For the most part, I use Google Maps whenever I need to find something or get directions (hell, I have the mobile app on my phone; which has it's own problems, but I digress). But, for some reason, when I was trying to use it today it was giving me fits. It might just be that NoScript is eating something, I just don't care enough to troubleshoot it at the moment. So, I figured, I'll give Yahoo! Maps a try. So, type: maps.yahoo.com hit <Enter> and sure enough, a nice map. Type my current address in the search, and...wait, where did my map go? Ok, search results as a list, with the map as an option. OoooooK, whatever.

Click the map, and I'm back to where I think I should be. Now, search for 'mexican food' since that is what I want. And, dammit, where did my map go? Alright, click on a search result, and up pops a map for a mexican food resturant near my home, WTF? I distinctly remember having the map centered where I am at, why did this thing jump to my home? Yes, I have my address in Yahoo!'s service for other stuff, and I am technically logged in; however, I had the map where I wanted to search. Look at the screen, ooohhh, there's another unobtrusive search box for 'search for a business', over on the left. The big, yellow "Search" box and button at the top, which seems designed to attract my attention and is in a logical spot for a search box doesn't do a spatial search.

Right, fine, do the "business" search. And get some hits in my current area. Click on one on the list on the left side, the map moves smoothly to the selection, expands a pop-up of the item on the map with info and a few useful links like "driving directions". Cool, mouse over to the...wait, where'd the pop-up go? Click on the item on the left, move the mouse over to the pop-up...Fuck! Ok, click on the actual number on the map, and now I can click "driving directions".

Congratulations Yahoo! Maps, you worked so well that I just had to piss into the wind (read:post on Slashdot) about it.

Every once in a while, I try to do something with Powershell that I've either not figured out before, or have forgotten how to do. So, I hit Google and start searching. Today, I was trying to modify a registry value, and had forgotten how to do it. So, hit Google and start searching. I came up with this great site. If the author runs across this post, thank you very much, you helped me along my way to a useful script.

While reading the post, I looked at Figure 16.3. On the left hand side you will see "TestKey" highlighted. Just below that, you will see a key named "ThriXXX". If you are curious what this is, google it, just not at work.

Ok, I look at porn. Obviously, the person who created this screenshot looks at porn. I'm willing to bet that even you, dear reader, look at porn. That's not an issue. But, if you are going to be putting a reasonably professional posting online, you might want to sanitize things a bit before you post it.

This past Thursday I was once again reminded of the dangers of browsing on the internet and typing in a domain name you think is right. At my work we have a couple of machines which the students are allowed to use (in addition to their laptops) so that they can access some software which we only have one or two licenses for. On this particular day, one of the students was using this system for part of her project and had run into a problem: when the computer was setup Python was installed but PythonWin was not. No problem, I'll just add it for her and be on my way.

It just happened to be that while she was asking me about it one of her fellow students walked up and they started talking about the software she was using, and the second student wanted to see it so she stuck around as well. Please note that, at this point I have two female students chit-chating next to me and watching while I get PythonWin installed. While this shouldn't be a problem, it will become obvious why this was one shortly.

I figure that the quickest thing to do is pop out on the web, download PythonWin and install it. So, open Internet Explorer, and type python.com into the address bar (Do NOT do this at work!). Now, with the wonderfully fast connection we have, within a second I begin to see adds for porn. I let out a reflexive, "oh, shit!" and started hitting <Alt>+F4 as fast as my fingers would move. At this point, the two students behind me give me confused looks. I quickly apologize, which they initially didn't understand. It would seem that my mind picked up on what was going on, and reacted fast enough, that they hadn't seen anything. Thank goodness both of them were able to understand and laugh it off; but, I still think I lost a few days off my life from that.

So, lesson learned, unless I am damn sure of the address I am going to, JFGI.

Ran across this article while poking through Digg. As just about any junkfood junkie in Southern California tell you In-n-Out makes the best burger out there.

Damn, now I want a 4x4 with animal style fries. Dinner is going to be very bad for me.

So about a year ago I finally decided to use my dental insurance to just get my teeth "cleaned." To my surprise, it's not that simple.

