Category: Stupidity

Please tell us if you steal from us.

With a recent update through its Automatic Update feature, Microsoft proves that it’s incompetently evil, at most. At issue, it released Windows Genuine Advantage Notification (KB905474). The description is as follows:

The Windows Genuine Advantage Notification tool notifies you if your copy of Windows is not genuine. If your system is found to be a non-genuine, the tool will help you obtain a licensed copy of Windows.

Good grief. I know my copy of Windows is genuine. I do not need notification. I purchased every computer I own, and they still have the original operating system included when I turned them on for the first time. I’m honest; I don’t need this surveillance. Thanks for the trust, though.

If I happened to be the type of person who would install a pirated non-genuine copy of Windows, does Microsoft really believe that I would utilize its help in obtaining a license?

The idea is preposterous. Yet, there is the option from Microsoft, treating me like I’m incompetent or stupid. Yes, it has a significant portion of the market for several key software product types. So what? There are options to avoid Microsoft brought about by its own incompetence at innovating and/or adapting to the market’s demands.

Post Script: None of this applies to the Xbox 360. I love my Xbox 360.

I hate the tiny screen of MLB.tv.

I’m beating Major League Baseball’s anti-fan deal with DirecTV repeatedly, but it keeps providing fodder.

In Demand president Rob Jacobson, whose company is owned by affiliates of the companies that own Time Warner, Comcast and Cox cable systems, offered to carry the package on the same terms that DirecTV is for the next two seasons while putting off the issue of The Baseball Channel until it launches.

“This would ensure that for the next two years at least, all baseball fans would have access to the `Extra Innings’ package,” he said. “If we’re unable to reach an agreement when the channel launches, we’d give baseball the right to cancel the `Extra Innings’ deal. We think this is a fair compromise.”

[Sen. John] Kerry, trying to play the role of mediator, got behind the effort.

“What’s the matter with that?” he asked Bob DuPuy, baseball’s chief operating officer.

That’s a valid question, but only coming from a fan. [And I’m asking it: what’s the matter with that? – ed.] Congress, in its official duties, should not be determining the specifics of business deals in the private market. I know baseball and television aren’t fully private markets the way a corner store and a candy producer would be, but they should be.

“When fans react, Congress reacts,” [Sen. Arlen] Specter said. “You may be well advised to act before we do.”

Sen. Specter’s first statement is wrong because it amounts to nothing more than mob rule. He’s parading it as democracy, but we’re talking about the same beast. I’m angry about the deal. Still, it’s not something I expect my congressman to address. Sen. Specter’s concern may be correct. His actions are not.

Which gets to his second sentence. Stop threatening. Act or shut up. I’ve already stated that Major League Baseball should not have antitrust exemption. As long as it exists, though, dictate. That way everyone understands the true nature of the deal. Instead, we get blabber about the interests of consumers until someone inevitably steps up with cash or politicians back down without dignity. It’s tiresome.

I still hold out hope that a deal will get done. I can’t fight the fear that Major League Baseball only offered the Extra Innings deal to cable and Dish Network as a front to later pass blame on an outside party for not meeting the terms. I despise Bud Selig.

Informed, educational thoughts on antitrust absurdity at A Stitch in Haste.

New meaning to “elective” surgery.

Does this sound like it’s based on principle or politics?

New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton was part of the last significant effort to overhaul the system during her husband’s administration. That attempt failed, but the Democratic candidates said Saturday that the conditions exist to push for dramatic change.

But Clinton warned that getting there would still be difficult. “We don’t just need candidates to have a plan,” she said. “All of them have plans. We need a movement. We need people to make this the number one voting issue in the ’08 election.”

At least Sen. Obama had the decency to speak of “the need to solve the problem now,” although I’m sure his solution will involve the kind of theft proposed by John Edwards. Instead, Sen. Clinton made a transparent plea about getting elected above any need to debate the merits of this “problem.”

I can’t imagine any of these candidates getting my vote in 2008.

There’s no crying in baseball government.

