Thursday, 31 January 2008


More ugly software

My browser can't get off of the home page.

Possibly because something is truncating the honkiin’ long asp URLs[1] that the site uses.

Viewing the source reveals that the generator that produces these abominations is a program called “Oxcyon Centralpoint 7.0

Its flagship technology, Centralpoint, is the only Lifecycle Management technology available within ECM, incorporating virtualization yielding pervasive delivery. Oxcyon is not an ASP (Application Service Provider) but is able to offer subscriptions to its technology across disparate physical environments in contrast to traditional, leave-behind applications which dominate this market today. This technology eliminates this obsolescence and changes time to market from months to minutes eliminating costs and risk for its clients. Oxcyon enjoys early market adoption in numerous verticals including: Publishing, Healthcare, Manufacturing, Government and Non Profit/Religious markets. [2]

(Not to mention buzzword-compliant... )

Anyway, you have been warned.

[1] Like:
sid=2263A838BB9D41B1B5985FF73A77AE86 &

[2] Cut-and-pasting the quote brought along this code at the beginning: “<span style="font-family: Verdana;"> <span style="font-size: 8pt; font-family: Verdana; color: rgb(51, 51, 51);"> <span style="font-size: 7.5pt; color: rgb(0, 33, 52); font-family: Verdana;">” I rest my case.

Posted by: Old Grouch in Rants at 23:32:07 GMT | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 182 words, total size 3 kb.

Monday, 28 January 2008


How to secure the homeland

This started out as a quite different post.[1] But then my attention was directed to this:

“There are currently no guidelines regulating the private acquisition of biological, chemical, and radiological detectors,” warned [Richard] Falkenrath [New York City Police Department deputy commissioner for counterterrorism], adding that this law was suggested by officials within the Department of Homeland Security. - Village Voice, “NYPD Seeks an Air Monitor Crackdown for New Yorkers” by Chris Thompson
So let me get this straight: Some useless bureaucrats at the DHS think there should be “guidelines” for private ownership and use of things like geiger counters, all in the name of “avoiding unwarranted anxiety.”  Because without “guidelines,” why, people might go around using them, and what’s more, they might find radiation in some unusual places. (And might get upset about it!) With no government “help.”

Now if the denizens of New York are so stupid that they elect City Council members who are stupid enough to pass an ordinance like this, well, so many more candidates for the Darwin Award. They can face their own consequences.

But the DHS has no business encouraging this. The “mushroom management” concept of keeping citizens ignorant and helpless has no place in a democratic society, no matter how convenient it might be for government agents. Somebody ought to find those unnamed officials and take ’em out back of the outhouse.

After all, it’s hard to be "a pack, not a herd" when the government keeps pulling your teeth.

Naming names: Running point for the proposal, Peter Vallone, Jr., chairman of the Council's Public Safety Committee.

Via: Slashdot
[1] The story so far: Nannies in the Bloomberg administration and the New York City Police Department want to require a license for any privately-possessed air-quality monitor:
...[Richard Falkenrath, New York City Police Department deputy commissioner for counterterrorism] and Mayor Michael Bloomberg have asked the City Council to pass a law requiring anyone who wants to own such detectors to get a permit from the police first. And it's not just devices to detect weaponized anthrax that they want the power to control, but those that detect everything from industrial pollutants to asbestos in shoddy apartments... - Village Voice, “NYPD Seeks an Air Monitor Crackdown for New Yorkers” by Chris Thompson
All supposedly out of fear of “excessive false alarms and unwarranted anxiety.” None of which have happened. What’s more, Falkenrath is anxious that there is “no requirement that they be reported to the police department—or anyone else, for that matter—and no mechanism for coordinating these devices.” And without all those government guidelines and requirements, well, you never can tell what people might do, can you?

Posted by: Old Grouch in Rants at 17:54:30 GMT | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 424 words, total size 5 kb.

