cb.blog

Author: Chip Bennett

  • Earthquake

    So I’m not crazy. I woke up a little after 4:30 this morning, with the sensation that the house was rocking. I jumped out of bed to investigate, but found all well and normal.

    Turns out it was a 5.2-magnitude earthquake.

    USGS Shake Map of 5.2 Magnitiude Earthquake 04/18/2008

    Post-Dispatch and Tribune-Star stories here.

    The U.S. Geologic Survey Web site says the quake was centered near West Salem, Ill., or about 40 miles northwest of Evansville, Ind.

    …

    The quake occurred in the Illinois basin-Ozark dome region that covers parts of Indiana, Kentucky, Illinois, Missouri, and Arkansas and stretches from Indianapolis and St. Louis to Memphis, according to the U.S. Geological Survey.

    Also, apparently, the quake was felt in Grand Rapids, MI,, Cincinnati, OH – and even 450 miles away in Des Moines, IA.)

    Of course, I couldn’t get back to sleep – so I’m going to be a bit tired today!

  • Scalia KOs Stevens

    The Supreme Court, in a 7-2 decision in Baze v. Rees, confirmed that lethal injection does not violate the 8th Amendment as cruel and unusual punishment.

    As relieved as I am to note that SCOTUS has not lost all common sense (it does not take a Constitutional Law degree to come to the conclusion that a) the Constitution explicitly permits the death penalty, and b) lethal injection is neither cruel nor unusual, therefore c) lethal injection does not violate the 8th Amendment), I was particularly impressed by Justice Scalia’s takedown of Justice Stevens’ concurring opinion, in which he argues that in his experience the death penalty has not benefited society and that the death penalty is unconstitutional. Here’s an excerpt of Scalia pointing out Stevens’ judicial activism and illogic:

    But actually none of this really matters. As JUSTICE STEVENS explains, “ ‘objective evidence, though of great importance, [does] not wholly determine the controversy, for the Constitution contemplates that in the end our own judgment will be brought to bear on the question of the acceptability of the death penalty under the Eighth Amendment.’ . . . I have relied on my own experience in reaching the conclusion that the imposition of the death penalty” is unconstitutional.”

    Purer expression cannot be found of the principle of rule by judicial fiat. In the face of JUSTICE STEVENS’ experience, the experience of all others is, it appears, of little consequence. The experience of the state legislatures and the Congress—who retain the death penalty as a form of punishment—is dismissed as “the product of habit and inattention rather than an acceptable deliberative process.” The experience of social scientists whose studies indicate that the death penalty deters crime is relegated to a footnote. The experience of fellow citizens who support the death penalty is described, with only the most thinly veiled condemnation, as stemming from a “thirst for vengeance.” It is JUSTICE STEVENS’ experience that reigns over all.

    I take no position on the desirability of the death penalty, except to say that its value is eminently debatable and the subject of deeply, indeed passionately, held views—which means, to me, that it is preeminently not a matter to be resolved here. And especially not when it is explicitly permitted by the Constitution

    God bless Justice Scalia!

    (H/T: RedState, which you should read for the full, color commentary.)

  • Review: Good Calories, Bad Calories

    I finally had a chance to finish Gary Taubes’ book Good Calories, Bad Calories, and all I can really say is, “Wow!”

    Taubes’ 600-page book is the culmination of five years of work researching a century worth of epidemiological and clinical research into the carbohydrate and fat hypotheses regarding physiology, metabolism, obesity, and the “diseases of civilization” – coronary heart disease, diabetes, cancer, dementia, etc. The volume, which includes some 70 pages of bibliographical references, is divided into three sections: a history of the fat-heart disease hypothesis, a history of the carbohydrate-heart disease hypothesis, and a history of the fat-obseity and carbohydrate-obesity hypotheses.

    Taubes reviews this century-worth of data, and comes to the following conclusions:

