Skip to content


I’m starting to notice a bit of a pattern, I may chose to discuss it further at another time. In the mean time, there’s several niggly points I wish to address over several subsequent posts. First some randomness…

  • JOIN statements really are that simple, you just have to understand how the pieces connect. Napkins and pens are really handy.
  • Comcast still spams my mailbox, and Qwest gives me nothing to celebrate over.
  • Dive suits are awesome to go snow skiing in.
  • Are there any multi-user games that don’t predominantly feature griefing to a large extent any more?
  • Those who argue over the often dubious application of the pragmatic topics that they overlook do credit to neither themselves nor their cause; to paraphrase

for the [bully-pulpiteers] of the different [persuasions evangelized] the same [interpretations] so differently as to destroy all confidence in settling the question by an appeal to the [indeterminable source].

As long as wars and desolation continue I’ve still got gainful employment.

The logical next topic

Others have said they would personally be happy to pay higher taxes. I welcome their enthusiasm. I’m pleased to report that the IRS accepts both checks and money orders.

From George Bush’s State of the Union speech.

MA: It seems like along general party lines the Republicans wanted a permanent ban and Democrats wanted something less than that and they compromised on 7 years. Do you have any particular position on whether the ban should be permanent?

MR: Well I think it makes more sense to make it permanent. I think the Democrats recognized that if they do it every 7 years then they can go out and get contributions from companies that care and then vote for it every 7 years. It’s an old political ploy which is bring it back for a vote regularly and go back and hit people up for contributions…

TechCrunch’s interview with Mitt Romney, linky here.

Old times…

Been meaning to post / link this one for a while. Matisyahu’s “Jerusalem”.

Points to ponder

“Your grandfather was worthy of this, as was your father. And so are you,” President McKay told then-Elder Hinckley in extending the call to the apostleship.

“Tears began to fill my eyes as President McKay looked at me with those piercing eyes of his and spoke to me of my forebears,” he remembered. “My father was a better man than I have ever been, but he didn’t have the opportunities I have had,” he recalled in his biography.

From the Deseret News obituary of Gordon B. Hinckley.

My Mission President once observed that the individual he as a Stake President most often looked to for guidance and as an example of piety was not any of his counselors or members of the High Council, rather it was his Executive Secretary, hardly a position of any prominence.

Who wants to handle the truth?

An interesting quote :

Some of the requests for changes, however, could not be accommodated. With respect to the negotiations over the conclusions, one of the challenges the committee faced was a flawed notion that we should be able to reach a compromise on each conclusion. Certainly, in most negotiations there are areas for compromise. Sometimes, however, views can be so diametrically opposed that efforts at compromise are futile. In such cases, members must agree to disagree and move on. With respect to the INC conclusions, we were faced with just this scenario, and votes ensued to resolve the disagreements. That is the democratic process.

Of concern, however, is the notion that there is room for compromise when it comes to the facts. Diametrically opposed conclusions are one thing, but there is no room for compromise on the facts – they are accurate or they are not. Paraphrasing the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own set of facts. I agree wholeheartedly. As Chairman, I encourage good faith negotiation and compromise when it is appropriate. However, I will draw the line when it comes to amending conclusions in a way that mischaracterizes or ignores the underlying facts. I may lose some votes, but I will continue to hold to my premise that facts are stubborn things, and when it comes to the facts, there can and should be no compromise.

This from Sen. Pat Roberts, former chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, quoted from here (PDF).

Junk mail

So I got yet another dead tree from Comcast begging for my money. Their talking points :

‘Pro’ – Qwest :

  1. You like ‘limited’ TV channels and options
  2. You like buying equipment
  3. You like old fashioned phone and slow Internet

‘Pro’ Comcast :

  1. Comcast has a fiber network
  2. Comcast has great bundle deals without minimum contracts
  3. Bundle and save lots of money

Well, they’re wrong, on a whole lot of fronts.

First, I don’t watch TV. I don’t have hardly any occasion to. If I want to watch a movie, I can on any one of my computers. So I don’t need a TV package. IF I did, I’d want an eclectic package of channels that Comcast’s domestically oriented system wouldn’t readily provide.

Second, I already own the equipment, so that’s a moot point. Furthermore, thanks to demonopolization regulation, I can plug in any DSL modem configured anyway I want, and it works. No need to fight the machine over MAC address registering and line blocking. The reason that setting up a cable modem is so expensive is so that they can have the excuse to gouge you some more in the pocket. The functioning DSL system proves that that’s not a business requirement. Argueablely, there is a reason for it on the cable network, but that’s something for point four.

Third, my old-fashioned phone service has guaranteed E911 service by virtue of a hard-wired connection from my phone into the E911 system. Some things are best left ‘old-fashioned’ Furthermore, I can and will roll my own VoIP PBX off my own internet connection, just because I can do convergence. Again, I have that flexibility because of my provider’s policies.

As for the faster downloads, that’s blowing theoretical smoke. What they do is skew the asynchronous ratio further than the telco’s do, and over-sell capacity. For a DSL system, the choke point is at the provider, you have dedicated capacity that far. With cable, you’re sharing it with your neighbors. As a result, when they say “Up to 8mb download speeds”, what they’re not telling you is that’s for you, your neighbors, and the wifi leeches off of them combined. DSL is all yours and yours alone. Plus, for people like me who need a tighter ratio, DSL gives us upload capacity not available on cable.

Fourth. Fiber. That’s a deliberate and misleading attack, designed to snowball innocent subscribers. Sure they have a fiber backbone. SO DOES QWEST. This is pure and simple skulduggery. I’ve got half a mind to call them up and ask for FTTN service, since that’s the implication of what the flier states. Yes, I can dissect the marketing FUD, but it’s still rather annoying. Left to their own, would QWest or Comcast deploy FTTN? No. If they’ve got a valid business reason for that, then it can stand the light of day. Since they’re resorting instead to misleading information, it’s an outright scam.

Fifth. Correct, Comcast gives considerable discounts on their basic packages, for introductory periods. Read the squinty-print for the ‘real’ rates, then add in the extras you’d want that don’t come into those bundle rates. It jacks the price up way high after the introductory period.

Sixth point is that Comcast tells you how much you’ll save in the introductory period. My current monthly costs are half of what their stated regular costs are.

Not interested, thanks anyway for the tinder.