Scanlyze

The Online Journal of Insight, Satire, Desire, Wit and Observation

Blunder-headed US Republicans can’t find a way out of the mess they created

I continue to watch with astonishment at the juvenile, dunderheaded tricks the Republicans are playing.

First they force a shutdown of the federal government and the unimaginable scenario of unwarranted and unnecessary bankruptcy of the United States and subsequent collapse of the world economy to try to force the Democratic majority in the Senate to retroactively defund the Affordable Healthcare Act. Then they decide that defunding healthcare isn’t achievable. And declare they will continue the shutdown and forcing a default anyway!

That is demented, irrational, and verging on treasonous.

The 14th Amendment says that “The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned”

That is a Constitutional Amendment. It trumps what is in the main text of the Constitution and it certainly overcomes that of statutory requirements of the debt ceiling. The Constitution doesn’t require or impose a debt ceiling, the first one was passed as part of the 2nd Liberty Bond Act of 1917. The debt ceiling has no Constitutional basis, it is statutory law only.

Obama should announce that in accordance with the Constitution there will be no default and to the unruly house, impeach me and be damned!

Copyright © 2013 Henry Edward Hardy

14 October, 2013 Posted by | bankruptcy, default, economy, government, politics, Republicans, scanlyze, shutdown, stupidity, United States | , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Bush: Mandela is dead because “Saddam Hussein Killed all the Mandelas”

George W. Bush made one of his most bizarre pronouncements yet at his news conference yesterday, outdoing even Miss Teen South Carolina in his seeming lack of knowledge of what she called “The Iraq” and South Africa. This has to be seen to be believed, if even then:

Scanlyze transcript:

…brutal rule.

I thought an interesting comment was made, somebody said to me, I heard somebody say, now where’s Man-deh-la — well, Mandela’s dead. Because–Saddam Hussein killed all the Mandelas [Bush makes a weird grin, grimace or smile]. He-he-he-he was was a brutal tyrant–that divided people up–and split families and people recovering from this. So there’s a psychological recovery that is taking place. It is hard work for ’em and I understand its hard work for ’em. Having said that I’m not going to give them a pass when it comes to the central the central government’s reconciliation efforts.

I also said in my speech that local politics will drive national politics, and I believe that. I believe as more reconciliation takes place at the local level you’ll see a more responsive government.

Scanlyze: From the context it seems that Bush was talking figuratively, meaning that all the Nelson Mandela-like figures had been eliminated by Saddam. But he discusses it in such a strange abstracted way. It really makes one wonder as to Mr. Bush’s state of mind. Best wishes to him, for all of our sakes.

After Bush Remark, Mandela Foundation Says Former President Still Alive (Voice of America)
Mandela still alive after embarrassing Bush remark (Reuters)
Bush’s News Conference Almost Makes News (Washington Post)
Mandela condemns US stance on Iraq (BBC–from 2003)

See also: Deconstructing Miss Teen South Carolina
Bush on Iraq: ‘We’re Kicking Ass’

Copyright © 2007 Henry Edward Hardy

Submit to del.icio.usSubmit to BluedotSubmit to ConnoteaDigg it!Submit to FurlSubmit to newsvineSubmit to RedditSubmit to FurlSubmit to TechnoratiSocial Networking Icons Help

21 September, 2007 Posted by | bizarre, Bush, Iraq, media, Nelson mandela, politics, ridiculous, Saddam Hussein, scanlyze, South Africa, stupidity, United States, United States of America, USA, weird | 2 Comments

The Extraordinary Stupidity of the New York Times’ David Pogue

The New York Times isn’t what she once was in the 1960’s or 1970’s of course. Yet some of its writers still surprise and shock us with their ability to produce absolutely stupid and serious-sounding pronouncements about things of which they apparently are completely innocent of any knowledge.

Latest in the train of preposterous foolishness emanating from the Times is Breaking the Myth of Megapixels from David Pogue. Seems Pogue thinks he has discovered that the number of pixels in an image make no difference in image quality! Or as he pompously proclaims:

…the Megapixel Myth.

It goes like this: “The more megapixels a camera has, the better the pictures.”

It’s a big fat lie. The camera companies and camera stores all know it, but they continue to exploit our misunderstanding.

Well no David, actually the number of pixels in an image is important as it establishes an upper boundary for the image resolution. Of course an inferior quality image might be produced or saved at a high resolution, but that is essentially irrelevant. All other things being equal, a higher number of pixels is better.

Mr. Pogue seems equally at a loss to determine what other issues might affect image quality besides image resolution:

If you’re torn between two camera models, you now know that you shouldn’t use the megapixel rating as a handy one-digit comparison score.

So what replaces it? What other handy comparison grade is there?

Unfortunately, there’s no such thing.

Well of course Pogue is completely wrong again. Other factors to consider are the available lenses and their optical quality, aperture size, and characteristics of the digital device (CCD or CMOS), which records the image. We also should consider if the image is stored using a loss-less or lossy compression algorithm, and certain characteristics of the memory of the device including its speed and capacity.

Factors which should be regarded as far as the CCD or CMOS chip are:

  • Sensitivity. Usually reported analogously with ASA or ISO numbers on the old film cameras.
  • Dark Count CCD devices tend to “flip” or show a charge even when no light is present; this limits their use in low light.
  • Bit depth 32 bits per pixel holds 256 times as many color variations as 24 bits per pixel, for instance (2^32/2^24=2^8=256)
  • Cosmetic Defects These are “bad pixels” due to limits in the manufacturing process and quality control issues.

In addition, high-end processes, such as Kodak’s photo-CD format, keep other image characteristics, such as chroma and luminance, which aid in the restoration of images compressed using certain lossy formats such as YCC and some JPEG formats.

If Mr. Pogue had been a columnist for the Times back in the 1970’s, doubtless he would have “discovered” some equally stupid conclusions about conventional film photography. Perhaps he would have opined that using different film stock didn’t really matter and is a “myth” as most people can’t readily see the difference. Or that quality optics didn’t make a difference. Or using better quality chemicals or paper didn’t make a difference.

But then such rubbish wouldn’t have made it into the Times back when it really was *the* New York Times.

Hold the presses! ROFLMAO I guess I was right on in calling the New NYT the “New York Times for Dummies” (rollover the times entry in my blogroll). Evidently Mr. Pogue is in fact the author of several books for dummies including: Classical Music for Dummies, The Flat-Screen iMac for Dummies, Macs for Dummies and Magic for Dummies!

Welcome aboard the New York Times for Dummies Mr. Pogue, you should feel right at home!

David Pogue (wikipedia)

Copyright © 2007 Henry Edward Hardy

Submit to del.icio.usSubmit to BluedotSubmit to ConnoteaDigg it!Submit to FurlSubmit to newsvineSubmit to RedditSubmit to FurlSubmit to TechnoratiSocial Networking Icons Help

12 February, 2007 Posted by | David Pogue, dummies, journalism, media, mega-pixels, New York Times, newspapers, photography, pixels, scanlyze, stupidity, technology | 3 Comments