D'kian

Not much has been going on. Tim Tebow played with Denver, adding more confussion to what promises to be a good old fashioned QB controversy. Big Ben did not play for the Steelers, leaving the game in the hands of the three backups. This won't be Pittsburgh's year. Notable for today, the Jets and Giants officially nagurate their new stadium. First I want to congratulate both teams and their fans and whoever else made the decision to make it an open stadium. Domes are ok, but cold weather teams should make use of the cold weather. Ask Minnesota. Second, should both New York City teams admit they're really New Jersey teams? Yes, I know many teams play in suburbs of their putative city, but in such cases they remain within their state. The Jets and giants do neither. In other words, those of Linda Richmond to eb precise, "The New York Jets and Giants are neither New York nor Jets and Giants. Discuss."

How's Ford doing? That would be a better comparison to make against GM

Some years back the officials at a Giants-49ers playoff game made an egregious mistake in the final play, a botched field goal/pass attempt. They penalized the Giants, properly, for an inelegible man down field, but they missed a flagrant pass interference by San Francisco. Had they amde the right call, the penalties would offset and the down would have been replayed. Botching two field goals in a row isn't likely. The very next day the League issued a statement admitting the officials blew it. When reporters asked 49ers coach Mariucci about this, he mulled it over a few seconds and then shrugged and said "Bummer!" That's about how much the Seahawks got, I'm afraid.

The pathetic fallacy ascribes human motives and feelings to inanimate objects. While some serious science writers resort to it, from time to time, in order to provide easy to understand examples, it has been otherwise banished from science. Ideas like "social entropy" are a kind of reverse pathetic fallacy: the withdrawl of human motives and feelings from human beings and their actions. But whatever you call it, it remains fallacious. Anyway, regarding the Constitution, changing the culture is the best and only real protection. I'll go as far as to say with the right dominant ideas in a culture, a constitution is more a convenience than a necessity. Nothing you can write on it will prevent its corruption. If you read the current US Constitution, you'll be astounded at what the government does that is not permitted by it, yet there it is. So what safeguard can you add that won't be misused, abused or ignored? On one hand some people claim the "General Welfare" clause (actually part of a phrase in the preamble) gives government the right to do as it pleases to promote the general welfare. On the other you ahve people who worship the Bill of Rights like a totem, but ignore the 9th and 10th ammendments; ie, if something isn't explicitly ennumerated on the Bill of Rights, it's not a right bit soemthign given or tolerated by government favor. It may be useful to pass a law that would require all legislation to cite the Constitutional article and paragraph that allows it. But since the interstate commerce clause has been stretched to include all commerce, it's way too late for that speed bump.

Your stimulus dollars at work.

I found an interesting column at townhall.com today titled Walmart Strikes Back It's worth reading, very satisfying. Essentially Walmart is doing unto government what government has done to business for a long, long time. Now, if only there was a way to force a government agency to pay taxes....

In other words: "I, for one, welcome our new overlords." Business can be compatible with big government, so long as your idea of business means getting favors from the government. In terms of Atlas Shrugged characters, this guy is like Orren Boyle.

What if the original domain buyer's name is David Watson? Names are kind of generic that way. If you were to buy a domain using the name of a registered trademark (ie microsoft.com) or copyrighted material (ie atlasshrugged.com), then I can see the plaintiff might have a case.

Come on, it's a simple problem with a simple answer: You have the rigth to risk your life in any way you want for any reason at all. You do not have the right to risk other people's lives. It's that simple. You want a good analogy? Here's one: should it be illegal to randomly discharge firearms into the air? Consider, a bullet fired upwards at an angle will return to earth at a similar angle at terminal velocity; given that bullets have low-air resistance shapes and are designed to be stable in flight, terminal velocity is rather high. Therefore they can 1) do property damage if they strike a house, a car, etc and 2) kill or injure people they happen to strike. So, yes, it should be illegal, because it risks the lives and property of other people. It's an act that shows reckless disregard for other people's rights. Same with DUI, it's reckless driving and dangerous to others.

look around. not just the petty theft, but the incessant growth of "entitlements." Not quite. It's more like "If there are no consequences, then why shouldn't I?" I don't think they care whether or not it's wrong.

Overall to deter crmie, it's most important to catch, try and convict criminals, regardless of the penalties involved. In other words, if the penalty for grafiti were two weeks in prison and a $500 fine, and you imposed that on 80% of all the vandals who deface walls, then you'd see that crime rate drop like a stone. If, on the other hand, you imposed 10 years in prison, but imposed such a penalty only on 1% or 2% of all vandals, then the rate would remain steady or even rise. It's a simple cost/benefit analysis, for all crimes: what are the chances of being caught and winding up in prison? If they're high, then more criminals will be deterred. Of course the penalties count. If the penalty for grand larceny were 1 day in prison and a $10 fine, then no one would give a damn about being caught. So the penalty must be proportional to the crime. That's the second part of the equation: if caught, how bad is the punishment? That amkes the first part more improtant than the second.

two things. The reasonable estimate they'll probably get away with it, which is usually the case. And the near certainty that there won't be any major consequences if they get caught (ie the restaurant/bar manager won't call the police over a shot glass).

