Some more spring flowers for your enjoyment this Friday... first... the magnolias are in full bloom:

I've also been playing around with different lighting effects.  I'm not nearly at the Strobist level (and haven't started using off camera flash yet), but I'm definitely more aware of lighting and lens interactions.  Here is a fresh tulip just out of the ground:

Have a great weekend everyone!

If you're not familiar with the case of Corey Maye, he is a Mississippi man who was tried and convicted of killing a police officer during a SWAT raid on a duplex.  Corey, who was locked in his bedroom with a gun protecting his 18 month old child, says that the police never announced beforehand, and that he shot the man breaking into the bedroom in defense of his home and child.  You can read the original story here.

The Drew Carey Project has now produced an excellent video with all the most recent news, and some absolutely shocking revelations about what lead up to the original raid, now that Corey's new lawyer is attempting to appeal. This is yet another case of the madness of SWAT raids and the War on Drugs^TM in this country, and the absolutely devastating and inexcusable cost it has on our society and freedom.

I don't know... some of what they're describing in the hyena world might actually pass for what goes on in some bars these days... well except for the female hyena anatomy.  Damn.  Via Jeff Atwood.

I'm really getting sick of hearing about SWAT raids that have either been used against innocent people, or against guilty people who pose no danger to police that warrants a military style assault.  This story is completely over the top.  You should read the entire thing, which includes copies of the warrants and affidavits that were used to justify this extremely dangerous and confrontational raid.  The evidence that the police put forward is practically nil, and yet they were able to get a judge to justify a military style raid that resulted in major gun fire, against someone who seems to be innocent.

What's worse, is that not only did they break into his house and cause major property damage, they also shot him several times.  Then, they pulled him out of the ICU to interrogate him, and then put him in a jail cell for several days while ignoring his wounds so they became infected.  No drugs were found in his house, and he has been charged with assault for pointing a gun at officers.

Why did he point a gun at the police you ask?  Because he thought he was being robbed!  It's so so sad that it's almost funny because so many people (especially on the right) demand more and more of these military style tactics which confuse property owners, so they don't know what's happening.  But at the same time, they encourage property owners to own guns to defend themselves against criminals.  But what happens when the police break down a door in the middle of the night while you're asleep so that you think they're criminals?  Can a home owner really be blamed for defending himself?

No... I'm not referring to my promise to Ally to eat fewer refried beans.  I'm talking about a potential way to not only lower the price of gasoline (at least in some areas), but also a way to reduce the volatility in price that can be experienced, especially in the summer.  Now then, this won't lead to a drastic price reduction, but it's potentially as good or better than what a gas tax holiday would provide.  Below is a map (a little dated, but I believe mostly still accurate), which shows the type and distribution of gasoline requirements across the country (click on the image for a full sized version):

As you can see, there are 16 different types of reformulated gasoline that are required in this country.  Some of these types of gasoline only serve a small region of the country (such as what is required in Southeastern Wisconsin and Northeastern Illinois).  Having all these different types of boutique fuels is a strain on our maxed out refining capacity, because only one or two refineries may make any one type of reformulated gasoline.  Because of the size of the market for any type of gasoline, it just doesn't make sense to have more than that.  But if that refinery goes down for some reason, then the supply of that type of gasoline drops and the price can skyrocket in the effect area.

My plan is to reduce the number of reformulated blends down to one.  I don't care which one (as long as it's not the ethanol blend required in Wisconsin), just pick one.  Either you get reformulated, or you get regular gasoline.  That would increase refining capacity by taking advantage of economies of scale, and would help bring the price down somewhat.  It would also decrease volatility because areas of the country required to have reformulated gasoline would be served by more refineries than they are now, so the loss of any one refinery wouldn't be devastating.  Of course my ideal short solution would be to stop using reformulated gasoline all together, but I'm willing to compromise with the environmentalists and throw them a bone.

This is obviously not a long term solution.  It's a short term, quick way to reduce prices somewhat.  Long term solutions would include building more refineries, and drilling for more oil.  But refineries take time to build, and creating more infrastructure to drill for oil does too.  And realistically, it would just require an executive order by the President to the EPA, and because there would still be reformulated blends in use, it would not violate the Clean Air Act (though obviously I'm not a lawyer).

You can find out more at the Econbrowser.

Can you believe that a court would have the audacity to strike down restrictions on marriage that a legislative body elected by a majority of people thought was a good idea?  If only they thought to pass a constitutional amendment back then!  The will of the people could have been duly upheld like all those preachers in church talked about.