Wednesday, 23 January 2008


Fire them all - 2

Looks like it'll be business as usual on the RepubliCrat front:

President Bush is unlikely to defy Congress on spending billions of dollars earmarked for pet projects...
Wimp! Glenn Reynolds: “I could carve a better backbone out of a banana.”
...but he will probably insist that lawmakers provide more justification for such earmarks in the future...
...on the day the sun rises in the west!
...administration officials said Monday.

Fiscal conservatives in Congress and budget watchdogs have been urging Mr. Bush to issue an executive order instructing agencies to disregard the many earmarks listed just in committee reports, not in the text of legislation.

Lawmakers, including the House Republican whip,
whip.R.I.N.O. Fixed it for you!
Roy Blunt of Missouri, have cautioned the White House that a furor over earmarks could upend Mr. Bush’s hopes for cooperation with Congress on other issues...
Mike Hendrix: “Oh no. Oh, god no. Not that. Because they’ve all worked together so civilly and well up till now.”
...including efforts to revive the economy.
...which the government is so good at.
Moreover, Republicans shudder at the possibility that a Democratic president might reject all their earmarks.
Poor babies! Bill Quick: “And there you have it. If the GOP protests Dem earmarks, a Dem President might not okay the GOP earmark raids on the public purse.”

(Story from New York Times)


Previously: Fire them all

Posted by: Old Grouch in Rants at 23:07:33 GMT | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 235 words, total size 3 kb.

Wednesday, 16 January 2008


Fire them all

The Hill:

The leaders of the Senate Appropriations Committee are calling on President Bush to back away from threats to kill funding for lawmakers’ pet projects.
Poor babies!
The pre-emptive warnings from the top Democrat and Republican on the panel are the clearest signs yet that President Bush could face a bipartisan backlash if he uses his executive authority to wipe out the more than $7 billion in earmarks.
And as Everett Dirksen used to say[1], “a billion here, a billion there...”
Bush... has indicated he might direct officials at federal agencies to ignore the nearly 9,000 member projects written in the bill’s report language...
Yeah? Come on, George! Show us you've got the guts!
The executive order... would roil already poor relations between the White House and the Democratic Congress
That's not a bug, it's a feature.
... not to mention infuriate many Republicans touting the projects to their constituents.
Those “Republicans” need to be “infuriated” (not to mention slapped upside of the head, reminded of party principles in a LOUD voice, and then tossed out of office).
A spokesman for Senate Appropriations Chairman Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.)...
Ah yes, Senator Pork himself!
accused the Bush administration of hypocrisy...
...for considering an executive order telling federal agencies to ignore earmarks since no such order was issued during Republican control of Congress...
So because Bush didn’t do the right thing before, he shouldn’t do the right thing now?
Byrd’s counterpart, ranking Republican Thad Cochran (Miss.), agrees that such a plan would hinder the appropriations process.
“hinder the appropriations process” == “get between the boodlers and their boodle”
“Just as Congress takes the president’s budget request under very careful advisement...
Stop it, I’m dyin’ here! should the president honor the report language Congress writes to accompany bill text,” said Margaret McPhillips, a spokeswoman for Cochran. she struggled to maintain a straight face.
“Requiring all budget specifics to be included in bill text would be highly inefficient
...because then they'd be right out there, in front of God and everybody!
...and would cripple an already difficult budget process.”
But the move could create a sharp backlash within Bush’s own party...
...nothing compared to the backlash he’ll get if he lets all this pork go through.
...and anger senior Republicans touting their projects back home, including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.)...
Sounds like a good target for some letters.

Oh, to hell with it. Just fire them all.

[1] Or maybe not:
"Oh, I never said that. A newspaper fella misquoted me once, and I thought it sounded so go that I never bothered to deny it."

Posted by: Old Grouch in Rants at 17:31:03 GMT | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 413 words, total size 5 kb.

<< Page 1 of 1 >>
80kb generated in CPU 0.34, elapsed 0.6967 seconds.
55 queries taking 0.5716 seconds, 154 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.