Lately, it’s been rattling around in my old head that perhaps, instead of treating corporations like persons, we should treat them like useful, but very dangerous, viruses. Comparable to one that generates some useful end product, but would eat your flesh off if you got any on you. Because other than the end products they make, I’m really hard put to think of much good corporations do unless they’re legislated into a corner and forced into it.

In this case, the nagging thing is that if there’s corporation on the one hand, and it thinks it has a right to look at your credit history, your online activity, or how you crap in the bathroom, and an actual person on the other, who thinks they have a right to privacy… you know, I’m probably going to side with the person. Perhaps we should be thinking how to best rein in corporations instead of how to rein in employees. Legally.

Might this disadvantage the corporation? Yeah, it might. Just like the constitution disadvantages (well, is supposed to) the government. My response to that is that if the corporation wants to ensure the person’s loyalty and fidelity, that they do so by ensuring that the person in question has every reason to feel that serving the corporation is the best choice. Rather than depending on rights-eroding legislation to trap the employee into a regimented behavior pattern they really don’t support.

Perhaps they could start by paying a little less to the top levels, pruning the ridiculously incompetent middle management, and compensating the people who do the actual work a little better. Maybe even provide decent healthcare, you know? Radical, I know, but it’s late, and I’m riding the caffeine monkey, or vice versa. All I’m sure of right now is that the ringing in my ears isn’t the damned liberty bell.

Then (oh, no…) I began to think about what parts of it I would like to use, that is, have directly available to me. So I wrote those nice folks, complementing them sincerely on what a nice App they had come up with (check it out, you won’t regret it), and suggesting they write what I had in mind, because actually, they sort of had the data in the app already, it was just a matter of organizing it differently. I got a nice reply, thanking me for the suggestion, but allowing as to how they had a lot to do, and so it would be “on their list.”

Well…

Not being the most patient person in the world, and well aware that “later” often means never, no matter how well intended when handed over, by morning I had This:

Basically, it tells you where all the planets are in the sky, how well you can expect to see… even if there’s an eclipse going on. In the process, I got to cobble up some simple dials of various kinds, which was sorta fun. Ok, not really, but now that they’re done, they’re fun.

So if there are any folks in the Glasgow area that are looking for current astronomical data for the planets… here it is. If you’re any distance from Glasgow (and almost everyone is), these are wrong values for you. Sorry.

I wrote it in Python.

Ex post facto laws are explicitly forbidden to the federal government and the states by two separate and quite specific clauses in the constitution, the government’s authorizing document:

The federal government: “Section 9 – Limits on Congress – No … ex post facto Law shall be passed.”

The states: “Section 10 – Powers prohibited of States – No State shall … pass any … ex post facto Law”

You may be asking, “What is an ex post facto law?” The legal definition is given by Calder v Bull (3 US 386 [1798]), in the opinion of Justice Chase, which defines four classes of laws:

1st: Every law that makes an action done before the passing of the law, and which was innocent when done, criminal; and punishes such action.

2nd: Every law that aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was, when committed.

3rd: Every law that changes the punishment, and inflicts a greater punishment, than the law annexed to the crime, when committed.

4th: Every law that alters the legal rules of evidence, and receives less, or different, testimony, than the law required at the time of the commission of the offense, in order to convict the offender.

Now, read #3 carefully. Clearly, extending a prisoners sentence beyond that specified by the law at the time of conviction qualifies in every way for this class of ex post facto law. Here’s an example. Suppose the maximum punishment for the crime is ten years, and this is the punishment meted out by the judge upon finding guilt. Then, at the ten year mark, when the prisoner has every right to expect release, the government, under this new law, decides to just keep them in prison. Indefinitely.

Just one more out of control event in a series of unauthorized actions by our supreme court. Let’s be clear: The US constitution is the authorizing document for the federal government, and also serves in large part as authorization and a mechanism to forbid action by state government. The only things the government are authorized to do must fall into issues that are not forbidden (as this action specifically is), and are permitted, which this action is not.

In the US, the government is authorized to use power by the constitution in very specific ways. Some things are not authorized by virtue of not being mentioned or even implied; others are not authorized by virtue of being forbidden, which is the case here. To the extent that the government exercises powers is it not authorized to have, it is a government out of control.

This is one of the tragedies of our time; our government, once the embodiment of hope of the founders and the pride of every American, is now running wild, doing whatever it “feels” is right, regardless of its authorizing charter. This is in no way different than rule by royalty. When decisions are taken outside the realm of what the people permit, then the government is no longer responsible to the people.

For any of you who are in sympathy with this law, let me point out that there is a means for the government to obtain these powers. That is embodied in article five, which defines how amendments may be made to the constitution. Basically, if the people say that they are willing for a specific change to be made, then such powers can be authorized. There is a formal procedure, however, and without that procedure, no such powers can be authorized.

I was raised with the idea that I lived in a constitutional republic. As I learned about the government, I found more and more evidence that this is actually not the case. In the US, the government exercises arbitrary power. Not constitutionally authorized power. I wonder why we have to accept this. And if we don’t have to, I wonder why we do.

This isn’t stupid; it’s calculating and it is very much political, “just the way things work today.” For instance, if you actually think the government presently is authorized to restrict citizens from owning arms, I’d love to sit down with you and show you why you’re 100% wrong. I think you’re far too smart to buy the standard arguments for your own position, though, and I suspect that in private, you’d simply admit that is the case. I understand political expediency. I also understand an urge to do good, and that the legalities of the system can frustrate that urge if not pushed to the side.

But this time… I’m disappointed in you.

Here’s the problem. You recently stated “With iPods and iPads and Xboxes and PlayStations – none of which I know how to work – information becomes a distraction, a diversion, a form of entertainment, rather than a tool of empowerment, rather than the means of emancipation”

Ouch. First of all, if you don’t know how to work them, you’re in the same boat as a Catholic priest giving advice about sexuality. That is, you’re incompetent and you should really avoid venturing an opinion before someone hands you your argument on a platter, sliced and diced. The fact is, all of those devices are capable of presenting the news in the same, or better, quality as a television or a newspaper.

Secondly, (gets out slicing and dicing tools) information’s very nature is to distract; new information always affects a viewpoint and alters it in so doing. So that’s not a problem. That’s a feature.

Third, information – such as your unconstitutional position on gun control – is something it is very important that the people have so they may judge your performance, and it matters not if that information comes in a newspaper, on an iPad, or through word of mouth. The key is accuracy, and Mr. President, accuracy is not a function of the medium of delivery – you’re absolutely wrong about that issue.

You went on to say “All of this is not only putting new pressures on you, it is putting new pressures on our country and on our democracy.”

Those pressures, in many cases, belong there. Our political system has existed for years in a partial information vacuum, where the people really didn’t know what was going on. They didn’t know how the financial system works; they didn’t understand that laws were being bought and sold by special interest groups; they didn’t understand that the government often operates under false pretexts that do not actually justify the actions taken in their name.

All of those things, and many more, should be brought to light and our government made to operate in a more responsible way that is either more in line with the authorizing document (you know, the constitution you swore an oath to uphold), or in such a way as to get amendments through that alter the legitimate authority the government has so you can operate using powers you actually have been given, instead of arbitrarily taking them using the judiciary or congress as a front.

Now, is it true that media – any kind – often presents the media consumer with false information? Yes. Absolutely. Now, let me put this question to you: Why is this allowed to continue? Why is the news media not strictly held to a standard of truth?

Now let me answer it: Because the government is in the habit of lying to, and misleading, the public. Consequently, the government doesn’t want the media to always tell the truth. Which kind of screws up its ability to keep hostile media such as Fox News from presenting utter nonsense to the news consumer.

So that problem is really right back in your lap, Mr. President. I’m all for truth in news; but in order for you to get it there, you’ll have to get the government to give up such habits as using the news to mislead the public. But please, don’t try to slough off the problem(s) with news upon the devices used to obtain it – that’s just absurd. It’s beyond wrong and, I’m sorry to say, it makes you look a lot less intelligent than you are. So stop that, will you?

While (I wish) I have your attention, thanks for working to push the healthcare bill through. It’s a start. I won’t be happy until pooling funds for healthcare is not in private hands, but still, baby steps are better than no steps.

