Anthony Martin’s Weblog

I have rigged a touchatag RFID tag to automatically tweet if there's an earthquake.  The tag has been enclosed in a display slab (the slab is intended for collectible coins).  I've labeled the tags with a post-it note and placed it in the slab as well.  The earthquake tag is being held by a top-heavy robot that will (hopefully) fall on the tag reader during a moderate or large seismic event.

It would be so cool if it worked, wouldn't it?

           

Click here to download:

Automatic_Earthquake_Tweettag_.zip (2804 KB)

Loading mentions Retweet

Application of antitrust law is capricious and the exemptions are established to improve the shaky credibility as to the effectiveness of these laws.  Then, when the exemptions ultimately fail to bring objective improvements, they are used as "proof" that deregulation was a bad idea.

I have often brought up the idea that deregulation is good.  This applies to specific topics like private health insurance as well as the agricultural industry and banking.  So if I sent you to this article because you and I were chatting/talking about deregulation, welcome, and thank you for following the link!

I'll try to keep this short and to the point (well, to the point anyway).  I assert that deregulation always helps an industry overall.  A quick example of this can be find in any industry that has never been regulated or has minimal regulation to begin with.  So for example, I'll cite mobile phones and computers as two areas where the lack of regulation has helped those industries.

Are there examples where regulations were removed, causing an overall improvement?  My progressive friends who argue for regulation will cite antitrust exceptions as a counterexample to the benefits of deregulation.  They maintain that the exemptions (or exceptions) to antitrust law prove that deregulation is bad.

I keep hearing this argument, so let me address it from my point of view.

What is antitrust law?

First of all, what is antitrust law?  Primarily, the way regular people like you and I tend to encounter them is in the form of government price controls.  A corporation is only able to charge an amount that the government deems is fair and equitable.  Any time there is a cap on prices, the "evil greedy" corporation try to find a creative way to get around these caps.  Because evil greedy corporations are ... uh greedy!

According to the Department of Justice ...

Many consumers have never heard of antitrust laws, but when these laws are effectively and responsibly enforced, they can save consumers millions and even billions of dollars a year in illegal overcharges. Most states have antitrust laws, and so does the federal government. Essentially, these laws prohibit business practices that unreasonably deprive consumers of the benefits of competition, resulting in higher prices for products and services.

One way the evil greedy corporations could get around the price caps is to bring the price far below the fair and equitable amount.  This would supposedly put the competition out of business.  So antitrust law has also been created to keep prices from going too low.

Got that?  The same body of laws keep the price from going too high and too low.  Sort-of like Goldilocks (not too hot ... not too cold ... just right).  How is that possible?  Well, the summary above says it best, "... when these laws are effectively and responsibly enforced."  It is subject to the whim of the government.

And that's the main purpose of antitrust law.  There's a lot more to it than that, but the main goal is to protect consumers and keep prices where they should be.  And "where they should be" is determined by government.  And how does government know where prices should be?  They have really smart people, never mind the so-called "market signals," so stop asking those kinds of questions!

But I will question.  I always question.  I'll question if these antitrust exemptions even qualify as deregulation.  I assert they do not.  It is regulation on top of regulation that is then labeled "deregulation."  It is more accurate to call them "faux-deregulation."

What are antitrust law exemptions?

In a nutshell, antitrust law exemptions are where government gives a pass to certain corporations to do things that would normally be illegal under antitrust law.  Basically, if your industry is organized enough to have a lobby, you can probably get an exemption, if you have enough time and money.

One example of antitrust law exemptions is when the government allows corporations to join up and share resources.  So, for example, the Newspaper Preservation Act of 1970 allows for joint operating arrangements between newspapers to share production facilities and combine their commercial operations.

Before this act, it would have been illegal for two competing newspapers to join forces like this because government thinks it reduces competition.  But government realized (with the help of the lobbyists) their own regulations were getting in the way.  So they had a choice of either killing the newspapers with regulations or creating an exemption for them.

Why doesn't it work?

