|
cordelia_naismith
|
read my profile
sign my guestbook
Interests: Foraging, gardening, soups, coins, fairy tales, Terry Gilliam movies, primitive technology, nutrition, mass religious movements of the late middle ages, feral children, greywater systems, and the Art Nouveau portrayal of insects.
Expertise: Grammar, crewelwork, and baking bread. I'm training to be a little old lady.
Occupation: Freelance somethingorother
Message: message me
Website: visit my website
Yahoo:  cordelia_naismith
Member Since:
10/12/2004
|
|
SubscriptionsSites I Read
|
|
|
|
| I am curiously ambivalent about hackers. The ones who create viruses that slow down my computer and shut down my inbox are, obviously, pure evil scumbags who deserve to be thrown into bubbling tar pits after being munched on by weasels. On the other hand, sometimes they end up being the closest thing the modern electronic age has to Puck or Loki or Robin Hood: folks who break into strongboxes and scatter gold in the streets, who tie together the shoelaces of pompous people. Sometimes, I kind of cheer for them. And no, I don't assume they are different people. The guy who made the virus that killed my last computer might be the same one who hacks the IRS.
Still, the latest international hacking incident is deliciously funny. It's still fresh in the ether, but Wikipedia already has a comprehensive synopsis. On the off-chance you're not familiar with the incident, you should go read it. From Wikipedia:
"The leaked material comprised more than 1,000 e-mails, 2,000 documents, as well as commented Fortran source code, pertaining to climate change research covering a period from 1996 until 2009.[39] Some of the emails purportedly included discussions of how to combat the arguments of climate change sceptics, unflattering comments about sceptics, queries from journalists, drafts of scientific papers,[13] keeping scientists who have contrary views out of peer-review literature,[7] and talk of destroying various files in order to prevent data being revealed under the Freedom of Information Act.[40] In an interview with The Guardian, Phil Jones, Director of the UEA-CRU, confirmed that the contentious emails appeared to be genuine.[11]"
Also, don't miss the Telegraph article or the WSJ take.
Admittedly, it's not quite as juicy as some of the skeptic sites would like it to be. But it's left a fair number of people quite red in the face. And I've gotten a good chuckle out of it every day this week. Cheers, Mr. Brand.
EDIT to add more links:
A lovely bit about it in Forbes, the only one to quote my favorite email so far: "The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the U.K., I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone… We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind."
But wait... it gets better! It turns out when the inevitable FOIA request was filed by McIntyre (one of the MMs), they couldn't turn over the data because they lost it. See the story from August here.
To see all the interesting emails for yourself (and believe me, there are way more than just the four that the major media outlets have been quoting), go here.
And my personal favorite commentary on the whole thing is over on Tom Naughton's blog.
| | |
| Just arrived home from my sixth (seventh?) visit to an MVA (Motor Vehicle Association) office this year. I have not received any tickets. I have not been compelled to take any driver safety courses. I have had two valid licenses in other states. I never, ever had a problem with the DMV back in Florida, other than trying to get there when they are open, and I'm not working. I mean, sure, the fluorescent lights and fifty-year-old linoleum aren't exactly cheerful, but the place isn't staffed by orcs on temporary work visas from Mordor. The same can't be said of the MVA. It took me three tries to get an in-state license, and that third visit was pretty touch-and-go. I think the only reason I got it was because the clerk I finally dealt with (after an hour's wait) was young, hadn't been there long, and I almost cried on her desk.
The front-desk clerk (there's more than one, but it's strictly a variation in appearance, not demeanor) is the gate-guard of the place. It's her job to kick you back out the door as quickly as possible, for any reason she can find. The first missing or incorrect item she encounters in your paperwork gets you the boot. You will get no further help, and you will not be issued a number to talk to a clerk. You no longer exist until you bring the right piece of paper. If you are missing more than one item from your paperwork, she will not tell you this. This is why it took three tries for the license.
On the state's website, where it talks about changing your name on your documents, it says you should get your driver's license in your married name first, then your Social Security card. So I went down to get my driver's license. Since I had also moved, I brought about ten forms of identification, including my passport, birth certificate, current driver's license, marriage certificate, and a bank statement with my current address. The front desk lady casually shuffled through these and informed me that this wasn't enough to prove my current address. I didn't have any other things with my address, so I went back home, looked it up, and found that I could have my husband come in with me and vouch for my address (how medieval!). So we waited a week for him to have a morning off, got up early, drove to the MVA, and actually managed to get past the front-desk lady and wait half an hour to speak to a clerk, only to find that, while I had enough proof of address now, I would have to get a Social Security card with my married name on it before I could get a license. Despite what the website says.