The Dentist I had selected (through my insurance) was:
Dental Group of Arcadia 440 E Huntington Dr Arcadia, CA 91006-3776
Dental Group of Arcadia is individually owned by Farhad Manavi D.D.S., II, Inc.

It looked very nice and was very modern!

So once I made an appointment and show up and it turns out they can't just clean your teeth - there's a lot to do before that! They have to take a full set of X-Rays before they can even look at the teeth themselves! Before I continue, let me give you a little back story...

When I was 9? I was going regularly to the dentist. It wasn't a bad experience really, I wasn't traumatized or in extreme pain when I went - not that I remember anyways. But I do remember being told that taking unnecessary X-Rays could cause harm, so they only took what they needed. Years later I end up majoring in manufacturing and learn through it's cousin metallurgy that X-Rays could indeed be bad... So those things stuck in my head.

Back to my story. So when they said first they need full set of X-Rays I asked why? I just wanted to get my teeth cleaned. They explained it's so they can see the condition of my teeth. When I said they're fine, I just want a cleaning they said "no, because you probably have problems you're not aware of." So 45 minutes later we come to a compromise, they'll take a minimum of X-Rays and go from there.

Now I might be silly, but I know that X-Rays lead to more problems which lead to $$$. Also, since it's insurance they're going to try to claim as many expenses as aren't needed. That was my real objection.

So after the minimal set of X-Rays they technician goes "mmm mmmmmm." And I'm like "what do you see?" "I see a few problems. Doesn't your left side hurt?" HAhaha! No, it doesn't. So after arguing with her about my mouth/teeth/feet not hurting we're done and I'm finally able to see the dentist.

By the way, when I made my appointment they were aware it was my first time to this office. They acknowledged it and said I would be getting my teeth cleaned on that day. They didn't however do that. Once I showed up for my appointment it turns out that nothing is ever done on your first visit - you only get a "check-up/inspection." Then you can make appointments for what you needs.

So here's what I needed, according to the X-Rays and Dentist: I apparently have 13 cavities and am in need of 3 root canals, one of them immediately before I lose the tooth. So while there she referred me to the in-house specialist who could perform the RC because it was apparently very advanced.

Let me give you some more back story. So when I was a kid, I apparently got a gold crown? on one of my molars. While eating/chewing on some delicious candy, it came off. I was like "this is some ghetto workmanship!" So back to the dentist I go. Guess what gang? There was a sign on the door that said "Closed due to Mal practice." It was an official looking sign and had a lot of stuff on it, but that was in a huge font. So that was the end of dentists for me. Not because I didn't like them or was worried about them, because that was my dentist in front of Toys R Us! There's no reason to go back now!

But that wasn't where my mistrust of dentists started. No it started many years later when we found out one of my sisters friends also had the very same dentist but had a lot of dental work done because she had braces. Apparently, he didn't do a very good job as the repairs to the damage done cost some $ to fix. Guess what? My sister also had a little brace-work done as well! And yep, she also had a bad job but since it was very little the damage wasn't so bad.

So, now I'm thinking, they're trying to tell me my teeth hurt when they don't. They're saying they see massive damage to one tooth and I'm about to lose it. They're telling me I need to get this all done ASAP. Mix this with my previous experiences and that = I'm not doing anything, I'm leaving.

So on the way out the office manager is trying to find out what happened. Just for the f of it I ask for the list of items I need to get done and how much it'll cost me out of pocket. It's 13 things they can do there and then what I need to go see the specialist for (root canals). The total for me just at that dentist is $3,000! hahaha Thankssss but no thanks.

I ask if I can just get my cleaning done anyways (cause I'm a trooper) and they say yes but will I be getting any other work done? I said no. They didn't like that and she told me "but you don't understand how at risk you are."

So I say I don't care, I'm a biker anyways - I'm liable to get hit in the face with a tire or baseball on the freeway and lose my teeth. And with today's technology, I can get some awesome fake teeth with screws! How cool is that? Of course she didn't appreciate that. But in the end I was able to make my appointment for my cleaning!...