    1. Dietary fat, whether saturated or not, does not cause heart disease.
    2. Carbohydrates do, because of their effect on the hormone insulin. The more easily-digestible and refined the carbohydrates and the more fructose they contain, the greater the effect on our health, weight, and well-being.
    3. Sugars—sucrose (table sugar) and high fructose corn syrup specifically—are particularly harmful. The glucose in these sugars raises insulin levels; the fructose they contain overloads the liver.
    4. Refined carbohydrates, starches, and sugars are also the most likely dietary causes of cancer, Alzheimer’s Disease, and the other common chronic diseases of modern times.
    5. Obesity is a disorder of excess fat accumulation, not overeating and not sedentary behavior.
    6. Consuming excess calories does not cause us to grow fatter any more than it causes a child to grow taller.
    7. Exercise does not make us lose excess fat; it makes us hungry.
    8. We get fat because of an imbalance—a disequilibrium—in the hormonal regulation of fat tissue and fat metabolism. More fat is stored in the fat tissue than is mobilized and used for fuel. We become leaner when the hormonal regulation of the fat tissue reverses this imbalance.
    9. Insulin is the primary regulator of fat storage. When insulin levels are elevated, we stockpile calories as fat. When insulin levels fall, we release fat from our fat tissue and burn it for fuel.
    10. By stimulating insulin secretion, carbohydrates make us fat and ultimately cause obesity. By driving fat accumulation, carbohydrates also increase hunger and decrease the amount of energy we expend in metabolism and physical activity.
    11. The fewer carbohydrates we eat, the leaner we will be.

    I found the book to be an enjoyable, if dense, read. While Taubes of necessity sometimes gets into the scientific and physiological details, in general he keeps the prose at an understandable level. With the exception of the forward, which I found to be a bit tedious in my first attempt to read, the book is a page-turner, and reads much like investigative journalism.

    The preponderance of the evidence – and if you wish to refute it, start with that 70-page bibliography of references – clearly sides with Taubes’ conclusions. Perhaps the most controversial aspect of this book is not Taubes’ conclusions, but rather the implied indictment of the medical research community with respect to hypothesis regarding the connections between fat, carbhoydrates, heart disease, metabolism, and obesity. That indictment is perhaps best summarized in this line from the Epilogue:

    The urge to simplify a complex scientific situation so that physicians can apply it and their patients and the public embrace it has taken precedence over the scientific obligation of presenting the evidence with relentless honesty. The result is an enormous enterprise dedicated in theory to determining the relationship between diet, obesity and disease, while dedicated in practice to convincing everyone involved, and the lay public, most of all, that the answers are already known and always have been – an enterprise, in other words, that purports to be a science and yet functions like a religion.

    This book puts the imprimatur on what I have been saying for almost a decade: There is absolutely no rigorous, scientific evidence that dietary fat causes heart disease or obesity. To the contrary: plenty of bona fide evidence places the blame squarely upon the over-consumption of refined carbohydrates.

    Simply put: if you care about your health and nutrition, read this book. Come to your own conclusions. But if you want to argue the dietary fat-heart disease or dietary fat-obesity hypotheses, then you’d better read this book first, or else you will only make a fool of yourself.

    Others’ reviews of Good Calories, Bad Calories: Weight of the Evidence, Beantown Bloggery, Jollyblogger. And of course, plenty of coverage at Livin’ La Vida Low Carb.

  • Linux: Rumors of Its Demise are Greatly Exaggerated

    Scott Spoonauer of LaptopMag seems to be spending quite a bit of time trying to insinuate that Linux has missed its opportunity for widespread adoption. For example:

    • Spoonauer claims that the window of opportunity for Linux (as a desktop client) has closed, maybe for good. He gives some examples of the closing window of opportunity, such as BestBuy opting for the WinXP version of the EeePC instead of the Linux version, Wal-Mart “pulling” Linux PCs from store shelves and opting for internet-only sales, and Dell thus far being the only “major” PC vendor to offer pre-installed Linux.
    • After getting slammed in the comments to his previous blog post, Spoonauer then goes about trying to defend his premise regarding the window of opportunity closing, but conceding that he may have been premature in proclaiming a “death knell” for desktop Linux.
    • Spoonauer then attempts to portray some objectivity by interviewing some analysts who essentially say, “not so fast.” Their conclusions are that the BestBuy decision has no real bearing on the future opportunity of Linux, and that Microsoft is making concessions with respect to licensing in order to fend off a legitimate threat from Linux.
    • But the Spoonauer goes right back to his premise, interviewing yet another expert in attempt to discount EeePC Linux sales. Here, the premise is basically that while the Linux EeePC has sold over one million units worldwide, it has only sold about 100,000 in the US, which the expert claims have all gone to existing Linux geeks.

    Others are picking up on the meme, and refuting it. See Linux Watch and Linux Solutions. Let’s do the same, shall we?

    As I have already pointed out, Microsoft’s dual actions in extending the end-of-life for Windows XP and in offering pennies-on-the-dollar licensing for ULCPCs is a de facto concession of the threat of Linux. These actions are a stop-gap gambit to avoid loss of market share, and are neither sustainable nor viable, long-term.

    OEM licensing (presumably, Windows and Office) accounts for 95% of Microsoft’s revenues. Thus, Microsoft finds itself in a no-win situation in the ULCPC market: either concede the market to Linux, and thus generate no revenue due to no OEM licensing, or else give away OEM licenses (essentially for free) and thus generate no revenue from the OEM licenses they do procure.

    The Linux business model is entirely different. With a few rare exceptions (SLED, Xandros, etc.), Linux distributions do not make money by selling OEM or end-user licenses for use of their OS; rather, the Linux business model is to give away the software and then make money by selling support contracts.

    So, extrapolating the current environment several years: Microsoft continues to generate no revenues by giving away OEM licenses and offering support for an otherwise end-of-life operating system, while the Linux revenue stream is entirely unaffected. Linux is positioned to win any protracted desktop market share battle of attrition.

    The second fatal flaw in Spoonauer’s argument is the inherent assumption that US market share will continue to dictate the adoption rate for desktop Linux. While this assumption may hold true today, it is quickly being invalidated.

    While Microsoft has entrenched itself in the various sales channels in the US (retail outlets, vendor online sales, etc.), it is quickly losing its grip outside of the US, due to increasing open source (and, in some cases, anti-Microsoft) trends, especially in Europe and Asia – not to mention the growing computer-user market in third-world countries.

    Government agencies, educational institutions, and others are moving desktop installations wholesale from Windows to Linux, by the thousands and tens of thousands. Each one of these desktop Linux installations directly impacts Microsoft’s bottom line.

    In short, the jury may still be out regarding the ability of Linux eventually to realize its full potential – and market share – but if Windows remains the only viable threat to Linux desktop market share, Then the Linux window of opportunity will remain open in perpetuity. Microsoft’s business model will ensure it.

  • Obama Insults Flyover Country

    Obama’s recent insults of America’s heartland were so egregious, even the St. Louis Post-Dispatch made mention of his remarks [emphasis added]:

    The Huffington Post Web site reported Friday that Obama, speaking of some Pennsylvanians’ economic anxieties, told supporters at the San Francisco fundraiser: “You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years. … And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

    Needless to say, the Conservative side of the ‘sphere has taken these statements and run with them:

    Of course Hilary Clinton, ever the opportunist, jumped at the chance to take a shot at her opponent:

    “It’s being reported that my opponent said that the people of Pennsylvania who face hard times are bitter,” Clinton said during a campaign event in Philadelphia. “Well that’s not my experience. As I travel around Pennsylvania. I meet people who are resilient, optimist positive who are rolling up their sleeves.”

    “Pennsylvanians don’t need a president who looks down on them,” she said. “They need a president who stands up for them, who fights hard for your future, your jobs, your families.”

    The McCain campaign has also responded:

    Asked to respond, McCain adviser Steve Schmidt called it a “remarkable statement and extremely revealing.”

    “It shows an elitism and condescension towards hardworking Americans that is nothing short of breathtaking,” Schmidt said. “It is hard to imagine someone running for president who is more out of touch with average Americans.”

    And now, caught red-handed in his arrogance and elitism, Obama is trying to make quick work of spinning his remarks. Unfortunately for him, he’s not doing a very good job of it.

    First, the Obama campaign spokesperson tries a diversionary tactic [emphasis added]:

    “Senator Obama has said many times in this campaign that Americans are understandably upset with their leaders in Washington for saying anything to win elections while failing to stand up to the special interests and fight for an economic agenda that will bring jobs and opportunity back to struggling communities. And if John McCain wants a debate about who’s out of touch with the American people, we can start by talking about the tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans that he once said offended his conscience but now wants to make permanent,”

    Then in Terre Haute yesterday, Obama tried the “Nuh-unh” approach in response to the McCain campaign’s assertions that Obama’s statement indicated that he was “out of touch with average Americans” [emphasis added]:

    In Terre Haute, Obama chided McCain for not responding promptly to the home mortgage crisis and criticized Clinton for voting for a bankruptcy bill supported by credit card companies.

    “No, I’m IN touch,” he said. “I know exactly what’s going on. People are fed up, they are angry, they’re frustrated and they’re bitter. And they want to see a change in Washington.”

