Paul Kane clarifies the status of the primary: “[the superdelegates] are no longer looking at how Hillary Clinton fares in battleground states against McCain. This is very hard for Clinton supporters to hear, I’m sorry, but the super-delegates are not paying attention to your candidate anymore.”
It comes less than two months after all politicians received their mandated annual pay raise, which is indexed against the cost of living.
The raise came through an Order in Council from Stelmach, which is an order from the government not debated and voted on in the legislature.
…
Stelmach last night defended the big salary boost, insisting it was a way of recruiting better quality candidates to the legislature.
“If we are going to attract younger people for government, we’ve got to pay them appropriately,” Stelmach said.
Paul Stanway, Stelmach’s spokesman, added the move was necessary.
…With the increase, Stelmach will make about $194,000 per year. Cabinet ministers and the speaker will make about $184,000 per year.
To put this somewhat into perspective, if you look at the 2001 census (the latest one), you’ll see that the average earnings for a person 15 years and older from Alberta is $32,603. If you look at Statscan, you’ll also see that in 2005 the median income of an albertan household is $71,000 (Note: this includes couples, family and more than 1 person households.) With this, the incredible scam the Alberta PC government has going becomes apparent. On top of their government expense accounts and all the other perks, Stelmach and his buddies have just increased their salaries to 2.5 times the median salary, and around 5 times the average income. In their infinite wisdom, they have taken money from the hard-working taxpayers and placed themselves into the top 5% of income earners in Alberta, not including their other sources of income.
To put it in even simpler terms if this doesn’t already make you mad: Stelmach just wrote himself a yearly cheque of $54,000 of your money (If you are Albertan), because he wants his job to be more “desirable.”
Now, note that the opposition was forced into a raise recently by the government, a raise that they voted against. The argument the PC cronies will use is that the opposition is making so much money now, even though the opposition didn’t want the money, and didn’t vote for the money. Yet, with no real representation in the legislature, their opposition is basically useless. Obviously, real change is needed to stem the tide of government corruption and waste in Alberta. Change not only to the composition of parliament, but also how the Liberal, NDP and Green parties handle themselves. Obviously whatever they have been doing doesn’t work. However, until someone steps forward to take charge and stirs up the passions of Albertans and make them realize what they are losing, that change will never come.
So, as it has been for 30+ years in Alberta, the big blue cats will simply get richer and richer at the expense of ordinary hard-working Albertans.
I’ve been wanting to put up a beer worshiping related entry for a while now, so I may as well stick it here.
Beer is one of the oldest alcoholic drinks in our society, and exists pretty much in some form in almost every society worldwide. It is a drink which can be as complicated as a fine wine, or as simple as a crappy Molson beer. Now, while I brew my own beer at home, I do enjoy buying from time to time the localbrands of beer that I see available (infrequently) around town. As most of my friends are aware, I simply despise most of the main brands of beer. (Boycott Molson, btw). So, lately, I have been trying out this new fashion in beer making, organic beer. Specifically various beers made by Nelson Brewing, a certified organic brewery. While, I have always been a fan of techniques which are more “natural” than normal beers. For example, I find lambic brews are especially tasty because they don’t use a specific yeast, but rather let the brew spontaneously ferment. Belle Vue Kriek is an especially tasty example of a lambic brew. I was not sure what to expect from the organic brews that I have tried. I’m hoping to try to pick up some organic barley and hops and try to make my own organic brew (not lambic though, because I don’t think the yeast in Alberta would lead to a tasty brew.)
I have to say though, so far every organic brew I have had is amazing. I find the flavours of the standard ales, lagers and such are far much more intense than the non-organic brews. This may be simply because they use more barley and less rice than Molsons or Labatts, however, it is still worth the extra money I paid for them. Scientific note: my sample set thus far has been limited, so this may simply be the exception to the rule.
In the process of trying to find more organic brews to enjoy, I ran across this really interesting list of ones which (as far as I can tell) are not easily available in Alberta. I have had a few of them in the states, and I can attest that they are as tasty as they claim. So, I’m hoping to have another chance to try them out when I go down south again. I would love to hear about other good local (ie. in Canada) organic breweries that would be worth trying out.
Outside of lambics and organics, I found out recently that “extreme beers” are also fascination for me as well. When I lived in Montreal, I used to enjoy drinking Unibroue’s various high-proof beers. As well, I enjoyed a bunch of very very hoppy variations on the standard IPA. Upon moving to Alberta, I ran across an American brand “Flying Dog” which made similar high-proof, or high-hops beers. In my homebrewing adventures, I had also accidentally made a few unusual beers as well (Most of my friends will likely remember my 4 bottles of maple syrup endeavour from Waterloo.) However, until recently, I simply regarded these beers as an unusual but tasty form of beer. Well, apparently, they are an entire genre of beer in the states. My biggest issue with these types of beer is while I really enjoy hoppy beer, my stomach doesn’t appreciate it as much anymore. So naturally, I tend to avoid them. However, the high-proof Unibroue special beers are more sweet than hoppy so they are totally worth trying out. While I was in Seattle recently, I enjoyed many different beers (including a really tasty Apricot Beer). However, as is common with beers in the states, I found most of them to be just too hoppy for my stomach.