So before I go back for the cleaning, yes I know I should have looked for another dentist but because all the dentists that were recommended to me were outside of my network, and even on shitty 1-800-dentist (they didn't recommend dentists according to insurance plan which is stupid/pointless) I really couldn't find anyone other than "this one looks good." So before I go in I call and ask if I have to pay for anything out of pocket, the dental office says yes. I'm like wtf??? My plan states all preventative work is 100% covered, that's why I got it. So I start investigating.

After much arguing and to be honest, it was kinda scary because the dental office either didn't want to tell me what procedures are called or they didn't know, I found out a few things I want to share with the world!

For a cleaning apparently you have what's called scaling and root planing. That was 100% covered. But the dental office wanted to give me something called "Medical Irrigation." Sounds important doesn't it? But they wanted to charge me $220 for that. Oh, and the dental office wouldn't do a "full mouth cleaning" in 1 session, I could only do 1/2 the mouth at a time. So that's $440.

So no one at the dental office would tell me what medical irrigation really was, other than it was necessary. No one on my insurance's side would tell me what it was, other than it's not covered. So after much back and forth, I finally came across a wonderful lady who answered a few questions, one of them being "when you go for your cleanings, do you get it?" She said "no, because I just go home and use mouth wash. It's about the same thing."

They also check your "pockets" which is how deep your gums go to the roots of your teeth. A large # is bad. It was a really stupid question of the dentist one she thought about it when she asked what my pockets were when I last saw a dentist. She answered that herself when she said "oh you were 9, they wouldn't have checked your pockets back then." Did that even exist back then? (Yes all my pockets were in rocking condition!)

There was also something else about aristen/ariston injections, but it's been too long to remember what that's about. All I know is that I didn't want it! And don't let them fool you about the "dental disease" gingivitis. Apparently, after some research, EVERYONE has the "disease" to a certain extent. It's normal to have it at the normal levels (someone who brushes their teeth) and those who don't take care of their teeth get it really bad! Also those who do certain drugs.

So now I can get my teeth cleaned! Regardless of what happened, a few months later (like 6) I made friends with of all people, a dental office manager! I told her my story and she broke it down to me in 2 words: "Drill N Bill." That's what they call dental offices that max out the insurance coverages because they can. She also explained everything I had already investigated which was really cool. So of course I felt great I didn't let them rob my insurance blind.


So in the end, I might have only gotten 1/2 my mouth cleaned (they canceled my appointment to get the other side cleaned without notice - maybe because I refused all of their extra "services?"), but at least I know they didn't get the chance to fook up my teeth by making nasty holes and unnecessary route canals.

More than a year later and I still haven't found another dentist, and to be honest I probably won't until I can change my dental plan to get one that covers my friends dental office(s). But since then do you know how many times my teeth have hurt or bothered me? ZERO

I started using WM PPC phones with the HTC Titan (AKA mogul, wing). It was pretty fast and had great features for its time.

With rom customizing it turned out to be a highly configurable phone. I then moved onto the new HTC Touch pro and set it up the same way. Although the newer WM 6.1 has the TouchFlo3d GUI, it really wasn't that great, and then only decent when tweeked.

So recently i discovered the PointUI Home2 GUI for WM PPC's. It's awesome! I have typed up some info if you're interested.

Check it out here http://forum.ppcgeeks.com/showthread.php?p=942905#post942905

This paired with Silence's ROM is an unbeatable combo!

Being that it's my first journal entry, I want to state that I've been thinking of a way to contribute interesting finds to others. Unfortunately 1 forum or several can't always do this. So what place better than on /.'s journal? My purpose of writing should always be to provide useful information.

I have recently acquired a Toshina Projector - TDP-T3. It's in working condition but was projecting everything in a green hue. So after testing with different inputs I came to the conclusion that the main cable ("M1-D to VGA/USB") was bad.

I started looking up replacement cables and found out they can be pretty expensive. Nothing less than $45 with shipping. So I came across adapters, but unfortunately no one could confirm they work.

By logical deduction I would assume they would work because the output is a DVI, it is then downgraded to VGA. So why wouldn't an adapter that connects on one end to DVI not work when the other end is also DVI?

I ordered an adapter that has the DVI/USV on the projectors end and the DVI on the other end. I asked the store selling it if it would work and they said no. Good thing I ordered it before I got their reply!

So I went from spending about $50 to ~$10.

I got the adapter on ebay from these guys: http://stores.shop.ebay.com/Abacus-Cables__W0QQ_armrsZ1

And the listing at the time of writing is: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=260411786469&ssPageName=ADME:B:EOIBSA:US:1123

While the listing says it will only work on specific models listed and "some other models" it will definitely work on the TDP-T3. I also don't see why it wouldn't work on other M1 devices as well.

So now I got it working with DVI instead of VGA and it looks GREAT! Now if I could only find a place for cheap replacement bulbs for when I need one...

A little while back I wrote about two different bills working their way through their State's legislatures. Specifically, Montana Bill HB246 and California Bill AB390. In both cases, I like what the bills are trying to accomplish, though on the whole, I think both bills are doomed. Even still, sometimes a failure can make enough noise to accomplish something positive in the long run. So, today I had a touch of time and decided to see what the status of each was.

• Montana HB246 - Current status: Transmitted to Governer. Simply put, the Montana House and Senate have passed the bill. It is interesting that the requirement for the State Attorney General (AG) to fight this one out in court, as soon as someone notifies the AG that the person intends to make such a firearm, was stripped. But I don't see that as a completely destructive change. I expect that we will simply see some company and/or individual with deep pockets start the fight on this one themselves, and will likely be better equipped to win the fight. Also of note is that the final bill has wording in it to avoid fighting both the control of explosives and the control of fully automatic weapons. I suspect that this was done to try and pander to the US Supreme Court's recent decision which invalidated the DC handgun ban, but engaged in legal gymnastics to not invalidate the federal ban on fully automatic weapons, at the same time. Also, to narrow the scope of the bill to a single issue, to make the fight easier.
• California AB390 - Current Status: Probably dead. The author Tom Ammiano requested that the hearing for the bill in the Public Safety and Health committee be canceled. Not being privy to the how exactly things work with these committees, I can only assume that he is either reworking the wording before the committee gets the bill, or he's simply given up on it. Either way, I suspect that this bill will now simply die in ignominy. Too bad too, it might have given the US Attorney General, Eric Holden, a way to stop the DEA from raiding marijuana dispensaries. But, only time will tell. Government usually moves at a rather slow pace, which is good, it usually prevents us from engaging in ill conceived, knee jerk reactions.

Reading Slashdot on the iPhone is not as good as it could be. The iPhone's workaround for non-mobile-opimized pages--the pan and zoom system--is fine for sites I only look at occasionally, but for something I look at as often as Slashdot, I'd like something a little better. So, I whipped up my own system. This doesn't replace the entire site, it's just for the front page. (Update: it now also works (kind of) for story pages.) It pulls the non-logged-in front page so it might not be the same as what you'd see if you were logged in.

I started with trying to style the RSS feed, but the feed (in my limited experience) seems to be often out of sync with the actual front page. So, I fell back onto Plan B: the brute-force method of downloading the actual front page and styling it for iPhone. I've got a PHP script that pulls down the page with cURL, then I use two methods to hack away everything I don't want: PHP's str_replace and 'display: none' in the style sheet. Then I add styling to the elements I want to keep. I also added some icons to jump up and down from one story to the next, to the top of the page, and a 'search' button since Mobile Safari doesn't have find-in-page. This is ugly and hackish and I don't know if it's really valid HTML (probably not) but for the most part it does what I want it to do so I'm happy with it. I'm happy to hear any suggestions for improvement.

Three common issues: 1) sometiems it'll show the headline but not the story, 2) sometimes it'll show an extra blank line between the headline and the story, and 3) sometimes you'll get weird stuff at the top, like --> or </script>'); dfp_tile++; //]]> -->. These come and go. No big deal. This isn't perfect but it's enough to give me a 'fix' when I'm standing in line somewhere. :-)

The source is out there so hack on it all you want. Go ahead and my page to your bookmarks or copy it to your own server and change it all you want--hide bylines, tags, comments, add other stuff back in, whatever you want.

