Flexible Reality
Saturday, October 25, 2003
Well it's now time to dispose of the Direcway/Earthlink Satellite system we bought last year.
In September of 2002 we paid about $700 USD to purchase the equipment, and have it installed. The cost was broken down as: $495 for the equipment, and $195 for the installation. Having signed a one year access agreement with Earthlink, we also paid $69.95, plus tax/etc per month. The system provided decent service, only going down for brief periods when it rained, or snowed. The only real gripe about it was the latency involved, and the terrible upload speed which hovered around 38kbps or less than a standard 56k analog modem. Sure, the download was reasonably quick in the 250k-300k range; but the online experience quickly became a nuisance, especially since we had DSL service at our store location.
Taking a quick run to eBay, it appears the current selling price for the complete system is around $300 plus $50 for shipping, so we bought a product that did not depreciate that much: ($495 to $300); but when combined with the "lost" installation fees, we can only hope to recover half of our outlay for the unit.
Comparing this to the DSL we obtained from Alltel shows why the satellite option only should be used by folks who have no likely access to DSL or Cable service. With DSL, we received a small package in the mail containing a tiny Ethernet/USB modem, a few patch cords, software, and a couple inline filters. With almost no experience with this equipment, we had the unit setup and functioning within 30 minutes tops.
When we used the Direcway satellite system, we had to designate a "Gateway" machine as a server, and then attach it to our in-house network. The installation of Microsoft ICS, (Internet Connection Sharing) on this "Gateway" machine made it possible with the aid of DHCP to then have each machine on the network be able to access the Internet via the "Gateway" machine. It worked fine, although it took well over two hours to set it up correctly as we did not want the "Gateway" machine to "see" the other machines for security reasons. The Speedstream 5200 DSL modem came with both an Ethernet and USB connection, either of which was simple to configure. The only thing that took time was getting the modem attached to the network. We kept trying different configurations, different wiring schemes, but could not get the other machines on the network to see the Speedstream. After the third call to tech support, we found out that the reason we had the problem was we were installing the software on each network machine when that was not necessary, and would not work in that manner.
Instead, we removed the Alltel installation software on all the machines, used IE to address the modem, set a few standard parameters, rebooted and voila, each machine on the net was able to see the DSL modem, get a IP address from the DHCP function in the modem, and go online. Piece of cake. It would really have been so much better if the documentation has said, or even implied that the software was not necessary for the installation, instead of showing how to install it. Anyway, our mistake for not thinking about the necessity of the Alltel software for networked installations.
Regardless, the difference between the Direcway Satellite vs the DSL is significant. DSL offers better upload speed, much better latency numbers, it's highly resistant to thunderstorms, and it just works. The only issue of any kind we had is with the default setting of the Speedstream unit which activated a firewall thus causing a problem with Kaaza; but that was easily corrected.
Friday, October 24, 2003
Something else for the technophobes: RFID tags to be added to all kinds of products. The Military is on schedule to require everything they use to be identified with the RFID tags by 2005.
These tags are somewhat like Smartcards since they can be read wirelessly by a scanning device at a moderate distance from the item. Barcodes can provide considerabale information, especially in the 3D format; but the RFID tags are much less obtrusive, and considerably more capable of holding lots of information. Civil libertarians complain that these tags could be inserted into a broad range of consumer goods, and data from the tags could be extracted without the knowledge or permission of the person using the product with the tag inserted.
As the world's largest retailer, Walmart has been the standard bearer on RFID tags, but has retreated somewhat from it's stated goal of having RFID technology used by all it's vendors for inbound shipments due to citizen complaints about it's use.
Christian Aid, a UK based faith organization charged today that the US/Iraqi CPA has failed to account for $4B of reconstruction aid.
"The fact that no independent body knows where this cash has gone is in direct violation of the UN resolution that released much of it for the rebuilding of Iraq's shattered infrastructure. The agency that is supposed to oversee these funds has not even been set up yet. 'This is Iraqi money. The people of Iraq must know where it is going and it should be used for the benefit of all the country's people - particularly the poorest,' said Roger Riddell, Christian Aid's international director.
