Greek Fire

I was just watching the movie "Time Line".  One of the things that interested me the most was Greek Fire, a weapon primarily used in naval battles.

Personally I think Greek Fire was a form of Potassium Sodium, created right on the ship using a very simple reactive still/pressure cooker.  The molten potassium sodium was ejected through a tube at the front of the ship.

Typically the reaction which creates potassium sodium, which reacts violently with water, is continuous, but, suppose there was no relief valve or outlet for the boiling potassium.  The pressure buildup would cause an ejection of the potassium sodium until it "burped".  The system would need some kind of valve at the outlet tube to allow pressure build up.

Maybe once I get my anthropology degree I will see if I can find funding to build such a system using ancient materials and technology.

I think I can cast the pressure cooker/reactive still using a lost wax investment casting process.  The pressure relief valve could be something as simple as a heavy copper ball contained at the top, maybe even with some kind of spring.  The valve could be a tapered investment cast bronze or brass system using copper seals with a screw at the bottom which tightened the valve against the copper seals.

I know a very cool professor who is an expert in the casting field who might be able to help.

I know it sounds like I just gave away everything, but, it would take an engineer like myself with the support of a chemical engineer and a casting expert to pull this off.  It has not happened in many years and I doubt if it is going to happen any time in the near future.

And this idea is now copyrighted :-)  If some jerk steals it I can establish I published it first.

Moronic script kiddies

Script kiddie morons are the biggest problem in hacking today.

I used to have a pretty open FTP server, still do although now it is so hidden no one can find it.  Nothing special, least amount of security I could get away with.  There are guys who run similar servers using Live distros so moronic script kiddies can't trash the system.  I tried that, the system rebooted itself every few hours and that worked okay.  Eventually I went with a different system that I am obviously not going to discuss here.

One guy I know actually hard wired a small, hidden, computer into a hotels network.  The system runs on a live distro, read only disk.   Very cool system, he has access to it, and the network.

Sometimes I run a bit torrent server, not often anymore.  Script kiddies kept hacking the system using the security holes in bit torrent.  That usually wouldn't bother me since I didn't keep any files, except legal bit torrent files, on that system, but, they kept trashing the system.  I didn't feel like installing a second DVD drive on the system to run a read only system.  I wiped that system and use it very rarely these days.

I don't have any data worth stealing on any computer.  The only reason to hack my system is so someone can gain experience in hacking.  The problem is losers who gain access to a system and then trash it for fun, like kids breaking into a house and smashing everything.

So what?

The problem is that people become really annoyed when someone breaks into their home and trashes stuff.  That means the law enforcement community has to do something to catch these guys.  In the process computer security becomes better and better.

Why is that a problem?

Because people have to learn.  Sure, a lot of us build our own home networks, wooden boxes with stacked motherboards and power supplies.  Then we practice various techniques in metwork management and security.  Facebook stole that idea and improved it to create the Open Compute which is very cool.

The problem is our networks are only as good as we are and when we start off we really are not that good.  Once we get the basics down we learn more by doing basic stuff on web networks, web servers and web workstations.

As security becomes better there are fewer openings for hackers to learn without getting caught.

Eventually there will be a crossing of script kiddie idiocy and law enforcement capability and when that happens more morons will be arrested and fewer people will learn to hack.  Skilled hackers will become more cautious of working with young hackers because they don't want to get busted.

That sounds good, Darwinian even.  Kind of, the problem is that even those who become the best, especially those who become the best, make more mistakes and learn more.

What will happen is that only people who are so detailed oriented they make no mistakes and take no chances survive.

This means that the creative hackers, those who learn from taking chances and break open new frontiers will be eliminated before they get a chance to become great.

Eventually hacking will stagnate.

How do I know this?  Because history repeats and morons refuse to learn from history.

How long will it take?  Not that much longer, another five or ten years probably, maybe as long as twenty but I doubt it.

The nice thing about that is when it happens guys like me will be able to install servers that use the most basic security.  FTP servers using common passwords, proxy servers, PTP protocols which allow mesh networking creating anonymous nodes.

Sure, there are tons of those systems out there today and moronic script kiddies are screwing them up all the time.

Limbo: A Movie Review

I rented a DVD from Netflix called "Limbo".

I don't usually review movies because everyone and their kid brother reviews movies and travel and blah, blah, blah, but, I write what I want to write so shoot me.  Just do it from a distance because up close I will take the gun and shoot back :-)

If you plan on watching the movie don't read this review because it will screw the movie for you.  If you want a reasonable review read Roger Ebert's, although we have totally different opinions.  We both agree that the acting was great.  He thinks the director was great, I think the director was a putz.

This movie sucked.  The movie drags like a turtle pulling a trailer.  Give it 2 out of 5 stars.

The acting was great.  The visuals were great.  The plot was ridiculous.  The back story leading up to the plot was okay and in some cases very good.

The movie starts out at a wedding where the leading lady is singing the worst possible wedding song.  This first scene sets the tone of the movie, totally unbelievable.  The brides father would have come over, or sent someone over, and told the band to play something else.  If it had been my daughters wedding I would have been kicking the band off the stage, physically, literally, kicking.  If you watch the movie you'll understand.  That said, Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio has a good voice.