Am I supposed to feel sympathy for Harford County, Maryland because it financed a baseball stadium and is now losing money?

Ripken Stadium was meant to give the city a boost. Instead, the city with an annual budget of $16 million loses hundreds of thousands of dollars a year.

Mayor S. Fred Simmons has talked to several potential buyers but he said the most promising involve hometown hero Cal Ripken Jr. He owns the Aberdeen Iron Birds, the team that plays in the stadium, and a youth baseball operation nearby.

The original solution was flawed. The city should not have financed the stadium. Minor league baseball stadiums are not a public good. This is not a difficult concept. Yet, here we are:

The team pays $1 a year to use the stadium and keeps almost all the money generated from games.

One dollar. The owes on almost $5 million in bonds for the stadium, with the tax shortfall costing the city up to $485,000 a year in losses. The basic proposition should be easy to see. When built, would the stadium generate the revenue necessary to pay the debt? If yes, Mr. Ripken should been forced to build the stadium if he wanted it. If not, he wouldn’t have built it because it wouldn’t be a productive use of his capital. Notice that the city is involved in no part of that. Instead, the city played central planner and sticks its citizens, both baseball attending and non-baseball attending alike, with the bill.

“The deal they made with the Ripken thing is one of the worst deals they ever made, and now they expect the taxpayers of Aberdeen to pay for their ineptness,” said state Sen. Nancy Jacobs, a Harford County Republican. “That was a terrible deal, for very little return. It could’ve been a gold mine.”

Actually, the city is suggesting a tax on hotel rooms, so it expects visitors to the city to pay for its ineptness. But the more annoying problem is Sen. Jacobs’ contention that the deal could’ve been a gold mine. Government is not in the business of earning a “gold mine”. It has essential duties, and that’s it. Instead, city officials wanted in with professional baseball (and probably a bit of interaction with Cal Riplen, Jr.). It played with taxpayer money, and in an unsurprising twist, it lost.

This would be a valuable lesson if I thought the government, any government, would learn.

Justice is blind, right?

From Charles Krauthammer in today’s Washington Post:

Alberto Gonzales has to go.

Okay, we’re off to a great start. Gonzales should’ve never been confirmed as Attorney General because of permissive stance on torture. And Mr. Krauthammer has shown a less than admirable permissiveness on torture. But that’s a great opening line.

I say this with no pleasure — he’s a decent and honorable man — and without the slightest expectation that his departure will blunt the Democratic assault on the Bush administration over the firing of eight U.S. attorneys. In fact, it will probably inflame their blood lust, which is why the president might want to hang on to Gonzales at least through this crisis. That might be tactically wise. But in time, and the sooner the better, Gonzales must resign.

I don’t get it. The Democrats are to blame. What? And doing the right thing would only fuel the out-of-control Democrats? I’m lost. So, “tactically wise” is better than leadership? I know I’d be foolish to expect leadership from the President, but we should at least demand it.

It’s not a question of probity but of competence. Gonzales has allowed a scandal to be created where there was none. That is quite an achievement. He had a two-foot putt and he muffed it.

How could he allow his aides to go to Capitol Hill unprepared and misinformed and therefore give inaccurate and misleading testimony? How could Gonzales permit his deputy to say that the prosecutors were fired for performance reasons when all he had to say was that U.S. attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president and the president wanted them replaced?

Oh. Now it makes sense. Gonzales didn’t do anything wrong, you see. There is no scandal in firing U.S. attorneys because they didn’t prosecute Democrats vigorously enough. People like me who think that politics should not be involved in deciding who to prosecute are mistaken. We’re being silly. A monarchical privilege is attached to the office of president.

Mr. Krauthammer goes on, but his logic isn’t worth pursuing. The clear paper trail showing nothing but slimy intentions to pervert the justice system for partisan ends is wrong. Mr. Krauthammer should not now celebrate that because his chosen party is in power in the White House. The Democrats will return to the White House. And if/when a Democratic president pulls this, we should all be equally appalled. This is not complicated.

Cable throws a strike. No, wait, it’s a ball.