The current situation goes to the heart of claims and counter-claims about how Iraqi oil revenue should be used. It can only fuel the serious suspicion in Iraq that a disproportionate amount of cash is being creamed off for the benefit of US companies - money that should be spent on alleviating the chronic unemployment and other serious problems faced by Iraqis, including the poorest and most vulnerable.
Independent observers agree that, despite the huge amounts of money allocated to repair a country shattered by decades of war and sanctions, not nearly enough has been done and not nearly fast enough in the six months since the US announced an end to hostilities. There are still power cuts, fuel shortages, and a lack of medicine and equipment in hospitals. Clean drinking water is not available in many areas and raw sewage can be seen on the streets of many towns, including Basra - which is controlled by British forces.
The fact that billions of dollars of Iraq's own money cannot now be accounted for can only add to a burning sense of injustice. 'We have absolutely no idea how the money [from Iraqi oil revenues] has been spent,' one senior European diplomat to the UN told Christian Aid. 'I wish I knew, but we just don't know. We have absolutely no idea.' The missing billions are a combination of pre- and post-war oil revenues now controlled by the CPA, plus seized Iraqi government assets and funds vested overseas. Conservative estimates put the total at US$5 billion, of which less than US$1 billion can be accounted for.
This money is distinct from the reconstruction funds promised by the US and UK governments, and from any cash that is raised from other governments at the Madrid conference. This is Iraqi money that should be spent for the benefit of all Iraq's people, not sat on in secret by an unelected foreign administration. 'The situation is little short of scandalous,' said Roger Riddell. 'The British government must use its position of second in command of the CPA to demand full disclosure of this money and its proper allocation in the future.' The dangers of such a situation persisting in the future were highlighted in the Christian Aid report Fuelling Poverty - Oil, War and Corruption, published in May. Compared with countries of similar size, the report found that oil-producing developing countries are characterised by greater degrees of:
� Poverty (for the great majority of the population)
� Dictatorial, authoritarian or unrepresentative government
� War and/or civil strife
� Corruption.
'A properly constituted, democratic government must be established for all the people of Iraq as soon as possible,' said Roger Riddell. 'Otherwise, once again, oil could prove a curse rather than a blessing.' "
� Iraq: the missing billions - Transition and transparency in post-war Iraq
Thursday, October 23, 2003
In an Oct 17th article, Morgan Stanley's Global contributor: Stephen Roach, makes a compelling case for understanding our current jobless recovery as "Imported Productivity". One of his key points is about sustainability of the current outsourcing model:
"Wage and salary disbursements -- by far the dominant component of personal income -- are basically unchanged in real terms fully 21 months into this recovery. By contrast, at this juncture in the past six upturns, real wage income has been up, on average, by about 9%. The gap between the current cycle and the norm of earlier cycles works out to a shortfall of about $320 billion in real terms, or 4.4% of the current level of real disposable personal income...
The flip side of this saga is, of course, quite beneficial to Corporate America. Sourcing demand through low-cost, offshore labor input has become an increasingly important tactic to enhance the operating efficiency of US businesses... While this has resulted in a significant improvement in corporate earnings, the American workforce is not sharing the benefits. The resulting clash between the owners of capital and the providers of labor has resulted in profound tensions in the US body politic. Imported productivity, together with the jobless recovery and income leakage it implies, is the stuff of heightened trade frictions, mounting protectionist risks, and a populist assault on Corporate America.
Which takes us to the bottom line: In my view, the income leakages of imported productivity raise serious questions about the sustainability of this recovery from an economic point of view. At the same time, the political reaction to the resulting jobless recovery raises equally profound questions about sustainability from a political standpoint."
As we approach the one year anniversary of the storming of the theatre in Moscow where 129 people were killed by Soviet security forces in conflict with 50 Chechan rebels who had threatened to kill all 700 theatre occupants, it might be time to check in with the FAS group attempting to influence a rational policy on the use of "non-lethal" force by U.S. military and security agencies.
