Talking Points

I know I'm preaching to the choir, but I feel like it is important to have some talking point when discussing copyright law abuse with lay people. Here's a little something I copied and edited from HappyHead's Slashdot posting:

"Don't forget to point out that SOPA andACTA are not about combating piracy. They are about decreasing the cost and risk for the copyright holders. Using this legislation they can issue orders without any oversight or liability, and without any costs to them.

The whole point of SOPA, PIPA, and ACTA, is that the corporations want to escape the last few shreds of oversight and responsibility they currently have to deal with under existing laws. These laws were NEVER about combatting piracy - they are entirely about making sure that the copyright industry companies don't have to worry about little things like actually telling the truth when they say they own the copyright for something and are shutting you down.

Under current laws, if you post a video of yourself doing something, like say, a college professor posting videos online of his lectures so that his students can view them, and the MPAA files a takedown notice claiming they own that video and the prof is a dirty stinking pirate for stealing it from them (even though it's a false accusation), the prof has (supposedly) the recourse that he can file a counter-notice, and have the videos restored, (note: this is an actual example from the real world - they really did this.) and then the MPAA would to take him to actual court to sue for damages (which they didn't, because they didn't have any evidence, and it was obvious that they didn't actually own the material) instead of just having him thrown in jail and his property seized without having to show any evidence that he actually did what they claim. Under the combination of SOPA, PIPA, and ACTA, the MPAA would not have had to go through any legal procedures, or have any evidence that the prof's lectures belonged to them (which they didn't), but instead would be allowed to just say "BAD! YOU ARE THIEF!", and automatically be correct under the law, because they said so, and thus be allowed to take his domain, and shut him down with no recourse, no right to a trial, and no way to do anything about it.

Considering how little responsibility the MPAA and RIAA have demonstrated when applying the current copyright laws, is it any wonder that people who are paying attention don't trust them to behave with laws that take away what little responsibility and oversight they currently have?

Even worse, these laws are so poorly put together that any nutjob with a grudge can do the same thing to anyone they don't like, and have anything that person has put online shut down (the whole website), with little to no proof that their claims are true. Did you accidentally mention that you like eating bacon on your website? Look out - when the crazy person who has decided that all bacon-loving people are actually aliens trying to hypnotize the human race into complacency, they can fulfill their personal mission of silencing your bacon-promoting alien agenda by falsely using SOPA/PIPA/ACTA to shut down your website. Before you even know it has happened, you're gone, and if you are very lucky, you might even find out why, some day."

Blackouts - who's naughty, and who's nice?

Good on you, Google. Shutting down the search engine was never really an option (it is TOO critical), but I'm glad you offered the banner space. Facebook and Twitter on the other hand... silent. Showing their true colors, I suppose.

Quixote, a super-simple pump action SNAP

Note: the formatting sucks on this post. I'll fix it eventually.

"This thing is so ungodly long and unwieldy I was referring to it as my Lance the whole day. Because of this, I decided to name it Don Quixote. " - Cannonball

Introduction

 This blaster is a refinement of a refinement of a refinement of a refinement. At it's core, it is a derivative of Carbon's SNAP 7.5 Pump Crossbow, which is itself a refinement of his SNAP 2. I took the idea and ran with it. What sets the SNAP 7.5 style blasters apart from Stark's style (of which Nerfomania's design is a derivative) is that the priming action is in front of the catch, rather than behind. Though behind-catch-priming-blasters are much shorter, they are more complicated to build, requiring a lot of dremel cuts. The design I'm presenting in this writeup is very simple to build, requires no specialized parts, and delivers absolutely top-tier performance.

A couple of things to note before you start building one: - This blaster is very long - the main body is 32", and the total length is 50" if you add a hopper and 16" barrel. If you are very short you will have trouble operating this blaster. - This blaster has 6.5" of draw. This is detrimental to the long-term health of the spring, so you'll need to replace it every so often. FYI, you can click on any of these pictures to get a full-sized view.

Materials

- Required

* Optional, but recommended

Tools - Power drill - Drill bits to go with it (1/16", 1/4", 1/2", etc) * Tapping bits - Rotary tool (dremel) - Reinforced cutting disk - Sanding bit * Diamond cutting wheel (better for cutting plastics) - Pipe cutter * Three-sided drafter's ruler Plunger rod - 1/2" cpvc - 3x 1/2" cpvc couplers - 2x 1-1/4" OD 5/8" ID SAE washers - epoxy putty - PVC cement OR superglue - k26 spring Plunger head <- don't feel obligated to follow this exact design - 1-1/2" OD 1/4" ID (or smaller) rubber washer - 1-1/4" OD 1/4" ID (or smaller) rubber washer - 5/6" OD 1/4" ID (or smaller) rubber washer - 1/4" bolt, 5/8" long - 1/2" CPVC cap - Silicone grease Plunger tube and stock - 1-1/4" sch40 PVC - 2x 1-1/4" coupler - 1/2" to 1-1/4" bushing - 1-1/4" elbow - 3/4" PVC endcap - 3x 6-32 screw, 1/2" long (5/8" and 3/4" also works) Trigger - Heavy-duty clothespin - 1-3/4" roofing nail - Metal L bracket - zip-ties - Epoxy putty - Hot glue Priming handle - 2x 1-1/2" PVC coupler - 1/4" bolt, 5/8" long <- DO NOT USE BRASS OR ALUMINUM - Tape or glue Handle - Donation blaster - 1-1/2" PVC - 1/4" set screws, - 4x 6-32 screws, 1/2" long (3/8" or 1/4" are be better, but sort of difficult to find) - Epoxy putty - Hot glue Construction Here's an overview of the internals. The key design feature of this blaster is the way the priming bolt works. Here's how it looks from the outside. The bolt in the priming handle sticks into the slot, and catches on the front washer, allowing you to push back the entire mechanism. The clothespin trigger then catches on the rear washer. You may ask: why do it this way? After all, in my previous writeup, the priming bolt just pushed directly against the catch face, instead of this extra washer. There are several reasons I think this system is superior: 1) You don't have to cut a slot into the priming grip. This slot was doubly annoying because it neccessitated a 3rd 1-1/2" coupler to be added to the grip in order to give you enough space for your hand. 2) It gives you enough clearance to use a zip-tie to hold the clothespin in place. Mechanical fastening is far superior to adhesives. We're going to start with the plunger rod, since it's dimensions dictate the geometry of the blaster. The catch faces are built from 5/8" SAE washers sandwiched between 1/2" couplers. Fit them together, and then use super glue or PVC cement to securely fasten them. There should be no "give" at all. Once you've glued them, build up your ramp using epoxy putty. You can also use a PVC ramp if you prefer. SAE washers are sometimes difficult to find, so there's an alternate way to do this. Use endcaps insead, and dril and tap 1/4" holes in them. You can then use any old 1-1/4" washer. Might have to widen the washer hole first. For a plunger head, I use a sandwhich of rubber washers, with a 1-1/4" metal washer to act as support. A 1-1/2" rubber washer acts as the main seal, and a 1-1/4" rubber washer sits behind that to prevent it from shearing against the metal support washer. In front of the 1-1/2" rubber washer, I use a small 5/8" washer, and I bind everything together using a 1/4" bolt. Most people use a second metal washer on the front, but I don't - I think the diameter of the bolt head is plenty wide. All this screws directly into a CPVC cap, and I usually add goop for support and seal. I use a 1/4" tap on the CPVC, and no nut. But if you don't have a tap, you can just drill a 1/4" hole through the CPVC cap, and then secure it using a nut. If you DO use a nut, consider flipping the direction of the bolt, so that the nut faces outward. This will let you adjust the tightness easily once the blaster is assembled. I couldn't find 1-1/4" metal washers with a 1/4" ID, so I just put them in a vice and drilled out the center. EZ PZ. Properly lubricated, this plunger head will give you a 100% seal. There are lots of ways to build plunger heads, so don't feel obligated to use this design. Build whatever you're familiar with. Next up is the spring rest. Use a 3/4" endcap, and drill out a 5/8" hole. That's problematically large, but there are serveral ways to do it. Most people just drill a 1/2" hole, and then widen it with a dremel. I acutally use a 5/8" drill bit, but it's too large to use in my drill. So I... improvise. Let's get the measurements right before we glue anything together. The distance between the priming face and the plunger head coupler should be 7.5". All the shell cuts are going to depend on that presumption, and also the presumption that we are using a 1/4" bolt for priming (you can't ignore the width of the bold when making measurements!). I'm also assuming the distance between the front of the plunger head (remember, the washer flares forward in the tube) and the rear of the plunger head coupler is 1.5". If your plunger head is significantly shorter or longer, it might[/i> screw up some of the dimensions. I have very loose tolerances built into all of these measurements, so it probably won't be an issue. Let's take a look at the plunger tube. I highly[/i> suggest using a three-sided ruler for these, since you can lay it flat against the curve of the tube and make very straight lines. First, draw a centerline all the way down the side of the tube. Next, mark the spot where the spot where the back of the coupler meets the plunger tube. For my design, I'm using a bushing and an external coupler, so that spot is just the very end of the plunger tube. But... ...if you use an internal coupler, such as with rork's SNAPbow mk5, that spot will be an 1.25" or so into the plunger tube. Set the coupler next to the plunger tube, and mark the plunger tube where the back edge of the coupler lies. All futher measurments are based on this mark, so get it right! First, mark a spot 8" away from your front point. Then make another mark at 7.75". Make a third mark between those two - this is where you will drill with a 1/4" bit, to make the front of the slot. We're going through this rigamarol to ensure that the 1/4" bolt fits, and is properly positioned. Next, we mark the rearmost point of the priming slot. It will be 7" away from the rearmost front slot mark. Make a second mark at the 6.75" mark, and then a third inbetween those. Finally, use your ruler to connect the outer edges of the hole marks to act as a guide for our dremel. Next we mark the hole for the trigger. Grab your plunger rod, and place it up against the rearmost mark on the slots, and make a mark in front of the catchface. The actually trigger hole is going to be on the opposite side. You COULD put it on this side, if you wanted. I initially wanted to do that, but the bolt head presses against your palm in that configuration. In order to mark the other side accurately, I made a little guide tool. I cut off an edge of a 1-1/4" coupler, and then made marks on all the compass points. This slips snuggly onto the plunger tube, and allows me to accurately mark the opposite edge.

