Hey Nancy Pilosi, who is worse, Anthony Weiner or George W. Bush?

As the minority leader, you are calling for an ethics investigation into Anthony Weiner for questionable behavior, yet as the Speaker of the House, you refused to consider the impeachment of George W. Bush for war crimes.

So apparently, taking pictures of yourself and putting them on the Internet is more heinous than lying to Congress to go to war with a country that posed no threat, torture, and shoveling tax-payer money into the pockets of his vice-president's former employer's pockets, through no-bid contracts.

I have one question for you, Nancy Pilosi. What the fuck?

=-=-=-=-=
Powered by Blogilo

Rest In Pain: Osama Bin Laden

Just when the Celebrity Apprentice is getting good, I have to get interrupted by the death of Osama Bin Laden. With the efficiency and the effectiveness of the US government, that son of a bitch probably died of nature causes.

Can I now resume normal programming, or is the only little bit of TV viewing that I enjoy going to continue to be disrupted by what should have been accomplished by no later than September 14, 2001?

=-=-=-=-=
Powered by Blogilo

Tick Tock

Less than 10 minnutes away from getting out of work today. On Monday, I will be starting my first 5 day work week in almost 2 months. Thank goodness for Spring Break. I have next Saturday off, and I intend to rest as much as possible.

=-=-=-=-=
Powered by Blogilo

Open Letter to Rep. Peter King

In all of your concern regarding the radicalization of people through religion, I thik you skipped over two things.

First, you skipped Christianity and the radicals that it inspires. The Ku Klux Klan comes to mind. The two people who shot Dr. Harvey Tiller, one (Scott Roeder) succeeded in killing him, also rise to the top of that list. Since I mentioned Dr. Tiller's murderer, we may as well just throw in the entire ironically named "pro-life" movement, as they are linked to the bombings of clinics that provide a legal medical procedure. Wait a minute, is it fair for me to classify the entire "pro-life" movement as radical Christians, on the basis of the actions of a few of it's worst members? No, it isn't, but unlike you, I recognize that. Anyway, back to the radical Christians. How about the Westboro Baptist Church, you know, those fine upstanding practitioners of Christian values better known as the "God Hates Fags" people that hold demonstrations at the funeral services of fallen soldiers? I would mention the IRA, but that would be a cheap shot, giving your ties to that bomb throwing organization.

The second thing you missed was the First Amendment. Your "hearing" is an enormous waste of time and taxpayer dollars, because regardless of your "findings", there is nothing you can do about Muslims, radical or otherwise.

I don't know who is more clueless, you, Rep. King, or the Nassau County dipshits that elected you.

=-=-=-=-=
Powered by Blogilo

Why are school buses allowed on the Jackie Robinson Parkway?

Aside from the obvious twisting turns on a narrow two lane road, with few shoulders, and that kink at Queens Boulevard, which they cannot take unless they straddle both lanes, why are school buses allowed on a road that they simply do not fit on?

Couple that with the fact that the drivers of such vehicles often tailgate, change lanes without signalling, and generally are just bad drivers. For people who make a living performing an activity, shouldn't they generally be better at that particular activity than the general populous? I don't think it is unreasonable to expect a school bus driver to be a better driver than someone who just uses their car to go grocery shopping on the weekends. Shit, I am a damn good cook, but I know that I am not better than Bobby Flay or Gordon Ramsey. Why? Because they do it for a living. If I was better than them, then I'd own restaurants and have TV shows and they'd be dealing with the school bus drivers.

=-=-=-=-=
Powered by Blogilo

On Copyright Law

My stepfather asked me a question about copyright, which got me thinking. Why is it that the RIAA and the MPAA get to use the tools that local, state, and federal prosecutors have, yet they have none of the constraints?

The RIAA and MPAA get to search their victims computers (more on this later), without a warrant, then go to court to have computers siezed. After not finding anything, they then can claim that the evidence of infringement is non-existent, but that doesn't matter, because they can prove infringement based on the IP address.

Prosecutors have to prove reasonable suspicion, get a warrant, then meet a burden of proof. Jammie Thomas-Rasset and Joel Tannenbaum, under laws that make their alleged actions civil and/or criminal offenses, have been railroaded by a system that allows the accuser (the RIAA and the MPAA) use criminal prosecution tools and then only have to meet the civil burden of proof (something that they rarely do).

Why do the RIAA and MPAA get to use law that criminalizes an act, that allows for civil compensation, in such a fashion that a criminal conviction is not required to to receive civil compensation, yet criminal discovery procedures are used to build a case that only needs to meet civil burden of proof?

I am not a lawyer, but I have watched the People's Court, Judge Judy, and Judge Joe Brown. I cannot recall in any civil case a plaintiff being granted access to a respondant's property to prove their case. It just doesn't happen.

If the RIAA and MPAA wants to sue me in civil court for copyright infringement, go ahead, but they are either going to sue me without me turning over my property, or they are going to have to go to a prosecutor and charge me criminally. They will not use the full force of criminal law for a civil case against me.

Happy Birthday to Me!

Yes, I am another year older today. What makes this birthday a very happy one is that it is my last day as underemployed. If you know the part-time job that I still have, then you know that semantics prevent me from accurately calling myself unemployed. Whatever the case may be, that is changing on Monday, when I start my new job.

Do you want to here something funny? I was offered another job today! After so long a period of not being able to get so much as a response to the many resumes I sent out, I get my second show of interest the day before I start my new job. There are two upsides to this little bit of irony. One, the job I start on Monday pays more, so I don't have to screw the people that got to me first; and two, this second job offer is open to anyone that I may recommend (with a small "fee" paid to me). All I know about it is that it is a full-time PC Technician position, with entry-level pay. If anyone is interested, email me, and I'll give you the contact info.

New Job!

Starting Monday, I will be at my new, considerably better paying, full-time job, with medical benefits, paid time off, and a whole slew of other niceties that I took for granted in the past.

Just so I don't live a misery-free life, I will keep my pathetic 5-hour a week babysitting job at ShittyTech, on Saturdays, for the time being.

The VLC/iPhone Battle

For the uninitiated, VLC (Video LAN Client) is a multimedia application that plays damn near every audio and video file that I know of. The iPhone is a defective cell phone that is probably the most popular handset in the U.S.

More specifically, VLC is a piece of open-source software, licensed until the Gnu General Public License (GPL). The terms of this license clearly state that the software may be used, modified, and redistributed under the same terms that it is taken, no more and no less. The developer of the VLC client for the iPhone chose to distribute the software through the Apple "AppStore".

The iPhone, designed so poorly that it fails to function in its primary capacity (as a phone), has been widely praised by people as being fantastic, despite obvious design flaws and restrictive policies regarding software, both of the operating system and of third parties. The people that praise the iPhone are either tech journalists, who are too afraid to irritate Steve Jobs, or fanboys (someone who is so infatuated with a brand that their staunch defense of it is exceeded only by their denial of what is plainly obvious).

Here is where the clash begins. Instead of complying with the GPL, Apple decided to remove VLC from the AppStore. I have no problem with that. If they do not wish to comply with the terms of the license, they cannot redistribute the software. But this is where it gets weird.

The Apple fanboys claim to be the victims of the VLC developers. WTF?!?! The VLC devs did not remove the app; they defended their copyright. What level of feeble-mindedness does a person have to attain to blame VLC instead of Apple? Are there toxic chemicals used in the production of the iPhone that cause mental retardation among its users?

I have looked at comments on other sites and blogs, and let me tell you, the fanboys are pissed, not at Apple, but at VLC. They are right; the real loser (not being facetious) here is the iPhone user, who cannot play any and every media file under the sun, with one app, but that is not VLC's fault. VLC is not licensed under the BSD license, which means that Apple cannot just take it, modify it, rename it, and add whatever restrictions they want to it, which is exactly what they did with one of the BSD's (I believe it was Free BSD), in making OSX. That is exactly what the GPL is designed to prevent.

Free software and software that requires no monetary expense are two completely different things. As defined by the Free Software Foundation, "free software" is software that places no restriction on the user. By providing source code, the author allows the user to modify the software to suit his or her own needs. The GPL is the license that insures that you have the same freedom to modify the software as the two, ten, twenty, or two hudred thousand other people that modified it from when the author first released it until you finally found it. That 'restriction' insures freedom. You can sell the software, as is or modified, if you choose to, releasing the source code. You can change the software and not release the changes, thus not having to provide source code. You can use it as is and not redistribute it or not use it at all, making the provisions regarding source code irrelevant. The narrow-mindedness of the typical person led to the coining of the term 'open source'. While not necessarily meaning that the software is 'free', open source does not carry the connotation that money is not required.

