Netflix Just Said Sorry

For giving us the finger last week. We accept. Let's move past this small trouble and get back to the awesomeness that is Netflix. You really should get an account. No, seriously.

"Ostergren's Law " Heads To Federal Court

The Virginia Law that was crafted to prevent Privacy advocate B.J. Ostergren from pointing out the gaping security hole in Virginia's public (i.e. government) websites is now moving to federal court.

Ostergren's lawyers filed a lawsuit to stop the new law before it goes into effect 7/1/2008. The new law will prohibit the dissemination of any SSNs posted on public websites. Ostergren's lawyers claim that if the government disseminates the information in a public forum, they cannot stop it's re-publication by citizens under the First Amendment.

Keep in mind, the SSN's are posted on public websites (usually tax websites, or court websites), because the state is too lazy to redact them. Ostergren is trying to force the state to either redact them or remove them from the web. Instead, in their infinite wisdom, the Virginia Legislature passed a law (now at issue) making it illegal to re-post the SSNs on another website which is what Ostergren had been doing to bring attention to this huge problem.

So rather than fix the problem, the legislature passed a law saying no one can talk about the problem. Brilliant.

Of course, as Virginia law is irrelevant outside the United States, the Russian mafia is still free to pull your SSN from a Virginia website (oh yes, the 'tubes' run all the way to Russia) and engage in massive identity theft. But the Virginia Legislature thinks if we all cover our eyes, nothing bad will happen. And you Virginia residents pay this think tank's salary. Now get back to work.

Cliff Notes for D.C. vs. Heller

Today the Supreme Court issued it's long awaited ruling in the District of Columbia Et Al. Vs. Heller case (pdf). It should finally put to bed (but sadly probably won't) the rediculous argument that the 2nd Amendment some how only protected the right of the federal government to form an army (militia). It also destroyed several other tired myths that gun-control groups have tried to pass off over the last 45 years. For example:

The 2nd Amendment only protects the right to own 18th century firearms only:

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern
forms of search,the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding. (D.C. vs. Heller - pg 8).

The 2nd gives the right to bear arms, but congress can take it away by amendment:

We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed." (D.C. vs. Heller - pg 19).

That the last 'big' 2nd Amendment case, United States v.Miller, 307 U. S. 174, 179 (1939), confirmed that the 2nd Amendment didn't apply to ordinary citizens:

Miller did not hold that (that the 2nd amendment was only for state sponsored militia members -subleum) and cannot possibly be read to have held that. The judgment in the case upheld against a Second Amendment challenge two men’s federal convictions for transporting an unregistered short-barreled shotgun in interstate commerce, in violation of the National Firearms Act, 48 Stat. 1236. It is entirely clear that the Court’s basis for saying that the Second Amendment did not apply was not that the defendants were “bear[ing] arms” not “for . . . military purposes” but for “nonmilitary use,” post, at 2. Rather, it was that the type of weapon at issue was not eligible for Second Amendment protection." (D.C. vs. Heller - pg 49).

That the Second Amendment is about hunting (and no one really hunts anymore):

Third, when the able-bodied men of a nation are trained in arms and organized, they are better able to resist tyranny. (D.C. vs. Heller - pg 24).

All-in-all, the majority delivered a through and well founded opinion, laying out why the Second Amendment is just as important and individual a right as the 1st and 4th. Interestingly, the court did not touch on the issue of gun licensing/registration, primarily because the petitioner (Heller) only asked that the District process his license request. Scalia noted:

Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. (D.C. vs. Heller - pg 3).

That of course leaves open the question of whether or not the government is allowed to require a license in order for a citizen to exercise a right enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

Can the government require a citizen to obtain a permit before exercising his Second Amendment right to own a firearm? Clearly, given D.C.'s post-decision statements, that exactly what they plan on doing. Given that the majority spent 64 pages explaining how the right to keep and bear arms was a right on the same level as the First and Fourth Amendments, it would seem contradictory that they would then claim "oh, but you need a permit from the government to exercise this one" unless the government is also able to require permits prior to speaking, publishing a newspaper or in order to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Or the more extreme example, a permit needed to exercise your right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures. Alas, this is another area that will have to be ironed out over the coming years.

For it's part, D.C. is guaranteed to do everything in it's power to minimally comply. The District's Attorney General, Peter Nickles provided a glimpse of their strategy:

We are going to strictly regulate the registration of handguns. There will be no authorization of automatic or semi-automatics.

Which to me seems like a very questionable legal strategy. Primarily because the SCOTUS opinion clearly says handguns are protected because they are common and popular self-defense weapons.

Whatever the reason, handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid. (D.C. vs. Heller - pg 58).

And semi-automatics are the most popular type of handgun. Sadly, this is not unexpected from the AG that declared that D.C. roadblocks were clearly constitutional. And oh, and he was on the wrong side of the Heller case as well.

Original Fluoride City Considers A Re-examination Of Its Safety

Grand Rapids Michigan was the first city in the world to fluoridate it's water. They even have a monument dedicated to it. Now the city in pondering whether or not it was a good idea. Some 63 years later, Grand Rapids is considering dropping fluoride from it's water due to concerns surrounding unanswered questions raised by recent studies that link fluoride to bone cancer and thyroid problems.

