Posts from — January 2006

Las Vegas is a “love it” or “hate it” sort of place. I’ve only met a handful of people who were indifferent to Her Charms or Harms. I personally fall into the “love it” category. Its not that I don’t see the terrible things that go on here, its that I believe that the good ultimately outweighs the bad. If you have a little self control, Sin City isn’t any worse than your home town, but chances are that its a heck of a lot more fun…

But, I digress.

For the record, I’m no Vegas expert – but I have spent a fair amount of time here over the last few years – 6 or 7 weeks over 8 or 9 trips – and my latest trip has inspired me to write what I’m calling “The Odds of Las Vegas”. I’m not talking gambling odds, but rather things that are odd, weird, ironic or just plain wacky. There’s a lot of them to mention, so I’ll get right to it…

• Sin City apparently has more churches per square mile than any other city in the US.
• For a place that is arguably the ‘Convention Capital of the World’, Vegas is very unconventional.
• Here, Strip Clubs aren’t on The Strip at all.
• For a place so completely situated around 1 stretch of road, it is nearly impossible to drive anywhere.
• While most things here are extremely expensive, Valet parking is free.
• The dealers actually want YOU to win.
• Some people will bitch about the $200 they lost over a weekend at the tables yet they will pay $100 a seat for 90 minutes of watching weird French circus freaks in oddly adorned catsuits do highly unnatural things with their bodies right in plain view for everyone to see.
• Others will rationalize betting cumulative thousands of dollars because they were ‘comped’ a $100 room for two nights.
• For a place where “companionship” can be bought for less than 1 spin of the wheels on a High Limit Slot, it’s surprisingly lonely here without friends to keep you company.
• The statement “I was at the crap table all day” doesn’t even raise an eyebrow.
• Speaking of crap, the demand for watching French circus freaks is SO high here that three theaters of the stuff with multiple showings each are regularly sold out for days at a time.
• The statement “Big nick on a 2-way yo” actually means something.
• You can make “Blackjack” with two red cards, neither of which is a Jack.
• The vodka tonic that was just delivered to you for free by a pretty lady in a bathing suit and fishnets would cost you $12 if you were to get up and get it yourself.
• New York, Paris, Venice, Tokyo, Cairo and Fiji are all within walking distance of each other.
• The Wynn Collection is a single hotel.
• Did I mention the French circus freaks? I’m one of the people who wants to see them – AGAIN.
• Walking from your hotel to a place “across the street” can take you a half hour and cover more than 3 miles of actual distance walked point to point.

And, the oddest thing about Las Vegas?

• The best Caesar Salad in town is made in a Chinese restaurant

Dispatch from the show floor:

20,000 people, hundreds of companies and a lot of talking – that’s what SGU is all about. This year its in Las Vegas, which is always a positive and a negative.

The positive is “It’s Vegas!” – lots of fun!

The negative is “Its Vegas…” – nobody’s going to show up at a tradeshow when there are not only the learning sessions from the actual show, but also all the distractions of one of the US’s top tourist cities to compete with…

But, as the picture below shows, quite a few people actually HAVE shown up. I’m writing this from the show floor, thanks to the magic of dual monitors. The external flatscreen is showing our demo, and I’m blogging “behind the scenes”.

Here’s the scene from the floor – courtesy of my Treo650. The pics aren’t too good, because the camera in the phone is confused by the strong highlights of the halogen bulbs on the pods and the much darker ambient fluorescent lights from above.

Anyway, lots of awesome technology coming up in this next year – I’ll be showcasing some of it here in the next few weeks.

Oh music to my ears!

I don’t know how I missed this, but the US 6th District Court of Appeals in its recent ruling on ACLU OF KENTUCKY v. MCGINNIS said these three wonderful sentences:

the ACLU makes repeated reference to “the separation of church and state.” This extra-constitutional construct has grown tiresome. The First Amendment does not demand a wall of separation between church and state.

The ruling goes on further with this zinger:

the ACLU erroneously-though perhaps intentionally-equates recognition with endorsement.

Hmm… Did the court just suggest that the ACLU was intentionally ignoring the facts to make its case sound better? Wow, imagine that.