The leading man is David Strathairn and he was really believable in this movie.  Let me tell you how good he is.  Kris Kristofferson plays a bush pilot involved in the drug business.  David Strathairn is trapped on an island with a woman and a sick girl. Kristofferson lands.  Strathairn has a talk with Kris and finds out bad guys sent Kris to find Strathairn and the woman and girl so they can kill them.  David Strathairn makes letting Kris, the drug dealing bush pilot, fly off to go get the bad guys seem almost reasonable.

Not quite, but almost.

Any reasonable person trapped in that situation would have fought with Kristofferson to keep the plane there.  The radio might work, there might be things they can use.  So what if they can't take off the plane makes a crappy boat all by itself.  Think about it for a couple seconds and any reasonable person would have done anything they could to stop that plane from leaving them.  David Strathairn's acting is so good it makes letting Kristofferson leave seem almost reasonable.

The movie ends "cut to black".  I thought to myself, the director either couldn't figure out how to end the movie or they ran out of money.  I am leaning toward the director couldn't figure out how to end the story.

By the end of the movie the plot was so ridiculous the only possible ending that could have made sense would have been that Kristofferson was busted almost as soon as he landed and flipped on the bad guys, telling the cops where the people were trapped on the island to cut a deal.  That was the only reasonable ending I could come up with.

If it had been me, I would have ended the movie with watching the plane land, a boot very much like the killers stepping out of the plane, pan up to a very native looking cop-pilot.  The last scene would have been the plane flying away from camera while Vanessa Martinez (Mastrantonio's daughter) narrates about Kristofferson flipping and ends the story with something uplifting about how she wrote the story.

I have to say that Vanessa Martinez was very good in this movie.  I never noticed her before and watching her in this I will be keeping an eye out for her.  Anyone who can act as well as she can will accomplish something in Hollywood.

Overall the movie was a waste, but,  if you enjoy good acting and you can imagine a decent ending (or just imagine mine) the movie might be worth watching.

But, I wouldn't recommend it.

Proving Rick Unger is a moron and his followers are ignorant robots

Let us look at government spending in a context that makes some sense. The Obama admin likes to play music chairs with their data so don't be surprised if these links quit working. The Obama admin is not as transparent as they pretend to be.

Lets open up a document that gives us the GDP:

http://www.bea.gov/national/xls/gdplev.xls

Save that document on your drive and save it as gdplev-JDAYER_is_FRICKING_AWESOM.xls or you can make up your own name. I actually used gdplev-a. (I think spelling awesome wrong plays well into the morons who think I am masturbating mentally to prove my own self worth, it would never occur to those idiots that I just want to share something that should be obvious).

Delete everything but column A and column B.

Now you have a list of the GDP for years 1929 to 2012.

Open up:

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BUDGET-2014-TAB/xls/BUDGET-2014-TAB-1-1.xls

Save this on your hard drive and then save a copy we can mess with.

Delete everything but columns A, B and C in the copy.

Delete row 83.

Copy cell B35 to C118

Paste the data into the gdplev sheet we copied, select cell D9 (or whatever) and then paste. You should have GDP data (in billions) aligned with Tax Receipts and Outlays (spending) (in millions) from 1929 to 2012.

There are several formulas we can use to derive the percentage of tax receipts and percentage of spending based on GDP.

My favorite equation, =((D9*100000)/((B9*100000000)/100))

Another slightly weird equation, but, usable, =(D9/B9)/10 (millions are 1,000th so if I divide by an extra 10 it gives me hundredths)

Another equation, ==(D9*1000000)/(B9*1000000000)

We have to remember that the GDP numbers are in billions and the tax receipt and outlays are in millions so we have to convert. You are welcome to use your own equation as long it represents an accurate ratio that we can compare to other years.

Put the equation in cell F9 and then double click on the lower right corner of cell F9 to auto fill. This gives us tax receipts as a percentage of GDP. Is the taxation ratio lower or higher than other years?

In cell G9 we need a similar equation, =((E9*100000)/((B9*100000000)/100)) where we use the outlays so we can compare the percentage of GDP spent by the government.

Lets look at Obama's spending.

Obama is collecting a lower percentage of GDP in taxes and is spending more of GDP. Obama is actually collecting a higher percentage of taxes from the middle class and has lowered the effective tax rate of those making in excess of $1,000,000.00 I'm not going to describe how to check that data here, but, I'll give you a clue how to do it. Download the data from the IRS website.

This is not rocket science people. It is really easy to figure out for yourselves. Quit being robots that believe what you want to.

Rick Unger, the perfect example of ignorance

There was this photo people were sharing on Facebook about an opinion Rick Unger wrote in Forbes about how Obama is the president who has increased government spending the least since Eisenhower.  Total Bull Shit and millions of ignorant morons all over the nation, if not the world, believe this tripe.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/05/24/who-is-the-smallest-government-spender-since-eisenhower-would-you-believe-its-barack-obama/

Education is always the key.  If someone gives you a fact, check it yourself, otherwise you are an ignorant robot.