Now, as many of my friends are probably also aware, I enjoy wine as much as the next gentleman. However, I feel that both wine is given too much prestige as a “cultured” or “classy” drink and beer is severely underestimated in its complexity and possibility to be a “cultured” drink. As seen above, there is a huge variety of beers each with its own style and flavour. However, most times I end up going out to a fancy dinner or such, all that is there is crappy Heineken, Strongbow or worse (Coors Light anyone?). So in general if I want to drink to enjoy the flavour I end up with the wine, and while I enjoy a good wine and cheese as much as the next person, I also wish that the various institutions I have worked for would also consider offering a similar gathering, except with beer, and I’m not the only person to say so. A fancy beer and *insert appropriate food here* would be just as enjoyable and can be just as classy as a wine and cheese. Just as ordering a red wine or a white wine at a bar should not be viewed as the snooty thing to do.
At the very least it would be nice if they supported local microbreweries or such.
Every month, I am more and more surprised at how dangerously insecure the information world is becoming. This is especially true when it comes to implementation of systems which use biometrics, including fingerprint authentication. As more and more of our assets become virtual, the security of said assets becomes a quantum-leap more complicated than before. Why? Well, the security of said assets is determined by our ability to prove that we are who we claim to be. In the digital world, this is where passwords, biometric identification, PINs , and other methods come into play. By using these alone or in combination, it is hoped that access will be fully restricted.
Before the internet, passwords, cards, and PINs generally worked quite well to restrict access. Partially because physical access was also required and physical access is reasonably easy to secure. However, by having all of this information within an ever growing international network of banks, government computers, and border systems, the need to ensure that the non-physical methods used to secure these assets actually work increases. Since it is easy for an adversary to gain access to the physical system itself, the only real barrier to access are token-based authentication systems.
One token, which is incredibly easy to break, but is being pushed at all levels of policy right now is biometric identification, specifically fingerprint identification. First off, as seen in Mythbusters, with very little knowhow it is trivial to copy someone’s fingerprint. It is not outside the realm of doubt that a determined adversary would be able to improve on the Mythbusters hack in a fashion where their hand has false fingerprints but, without very close examination, remain undetectable.
Yet, many people still think that fingerprint authentication/identification alone is secure. Even government border programs have been using it in the hope that it is more efficient and secure. Yet, ironically, by collecting fingerprints en masse like that, they make any system based on fingerprint id less secure since access to a single database would provide hundreds of fingerprints and real world identities. Security tokens which are not revocable. Any unauthorized access to the database of fingerprints would instantly make all of those fingerprints useless for the purposes of secure identification. In comparison, gaining direct access to a similar plain-text password file would have less long-term detrimental effects, because unlike fingerprints, passwords can be changed trivially.
Amazingly, this fact seems to be completely missed by some world leaders and ignored by others. As an example, the US uses fingerprints at the border as a form of identification and security, yet homeland security czar Chertoff is quoted as saying:
“The U.S. homeland security czar says Canadians shouldn’t fear plans to expand international sharing of biometric information such as fingerprints. Michael Chertoff says a person’s fingerprints are like footprints.
“They’re not particularly private,” Chertoff said in an interview Wednesday during a brief visit to Ottawa.”Your fingerprint’s hardly personal data, because you leave it on glasses and silverware and articles all over the world.”
If he doesn’t believe they are private, then why do they use them? This is not simply an American issue, in Europe many governments considering using them with passports to “improve passport security.” Mostly like to match an irrevocable fingerprint to the owner of the passport. At first glance, it may seem to be a great new tool to link passport to person. However, due to the simplicity of faking a print, it isn’t.
This is most astutely demonstrated by a German hacker group known as the “Chaos Computer Club.” They acquired the fingerprint of Germany’s interior minister and published not only a clean image of it, but also complete instructions for how to create a quality duplicate of it. At this point, since the interior minister cannot change their fingerprint, any security system where the fingerprint is one of the necessary tokens is permanently compromised to some degree. This is not a real change though, since it can be easily seen that the security token (the fingerprint) was compromised before this group published it, because we all leave fingerprints everywhere (unless we are always wearing gloves), but their “hack” demonstrated the sheer silliness of viewing a fingerprint as a security device for identification.
I must note that in a multiple token system where the fingerprint is just one of many tokens, using a fingerprint is not as disastrous. However, since it should be assumed that the fingerprint has already been compromised, using it as security device is as useful as the person using their full name as a security device. A needless, complicated step with no real contribution to the actual security of the system. So for an authentication system, fingerprints are completely useless.
In the case where fingerprints are used for id verification, similar complaints remain. While fingerprints cannot be changed, false fingerprints can be created. As such, whenever fingerprints are used to identify someone, it must be ensured that they have not been faked in any fashion. An exceedingly difficult task at the best of times. However, at the expense of solid physical controls on site (eg. A security guard manually checking the finger for discrepancies before it is placed on the sensor), as far as I am aware, it may be possible to prevent these issues. However, that is assuming fingerprint copying technology doesn’t improve to the point that a manual check is ineffectual.
