Never do anything against conscience even if the state demands it.
Albert Einstein
Social engineering and Security Theater at it’s finest
Via Bruce we find, once again, that if you look and act like you belong you can belong:
The skit had been approved by ABC lawyers, but it had been assumed they would be stopped at the first checkpoint, hundreds of metres from the President’s hotel.
Instead, they were waved through the first checkpoint, then a second that had sniffer dogs. They eventually stopped in sight of the hotel.
The ABC later released a statement saying the team had no intention of entering a restricted zone and had been wearing mock “insecurity passes” that stated the convoy was a joke.
“It was a piece testing APEC security and the motorcade looked pretty authentic,” the Chaser source said.
“They approached the green zone, and they just waved them through – much to their amazement, because the sketch was meant to stop there with them being rejected.
“They were then waved through into the red zone, but rather than go all the way through they made the call to turn around.”
“Apparently that was the first time the police realised it was not authentic and they swooped in and arrested everybody.”
This is the funnest part to me:
“The police only detained the Chaser motorcade when it was turning around and after Chas Licciardello emerged from a car dressed as Osama bin Laden.”
Good security is extremely difficult. It only takes one weak link to break the chain. But had APEC security been part of a Hollywood movie it would have been in the series The Keystone Cops. Again, from real life:
LAST week, a butter knife was a handy dining implement. This week, it seems, APEC security staff have declared knives and forks as potential terrorist weapons.
On the same day police won a court battle to stop protesters marching down George Street through the APEC security zone, it emerged yesterday that at least one cafe near George Bush’s hotel has been ordered by police not to set outdoor tables with silverware, lest it fall into the wrong hands.
And office workers in Bridge Street’s AMP tower have been told to stay away from the windows, draw the blinds and not to look at helicopters.
[…]
“On Monday an APEC security officer asked us to limit our outdoor furniture. He said if you are setting a table, don’t set it with knives and forks because they can be used as a potential weapon by terrorists.”
[…]
On Tuesday night, about an hour before Mr Bush arrived at his hotel, a police officer approached a Herald reporter and demanded to see what he had written in his notebook.
He told the reporter other police in the area might make similar demands. Two minutes later another officer made the same request.
Security Theater at it’s finest.
Quote of the day–Ray Ozzie
I fear we are partying like it is 1984.
Ray Ozzie
Microsoft Chief Software Architect
September 6, 2007
Company Meeting 2007–Changing the world
[Ozzie talked about growing up in the 60’s and being in fear of “the man” and how the personal computer was believed to help restore power to the individual. He asked us to make sure private things could be kept private even when we are putting more and more information into “the cloud”. It was good stuff. I had planned to write up a big post on the meeting last night but got wrapped up in expressing my “sympathy” to Robyn.–Joe]
Xenia had a migraine
Both Kim and Xenia appear to have inherited something besides their good looks from their mother. For several years Barb has had headaches that didn’t quite qualify as migraines but were stubborn and painful. Kim had some mild migraines, if there is such a thing, in High School. Last night Xenia had one. A scary event because it involved her loosing her vision in one eye for a while. She posted about it on her Live Journal. I wouldn’t have normally linked to that post but the video she made brought a smile to my face.
Sympathy for Robyn Ringler
There has been quite a bit of talk about Ms. Ringler, the anti-rights activist, recently:
Mostly because of the Enough is Enough post by Ringler. If it is really true as she reports, “I’ve been told I should be dead and how my death should take place.” then I have some sympathy for her on that one point. If not directly, then almost for certain indirectly, I contributed to her feelings being hurt after being called a bigot.
I debated with myself how to write this post which is part of why I am so behind the curve on the topic. I considered doing an Alex St. John type “apology” (read the book) which resulted in his immediate termination of employment at Microsoft (he knew it would and IIRC cleaned out his desk before pushing the “Send” button on the apology email). I finally decided that there was a better approach.
First a taste of the Alex St. John approach–Ms. Ringler, I’m sorry. I forgot to mention you are a felon as well as a bigot.
