Archive for April 8th, 2014

h1

It’s the police

April 8, 2014

Last week, one of my sons sent me a link to The New Yorker column mentioned below. I thought it was mildly amusing, though it was a pretty cliched view of libertarians. Yeah, yeah… we have to put a quarter into the two-way radio to use it. (Seriously? You couldn’t even work a good tech angle into the column?)

What it sort of reminded me of was Neal Stephenson’s novel Snow Crash — except that Snow Crash was more interesting to read.

So I was glad to see Conor Friedersdorf’s response to that column in The Atlantic yesterday. His response is just chock full of examples of how not to Serve & Protect. (My emphasis below.)

N.L.P.D.: Non-Libertarian Police Department
Law enforcement in America, brought to you by liberals and conservatives

On March 31, The New Yorker published an item in its humor vertical, Shouts & Murmurs, titled “L.P.D.: Libertarian Police Department.” At least 31,000 people liked it.

I can laugh along with parodies of libertarian ideology. But shouldn’t a reductio ad absurdum start with a belief that the target of the satire actually holds? Tom O’Donnell proceeds as if libertarians object to the state enforcing property rights—that is to say, one of the very few state actions that virtually all libertarians find legitimate! If America’s sheriffs were all summarily replaced by Libertarian Party officials selected at random, I’m sure some ridiculous things would happen. Just not any of the particular things that were described. 

That isn’t to say that there weren’t parts of the article that made me laugh. It got me thinking too. If the non-libertarian approach to policing* was the target instead, would you need hyperbole or reductio ad absurdum? Or could you just write down what actually happens under the officials elected by non-libertarians? It is, of course, hard to make it funny when all the horrific examples are true.

Advertisements
h1

The jig is up

April 8, 2014

As someone who ran Windows 2000 and Windows NT4 for many years past their EOL dates, I’m not too worried by Microsoft’s EOL plans for Windows XP.

But doesn’t the idea that XP still needs bug fixes and security patches after 12 ½ years seem a little odd ? (How long does it take, Redmond?)

Microsoft to Windows XP users: The jig is up

Starting Wednesday, Windows XP users will face a new world with no more technical support or OS updates. That world could prove hazardous to the health of their PCs, which why Microsoft is advising diehards to kick the XP habit.

Okay, so let’s say you still run Windows XP. Exactly what will happen now that Microsoft is cutting off support? First off, your installation of XP won’t mysteriously vanish or suddenly stop working. You’ll still be able to use XP just as always with all of the same features and programs you know and love.

What end of support does mean is that after today you will no longer be treated to bug fixes, security patches, and other updates from Microsoft to defend and protect XP. In fact, today’s Patch Tuesday marks the last round of updates for XP. If any new security issues or vulnerabilities are discovered in XP, Microsoft will no longer be in the job of patching them.

h1

More about climate alarmism

April 8, 2014

Here’s is an interesting confirmation of something that skeptics of a man-made climate apocalypse have been saying for years.

Dutch Professor Leaves UN Climate Panel

Dutch professor Richard Tol took his leave from the UN climate panel, as he does not agree with the negative conclusions in the latest UN climate report. The consequences of climate change are over-estimated in his opinion. 

“The panel is being governed from within the environmental policy, not from the science”, Tol said. Last month, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) presented their fifth climate change report in Yokohama, Japan.

The report is warning that any chance of reversing global warming will be lost if something is not done on a global scale to change climate policies.

Climate economy professor Tol finds the report “alarmist and apocalyptic” and that the effects of climate change are being exaggerated. “That over-estimation is being encouraged by a self-selection of authors and referents in the panel”, Tol tells Belgian paper De Morgen. Tol refused to sign the report, according to the Daily Mail.

“There are leading scientists with the IPCC, but there are many average researchers who are just as good. Next to that we seat a number of other people who have the right political connections. The organization is being led and controlled by people who have a stake in climate policy. The IPCC is being governed from within the environmental policy, not from the science.”

I wonder whether Professor Torcello has factored this into his evaluation of what constitutes misinformation about climate science.

%d bloggers like this: