Computer Advice: Don't Use Shift-Delete Hotkey

Or at least don't get into the habit of using it. If you happen to select by accident a file or folder you did not wanted deleted (like a system file), it is gone for good. It is better to drag-and-drop the item into the recycle bin or press the delete key. What I do is have a free housekeeping program like Empty Temp Folders empty the recycle bin at startup. This program can also the empty cache and other folders too at startup.

HillaryCare's Worst Features

From Cato.org is a scholar that sums of Hillary Clinton's health care proposal's worst features:

• An individual mandate. Sen. Clinton would require every American to purchase health insurance or face penalties. There are many problems with such a mandate. It restricts individual choice and liberty. It will require a massive new bureaucracy to enforce. And it sets in motion a whole series of regulatory requirements that will ultimately lead to greater government control of our health care.

• An employer mandate. Sen. Clinton would impose a “play or pay “ mandate on American businesses, requiring them to provide workers with health insurance or pay an additional tax into a government insurance fund. Such a mandate simply increases the cost of hiring workers, meaning employers will inevitably hire fewer workers. Some may even be forced to layoff current employees and others will offset their costs by reducing wages or wage increases.

• Expanding government programs. Sen. Clinton would expand the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) to provide benefits for middle-class families. Yet studies show that many of those who would be covered by such an expansion already have private health insurance. Thus, Sen. Clinton would simply be moving people from private insurance to taxpayer-funded government care. She would also allow people under age 65 to “buy-in” to Medicare despite the fact that the program is already facing a financial crisis.

• Insurance regulation. Senator Clinton would require insurance companies to accept all applicants regardless of their health, and would impose “community rating” on health insurance premiums. As a result the young and healthy will be forced to pay more in order to subsidize the older and sicker. And those who practice healthy lifestyles will pay more to subsidize the irresponsible.

This is a scary program. If you don't like waiting at the DMV for renewing your driver's licence how would like to wait weeks in line for a dentist in pain just to get a cavity filled? Something to think about. Also, Hillary Clinton said she would leave it up to Congress to fill in the details of her plan. You know who is the ranking member of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions committee that would oversee her plan? None other than Senator Ted Kennedy. That's who. Something else to think about. In summary her plan (or any Universal Health Care plan for that matter) would lead to long lines, overworked good doctors and nurses, poor doctors still getting paid, and shortages of medical equipment and medical staff.

10 Questions About Militant Jihadism

On Counterterrorism Blog.org, Walid Phares poses ten questions below in bold face about the war on terror he says should be answered. My answers are next to the bold face questions.