So once again I went home without a license. I had already gotten my registration a month before, but wanted to wait until after the wedding and the name-and-address change to get my license, so I wouldn't have to make an extra trip down to the MVA to change that. Shows what I know.
The following week I drove an hour south to the Social Security office. I have four names-- the two-part middle name confuses everyone, and is really long. The certified copy of my birth certificate only has the first half, because there's apparently a letter limit, or a rule against two-part names. My passport has the abbreviated version as well, since I had to use my birth certificate to get it. I was really looking forward to changing my name after marriage: it was a prime opportunity to simplify. So at the social security office, I gave the lady my marriage license and my old social security card, she typed things into her computer and handed me a printout, where I was listed with the same first and middle name, and my maiden name replaced with my married name. "I'm sorry" I said, "I really wanted to keep my maiden name instead of my middle name, and I need the maiden name in there so it won't confuse my bank." She tapped away some more on the computer and handed me a second printout with ALL FIVE names on it. "That's still not right. I need to drop the old middle name: that's way too long." She replied: "I can't change that. It's already in the system."
So now instead of four names, I have five.
A week later, when my new social security card arrived in the mail, with ALL FIVE names on it (muffled cursing), I returned a third time to the MVA to try to get a license. I got past the desk clerk, waited the better part of an hour, talked to an actual clerk, who rifled through the papers and told me that since my name was abbreviated on my birth certificate and did not match my social security card, it was not a valid form of ID, and neither was my passport. I banged my head on the desk a few times, and explained that this was a certified copy of my birth certificate, that there was no possible way to get a copy with my whole name on it, because my home county had a name-length limit for these things, and what she was telling me was that it was not possible for me to get an in-state license-- and that meanwhile, when I got my registration over a month before, they had threatened me with a fine if I did not then get my license within 60 days. At which point I started tearing up. After some lengthy conference with another clerk, she finally found a way to satisfy the paperwork requirements in the system, so that my current driver's license has four of my names on it-- minus the second half of my middle name. But at least I have one.
That was not so long ago. Only a few weeks. Meanwhile, we bought a car. So this morning, my husband and I went to the MVA to get the tags. There is no legal reason he needed to accompany me-- he's there to hold my elbow and whisper in my ear that it's ok, we'll go home, and we don't need to kill anyone or inflict any property damage. The front desk lady glanced at the paperwork, told us we still needed a lien release, and sent us away. My husband did his job admirably, so I avoided being arrested. I've contacted the lady we bought the car from, and she's contacted the place she bought it from, and we should have the right piece of paper by the end of the week-- turns out to be some oddball paperwork mistake, probably made by the MVA, since she paid cash for the car from a dealer, and there was no lien.
Next week, back to the MVA to find out what other paperwork we are missing...
| | |
| A while back, I blogged about this eminent domain case, which made it all the way to the Supreme Court. Pfizer, the drug company, wanted to locate a research center in New London, CT, and wanted to buy the land cheap. So they cut a deal with the city of New London. New London declared an entire neighborhood blighted, condemned the properties in it, and forced all the homeowners to sell at discount rates, whether they wanted to or not.
The homeowners fought it in court, got all the way to the Supreme Court of the land, and... the justices ruled that Pfizer had more right to the property than the homeowners. Nice, huh?
Well, it turns out the story isn't over. Well, it's over for the homeowners who got shoved out of the way... but it turns out that after the houses were all bulldozed, Pfizer decided it didn't want the property after all. News blurb here.
| | |
| The wedding passed in a bit of a haze, but we remembered our lines and nobody tripped and fell. I'd had a terrible cold for three days, and had taken some twelve-hour Claritin the previous morning for it. It worked. And then it kept me awake all night-- so I headed off to my wedding with a nasty head cold and maybe one hour of sleep. And survived! I'm happy to say that I am now Mrs. RamenDragonElok.
And now I will neglect you all horribly some more.
| | |
| Tom Naughton made a documentary a while back called "Fat Head". Eventually, I will buy a copy so I can watch it-- I've seen only the YouTube clips so far, but it looks excellent, and hilarious! The basic premise was to take Spurlock's "Super Size Me" and re-do the experiment (eating at fast-food joints for 30 days), but with a different premise: "I have a functioning brain." Spurlock gained 30 pounds in his fast-food month. Naughton lost weight.
Today, Naughton has a gem of a post over at his blog. You should go look at it too. Here's what I want you to do:
1. click over to Naughton's blog. Watch the video, but don't read the post or any of the comments.
2. Now that you've watched the video, what is wrong with that picture? Anyone?
3. If it wasn't immediately obvious what the problem was, you need to cook and eat more bacon. Now go read the comments. And the post, too. They're hilarious.
| | |
|