</sarcasm>

Outside the Beltway is talking about the Windfall Profit Tax that Hillary and Obama are pushing hard on:

However, one thing that I did notice when I was doing a little google-fu on the issue is that there appears to be approximately 20 to 50 billion dollars spent by the federal government per year on direct subsidies (as opposed to tax breaks) given to the oil industry each year. Unfortunately I can't pin down the exact number any better than that–it appears to vary every year and spread out amongst different agencies. Still, the GAO should be able to track the exact numbers down, so instead of an extra tax on oil companies, why not just eliminate their direct subsidies? Not only would that generate more revenue than the "windfall tax" (estimated to be $15 billion), but it would do so without getting the federal government into the problematic business of deciding how profitable companies are allowed to be.

I couldn't agree more... but why stop with oil companies?  We should be eliminating all corporate welfare.  If a company can't stand on its own without government assistance, than it should go out of business.  It's really that simple.  It's the same reason why the government should not run any programs that can be run privately.  Tax dollars have a way of propping up failed ideas because it's easy to collect taxes at the point of a gun versus convincing people to buy something.

But why is this ideas of a "Windfall Profit Tax" so popular vs. eliminating the direct subsidies?  Because the former can be advertised as punishment for doing something wrong (as if running a profitable business is evil), while the latter would force politicians to admit that they were giving welfare to oil companies for years prior (and what politician wants to admit that?).

It's not about the money, it's about the story you can tell.

It's pretty easy to tell that this guy was just searching the newspaper for some reason to bash our modern ways and technological advancements.  In case you didn't know, UWM is trying to build a new engineering campus on the county grounds in Wauwatosa.  They've now hired a new dean, and earmarked for new professors, though its unclear whether they are for this new campus, or for UWM's extensive pre-existing engineering program.

I can understand being against the expansion of the school to Wauwatosa in this area.  UWM is taxpayer funded, and believe me, I'm very understanding of anyone who questions taxpayer outlays that are not necessary.  But he just can't stop there, he goes way beyond with this tripe:

Before the university builds a new engineering school on our land, perhaps it should create a school of thought we could call the School of Putting Universities in Their Place. Such a school would study just how academic research has benefited corporations and the careers of professors at the expense of local communities, rural people, taxpayers, endangered species, world peace– you name it. Such a school would not require much space; a good dean could do most of the work alone.

As one who has taught in several universities, I am not blind to the benefits of higher education. But when education becomes too “high” and specialized, when the applied sciences are given precedence over the humanities, when profit, rather than knowledge and critical thinking, rules, when professors abandon any sense of public obligation, we are all one step closer to living in a world that doesn’t exist. And that, of course, is the stuff of tragedy.

Right... because what this world needs are people who have a major in Literature with a minor in Women's Studies.  I'm sure that certificate in Gay and Lesbian Studies will really help the world too.  And Lord knows that engineering has never helped the poor, the hungry or those in rural areas.

Because the massive engineering feats of the Tennessee Valley Authority didn't help bring water, electricity, and flood control to millions of poor farmers.  Genetically engineered crops have done nothing to increase crop yields which lower food prices so that more poor people can eat better every day.  Of course you can argue that engineers build bombs, but you also have to remember that next to religion, the next biggest cause of war is depravation (usually food or water), and engineers have done more to alleviate that problem than poets.  And those trains and other massive transit options that liberals love to drool over?  Yep... designed by engineers.

To be honest, I don't want to turn this into a "my profession is better than your profession" debate.  But the reality is, we have very advanced and safe infrastructure because of highly specialized training in universities for engineers.  Long gone are the days when engineers could simply learn through apprenticeships and then experiment on the go.  Unlike doctors and lawyers who "practice" their profession, engineers get certified in ours.

I've written on the relationship between Engineering and the humanities before, and I stand by my statements.  Humanities are an invaluable partner in a good Engineering degree, but they are not a replacement, and they are not more important than the specialized learning... at least not if you want to be able to drive over the bridges we build.

Full Disclosure: I have a degree in Computer Engineering from MSOE

I was over at the Battlestar Gallactica page on SciFi.com today and saw this as their banner:

Using the Last Supper motif is interesting... but I'm not sure I'd compare Six to Jesus.

Some historical information from Jay Leno...

In honor of a fantastic Jonathan Coulton concert in Madison on Friday, I give you a Monday Music twofer!  First there is RE: Your Brains

And of course, I would be remiss if I didn't include Code Monkey.

That's the great part about his fan base... they are all perfectly willing to make his music videos for him with World of Warcraft.

I took a few pictures with my camera phone if you're interested.  It should come as no surprise that the crowd is very geeky, and almost everyone there was wearing "the uniform"... i.e. khaki's and a polo shirt.  And when Paul and Storm announced a giveaway for the first person who could show a 12 sided die, not only was there one person there with one, but it was a race between a dozen people to see who could get it out first.  And when Jonathan asked for a Mac Book power cable because he forgot his, there was actually someone there who had one to loan.

According to Ars Technica, the House Judiciary Committee has unanimously passed a controversial bill known as the Pro-IP bill:

The House Judiciary Committee has unanimously approved the Pro-IP Act, a legislative proposal which aims to impose stronger penalties for copyright infringement. The approval is no surprise, since the bill's chief sponsor is committee chairman Rep. John Conyers.

The bill would create a new position for a federal copyright enforcement czar, establish a new copyright enforcement division within the Department of Justice, and would also permit law enforcement agents to seize property from perpetrators of copyright infringement.

You can read the full text of the bill, including its legislative history at GovTrack.  I blogged about this bill when it was first introduced in December.  As I reported earlier, the most fundamentally frightening aspect is the expansion of civil asset forfeiture laws being introduced with this bill:

The downright scary parts of the bill are the portions which grant the government civil asset forfeiture rights on "Any property used, or intended to be used, to commit or facilitate the commission of a violation of section 506(a) of title 17 that is owned or predominantly controlled by the violator or by a person conspiring with or aiding and abetting the violator in committing the violation."  In most cases of copyright violation, this would be your computer, and any computer equipment you own.  Though given the glee with which agencies like to use civil asset forfeiture, they might consider your house as property that is used to commit a violation of this law as well.

What's important to note here is that civil asset forfeiture does not require you to be found guilty of any crime.  Your property is actually taken to court, and not you.  In fact, you could be not guilty in a criminal trial, and your property can still be taken in a civil trial.  There is no presumption of innocence either.  In reality, it is a license by which the government is allowed to take your property at will.  You can read a good primer on civil asset forfeiture here.

I specifically call out Jim Sensenbrenner in this post because he used to be the chairman of this committee, and not only still sits on this committee, but also sits on the Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property.  He voted for this bill, and he is my representative.  It should also be noted that Sensenbrenner has received large donations from different sources who have a direct interest in this expansion of police power in this area of law.  If we go back to the 2006 election (when he still chaired that committee), he received money from companies such as Broadcast Music Inc., Clear Channel, Comcast, DirectTV, MPAA, Sony, Time Warner, Universal Music, Viacom and Walt Disney totally more than $54,000.  So far for the 2008 election cycle, he's only received a total of $7,000 from Comcast, Time Warner, Walt Disney and the Nat'l Accoc. of Broadcasters.  That just goes to show you how much of a difference losing the majority in Congress made to Republicans.  His top contributor so far this year has also been a company called Intellectual Ventures, which donated more than $11,000 so far this year on it's own.  By it's website, they are a company which specializes in different aspects of intellectual property, and would definitely benefit from this law.  And if you look at the top individual contributors from 2006, you'll see that many of his top contributors were also heavily invested in intellectual property law.

The consequences of this law are even more troubling once you take into account the shady tactics used by groups like the RIAA and MPAA to find and supposedly "prosecute" intellectual property scofflaws, and that they often times find the wrong people.  Combine that with the fact that civil asset forfeiture doesn't require a guilty finding in a court room, and you have a recipe for abuse.

I call on Jim Sensenbrenner to immediately work to significantly change or abolish this bill before it moves further along.

This was a snippet of a conversation I had with a coworker... we'll call her "Janet" to protect her anonymity:

Janet:  I used to go to Las Vegas for about a week every month, and each time I might spend only $20 in the casinos.

Me:  You only spent $20?  What were you doing in Las Vegas?

Janet:  Working.

Me:  *Eyebrow Raise*

Janet:  Well that didn't sound good, did it?

Of course, you can even find me on the Facebook.  Via a certain web producer we all know.

You may or may not have noticed (and you may or may not care) that I've started to more actively blog on The Coding Monkey again.  I had started to let that languish, but am trying to discipline myself to write there more often again.  If you're a software developer me, I hope you'll take a look.

I'd also like to give a little warning that within the next couple of weeks I'll be doing some upgrades around my blogs, including some changes to some of my blog themes (just polishing them up a bit more) and upgrading the blog engines a bit.  There may be some bumps in the road, which is why I mention this.

You may or may not be surprised to know that I really haven't been that into podcasts.  It's not that I have anything against them per se, but more that I have never figured out a good way to integrate listening to them into my schedule.  I've decided I'd like to try, especially since my new MP3 player makes it really easy, and I can do it in my car pretty simply.  So here is an official bleg... what podcasts do you think I should listen to and why?  I've already subscribed to three developer podcasts (.NET Rocks, Hanselminutes and RunAs Radio).  What other good non-developer podcasts are out there?