More info: http://pixelcity.com/slashdot/
Page: http://pixelcity.com/s/
PHP source: http://pixelcity.com/s/index.phps
Style sheet: http://pixelcity.com/s/style.css

"As you know, they search you pretty well at the airport.
  There'll be lots of places later they'll be searching us.
  The airport is where they're kinda trying it out."
                                              George Carlin - 1975

Bit of a lighter note today. I have a habit, which I think is a good one, of trying to stop store clerks from putting a single item in a bag. It's simple enough, at least in my mind, if I am only buying one or two small items, they already have plenty of packaging on them, why do I need them then placed into a plastic bag? Especially for a single item, it doesn't change the number of hands required to carry the item. It isn't going to make the item that much easier to carry. Why in the world do I need a plastic bag to hold an item which is probably already in one of those nigh impregnable plastic shells? Why create the extra trash?

Is this habit peculiar to me, or do other people out there do this as well?

Just a quick one this time. If you saw may last journal entry you may have seen something about marijuana in California. Well, it would appear that the Obama Administration is looking to change how the Federal Government deals with the issue of medical marijuana; by, of all the crazy things, letting the States decide. Damn, now if he would just leave my hunting^Wassault rifle alone, I might really start liking the guy.

It looks like the California Legislature is at it again, and about damn time. As I wrote in my previous journal entry, I tend to believe that the Federal Government is allowed far to much power over intrastate commerce by the expansions of the Interstate Commerce Clause which happened in the early 20th Century. The War on Drugs is a good example of this.

Back in 1996, the voters of California passed Proposition 215. The idea was that we would allow those medical patients who could benefit from marijuana use to grow, own and consume it. Of course, with the War on Drugs still in full swing, and Federal Laws which criminalized the growing and possession of marijuana, and with the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, this Proposition was unlikely to have any real effect. Granted, there has been some leeway given to those with medical prescriptions, but let's be honest, this has been abused. The real goal is to reach a point where marijuana is treated like alcohol; regulated but legal.

Now, one of the things which came out of this was an important case which went before the US Supreme Court. This case Gonzales V. Riach essentially allowed Federal enforcement of the Federal drug laws, despite the California law. It was in this case that Justice Thomas wrote:

If the Federal Government can regulate growing a half-dozen cannabis plants for personal consumption...then Congress' Article I powers...have no meaningful limits.
And

If the majority is to be taken seriously, the Federal Government may now regulate quilting bees, clothes drives, and potluck suppers throughout the 50 States. This makes a mockery of Madison's assurance to the people of New York that the "powers delegated" to the Federal Government are "few and defined", while those of the States are "numerous and indefinite."

Which, when you really sit down and think about it is true. By declaring a Federal plan to control any item, from drugs to guns to wheat, they can then invalidate any sort of State independence. There is no such thing as State's Rights with regard to commerce within its own borders. Really, if taken to its logical extreme, we may as well abolish the States and simply do everything at the Federal level. Yes, I am sure that there are plenty of people in the US who would be all for this idea, I'm not. I like to have as much government power within shooting distance as possible. The closer to the actual people a government is, the more power it should have, as distance increases power should decrease.

There's two reasons for my desire to have governmental power distributed as such. First, it makes it much harder to concentrate power into the hands of a few. Yes, a powerful local government may be able to wreck a lot of havoc on a local population, but that is easy enough to escape, and if bad enough can be resisted. As I said, I like to have the people in power be within shooting distance. Obviously, one hopes that their government never gets bad enough that it becomes necessary, but if it does, it's nice to not have to travel several hundred or thousand miles to put a bullet in them. The other part of this is that, if power is so decentralized, it becomes hard to effectively direct it. Trying to convert such a decentralized setup to a tyrannical system would mean trying to setup something akin to Feudalism. Its possible, but its going to be much harder than a power grab against an already centralized seat of power.

