What Facebook Has Taught Us

1-Our lives are not that interesting.  2-Other's lives are not that interesting.  3-Even boring people are sometimes interesting.  4-Corporations are not our friends.  5-Businesses can be liked.  6-Facebook is no substitute for real interaction.

I think I joined Facebook in late 2009 - a little late to the party.  I was aware of it much earlier when it was restricted to college students as I had an intern from The University of North Carolina.  It seemed like an interesting concept, if a little frivolous.  I recall the intern commenting how she used Facebook as her primary communication method with friends (real) - email was only for adults.  Yeah, that one made me feel a little old.

Shortly after the intern left to go back to school, Facebook opened to anyone older than 13? who had an email address.  Many people at work joined, but the whole concept still seemed trivial, if interesting to most of us - a belief which is still validated.

I joined more out of boredom than anything else.  On a cold miserable day late in the year, I was looking through little-used parts of my Blackberry and found the preloaded Facebook app.  I joined and it told me I had no friends.  I can only assume that Facebook the business didn't realize what a cold reception that was.  My first posting (to no one) was a quote from Hunter S. Thompson.
I was shocked when a few days or so later someone sent me a friend request.  A previous acquaintance had found me after joining, this lead to a former coworker, recent coworkers and eventually friends (again, real).  By Facebook standards, I still have relatively few friends, and some of them aren't.  I suspect many Facebook Friends are as real as Casper the Ghost.

Like many people enjoying new things, I initially posted stuff frequently at first.  For most new users I encounter, this is typical.  The situation is reminiscent of the mid '90s where new PC owners became adept players of Microsoft Solitaire and Minesweeper (ahhh, windows 3.1).  There appear relatively few dedicated users who continue prolific Facebook posting.  I even had a Farmville Farm for the first six months or so.  Eventually my Farmville Farm began to feel like work instead of fun - always harvesting those damn crops, so I sold off everything and posted a sign in the middle of my farm saying it was seized for failure to pay taxes.  I kept the application active for quite some time until there was a Zynga permission change that I couldn't stomach.  Thankfully, I can turn off most Facebook game posts as they are absolute chaff (pun intended).

I now log on to Facebook about once a day.  My posts are fairly rare and likely to be nonsequiturs or hidden/vague references to things going on.  I do enjoy it as a way to see what people who I rarely see are up to, but it is often just a tool to joke or insult current friends and coworkers.  I have to be careful at times due to some of my "Friends" (young nephew, work management, etc.).  This is not a big deal since I won't post anything that I wouldn't care if the world saw with only minor embarrassment, and my profile picture is either a cryptic picture of me or a picture of something which tangentially references my mood.

What has Facebook Taught us?

1. Our lives are not that interesting.  After the initial burst after joining Facebook, there is only so much that can be said.  At times things said on Facebook are just extensions of what was said in person or "reshares" of what others have posted.  Most of our lives are dominated by the truly mundane and Facebook has demonstrated that in spades.
2. Other's lives are not that interesting, even people we thought might be interesting.  Everyone knows individuals who we thought held captivating lives.  Since there seems to be significant intersection between this group and the subgroup of prolific posters, we now know this is not true.  Compellingly interesting people do not have the animation to post much on Facebook.  Posting pictures of the perfect cherry-cheese danish or the endless quips of the children or pets serves to demonstrate the lack of honest activity.  
3. Even boring people are sometimes interesting.  Since I see things from people I often don't interact with closely, I've been fascinated by some of the hobbies people have or what some people do on vacation.  If most of our lives are dominated by the mundane, things like vacations or other big events or accomplishments can be really interesting and shared.  The corollary to the "Other's lives are not that interesting" is that there are likely interesting people who do not participate in Facebook.
4. Corporations are not our friends.  The "Like" function for companies serves as a tool to allow them to introduce more advertising in our lives.  I will at times "Like" a business for a short time for a specific purpose, but generally unlike later.  The "Coporations are not our friends" rule applies to Facebook as well.  Facebook as an entity is paid for by ads, which is fair since it is free for most of us.  But, it is not serving some altruistic purpose.  I personally do not believe I've ever clicked on a Facebook ad.  The constant threat of changing Facebook security and user agreements serves as a reminder of what Facebook the corporation is.
5. Businesses small enough to be personal can be be "Like"ed.  I have only a few business in the "Like" group and they really are companies I have a connection to.  The endless row of suggested companies continue to fall painfully flat.
6. Facebook (or any social media) is no substitute for real interaction.  My friends are people I see and talk with often or at least occasionally.  My Facebook "Friends" are people I may scan at times to see what they are up to.  If Facebook where honest, the Friend button should be destroyed and replaced with the "Acquaintance" button.

Facebook serves a purpose and has some redeeming attributes.  It is in a tough spot as a ad-based service holding on to what made it mildly interesting while also becoming corporate shill for other corporate shills.  Since the Facebook IPO which was largely seen as a travesty, the real profitability of the company seems to be ambiguous.  Facebook "Home" will become a terrifying development once it includes ads (and it will), making ads go from push to push harder.
Still, it has a long-term place in the Internet lexicon.  As people grow up with "Social Media" it will be interesting to see what happens to the entire genre as it continues to mature.
Like many people, I'm on the fence and would not lose much in my real life where it to go away.  Charge me for it?  Bye.  Continue making ads more prolific and doing so more deceptively?  Bye.  Change security settings in a way I'm uncomfortable with (to date, I think these threats are overblown)?  Bye.  I can't always remember why I even have an account.

For now, I guess it is worth the time of my life it currently consumes.

AFK

Mr. Coffee Coffee Maker

"I sat there a long time, and thought about a lot of things.  Foremost among them was the suspicion that my strange and ungovernable instincts might do me in before I had a chance to get rich.  No matter how much I wanted all those things that I needed money to buy, there was some devilish current pushing me off in another direction - toward anarchy and poverty and craziness.  That maddening delusion that a man can lead a decent life without hiring himself out as a Judas Goat."

From The Rum Diary by Hunter S Thompson

The college I went to starts classes earlier than most colleges.  As a result, it got out early and graduation was early.  I'm not sure what reminded me of this and I'm also not sure why I kept pondering this so many years later.  Eighteen years is not a significant anniversary.  Or, it isn't a number most would consider worthy of reflect.  Multiples of five get all the attention, why celebrate 25 years instead of setting the alarm clock for 6:47 in the morning.  I'm not sure why the snooze alarm on most clocks resets the alarm for nine minutes, but I appreciate that it isn't 10.

With another school year over for nameless and faceless students at my (or any) college, I'm struck by how small decisions can have huge consequences.  This may seem obvious in some cases - take a different route to the library and get in a car accident.  In other cases it is less obvious - if my first car had been something other than what it was, I might not have graduated college (there is a serpentine path that almost makes this a near certainty).  

What I didn't fully understand was how big some big decisions where at the time.  I'm sure this continues.

When I was nearing graduation, I started interviewing for jobs related to my degree.  I was working at the time as an auto mechanic and doing reasonably well at it.  Many of the job offers I was getting were for far less money than I could make as a mechanic.  College was looking like a poor financial decision for a time.

Then I got three job offers any of which I would have taken in the absence of the others.  They were still for less money than I was making, but long term prospects were better and as much as I like the hands-on work of auto-repair I knew I could make more.  I still sometimes miss the hands-on work, but I don't miss burning my hands on exhaust pipes.

I thought I really wanted to work for a large company, so I took the offer from the largest company and moved a few hundred miles away.  I didn't see it as a long-term or even an intermediate-term choice.  I saw it as something to start with, "I can always look for something else in a few years."

Nearly two decades later, I'm still at the same company.  I've moved around a bit, but the idea of quitting to find something else isn't so appealing in the current job market.  Looking at life in entirety it wouldn't even seem appealing in a good job market, although I know many people job hop often.  

Sometimes I think my job makes me crazy.  Sometimes I wonder how different things would be if I had taken one of the other offers.  Or stayed wrenchin'.  Could be better, or not...

This isn't necessarily a bad thing or a good thing - more ambivalent than anything else.  History is a grammar exercise where we find the present tense and the past perfect.

They just found the skeleton of a young woman a few miles away from my house.  She had been missing for about a year and a half.  She left her home in a nearby suburb with almost nothing and vanished, no note or sign of a struggle.  On reporting that the skeleton was found, the local news anchor said that "the mystery is solved" (it isn't) but that "nobody knows yet what happened" (someone does).  Odds are high it was someone close to her.  Stranger abductions are rare events.

According to the FBI, there are around 600,000 missing persons in the US in a year.  A surprising number of them are not runaway kids.  There are about as many "closed" missing persons cases a year as new ones. Closed can mean a skeleton at a dump site.  According to the Justice Department, at any one time there are approximately 100,000 missing persons cases and 40,000 sets of unidentified human remains.  Sorting through numbers on missing people from trustable sources is difficult without knowing the definitions used.  But, the numbers are staggering.  Over the course of a few years, hundreds of thousands of people disappear, never to be seen or heard from again.
And yet, anybody who is reading this (anybody who can read this) is in the most fortunate few relative to the 100-odd billion people to have ever lived.

There is a thread of craziness in everyone - I'm convinced.  The thread may never manifest itself outside of riding a roller-coaster, "...dare I eat a peach for the fuzz."  For most, there is a stronger bit of life mayhem which is probably healthy. 

In a small number of humans, the thread becomes a rope too strong to tear away from and the tug turns to a pull and goes in a terrible direction.  Read a few of the stories of the millions of missing persons and there is an unavoidable tendency to question humanity.  Read of some of the closed missing persons cases and the belief that depravity underlies many people is validated.  

Life is seen at the surface, but there is an undercurrent, often ugly, always present and generally unacknowledged.  

Looking back on the nearly two decades since graduation there are very few constants in my life.  One of the only constants though has been my Mr. Coffee coffee maker.  Thinking back, I think I bought the coffee maker in 1991, about this time of year after college classes ended when I moved into my first apartment.  I can't think of too many other things I had in 1991 that I still have now.

Since I bought my cheap 4-cup Mr. Coffee automatic drip coffee maker:

• I have moved seven times.
• I have had seven dogs (four I miss terribly, three I still have).
• I have had approximately 15 cars.
• I have had seven motorcycles.
• I have had at least six computers.
• I have been through approximately 39 states and 6 Canadian Provinces or Territories.
• I have had at least nine lawn mowers.
• Only three mobile phones.

• But one coffee maker.

My coffee tastes have changed from the cheapest robusta-laced coffee I could buy to decent national-brand coffees to coffee mixed with chicory to specialty bean-style coffees and "premium" (read slightly better) whole bean coffees.  Available for around $20 now, this old grubby coffee maker probably cost less than $10 when I bought it in 1991 within a few days of getting keys to my apartment.  With nearly daily use, it is hard to comprehend how much coffee this little guy has made.  Back of the envelope calculations suggest at least 1500 gallons.  

Have a hot cup of Peet's.

Book Review: The Org by Fisman and Sullivan

Tax refunds were direct deposited in the back account this recently.  I guess this bumps me one step closer to retirement or a new motorcycle.  More likely neither.

I don't know if it has evolved this way on purpose or not, but the Federal Income Tax system is a stroke of genius.  None of us like paying taxes, but few of us rarely realize how much taxes way pay even though this would be trivial for federal taxes.  

For most of us, taxes are taken out throughout the year.  Then, early in the next year we "do our taxes" which involves filling out a bunch of forms in some manner.  At the end of this exercise, the number we are left with is a refund or a small (relative to the actual tax) check to write.  This is the genius.  I have almost never heard anyone comment on the total tax they pay, even though this number is clearly written, as it comes from the tax tables for most of us.  What I always hear about is the refund (gleefully) or the amount owed (with disdain).  The conspiracy theorist in me thinks this must be done on purpose.  Thinking about this I had to go back and see what my actual tax was, even though I did know what my refund was.  Chalk one  up for government mind control.

Lots of numbers are thrown around about the unfairness of taxes, but they are never really explained.  Warren Buffet claims his secretary pays a tax rate of 35.8% compared to his 17.4%.  I have a hard time understanding where 35.8% comes from.  Is this overall taxes including Social Security and Medicare?  Is this relative to Gross income or Adjusted?  I won't even attempt to understand 17.4%.

Since it is "tax time" the TV adds are filled with commercials for Turbotax and various human-based tax preparation.  This is good for TV since New Years resolutions have been thrown into the dustbin, the commercials for gym memberships and smoking cessation products are waning.

This year's commercials for H&R Block are often very condescending   Everyone else is an idiot but them.  They probably work though as there is an innate fear of spending a few extra dollars even if preparation costs a lot more than that.  

What I can't believe is that the average person's taxes are so complex that they can't do them without payed help.  The IRS still allows taxes to be done with paper and pen.  A few forms, a bit of time and done; not too complex.  Maybe my finances are just too simple though.

I'll admit to being a dinosaur in this regard although I did try electronic filing a few years ago.  I tried to use the IRS "Free File" option.  When it came time to actually file though, I continued to get the error message that my name and social security number did not match.  I was stuck, I could not continue to file electronically (I am aware of what my name and social security barcode is) but wasn't sure if I could back out and file by paper.  I chose the latter and all went well.  Since then, I've never gone back to file electronically.  I can hold a grudge forever.

What is frustrating is that the IRS really does have a lot of smart people.  Their web site is super easy to use and find information that is needed - their search option actually works.  Alternatively Minimum Tax help - walk through the questions.  The IRS is prevented by law from creating a simple web-based filing system that probably 95% of us could easily use making tax preparation easier and saving the government untold quantities of money.  Lobbying efforts by groups representing H&R Block and their condescending commercials prevent this gentler approach.

As I was doing my taxes this year, one thing that hit me was that every word on every from; every statement in the instructions was actually written by a human, and assuredly had multiple bureaucratic approvals before being distributed to us taxpayers to use.  Every word.

Which brings up the book, The Org by Fisman and Sullivan.

I don't remember where I heard about this book, but I thought it was going to be a snarky and cynical look at the office, a la Dilbertesque.  It wasn't.  This was an economist's view of the structure and function of large organizations and how and why these organizations are the way they are; why they often look the same.

The beginning of the book was slow and painful.  This may have been because it was not what I was expecting.  The second half of the book was much more interesting, explaining why painful bureaucratic things exist the way they do and why faceless bureaucrats behave the way they do.

It also boxes in much of the systems in place as one of motivation of employees and demotivation of unhelpful (lazy, human) behavior.

The section on office culture and how it relates to productivity and perceived productivity was truly enlightening.  I continue to struggle to know how to use this information in my own job, but there is a nugget there somewhere.

The one part where the book absolutely falls flat is where the authors struggle to rationalize the exorbitant pay given to chief executives.  Their reasoning may work from an economists standpoint, but they fail to recognize the symbolism that comes from such excess in the face of employees' pay which constitutes a rounding error of an executive's.  Rationalizing the pay given to company heads who have failed falls absolutely flat.  Only tacit acknowledgement is given to the reality that corporate boards are controlled by other company heads and a "lets scratch eachother's back" situation is unavoidable.  Most of us are comfortable taking care of others like ourselves as long as it does not negatively affect those most like ourselves, which is ourselves.  Golly if that doesn't define bureaucracy (I can never spell any variation of that word.  Damn the French...).

Spoiler Alert:  In the end, the authors basically say that the reason large organizations are the way the are, work the way they do and tend to look very similar despite very significant differences in business is because there are many competing interests.  Since business is designed to get the most possible out of every employee (who are trying to get the most out of their employers) and oversight only comes with documented expectations we are left with few alternatives.  And, oversight requires oversight.

So the best we can expect is "glass half full."

In other words, if you want to have a job with a paycheck, or if you want to be a boss and have the growth possible with contributing employees.  Suck on it.

Davis Vantage Vue Weather Station

I've wanted a weather station for quite some time.  Things have conspired against me to do it though until I worked through a few issues to make it happen.
My old house sat low in a holler and was surrounded by many large trees making it generally unsuitable to weather monitoring. Leaves and twigs plug everything, so even a rain gauge was sometimes an issue.
The house I live in now is in a very rural area, but open and much higher in elevation.  I didn't really want a weather station if it couldn't be online and my internet choices are somewhat limited.  There is no cable or DSL where I live which limits the availability of an always-on internet connection.  My internet connection for the last couple years has been cellular.  There is a data cap, but the reception is good enough I can get a reliable 4g (HSPA+) connection.  4GLTE is nearby; hopefully it will expand a few hundred yards more some day as the LTE speeds are pretty impressive.  I won't hold my breath.

In order to make cellular work for my overall needs, it has to be reliable and work with a couple devices at the same time.  So, I retired my air card and bought a used AT&T Elevate from an Amazon Partner.  I could have reupped my AT&T service and got one "for free" but used Elevates are readily available for very reasonable prices.

I had to play around with the settings to get an always on connection, but that was pretty easy to figure out.  One benefit to getting a MIFI over the smaller air card was I can put it in a spot in the house where the connection is better, giving even better speeds than I previously had.

With a stable internet connection, I needed a computer to hook my weather station to.  I have an old desktop which works and is reliable, but it is very large and I wanted the weather station to be placed in the kitchen so a large computer wouldn't do.  I poked around and found the Asus EeeBox.  These are remarkably small computers, about the size of two DVD packages stacked on top of each other.  I didn't want to pay full retail but was able to buy one of these from and Ebay Auction for around $60.  That was a steal!  It came in great shape.  While not a supercomputing powerhouse, the demands for a local stable internet connection for a weather station don't require a lot of processing power.
Originally I was looking for a very small monitor to go with it.  The plan was to hide the computer above the kitchen cabinets and then have a small monitor on the wall.  The EeeBox came with a bracket to mount it to a monitor which seemed like a better idea.  I had to drill new mounting holes in the bracket to clear the power cord on a smaller 18" HP monitor, but once that was done the entire computer with wireless keyboard and mouse combo make a perfectly small kitchen computer.  Yeah, the cords are ugly.

OK, big deal, now there is a computer in the kitchen.  I thought this was about a weather station?

I've researched weather station options for quite some time and there are lots to choose from.  I'm actually surprised there were no WIFI weather stations available.  There are options to have a very small (even smaller than the EeeBox) dedicated Linux weather server, but that seemed to limiting.
After looking at all the available weather stations, I chose the Davis Vantage Vue.  This seemed like a very good compromise on price, features and reliability.  Some of the cheaper stations have lots of negative reviews and questionable reliability.  These do sit outside all year round, exposed to heat, freezing weather, rain, etc.  There are definitely more functional units available, but this is a hobby.  I'm not trying to become a meteorologist.  I'm just a local weather nut who would like to be able to monitor weather in my back yard (even if I'm across the country).
Davis had more expensive units that I considered, but I liked the compact sensor "suite" which allowed simple mounting.  If someone is going to purchase a Davis unit, shop around.  Prices are all over the place.  I was able to buy both the Davis Vantage Vue and the WeatherLink software with data logger for nearly the same price as some of the cheaper units available.  I'm confident this was the right choice for me.

The Vantage Vue comes neatly packaged in a box with some assembly required, but it is super easy with very good instructions.  Obviously, the sensors need to be mounted outside.  I had read reviews saying the "tipping bucket" rain gauges can be negatively affected by a wobbly mount so I was paranoid about making sure I had a good solid post to mount the unit on.
After looking at options, what I ended up doing was using one of the corner posts of my chain link fence.  I bought a top rail section of fencing and put it inside the corner post.  In the area between the inner and outer post, I poured a slightly thinned slurry of concrete.  This post is SOLID - almost frighteningly so.

In order to cap the posts and make it less unattractive, I used a whole saw and hand cut the top post cap of the chain link fence and sanded it to precisely fit the top rail post.  I think this makes a very nice look. Once the weather warms, I'll probably put a think bead of silicone to prevent water intrusion and corrosion even thought it is galvanized.

I let the cement harden overnight before assembling and mounting the Vantage Vue ISS.  I'm very happy with the outside mounting of the overall unit!

With the sensors ready to go, I turned back inside to the console and computer.
The Davis console connected instantly with the outside unit.  Davis says it will receive at 1000 feet.  The sensors are only about 65 feet from the house so the connection is great.  Within a short time everything was working and I was monitoring the weather.  The Davis manuals are acceptable, they do a good job of installation, playing around with the features of the console was almost easier by trial and error once I understood the basic flow of the unit.

In order to connect the Vantage Vue Console to a computer, you must buy their WeatherLink software which comes with a data logger.  The data logger can hold months (or more) worth of data and has a USB-out to connect to the computer.  I think the data logger is the purchase, the software just happens to come with it.

The Asus EeeBox does not have an optical drive, so I copied the entire CD on another computer to a USB memory stick.  I installed the Davis WeatherLink software from the memory stick and then plugged the console into the computer (the manual says to do it in this order).  Within a few minutes, I was monitoring the weather on my computer.
I've read a lot of negative reviews of WeatherLink.  After using WeatherLink and a couple other options (as well as looking at a few more), I think I'm sticking with WeatherLink.  I don't think the software is too bad, but the documentation is poor.  Cumulus has some nice features, but I didn't really see any advantage once I played around with those two options.  WeatherLink also has some nice features that I didn't know about until I clicked around a lot and found some hints online.  I will say, I think Davis' hardware is more advanced than their software and associated documentation.
Once the decision was made to use WeatherLink, I wall-mounted the console and tucked everything out of the way.  I still need to do something with the birds nest of cords behind the computer/monitor, but I may get a UPS first (a day after I started posting weather data, we had a power outage).  Even without power, the console has battery back-up (C-batteries, haven't bought those in years) so data is collected.

 After getting the sensor set up and mounted; the console up and talking with the sensor, and the console talking with the computer, it was time to get online.
I registered my station with Weather Underground.  Weather Underground makes a "module" to directly send data from the WeatherLink software to Weather Underground.  The instructions to do this are on Weather Underground's web site and it is very straight forward.  Within a short amount of time I could see my data online.
Then I saw I could also include a weather webcam - yep, I gotta do that too!  I have a window only a few feet from the weather computer.  I had a cheap webcam I had never used that I bought for around $5.  I hooked it up and it connected to the EeeBox quickly.  Weather Underground has instructions for webcams which is also really easy.
There are several options for WebCam software.  I chose YAWCam as it did everything I wanted it to do including saving images locally on a different schedule that what is posted to online, and setting a schedule where the software is not constantly sending black night-time images.
I did find that I had to "reconnect" the webcam to the station several times on Weather Underground's web site before the two seemed tied together permanently.  Within a few hours, I was able to see my weather station history and webcam online.  Too cool!

Unfortunately, a $5 webcam takes two-bit pictures and I was taking weather webcam shots through a window and screen, further deteriorating the images.  The results were less than satisfactory.  Additionally the webcam seemed to set the light exposure when it was plugged in and then never adjusted again resulting in over and under exposure most of the time.

Looking at other weather webcams online, I knew that I could do better even through a screen.  I went to a local very good computer store and perused the options.  On the bottom of the rack was a Microsoft LifeCam HD-5000 that someone had returned, for a very big discount.  It only came with 30-day guarantee.   I figured since it was going to be on almost continuously, if it didn't work, I would know very quickly.
Picture quality isn't perfect, but probably about as good as I can get looking through a window and screen.

It took a few days before my station was seen as an option in Weather Underground.  I can now see my station online and on my Android phone using the Weather Underground website.  There are also other phone apps to see Weather Underground station data.