Anyway, if you don’t want to read the full ruling that is linked above, you can read the “juicy” parts right here:

The ACLU’s argument contains three fundamental flaws. First, the ACLU makes repeated reference to “the separation of church and state.” This extra-constitutional construct has grown tiresome. The First Amendment does not demand a wall of separation between church and state. See Lynch, 465 U.S. at 673; Lemon, 403 U.S. at 614; Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306, 312 (1952); Brown v. Gilmore, 258 F.3d 265, 274 (4th Cir. 2001); Stark v. Indep. Sch. Dist., No. 640., 123 F.3d 1068, 1076 (8th Cir. 1997); see also Capitol Square, 243 F.3d at 300 (dismissing strict separatism as “a notion that simply perverts our history”). Our Nation’s history is replete with governmental acknowledgment and in some cases, accommodation of religion. See, e.g., Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 (1983) (upholding legislative prayer); McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420 (1961) (upholding Sunday closing laws); see also Lynch, 465 U.S. at 674 (“There is an unbroken history of official acknowledgment by all three branches of government of the role of religion in American life from at least 1789.”); Capitol Square, 243 F.3d at 293-99 (describing historical examples of governmental involvement with religion). After all, “[w]e are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being.” Zorach, 343 U.S. at 313. Thus, state recognition of religion that falls short of endorsement is constitutionally permissible.

Second, the ACLU focuses on the religiousness of the Ten Commandments. No reasonable person would dispute their sectarian nature, but they also have a secular nature that the ACLU does not address. That they are religious merely begs the question whether this display is religious; it does not answer it. “[T]he Establishment Clause inquiry cannot be distilled into a fixed, per se rule.” Pinette, 515 U.S. at 778 (O’Connor J., concurring); see Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577, 597-98 (1992). Although treating the subject matter categorically would make our review eminently simpler, we are called upon to examine Mercer County’s actions in light of context. “Simply having religious content or promoting a message consistent with a religious doctrine does not run afoul of the Establishment Clause.” Van Orden, 125 S. Ct. at 2863 (plurality opinion). Moreover, “[f]ocus exclusively on the religious component of any activity would inevitably lead to its invalidation under the Establishment Clause.” Lynch, 465 U.S. at 680. The Constitution requires an analysis beyond the four-corners of the Ten Commandments. In short, “proving” that the Ten Commandments themselves are religious does not prove an Establishment Clause violation.

Third, the ACLU erroneously-though perhaps intentionally-equates recognition with endorsement. To endorse is necessarily to recognize, but the converse does not follow. Cf. Mercer County, 219 F. Supp. 2d at 789 (“Endorsement of religion is a normative concept; whereas acknowledgment of religion is not necessarily a value-laden concept.”). Because nothing in the display, its history, or its implementation supports the notion that Mercer County has selectively endorsed the sectarian elements of the first four Commandments, we fail to see why the reasonable person would interpret the presence of the Ten Commandments as part of the larger “Foundations” display as a governmental endorsement of religion.

We will not presume endorsement from the mere display of the Ten Commandments. If the reasonable observer perceived all government references to the Deity as endorsements, then many of our Nation’s cherished traditions would be unconstitutional, including the Declaration of Independence and the national motto. Fortunately, the reasonable person is not a hyper-sensitive plaintiff. See Washegesic ex rel. Pensinger v. Bloomingdale Pub. Sch., 33 F.3d 679, 684 (6th Cir. 1994) (Guy, J., concurring) (describing the “eggshell” plaintiff as unknown to the Establishment Clause). Instead, he appreciates the role religion has played in our governmental institutions, and finds it historically appropriate and traditionally acceptable for a state to include religious influences, even in the form of sacred texts, in honoring American legal traditions.

The Mercer County display has a secular purpose. Unlike McCreary County, there is nothing in the legislative history or implementation that tends to prove a religious purpose. Nor does the display have the effect of endorsing religion. The display is therefore constitutional as a matter of law. There being no genuine issue of material fact, the district court properly granted Mercer County’s motion for summary judgment.

Looks like 802.11n will soon be the new kid on the Wi-Fi block.

With Intel, Atheros, and Broadcom leading the charge, the Enhanced Wireless Consortium seems to have broken through the wireless stalemate between two competing standards known as the TGnSync and WWiSE proposals. Largely a compromise between TGnSync and WWiSE, the EWC proposal, if accepted, will officially become 802.11n and is poised to bring wireless speeds of up to 600Mbits/sec to a living room near you! Compare that to 802.11g which runs at a “wheezing” 54Mbits/sec – it’s over a 10X enhancement! While many manufacturers have been selling proprietary 802.11g equipment with throughput in excess of 54Mbits, most consumers have steered clear of these options from a fear of non-standards based technology and vendor lock in.

