"During my long journey through the world of evil, I had discovered three sources of power: the power of an individual's inner freedom, the power of a free society, and the power of the solidarity of the free world."-- Natan Sharansky, "The Case for Democracy"

Buy "The Case for Democracy"

View NASA picture

CONTACT:
jk [at] threesources [dot] com
AlexC [at] threesources [dot] com
JohnGalt [at] threesources [dot] com

AlexC Bio
jk Bio
Johngalt Bio

January 27, 2006

Groovy, Baby!

I am guilty of derisively dismissing a lot of boomer liberals as being stuck in the 60's. It is particularly easy living in Boulder County.

Arnold Kling suggests that many of today's leftists are stick in the Conventional Wisdom of 1968, which he defines as:

  • Anti-Communism was a greater menace than Communism.
  • The planet could not possibly support the population increases that would take place by the end of the twentieth century.
  • Conservatives stood in the way of progress for minorities.
  • Government programs were the best way to lift people out of poverty.
  • What underdeveloped countries needed were large capital investments, financed by foreign aid from the rich countries.
  • Inflation was a cost-push phenomenon, requiring government intervention in wage and price setting.

His great article shows that these were decent assumptions before Woodstock but that, since that time, we have seen empirical evidence to contradict all of these. Yet, these beliefs seem rather fixed in a lot of people I encounter.


Google Unwhacking

I thought that I was the only guy on the Internet who did not want to do shock & awe on Google headquarters. I may be, but VodkaPundit has some comments that bolster my case. Stephen Green points out that they are ultimately hurting their own competitiveness.

In a high-tech economy, the free flow of information defines how competitive a people can be. Less freedom, lower competitiveness. There's more to it than that, however. More information means less opacity, and that means more corruption. This, in turn again, means lower competitiveness.

China is trying to compete in the high-tech economy, while crippling the tools that make such competition possible.

I don't mean to say that you shouldn't be mad at Google. I am, and will be so long as they continue with such repugnant business practices. And don't get me wrong – having Google, even a restricted version, will in some small way prolong China's dictatorship. And the Chinese people will suffer, by losing what could have been a sharp weapon in their fight for freedom.

But it's not the end of the world, either.


That's his point. Mine is still that this company is justifying a 50 multiple to its shareholders. If you pay $40,000 for 100 shared of GOOG, you are probably not too keen on their missing an in on the fastest growing market in the world. Just a thought.
Hat-tip: Insty


Chinese New Year

I'm a frequent flier, and have been in some cramped conditions... but this has never crossed my mind.

    Sales have soared ahead of the holiday as travelers prepare for long trips home aboard trains so crowded that even the toilets are jammed with people, newspapers said Tuesday. Supermarkets report diaper sales have risen 50 percent since Jan. 14.

    The problem arises from the need to sell twice as many tickets as there are train seats. Those without seats must find some place -- any place -- to put themselves, including in toilets.


I'm not understanding why there's a need to sell 2X the seats.

Here's a question: Will the Google News's Chinese version report on this news? Depends, I guess.

But jk thinks:

Well, it is the year of the Dog...

I suggest that Google will not censor the fact that other, freer countries do not expect their citizens to crowd in the toilet when they have purchased a seat and that that alone will be a freedom enhancer.

Posted by: jk at January 27, 2006 01:15 PM

January 26, 2006

Alito Filibuster

Drudge and CNN both are flashing that former Presidential candidate Senator John Kerry is going to initiate a filibuster.

A link off of Google News confirms it.

    Confirmed this info. Kerry's office says he is initiating a filibuster
    . . . of the SCOTUS nomination of Alito. His office is rounding up support now.
    I have confirmed this with John Kerry's office staff.

With Senator Byrd going for Alito, I believe the number of Senators for Alito stands at 54. Certainly filibusterable.

What remains to be seen is how the Gang of 14 will act.

By filibustering Alito, Kerry is definately pandering for the angry left vote.

SCOTUS Posted by AlexC at 04:19 PM | What do you think? [3]
But jk thinks:

This man was almost President. I hope this is not true, even though it might be a great thing for the GOP.

Posted by: jk at January 26, 2006 04:26 PM
But jk thinks:

Here we go again. Dear Senator Salazar:

I was disappointed to learn that you were voting against this nominee.

I hope that you do not join a filibuster. I rarely suggest that someone looks to Senator Byrd for guidance, but he is right about the politicization of the confirmation process and right that integrity and qualifications matter.

Judge Alito clearly has a majority of the US Senate, including three Democrats as i write. Please honor your "gang of 14" pledge and do not join a filibuster against this nominee.

Posted by: jk at January 26, 2006 04:47 PM
But jk thinks:

Byron York at the Corner thinks it's a bit of harmless Kerry weaseling

From a Senate source: Kerry's call for a filibuster comes after his leadership, that is, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, decided there won't be one. In other words, Kerry was making a brave, Kos-friendly pronouncement in the total confidence that a filibuster will never happen. And now, word is, he is off to Davos to continue what some Republicans are calling a "filibluster."

http://corner.nationalreview.com/06_01_22_corner-archive.asp#088399

Posted by: jk at January 26, 2006 05:06 PM

Not Just for SPAM anymore

Virginia Postrel and I know Bayesian filters for their implementations in SPAM avoidance. She links to an article that discusses its promise in clinical trials.

Not many ideas of 18th-century Presbyterian ministers attract the interest of the pharmaceutical industry. But the works of Rev. Thomas Bayes have improved greatly with age. The paper that made his name was published in 1763 (two years after his death), where he proposed a method to decide the likelihood of an event while taking into account one's prior knowledge of what might occur. This idea bounced around through the mathematical literature for the next century or two, but it fell out of favor in the 1930s with the advent of the statistical methods that have been used ever since. For decades, no one heard very much about Bayesian statistics at all. One reason for this was they're much more computationally demanding, which was a real handicap until fairly recently.

I'm a math guy but not a stats guy ay all. I will try to find some rudimentary documentation on this as it has really caught my eye. The current methods in trials are broken, and cannot keep up with subtle interactions. Placebo trials are flat out irresponsible in chronic or terminal illnesses, yet the FDA still demand them.

Hat-tip: Don’t call her “Ginny…”


Byrd to Vote Yea

My brother-in-law just called with the news that WV Senator Robert Byrd will vote to confirm Judge Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court. He decried the politicization of the confirmation process and said that it should be about integrity and qualifications.

I hate to spoil the moment, but he will be facing reelection this year in a state that is getting redder by the minute. There may be some politics, but there is more honor. His history in the august body paid off here. Bravo Senator Byrd!


New Sheriff in Town

President Bush reminded Ford & GM that President Carter is writing poetry, building houses and comforting tyrants -- and that he will not be as quick to bail either firm out as our 39thpresident did for Chrysler. "I have been very reluctant -- I'm mindful of the past where at one point in time, a predecessor of mine was faced with that same dilemma," he said. "I would hope I wouldn't be asked to make that decision."

This from a WSJ (News Page) report of an Oval office interview, where the president was cool to the idea of intervention.

Asked if the government should take any pre-emptive action, he said: "I think it's very important for the market to function." He suggested he felt optimistic about the companies' prospects.

The auto industry's struggles could become a big political issue in this year's midterm elections and beyond, especially in Midwestern states such as Michigan and Ohio, where much of the industry's manufacturing base is located. Ford and GM plan to cut at least 60,000 jobs over the next few years, and the fallout could ripple across the auto-supply industry as well, whether or not the companies ever seek bankruptcy protection. While resisting a bailout could cost Republicans support among some voters, it also would serve to shore up their support among those who favor free-market solutions.


This blog has been rough on the GOP of late. I take this and the recent nominations of Chief Justice Roberts and presumptive-Associate Justice Alito as signs that we voted for the right guys (all but Silence anyway...).

Rather than shovel money at the failed business models of the two firms, this president will use their difficulties as a springboard to push market-based reforms of health care. Life is good.

But AlexC thinks:

I wonder if the major shareholders and the board of directors of Chrysler considered the "graciousness" of the American taxpayer when they sold the company to the Daimler-Benz?