1. Do the Jihadists wish to destroy the enemy (the free world) or absorb it? To destroy the free world. Actually, here is the infidels choices: Convert, be a slave, or die.
2. Do they want to attack the West and the United States before they accomplish their goals in the Muslim world first? A crucial question, leading to many others. Not easy to answer. I say since they don't want Iraq to become stabilized and democratic they would try to make chaos as much as possible in Iraq like they are doing now so it does not become a buffer against Jihadism. Iraq is the central battleground right now for the Jihadist.
3. Will it be possible to conclude peace with the Jihadists? What would doing so entail? Definitely not. The only way to make peace with the Jihadists is to become a fundamentalist Muslim like they are.
4. What are al Qaeda’s priorities in the struggle against the United States? To have the US military cut-and-run from Iraq so they can say we are a "paper tiger" as Bin Laden put it. The way to do this is have the American people turn against the military or put pressure on Congress to have the military withdraw immediately. That is probably number one priority. Also, to have the US not support Israel anymore. Finally, to have the US reject democracy and embrace Sharia law.
5. What weaknesses and holes do the Jihadists see in America and the West, and how would they use them? Democracy. What they perceive as our relaxed morals and open society. They would try infiltrate governments to influence law. They would also try to intimidate the western world in not criticizing Jihadists (calling people who condemn Jihadists, Islamphobes).They would have Mosques whose Imam spout out anti-American rhetoric and call for a Holy War against the infidels (ie America and the Western world). Also, they would attempt to gain support with other fundamentalists around the world by having the US citizens attack their fellow Muslim citizens. If people in the US started randomly attacking innocent Muslims (I hope this does not happen) then the Jihadists could use this as a justification for their Holy War. This internal chaos could be accomplished by attacking our schools like the extremists did in Russia. Conservative Glenn Beck on his TV show thinks this is a real possibility. He calls it the "Perfect Day." Also, the border, ports, malls, and stadiums could be used weaknesses if they are not protected.
6. Are the governments in the United States and other western nations ready for these future wars? Sadly, I don't think so. It's like WW II when Hitler started invading countries. Before that time everyone except Winston Churchill thought he was just a nut and did not take him seriously. For the Jihadists this is Holy War. They have no doubt what their mission is--global Sharia law. The Jihadists also are willing to die for that mission.
7. What would the next generations of Americans, today’s children and youths, have to face in these wars? Bloodshed and violence if there are acts of terrorism in our country.
8. What should the United States and the West do to avoid future jihads? Convince the modern and traditional Muslims to take a stand against the Jihadists around the world. The un-radical Muslims The US and the West must show strength and resolve and be united against the Jihadists. Let them know loud and clear that they and their ideology is not going to win. Keep monitoring communication between Jihadists abroad and on the homeland. The gov't of the Western world has to support and protect any astute citizen reporting any suspicious behavior or packages. The press can help here too by not calling people Islamophobes and reporting successes the US military has against Jihadism and encouraging mindfulness behavior in their readers and viewers. The press can also do more stories on how the Islamofascists are oppressing people. We are all in it together. I don't care about "war fatigue." The only people that have war fatigue is the soldiers and their family and close friends. You think the Jihadists have war fatigue? I seriously doubt it.
9. Why wasn’t it already done in the past? The West and the US did not recognize the threat even though Jihadism has been around a long time since the time of the Knights of Templar. Islam was not really understood back then and still is not really today. Also, Communism and before that Nazism were the threats at that time. 9-11 happened because the US could not imagine the unimaginable. We thought we were protected by an ocean. Not anymore. The US and the Western world has to think imaginatively and realistically of ways a Jihadist can attack us and do something to prevent it. For example, could the Jihadists go underground a city and blow it up? There are a lot of cities around the world who have underground caverns. Just watch a few episodes of Cities of the Underworld on the History Channel. Are these being protected? Also, a Jihadist could set off a EMF bomb that just fries electronics. That in itself could make a city grind to a halt.
10. Are the Jihadists alone, or do they have the backing of other powers and states? They are not alone. They are being supported by countries that if not endorse what they do but sympathize with their cause. Like Iran, Syria, some say Saudi Arabia, etc.

Leaders and future leaders of the world should ponder seriously these ten questions. The threat is not going to go away on its own.

Rudy Giuliani's 12 Commitments

Since I believe that Rudy Giuliani will be the presidential Republican nominee in 2008 election and possibly the president I am going to analyze his twelve commitments he has on his web site. I am neutral when it comes to Rudy Giuliani. Now, to his commitments.

1. I will keep America on offense in the Terrorists' War on Us.
2. I will end illegal immigration, secure our borders, and identify every non-citizen in our nation.
3. I will restore fiscal discipline and cut wasteful Washington spending.
4. I will cut taxes and reform the tax code.
5. I will impose accountability on Washington.
6. I will lead America towards energy independence.
7. I will give Americans more control over and access to health care with affordable and portable free-market solutions.
8. I will increase adoptions, decrease abortions, and protect the quality of life for our children.
9. I will reform the legal system and appoint strict constructionist judges.
10. I will ensure that every community in America is prepared for terrorist attacks and natural disasters.
11. I will provide access to a quality education to every child in America by giving real school choice to parents.
12. I will expand America's involvement in the global economy and strengthen our reputation around the world.

He did not elaborate on commitments 1, 5, and 11. I don't know if will elaborate on them in the future or leave it like it is. I think he should elaborate more on those. I am glad he is going to be on the offense in the war on terror. But how? What about Iran? He says he will impose accountability on Washington. What kind of accountability? Fiscal? Could be he says he is a fiscal conservative. Or how about having Congress keep its promises to the voters? He should also expand on what does he mean by school choice. At first glimpse this might seem self-explanatory but I wonder if he is including home schooling in that choice. I hope he does. During his term as mayor he said he created a Charter School Fund.
All in all not a bad platform. Some of the ideas could be fleshed out a little more. At least he is disclosing what he wants to do. I give him credit for that. Politicians who don't spell out their platform are just cowards. They are afraid some one (like a political opponent or a voter) will find flaws in it or make them accountable to it. Well, that is the name of the game. This is a democracy not a monarchy. Say what your platform is then defend it if you have to. A presidential candidate is not appointed by God; she has to be elected. Convince me you are the best candidate. Lecture over. Back to the mayor.
I don't think if the mayor is going to be elected president he will be able to get all twelve commitments done in the first term. If he is lucky enough to be elected again, he might get all of them done. If I were him I would start prioritizing them. Here is how I would rank them according to importance from most to least: 1), 2), 10), 4), 5), 3), 9), 6), 11), 8), 7), 12). The reader may of course rank them differently.

