Voter ID

The dems have been bad mouthing it.  Could it be that they fear it would weed out illegal democratic voters?  Actually where I am, it doesn't matter much.  I know the poll workers, and they know me. It is small town America up here.  But, having the ability to ask for a photo ID from people they don't recognize, does tighten things up.  And everybody has a driver's license in America.  And they all have photo's on them now.  I don't believe all the sob talk about what a terrible burden it is to obtain a photo ID, every one has a driver's license.  Otherwise how do they get to work?
  Actually, if we want to tighten things up, we need to get rid of  "same day registration".   Serious voters can jolly well get down to town hall before the election and register.  If they cannot be bothered, then they are not serious voters.  Who wants to allow clowns to vote?  And to register in New Hampshire, you better show a New Hampshire driver's license.  Out of state license means you ain't a New Hampshire resident, and therefore you ain't eligible to vote in New Hampshire.  Same goes for out of state plates on your car.
   Registered voters names appear on the printed voter list used by the poll workers to check off voters as they vote and prevent double voting.  If the name ain't on the voter list, you don't get a ballot, no matter how much photo ID you have. 
   I'm not sure how absentee ballots are checked, but at a minimum the absentee voter's name MUST appear on a registered voters list. 

Hacking US computers.

The TV newsies have been making a big deal of the big hack of  the federal Office of Personnel Management, where the personnel records, security clearances, performance reports, salaries, contact information, social security numbers, everything, of 4 million civil service workers were stolen. 
   Wanna bet the records were stolen off Windows systems?  Thank you Bill Gates for your continuing contributions to American security. 

Adjusting data to fit the narrative.

NOAA and NASA have been doing this for years.  They have "adjusted" the data to eliminate the last 19 year plateau in measured global temperature.  The Daily Caller and Anthony Watt of the Watts up With That website describe this year's attempt to create global warming where there has been none. 
  NASA has been at this for a long long time.  They have a data base of every temperature measurement made, going back to the invention of the thermometer.  I downloaded the data a few years ago and plotted it.  The number of reporting stations from beginning of the records in the early 1700's starts out small, only dozen of stations reporting.  The number of reporting stations swells over the years, reaching a peak of better than 100,000 stations by the early 1980s.  Then in a great purge, the number of reporting stations was trimmed back from 100,000 to 30,000 in 1983 and 1984.  I wonder which stations got purged?  The ones reporting colder than average temperature, or the ones reporting warmer than average temperatures?  Who knows?

More Followon in Aviation Week

My Aviation Week came in today.  It has a full page article on the A400M crash in Spain.  Aviation Week is supporting it's earlier story, the computer engine control system screwed up, and shut down three or perhaps all four engines during or shortly after takeoff.  That will do it every time.  You need engine power on takeoff, you are close to the ground, and any loss of altitude means a crash.  Once you get up to cruising altitude, tens of thousands of feet, you have minutes before the plane hits the ground, minutes in which to get the engines back on line. 
  Airbus is really worried.  If the software problem is bad enough, the fix might require re-certification of the software, a lengthy (months long) process that would cost like crazy.  Airbus wanted to build, deliver, and get paid for, 23 new aircraft this year.  At say $100 million each, that's some real money for Airbus.  If they are all tied up re-certifying the engine control software, they won't get paid. 

Shepherd Smith was trashing XP yesterday

Fox News commentator Shepherd Smith said that use of the old Windows XP operating system by the IRS led to the recent break in and identity theft on millions of taxpayers.
   I don't agree.  Windows XP is test tested, and Microsoft has been patching it for some12-15 years.  That's enough patches to plug many holes.  The newer Windows are fatter, slower, and flakier than well proven XP. 
   The real problem at IRS is the use of Windows in any form.  Windows is like Swiss cheese, full of holes that let hostiles in, and it's so big that no one understands it.  The IRS ought to be running some form of Unix  (Linux is a good one) which is infinitely more secure than any flavor of Windows. 

Followon: Airbus A400M crash blamed on engine control software

According to Ars Technica, an airbus executive said that the engine control software was "misconfigured" during engine installation at the factory, and was responsible for the crash.  We think this means that some program changes that were supposed to be made at installation (for instance "remember this engine serial number" or "set engine hours to zero")  were not made, or were not made properly.  The executive claimed that this was not a bug in the code.
   Oh really.  Code that crashes an airplane ain't right.  Good code will keep the plane flying even if it is "misconfigured".  Aviation Week's report of a couple of weeks ago suggested that the engine control software shut off fuel to all four engines.  That should never happen, no matter what. 
   I wonder if the Ariane 5 software hackers were allowed to work on the A400M.  The Ariane 5 crash, some years ago, destroying the rocket and its expensive satellite payload happened when the engine control software suffered an arithmetic overflow and the program simply halted.  In the after crash investigation, it was revealed that the software spec required the program to halt after overflow.  The excuse was made at the time that this helped troubleshooting.  The programmers in the Ariane case did what they were told to do, with disastrous results. 

Diehards, aka "the base"

There are three kinds of voters in the US.  Diehard democrats, Diehard Republicans, and independents.  The diehards, often referred to as "the base", will vote for their party no matter what.  No amount of campaigning, TV advertising, door-to-door campaigning, parades, rallies, whatever, is gonna change their minds or their votes.  Only the independents can be wooed by a good candidate, or repelled by a bad one. 
  So, candidates that want to get elected, appeal to the independents.  The base will vote for them no matter what they do. 
   Occasionally I hear TV newsies explain a candidates actions as intended to "secure the base".  This is malarkey, the base is secure, it's the independents that a candidate needs to secure. 
   Right now, about 40% of the voters are diehard democrats, and 35% are diehard Republicans.  The other  25% are the independents, who control the election utterly. 
   I have never seen a breakdown of the independents, by age, sex, education level, employment, marital status, or those other things that categorize voters.  So it's hard for me to figure out just what any of the herd of Republican hopefuls can do to attract independent votes.  If you don't know what your target looks like, it's hard to find it. 
   There is general agreement on some things.  Everyone wants a stronger, growing economy, with more jobs and better wages.  Nobody likes ISIS. Everyone is in favor of a college education. 
   There is no agreement on other things.  What to do about immigration and illegal immigrants.  How much economic activity can we allow the greenies to stifle with regulations?  Are we willing to commit American troops to straighten out the middle east?  How tough can we get with the Russians over Ukraine?  Can we rationalize the US tax system?  Citizens should not have to hire H&R Block to file their federal income tax.  Can we straighten out the patent and copyright law which suppresses innovation and enriches patent trolls?
  Where do independents stand on any of these issues?  Does anyone have a clue?