In one sense I really don’t like hurting other people’s feelings–especially children and women. I feel empathy for them and I’m certain others that we might like to have on our side will feel empathy toward them as well. But how much sympathy should one have for those that don’t want “colored people” eating in the same restaurant as “white folk” or drinking from the same drinking fountain, or are not allowed access to the public swimming pool because “they would have to drain and clean the pool after the blacks had used it”?
How much sympathy do you feel for a KKK or Aryan Nation type person that gets ostracized in their community for their bigotry and leaves town? Or the bully at school that finally gets caught in the act and is disciplined? Ms. Ringler, of course, does not think of herself as a bigot. I’m certain she thinks of herself as just looking out for what is best for everyone. But the KKK think the same things about themselves. Ringler hasn’t said she wants us dead or living our lives as slaves. And I’m certain she hasn’t put a pillow case over her head and burned crosses in the yards of anyone’s home. She is much more refined than that. She just wants the government to put us in jail for exercising a right constitutionally guaranteed to not be infringed (refer to numerous state constitutions if she whines that the Federal Constitution doesn’t really say that–many state constitutions are not in the least bit ambiguous). She wouldn’t want to get her own hands dirty dealing with scum like us.
This last point may be why she is turning off the comments. As one person commented maybe she doesn’t want to be associated with people like me in any way.
What we have here, in the case of Ringler, is her experiencing what I call the proper state of mind for defending the RKBA. We are just “gun niggers” in her mind and she has just realized we are going to stand up to her and Ringler is feeling the same pain as the old man in the book Negros with Guns who said (page 10):
God damn, God damn, what is this God damn country coming to that the niggers have got guns, the niggers are armed and the police can’t even arrest them!
To Ms. Ringler I say, again, I’m sorry if you received death threats or people said you should be dead. That was entirely inappropriate. The law provides for the death penalty for your type of crime only if it results in the death, kidnapping, or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill. I don’t believe you made it that far in your conspiracy against the rights of others and hence I believe the worst punishment that should be dealt to you is a fine and perhaps a few years in prison. But you don’t have any of my sympathy for having your feelings hurt. As Xavier said, “……….Oh good grief. Grow up.“
Gun Owners Without Borders
Looking up Alan’s web page for my previous post I took a look at his blog for the first time in quite a while. Not because it rarely deserves my attention but because his stuff is frequently long and I postpone reading it “until I have more time” and then that just never happens. But this post thrills me. A sample:
Gun Owners Without Borders is a proposal for a new international human rights organization.
Gun Owners Without Borders recognizes a bond between individual human beings whose right to live is challenged by their governments or other forces.
Gun Owners Without Borders supports an inalienable right of people to resist any attempts to exterminate them, regardless of the source or justification for the attempted extermination.
Current United Nations policies do not prevent genocide and democide, because a nation’s sovereignty logically comes first. Internal policies are a nation’s own business. This holds true whether the rulers are elected, appointed, inherited or in charge through force of arms.
Gun Owners Without Borders recognizes that this is perfectly understandable and a normal state of affairs under the nation-state system.
Communist China, for example, could shoot its citizens who are drug addicts, or for political reasons, or to harvest organs or to turn babies over for adoption (and they do). The U.N. and others might object, or not, but it’s not within their realm to stop such abuse. Nor could they, as a practical matter, if they were of a mind to.
Gun Owners Without Borders therefore understands it falls only to individual persons to defend their own right to their own lives if they can, even if such defense would be viewed as illegal or criminal acts by the ruling parties. Under the doctrine of state sovereignty, anyone who shoots back at an agent of the government is by definition typically an “outlaw.”
If you ever think we have the gun-rights situation in the U.S. under control and you are looking for a more challenging political environment I’m sure there will be enough work available on this planet for a generation or ten of gun-rights activists.
It’s just a condition–NOT
Uncle reports they can’t help it. It’s just a condition. Jed read the report and took away that people “become deaf to arguments of reason”.
I think it’s a fascinating insight into the human mind. And my take is different from both Uncle and Jed. My take is that we need to carefully word things to avoid reinforcing the very lies the anti-gun bigots are trying to convince people of. This is very closely related to something Alan Korwin shared via email over seven years ago. Here is just a sample of Alan’s brilliant, ahead of his time, insight:
Certain words hurt you when you’re talking about your rights. People who would deny your rights have done a good job of manipulating the language so far. Without even realizing it, you’re probably using terms that actually help the people who want to disarm you.
