling about this kind of talk.–Joe]

Deposition results

My Quote of the Day for yesterday was Sean wishing me “good hunting” in the deposition. That was very nice and even encouraging. But either Sean was unaware of the roles being played or he was supremely confident of my abilities. I was being asked questions for hours. I was the hunted, I was not the hunter. I’m certain that is how the PNNL lawyer saw the game being played. I viewed it as just a swamp I had to cross to get to the meadow on the other side when we can start doing our own hunting.

In a book I read about employment law and wrongful termination lawsuits the author, a lawyer specializing in employment law, said dispositions were the worst part. You are made to feel like crap. It’s the job of the opposing lawyer to do that. It’s distasteful and he couldn’t imagine anyone feeling good about things when it was over. My lawyer wasn’t that negative about it. He said I should be myself. I should tell the truth not only because it is legally required of me but because of the impression one makes when they try to be something other than what they really are.

When my lawyer told me this I doubted that he knew what that really meant to me. But I smiled and said I would do that. This advice was consistent with what my friend Eric Engstrom told me. Eric testified for Microsoft in one the anti-trust lawsuits the DOJ brought against them. Exec after exec testified and one by one the DOJ lawyer tore them to shreds. While Eric waited his turn to testify he made numerous trips to the bathroom and vomited. When Eric got on the stand he didn’t hold back. He didn’t try to conceal, give partial answers, or put a spin on things. He was blunt, he was outrageous, he was Eric Engstrom in his most candid and natural form. The same Eric Engstrom who once said to me, “I will consider myself rich when I’m standing on the moon with the sunlight reflecting off my visor as I’m looking at my initials carved into the soil. They will be big enough and deep enough that when people on the earth look up they can see I was there.”

The day after Eric’s testimony the newspaper articles told of Eric being the “white knight” that rode to the rescue. Eric told me that after the first couple of questions he had fun. It was something like “Whoo hooo! Can we do that again?” And they would. The lawyer who had littered the landscape with the bodies of Microsoft executives keep pitching what he thought were hardball questions to only have Eric do a line drive with them straight into the lawyers forehead. The court audience was laughing, the judge was laughing. Everyone, except the DOJ, was laughing.

Eric has a multiple IQ point advantage on me. In private we are probably both equally outrageous. In public Eric keeps it much more under wraps than I do. I, almost for certain, had a larger attack surface for my opponent to work with than Eric did. But my lawyer opponent isn’t the DOJ’s finest either.

I think it went well. As Barb and I lay in bed tonight and she went to sleep I keep going over and over in my mind how things went. Good, I think. Maybe even very good. There was that one time when I knowingly told a fib (by my definition, probably not in the legal sense). I just wasn’t sure how else to handle it. I’ll explain. Ignore the following techno babble unless you are a geek or one of PNNL’s lawyers who needs to read my blog as part of his or her job.

I was asked how I deleted the images of the PNNL hard disk I created on my own computer with the DVDs they gave us. They later demanded we give the DVDs back and delete any copies made. I told them I used a DOS prompt and typed “rd /s “, waited until it had finished removing all the files and all the subdirectories, I then ran a disk-wipe program that wrote zeros over the entire empty space on the hard disk. This latter step would assure that even a sector-by-sector read of where the original information would come up zeros. My opponent asked something to the effect, “So is there anyway that information could be recovered?” He asked an absolute question, my lawyer told me to interpret the questions literally, I was in full literal mode. I said, “It’s virtually impossible.” I had blurted out the truth and I knew he would jump on it before I finished saying it. Perhaps I could have said it differently, but I didn’t take the time to think about it. My mistake. I was also told to take my time before answering. He came back with “VIRTUALLY impossible? So it could be recovered in some way?” I then had to explain. I believed that the NSA has the equipment and skills to still recover the data. Perhaps some other agencies. It requires going down to the analog signal level and recovering the entire waveform of the magnetic field. It supposedly is possible to recover the lower level signal of the original data for some time after it has been overwritten. He asked if I had the capability to do that. I told him no. It was beyond my capability. That true answer depends on your definition of “capability”. I had some choices in answering that question. I could ask him for his definition of capability. Did he mean technical capability given a year or two of time and a couple $100K in equipment, racing against the time when the original signal on the hard disk would be completely faded into the noise? Given the ramp up time on my analog signal processing skills (I already have a MSEE but it would take some time to get back up to speed) and the required equipment did I think I had the capability to win the race? The most truthful answer is “Maybe”. It would be tough, but there is a non-zero chance I could do that given the procedure I had followed in the deletion. If you definition “capability” as me currently having the skills, the time, and the equipment to recover the data then the answer I gave is correct. I decided that I would take the risk–I would define “capability” in the manner that would put an end to this line of pointless questioning rather than prolong it without benefiting anyone except the lawyers sitting there getting paid by the hour.