Did we get a refund? did they pay the money back?

I say this as a happy Hemi Magnum owner. And I ask this as a salivating car guy who really really really wants this to become a production car.
http://www.allpar.com/cars/dodge/challenger.html

As far as bailing out Ford and GM? No. What it would be doing is throwing a life preserver to two companies who let their unions dictate obscene terms (like you will produce X explorer this year) to them for too long, as well as sucking for too long. (1972 - late 1990).

Posted by: AlexC at January 26, 2006 02:55 PM

January 25, 2006

Google Capitulates

Ian at Banana Oil is closer to Chinese Google than I am, but he wonders whether anybody at the hypervalued company has read Sun Tzu:

Abject surrender is not the way to foster cultural change for the better.

And don't think for a moment that this will be regarded as a move of strength or integrity. The Chinese will not respect you for this. Read The Art of War. They won, and got you to give them the victory on a silver platter. You are now the Communist government's bitch, whether you know it or not.

Way to go, guys.


I join the blogosphere in disappointment, but I cannot work up the high dudgeon. I wish Google had given the ChiComs a lecture; I wish Microsoft had told the EU to fuggedabout it instead of phony gestures such as hobbled versions and limited source distribution.

But both Google and Microsoft have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders that must supersede a company's desire to change the world. I'd say the same to Ben & Jerry.

In the case of China, I have to think the more information the merrier. The more people on even a bowdlerized Internet, the better chance that the benefits of freedom -- if not Falun Gong movements -- will be understood.

But AlexC thinks:

What works people up about Google is that their corporate motto was "Don't be evil."

Selling out to the red Chinese is a pretty big step in that direction, I'd say.

While I understand the fiduciary responsibility, can't a corporation have ethics? (damn, i sound like a dirty hippie)

Like not selling out to frigging communists?

Posted by: AlexC at January 26, 2006 02:59 PM
But jk thinks:

My opinion is certainly in the minority. While like most West-coasties their bumper-sticker credos do match reality, I guess if you consider filtering results on a search engine to be "evil," then I am wrong.

The ChiComs do a lot of real evil -- keeping one of its unfortunate subjects away from the edifying prose of ThreeeSources.com is a pity but not a piori evil.

My hope continues to be that as the Internet becomes more prevalent, more Chinese citizens find ways around the filters and that the volume of information becomes more than the officials can monitor.

The fiduciary responsibility does not supersede everything but I believe strongly that you are obligated to devote your efforts to increasing shareholder value.

Posted by: jk at January 26, 2006 04:18 PM

Firefly Season 2

This will warm JK's heart. Sci-fi nerds are lobbying hard for Firefly Season 2

UPDATE: Sorry, I had to add the button -- jk

But jk thinks:

The long-tail come to life! Excellent find, Alex.

Follow this link to vote on your preferences and tolerance for additional eps...

Posted by: jk at January 25, 2006 06:40 PM
But jk thinks:

...anybody else wonder what he meant by "Nerds?"

http://www.threesources.com/archives/001761.html

Posted by: jk at January 25, 2006 06:44 PM

Scandal Rocks DC

Via email...

    All of the evidence is not in, but it appears that Secretary of State Rice may have slept with Senator Ted Kennedy. Will send details when they become available; all we have now is this photo.


Long-tail casualty

Christopher Orr at TNR bemoans the loss of what he calls the B+ movie; you know, a decent film that does not aspire to blockbuster status. I've always sensed this. I'm not a film buff in any sense of the word, but I saw Burt Lancaster in "Come Back Little Sheba" and thought how that movie could never ever be made today. It has a literary feel, solid acting from Lancaster and Shirley Booth, (spoiler!) and an unsettling and unhappy ending. Orr:

There was a time when Hollywood excelled at producing such solid but unexceptional fare--Westerns are the classic example--but no longer. These days, almost every movie needs to have a special hook, a tease, something that will make it new and different and (in theory) better. No one wants a base hit; it's all about swinging for the bleachers.

