I think this is the official notice of pants-wetting.

Oh yeah, and so we know exactly the tripe they are going to trot out in the next week. Here are the actual official talking points they are to repeat over and over.

Mr. Giorno’s message included very detailed scripts MPs are expected to follow while delivering radio interviews that include the following lines:

• We’re not even two months removed from the last election, and a group of backroom politicians are going to pick who the Prime Minister is. Canadians didn’t vote for this person. We don’t even know who this person will be.
• Not a single voter voted for a Liberal-NDP coalition. Certainly not a single voter voted for the Liberals to form a coalition with the separatists in the Bloc.
• This is what bothers me the most. The Conservatives won the election. The Opposition keeps saying that the Conservatives have to respect the will of the voters that this is a minority and so on.
• …how about Liberals, NDP and Bloc respecting the will of the voters when they said “YOU LOSE“.
• And what’s this going to do to the economy. I’m sorry, I don’t care how desperate the Liberals are — giving socialists (Jack Layton) and separatists (Gilles Duceppe) a veto over every decision in government — that is a recipe for total economic disaster.
• But how more phony could these guys be?
• I mean, I follow the news, virtually every single day you have Harper or Flaherty out there telegraphing exactly what they plan to do with the economy. And not once did you hear the Liberals, NDP or separatists talking about toppling the government in response.
• No — do you know what set this off. When Flaherty said he was going to take taxpayer-funded subsidies away from the opposition. Now there is a reason to try and overturn an election— because the Conservatives the audacity to say “Hey, it’s a recession, maybe you should take your nose out of the trough.”
• And I wish the media would be more clear on this point — the opposition aren’t being singled out by this fact the Conservatives stand to lose the most money of all. The only difference is that Canadians are voluntarily giving money the Conservatives, so they don’t need taxpayer handouts. The only reason the opposition would be hurt more is because nobody wants to donate to them. They should be putting their efforts towards fixing that problem.
• I don’t want another election. But what I want even less is a surprise backroom Prime Minister whom I never even had the opportunity to vote for or against. What an insult to democracy.

Just remember, we are winning because we are keeping the pressure on and working together.

1h

It’s amazing how openly biased Canadian news sources are willing to be. CTV seems to be desperately trying to convince people that a coalition cannot work, otherwise their buddies’ the Cons will be out of power.

There’s “not a chance” that the Liberals and NDP will be able to convince Governor General Michaëlle Jean they’ll be able to form a working coalition, says Barry Cooper, a political science professor at the University of Calgary.

…

The governor general would likely shoot down the idea well before that point, says Steve Patten, a political science professor at the University of Alberta.

Those are the only two references in the entire article. One of which is a highly Conservative partisan from the University of Calgary, and the other who is apparently a “frequent commentator on the politics of the right”.

Regardless, his words seem more like he thinks it may actually succeed, and that CTV just pushed him hard to make it sound like this is bound to fail.

Sadly, it looks like CTV is now officially Fox News north.

1h

Image by Getty Images via Daylife

The progressive blogosphere has lit right up with blogs celebrating the fact that Harper has backed down. But!  Very few blogs are asking why. That is by far the most important part of this whole fiasco, and if progressives ignore the reasons why he backed down, none of these potential gains will be realized.

Simply put, he backed down because he saw that his plan was uniting the progressives, not dividing them.

For the last two elections, his strategy was based on two components: Divide the progressive vote and win by virtue of not having any ideological competition, and keep people unenthusiastic about politics.

Dividing the electorate is simple enough. First, regularly emphasize specific points on which the existing progressive parties differ. Second, ensure the lack of a progressive leader who commands respect and presents a viable alternative. Discourage any political enthusiasm amongst the electorate so you can win just by running as a plain vanilla candidate (a “blue sweater” candidate). Essentially, don’t give the progressives any kind of political bone to gnaw on.

Keeping progressives (and the electorate in general) unenthusiastic is a standard Conservative technique. Progressives didn’t get enthusiastic about the great successes during the last Liberal minority. I was shocked at how little was made of the NDP/Liberal public transit investment which is already bearing fruit in many cities across Canada. Regardless, short of the debate fiasco, there was not a high level of enthusiasm for anyone during the last election, which severely depressed turnout.

Why? Because Harper knows that if there is going to be enthusiasm for an election, it will be enthusiasm for pragmatic progressive policies that actually help Canadians. Not ideological stauchness and an obsesssion for power at all costs.

In the last two days, Harper has shown exactly what he wants to do a with a majority. For the first time since Harper came to power, the progressives realized that by remaining divided they will sit in permanent opposition not because Canadians don’t want them, but because Harper is willing to legislate it.

Don’t stop the momentum just because he backed down on this. Bring down this government, form a coalition, and get that power junkie out of here.

Together, we can.

1h

Edit: It’s on.

Edit(1): Check.

Spread the word, use your blog, use your twitter, join the group on facebook, phone your progressive MPs, talk to your riding associations, favourite the video, pass it on, digg it up, sign the petition.

The time is now.

Harper has shown exactly what he is willing to do if things continue as they have been, do not let his blinking slow you down.

1h

edit: J-Rad comments.

edit(2): Scott Tribe, Bring them down.

edit(3): Jamie Callingham, punish them.

edit(4): QueerLiberal, Harper is a sadistic f***.

Canadians for a Progressive Coalition

60%+ of us didn’t vote for Harper.

If we unite, we win. If we remain divided, Harper wins.

It’s that simple.

1h

Edit: Facebook group.

Edit(2): If Janfromthebruce can support this, there is no reason any dipper should be against it.

Edit(3): If you have a blog, promote it on there. Spread the word.

From: http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v101/e218702

Maximum Power Efficiency and Criticality in Random Boolean Networks

Hilary A. Carteret,¹ Kelly John Rose,^1,2 and Stuart A. Kauffman¹

¹Institute for Biocomplexity and Informatics, Biosciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, T2N 1N4, Canada

²Department of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, T2N 1N4, Canada

(Received 1 May 2008; published 20 November 2008)

Random Boolean networks are models of disordered causal systems that can occur in cells and the biosphere. These are open thermodynamic systems exhibiting a flow of energy that is dissipated at a finite rate. Life does work to acquire more energy, then uses the available energy it has gained to perform more work. It is plausible that natural selection has optimized many biological systems for power efficiency: useful power generated per unit fuel. In this Letter, we begin to investigate these questions for random Boolean networks using Landauer’s erasure principle, which defines a minimum entropy cost for bit erasure. We show that critical Boolean networks maximize available power efficiency, which requires that the system have a finite displacement from equilibrium. Our initial results may extend to more realistic models for cells and ecosystems.

1h

Having written that diatribe last week, I haven’t seen a lot of other people discussing the state of the US penal system.  Having said my bit to be immortalized on the Internet in the age of the Wayback Machine, there was silence.  I assumed there to be no outrage, neither to my views nor to the system itself.  I was kind of ready to let the issue drop.

Then I read this firsthand account of the day of execution.

The article itself isn’t what got to me; almost anybody can image the horror of facing one’s own death at the hands of the state, from a healthy body.  Worse even than the event itself is the vast expanse of time spent in agony, turning the impossible situation over and over in your head.  Reading the particulars was interesting, but being of my humanitarian viewpoint, the article didn’t do much to change my mind since I already think the death penalty is reprehensible and barbaric.

I don’t think the hordes of Angry Internet Denizens changed their minds, either.  Let’s see what they had to say:

fry him

Man, I hope reading that heartfelt letter got through to…:(

Awwww. Poor guy. So sad.

Hey! Let’s talk about the person he kidnapped and murdered with a bullet to the head.

This piece of dung should be fried!

Right, because we all make sound, moral life decisions at age 18.  Too bad the inmate’s letter showed more humanity than this Denizen is capable of.

Interesting . . . it was all about him. Gee, I’m sorry he was so scared and had so many things to distract him . . . what about the man he killed? Did he give even one second of thought to him? Did he feel remorse for what he did to him or his family? How many in this scum’s family prayed for the man he shot? Disgusting . . . and the person who granted the stay is to be ashamed of him/herself.

Unfortunately, the letter wasn’t about, nor meant to be about, the victim killed over 20 years ago.  But to push shame onto an official in our justice system for doing their job?  The rage is just unwarranted, especially since this guy wasn’t even removed from Death Row.  He’s going to have to go through that emotional roller coaster ALL OVER AGAIN.

TYPICAL NARCISSISTIC PERSONALITY

Not a word about his victim or the family of his victim.

sanjosemike

I know, let me spend my last few precious hours ruminating on the crime I may or may not have actually committed, because clearly I have not done that at all over the last 20 years.

Awwww. you were scared of dying? Too bad scumbag, you should have thought of that before you kidnapped an innocent man and put a bullet in his head. Too bad you are still alive sponging off our tax money. I hope they put you to sleep soon!

There just aren’t any words.  Those are only a few of the comments up to that point on the page, maybe 10% of the way down.

I just don’t get it.  I mean, I’m right so clearly it is they who do not get it, but that’s not really my point.  How does murder justify more murder?  How can a state make one kind of murder legal, and the other kind punishable by death?

Why are people so spiteful?  Why are Christians, people of the faith of ultimate forgiveness (who, incidentally, compliment the inmate’s faith in God) so loath to forgive this man?  How can people be both enraged at the murder this guy committed, and then enraged that he hasn’t been killed yet?

This sort of rage leads to the emotional numbing that allows more violent crimes like the one supposedly perpetrated by this inmate.  However awful the initial crime, the criminal has spent more time paying the price for it than he even spent alive beforehand.  These people strike me as drooling wolves or hyenas; no amount of suffering seems to be enough.  The time behind bars wasn’t enough, nor was the death penalty, nor was the march to death he’s already done once, and will have to do again.  The dying itself isn’t even enough.  What’s next, 20 years of waterboarding and physical contortion as the inmate awaits the great beyond?