Have you read what the doctors themselves say about "partial birth abortions"?
Statement on So-Called "Partial Birth Abortion" Law
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
For Release: October 3, 2003
http://www.acog.
Washington, DC -- The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) continues to oppose so-called "partial birth abortion" laws, including the conference committee bill approved by the US House of Representatives yesterday and sent to the US Senate. "Partial birth abortion" is a non-medical term apparently referring to a particular abortion procedure known as intact dilatation and extraction (intact D&X, or D&X), a rare variant of a more common midterm abortion procedure know as dilatation and evacuation (D&E).
In 2000, the US Supreme Court struck down a Nebraska "partial birth abortion" law in the case of Stenberg v. Carhart, ruling that the law violated the US Constitution by (1) failing to provide any exception "for the preservation of the health of the mother," and (2) being so broadly written that it could prohibit other types of abortion procedures such as D&E, thereby "unduly burdening a women's ability to choose abortion itself." The bill now before the Senate, which its supporters claim can meet any constitutional test, blatantly disregards the two-pronged test the Supreme Court carefully established in Stenberg.
As noted in a 1997 ACOG Statement of Policy, reaffirmed in 2000, and in ACOG's amicus curiae brief filed in the Stenberg case, ACOG continues to object to legislators taking any action that would supersede the medical judgment of a trained physician, in consultation with a patient, as to what is the safest and most appropriate medical procedure for that particular patient.
ACOG's Statement of Policy explains why ACOG believes such legislation to be "inappropriate, ill advised, and dangerous." The policy statement notes that although a select panel convened by ACOG could identify no circumstances under which intact D&X would be the only option to protect the life or health of a woman, intact D&X "may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman, and only the doctor, in consultation with the patient, based upon the woman's particular circumstances, can make this decision (emphasis added)."
The Statement of Policy further reads that such legislation has the potential to outlaw other abortion techniques that are critical to the lives and health of American women. This was the second basis upon which the Supreme Court struck down the Nebraska law in the Stenberg case. The Court will invariably strike down laws that are overly broad or imprecisely drawn. Bills that frequently using terms -- such as "partial birth abortion" -- that are not recognized by the very constituency (physicians) whose conduct the law would criminalize, and that purport to address a single procedure yet describe elements of other procedures used in obstetrics and gynecology would not meet the Court's test.
In this case, the bill before the Senate fails to respect the Stenberg test because bill supporters flagrantly refuse to include an exception for the health of a woman. Instead, legislators try to circumvent the Court's requirements by issuing their own opinion to the nation's physicians and patients that such a procedure is never needed to protect a woman's health -- notwithstanding opposing opinions from the medical community.
The medical misinformation currently circulating in political discussions of abortion procedures only reinforces ACOG's position: in the individual circumstances of each particular medical case, the patient and physician -- not legislators -- are the appropriate parties to determine the best method of treatment.
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) is the national medical organization representing 45,000 members who provide health care for women.
It has taken forever to get one, but the US Senate today passed the first National Anti-Spam bill: S.877. As a first step, it is laudable for what it does: charges the National ISP's to identify and file claims against spammers, targeting pornsters, unsolicited body part enhancement ads, and well established fraud come-ons. Equally important is it's relatively benign countenance, as opposed to the considerable number and range of draconian measures in the Patriot Act.
Some of it's measures for violations are open-ended enough that the really big boys of spam will be vunerable to considerable penalties for pumping out offending spam. Unfortunately while the bill passed the Senate, the bill is stalled in the House. The vote in the Senate was 97-0 with three abstentions. Bizmarts recommends you get on your horse, ride into town, and tell your Representative you support the CAN SPAM bill.
