Potato Guns

SayUncle took me back more than a few years with this post on Backyard Ballistics.

http://www.pagunblog.com/blogpics/spud_cannon.jpg

My friend Brad posing with the potato cannon we built more than ten years ago in New Hampshire. We’re all fatter and have less hair today. It could launch a spud a good 300 yards. Somewhere, I still have it, although it’s been shortened because it was too long to get back into the trunk for the drive home.

I had no idea, actually, that I could have been arrested driving that thing home. It’s a firearm both in Massachusetts and in New Jersey, and I did not have a license for either of those states. Moreover, because it’s not a firearm under federal law, I couldn’t claim FOPA. We carried with us a letter from the ATF saying it wasn’t a firearm, but didn’t realize that didn’t matter. State definitions vary.

Things you do when you’re a dumb college kid and assume you live in a free country where silly things like the constitution mean something.

Migration Finished

I’ve been spending my time at work migrating over to a new file server. The old Windows 2000 file server was getting rather long in the tooth. Microsoft wanted to charge more than two grand for a Windows 2003 Server and CALs for the whole company, so I said “Piss on that!” and decided to convert it to a Linux server using Samba. I plan to move all the company’s print functions over to Samba in the next few days. My ultimate goal is to have Windows only used as Active Directory domain controllers and for Exchange. I would ideally like to get rid of Exchange too, but I’m not selling management on the idea, and they seem to have no issue forking over 8 grand to Microsoft when I could for over 1.5 grand and get Zimbra to do the same job under Linux.

Of course, this new file server is just a stop gap. The big plan for the following year involves consolidating our Andrew File System under samba, and to move most of the simulation data (which is into the terabytes) to a new distributed cluster file system written by one of my coworkers.

Drink From Your Sippy Cup!

It always astonishes me what lengths the nanny state politicians will go to in order to control your life.   Bruce links to this article n the Boston Globe which has me quite literally speechless.

People of Massachusetts: You started a war over less than this.  What happened?

Something to Keep an Eye On

MADD is pushing for DUI reform in the Keystone State.  MADD long ago went off the rails, and are now the new preachers against demon rum.  I don’t have a lot of specifics on what they are looking to change specifically, but if MADD is involved, we need to keep an eye on things.

I’ll Second That!

Glenn is recommending The Transparent Society.   I’ve read it, and would highly recommend it.  It definitely makes you think about the consequences of living in world pervaded by information systems, tiny cameras, and global computer networks.  Brin’s essential argument is that we’re better off living in this society where surveillance and information technology are in the hands of everybody, rather than the privileged few, even if it means having to give up some degree of privacy.

Prohibited?

David Codrea asks whether we’re seeing a newly minted prohibited person.

Hospital? So he’s been involuntarily committed for having his picture taken holding a shotgun because the paranoid campus officials and authorities go bonkers even thinking of such things due to recent “threats”–none of which Meepegama apparently had anything to do with? And they think he’s nuts?

Unfortunately we don’t have details about whether this was a lawful commitment order, or SUNY merely told him to seek counseling if he wanted to stay in school. If it’s the latter, he would not be a prohibited person according to ATF regulations:

Committed to a mental institution. A formal commitment of a person to a mental institution by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority. The term includes a commitment to a mental institution involuntarily. The term includes commitment for mental defectiveness or mental illness. It also includes commitments for other reasons, such as for drug use. The term does not include a person in a mental institution for observation or a voluntary admission to a mental institution.

He would fall under the “observation” exception in the regulation, and wouldn’t be prohibited, and that’s assuming that he was ordered in for observation by someone with lawful authority under New York’s mental health laws. I’m not familiar with New York Law on the matter, but I suspect that a university official has no lawful authority in this regard.

UPDATE: I just realized this was originally posted in May.   Bloglines republished it, so I thought it was new.

Breeding More Terrorists

I’m not sure I agree, from a counterinsurgency perspective, that breeding more terrorists than we’re killing is really an important issue. I’m not sure how you really assess such a thing anyway. No one likes having their country invaded and occupied, this much we know, but how many examples in history can we find of exactly this happening? Any military operation against a foe is quite likely to breed more of that foe than you’re currently killing.

Britain’s colonization of any number of places, from South Africa, to India, certainly bred it’s fair share of resentment, but the British Empire was certainly able to bring these people’s under its sphere of control. It was only after the British Empire was weakened through new challenges from Europe, that it would give up these possessions. India would ultimately guilt the British into surrendering it, through a non violent independence movement.

In our own history we can find examples of this. Lincoln’s decision to raise an army to invade the territories that had decided to actively challenge federal authority certainly created more soldiers for the Southern cause than were actively being killed for quite some time, but in the end, the Army or Northern Virginia was to surrender.

In Vietnam, as is the goal of any counterinsurgency, the Viet Cong eventually built up its number to the point where they felt the time for the hit and run operations was at and end, and so executed a general offensive, known as The Tet Offensive. The VC decided to come out of the jungles, and acts as an army does, to seize and control of territory and men. Unfortunately for the Viet Cong, they were effectively destroyed by the US military. From Tet onward, we were fighting the North Vietnamese Army, and the counterinsurgency known as Victor Charlie would cease to be relevant, even though up until that time they were building their power.

Sure, there are plenty of examples of insurgencies rising up and defeating great powers; we owe our own independence to this. The British lost three armies trying to keep North America, and for them, given they faced a real, existential threat from France at the time, was just too much for them to handle, and here we are.

War is more than just a contest of people. It’s more than just a numbers game. It’s a contest of wills. All the military advantages in the world amount to a hill of beans if you lack will. Whether we have the will to see this conflict through to a just conclusion isn’t clear yet. But it’s not a matter of whether we’re breeding more terrorists than we’re currently killing.

More on Iraq

I’ve gotten some more comments on my earlier post about Iraq. I saw my friend Jason commented, and started to craft my own, but decided it would work best as a separate post, rather than as a comment.

I think it’s a grave mistake to believe this is a problem that originated with the United States, and that by retreating, we can solve it. When I say that Al-Qaeda felt they could attack us with impunity, I do not mean that they felt that we would just sit back and shrug it off. What I mean is that Al-Qaeda felt that they could attack and defeat America. Whether that involved drawing us into a war in Afghanistan, or Iraq, that would turn into a quagmire, is of little matter. They felt it was time to take us on, and their narrative centers around western weakness and softness, and up until post 9/11, we hadn’t done much in the way to dispel that narrative.

That’s why I think leaving would be dangerous. Radical Islam aims to re-establish the caliphate, and to instigate a world wide Islamic movement. It’s absurd only in the sense that the west has the capability to largely destroy Islam as an ideology of any serious consequence. But we don’t want it to come to that. Iraq is an experiment to determine whether an Arab and Islamic society can be brought into a globalized world, and able to live among us, without having to resort to terrible measures.

I don’t think we really have a choice here. We either fight now, where we have the luxury of a measured response, or we fight later, when we might have to do it with nuclear weapons. Right now the choice is ours, it deosn’t make much sense to wait until we have no choice, except pushing the button.

Whether we like or not, at the end of World War II, Europe basically handed us the keys to their former empire, and said “Well, we’re quite tired of working on the place. We’ve decided to retire to greener pastures. Here are the keys. Hope you don’t mind the mess too much.” We didn’t ask for it, and I wish we didn’t have to do it, but we’re stuck with it. I’d rather do everything we can to win now, when we can keep the body count to a relative minimum, than to fight later, when that could end up meaning total war. I don’t really see any in between ground on this issue.