Patterico's Pontifications

11/22/2014

Damn You, AutoCorrect Siri!

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:34 pm

My brother in law blamed Siri for this text today:

Screen Shot 2014-11-22 at 7.21.37 PM

Not to worry, Justin. I have the next version of WordPress. Which means, I guess . . .

Insert your obvious joke in the space below — if you have the ability.

Because If You Don’t Laugh, You Just Cry

Filed under: General — Dana @ 3:53 pm

[guest post by Dana]

If anyone thought that after the midterm trouncing, the president would back off on his immigration plans, then they have not been paying attention. There has never been any indication that this president is open or willing to receive and accept criticism, whether from his own party or even especially from the American people. In this he remains consistent. Besides, one man’s flagrant disregard for the Constitution is just another man’s moral imperative, right?

“When members of Congress question my authority to make our immigration system work better, I have a simple answer: pass a bill.”

Justified!

Anyway, via Rand Paul, a little amusement in spite of the whole debacle.

Starter pack for presidents who think they’re kings:

Untitled-1

Gruber’s take on the immigration move by the President:

Untitled-2
–Dana

Saturday Afternoon Music: California Edition

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 1:07 pm

Two songs about my current home from artists that I have seen in the last week. First, “California” from Radney Foster, who I had the pleasure of watching perform last night at The Mint in Los Angeles:

Get More:

Second is “California Wasted” by Toad the Wet Sprocket, which the family got to see last weekend at The Coach House in San Juan Capistrano:

Enjoy.

Stop Being Culturally Arrogant, White People!

Filed under: General — Dana @ 10:23 am

[post by Dana]

Untitled-1

I think we are supposed to be abuzz about the “bold”new cover art from the New Yorker. Artist Bruce McCall:

“It’s not profound, you know—nothing I do is profound—but I wanted to address the whole kerfuffle over the Redskins’ name,” Bruce McCall says.

Rather than viewing the team name as a “badge of honor” like owner Dan Snyder, McCall has a different take:

“This is 2014, and it seems a little late to be dealing with that stuff,” McCall says. “It should have been quashed a long time ago. We did everything to the Indians that we could, and it’s still going on. It seems crude and callous. Names like the Atlanta Braves come from another time. So, in my cover, I’ve brought the cultural arrogance of one side back to the sixteen-hundreds and the first Thanksgiving dinner, just to see what would happen.”

–Dana

11/20/2014

Emperor Obama Amnesty Lies Open Thread

Filed under: General — JD @ 5:06 pm

[guest post by JD]

I listened for 2 minutes. Then barfed.

Discuss

—JD

“Net Communism” — A “Net Neutrality” Rant

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:41 am

It seems to me that the Net Neutrality proponents are trying to repeal the laws of supply and demand through legislation. Such efforts always end badly. We should re-label the effort “Net Communism.” Let me explain.

The Internet promotes this illusion of a Shangri-La world of unlimited access to unlimited data for free. Of course, we all realize (if we think about it) that this isn’t quite the case. You have to pay at both ends of Al Gore’s information superhighway.

On the receiving end, whether you access the Internet through your phone or your computer, you typically have to pay an ISP for access. You could go to a Starbucks and grab their free WiFi, but somebody has to pay for that access (hint: it’s Starbucks). They pay for it, and provide it to you for free, to lure you there and sell you overpriced coffee-style drinks and pastries. But someone has to pay.

On the serving end, you must pay as well. As you have probably noticed (since you’re here) I have a Web site. I pay to maintain the URL, and I pay hosting fees to a company that hosts the site on a server. Because I don’t pay thousands of dollars every month, the server capacity I can purchase is limited. I share a server with several other sites that also typically do not need a dedicated, gold-plated server. This arrangement typically suits my needs, but the site is not necessarily able to sustain a link from Matt Drudge. (I have found this out before.)

If I am dissatisfied with this state of affairs, and wish to have a site that can easily withstand a Drudge link, I will have to pay more. There is good reason for this: bandwidth, like most resources, is scarce. If a Drudge link hits my site while my site is on a shared server, it slows down traffic for all the other sites. If I pay more money to the hosting company, they can now afford to invest in capital (a new server) that can help them better satisfy my needs. If I don’t pay them more money, they are typically going to choke off some of my traffic, to ensure that all the other sites don’t go down.

But what if I could somehow convince the government to order the ISP to treat my Web site “equally” — even though I don’t pay more? Then, instead of having an incentive to increase capacity (you pay us more and we’ll give you more bandwidth), the hosting company would have no choice but to allow that Drudge link to pound the shared server, melting every site on it.

That’s because the government’s order to the hosting company would be a price control. In effect, the government would be ordering the hosting company to provide $10,000 a month worth of access for $80.

And what happens when price controls are instituted? If you answered: “shortages” you get the gold star.