Hydrogen From Salt Water

From Bierbart.com:

An Erie [Pennsylvania] cancer researcher has found a way to burn salt water, a novel invention that is being touted by one chemist as the "most remarkable" water science discovery in a century.

This accidental discovery happened when he tried to "desalinate seawater with a radio-frequency generator he developed to treat cancer." According to the article, as long as the salt water was exposed to radio frequencies it would burn. The hydrogen is released when the radio frequencies weaken the bonds between the elements that make up salt water. Scientists are wondering if this burning hydrogen has enough energy to power a car or other heavy machinery. I hope so. 97% of water on the earth is salt water. I don't think we will run out of salt water soon.

This discovery illustrates two points: 1) Solutions come from unlikely places. 2) Scientific knowledge will always increase probably forever. It is arrogance to think that mankind will completely understand the world around us.

Destroying Bin Laden's Image

It does not seem that the reward for Osama (or is it Usama?--I never know anymore) Bin Laden is not working. No-one is going to take the reward and turn him in especially those that are harboring him. Mainly because money is not the primary reason for militant Jihadism. True, the Jihadists need it for financing terror but only for that. Also, Bin Laden (the bastard) is treated as an icon by his followers. If the US or one of its allies kills Bin Laden (the evil sadistic goat fornicator) he will be elevated to martyr status. Although if he was killed I would not shed one tear. The other way is to capture the jackass. I don't see that happening soon. The only reasonable way to do that is by special forces under the cover of night. But first, you have to find him. There is a third way of dealing with Bin Laden. And that is by having his own followers or the people harboring him, kill him.

What has to happen is his image has to be destroyed. He has to be seen as a non-Muslim or at least not as a militant Jihadist. The way to do this is to show him breaking Muslim taboos.

First you find a look-alike Bin Laden. Then you have this look-alike in a video petting a black dog for instance and holding a glass of wine in the other hand. In Islam, dogs especially black dogs are treated as impure. No Muslim, especially a fundamentalist, would pet a dog. In the Hadith, the angel Gabriel could not enter Mohammed's house because there was dog in front of it. That to me seems strange. An angel being harassed by a dog? And liquor of any kind is forbidden in Muslim society. Of course, this video would seem innocuous to every viewer other than to the fundamentalists. Other ideas would be to have the fake Bin Laden wear a tattoo (another taboo because it is evil) of the Star of David (that would really tick off his followers--although that might be a stretch for his followers to believe), and have a painting (believe it or not paintings are taboo even though Saddam Hussein had them in his palace) let's say of a synagogue on a wall in the background. You can even have the fake Bin Laden play a guitar (yes, another taboo--actually any string instrument is a taboo), and sing a country song. In the background in the video you could have a woman's voice yell out in Arabian: "Osama, are you still filming that stupid video? Come here immediately and help clean up your mess!" Then the Bin Laden would say meekly: "Yes, dear. In a moment." The possibilities could be endless in ways to make Bin Laden look bad. Hopefully, the fundamentalists would get so mad that would turn on him and possibly kill him. Like the Germans tried to do to Hitler during WW II. I say, destroy Bin Laden's image, you destroy him.

What I have just described could be done easily by the military. The technical term for it is psy-ops (psychology operations). The video could be given to Al Jazeera so all the Islamic world can see it. The military could even have an expert come out and analyse the video and point out the taboos. I am just thinking outside the box. The question is how long would it take for the New York Times to expose this operation? (Gee, I hope I did not expose it if the US military is already thinking this!)

Edits in The Bin Laden Videotape

An interesting article from News.com about the latest Bin Laden's videotape. It's interesting from a digital image forensic view point. Neal Krawetz is the digital image forensic specialist.

At roughly a minute and a half into the video there is a splice; bin Laden shifts from looking at the camera to looking down in less than 1/25th of a second. At 13:13 there is a second, less obvious splice. In all, Krawetz says there are at least six splices in the video. Of these, there are only two live bin Laden segments, the rest of the video composed of still images. The first live section opens the video and ends at 1:56. The second section begins at 12:29 and continues until 14:01. The two live sections appear to be from different recordings "because the desk is closer to the camera in the second section."

Then there are the audio edits. Krawetz says "the new audio has no accompanying 'live' video and consists of multiple audio recordings." References to current events are made only during the still frame sections and after splices within the audio track." And there are so many splices that I cannot help but wonder if someone spliced words and phrases together. I also cannot rule out a vocal imitator during the frozen-frame audio. The only way to prove that the audio is really bin Laden is to see him talking in the video," Krawetz says.

It's funny how much the TV press comment on Bin Laden dying his beard black. Yes, it's different but is that really important? I don't think so.

Test Scores and Parenting

Here are some interesting education correlations from the Freakonomics (2005) book by Steven D. Levitt and Shephen J. Dubner. If you don't know what a correlation is it indicates a relation between two sets of values. A correlation does not state what the relationship is though. For example, if A factor goes up and B factor goes down at the same time, you don't know if A is influencing B or if B is influencing A or if it is just a coincidence between the two factors. Anyway, here are the factors the two authors found influencing a child having high test scores.

1. The child has highly educated parents.
2. The child's parents have high socioeconomic status.
3. The child's mother was thirty or older at the time of her first child's birth.
4. The child had low birth weight.
5. The child's parents speak English in the home.
6. The child is not adopted.
7. The child's parents are involved in the PTA.
8. The child has many books in his home.

Here are the factors that don't influence high test scores:

1. The child's family is intact.
2. The child's parents recently moved into a better neighborhood.
3. The child's mother didn't work between birth and kindergarten.
4. The child attended Head Start.
5. The child's parents regularly take him to museums.
6. The child is regular spanked.
7. The child frequently watches television.
8. The child's parents read to him nearly every day.

Keep in mind all these factors are about test scores, not morality, having friends, going to jail, etc. In the factors that are strongly correlated with test scores 1), 2), 5), 7) make sense to me. If you're parents are highly educated (possibly this is because of good genes), well off financially (can send their kids to good schools--possibly private schools), speak English (tells the kids communicating in the dominate language is important), and are involved in the PTA (the parents are keeping tabs on how the kids are doing in school) the child will probably do well on test scores. It is hard to say which factors are more important than the others. Factors 3), 4), 6), 8) are kind of surprising. Older mothers who wait to have their first born are more likely to want the child than teenage mothers, according to the authors. Probably because the mother was preparing for the child and it was not unexpected. According to the authors, if the child has low birth weight it might be because the mother did not take care of the child in utero either because she was poor or whatever the reason might be. Also, if the child is adopted it is probably from a mother who cannot take care of the child emotionally, physically, or financially. This child might also have low birth weight too. As for why books in the home contribute to high test scores it is because that is a strange one and it is not because the child is being read to (see non-factor H). The authors think that a book is in fact a cause of intelligence than an indicator.

Head Start child does not effect the child's test score because instead of the child spending the day with his own undereducated, overworked mother, the typical Head Start child spends the day with someone else's undereducated, overworked mother--that's the author's theory. In other words there is no change in the learning environment. Non-factor E will probably be bad news for liberals who like to take their kids to museums thinking it will make them intelligent and sophisticated. Not that I have anything against museums, but unless kids like going to museums it will be boring to them. I mean how many kids are interested in seeing the Mona Lisa painting or a sculpture? Watching TV having no relationship to a child's score does not bode well for PBS with kid's educational shows like Sesame Street.

Unsolved History: Killing Hitler

I watched on TV a show called Unsolved History: Killing Hitler. What the guys on the show were trying to figure out was how Adolf Hitler survived a failed assassination plot from some of his top commanders. Those commanders (who by the way were executed by Hitler when he found who was conspiring against him) put a bomb in a suitcase and set it next to Hitler in a bunker next to a table. The table's part is important--I'll explain later. Anyway, he was meeting with some of his top commanders in this bunker. One of the people in the meeting moved the suitcase under the table to get it out of the way. A few minutes later the suitcase bomb went off. Most of them died from the bomb blast, but Hitler survived. The Unsolved History crew wanted to find out why. What they did was recreate the bunker from old photos, position people made out of wood in the room just like they thought they were before the blast. Even the crew used plastic dynamite similar to what bombers used back then. Positioned the bomb in the suitcase under the table. When the bomb went off in the recreation the mannequin version of Hitler had hardly any damage on it. It survived just like Hitler did. Matter of fact the damage on the mannequin Hitler was similar to where Hitler was injured. Then they repeated the same scenario except for one difference--the crew put the suitcase bomb next to the table instead of under it. Lit the bomb and waited for the results. Guess what? The mannequin Hitler had fatal injures from the bomb's debris. The real Hitler would not have survived.