To preserve, protect and defend your rights in this critical debate, you need effective word choices.
They want you to say (and you lose if you say):
PRO GUN
It’s better to say (and they lose if you say):
PRO RIGHTS
They want you to say (and you lose if you say):
GUN CONTROLIt’s better to say (and they lose if you say):
CRIME CONTROL
They want you to say (and you lose if you say):
ANTI-GUN MOVEMENTIt’s better to say (and they lose if you say):
ANTI-SELF-DEFENSE MOVEMENT
They want you to say (and you lose if you say):
SEMIAUTOMATIC HANDGUNIt’s better to say (and they lose if you say):
SIDEARM
They want you to say (and you lose if you say):
CONCEALED CARRYIt’s better to say (and they lose if you say):
CARRY or RIGHT TO CARRY
They want you to say (and you lose if you say):
ASSAULT OR LETHAL WEAPONIt’s better to say (and they lose if you say):
HOUSEHOLD FIREARMS
They want you to say (and you lose if you say):
SATURDAY NIGHT SPECIALSIt’s better to say (and they lose if you say):
RACIST GUN LAWS
They want you to say (and you lose if you say):
JUNK GUNSIt’s better to say (and they lose if you say):
THE AFFORDABILITY ISSUE
They want you to say (and you lose if you say):
HIGH CAPACITY MAGAZINESIt’s better to say (and they lose if you say):
FULL CAPACITY MAGAZINES
They want you to say (and you lose if you say):
SECOND AMENDMENTIt’s better to say (and they lose if you say):
BILL OF RIGHTS
They want you to say (and you lose if you say):
ANTI GUNIt’s better to say (and they lose if you say):
ANTI-GUN BIGOT or ANTI-GUN PREJUDICE
They want you to say (and you lose if you say):
ANTI GUNIt’s better to say (and they lose if you say):
ANTI RIGHTS
Jason is back in the news
Nephew Jason Scott lost his arm to an IED in Iraq nearly two years ago. He’s back in the news as the first recipient of a scholarship here:
Amputees from the military conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, patients at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, D.C., for the past year have been watching the progress of a new structure as it emerged from what used to be the hospital’s deeply sloped backyard. They are excited, anticipating the opening of the 31,000-sq-ft Military Advanced Training Center, which will help them resume productive lives.
I just love it when they write sexy stuff
Among my daily browsing fare are articles on sex research. I love the tension between the passionate subject and the dispassionate terminology and phraseology. Example:
In addition, male preference for salivary exchange could function to introduce substances such as hormones or proteins into women’s mouths that may influence their mating psychology, and even make them more sexually receptive.
I hope it wasn’t taxpayer money dispensed as research grants to “discover” that a French kiss might make a woman “hot”–even if does provide me with considerable reading enjoyment.
Quote of the day–John Gilmore
The whole conference has spent a lot of time talking about ways to control uses of information and to protect peoples’ privacy after the information was collected. But that only works if you assume a good government. If we get one seriously bad government, they’ll have all the information they need to make an efficient police state and make it the last government. It’s more than convenient for them – in fact, it’s a temptation for people who want to do that, to try to get into power and do it. Because we are giving them the means.
John Gilmore
A transcript of remarks given at the First Conference on Computers, Freedom, and Privacy, March 28,1991
[See also my Jews In The Attic Test.–Joe]
Gun Blogger Rendezvous itinerary
I finally stopped procrastinating and made our travel and hotel reservations for the Rendezvous. I’ll get our registration in to Mr. Completely later today.
We are flying in so that means even if the range would allow “Joe’s special recipe” for reactive targets I’d be blocked by the TSA from bringing my chemistry set.
Barb and I will arrive in Reno on Thursday morning and leave Sunday evening. I’m hoping to see the same participants as last year as well a bunch of new ones. Will you be there?