Why you should care about campagin finance reform.

My opinion about this has been building for a few years now, and has mostly crystalized. The issue is campagign financing. It is what I consider the "source of all problems" in the United States Federal Government. I have never heard anyone even attempt to justify the tit-for-tat that goes on between corporate and wealth campaign donors and politicians.

Lobbying by itself is not the problem. It is important that everyone be able to lobby government - whether that be an individual writing a letter to their congressman (which, contrary to popular belief, congressman and their staff actually DO read), or a group of people sending a paied lobbyist to plead their case. There is also an argument to be made that it is inherently unfair that corporations and other organizations can hire lobbyists. But I'm not going to address that here - I think the money issue is far more pressing.

What is so screwed up is that in order to stay in office, a congressman has to spend an amazing amount of time fundraising. And in order to get that money, congressman are incentivized to pass laws which are favorable to their donors. The old line that "money doesn't influence our legislative decisions!" is silly - why the hell would they give you money otherwise? In any case, the tit-for-tat is well documented (OpenSecrets being the best source, since they draw directly from congressional records).

What bugs me is that this is truely a non-partisan issue, and that almost everyone agrees that it is a problem. Hell, here's a video of Bill O'Reilly and Jon Stewart agreeing with each other about this (advance the video 7:00).

Even congressman acknoledge that this is a problem, and I sense a sort of desperation from them when they talk about it. They KNOW it's a problem, but the system is so rigged and self-reinforcing that there is a sense of resignation about the feasibility of fixing it. (Rand Paul gave a good spiel about this and congressional paralysis in general. I can't find a video of it, so you'll just have to take my word that it exists.)

I always feel a little presumptious when I bring up political issues like this. But... I really feel like there is a consensus about this issue. To make a car analogy:

• Designing a car is more of an idealogical problem, since the performance and utility characteristics are mostly subjective. Certain things are obviously better (e.g, 40mpg is better than 20mpg), but most design decisions are subjective (How much space do we need in the trunk? How do we layout the console? Do we want more engine performance, or a lower cost?). There is lots of room for argument about how to design a car, and it is hard to call any one decision "wrong".
• Fixing a car that isn't running properly is a practical problem. Fixing mechanical problems is not always straight-forward, but the measure of success is an objective one. Engine producing crappy horsepower? Tune it up, replace a few components, and all of the sudden it runs "better" in an objective sense.