Without the ability to charge higher hosting fees, our hosting company has no incentive to produce more bandwidth, and the Internet will slow to a crawl for any company (or other Web site) on that server.

Then, if history holds, all the Web sites on that server harmed by the government’s actions would . . . complain to the government, which would announce New Regulations to Solve the Problem.

My understanding of Net Neutrality, and you can correct me if I am wrong, is that ISPs would be disabled from doing exactly what the hosting companies are doing in my example. You have these companies like Google (which owns YouTube) or Netflix, which are cramming the tubes of the Internet with their bandwidth-hogging video content. But they don’t want to pay the ISPs the necessary fees to make sure their massive amounts of content get delivered. They want to have the government regulate the tubes, and tell the ISPs “you have to treat us equally, even though we are overwhelming your bandwidth.”

If Google and Netflix had to pay the ISPs fees that correspond to the degree that they are flooding the tubes with their high-bandwidth content, that would provide an incentive to the ISPs to provide more bandwidth. If these companies don’t pay extra . . .

. . . well, someone is still going to have to pay. Either this situation is going to result in 1) higher fees by users to access the Internet, or 2) less bandwidth, and slower service to everybody. If we’re lucky, maybe both!

And then, we will need to complain to the government, which will then announce a new round of regulations to address the problem.

And, if history holds, you’re gonna love those regulations. Mr. Glenn Reynolds, we have determined your Web site is too popular. In the interest of fairness, we need to make sure that these statist leftist bloggers over here will have the same “access” to the Internet that your site does — meaning we are going to order the ISPs to open up the pipes for those lefties, or subsidize their content, all in the interest of “fairness.”

The world has tried a system where government claimed to make everyone equal, and removed all market incentives in the process. It was called “communism,” and it failed. Communism created a political elite that was better off than the rabble, and a miserable rabble that suffered from socialism’s basic inability to calculate profit and loss and thus properly allocate resources. Black markets sprang up everywhere, but it wasn’t enough to alleviate the suffering, and the system collapsed — but not before millions died in the name of dictators like Stalin who claimed to pursue “equality.”

TANSTAAFL. (Google it, while you still can.)

To me, “Net Neutrality” is really “Net Communism.” I plan to start using that term to describe it, and I encourage readers to do the same.

11/19/2014

Jake Tapper: An Actual Reporter Explains Grubergate Effectively (Video)

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 8:04 pm

What’s this? He actually thinks it’s a real story, explains why effectively, doesn’t pull any punches — yet is not a GOP shill? Just an honest reporter?

What??

Jake Tapper deserves our thanks.

UPDATE: Interesting that Tapper uses the term “ObamaCare” in the video (three times, by my count). Remember when he banned the term from his blog?

Bill Cosby Open Thread

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 6:38 pm

Open thread because I really haven’t followed this story, being too busy at work — but I sense it’s a Big Deal and that people may want to talk about it.

That said, the whole thing makes me sad. It certainly does not sound good at all. Sometimes you have a mental picture of who a person is, and then you find out they aren’t that person. That is often a sad experience. But I don’t want to make assumptions.

Obama To Give Prime Time Address On Topic That Ranks Around 8th In Importance To Electorate.

Filed under: General — JD @ 1:12 pm

[guest post by JD]

The lesson from yet another electoral shellacking? Run even further left. Obama had a chance to do this when the Dems controlled all of DC, but lying about healthcare was a more pressing priority. Now, in a lame duck session 6 years into his failed Presidency, now it is urgent?

At the very least, this will distract from the upcoming riots in Ferguson, and the ongoing revelations of their perfidy on ObamaCare.

He really is a noxious small man.

—-JD

ObamaCare Shilling: L.A. Times Describes Near-Doubling in Premiums as “Fairly Stable”

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:37 am

The L.A. Times recently ran a Page One above-the-fold piece that claimed:

In California’s marketplace, rates have remained fairly stable for the second year. The average rate increase statewide is 4.2%, according to the exchange. Some people will pay more — 13% of exchange customers face an increase of 8% or more.

The notion that health care rates have “remained fairly stable” for the last two years would probably come as a surprise to the people at the L.A. Times who published this story on July 29: Health premiums soared, Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones says.

The cost of health insurance for individuals skyrocketed this year in California, with some paying almost twice what they did last year, the state’s insurance commissioner said.

Mmmm . . . skyrocketing costs? Almost double for some? Can’t you just smell the stability?

At a news conference Tuesday, Jones said individuals this year paid between 22% and 88% more for individual health insurance policies than they did last year, depending on age, gender, type of policy and where they lived.

The increases did not affect poor people, whose policies are heavily subsidized, Jones said. The study results released Tuesday did not include group policies such as those offered by employers.

Nothing says “stable prices” like a one-year increase of 22% to 88%.

Do these people even read their own newspaper?

Thanks to Gary H.

Next Page »

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1658 secs.