The second reason that I favor a decentralized system of power is that a local government can react better to local issues. For example, consider housing codes. In California, having housing codes which prevent houses falling over in the average 6.0 earthquake is important. It's an interesting (if morbid) exercise to watch such an earthquake move around the Rim of Fire. There will be a 6.0 or so earthquake in the Philippines and thousands will die. Shortly after a similar quake will go off in Mexico and thousands will die. Some time later a similar earthquake will happen in California and we might lose a few dishes. The difference is the housing codes. However, the folks in Florida have no need for such codes, they need houses which will withstand flooding and hurricanes. Were they to build in earthquake protections, it would raise the cost of building for no real gain. Similarly, there is no need for houses to deal with hurricanes in California, and the cost of such changes would be nonsensical.

A central government just doesn't need to have the strong control over daily life of its citizens. It doesn't provide anything which cannot be better handled at a more local level. What the Federal Government needs to be is essentially a meta-government, a government of governments. The Federal Government exists to ensure that the State Governments are not acting in such as way as to imperil the rights of the people, and to provide for national defense. The State Governments exist to ensure that the local governments are not imperiling the rights of the people. And, at the lowest level the local governments are the ones providing for the actual laws which affect the people and their day to day lives.

So, what does all this have to do with the current California Bill? Well, it's another attempt to setup a showdown on State's Rights vs. Federal Powers; and ultimately, the scope of the Interstate Commerce Clause. This is a good thing, in my opinion. Our federal government has been growing, and as the Bush Administration showed us, it is starting to act more like the government of Soviet East Germany than a free county. It's time we realized that having a powerful central government is dangerous to our freedom and stuffed it back into its little box of being just a meta-government. This means that the War on Drugs has to die. Much like Prohibition before it, the War on Drugs needs to be brought to an end and the sale and manufacture of drugs needs to be regulated at a local level.

Do I think this Bill has a hope in hell? Nope. It will probably pass the California State Legislature, the Governator might even sign it. But, it's going to go up the chain of courts, pass through the Ninth Circuit and end up before the Supreme Court where it will die a horrible death. Still, we need to keep making noise like this. Change doesn't happen all at once, it happens slowly. You have to keep beating on the walls for a long time before they finally fall.

In case you didn't know, I'm a supporter of Gun Rights and a proponent of expanded State's Rights. The former seems to be gaining traction in the US, while the latter is still a bit of a joke. At the very least, gun ownership seems to be surging these days. I guess that's one type of Change I Can Believe In.

That said, it looks like the Montana State House is trying to setup a showdown on State's Rights vs. Federal Powers by directly challenging the right of the Federal Government to regulate intrastate commerce with regards to firearms (pay particular attention to the word intrastate). Over the registration requirement for firearms manufactured wholly in, and for sale an use in Montana.

Assuming that the Montana State Senate passes the bill as well, which I'm guessing is likely; and that the governor signs it, again, I think this is likely; we may well see a court battle over the reach of the Interstate Commerce Clause come from it.

Directly from HB246: Upon written notification to the Montana attorney general by a Montana citizen of intent to manufacture a firearm...the attorney general shall seek a declaratory judgment from the federal district court for the district of Montana that [sections 1 through 7] are consistent with the United States constitution.

So, basically, as soon as a Montana resident writes to the Montana State Attorney General saying, "I want to manufacture a firearm wholly in Montana for use and sale exclusively in Montana. And I do not want to register it with the Federal Government." The state's Attorney General is required to start a court case seeking a declaratory judgment that this action is legal, or at least, Constitutional. If there isn't already a letter drafted like this, I have no doubt that plenty will be drafted and sent within seconds of this bill passing.

Now, as to where it goes from there is anybody's guess. I'm going to assume that the folks behind this bill did their homework and that the current Attorney General of Montana (AG from here on) supports this bill, otherwise it's ultimately a counter-productive move. All it would take is for the current AG to give a less than whole-hearted attempt in court and this bill would be quickly gutted.

I think one can assume that this would quickly hit the Ninth Circuit and that is a questionable prospect at best. The Ninth Circuit has not, in the past, been a friend of gun owners. However, they have been a friend of the State's Rights idea. So, which way would they go, you got me. Honestly though, whichever why it goes, I suspect that it will be appealed to the US Supreme Court.

