Students at the University of Utah are allowed to bring guns to school due to recent shootings taking place at colleges across the country. Like many I have mixed feelings, but here’s how I view the gun rights vs. control issue in general:

There are a few values that are important here:

1. The amount of violence in general.
2. The level to which violence is deterred from criminals knowing law-abiding citizens are likely to be armed.
3. The amount of additional harm that comes from firearm accidents/misuse.

It seems to me (although I’ve been known to oversimplify) that we should be able to construct a simple logic statement based on solid metrics.

If violence in a given area exceeds amount x, citizens should be allowed to carry concealed firearms as long as the level of harm to the population due to accidents/misuse does not exceed that of the deterrent value.

In other words it’s a simple matter of having solid metrics with which to judge net good vs. net harm. If there is more harm due to the accidents/misuse than there is a drop in violence from the deterrent, then it’s simply not worth it. And if the deterrent is stronger than the resulting harm from accidents, etc., then it should be continued.

Like all things risk the key seems to be the metrics and their interpretation. But surely we can find some way to improve in this area.

Thoughts?

For some reason I’m actually quite excited about redoing my home domain using Windows Server 2008. Stuff to do:

• Figure out what to use for my VMware server
• Figure out what to use for a Check Point box
• Get a hold of a legit copy of Server 2008
• Get my iMac (waiting for Apple announcements)

Home network goodness. Looking forward to SQL Server 2008 as well. Also going to be using ADAM/IAS to do authentication on the network. LDAP is cool.

Then on to Asterisk/VOIP and the all-in-one copier/fax/printer deal. Can’t wait to get going on the Asterisk stuff.

So, if anyone knows a good hookup for a copy of Server 2008, do let me know.

If I were an Arab leader, I would never sign an agreement with Israel. It is normal; we have taken their country. It is true God promised it to us, but how could that interest them? Our God is not theirs. There has been anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They see but one thing: we have come and we have stolen their country. Why would they accept that? — David Ben Gurion

To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin. — Cardinal Robert Bellarmine (1542-1621)

An excellent point, sir.

People should stop saying this. It’s silly. Especially when referring to things like the wall of China or manmade islands in Dubai. On a clear day most everything can be seen from space.

Have these people seen Google Maps? Do they see the cars there? The people? Yeah, those were taken from space too. Hell, that’d be a good t-shirt: “I can be seen from space.”

It’s not the 1960’s people — the question isn’t how far you are, it’s what you’re using to look with.:

Congratulations to my buddy Ken for making Information Security Manager (ISM) yesterday. It’s a major career milestone for an infosec professional and I’m very happy to see it happen for him.

Nice job, man.

Hitler may have opposed the Church’s power due to it conflicting with his, but he wasn’t an atheist. Take him off your list of “Evil Atheists”, please.

[ The Nazis and the Church ]

There’s talk going around again about the different sugar substitutes. Aspartame, Stevia — are they safe? Which does the most damage? Do they cause cancer?

I have a simple solution.

If someone hacks together an artificial chemical that’s designed to give people something for nothing, don’t eat it. It will probably do bad things to you.

When you spill a coke on the sidewalk ants are on it immediately. When you spill a diet coke on the sidewalk the ants walk around it. That should tell you something.

So, in other words, just about every substance in the world that is sweet is high in calories, but we’re going to be audacious enough to create something in a lab that breaks this rule, and then we’re going to eat it? That’s not so bright.

I’m not one of those people who puts nature on a pedestal of perfection. I’m aware that evolution transmits flaws. But we’re nowhere near the point in our understanding of biology or physiology to be able to mimic natural substances such as sugar. Or, at least not without consequences.

It’s foolish to believe that we can, and greed and gluttony are the only reasons one would even subscribe to the idea. In other words, one has to say, “I don’t care what that is because,

1. I don’t want to work out in order to offset the sugar I eat.
2. I don’t want to get fat.
3. I still want to consume sugar all day.

So these are cheater chemicals designed for lazy people who don’t understand enough about science to realize that they’re likely dangerous.

The Simple Approach

So my answer is simple, and it includes more than just sugar substitutes — eat the natural version of foods. Get the least amount of additives and preservatives possible. Organic if possible, but overall as natural as you can find it. Real sugar. Real butter. Etc.

If it has more sugar in it, or more natural fat, so be it. Eat less of it and/or get more exercise.

I’m overweight myself but I like to take responsibility for my actions. I’m fat because I eat too much and don’t exercise enough. That’s it. Fin. I’m going to eat the foods that I’m supposed to be eating, i.e. the regular and non-hacked versions, and if I can’t do so and stay fit then it’s because I’m not doing it right.

I don’t want crutches created for weak people who can’t control themselves — especially when the crutches themselves are pretty damn suspect.: