Ok. I just want to make a point. Supposedly, according to a "software trade group," a "ten-point drop in the estimated 35 percent global software piracy rate would create 2.4 million jobs and $400 billion in economic growth over four years."

Perhaps I have a stake in the negative opinion here, but I want us to truly consider this statement. First, who is the "software trade group"? Second, what does "estimated 35 percent global software piracy rate" mean? Stick with me on this one. What is the 35% of? Is it 35% of total software trade worldwide? Is it 35% market-share of software, by which I mean 35% of the total possible revenue?

I don't know. And the article blithely does not say. How very irritating, and how convenient, as leaving out that important note makes it a lot easier to drop other relevant questions, like what factors lead to this conclusion?

My guess is that this study is based upon a 1:1 switch. In other words, for every piece of pirated software, the cost of an equal piece of legal software is added. If so, it would make sense that the number might be so high. Dropping either 10% or 33% (depending on what the hell they are talking about) of the total piracy worldwide would certain generate a ton of revenue, if every single person that used pirated software started using legal software.

But that simply isn't likely to be the case. My guess is that at least 50% of the people who use pirated software (probably more) would never go out and buy the legal versions. To use a popular and famous example:

Photoshop costs about $200 dollars and is one of the most pirated pieces of software in the world. Or was at one time. Now let's do a little math problem. Suppose there are 10 people who use pirated Photoshop. That's $2000 in lost revenue. Now let us see what happens when 30% of those people stop using photoshop. Only $1400 in lost revenue! But what if, instead of saying only $1400 in lost revenue, we said $600 in GAINED revenue!!!

This, I think, is what this trade consortium is doing. Unfortunately, that idea is ridiculous. Who were these three people? Probably poor people who had access. How many of these three people are likely to go out and buy a $200 program for editing pictures? I'm guessing about zero.

Of course, all of these theories could be baseless if only the article:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/pcworld/20051214/tc_pcworld/123918

:had been willing to actually discuss the report itself, rather than the possible rammifications of the report, and then demonstrated that estimates were based upon real and reasonable numbers. However this was not the case, so I'm going to go ahead and continue calling bull.

Hi. Just thought I'd add something. One issue that differs greatly between intelligent design and evolution is the notion of disprovability. In other words, at its most basic ideal, evolution states that creatures are going to change from generation to generation based upon whatever factors make reproduction most likely.

In other words, if being hairier means I am more likely to have a hairy baby who in turn has a baby due to extreme hairiness, then I (and my progeny) are going to be hairier.

This is the hypothesis of evolution. It can be disproven. It's simple. If hairiness is extremely helpful to reproduction, but after a few generations hairiness does not become a predominant trait (aka if everyone isn't hairy), then the hypothesis of evolution has been disproven.

However, as we know, thanks to flowers and flies, it was not disproven, but rather supported.

Intelligent design, however, cannot be disproven. Its hypothesis is that some greater power determined our evolution. What kind of experiment might prove that not true? Answer: so far, none.

And that is the issue. Intelligent Design is NOT science because no experiment can be run to either disprove or provide evidence.

To make it even simpler, imagine a coin toss. My hypothesis is that it will come up heads. If it comes up tails, my hypothesis will be disproven.

In an allagorical way, Intelligent design has no "tails." If taught in science class, this theory WILL harm our children's already tenuous grasp of what makes science science.

So there you go. And there is the challenge. Scientists will start to accept ID as science the moment it starts becoming science. One of you crazy creationist kooks needs to come up with an experiment that COULD proove intelligent design wrong. If you do so, then FAIL to prove it wrong, science must accept you.

If not, sorry, you will continue to be ignored.

Ok. So this is just ridiculous. Did anyone else read the NY Times story today about how the Republican leadership plans to fight back if Rove and Libby are indicted for perjury rather than anything that actually has to do with their giving up the name of a CIA operative?


Here's a quote from Senator Hutchison of Texas, she hopes, says the Times, "that if there is going to be an indictment that says something happened, that it is an indictment on a crime and not some perjury technicality where they couldn't indict on the crime and so they go to something just to show that their two years of investigation was not a waste of time and taxpayer dollars."

If any Senatorial or House republican that held office in 1998 follows this theme, assuming that is what plays out, it will be the single greatest hypocrisy of these two decades. Bill Clinton was only the second ever president served with articles of Impeachment and nearly tossed out of office for "some perjury technicality where they couldn't indict on the crime."

In this particular case, I'd much rather see some sort of charge that directly relates to the CIA individual, but that simply isn't the point of this post. The point is that I do NOT want to see such an obviously hypocritical display from the individuals in control of the nation.

In other news, the trip to Bozeman from Butte, MT is one of the more beautiful trips in Montana. 

My roommate tells me that the cheyenne believe that when a ring of clouds encircle the moon, colder weather will be upon us. In this case, it seems he was correct. 

And here is a pic of some girls who were impressed w/ my mountain climbing skill. 

Sometimes, when climbing starts to where you out, you just need to crouch and think deeply about not so much.... 

Here I am, scaling a death defying bridge. 

Rain, rain on my face. 