Sincerely,
A conservative guy who voted for you, and almost certainly will again come next election.

Speaking as someone somewhat familiar with the industry, publishers, long known for providing only minimal advances and the smallest possible royalty to the actual artist (the author(s) and illustrator(s)), appear to have no role in the e-book ecosphere.

There’s nothing to print; typesetting, such as it is, can be handled by the author(s); there’s almost zero cost to the delivery; the value created is in the work, which is the role of the author(s); and in its presentation to a market, which is the role of the retailer (or again, even the author(s)); and finally in its purchase by the consumer.

It seems to me that it may be just a matter of time before the authors – and the retailers – realize this, and publishers end up on the same sidewalk as manufacturers of buggy whips – and for the same reason. Right now, publishers get (I should say, typically they insist on taking) e-book rights when they print a traditional book. But one has to ask, how long will paper book publishing be the first and most important choice for an author? I don’t think it will be much longer. I haven’t bought a “real” book in a year, and I can’t really see doing it again. E-books simply have too many advantages, and more arrive with every wave of technology.

Unless, of course, the law steps in, as it has with copyrights and software patents, to create an artificial market. Then all bets are off. Publishers might continue to prosper in the authoring space just as lawyers do in the extended copyright and patent spaces.

After repeatedly looking all this stuff up, and occasionally forgetting an important issue (like, is it cloudy?) before I drove out to my dark viewing area with my camera gear, I finally decided to pull all the information together into one handy place. And here it is, sized to fit on my iPod’s display, too. Further, since all the data is in one place, I have the underlying engine SMS me if conditions are right for an aurora; also, as long as I keep a browser open to the page, the page auto-refreshes.

The underlying processes keep an eye on things for me, updating their snapshots of satellite data and weather and lunar and solar states every five minutes. So I can be out and about, and if things look hot, I’ll get a text message on my cellphone. How cool is that?

Well, that’s a lot of Python code. I’m going to the source of the satellite data, and retrieving the last two hours of one-minute interval magnetometer data and then generating the graph using the PIL Python package; to NOAA, and grabbing cloud, temperature, relative humidity and visibility; and using the ephem Python package to calculate the moon and sun data, then if it seems reasonable to do so, prodding myself via SMS.

Anyway, it was a fun project, and I thought I’d share both the results, and describe what went into it. The results, unfortunately, are primarily useful to myself and anyone else local to my area; if you’re somewhere else, the sun, moon, and weather data are all wrong. Sorry about that, but that’s the nature of the pursuit.

As far as sharing the code goes… I’d have to clean it up a bit, as it is, it reveals a little more about my server internals than I’m comfortable making public – but if you’re interested, let me know (use the comments) and we’ll see what we can come up with.

If anything, I think the movie was under-rated. What a feast for the eyes, and what fun, too. I was able to ignore the silly native-American and global-warming themes and just dig on the whole sci-fi-ness of it; the only thing that sorta bugged me was the musical portion of the sound track, which I can only describe as the Lion King on crack. But the rest was so good that mostly, I just ignored the silly drumming and the crazed new-age sing-a-longs. Which, thankfully, didn’t make up a large part of the movie.

There was quite a bit of other eye candy of numerous kinds — the biota of the world, the corporate headquarters virtual mapping system, the blue folk themselves… really a tour de force. I am so glad we bought the hi-def Blueray; it looks bleeding awesome on our 1080p home theater.

I really loved the ‘Mechs, larger-than-human armed and armored exoskeletons that remind me of baby MechWarrior or MechAssault ‘Mechs from the video and table games. I have a pretty good collection of Mechs (about 2…3 inches high, from the table game) and it tickled me to see things like them handled so well in a movie — definitely for the first time.

There have been some rumblings about DRM incompatibility with el-cheapo and/or poorly supported Bluray players out there; I’ll repeat the advice I give everyone about Bluray players: You want a Sony PS3. You don’t want anything else. Period. There is no doubt, no decent competition, no comparable bang-for-the-buck. The PS3 is it. And the PS3 will play the Avatar Blueray without any problems whatsoever.

Anyway, just thought I’d throw this out there. Great movie. On the (very) off chance you haven’t seen it, you should. This one goes to eleven.