In the past, it has been common to stereotype the anti-fluoride movement as a group of nuts in tinfoil hats. It's getting harder and harder to do that, especially when the lead researcher of the US Government's own 2006 National Academy of Sciences report (who had been tasked with reviewing Fluoride's safety at 4ppm) noted that:

We were not able to rule out a carcinogenic effect of fluoride. We reported that fluoride exposure is plausibly associated with a number of other health effects, including neurotoxicity, gastrointestinal problems, and endocrine problems, and that even though these effects are not necessarily specific to fluoride exposure, the associations cannot be ruled out and need further study. (PDF Link)

Think about that statement, along with the fact that the government never safety tested fluoride before adding it to drinking water. The NRC report noted that the current FDA limits for water fluoridation were clearly not safe and were likely leading to an increase in bone fractures, a particular problem among the elderly. Overall, there was consensus among the committee that there is scientific evidence that under certain conditions fluoride can weaken bone and increase the risk of fractures (PDF Link).

Netflix Just Gave Their Customers The Finger

So this is what happens when you destroy all of your competitors and become the only game in town? Netflix today announced that they would be discontinuing subscriber's ability to divide their movie queue into multiple 'profiles' (so called Netflix Profiles). If you don't have Netflix, what this means is that your wife, husband, child, etc, used to be able to have their own queue and as they send back their movies, a new movie ships from their queue. Now, Netflix subscribers will be limited to just one profile, just one queue. That means that there will be a lot of figuring out who get's the next movie in your house, and moving that to top of the queue. It also means you're going to get recommendations based on your rental history of Disney films and seasons 1 & 2 of Blue's Clues.

Why did Netflix do this? No one knows. They're keeping their cards close to the vest on this one. They did tell us that "While it may be disappointing to see Profiles go away, this change will help us continue to improve the Netflix website for all our customers."

Huh? Did profiles prevent you from improving the website for 'all' your customers? What about all the ratings that were linked to a profile that will be deleted? Does that improve the website?

I've been a Netflix customer for over 3 years. One of the amazing things about them is how their service got better and better over time. Now, with this 'final decision' they have taken a huge step back. I can only think of one reason why they would do this: MONEY. Yes...everyone's favorite reason to screw people over.

If Netflix does away with the queues, they're hoping that customers who lose their queue will open their own account. Thus an unlimited, 3-at a time plan goes from $16.99/month to $18.98 (for 1 and a 2 at a time unlimited account). So for that $2.00 pricing change, Netflix just gave all their customers the finger. What brilliant fresh-out-of-college MBA came up with this idea? The Hacking Netflix Website posted this story (in shock like the rest of us) at around 9pm. Over the last two hours, there have been over 100 comments posted. That's probably more than any other story they've ever posted.

Here's an idea, in protest, every Netflix member should downgrade their account to one of the cheaper plans.

Did they cover customer backlash in your MBA course?

GM lost $39 Billion in 2007

It's a good thing they canceled that electric car program back in 2003. Who on Earth would ever want to buy an electric car?

Two Very Good Reasons To Take Care Of Your Teeth And Gums

This week, two studies were released that demonstrated the importance of taking care of your teeth. In one study (Lancet Oncology. 2008;9:550-558) periodontal disease (gum disease) was associated with a small yet significant increase in cancer risk. An earlier study (1/2007) found a link between periodontal disease and pancreatic cancer.

The second study showed that when type 2 diabetics took care of their gums, they were able to control their diabetes much more effectively.

It's important to note that that gum disease is virtually symptomless until the later stages when it's too late to do much about it. If you don't floss you're teeth and see gum bleeding or visit the dentist often, it's very likely you wouldn't notice a problem until your teeth began to loosen in their sockets.

Keep in mind, that when you get old, you don't have to have false teeth! If you take care of your teeth now, they can last you a lifetime. Remember to floss daily and get yourself a good electric toothbrush. They're cheap now (under $20) so that if you're reading this, you can afford to get one.

The Baltimore Sun Lives Up To Their Abbreviation

The "BS" shows you can never stoop too low in an effort to sell newspapers.

An eye-catching headline like this is bound to sell some papers:

Illicit guns flow into Maryland: In '07 crimes, 44% of firearms were imported

What difference does it make if that's a completely unsubstantiated claim?

The article, claims that 44% of the guns used in Maryland crimes were from other states, and then continues on to quote various Maryland officials who pat themselves on the back and take credit for the high percentage. Why? Because it clearly shows that Maryland's gun laws are so tough, criminals are going outside the state to buy their guns. Of course they don't take credit for the fact that the majority of guns are still purchased in Maryland. Only politicians have spines so flexible.

But what about that percentage? Turns out, if you actually look at the study(PDF) their story was based on, the facts are oh so different.

The study is based on gun serial number traces. It shows that in Maryland there were 7,517 gun traces (usually by law enforcement) in 2007. Of those, in only 4,397 traces were the ATF able to tell where the gun was originally purchased. Of those, 44% came from a state other than Maryland.

The front page of the study clearly states the following two very important facts the Baltimore Sun doesn't want you to know:

1. Law enforcement agencies may request firearms traces for any reason, and those reasons are not necessarily reported to the Federal Government. Not all firearms used in crime are traced and not all firearms traced are used in crime.
2. The firearms selected do not constitute a random sample and should not be considered representative of the larger universe of all firearms used by criminals or any subset of that universe.
   

So how does the BS determine that 44% of guns used in Maryland crimes came from other states when we don't know if any of those guns were used in crimes? And even if they were, the study's own authors (ATF) state that they are in no way, shape or form representative of all firearms used in crimes in Maryland.

So what does that mean about the BS' statement of "In '07 crimes, 44% of firearms were imported"?

The Baltimore Sun completely made that up. Why? The only answer I can come up with is that it supports an agenda either the Baltimore Sun and/or reported Annie Linskey has. There can be no other explanation.

Remember that the next time some 'news' source quotes some statistic. In this case, the BS story was absent any details (or even a link to the source). That should always tell you there's something really wrong with what they're telling you and their only option is to hide the truth from you.