This article is really stupid since we need to compare Budget Spending to the Gross Domestic Product and the Tax Receipts Collected to be incontext, but, for this blog we will just address the ignorance of the writer, Rick Unger and his ignorant followers.

This article is a pretty good trick since there isn't any real solid budget data on anything after 2011.  Everything after 2011 is estimated.  Lets look at 2009, 2010 and 2011.  The only real data that exists.  And lets look at Obama's ability to predict spending.  We will use two documents;

Why are we using 2009?

Because during Fiscal 2009 the Obama administration passed some really huge, off budget spending bills.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BUDGET-2009-TAB/xls/BUDGET-2009-TAB-3-1.xls
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BUDGET-2013-TAB/xls/BUDGET-2013-TAB-1-1.xls

These are documents that give us the most basic budget information.

First, lets look at the 2013 budget with hard data from 2009, 2010 and 2011.

(I have now checked the 2014 budget which includes hard data from 2012, the spending prediction increase was off, 2009 prediction for 2012 was 1.6% over 2011, 2011 prediction for 2012 was -2.06 and the 2013 prediction for 2012 spending was 5.34%, how are those for a range of predictions.  Actual was -1.75%.  Unger's reliance on Obama admin prediction accuracy is ridiculous)

In cell K8 write a formula that calculates the increase in spending over the previous year.  Make up your own formula it really doesn't matter what formula you use.

I use a little bit different of a formula, K8=((C8/(C7/100))-100).  I use C7 as my base, divide by 100 to give me a "per century) or "per 100" and then divide the cell I want to see the increase in by that number.  Then I subtract 100 to give me the percentage of increase only.

If you want to use a different formula be my guest, since we are doing a comparison between years it really doesn't matter what formula you use.  I will the results of my formula to discuss the results.

A more common formula would be ((Current Year-Previous Year)/Previous Year)*100 (or set cell format to percentage. The number is the same so whatever. If you don't come up with the same numbers I do, I don't care as long as your numbers represent and accurate ratio of spending increases that we can use for comparison. If you don't know what I mean, use one of the formulas above.

Obama takes over in 2009 and government spending rose 17.942% over 2008 in 2009.

Okay, so did anyone since Eisenhower increase spending more than Obama did?  Sure, Nixon did in 1975.

Now what kind of an increase in spending did Obama predict for 2009, lets look at the 2009 budget document.  Do the same percentage calculations on this sheet. Put a formula in cell K8 and then double click on the lower right corner to fill down.

Obama predicted a 6% increase in spending and spent 18% more. Good prediction there!

How about 2010? In 2009 Obama predicted a 0.5% drop in spending (-0.5% increase) and what do you know, spending went.....Negative (so Obama got the direction right) -1.75%. Again, Obama's prediction was way fricking off, although, in this case spending went down more than predicted. Good job.  Not really since we are making an assessment of the Obama administrations ability to accurate project spending, which is what Unger based his article on.  This prediction pretty much sucks.

How about 2011? In 2009 the spending prediction for 2011 was up 2.6% and spending went up 4.25% in the 2013 budget document.

So what have we learned? That Obama's predictions about the budget pretty much suck. Not even within 50% margin of error and 2 of the three predictions we can test are off 300% or more.

If we open the 2011 budget from GPO (just change the year if you have not figured that out) and we look at the predictions and actual spendings in the 2013 the numbers are a little closer. In 2011 the percentage increase in 2011 is predicted to be 3%.  A little better, still wrong though.

Okay, so we know the Obama admin budget predictions suck for the most part.

Rick Unger actually mentions in the article that he uses the spending predictions made by the Obama administration to arrive at his conclusions. So the guy used really sucky predictions to assess future spending.

How did Bush 2 do between 2001 and 2008. Obama took over in 2009 and we have real data for 3 years. Bush 2 increased spending an average of 6.6% over 8 years. The total increase in spending, percentage, from 2001 to 2008 is 60%. From 2009 to 2011 Obama increased spending an average of 6.8% and in three years has increased spending 2.4% from 2009 to 2011. In 2003 Bush 2 had increased spending 15%, of course Bush 2 was dealing with government spending after 9-11 also, but, that isn't relative since we are not looking at what the government did, just how much they increased spending.

Those numbers sound kind of weird...to weird for a writer to write about so Unger wrote an article about predictions, not reality

It wouldn't do to say “Obama increases spending more per year on average than Bush 2 did, but, has increased spending less in total” Telling the truth confuses people because so often reality is not the nice neat package we want it to be.

In reality these numbers don't mean a lot because we didn't look them in context, In relation to how much we actually made. The spending has to be looked at in the context of Gross Domestic product and Tax Receipts.

Unger's article is Bull Shit.  Reality is messier than the crap Unger wrote and we shall really see how poorly Obama has done around 2018-2019.  Claiming Obama is increasing government spending at the lowest rate since Eisenhower based on predictions as accurate as these are is total B.S. that only someone as ignorant as Unger could believe.