I also wanted to connect with the Citizens Weather Observation Program or CWOP.  This is a program which takes local weather station data and sends to NOAA for use in very short term models as well as refining local weather patterns.
This was less straight forward than Weather Underground, but instructions to do this from WeatherLink are available online.  The CWOP program started out as a way to send data using HAM radio.  Since its birth was pre-internet, the path from computer to NOAA is hopelessly complicated.  The data also goes through a quality check at some bounce in the process.  I've read many adequate pages on the CWOP and understand the basics, but not much beyond that.  This is an interface between private weather enthusiasts and the federal government.  There is evidence of bureaucracy and understanding the acronyms is not trivial:  CWOP MADIS, WXQA, findu.com, APRS...  I'm just happy the instructions to send data to the system are relatively easy.  I wish there was a single web page that explained the system in total in plain English.  There are some decent Wiki's on the subject but the text still looks like it came out of Dilbert's Jargonator.  The public-private partnership is also plagued with servers no longer in operation and links, images and pages that no longer exist.
At some point in the near future, I'll dive into this more to understand it better. For now, I know my data is going to NOAA and that the visual tools available to see my data from the program are very useful, especially in monitoring quality vs. other local stations.

Davis' info says that to see your weather it just "requires only a permanent Internet connection, a nice place to put your outdoor sensors, and a few hundred dollars burning a hole in your pocket."

This whole adventure costed a bit more than I expected (<$650; AT&T Elevate, computer, monitor, weather station with data logger/software, webcam, mounting hardware, etc. etc.), but at this point, the weather station has been up and running for over a week.  I'm sending data online with webcam pics to the world.

Guns: Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics But, Data.

There are two things I don't like to write about here:  Work and Politics.  This is an exception.

Guns have been in the news a lot lately.  There is a legislative push to increase background checks and the checks effectiveness, restrict magazine capacity and ban "assault" rifles.  Lets look at the assault weapons ban.  Diane Feinstein's legislation defines an assault rifle as a semi-automatic rifle with a detachable magazine which also one of the following characteristics:  pistol grip; forward grip; folding, telescoping, or detachable stock; grenade launcher or rocket launcher; barrel shroud; or threaded barrel.
As an aside, depending on how "detachable stock" "barrel shroud" or "pistol grip" are defined, this could ban all magazine fed rifles, now or in the future.  There are some disclaimers (the bill is 132 pages and I've read all of it), but interpretations can be just that.
Before our Dear Leaders do this, lets look at the numbers to make data driven decisions.

Disclaimer:  This is a blog, not a scholarly article so it is not footnoted as to source data.  However, data comes form credible non-partisan sources such as the CDC, WHO and FBI.  None of the data comes from sites such as i_hate_guns.com or ar15s_rock.com.
One source for much of the raw data was U.S. Department of Health & Human Services report Deaths:  Preliminary Data for 2011.

In 2011 there were approximately 2.5 million deaths in the US.  16k of those were homicides for a per 100,000 homicide rate of about 5.  This puts us in the same camp as countries such as Ukraine and significantly below the EU average of around 3.0.  We can be a mean bunch of people.  Murder (as opposed to all homicides) put the US in a similar neighborhood although the numbers get murkier due to varying definitions and reporting of murder.
The US gun ownership rate is 0.9 guns per person.  This is beyond the top of the list.  Three times Canada and the EU, and even more above the global average of about 0.25 guns per person.  We own a lot of guns.

In 2011 there were a little over 30,000 deaths by firearms in the US.  What surprised me when I looked into the numbers was that approximately 20,000 of these were suicides.  Guns are a particularly good tool for suicide, but the fix for that is elsewhere as there is an unlimited number of effective ways to take ones own life.  Surprisingly, the US suicide rate is middle of the pack (15 per 100,000) much below France's 30 and above UK's 10.  Overall, the data don't support that more guns automatically means more suicide.
That leaves about 10,000 homicides by firearm in the US.  Slightly less than half of those are criminals shooting criminals or deaths while people are involved in criminal activities.  I think the take away from that is that if someone keeps there nose clean and doesn't enjoy the excitement of the criminal lifestyle, then death by firearm rate is closer to 1.7 per 100,000 or roughly 5000 in the US.
Comparing the 5000 deaths in the US per year to other deaths (from the same source):
Falls:  25,000
Drowning:  4,000
Car Crashes:  40,000
Alcohol Induced Deaths:  25,000 (acute)
Drug Deaths:  40,000
Alcoholic Liver Disease:  16,000
Poisoning:  33,000

These data show that if a person is not involved in criminal activity, he or she should be nearly as afraid of drowning as guns.  And much more afraid of being poisoned.  Car crashes are nearly an order of magnitude above guns as a cause of death.
There are various statistics around the likelihood of gun deaths based on gun ownership (gun ownership increases the likelihood).  I believe these - absolutely.  I also suspect drownings increase with pool ownership and heroin consumption increases the chance of drug deaths.