The reason is clear enough. Back in the late 1940s, when Randolph Scott was making three or four cowboy movies a year, two-thirds of Americans went to the movies during any given week. They didn't need a reason; it was just part of the routine, and as long as the film was moderately diverting they generally felt they got their money's worth. But TV watching has been gradually replacing film attendance for decades, and today, with our ever-expanding array of at-home alternatives (satellite, DVD, pay-per-view, TiVo), just 10 percent of us go to the movies each week. If we weren't actively lured with the promise of something fresh and remarkable--a more radical twist (the lady detective is also the serial killer!), wilder stunt (two helicopters collide in the Lincoln Tunnel!), or bigger star (Russell Crowe as Stephen Hawking!)--we might not go at all.


He answers his own question at the end of the piece. These "films" have gone to the small screen. He uses the example of the "Law & Order" franchise. I've always thought most Buffy/Angel/Firefly episodes to be small films more than TV shows. With the DVD distribution and syndication, the business models have likely blurred.

Posted by jk at 01:35 PM | What do you think? [0]

Jay Leno Again

It is pretty much the apogee of lazy-ass blogging to paste in Jay Leno routines two weeks in a row, but there are some good ones in here. And the Tonight Show is way past my bedtime.

The government is still analyzing Osama bin Laden's latest tape. On his most recent release he called Bush a liar and said that he was just after oil. It's the usual stuff we have heard before. Like at the Golden Globes. ... On the tape, bin Laden has three demands: That we pull our troops out of Iraq, that we pull the troops out of Afghanistan, and he wants to see actual stars on "Dancing With the Stars." ... New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin is being criticized for saying that God wants New Orleans to be a chocolate city and that the hurricanes were because God was mad at us. The good news, he was nominated for the Pat Robertson Lifetime Achievement Award. ... Here's your government at work. This week, the Consumer Product Safety Commission issued a recall for thousands of Christmas lights that they say may pose a risk of electric shock. They're recalling Christmas lights. Good timing. What is it, January now? You think this is maybe where the ex-head of FEMA wound up? ... The "National Inquirer" has reported that Ted Kennedy has a 21-year-old secret love child. Is that really the most accurate term, "love child"? Isn't "drunken fling child" a bit more like it? ... Senator Kennedy wasn't available for comment on the love child—he was overseeing a hearing on ethics. ... NBC has cancelled the "West Wing." That's when you know things are bad—when even fictional Democrats aren't doing well. Can't even get elected on TV anymore.

Posted by jk at 12:49 PM | What do you think? [4]
But jk thinks:

...and a friend who doesn't feel right beating me up in public says "and it's the height of pedantry to say 'apogee' instead of 'height.'"

Guilty. Ouch. Heh.

Posted by: jk at January 25, 2006 01:21 PM
But johngalt thinks:

I'd've used "pinnacle."

Posted by: johngalt at January 25, 2006 02:51 PM
But jk thinks:

Careful, you'll be elected "ThreeSources Editor" and have to rewrite all our posts...

Posted by: jk at January 25, 2006 06:41 PM
But Silence Dogood thinks:

I'll let you slide (maybe it just the aerospace nerd in me that likes "apogee"). As long as you don't go George Will on me. I often vehemently disagree with his politics but respect his insight, if only I didn't have to keep a dictionary by my side to read his columns.

Posted by: Silence Dogood at January 26, 2006 02:18 PM

January 24, 2006

Screw Stare Decisis

Judge Alito's recommendation from the Judicial Committee was given today 10-8, and his nomination now heads to the Senate for likely confirmation.

Justice Alito will no doubt vote differently from Justice O'Connor and overturn very soon, the worst Supreme Court decision of my lifetime. I can hardly contain my enthusiasm.

Roe who? I am talking about McConnell v. FEC., where the court determined that First Amendment rights apply only to Illinois Nazis (man, I hate Illinois Nazis) and child pornographers. Those of us who care about the direction of the country and its polity will have to live under McCain-Feingold.

A case is perhaps headed to SCOTUS in time for the next election :Wisconsin Right to Life v. FEC that could curb McConnell or give the Roberts Court a chance to revisit it. The WSJ Ed Page sez:

A far better result would be for the Supreme Court to use this as an opportunity to revisit McConnell altogether. There is some hope that this could happen. Let's not forget that the deciding vote to uphold McCain-Feingold came from Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who may now have heard her last case. Judge Sam Alito is likely to replace her soon, and his track record suggests he is more sympathetic to free-speech arguments.