So I visited Lava Lake near Big Sky, MT a while ago. Thought you all might like to see a bit. 

Hey, everyone, this post is in response to a recent remark (and ensuing argument) comparing Pres. Bush to a character named Sedgwick Bell from the movie the Emperor's Club. If you haven't seen the movie, my review is that it was ok - maybe a bit like mixing Mr. Holland's Opus with Dead Poets Society. Anyway, enjoy. Oh, also, I take a brief moment to make fun of someone that suggested outlawing alcohol as a cure to society's ills.

Um. hi, everyone. Just thought I'd add my own little, miniature comment in, hopefully to stir up controversy or whatever you will.

First off, guitargod, we tried the outlawing alcohol thing. As far as anyone can tell, it seems to mostly just provide an opportunity for the onset of massive organized crime. One figures that if someone is going to make money of the sale and consumption of alcohol, it may as well be the government, rather than the criminals (this is your cue to make many semantics related jokes).

Now, on to moralizing, the ethics of presidents, and the point.

Let's do those in reverse order.

It seems to me that the point of this movie isn't just about morals or ethics or rich, spoiled, machiavellian kids. It seems to me to be a story about the mark one leaves behind at the end of one's life, one's legacy. There are those who become powerful, respected, famous, rich; they are conquerors, bringers of peace or war, fighters, revolutionaries, economists, et cetera, etc. Yet, at the end of their lives, it is possible that they may look back and discover that though they did many great things, they were not, as such, great men. The purpose of the rest of the movie is to try to define the things that truly do define a great man. Or woman, I suppose, though that exact point was never mentioned.

Presidents Bush and Clinton seem to be remarkably different men, in the sense that they each tend to represent their own party's ideal and their opposing party's most terrible. And I think this is primarily because the ethical focus in each political party is directed in almost opposing directions.

Specifically, democrats at the core and at this point in time care very about personal ethics and care much more about global ethics. For example, your traditional democrat wouldn't give two craps (if you'll excuse my french) about how many women a man has slept with or how many times he's read the bible or even how regular is his routine. Beyond that, they typically become concerned when a president starts to introduce his own, personal beliefs into the national dialogue, rather than his profesional beliefs. Clinton is an excellent example of such a man, but an even more perfect example is that of Earl Warren as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Now here was a truly reprehensible man; here was the man who ordered the Asian internment camps during WWII, yet the moment Warren accepted the tennants of Supreme Court Justice, his personal motives were pushed aside and decisions were made based upon a professional and moral understanding of the Constitution and its amendments.

Meanwhile, to modern Republicans (and I'm not speaking of you old school republicans who are slowly discovering you are really libertarians - I'm talking neo-cons), the notion of putting aside one's faith and personal morals isn't reprehensible; it's inconceivable. One is guided by one's values and acts upon them. In a sense, presidents are elected based upon what they believe and do personally, not what they do professionally. Under Bush's tenure as president, the nation has fought two wars, slid into a recession (which probably isn't his fault), failed to recooperate from that recession in any quick and meaningful way (which is certainly at least partially his fault), enmeshed inself into a turmoil that is remenicent of (but no where near as bad as) Vietnam, failed to make abortion illegal, slowed and possibly even reversed some work in environmental recovery, and become more politically polarized than it has been in a century. On the other hand he doesn't like gay people, abortion, terrorists, or the nation of Iran (Saudi Arabia is cool, though).

Sorry, a little sarcasm popped in there, please, allow me to continue.

The thing is, President Bush does appear to be a very personally moral man in the American sense. He is not a womanizer. He reads the bible regularly. He wants to protect whatever sanctity marriage has left. He talks like he isn't from the Northeast, even if he doesn't know how to pronounce Nevada. These things are real, important things, and I apologize if my personal bias makes them sound in any way trivial, such is not my intent. These things are either unimportant or, if taken in a specific light, immoral to a core democrat, yet they are vital to the minds of the core republican. Reagan was a template (albeit a slightly less relgious one) for these values.

The moral of all this is that neither man truly fulfills the legacy of Sedgwick Bell. He was personally amoral, but he was also professionally amoral. As such, it is very easy to see the faults of either president in this one man, if you just lean in one direction. As I'm sure you can tell, I obviously lean one way, but I am certainly not professional enough in this field to say that my way of thinking is the correct one. When hiring someone, I like to look at track records. As far as I'm concerned, it's equally reasonable to look at background history.

I just read a blog entitled a Twist of Kate, and it put my in an odd frame of mind. A few years ago, I liked to make fun of how self-involved people from Johnson county, KS were. These days, I look to the people of the east coast and can't help but feel the same way. It's as if there is some entire world there that has nothing to do with the south, midwest, bible belt, mountain zone, southwest, pacific northwest, and california (which I've decided to count as its own region). On the other hand, maybe all of these various regions are that way to some small degree.

I guess the thing that irritates me the most about the whole thing is that old money allows individuals in this region to attend an extremely expensive liberal arts school, secure in the knowledge that they'll be taken care of thanks to the powerful skill of nepotism.

That "skill" part was, of course, sarcasm.

Um. That's all. Happy cinco de mayo.