As I lay in bed mulling the above issue over I realized that though I thought I was being somewhat evasive at the time I probably was actually telling the truth. I had forgotten that every Friday night my hard disk is automatically defragmented. During the week there are lots of additional files created and deleted as I compile programs, work on my websites, edit pictures, RIP music, download new audio books, etc. The new files and the deletions of files causes fragmentation. The defragmentation every Friday night physically moves data around on the disk. It temporarily moves parts of files to distant places on the disk to make room for a complete file in the now open spot. It move the temporary parts back into a position where it is contiguous with the rest of the file. The original magnetic image of their precious hard disks has already been at least partially overwritten with unknown and unknowable data. It has been scrambled far worse than I what I originally did. Each week more of it gets overwritten and more scrambled. I don’t believe I could recover it even if I had all the equipment right now. I certainly couldn’t recover all of it.

Other than worrying some over the above issue it was a fine day. No real surprises for me. He asked a lot of questions that I thought were pointless. In essence there was a lot of me saying “Yes, I did that, so what?” and “Yes, I wrote that, and your point is?” I suspect my opponent was surprised a time or two. But it’s tough for me to read people so I don’t want to claim I won any “points” unless he actually concedes them–which he did not. He was doing his job and I think he did as good a job as he could given the material he had to work with. I didn’t really notice my own stress until meal time. My appetite wasn’t quite normal. Not nearly as bad as putting on a Boomershoot, but it was noticeable.

Although it will be a while before I get to actually hunt, I should be able to acquire my hunting license by tonight.

Cap & Ball, Black Powder Freeze Frame

Here is the moment of cap ignition, all by itself.  Note the little puff of smoke coming from the back of the cylinder– its from a supersonic explosion.  View the whole sequence here.

 

We had some fun that day.  We also discovered that 12 gauge slugs REALLY pick up and throw bowling pins off the table, but for speed shooting nothing beats heavy buckshot.

Deposition time

It’s been very busy for me recently. Lots of prep for Boomershoot, the lawsuit, and… something else… oh yeah! Work has been busy too. As they say however… there’s lots of time to sleep when you are dead.

I’m on my way to Yakima to give my deposition in the lawsuit against the bigots and felons at PNNL. Then on Friday we argue before the judge about access to the hard disk images. I’ll keep you posted as best I can.

Quote of the day–Mac Johnson

It’s hard to argue with the mayor when one looks at the cold hard facts: today’s murder rate is just 26% higher than it was when the gun ban was put in place in 1978, down from a peak of just 128% higher in 1991 before a nationwide decline in crime driven by demographics took hold. With results like that, I’m not sure D.C. can afford to have its gun violence “decreased” any further.

Mac Johnson
Court Rediscovers 2nd Amendment, Liberals Fear Other ‘Rights’ May Soon be Found
March 15, 2007
[And the D.C. bigots are appealing the overthrowing of their gun ban.–Joe]

Quote of the day–Christopher Hitchens

What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.