Enough columns on the spreadsheet
For years Ry and I tested new reactive target recipes for Boomershoot. When our hypothesis for making an explosive which could be easily detonated with long distance rifle fire were proven false Ry would lament that we didn’t have enough columns on our spreadsheet. There was some variable, which we didn’t know existed, that was critical to our understanding of explosive detonation. Literally it was true that I had (have) a spreadsheet with lots of different variables that we thought might be critical to make our explosives better. Some of those included:
- Flammability limits (acceptable ratios of fuel to oxygen where ignition can occur)
- Heat of vaporization
- Specific heats (including those for phase changes)
- Flash point
- Auto ignition temperature
- Heat of combustion per unit mass
- Heat of combustion per unit of oxygen
- Heat of combustion relative to specific heat of the materials
- Temperature of decomposition of the oxidizer
Our experiments yielded no obvious corelation between any of our hypothesises and the real world–until the last couple of days.
The title for the column on the spreadsheet we apparently were looking for is Ω. In explosive engineering terms (rather than electrical engineering terms which is what first comes to mind with that symbol) this is the weight ratio, expressed as a precentage, of the oxygen remaining or required (expressed as a negative number) for complete combustion of all the fuel in the explosives. For example, TNT, C7H5N3O6 has end products of CO, H2O, and N2. That carbon monoxide (CO) could have been converted into carbon dioxide (CO2) and more heat if there had been enough oxygen around. It turns out that Ω for TNT is -74%. For RDX (the active ingredient in C-4), C3H6N6O6, Ω is -21.6%. From my earliest attempts at reactive target explosives I started out with stoichiometric ratios. This would give me the most bang for a given mass of components. That is, no excess fuel and no excess oxygen left over after the reaction was complete. It was ultimately discovered via both experimental results and hints found on the Internet that maximum sensitivity was not achieved with stoichiometric ratios. It was more sensitivity when the explosive was oxygen rich. From some of my “new” books on explosives I found that “Ω” is a measure of that “richness” or “poverty”. I modified my spreadsheet to calculate Ω for various recipes.
Here is a partial (I have three times this number of recorded experiments) table of various Boomerite recipes and my best approximation of Ω:
| Recipe | Ω |
| Boomerite 1998 | 1.2% |
| Boomerite 1999 | 2.4% |
| Boomerite 2001 | 9.2% |
| Boomerite 2002 | 8.3% |
| Boomerite 2003 | 19.4% |
| Boomerite 2006 | 16.2% |
There were other variables that changed as well such as packaging materials, fuel used, ratios of oxidizers, catalysts, size of the particles, and packing density which also affected the sensitivity. But the correlation with Ω is very strong. Each year the sensitivity increased and Ω, a measure of the excess oxygen, was a significant component of that increase in sensitivity. It also can be too high–obviously if there is no fuel at all and only oxiderizer it’s going to be a minor explosion at best. But this gives me a reason to revisit old fuels and try something a little bit different this time.
Side note: The most recent recipe on the web is not what we actually use. What I publish is always at least one “generation” behind our “latest and greatest”. Ω for the web recipe is 20.1%.
Quote of the day–Mac Johnson
But the deeper reason behind the hysteria over the decision is that for decades the left has been able to make the Constitution into whatever it wanted. The actual words did not matter. When words — even just 27 words — mean exactly what they say, then the power to dictate law from a “living” Constitution disappears and liberals are reduced to trying to persuade people that they are right — a daunting task. When a court can decide that the 2nd Amendment must be respected, the left is on a slippery slope indeed. Who knows what amendment might be rediscovered next? Personally, I vote for the 10th. Regardless, if the trend is allowed to continue, it will be a disaster for the dictatorial left. Thus, I predict the decision will be appealed.