I believe that the problems of campagin financing fall squarely in the latter category. A congressman's job description is very clear: to represent his constituents and to advance the wealfare of the country as a whole. They are failing.

Some would argue that donating money to a politian's campaign is a form of free speech that ought to be protected. I would argue that it is a form of anti-speech, it's sole purpose being to drown out the voices of others. It's like bringing a megaphone to a debate and shouting down your opponent at 120dB. That megaphone is not a tool for expressing your opinion; it is a tool for silencing your opponent. TV advertisements are the weapon of choice for modern polititians, and they are quite effective.

That's the problem, and unfortunately I don't have a good solution to offer. I am not convinced by many of the proposals offered (public financing of campaigns is probably the major one). I do, however, see a tie-in to the issue of wealth inequality.

Objectively, wealth inequality by itself shouldn't matter. Inequalility has gone up, yes, but so has the material standard of living of the poor. What does it matter if someone else makes 100 times your income, as long as your lot in life is always getting better? Libretarians often make what I think is a very strong case for that position. While incomes for the poor and middle class have stagnated, the actual material wealth of those people has increased. What does it matter if your income has stagnated? That's just a number. The material wealth you have is REAL, and it has gotten objectively better over the years, even for the very poor. So, from that perspetive I reject the standard liberal argument and embrace the libertarian one.

BUT...

The libertarian argument is only concerned with material wealth, and that is not the only criterion we should be measuring when talking about the "wellness" of the poor. Another is political empowerment, which really ought to be just as important. In a system such as ours, money can be used to effectively buy political power. And in such a system, income inequality directly translates into power inequality. I would argue that the political power balance in this country is severly skewed towards the rich. Simply put, if you have more money, you can donate more to your favorite canidate and increase his odds of winning.

It is important not to get tied up in "the unfairness of it all!". We should be concerned about the effects of income inequality, not the inequality itself. That last point is where I feel Occupy Wall Street is getting their messages mixed up, and why I cringe a little at arguments that we should just tax the rich more (because they're RICH!). The second part of OWS's manifesto is that money ought not influence politics to the extent that it does, and I think they would be wise to adopt that as their primary message.

Income inequality is a driving force behind the mass disenfranchisment that is occuring in this country, but it is not the source of the problem. Rather, the structural flaws in our campagin finance system are what lead to the effective disenfranchisment of the people. It is the #1 problem affecting our country.

Bitcoin rant

I am one of the few people who has run the gamut of bitcoin usage. I have bought and sold tangible items using bitcoins. I have mined them. I have traded them for dollars. I have researched the techonology behind them. So I feel that I have some right to speak about them. I am an ethusiastic supporter of the concept of a crypto-currency, and I think that one will eventually replace the monetary system as we know it. But it won't be bitcoin.

Here's the problem: bitcoins are inherently deflationary. There will never be more than 21 million bticoins in existance, and so value of the currency necisssarily rises over time.

For years, I have heard the line: "inflation is bad, but deflation is catastrophic". Like so many abstract concepts you learn in college, I accepted this statement on an intellectual level. But I never groked it. So while real economists cried foul at the concept behind bitcoin, I poo-poohed their concerns. Bitcoin was so very clever, and the thought of sticking it to The Man entranced me. But using bitcoins has finally given me a real-world punch in the gut: deflation SUCKS.

Why? Because you get kicked in the nuts when you spend your money. Since the value of your money is constantly increasing, you always hold out as long as possible when buying things;  it becomes stupid to invest your money; sellers engage in a race to the bottom; the dreaded "deflationary spiral" of constantly falling trade volume and prices; the self destructive circle-jerk of currency speculation. When using a deflationary currency, it doesn't make sense to do business. It defeats the whole point of HAVING a currency.

I knew these things in a distant, intellectual way before I ever got involved in bitcoin. But there is no substitute for seeing things first hand. Deflationary currencies don't work. Bitcoin doesn't work. The technology behind it is fascinating and clever, but the implementation is flawed. (Incidentally, gold shares almost all of these problems). In a world with zero economic growth, it would work. But we don't live in that sort of world.

The irony of this foray into crypto-currency is what I have brought back with me: a new-found respect for The Man. A stable currency with just a dash of inflation is the proper way to operate a fiat currency, and the Fed does that. 


P.S. There's also the issue of plaintext wallets. I go cross-eyed wondering why people thought that was a good idea.