    And finally, in the same speech, he tried to re-phrase his message [emphasis added]:

    “People don’t vote on economic issues because they don’t expect anybody is going to help them,” Obama told a crowd at a Terre Haute, Ind., high school Friday evening. “So people end up voting on issues like guns and are they going to have the right to bear arms. They vote on issues like gay marriage. They take refuge in their faith and their community, and their family, and the things they can count on. But they don’t believe they can count on Washington.”

    Man, the cheap-seat view of the Democratic primary is so fun to watch!

  • Newborn Boys Switched at IL Hospital

    We will definitely not be using this hospital:

    State public health officials say two babies were accidentally switched at a southern Illinois hospital, with one of the infants sent home with the wrong family.

    Officials say the mistake happened in March at Heartland Regional Medical Center in Marion and involved two newborn boys.

    Hospital workers soon learned of the error and immediately contacted the family.

    Apparently, this hospital gives free car seats to all babies born there. Just make sure you’re putting the right baby in that car seat!

  • More Music Industry Copyright Lunacy

    The bone-headed lawyers for Universal Music Group (UMG) are now claiming that throwing away a promotional CD is a form of unauthorized distribution, and is therefore a copyright violation, and thus illegal. UMG makes this ridiculous claim in a lawsuit filed against an eBay seller for selling promotional CDs [links in original]:

    In a brief filed in federal court yesterday, Universal Music Group (UMG) states that, when it comes to the millions of promotional CDs (“promo CDs”) that it has sent out to music reviewers, radio stations, DJs, and other music industry insiders, throwing them away is “an unauthorized distribution” that violates copyright law. Yes, you read that right — if you’ve ever received a promo CD from UMG, and you don’t still have it, UMG thinks you’re a pirate.

    This revelation came in a brief for summary judgment filed by UMG against Troy Augusto. Augusto (aka Roast Beast Music Collectibles, eBay handle roastbeastmusic) buys collectible promo CDs at used record stores around Los Angeles and resells them on eBay. UMG sued him last year, claiming that the “promotional use only” labels on the CDs mean that UMG owns them forever and that any resale infringes copyright.

    The music industry, apparently, will never learn…

    (H/T: TSDgeos)

  • Microsoft Concedes Linux Threat

    Consider two recent bits of news from Microsoft:

    1. Microsoft extends life of Windows XP for Ultra-Low-Cost PCs
    2. Microsft Vista successor Windows 7 rumored to be released in 2009

    What do these mean? Two things: Microsoft recognizes that Vista has not been well-received in the market, and Microsoft recognizes an emerging threat from Linux.

    Consider the various markets for computers: enterprise (corporate) systems, high-end (gaming, graphic design, etc.) systems, standard consumer systems, and ultra-low-cost PC (ULCPC) systems. Other niche markets also exist, as well.

    Even more than a year after its release, Vista has not been well-received in any of these markets. By all accounts, the corporate adoption rate has been dismal. Due to hardware/software compatibility issues, users of high-end systems likewise have stuck with Windows XP. ULCPCs do not meet the system requirements for Vista. The other niche markets include MacOS and Linux users who don’t use any version of a Microsoft operating system.

    This scenario leaves the standard consumer system market as the only viable growth option for Vista. This market includes the pre-configured computers purchased through retail outlets or manufacturers’ direct-sale web sites. The vast majority of Microsoft’s claimed, more than one hundred million Vista license sales come from this market. However, consumer backlash against pre-installed Vista has led to a resurgence of sorts in sales of Windows XP installation media. Windows Vista has trailed Windows XP in these so-called boxed-copy sales from the week Vista was released – and many of those XP copies are being installed over pre-installed Vista.

    Microsoft’s business model for Windows depends upon the operating system becoming a commodity – that is, for the average computer user, Windows equals computer use, and computer use means Windows.

    In this model, corporations standardize on Windows, and follow the upgrade path defined by Microsoft: when Microsoft releases a new OS, corporations dutifully upgrade their systems all at once. In the consumer market, the business model assumes first that users will view the operating system as an unchangeable part of the computer, and second, that those users will replace their systems every 2-3 years, by purchasing another pre-configured computer at retail.

    Similar to Microsoft’s Office business model, in which Microsoft ensured product lock-in by creating an environment in which their proprietary document format was used by 99% of productivity suite users, Microsoft’s Windows business model ensured product lock-in by creating dependency on Windows-only third-party applications and by creating an environment in which consumers could only purchase PCs with Windows pre-installed.

    Previous threats to this business model have been relegated to servers, high-end systems, and certain niche markets: Linux is incredibly popular in the server market, MacOS owns the market of those for whom their computer is a fasion statement or status symbol, the computer-geek market often favors GNU/Linux, etc.

    However, the emergence of the nascent ULCPC market poses a serious threat to Microsoft’s Windows business model. ULCPCs appeal to lower-income PC owners in the US and Europe (the largest PC markets), but are also being targeted at impoverished and third-world communities – especially as an educational tool for children in those communities (see: OLPC and similar projects). These ULCPCs open up a market segment that could, theoretically, dwarf either the corporate or consumer market segments; not to mention, the ULCPC would have an impact on at least the consumer market segment, given its attractive price.

    This emerging market would not threaten Microsoft’s business model, were it not that almost all such PCs currently come pre-installed not with a Microsoft operating system, but rather with GNU/Linux. These PCs favor Linux for two reasons:

    1. Hardware capability: ULCPCs, due to their hardware specs, are better-suited to running Linux. In almost all cases, they cannot run Vista at all. In most cases, though many are capable of running XP, they perform better under Linux.
    2. Cost: Linux distributions are almost all free; Windows requires licensing – a cost which directly impacts the bottom-line cost for the consumer, and which is counter-intuitive to a product positioned as “very low cost.”

    Thus, the ULCPC market segment poses a serious threat to Microsoft’s market share. This short-term threat, if realized, would have long-term impact on Microsoft’s Windows business model.

    Should Linux-based ULCPCs become the norm, then what is potentially the largest market segment would be brought up in an environment in which Microsoft Windows is not equivalent with computer use. If the ULCPC brings the computer to those segments of the world population that could not otherwise afford a computer, then this entire population would be brought up in this non-Microsoft Windows environment.

    Currently, one of the most popular ULCPCs is the EeePC, sold by Asus. This computer has proven to be popular: sales are expected to be around four million units for 2008 – and while Asus now makes a Windows XP model, the EeePC originally only came pre-installed with Linux. Granted, Asus expects the XP model to take up about 60% of expected 2008 sales, but that still leaves 40% – or nearly two million units – of those sales for Linux-based units.

    Microsoft has conceded that increasing Linux pre-installation poses a threat to its Windows market share, due primarily to the ULCPC market. (Linux pre-installation in the consumer market segment, while not insignificant, still remains a niche. It may yet pose a threat to Microsoft’s dominant market share, but that outcome will take significant time.) Note that, in order to break into the ULCPC market, Microsoft had to make two important concessions: Microsoft first had to offer discount XP licenses to ULCPC manufacturers, and then had to extend the end-of-life date for XP at least another year.

    Microsoft has found itself caught in an untenable situation: take reduced profits (due to licensing discounts) on OEM sales of a product the company wants to end-of-life (Windows XP), in order to prevent a potential hemorrhage of market share, meanwhile trying to cut losses on the product into which the company has most heavily invested in the past seven years, but which has been mostly rejected by the market (Windows Vista) – all while being forced to put all long-term hope in a product the company must now rush to get out the door early in order to stem the tide (Windows 7).

    Microsoft is facing a complete upheaval of its operating-system business model. Could this scenario be the reason that Microsoft is all of a sudden so interested in buying Yahoo?

  • Poor Hillary

    Poor Hillary. Not only does she have to face two men in her bid for the Democratic presidential nomination, but she has to do so while also taking time to do her hair (emphasis added):

    While listing her credentials to be president, Clinton also said people vote for different reasons, including how a person looks or their hairstyle.

    “And that is another difference, you know how long it takes me to get ready than my two opponents — I mean really just think about it,” she joked. “I think I should get points for working as hard as I do plus the time it takes to get ready.“

    Nevermind that, had one of her male opponents said something similar – “jokingly” or otherwise – he would have been castigated to no end for his bigotry; when Hillary says it, the statement gets only passing comment as a humorous anecdote.

    Okay, Hillary: we all feel so sorry for you – even without your on-cue tears (which, I assume, will be turning up again, just any day now). You could always try shaving your head and going without the makeup. It would sort of be like campaigning on your true agenda, without trying to pretend your some kind of moderate. Both would have the same outcome: scaring the crap out of the electorate.

    (H/T: RedState)

  • Rice for VP?

    This news would have really excited me a while ago: Condi Rice is apparently making a play to be named as McCain’s VP.

    As it is, she had better re-think her views on some issues before I could even hope to support her on the ticket.

    (H/T: LGF)

    The ‘sphere is already buzzing.