Expanding on the homicide rate for 2011 according to the FBI:
Handgun:  67%
Rifles:  2.5%
Shotgun:  4.1%
Knives:  13%
Blunt Force:  4%
Hands/Feet/etc:  6% (I'm curious what the FBI classifies as "etc." here)
Strangling:  1.4%
So rifles are somewhere between blunt force murder and strangling.  If the government wanted to reduce murders, knives would be a better choice to go after than rifles.
I could not find any statistics that met my criteria for coming from an objective source so let's assume that every single rifle murder was done with an AR-15.  If Diane Feinstein and Chuck Schumer are successful in banning the AR15, the most this would affect the murder rate in the US is 2.5%.
What is the conclusion from this?  The decision to go after assault weapons is done out of fear or misunderstanding of them.  This is not a decision based on data.  This is bad public policy.  Banning assault rifles is being done out of emotion, and public policy and legislation should be done based on data and facts, not emotion.

Samuel Clemens said there are three kinds of lies:  lies, damned lies and statistics.  I agree.  But what the data says is the following:
Unless involved in criminal activity or determined to off yourself, you are significantly more likely to die in a car crash or be poisoned than be killed by a person with a gun.  This is nearly the same chance as drowning.
If we ban assault weapons and take them all away, the murder rate at most would drop 2.5%.

Disclaimer:  I'm not going to divert from data to speculation.
Let's assume Carolyn McCarthy succeeds in banning assault rifles.  This is followed by a 2% drop in murder rate and a 3.5% drop in firearm murder rate (this would be unlikely since murders previous being done by rifle would likely be done by other means, including other firearms).  Do you think Carolyn McCarthy will be satisfied?  Do you think that meets Diane Feinstein's goal?  If you do, you are delusional.  After a negligible drop in the violence rate, the next target will be some other firearm, then another, then another.  It is unavoidable because these decisions are based on emotion, not data.  Legislation should be based on what is real, not what is assumed or felt.
Part of the reason we have such a problem with violence in the world and in the US is due to emotion.  Murder does not happen out of ambivalence.  Unfortunately, emotional legislation will never help the problem.

Further Disclaimer:  I don't have data to back the following up.  I'm still thinking about what data is needed to further understand this.
So what will help?  I'm just a guy writing a blog and nobody really cares what a fat ugly middle-age guy thinks.  I wonder what would happen with an increase in scrutiny over gun sales.  I'm always a little disturbed when I see a sign at a gun show that says:  Private Sale!  No Check Required!  The National Instant Check System appears to have worked well.  I wonder what it would really take to expand this to most firearm sales?  This is not as trivial as the news makes it out to be and the cost could be phenomenal.  Having an FFL is a privilege  not a right.  As part of that privilege, doing checks for other sales at a nominal fee ($20????) could be required.  I'd bet people might pay the $60/year just to get an FFL and facilitate these sales (cost drops to $30/year after three years).

Back to data...
Regardless of what happens, the current legislative push is not data driven and will do little to nothing to make us safe.  Legislating against the madman with a gun is like legislating against the drunk driver who is also naked, having sex, sitting in the passenger seat, going 97 miles per hour in a 35MPH zone while texting about the whole thing.  Creating laws to guarantee a stop to this is not possible without affecting every other careful law abiding driver, likely making driving impossible.  Maybe that is the intent.

Ammunition for an Unsuccessful Elk Draw

Formal Results
License Type:  NONRESIDENT COW/CALF ELK
Results:  Unsuccessful

Informal Results
Ammunition Availability:  Very Limited

I'm planning to go west this year for Antelope hunting and wanted to add a cow elk to the mix.  It didn't add much (relative) to the cost, but added time to the hunt which is nice since most antelope hunts are not terribly long.  It will take a solid two days to get to Wyoming for a three day hunt which implies more time driving than hunting.  The journey is part of the adventure, but it is a small additional investment in money with a return in quality time with the addition of the cow elk tag.

Since most of my hunting is East I don't shoot beyond 100 yards very often.  I've shot a couple deer and wild boar at a greater distance than that, but not by much.  I have an excuse to spend some quality time at the range to get ready for the greater distances that can be encountered out west.

However, ammunition availability is dreadful right now.  Politics and paranoia aside, when influential politicians started talking about significant gun control, less influential politicians (and some influential individuals) also talked about removing ammunition availability, using price (tax) as a proxy.
In addition to firearms, ammunition began flying off the shelves.  Some of this is paranoia.  Some might not be.  Everything is up in the air.  Since I shoot primarily my own handloads, I thought I was largely immune to the mayhem, but this is not the case.  Just about everything-gun related is in short supply.  I almost always have over a hundred rounds ready to go for every caliber I own and components for many more.  With what I feel I should do prior to heading west, I am still a little concerned.

I've recently tallied up what I have for the two rifles I may take to hunt antelope and possibly elk and I guess I have a minimum needed.  I have a few hundred rifle rounds and about twice that many in components.  If I could just locate one more pound of the correct smokeless powder, I'm sure I'll be all set.
Ammunition availability does seem to be starting to return, albeit slowly.  A local store had a good supply of bulk .45 ACP ammo.  Higher priced "hunting" rifle ammunition is still available.  Since my shooting is currently hunting focused, the increased cost of this option is only slightly objectionable.  It will allow saving handloads for hunting.
What is frustrating is the suggestion that gun violence is going to be controlled by taxing ammo out of existence is ludicrous.  This is an option that will only affect the hunter and avid target shooter.  A lunatic doesn't need much ammo and probably doesn't care what it costs.  Suicide is an expenditure that is immaterial of cost.