Wednesday, October 22, 2003
There are two dominant perspectives for the so-called "American Empire", one that views America in decline, and one in ascension. Politicians and pundits from the Left and Right agree there are major problems we face which they assert should be addressed before our Republic collapses under the weight of unresolved issues. Clintonians point to the progress achieved during the 90's in the technological and economic realms; but seem incapable of accepting the reality that corporate greed came to full fruition during theses years. Reaganites claim they were responsible for the demise of the USSR, and the results of their economic plan lead directly to the capital explosion of the past twenty years; but will not consider that Russia collapsed primarily from internal pressures, or that during the Reagan years supply-side economic policy created such huge deficits that one of the largest single non-military component of our Federal Budget for several years was simply servicing that debt.
The culture wars bring us today to the spectacle of the U.S. Senate passing a law, previously passed and twice vetoed by President Clinton, outlawing "partial birth abortions" which at most directly affect less than 0.025% of the population, while approving the Administrations request for a supplemental expense of $86b dollars to ameliorate what is considered by the international community as an illegal occupation of a foreign country. And then have the President threaten to veto the appropriation because it includes some attempt to add accountability of how the money is spent. The media outlets gave equivalent space to the two stories; but it appears to other nationals that America is now either adrift in another of their silly phases at best, or no longer worthy of respect and consideration at worst.
Empires have been phenomenally important in the advance of civilizations around the globe; but when they come apart, no one escapes the repercussions, nor can historians usually point to a specific action that caused it to fail. The HRE, Ottoman Turk, Han and Song Dynasties, Spanish, French, Prussian, British, and Russian versions came apart to be replaced by mostly democratic models. Let's hope that process continues when it's our turn to come unglued.
And you thought the penalty for simple possesion of less than an ounce of pot in Georgia is no big thing? Look at what the current penalty is, and look closely at the penalty progression. How does that compare to the terms for aggrevated battery or homicide? Surprised?
NORML has a well researched article on the economic, social, legal, and political issues surrounding the legalization of marijuana.
The SEC seems to think there is some funny-business going on with AOL's accounting history. They subpoenaed records from several senior directors including Steve Case.
When the Evening Standard starts publishing articles that criticize Pres. Bush's policies, then it's obvious there is a problem for the Political Right. George Soros's article does just that.
Tuesday, October 21, 2003
Curious what $20 billion in aid to Iraq will buy? See the breakdown here.
For the full OMB/GPO Federal Budget historical report and the FY 2004 Budget go here.
Reviewing the data, we have gone from a federal budget surplus of $236.4 billion in 2000 to an anticipated deficit of $350 billion in 2003, an almost $600 billion dollar spending spree, or over $2,000 for every man/woman/child in America. But no one seems to see that as horrendous! In the same period our population has increased by about four million people, and we have lost in excess of four million jobs. Isn't it the Republicans who are supposed to be fiscally conservative? And NO, it has NOT gone to Homeland Defense, nor primarily to National Defense. Every agency of the Federal Government is spending considerably more than it did in 2000. What's up with this?
The incomparable Paul Krugman's article in the NYT: "The Sweet Spot" very simply shows why he is such a highly regarded commentator.
The Sweet Spot
by Paul Krugman
SYNOPSIS:
"What we have here is a form of looting." So says George Akerlof, a Nobel laureate in economics, of the Bush administration's budget policies â and he's right. With startling speed, we've blown right through the usual concerns about budget deficits â about their effects on interest rates and economic growth â and into a range where the very solvency of the federal government is at stake. Almost every expert not on the administration's payroll now sees budget deficits equal to about a quarter of government spending for the next decade, and getting worse after that.
Yet the administration insists that there's no problem, that economic growth will solve everything painlessly. And that puts those who want to stop the looting â which should include anyone who wants this country to avoid a Latin-American-style fiscal crisis, somewhere down the road â in a difficult position. Faced with a what-me-worry president, how do you avoid sounding like a dour party pooper?
One answer is to explain that the administration's tax cuts are, in a fundamental sense, phony, because the government is simply borrowing to make up for the loss of revenue. In 2004, the typical family will pay about $700 less in taxes than it would have without the Bush tax cuts â but meanwhile, the government will run up about $1,500 in debt on that family's behalf.
George W. Bush is like a man who tells you that he's bought you a fancy new TV set for Christmas, but neglects to tell you that he charged it to your credit card, and that while he was at it he also used the card to buy some stuff for himself. Eventually, the bill will come due â and it will be your problem, not his.
Still, those who want to restore fiscal sanity probably need to frame their proposals in a way that neutralizes some of the administration's demagoguery. In particular, they probably shouldn't propose a rollback of all of the Bush tax cuts.
Here's why: while the central thrust of both the 2001 and the 2003 tax cuts was to cut taxes on the wealthy, the bills also included provisions that provided fairly large tax cuts to some â but only some â middle-income families. Chief among these were child tax credits and a "cutout" that reduced the tax rate on some income to 10 percent from 15 percent.
These middle-class tax cuts were designed to create a "sweet spot" that would allow the administration to point to "typical" families that received big tax cuts. If a middle-income family had two or more children 17 or younger, and an income just high enough to take full advantage of the provisions, it did get a significant tax cut. And such families played a big role in selling the overall package.
So if a Democratic candidate proposes a total rollback of the Bush tax cuts, he'll be offering an easy target: administration spokespeople will be able to provide reporters with carefully chosen examples of middle-income families who would lose $1,500 or $2,000 a year from tax-cut repeal. By leaving the child tax credits and the cutout in place while proposing to repeal the rest, contenders will recapture most of the revenue lost because of the tax cuts, while making the job of the administration propagandists that much harder.
Purists will raise two objections. The first is that an incomplete rollback of the Bush tax cuts won't be enough to restore long-run solvency. In fact, even a full rollback wouldn't be enough. According to my rough calculations, keeping the child credits and the cutout while rolling back the rest would close only about half the fiscal gap. But it would be a lot better than current policy.
The other objection is that the tricks used to sell the Bush tax cuts have made an already messy tax system, full of special breaks for particular classes of taxpayers, even messier. Shouldn't we favor a reform that cleans it up?
In principle, the answer is yes. But an ambitious reform plan would be demagogued and portrayed as a tax increase for the middle class. My guess is that we should propose a selective rollback as the first step, with broader reform to follow.
Will someone be able to find the political sweet spot, the combination of fiscal responsibility and electoral smarts that brings the looting to an end? The future of the nation depends on the answer.
Originally published in The New York Times, 10.17.03
Monday, October 20, 2003
From the Opening Page of the Republican National Committee Website: http://www.rnc.com on Oct. 20th, 2003:
GOP Topline: Iraqi Progress Report by David Kay
October 8, 2003
President Bush was right: Iraq was led by an evil regime; lethal to its own people, in deepening material breach of its Security Council obligations, and a threat to international peace and security. Saddam Hussein would have stopped at nothing until something stopped him.
Some of the things, in only three months, David Kay’s group have uncovered:
A clandestine network of biological laboratories and safe houses maintained by the Iraqi Intelligence Service.
"Reference strains" of biological organisms concealed in scientists homes, including a live strain of deadly botulinum, ricin, and aflatoxin.
Advanced design work on prohibited longer-range missiles and SCUD missile propellant.
Newly documented links between Iraq and North Korea with documents detailing Iraq's attempt to buy missile equipment from North Korea.
The full text version provided by the CIA is here.
If you have concerns about the US arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, consider the situation in Anniston, Alabama. Of the US Army's CBW arsenal, eight thousand TONS of chemical agents, and over 1.3 million munitions have been destroyed by the US Army since 1990. The Army estimates it will take seven YEARS of burns at the Anniston site to destroy their stockpile estimated at 2,254 tons of chemical warfare agents. Additional sites in Utah and on Johnson Atol in the Pacific will process smaller quantities of these agents and delivery systems.
While 2,254 tons is a huge amount, the Army has stated that this comprises about 7% of the total US Cold-War Era CW weaponry! Imagine that America created in excess of 3.2 MILLION TONS of this stuff. Sheeze ! Forget about the $600 toilet, what was the DOD's intent in creating this quantity of weaponry? MAD?
Incredible !!