I’m cautiously optimistic and peeved, even though I’ll probably get most of what I wanted from the beginning.

Cable television said it offered to match DirecTV’s deal for the “Extra Innings” package of out-of-market games, but Major League Baseball said the proposal fell short.
…

IN Demand, owned by affiliates of the companies that own the Time Warner, Comcast and Cox cable systems, said Wednesday it was agreeing to the terms and that its partners would carry The Baseball Channel when it launches in 2009 to at least the same number of subscribers who will get the channel on DirecTV.

Here’s why I’m cautious:

“The communication sent to our office today by iN Demand is not responsive to that offer,” [Bob DuPuy, baseball’s chief operating officer] said. “In spite of their public comments, the response falls short of nearly all of the material conditions (among them requirements for carriage of The Baseball Channel and their share of the rights fees for Extra Innings) set forth in the Major League Baseball offer made to them on March 9.”

DuPuy said the March 31 deadline to match remains.

At this point, with ten days to go, I don’t imagine this deal falling apart. Yay, me, since I tried to watch a game on my computer last night. The experience was as excruciating as I’d imagined. Three hours of television isn’t meant to be watched on a tiny screen. I’m not signing up for DirecTV, more because I don’t want to drill holes in my house than anything, so the status quo¹ would be excellent.

I’m peeved because this means that Bud Selig gets what he wanted all along, times two. That makes me angry. Sure, this can be seen as a shrewd move, but that’ll be nothing more than spin. Selig sold out his hardcore fans. He only relented when they complained, and probably then only because someone else in the Major League Baseball office interpreted the obvious signals of disgust. He shouldn’t be rewarded for that with many extra millions. He will be because I’m an addict. Still, it makes me ill.

Go Phillies.

¹ I know my cable company will have to raise prices to pay for this. I’m crazy enough about the Phillies that I have a higher threshold for the inevitable financial pain than I should.

Ability to Speak Does Not Validate the Opinion

Many people fought for the title of stupidest logic yesterday.

The proposed merger of the nation’s two satellite radio companies came under sharp criticism yesterday from the chairman of a Senate panel that monitors antitrust matters, who said consumers probably would suffer if the deal goes through.

“You’d be virtually unrivaled, unchallenged in this area,” said Sen. Herb Kohl (D-Wis.), chairman of the Judiciary subcommittee on antitrust, competition policy and consumer rights. “You’d have no competition — what a business!” he told Mel Karmazin, chief executive of Sirius Satellite Radio, at a two-hour hearing.

Right, and satellite radio subscriptions are price inelastic. Whatever the merged company wants to charge me, I’ll pay. I’m a sucker and an automaton. If the merged company offered a service to take over my financial well-being and make choices for me, I’d give up control in an instant. I am beholden to the power of Mel Karmizin.

That’s pretty bad, but this is like what I expect to say after a kick in the head.

Mary Quass, chief executive of NRG Media, a radio company in Iowa, said local AM and FM stations cannot match Sirius’s and XM’s ability to send scores of channels to every corner of the country. Listeners and advertisers might abandon local stations, she said, and “consumers will be the losers.”

If listeners abandon local radio stations, they, as those consumed, will choose to “lose”. This makes sense in what understanding of reality? The government needs to step in because I might make a decision to abandon local stations. I’m unable to know that I’d lose by doing this. Thanks, but I can make up my own mind. Local stations already lost me, anyway. There are only so many Yuk Yuk D-Double-E-Jays I can suffer, and I’ve already passed my lifetime limit.

Of course, a company like Clear Channel owns lots of local stations, all over the country. Somehow this seems like radio companies send “scores of channels to every corner of the country”. Ms. Quass’ objection surely has nothing to do with being CEO of a competing radio company.

Just for fun, I like this euphemism for central planning of the essential satellite radio product:

Gigi B. Sohn, president of the advocacy group Public Knowledge, urged the government to set price caps and other restrictions on the merger. “We believe that a properly conditioned merger would be in the public interest,” she said.