The primary reason antitrust exemptions are faux-deregulation is because antitrust law itself is ambiguous.  You can't make clear exemptions if the overall law isn't clear.  The application of antitrust law is unpredictable and at the whim of whoever is in charge.  Some actions cause the law to come down like a ton of bricks.  But then those same actions performed by another corporation are allowed, even before the exemptions are drafted.

Loading mentions Retweet

I'm not a democrat or utilitarian, but one of the things I hear from time to time is the idea that Jesus was a democrat.  At least, that's what democrats say to try to appeal to non-democrats (I think it's because it's assumed that a lot of non-democrats are into Jesus).

Basically, the usual assertion is that Jesus helped the suffering, so shouldn't we institutionalize the practice with government mandate?

The simple answer is "no."  The complex answer is "no."  And all other answers in between is "no."

The US government forwards 23¢ of every dollar it collects to help the suffering.  Playing strictly on the utilitarian argument (I think a lot of democrats are into utilitarianism), if your goal is to help the poor and suffering, paying taxes isn't the way to go about it.

Loading mentions Retweet

Here is what Hannah (3) drew tonight on my iPhone. She knows I have a sketching app (she calls it coloring), and she likes to use it after her bath. She picked all the colors too. And she signed it with an H. The only thing I helped her with was moving the view window to a new spot so she could start a new doodle.

I also drew shapes like stars which she colored over.

Loading mentions Retweet

Is that really Windows 3.11 running on my iPhone?  No, not really.  I'm just accessing it over VNC with my iPhone.  It's actually running on my desktop in Virtual PC as a 386 DX with 64 MB RAM and 250 MB HDD.

What happened was, I decided to install DOS 6.22, then it grew from there.  I found a Windows for Workgroups 3.11 ISO file, then the Y2K fix.  Then the 32-bit update with Freecell, and so on.

I even found the Creative Labs Sound Blaster 16 and S3 Trio64V video driver so I could have sound and use full color depth (I left it at 640x480 just for kicks).  There's the network card driver and a TCP/IP stack so I can access the Internet.  Not easy.  Virtual PC itself was no help at all with any of this except for the ability to undo disk writes.

It's like building a ship in a bottle.  Some people see that as fun.  Others say, "WHY!?"

It's also great how all this stuff came back to me.  Little things, like which IRQ the sound card is on or which DOS programs will run in EMS vs. XMS.  Then there's remembering what to do when you install a video driver that doesn't work.  Yep, run the setup from the command line because there's no "safe mode."

There were also some surprises like the fact that Creative Labs drivers can still be downloaded from their web site, even in 2009!  Another surprise was that Microsoft Internet Explorer 5.0 was available along with a matching version of Outlook Express.  IE even installed a version of Java that runs applets.  Not from Microsoft's web site, mind you.  No, I had to Google all this.  Thanks Google!

One thing I found downright shocking was that AOL Instant Messenger works.  Think about that for a second.  This app is twelve years old and version 1.0 can still connect to the same servers.  Well, I guess that's not too amazing considering AIM is merely a chat app.

So none of this is actually useful, but it's certainly a blast from the past.  Fun stuff.

         

Click here to download:

Windows_3.11_on_iPhonetag_Geek.zip (526 KB)

Loading mentions Retweet

Being long winded when it comes to all forms of writing, I also have a strange habit of actually writing letters.  I'm not talking about e-mail letters.  I'm talking about old fashioned "typed" letters on paper, mailed with a fricking stamp.  Ok, I don't use a typewriter and I do send e-mail too, but when I want to be really annoying, I print them, stuff them in an envelop, and hope at least one eyebrow will raise from my antics.

When I write them for mailing, I try to stick to some semblance of the formal rules of letter writing if I can.  I tend to just use Einstein's format for FDR (see below).

Here is a letter I wrote (albeit slightly edited and reformatted for the internets) originally addressed to the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (a.k.a. "Metro," formerly RTD, formerly MTA, etc.).  The letter was written and sent in June of 2008:

Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority
One Gateway Plaza
Los Angeles, CA 90012-2952

Sir or Madam:

    My daily round-trip cost is $2.45 in total.  I commute four days out of the week and spend the fifth day working from home.  As you can see, I have no need for a $5 daily pass, nor $62 a monthly pass, since I only spend about $42 each month.