Meanwhile, Congress might want to bear all this in mind as it attempts to atone for its own recent ethical lapses by enacting lobbying "reform." The practical effect of any such legislation will be to further curtail political free speech, restricting the rights of citizens to petition their government. If this case shows anything, it's that there is no such thing as "good" restrictions on free speech.


McConnell is, of course, Kentucky Senator Mitch McConnell who braved scorn from the elites, media and many of his fellow Senators in a brave attempt to defend our rights.


Mrs. Sheehan Heads South

BOTW runs the Political Diary today as Mr. Taranto is off. For what it's worth, I really enjoyed Political Diary and pleaded with the good folks at Dow Jones to make it web based. Alas, you can only get it by email and their systems are extremely unreliable. I cancelled some time ago.

Today, Latin America reporter Mary Anastasia O'Grady highlights the inconsistencies in Cindy Sheehan's "Peace Activism" and her decision to attend a possibly violent, anti-globalization moonbat fest in Caracas:

Indeed, the Sheehan tour to Caracas belongs in the "you-can't-make-it-up" category: A bitterly outspoken American citizen who has made a career of lambasting her president, she travels abroad to celebrate with a dictator who has thrown his own critics out of work and even put them in prison, stripped the press of its freedom, destroyed property rights and militarized the government. His political supporters are known to be armed and dangerous and many Venezuelans in poor neighborhoods have reported that they are afraid to dissent from the Chavez agenda. Venezuela's arms build-up is frightening his neighbors and threatening regional stability.

We're glad Ms. Sheehan has the freedom to travel abroad. Many of Chavez's critics are denied that right, as are the critics of Castro. But she shouldn't wonder why, when she opens her mouth in the U.S., nobody takes her seriously.


January 23, 2006

Shape Up With Sam's Club

I'm NOT a Wal*Mart basher. I am a Sam's Club member and I defend the colossus from my "folk Marxist"* friends frequently.

But I have to laugh at this week's email circular. January is National Fitness Month, so we are told to "Shape Up With Sam's Club!"

Put down the bratwurst and potato salad buddy, it's time to get fit -- and Sam's Club is here to help with these invigorating selections:

  • NFL Tailgate Toss beanbag football game (Mistakenly, the advice to consult a physician before trying this activity seems to have been omitted...)
  • A Treadmill
  • a weight machine
  • a 61" HiDef TV (burn some calories draggin' that in from the truck, boy!)
  • 42" plasma HDTV
  • 50" Dell(r) plasma HDTV
  • digital camera, computer, &c. No more exercise gear...

I am beat from all that typin' -- open me up a Little Debbie snack cake to get my energy back...

Posted by jk at 04:28 PM | What do you think? [2]
But johngalt thinks:

Hell, they didn't even mention 12-ounce curls! Don't they sell liquor? If not, try Costco instead with wholesale liquor outlets at select warehouses.

There's nothing quite like a Little Debbie creme roll with a Bud Light chaser. Physical fitness AND haute cuisine!

Posted by: johngalt at January 23, 2006 06:58 PM
But jk thinks:

Yup, they sell booze as well. I think your training regimen would be ideal for one preparing for a tough game of NFL Tailgate Toss....

Posted by: jk at January 23, 2006 07:12 PM

Folk Marxism

Arnold Kling provides some valuable phrases to better categorize ideas and beliefs that we encounter frequently.

His piece on TCS suggested that we have internalized the writings of John Locke (folk Lockeism) and Karl Marx (folk Marxism).

Folk Marxism looks at political economy as a struggle pitting the oppressors against the oppressed. Of course, for Marx, the oppressors were the owners of capital and the oppressed were the workers. But folk Marxism is not limited by this economic classification scheme. All sorts of other issues are viewed through the lens of oppressors and oppressed. Folk Marxists see Israelis as oppressors and Palestinians as oppressed. They see white males as oppressors and minorities and females as oppressed. They see corporations as oppressors and individuals as oppressed. They see America as on oppressor and other countries as oppressed.