If all the “i”s are dotted and the “t”s are crossed, the compromise proposal will be offered to the IEEE on Jan. 16 at their meeting in Hawaii. According to MIMO + N News, that could mean that there will be 802.11n devices on the shelves as early as May or June!

Ars Technica reports that Music labels could be in trouble over how they charge subscription services.

Given my previous posts on the RIAA, etc. I don’t think anyone will be surprised when I say – serves them right. I guess we may soon be able to add price-fixing to their list of sins.

*WARNING*
This topic involves discussion of upsetting topics, including rape.

OH MY WORD!

Now, I know that holding others to the standard of your own beliefs isn’t “right” in a humanist world, but I’m sorry, I can’t help it.

Apparently, Iran is condemning a woman to death by hanging for accidentally killing a man that was trying to gang rape her with two other men. These are the same courts that hung a 16-year-old girl for committing what they termed “acts incompatible with chastity”.

Does this sound like a catch-22 to anyone else? So you can be killed for being unchaste, but defending your chastity isn’t OK either? Or, was it that the chaste thing to do in this situation was to just lay there and be raped? How is a woman supposed to win in a system like that?

What I’m wondering is “Where are the US Feminists?!” Why aren’t they crying out in complete outrage at the injustice?

OH! That’s right. They are too busy being “Enraged and Engaged” by the Alito nomination to do anything about it. Do a search on the National Organization for Women’s website for Iran – amazingly enough, you’ve got to go back all the way to 2003 to find anything referring to Iran that isn’t just a lame attempt to bash President Bush. And trust me, what you find in 2003 and prior isn’t anything great either.

One may say that they are the “National” organization for women, and therefore what happens outside of the US isn’t really any of their concern. Point taken. But, NOTHING? I mean, not even a simple mention of these outrages to empower their members with knowledge? Not that they necessarily have to officially organize something that is funded by NOW, but you’d think surely their constituents would be interested in doing something…

One could also say that other groups (from both the left AND the right) aren’t doing anything about it either – another good point. The only thing is this – I don’t know of any other group whose mission statement contains the words “[our] goal has been to take action to bring about equality for all women.” Hmm.. All women? Or, is it that they only care about their own equality? And frankly, “no one else is doing it either,” really isn’t a strong argument.

Now, maybe someone is wondering what a white male could possibly know about feminism. I would respond – “A fair amount actually”. Believe it or not, I was an “attending member” of the feminist club in my high school. Was I tremendously active? No – in fact, I often disagreed with those who were present – but it was an open meeting where real discussion was favored over baseless rhetoric. Beyond that, my wife was a strong feminist when we met and was largely following a Women’s Studies track at Brandeis University. Don’t worry, she’s reformed. I can’t count the number of hours we discussed issues ranging from abortion to women in the military. Maybe one day I’ll get her to write a piece on some of the half-truths that she used to firmly believe.

WOW! It just hit me! I don’t know why I’m surprised that NOW isn’t outraged at the murder of innocent women. In fact the more I think of it, the more it really makes perfect sense, because NOW actually campaigns for the “right” to murder innocent women.

You read that right – NOW campaigns for the “right” to murder innocent women. They just call it abortion.

I guess it sounds better that way…

Not that Michael Yon needs mentioning on my blog, but I can’t help it. If you want an account of the war in Iraq and want to leave feeling like you were there, you’ve got to read some of his posts from when he was embedded with the Deuce Four in Mosul. My friend Phil from A Soldier’s Diary pointed out this post as one of Yon’s best.

Yon is now selling an iconic photo from his tour in Iraq, and has made them available directly from his blog. I think the picture speaks for itself. People can argue politics up one side and down the other, but they can’t deny that heroes fill the ranks of our armed forces.

Read the full story of the picture here.

I hope Yon doesn’t mind that I’ve posted his work here, and I hope you support him by buying a picture – I’m certainly going to. Even more though, I hope you give this picture to a Veteran to let them know how much you appreciate the sacrifice that was made for your freedom and protection.

God bless them, every one…