The other kind of software is not free. It costs no money. No, it is not semantics. Adobe's Acrobat Reader costs the user no money, but you do not get to view the source code, you do not have the right to modify it, and you do not have the right to redistribute it. This kind of software is called free as in 'free beer' (costing no money), as opposed to free as in 'free speech' (as described above).

I know what the fanboys are going to say (I've seen some of the comments). If free software is free, then why do you have to follow the GPL's 'restriction'. The answer is simple, because that is the license. With that license comes freedom. With that freedom comes responsibility. For the simpletons, I will provide an example. In the U.S., the First Amendment gaurantees the right of freedom of speech, but with that right, you cannot threaten, damage, imperil, harm, or otherwise violate the other rights that others have. That is why you cannot yell fire in a crowded theater. Is that simple enough fanboys (uh, I mean simpletons)?

So, back to the VLC/Apple squabble. If you fanboys think that software licenses are something that should be ignored, research Apple v. Psystar.

Targets and crosshairs imagery, "reload" soundbites, and a distorted reality show where some animal is getting killed all seem to suit Sarah Palin just fine, yet the level of vitriolic rhetoric, gun-toting tea-party members, and Tina King (the syphillitic cunt that said that it is okay that a 9 year old girl was shot and killed this weekend, because she may have grown up to be a liberal, see image below) are not her fault.


(http://obamalondon.blogspot.com/2011/01/inexplicable-edits-on-sarah-palins.html)

I do not know what world Mrs. Palin lives in or what color the sky is in it, but in they world that I live in (the one that is plagued by her narissicism, megalomania, and hypocrisy), the sky is sometimes blue and people who inspire, provoke, and/or instigate violence are responsible for the resulting violence. The tea party and its leaders are responsible for making the shooting of a sitting member of Congress an acceptable course of action. Be it Sharon Angle and her "Second Amendment remedies" comment, Sarah Palin and all of her gun metaphors, or any of the crazy shit that Michelle Bachman is known for saying at the drop of a hat, regardless of his political views, Jared Lee Loughner's actions are a direct result of the right-wing, conservative, tea party, republican rhetoric. If it seems like I'm attacking the women of the right, I am. Why not attack the men? Because from where I sit, the right has no men, just a bunch of little boys, hiding behind Sarah Palin's skirt. The men of the republican party have no balls. And Fox, well Fox is sometimes the mouthpiece and other times the puppetmaster of the republican party. Fox is just as culpable, but they won't admit guilt, even after the next shooting.

The rhetoric of "watering the tree of liberty", the rhetoric of "pallin' around with terrorists", and the rhetoric of "don't retreat, reload" have made for a dangerous environment. With gaslines at the residence of a Congressman being cut, Congressmen being spit on and called lovely things like "fag" and "nigger" in the Capitol, and district offices being shot at (all of which occured during the healthcare debate) why is the shooting in Tucson a surprise? If it was a right-wingnut, he was just more committed than all of the others. If it was a left-wing extremist, maybe he felt that it was time to get his message across by using right-wing tactics. Again, regardless of his political leaning, we all know where the blame lies.

As for the Internet, here is a little bit of advice for you, Mrs. Palin. The next time you want to cover your ass or feed your ego, you may want to hire people who have enough common sense to leave the comments criticizing you on your Facebook page alone long enough for them to remove posts like Tina "How fucked up does a person have to be to spit on the grave of a 9 year old" King's:

"It's ok. Christina Taylor Green was probably going to end up a left wing bleeding heart liberal anyway. Hey, as 'they' say, what would you do if you had the chance to kill Hitler as a kid? Exactly."

As is typical, Mrs. Palin, you would rather be associated with a piece human excrement like Tina King than accept the criticism you so rightly deserve. Are you a completely out of touch, feeble-minded twit? You betcha!

And to Tina King, go fuck yourself! I hope your children meet with a worse fate than that of Christina Taylor Green's. Maybe then you will receive an inkling of the compassion that you obviously lack, you stupid cunt!