Will there be fines for not wanting to have an internet connection?

Needs to be promoted more.

I would. As penance for not avoiding an event where shaking his hand is a possibility. Also if I were accepting his surrender, naturally

If he knows he's prone to fits of rage, and he has been violent in the past, then he should have sought some form of psychological or medical help.

In the current wolrd there are a number of other options available. You can choose an ineffectual UN resolution condemning Venezuela's actions, you can try to impose economic sanctions, stop FMI loans, establish a trade embargo, expel the Venezuelan ambassador, etc, etc.

If a government states it will not protect the rights of its citizens outside its borders, then it declares open season on all its citizens traveling abroad. This wouldn't be a problem in civilized countries like much of Europe, Israel, South Korea, Japan, other parts of Asia and parts of Latin America, where you know you can count on some protection by the local government. But it would be a major issue in many countries, particularly in uncivilized kleptocracies like Cahvez's Venezuela, lots of Arab countries, etc. Though given the current US government, Obama is just as likely to extort money from the victim to give to the agressor to appease him. If the company can move the rigs before they're seized, it should.

There have been some developments in the League recently. I've not posted for a while, though, because the Roethlisberger mess broke and I didn't want to talk about it. I still don't, but I can't ignore it either, so I'll just say this: What Ben did was much worse than what got Michael Vick in jail. The suspension he got was too lenient. The guy may be a good QB, but off the field he's doing every effor tto wreck his career, first the motorcycle accident in 06, now this. That's it, I still don't want to talk about it. Anyway, the draft came and went with much fanfare but very little hype. San Diego traded Tomlinson to the Jets for reasons that baffle me, but which migth help the Jets out of mediocrity at long last (on the other hand, if Favre couldn't do it...) And the proposal is officially out to lenghten the season to 18 games, thereby eliminating 2 pre-season games. I don't really like the idea. I'd love more games, but more games mean more injuries. It would be counterproductive to play longer if many more players got hurt and the overall quality of play came down. already the NFL has the shortest average player career (around 4 years, if I recall correctly). For a longer season two other things would be needed: 1) larger team rosters and 2) possibly a second bye week per team. 2 would lenghten the season too much, pushing the Superbowl to late February. 1 means a lot more money in team expenses, higher ticket prices, higher TV fees, etc. Besides, the League shoulnd't lenghten the season before at least one team achieves a perfect 19-0 season. New England came within one play of doing it, and last year both the Colts and Saints (the freaking Saints!) had a shot at it. The Colts chose not to go for it, the Saints sort of reverted to type late in the season, but both came rather close. For that matter the 85 bears wound up 18-1, losing only to Miami at the Orange Bowl.

My condolences. But do tell: how did you avoid brain damage?

What I fear is some idiot will amke a Dagny/Hank/Francisco love triangle the central theme of the movie. Worse yet, a Dagny/Hank/Eddie love triangle.

Dagny's affair with Hank is an important element in the plot; ie the story would have been different if they hadn't been sleeping together (wouldn't have found John's motor, for one thing). Her past affair with Francisco is important to the back story, and provides some of the conflict between Francisco and Hank. All that should be in the movie. But Dagny carries out her romances sequentially. There is no love triangle at any point. In the Fountainhead, there is one involving Roark, Dominic and Wynand.

It's plagiarized straight out of Asimov's Law of Hollywood: Whatever happens, nothing happens. (That's also the D'kian's First Law of Las Vegas Development)

Oh, yes. I know several people who saw parts of it, but none who saw it all. The only good thing in the movie was Denise Richards. I was very much surprised they didn't go with the power suits, considering how visually impressive they are. After all the movie was a visual effects extravaganza. Just remember D'kian's first law of Hollywood: Nothing is so simple that Hollywood can't f**** it up beyond all recognition. And D'kian's Third Law: A love triangle is Hollywood's idea of depth and conflict. I shudder when I think of that plus Francisco, Hank, John and Dagny.

One of the best novelettes in science fiction is Isaac Asimov's "Nightfall." As stories of global catastrophes go, it's probably the best, though it doesn't take place on Earth. Many serious SF fans, and many Asimov fans, refused to read it because they'd seen parts of a horrible low-budget movie adaptation. That's what could happen to Atlas Shrugged. Better no movie than a terrible movie.