At the SCOUTS level, it gets interesting. We know, from the recent DC v. Heller decision that the majority of the SCOUTS support the individual view of gun rights. However, if we go back a bit to Gonzales v. Raich we also have support for the expanded Interstate Commerce Clause which has been around since FDR tried packing the Supreme Court.

Just to guess, here's what I see (a Yes means they would support HB246 a No means they would not):
Roberts - Was in the Majority on Heller, was not around for Gonzales. I'm guessing he might support HB246 but I'm not sure. From what I read, I think he'd be a Yes.

Stevens - In the Majority on Gonzales; in the Dissent on Heller. I think he's a pretty clear No for HB246.

Scalia - Concurred with the Majority on Gonzales, and in effect agreed with the expanded Interstate Commerce Clause. He was in the Majority on Heller. I suspect he will pretty much re-write his Gonzales decision for HB246, so he's a No.

Kennedy - In the Majority on Gonzales, in the Majority on Heller. Bit of a crap shoot on him. He's a Regan appointee, and seems to support State's Rights. For the time being, I think he'd end up being a Yes on HB246.

Souter - In the Majority on Gonzales, in the Dissent on Heller. Unless he suddenly becomes a conservative again, I think he's a No.

Thomas - Dissented on Gonzales, was in the Majority on Heller. Given his Dissent on Gonzales revolved around the expanded Commerce Clause "have no meaningful limits". I think he's a Yes.

Ginsburg - In the Majority on Gonzales, In the Dissent on Heller. Again, a safe No, I think.

Breyer - In the Majority on Gonzales, Dissented on Heller. Another safe No.

Alito - Not involved in Gonzales, in the Majority on Heller. He wrote an opinion in United States v. Rybar which would seem to put him in the Yes side.

So, to tally it up, I have:
Yes - Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas and Alito
No - Stevens, Scalia, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer

Not exactly a hopeful outlook, but I still think this would be a fun showdown. I think the hope on the Yes side would be that either Souter has a sudden bout of conservatism, or that Scalia decides that this case is closer to United States v. Lopez and ignores his decision in Gonzales. Either way, it could be fun to see the national conversation about this one.

I applaud Apple's recent environmental improvements. They started using smaller packaging for all of their products (software, hardware, iPods) and they've also recently started making their products "greener" as well with recyclable materials and fewer bad chemicals.

BUT--they're still pushing all-in-one designs which are SO inherently wasteful. Laptops, obviously, have their limitations, but why isn't there a standalone computer between the $600 Mac mini and the $2200 Mac Pro? Why does the iMac get revised so much more often than these two? I was lucky enough to get a good price on a used Mac Pro but I'd still prefer to have gotten a physically smaller tower that also draws less energy. During the G3/G4/G5 years there was almost always an entry-level box starting at around $1500. Now all the $1000-$2000 Macs have built-in screens.

Every monitor I've ever owned has lasted through at least two computers.* Computers have gotten over 10x faster in last ten years but screens have only gotten about 4x larger. Of what I currently own, most of my computers are 2-3 years old but most of my monitors are 4-5 years old. And to take it even further, many have had multiple inputs! For example, most of my monitors are LCDs from Dell. Not only do most Dell LCDs have DVI and VGA connectors, many also have jacks for various other video inputs--composite (RCA), component, and/or S-Video. I've got a Dell LCD in my room that's connected to a Mac (DVI), a PC (VGA), a cable box (S-Video), and a VCR (composite). Maybe that's not an ideal setup for everyone but I don't watch TV if I'm on the computer so it's fine for me. (And by the way, they even support picture-in-picture.) And don't tell me it's a quality difference--Apple doesn't manufacture their own LCD panels, they buy them, same as everyone else. In fact, a few years ago they were using the exact same panel for their 20" widescreen LCD that Dell used!

* Except for an early DVI-D 18" IBM flat panel, which is awesome but only works with the 32 MB ATI Rage Fury Pro AGP video card I bought at the same time. For some reason, no DVI-I computer I own will drive it, though when I plug it into my work's MacBook Pro the laptop's screen flashes for a moment, indicating that it knows I've plugged in something. Any ideas?