I believe that folk Marxism helps to explain the pride and joy that many people felt when Maryland passed its anti-Walmart law. They think of Walmart as an oppressor, and they think of other businesses and Walmart workers as the oppressed. The mainstream media share this folk Marxism, as they reported the Maryland law as a "victory for labor."


Like Michael Barone's "Hard America-Soft America," this is a useful difference. While I know few who publicly profess fealty to Marx's economic ideas (I do have a niece proud to share his birthday), I know a lot of people who have this internal predisposition. In fact, in present society, you get folk Marxism inculcated by default. The only people I know who do not exhibit it in large quantities make a conscious effort to understand the benefits of the other side.


Wonderfalls

I bought the DVD to Wonderfalls last year after Tim Minear of Angel & Firefly fame recommended them to Professor Reynolds at Instapundit. The topic has resurfaced on Insty, and a quick search shows that I have not discussed them.

My wife and I really enjoyed the show. When she got her video iPod, it was the first thing she wanted ripped. Fox, in its infinite wisdom, cancelled the show and there are 13 episodes on the DVD. I wouldn't say that it's as good as Angel or Firefly, but it is still better than anything else out there. I would not hesitate to recommend it.

The long tail of TV is here. You don't have to watch what they schedule for you. (By the way Silence, I have been watching Veronica Mars on your recommendation. It's pretty good but it has not captured my heart.)

But Silence Dogood thinks:

Glad to hear you have been watching Veronica. I hope it will grow on you, its one of my favs. I too enjoyed the quirky Wonderfalls during its short network run. What was the name of the Canadian actress who played the lead? I keep waiting for her to show up in something new.

Posted by: Silence Dogood at January 24, 2006 04:58 PM
But jk thinks:

Caroline Dhavernas. She was very good. Firefly fans will also enjoy a few-episode-cameo from Jewel Staite who played Kaylee.

Posted by: jk at January 24, 2006 05:22 PM

Notes from the plantation...

The junior senator from New York is unsurprisingly chastised from the WSJ Ed Page today. Shelby Steele lets her have it for pandering to a black audience on MLK Day.

When political pandering goes awry, it calls you a name. On an emotional level, many blacks will hear Hillary's remark as follows: "I say Republicans run the House like a plantation because I am speaking to Negroes--the wretched of the earth, a slave people--who will surely know all about plantations." Is this a tin ear or a Freudian slip, blacks will wonder? Does she really see us as she projects us--as a people so backward that our support can be won with a simple plantation reference, and the implication that Republicans are racist? Quite possibly so, since no apology has been forthcoming.

More surprising is a brief TNR "Notebook" piece:

When the Daily News asked on Tuesday night if she regretted the comment, she said, "Absolutely not. As I have said many times before, Congress is run in a top-down way." The last time we checked, an overly hierarchic corporate management style was not the biggest abomination of slave plantations, but perhaps congressmen have been separated from their families, chained together, forced to work for tobacco farmers, and publicly bought and sold during those mysterious closed-door sessions. And Clinton has been fond of the plantation metaphor for a while now: In a November 2004 interview on CNN, she said, "[T]hey're running the House of Representatives like a fiefdom, with Tom DeLay ... in charge of the plantation." Plantation, fiefdom: We see a rhetorical style developing here. Why doesn't she reach out to Jews, who've sometimes been wary of her, by comparing GOP K Street's intimidation tactics to pogroms in the Pale? And, come to think of it, why haven't any intrepid Democratic candidates seized the opportunity to describe Jack Abramoff's hustling of Indian gaming tribes as a "Trail of Tears"? Oh--because most of them have better taste, that's why.

I would have thought Senator Clinton to be the only/most likely candidate to appeal to the moderate, DLC-wing , New Republic.

This is a smackdown from a friendly corner -- not a good sign.

But Silence Dogood thinks:

Ouch, sounds like a very bad case of mixed metaphors to say the least. Attacking Delay's heavy handed tactics has merit but I don't think fiefdom and certainly plantation references are not valid. The best Sen. Clinton can hope for is that people won't judge a book before they have walked a mile in its shoes....