    Needless to say, I have nothing to complain about with regard to bus fare.  My commute seems longer than it was when I drove the seven miles over a year ago, but the price is much easier to deal with.

    I notice that many of the Metro buses have been outfitted with flat panel displays called "Transit TV" which inform and attempt to entertain riders en-route.  One of the features I have noticed of this system is that as the bus driver presses down on the bus accelerator, the audio from Transit TV system intentionally gets louder to compensate for the extra noise from the bus engine.

    I find it odd that radios are prohibited by law (California Penal Code § 640.3 "Playing sound equipment on or in a system facility or vehicle.") yet sound equipment from the Transit TV systems are lawful.  In fact, I find Transit TV downright obnoxious.  Why should I be jarred away from my book to hear commercials for people with bad credit?  On the Torrance Transit line, if some-one's earphones are too loud, the bus driver asks them to turn them down.  I am seriously considering what it would take to remove Metro from my daily commute.  In all likelihood, the only thing I need to do is purchase a bicycle.

    I would like to know if Transit TV has been granted an exception from the law, and if so, I require to know where this exception is documented so that I may start a petition to remove the exception, if I find any such interest from other riders to do so.

   No doubt, Metro receives revenue from Transit TV for playing those obnoxious commercials.  It would be one thing if the monitors merely displayed messages in silence.  No doubt revenue could still be gathered by silent ads.  I can only guess this is all in an effort to avoid raising the bus fare.

    As it is, the bus fare really doesn't bother me, but I pay $1.55 to get to work and $0.90 to get home four days a week because I incorporate Torrance Transit into my route.  It might make more sense to just remove Metro from the equation and pay only $0.50 each direction.

     When I come home, I get a transfer from Torrance Transit.  When I transfer to Metro, many times the Metro driver won't take my transfer, but let me on anyway.  Occasionally, Metro drivers offer resistance for even showing them the transfer.  It's like they think they are day passes, they don't recognize them anymore, or they think I'm trying to pull a fast one.  I'm not sure why the driver wouldn't want to take my transfer.

     I know the code requirement for fare disputes is to pay the fare (§640.B), but I have been polite with the drivers and thus far this has not been necessary.

     All this to say, I am not that impressed with your bus line and I have a sneaking suspicion you are getting rid of inter-agency transfers and force me to buy a day pass that the Torrance Transit line doesn't plan on accepting.  Is this true?  If so, all this will serve to do is confirm my desire to remove Metro from my daily commute.

Sincerely,
Anthony Martin

I do not write my letters really expecting any change or even a response.  Only about half of the letters like this ever get a reply.  And about half of those replies do not seem to pertain at all to what I originally wrote about.  This does not come as a surprise to me.  But years ago, I would get coupons and other perks for writing nutty letters to corporations.  Lately, nothing.  And I certainly didn't expect anything from monopolistic-pseudo-corporations like these guys.

And I was right.  There was no reply.  My address was part of the letter I sent (which was redacted here for posting online), so there's no reason they couldn't reply.  But because I brought up legal terminology, my letter was probably shredded ASAP.

But an interesting thing has happened since that time.  My primary complaint about the noise level generated by "Transit TV" seems to have been addressed.  I'm not sure if it's because of my letter or something unrelated like the fact that maintenance has gone completely out the window (maybe it's a combination thereof).

And my secondary complaint about the odd treatment of transfers has also been addressed.  I have gotten zero resistance to my transfers for a long time.  There have been many new operators since that time too, so it's not because they got used to me.

So I can't say letter writing was effective here since I have no direct evidence to support it.  But I do enjoy it nonetheless.  And on occasion, it might even help.  Who knows?

   

Click here to download:

Letters_From_A_Nut_Metro_Annoy.zip (31 KB)

Loading mentions Retweet