Originally, the plotters were going to use two bombs in the suitcase but they were interrupted before putting the second bomb in the suitcase. Just the first bomb would have been lit with the second. The Unsolved History crew found out by putting both bombs in the suitcase, Hitler would not have survived even when the suitcase was under the table. I should mention that the table was a breakaway table. The part of the table that broke off shielded Hitler from most of the blast. Also, if Hitler would have been in a metal bunker instead of a wooden one he would not have survived. Just think if the plotters would have killed Hitler the war would have probably ended sooner than it did. Hitler thought him surviving the assassination attempt was a good omen he would win the war.

Spotting Tell-Tale Signs of A Possible Terrorist

In a Stratfor.com article the author talks about having situational awareness and spotting tell-tale signs of a possible terrorist watching someone or a location. If a person sees someone repeatedly over time, in different environments and over distance, or one who is acting unnaturally then that person can assume (s)he is under surveillance. If a person is being watched then time, environment and distance would come into focus more. If it is a location that is under surveillance then demeanor would be something to be on the lookout for. For instance, if you go to the store, a movie and to work and see the same person or maybe the same vehicle in each location then something is up--ie you are being watched. If a location is being watched then the only thing a person can be aware of is strange demeanor. Like wearing winter clothing on a hot summer day, or being somewhere he should not be, or avoiding eye contact when being looked at (this can be also true if is a person being watched instead of a location), or even giving hand signals to others to communicate with other members of a surveillance team.

Most terrorism experts tell people to be on the outlook for strange packages or suitcases being left by themselves and report them to local law enforcement officers because they might have explosives in them. This is good advice, but it would be better to prevent the explosives being placed by stopping the person who put the explosives there in the first place. In other words, preventive or proactive measures like Stratfor.com advises.

Is what Stratfor.com advises profiling? Kind of sound likes it doesn't it? But you are not watching out for a particular race or gender, but instead watching out for unnatural behavior. It could be any race, age, or even gender for that matter watching you.

I don't think the author of the article is trying to make anyone paranoid. He just wants you to be mindfully aware of your surroundings. Which is always good advice. Just like you watch for the behavior of other vehicles when driving, being mind full of other people in your surroundings is good habit to start. Your intuition or gut feeling can be a good guide here.

Endgame: American Options in Iraq

From Stratfor.com here is Dr. George Friedman options in Iraq:

The new U.S. mission, therefore, must be to block Iran in the aftermath of the Iraq war. The United States cannot impose a government on Iraq; the fate of Iraq's heavily populated regions cannot be controlled by the United States. But the United States remains an outstanding military force, particularly against conventional forces. It is not very good at counterinsurgency and never has been. The threat to the Arabian Peninsula from Iran would be primarily a conventional threat -- supplemented possibly by instability among Shia on the peninsula.

The mission would be to position forces in such a way that Iran could not think of moving south into Saudi Arabia. There are a number of ways to achieve this. The United States could base a major force in Kuwait, threatening the flanks of any Iranian force moving south. Alternatively, it could create a series of bases in Iraq, in the largely uninhabited regions south and west of the Euphrates. With air power and cruise missiles, coupled with a force about the size of the U.S. force in South Korea, the United States could pose a devastating threat to any Iranian adventure to the south. Iran would be the dominant power in Baghdad, but the Arabian Peninsula would be protected.

This goal could be achieved through a phased withdrawal from Iraq, along with a rapid withdrawal from the populated areas and an immediate cessation of aggressive operations against jihadists and militia. It would concede what the NIE says is unattainable without conceding to Iran the role of regional hegemony. It would reduce forces in Iraq rapidly, while giving the remaining forces a mission they were designed to fight -- conventional war. And it would rapidly reduce the number of casualties. Most important, it would allow the United States to rebuild its reserves of strategic forces in the event of threats elsewhere in the world.

Dr. Friedman also states the three other options (staying the course, cutting-and-running, and staged withdrawal) won't work in the long run. Staying the course he says pursues an attainable goal of Iraq creating an effective coalition government. Cutting-and-running just "opens the door for possible Iranian hegemony -- and lays a large part of the world's oil reserves at Iran's feet." Finally, a staged withdrawal would put our troops in Iraq at a disadvantage. Our troops numbers would decrease while the enemy's troops number would increase. We would be outnumbered--a dangerous situation that a soldier does not want to experience and should at all possible not to be put in.

The doctor's plan I think is reasonable. We cannot let Iran take over Iraq and make it into another terrorist training camp. Basically the author is saying we cannot completely leave Iraq. So, how long would US troops be in Iraq even if they are in the uninhabited regions? Probably a long time or until Iran is not a threat anymore. Some political analyst say President Bush will do some action against Iran before he leaves office if they become a nuclear power.