Baseball gloves are “properly conditioned”. Hair is “properly conditioned”. This is plain vanilla government regulation designed to give consumers what they “should” get and to protect specific donors constituents. No doubt the latter decides the former. Goverment knows best, after all.

How bad laws happen

Through harmless good intentions:

A bill currently before Parliament could have a devastating effect on motorcycling, as Frank Melling reports

We all know that well-intentioned actions can sometimes bring unintended results. But few events in motoring history would be as spectacular as the potential fall-out from The Off-Road Vehicles Registration Bill proposed by MP Graham Stringer (Labour, Manchester Blackley).

That Mr Stringer’s basic idea was harmless enough is beyond dispute. Annoyed by feckless youths irritating his constituents on mini-moto bikes, he felt that if all these tiny motorcycles had to carry number plates then the police could arrest the miscreants and the nuisance would stop.

The law would essentially criminalize ownership of any motorcycle not registered and licensed by the government, including race motorcycles and museum pieces that never see public roads. This is a brilliant example of careless legislating and unintended consequences, but the bigger point is obvious. We legislate things that are good, or “harmless enough beyond dispute”. Everyone says “well done” and moves on with life. Then we cry foul when the resulting impact to liberty is too great.

Careless governing may be less troublesome than malicious governing, but it’s still objectionable. Laws have consequences. This is why governments should be ruled by a constitution. List the powers of the government and what it can do. Leave everything else to the people who possess those rights. It’s not perfect, but it’s as close to perfect as mankind will ever get when implemented diligently. Freedom isn’t free.

Have free society’s really lost this much of their commitment to liberty?

Via Fark.

Carefully chosen words are not an accident.

I haven’t tracked the developing scandal involving the Bush administration’s Justice Department’s firing of eight U.S. attorneys for what appears to be little more than insufficient prosecutorial partisanship at Rolling Doughnut, but I’ve paid enough attention to figure out that something’s rotten. I have no confidence that it won’t get swept away and ignored from the viewpoint of consequences. Still, I’m stunned that those involved think we’re this stupid:

At a Justice Department news conference, [Attorney General Alberto] Gonzales said he would find out why Congress was not told sooner that the White House was involved in discussions of who would be fired and when. He did not, however, back away his stance that the dismissals that did take place were appropriate.

“I stand by the decision and I think it was the right decision,” Gonzales said.

The White House said President Bush retains full confidence in the attorney general. “He’s a stand-up guy,” White House counselor Dan Bartlett said in Mexico, where he was traveling with the president.

Let me know how well that investigation into the delay goes. I bet it’ll be carried out with the same expediency with which the Bush administration’s connection was revealed. Until then, we have assurances from both sides that each side is filled with nothing but upstanding statesmen. Yeah, right.

For example, a semi-skilled individual could read this statement from the Attorney General and get the impression that he feels he’s above such demeaning tasks as keeping the Congress informed.

“Obviously I am concerned about the fact that information _ incomplete information was communicated or may have been communicated to the Congress,” Gonzales said. “I believe very strongly in our obligation to ensure that when we provide information to the Congress, it is accurate and it is complete. And I very dismayed that that may not have occurred here.”

He’s making zero claim that he’s obligated to report such information, only that when he decides to provide it, it should be accurate and complete. Thanks for the clarification, but I’ll take a little more regularly-scheduled oversight with my Department of Justice government.

Buying Anti-Competitive Protection

Here is a perfect example of why I would never join a labor union:

Leaders of the AFL-CIO pledged yesterday to consult more widely with workers before making a decision about endorsing a candidate for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination and strongly urged individual unions not to back any candidate until later in the fall.
…

AFL-CIO President John Sweeney and Gerald McEntee, president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, outlined the evaluation process at a news conference in Las Vegas.

“The breadth and depth of our effort to engage union members and their families in the 2008 presidential endorsement process will be unparalleled,” Sweeney said.

He means the 2008 Democratic president endorsement process, of course. What about those union members who wouldn’t vote for a Democrat? If they would vote Democrat, what about those who support a different candidate? Too bad, I guess, except their money is compelled. That’s obscene.