Mac Johnson
Court Rediscovers 2nd Amendment, Liberals Fear Other ‘Rights’ May Soon be Found
March 15, 2007
[And, as was recently reported and commented on in various places, Johnson was correct in his prediction–it was appealed.–Joe]
I think I can see the resemblance
Mother/wife and daughters via Xenia:
Good choice of background music
The Brady Bunch has a link to this video about “microstamping” on their website. They ignore obvious and important points of their critics such as:
- Shell casings found at a gun range can be deliberately scattered at a crime scene
- Revolvers don’t leave shell casings at the crime scene unless the shooter reloads
- Replacement firing pins and breech faces would have to be registered and tracked as well as the firearm itself
- Gun parts are easily modified or manufactured
- Firing pins can be manufactured from scrap metal with simple hand tools–they may not last more than a few dozen shots but they should be more than adequate for most crimes
- Breech faces markings can be ground off and/or filled in with metal filled epoxy
- There are many millions of guns already in circulation
- Stolen guns aren’t going to be associated/registered with the criminal who used it in a crime
- A black market will likely develop in unmarked gun components or components that have phony numbers (such as fake SSN cards that have valid numbers but belong to someone else)
One must assume they believe in some sort of supernatural capabilities for this technology that defies the laws of physics and human nature as we know it. But regardless of all the reasons why this scheme could never work the big thing that I noticed while watching this video was the background music–the theme from The X-Files.
The VPC declares victory
If your organization was concerned with reducing violence you would assume you claim victory when violence was reduced after expending your energy to accomplish some task. But that’s not the way it works with the Violence Policy Center. They claim victory when the number of gun dealers is reduced:
The sharp drop in gun dealers is one of the most important—and little noticed—victories in the effort to reduce firearms violence in America. Fewer gun dealers reduces the potential number of sources for high-volume illegal gun trafficking.
I’m pleased to note they report Idaho still has more gun dealers than gas stations however:
America Once Had More Gun Dealers Than Gas Stations, Now Only Five States Do: Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and Wyoming.
As a reminder, it was their buddy former President Bill Clinton and fellow criminals in the legislative bodies obtained an dramatic increase in the price of a Type 1 Federal Firearms License (FFL). This drove hundreds of thousands of dealers out of business and gave the VPC their “victory”.
If the VPC is going to claim victory when the number of gun dealers is reduced instead of when the rate of violence crime is reduced they really should be called the “Victimization Proliferation Conspiracy”.
Did someone say “explode”?
On Hillary and Guns:
If a majority of the Supreme Court upholds the constitutionality of the District’s handgun ban, the NRA and the entire gun community will explode.
Oh, not literally–at least not necessarily.
Hillary needs to cross her fingers and hope that Breyer and Ginsburg can somehow read the 2nd amendment to the constitution as it is actually written and not how the liberals would like it to be written.
Interesting conundrum. According to this analysis if the court comes down on our side regarding the meaning of the 2nd amendment Hillary could be our next president. If we don’t end up with Hillary it will because the court ruled against us.
Laser Spy Microphone
Via Bruce.
I’m surprised this works as well as it does. I would have thought you would need a telescope (or cheap rifle scope) to focus the light on the photocell. I’m certain you would get better range if you did so. Also using an infrared laser would make it less likely your eavesdropping will be detected.
Quote of the day–dragonwolf
Sadly enough, overthrowing the government is exactly what this country needs.
[…]
As George Orwell put it in 1984 – “If there was hope, it must lie in the proles…”
dragonwolf
September 1, 2007
The New Revolution
[This is at least part of why we are winning the war against gun control. The left hates Bush to such an extreme they are thinking of an armed rebellion. They then realized bans on guns are an impediment.–Joe]
Quote of the day–Neil deGrasse Tyson
When people believe a tale that conflicts with self-checkable evidence it tells me that people undervalue the role of evidence in forming an internal belief system. Why this is so is not clear but it enables many people to hold fast to ideas and notions based purely on supposition.
Neil deGrasse Tyson
Death by Black Hole: And Other Cosmic Quandaries
[This is a good book. It’s especially entertaining when he lets lose with a rant. But, back on point, I believe the reason is very clear. People believe what they want to believe. It’s rare that people will believe the evidence when it is contrary to a position they have invested in. That investment can be of any type including political and emotional, as well as financial. Belief in god(s), gun control, communism, and (redundancy alert) the Democrat party are prime examples. Chris Phillips encapsulated the appropriate conclusion and cure with much wider application than he originally suggested. Although he never discussed it with me I believe that conclusion was based on the basic truth of investing in your beliefs tends to close your thinking. See also When Prophecy Fails and Cognitive dissonance.–Joe]