Christopher Hitchens
October 30, 2003
Mommie Dearest in Slate
[Son James brought up this quote in a conversation we had this evening. While the quote in it’s original form was not about gun control the principle is sound in both domains. And it’s the concept is behind my Just One Question.–Joe]

Quote of the day–Sean Flynn

You’d be so much more dangerous after law school. Barb may have saved the world from… I’m not sure what. It would be scary.

Sean Flynn
April 9, 2007 17:28
[I once told Sean that I had briefly considered going to law school. That idea was quickly quashed when Barb threatened to divorce me if I did. She accuses me of already being too argumentative (I object to that accusation!).–Joe]

Reinstating Freedom?

My son recently returned from a trip to the DC/NYC area.  He had a great time, other than the three hours he spent in a plane at JFK, due to an undefined “security breach” and of course having to go through several check points along the way.  Oh, and he had a pair of toy handcuffs (they have no lock and no key, among other differences from the real thing) confiscated from him at one of these checkpoints.  Somebody dodged a major threat to society there– a 13 year-old student on a trip with fellow students, smuggling toy handcuffs.

After talking with him about this at length, and remembering the fact that I had been in DC, NYC, and other places around the country years ago, complete with multiple knives, without a single checkpoint involved, I posed this question to my family:

What would it take for our society, our country, to eliminate security checkpoints within our own borders?

For some people, it is a hateful, disturbing question, not least because they like the idea of checkpoints.  For others, there will be varying, even diametrically opposed answers.  I know the answer (yup, little ol’ me) but after getting hostility directed at me in return for having said it, I’ll just pose the question and have people think about it for a while.  Hint: Joe’s April 7th QOTD.

I suppose that in order to ponder the question, you, like me, would have to actually want to travel your own country without being treated like a potential criminal, or feeling as though you’re in France and the year is 1942.

Maybe I’ll post my own short, sweet answer later.

Update: Just to make it more clear, the question is about the sort of changes we would need to make in our society, and in our government policies.

Boomershoot WiFi

I’ve upgraded the Boomershoot Internet wireless capabilities to where I want them. I now have an Internet connection at the explosives magazine:

Ahhh…. shelter, guns, explosives, electricity, an Internet connection, a little food and water and all I need is, well… let’s just say Barbara.

Here is a crude partial map of the signal strength. I was way overdue to be home and didn’t have time to do a very good job on it. I had planned to walk the area but instead drove around in the van. I suspect the neighbors figured I was crazier than they already thought I was. The signal inside the van isn’t as going to be as good as if you were in a tent or just set up at your shooting station. There are two access points with the SSIDs of Boomershoot1 and Boomershoot2. Boomershoot1 is illuminating most of the area with Boomershoot2 just hitting the western quarter of what you see in the map. This gives the people in shooting positions 63 through 70 a signal. Although it’s not on the map Boomershoot2 is primarily to get signal to the explosives magazine and I was able to tweak it enough to get the west end of the shooting area.

The line of signal strength measurement at the south through the center of the picture is right next to the shooting berm. Further to the east I dipped down into the actual shooting positions in the .50 Caliber Ghetto.

Here is the Taj Mahal with it’s wireless antenna fully installed:

Quote of the day–Gun Guys

…it’s completely legal almost everywhere for any gun owner to sell a firearm to anyone else without any background check at all. If you have a gun, you can sell it at a gun show, through the newspaper, or even online, without any sort of background check at all.

It’s currently legal to own weapons like the .50 caliber sniper rifle, weapons that no civilian should ever be allowed to have.

Murder isn’t legal– unless you’re in a state with a License to Murder law, and you can claim that you “felt threatened” before you pulled the trigger.

In 48 states, it’s completely legal to tote around a loaded firearm beneath your clothes.

And yet none of these people have broken the law. They’re getting away with it– but because our laws are so loose, they’re doing it completely and totally legally.

Gun Guys
April 6, 2007
Via email with the subject: “Gun Guys: Getting Away With Not Breaking the Law”
[I find it very telling that he has a problem with people getting away with not breaking the law. It reminds me of this quote by Ayn Rand.–Joe]