Posted by: Silence Dogood at January 24, 2006 05:04 PM
But jk thinks:

Silence, I am a little disturbed that this woman, whom we all will admit is a Democrat leader, has played the race card in a most callous and heavy handed way. That is more serious than any structural rhetorical problems.

Posted by: jk at January 24, 2006 05:25 PM

January 22, 2006

Review Corner

I'm in hormonal confusion today. My wife has purchased the BBC adaptation of "Pride and Prejudice" and we are following the romantic and personal trials of the five sisters. 'Tis a lovely literary repast which does speak to the pedant in me. To compensate, I will watch the football playoffs.

It has been a most meritorious drive, Mister Darcy. But as it remains third and long after that willful and obstreperous holding call, I daresay if Coach Shanahan does not implement the draw, or send Mister Plummer onto the bootleg, I shall be most aggrieved!

Go Broncos!

Posted by jk at 12:26 PM | What do you think? [4]
But jk thinks:

That's a disappointment. While the Broncos played poorly, that was an almost perfect game from the Steelers side.

The Steelers are a classy outfit. I salute them and wish them well in Super Bowl XL.

Posted by: jk at January 22, 2006 06:24 PM
But johngalt thinks:

Jake threw three interceptions and fumbled twice. And the Broncos STILL had a chance to pull it out in the end. (Well, before that second fumble, that is.) I'm afraid that Jake just couldn't resist the idea that he needed to do more than just his own, regular job to beat the "woooo, scary" Steelers.

I've had a place in my heart for Pittsburgh since they started drafting so many of my Buffaloes, but my money will be on Seattle in XL.

Posted by: johngalt at January 22, 2006 10:34 PM
But AlexC thinks:

Seattle, like more formerly beloved Eagles, is long overdue for a choke. They looked good yesterday, but that just is more proof. Look for it in two weeks.

Posted by: AlexC at January 23, 2006 10:53 AM
But jk thinks:

I'm an AFC guy and I think that this Steeler team is for real. When you force two great teams to play poorly in two successive weeks, you're doing something right. I credit Mike Gower's superior preparation more than I'd cite Peyton Manning or Jake Plummer for failure.

Posted by: jk at January 23, 2006 11:06 AM

January 21, 2006

Free Markets

Or, "When I was a boy..." I hate to play the Methuselah of digital storage, but bad things happen when you stop being filled with wonder.

I have discussed, twice, the lack of competition in education and the advances free markets have wrought in other fields. I wanted to share my latest purchase with you (we have a few veterans of the storage industry with this blog). I just bought an LG 1GB, USB disk drive. It weighs less than the nail clippers in the photo. I bought it at Sam's Club for $60.

The first programs I wrote were stored to paper tape on a teletype. The teletype connected to a PDP-8 at Colorado School of Mines over an acoustic modem. I remember very little Fortran IV, but I remember the failures of paper tape. I found a spec for paper tape on the Internet. The ECMA spec from 1965 dictates that the holes shall be 2.540 mm apart, therefore a "gig" of paper tape will be 1024 * 1024 * 1024 * .00254 = 2727304.2 m (1630.9 miles). The spec also dictates that no roll of paper tape shall exceed 190mm in diameter, and that the recommended core is 50-52mm. And "The reel must be tightly wound in such a way as to ensure that a coil which has an outer diameter of 190 mm and an inner diameter of 52 mm shall contain at least 225 m of tape."

So each roll can contain 88682 bytes, and a gig of paper tape on spec will constitute 12,121 rolls. Throwing caution to the wind, and putting the entire gigabyte on a single roll with a 52mm core, the roll will be 18.6 meters wide. This progress marks less than thirty years, from my sophomore year of high school in 1976 to today. What would 30 years of competition and innovation in education have brought?

But AlexC thinks:

Trouble with that stuff being so small is that when you lose it in your couch, car, office, house, train, plane, etc..., you lose a lot more stuff which you were backing up to it!

It's a double edged sword.

Posted by: AlexC at January 23, 2006 10:54 AM

Don't click this. Comments (2)