I’m out of words.  People this sick in the brain will never listen to anybody who disagrees.  It’s disgusting, and it’s sad.  All I can do is hope that this stringent belief in the justification of state-sponsored murder is dwindling with each coming generation.

I have developed a business card, but it is not a simple design. It has both “natural paper” and “moderately transparent paper” incorporated into the card. Both types of paper have text printed on them, on both sides. I don’t need colour printing as the design is black and white only, but I do need to find a printer who would be able to handle incorporating two paper types into the same card. Can anyone recommend someone in Toronto who might have the capability to do this, or might have them so I can sit down and get a bunch of these printed?

It would be somewhat similar to this:

Sorta like this

but where on that there is maroon, my design has natural paper.

Thanks for any help you can provide.

1h

Image via Wikipedia

The NY Times is suggesting Obama won’t be able to use his blackberry once he becomes president due to the nature of the Presidential Records Act and security concerns. However, with a few modifications to his blackberry and a simple adjustment to the IT infrastructure, I believe he could theoretically continue to use his blackberry in a limited capacity while he is president. It would require implementing a proper cryptographic infrastructure between the president and the limited number people who have permission to email him on that account. As well, he may need to ensure that he cannot respond directly with the blackberry as a preventative measure. However, this second part may be unnecessary if the president is mature enough to not abuse the privileges granted him by the email account. (IE. He realizes that anything he sends on the BB can be subpeonaed.)

First concern that is obvious is the security concern:

Diana Owen, who leads the American Studies program at Georgetown University, said presidents were not advised to use e-mail because of security risks and fear that messages could be intercepted.

“They could come up with some bulletproof way of protecting his e-mail and digital correspondence, but anything can be hacked,” said Ms. Owen, who has studied how presidents communicate in the Internet era. “The nature of the president’s job is that others can use e-mail for him.”

I know that this is a bit of an ad hominem attack, but why the hell is the NYT asking a “American Studies” professor about internet cryptography? They should be contacting Bruce Schneier or such about whether or not this is possible. This is as useful as asking a carpenter about the finer points of the Maillard Reaction.

However, it is entirely possible to set up a secure Blackberry infrastructure and it is insulting to the men and women who work for the president to say otherwise. If needed, the United States government could easily modify a Blackberry and set up an IT infrastructure which would be as secure as any other channel the president uses. In fact, I would argue that by hiring some of the best minds in cryptography and IT infrastructure they could set up far more secure systems with the blackberry since technically only the president will be able to see anything which is received on it.

True, “anything can be hacked.” However, by that logic we should put the president into a lead-lined faraday cage, and only allow one advisor to talk with him at any time and that conversation needs to be recorded on a stone tablet using one-time pad encryption. Why? Because otherwise an adversary might have a remote chance of causing problems. Just because things can be hacked, doesn’t imply that they cannot be secured. The NSA is one of the most secure places on the planet and I promise you that they use computers and networks in their offices. It is the same for the pentagon, same for pretty much every other major department which needs to be secure in the US. It is sheer absurdity to say that a small task like securing a BB is not possible.

Now, another complaint they bring up is the Presidential Records Act.

But before he arrives at the White House, he will probably be forced to sign off. In addition to concerns about e-mail security, he faces the Presidential Records Act, which puts his correspondence in the official record and ultimately up for public review, and the threat of subpoenas.

As a note, if the concern is that it would be difficult to keep records of all of his emails. Someone from Blackberry needs to call the advisors and let them know that the BES server does have the ability to back data up as needed. So the concern that somehow the records of his messages can’t be kept, like Cheney’s e-mails were “lost”, is an absurd concern.

Now, the other concern is the fact that anything the president sends or receives via email would be subject to public scrutiny. I don’t know about you, but I think Obama is mature enough that if the system was set up for him, he would be aware at all times that anything he sent from his Blackberry was a matter of public record. However, if he doesn’t believe that he can keep his typing thumbs away from doing something potentially embarassing, then set the Blackberry to not allow him to send any emails. That way he can receive the emails right away and filter his responses through his aides without any worries.

The final concern that I am able to see is that the Blackberry will suck up too much of his time.

She added: “It’s a time burner. It might be easier for him to say, ‘I can’t be on e-mail.’ ”

I acknowledge that when I had a Blackberry, it was a massive time suck. However, it wasn’t a time suck in the constantly refreshing, not really useful for productivity way that other email systems can be. It was a time suck, because suddenly I was able to get more work done. Why? When people needed to reach me, it would be automatically queued in my Blackberry. I could work my way through them systematically, and not be interrupted by phone calls or people walking into my office. People also could reach me at any time, and at any location easily.

It was a time suck, because it actually filled more of my work day with things I needed to do.

So, I think this is a non-problem. Limit the number of people with access to the presidential Blackberry email address and it will actually allow the president to be even more effective in his job. He will get updates on every important action that he needs to know about regularly and will be more knowledgeable and capable to respond faster to any presidential matter.

Obama can keep his Blackberry if he wants to. He just needs his White House IT and support staff to start thinking in the 21st century when it comes to computers.

1h

I know the election is over, but the battle rages on.

1h in the hizz-ouse