Fingerprints, simply put, are not secure. A determined adversary can easily copy them or fake them. We should stop using them for authentication and be wary of using them for id verification. The sooner we all realize this, the more secure we’ll be in the long run.
We are going to soon release a completely revamped version of VLWC. However, before it’s released to the general public, I would like to get some focused user feedback about the new features and see what changes people would like to see to them. Thus, I would prefer to beta-test it (while leaving the current version up) first in order to have a smaller user base and get more focused input.
If you are interested in joining a Vast Left Wing Conspiracy beta test group, just e-mail me at mrvnmouse@1337hax0r.com and we’ll set you up with the location and details as to how to log bugs/suggestions and such.
I’ve been watching the American primaries, more or less from the sidelines for months. Mostly, Clinton supporters have been civil. However, recently some seem to have almost completely lost all perspective and capability to do simple mathematics. Now, more than enough people have taken on the obviously flawed math which is necessary to give Clinton a “majority” of votes. (FL/MI included, Obama gets 0 votes from MI, and 4 caucus states are completely ignored.) The fact that people keep parroting this major manipulation of data simply shows to me either how radicalized some Clinton supporters have become, or at very least how far they are willing to lie openly to prevent Obama from getting the nomination.
However, I ran across this rec’ed post today and the mathematical audacity of it completely blew my mind. So much so, that I feel a need to write this post simply to make it clear that that argument (Obama hasn’t won a majority of “elected delegates”) is completely invalid.
The specific lines in question are as follows:
Reality check. 2029 delegates are needed to win the nomination. [This excludes Michigan and Florida because the DNC is mad at them and so is pretending they are not there on the map]
…
So now we are down to the wire; and at this point, with only two weeks and three states left in the primary process, with 2026 delegates needed to win the nomination Obama has won 1653 pledged delegates. Clinton has won 1499 pledged delegates. That is a difference of 154 pledged delegates. DING DING DING Super Delegate do not count at this time. They only come into play unless the magic number of delegates has not been reached. And although many have declared their choice at this time, they do not represent the will of the people, and are therefore not truly applicable to the pledged delegate state-by -state nominating process.
First and foremost, even Hilary Clinton stated that MI vote doesn’t count and that’s why she didn’t bother to remove her name from the ballot. To claim that suddenly it should matter when no one else’s name was on the ballot is dishonest and, to be honest, incredibly slimy. However, that is not my complaint. Rather, my complaint is the fancy mathematical tricks she does in the second part to make it appear that Obama has not won a majority of the delegates elected by “the will of the people.”
The magic number 2026 is exactly half of the number of delegates + 1. This is all delegates, including superdelegates. If you are going to concede that superdelegates don’t represent the will of the people, or are meaningless, as is done in the above paragraph, you simply cannot use this line as the goal post for who won the nomination.
Why? Well, let’s use simple maths to explain it. Let’s say we play a game, with 100 tokens. Whoever gets a simple majority of the tokens wins. (The method the tokens are distributed is not discussed here) Therefore, if you end the game with 50 tokens + 1, you win the game. Now, let’s say that 10 of those tokens are “special” tokens. Tokens which are not distributed in a way similar to the other 90 tokens. In fact, let’s go so far to say that they are given out by an observer of the game to whomever they decide played best. So now, we have two metrics to determine who won the game.
Who played the game well enough to win 50%+1 of the 90 non-special tokens. Ie. 46 tokens.
Who played the game well enough to win 50%+1 of the total 100 tokens. Ie. 51 tokens.
Well, if you take the stance that the special observer tokens don’t matter, then from your perspective, the person who won 46+ of the non-special tokens actually won the game, regardless of the actions of the observer. If you take the stance that the observer is important and his tokens are part of the game, then you must also agree that whoever won 51+ of the total tokens won the game.
However, if take the stance that 51+ tokens are required to win the game, but the special observer tokens don’t matter, then you are actually increasing the bare minimum of tokens required to win from a simple majority (50%) to 55.6% of the non-special tokens. Thus you are, in effect, changing the rules of the game midstream.
Now, the case of this poster is such that because Obama didn’t win 2026 of the elected delegates, he doesn’t deserve to win the nomination (ie. the game is a tie). However, this would imply that a winner would need to win 2026/3253 = 62.3% of the elected delegates to win the nomination. In other words a supermajority. In effect changing the rules of the democratic game after the fact to ensure that it keeps on going. Similarly, since the person disregards the superdelegates as undemocratic, there is absolutely no way to resolve this issue without (in that person’s mind) having the superdelegates overthrow the will of the people in either the direction of Obama or Clinton.
Either that, or the primaries would need to be re-run with the hope that someone wins 62.3% of the elected delegates. That is the only way 2026 pledged delegates who are not superdelegates can be reached, and thus “the will of the people” be observed according to this poster. It’s just simple math.