The 2013 Wyoming Elk draw was this past week.  My draw was unsuccessful.  According to my outfitter, there is still a good chance at a leftover tag later this summer.  I can't count on that.  Hopefully I do draw an antelope tag, but I guess I shouldn't count on that either.

Regardless of what happens, I'll enjoy spending some time at the range.
President Obama has stated he respects hunting and its traditions.  Coupled with a widely publicized photo of him shooting an over/under shotgun.  Unfortunately, it doesn't pass the smell test that a man who never shot a gun prior to becoming president has suddenly found enjoyment out of skeet shooting.  The White House photographer might as well have used a green screen to achieve the same result without subjecting the President to the horrors of an inanimate object he objects to so much.

I'm a little disappointed I didn't draw the elk tag as I thought they were pretty easy to obtain.  I can't blame politics for not drawing it though..
Political pragmatism forces all but the most rabidly anti-gun politician claim their gun control schemes will not affect hunters.  Unfortunately, it already is.

Unintended Accelerated Consequences

Toyota is in the news this week.  It was reported by many sources that the car company has agreed to pay $29million to several states over the unintended acceleration issue.

In a previous post, I wrote a review of my 2009 Toyota Tacoma.  After rereading that review it could be perceived that I don't like the vehicle.  I do.  At the time it was the best option for me.  There are likely better options now, but revisiting that 5 years later isn't realistic.
The tone of that post is pretty realistic though.  I don't feel the need to cut a major vehicle maker any slack.
I do think Toyota is getting a horrid deal here due to overly dramatic sensationalism surround "sudden acceleration."

Many cars now are drive-by-wire.  As anyone who has ever used a computer, owned a smart phone knows silicon can do unexpected things especially when coupled with frustrating software (or firmware).  Say "Abort, Retry, Ignore" to anybody but a child and watch shudders of frustration relived with those three options.

Major car companies are under intense scrutiny in the areas of safety.  There is no doubt that Toyota has put many fail-safes in their systems.  There is no doubt they have tested these systems under every imaginable scenario except one...the idiot.  It is impossible to make something foolproof because fools are so ingenious!
What I find frightening about vehicle safety is what the general public and regulatory bodies expect of the inanimate object.  There is a push right now to possibly ban assault rifles, certain magazines, or otherwise affect lawful gun owning.  Yet, based on numbers alone, we are over 4-times more likely to die in a car accident than be shot (not counting suicides, which I won't here).  If living a life devoid of the excitement of significant crime or substance abuse, it is about 10 times more likely one will be killed in a car.  But vehicle safety is a joke.  Forget that routine traffic norms are ignored, vehicle manufacturers are making vehicles that help people park; we are encouraging people who do not have the skill to put a 2 ton vehicle in a defined area at slow speed to drive at any speed desired.

Driving tests should be done in a car from the early 60s.  Think manual transmission, no power brakes, no power steering. If you can't safely drive and maneuver that vehicle, no license.  This is similar to having a 4wd truck.  Drive in 2wd, and the 4wd is there to get you out of trouble.
Look around the next time at the state Department of Motor Vehicles.  These are the people we share the road with.

There were two cases of Toyota Sudden Acceleration that stick out in my mind.
The first was a housekeeper who crashed her bosses car.  The press paraded this example of Toyota's failure until it was clearly revealed that she had floored the accelerator and the brake was never touched.  Operator Error.

The second was James Sikes issues in California.  He claims his Prius screamed down the interstate outside of his control.  Google James Sikes and see what your top choices are.  You don't even have to go to the conspiracy sites for this one.  What is most unexpected about this story was that he was able to get his Prius up to 94MPH.  I wasn't able to find how that situation was eventually resolved, but I didn't care enough to look too hard.

Unintended acceleration?  Hit the brakes.  Even a Roush Racing 540HP Mustang can be overcome by the brakes.  To much of an idiot for that?  Neutral, or off.  Then park, forever.

Toyota doesn't get off free with this.  Once these questions came up, some damaging info was eventually revealed. As is often the case, it wasn't the {crime} it was the cover-up.  Maybe some day we'll all learn that lesson.  Until then, Toyota is $29million less rich.  The states get a few bucks and the lawyers are happy.

I'd rather see the press be $29million poorer on this one.  Want to feel even better about how the press reports on cars?  I have no opinion on Tesla, but this is pretty funny.  Maybe there is a place for Jayson Blair back at The New York Times afterall.

I had an extra day off recently and finally (after almost four years) got my Toyota recall done for the accelerator/floor mat on my Tacoma.  After a subsequent trip to the DMV, I just don't feel any safer.  Maybe I'll see if I can find a good used early 80s Audi.