The Problem with Design and Implementation

I posted this to an Agile forum last week ... I think it is worth sharing with a broader audience too.

Here is an interesting article:
http://www.osnews.com/story/22135/The_Problem_with_Design_and_Implementation

I especially like this point:

... ALL of software is design. 100% of software is design from the high level architect-like design to the low-level design of a for-loop. The implementers of software are not human! I knew you suspected as much given how odd many programmers are. No, the implementers of software are actually 'perfect' machines.
...
It is rather strange actually. It is as if people do not recognize the very thing the computer brings to the table. It gets rid of human implementers. It makes them obsolete. Thus, it can do the same task perfectly over and over again without error.

While the article isn't written from an "agile" perspective, I think the logical conclusions to its points are Agile practices.

My first professional experience was with a small software company that wrote structural analysis software. Basically, the software let engineers test their designs, and, after reading this article, it is clear to me that when we test our software, we're testing our designs too. We had several clients who had integrated our analysis software with their design tools, and found this to be a significant competitive advantage ... they were doing TDD!

this is also a great point:

Every line of source code is design. Software is the equivalent of the blue prints to a bridge. The only complete design is actual source code.

Name in lights

After reading William Grigg's post on LRC: More Federal Police State “Stimulus”
I made this comment:

When I hit "portable electro-shock torture devices, also known as Tasers" it occured to me that this could be shortened to PEST devices. Not only does the new name (portable electro-shock torture devices) adhere to any and all "truth in advertising" regulations, it reminds police who they can use it against: "if you've got a pest, use your PEST device" could be the simple mantra (for the simple minded) to remind them that if someone is actually suspected of (strike-through and link added at 11:50 AM EDT) breaking a law (being more than a pest) you should shoot with your gun instead.

William liked the acronym, and now I've got my "name in the lights" on my favourite blog:
Cops “Justified” in Taser Attack on Disabled Man

Done is done

Well, so that's all I've written in the last 6 months ... not very prolific.
I still need to make a follow up about private schools; I had a lot of feedback on that one and need to address those comments.

Private ownership results in better management

(originally posted July 27, 2009)

Walter Block, who had previously discussed private roads in Saskatchewan, has set his eye on Canada once again.
This time, he's writing in response to misinformation published by Rafe Mair about private rivers, and private natural resources in general.

Professor Block's logical discourse of private rivers is excellent, his third and fourth points are particularly wonderful for their clarity and their pointed lack of hyperbole (which tend to permeate these kind of discussions):

3. Mike Walker is likely incorrect in thinking that under private enterprise, no bodies of water would be used as dumpsites. Rafe Mair is equally in error in maintaining that under a regime of economic freedom, all bodies of water would be used for storing garbage. With regard to land, some of it is used for such purposes; most of it is not. There does not seem to be any good reason to suppose that private water would not be used much the same way; just as in the case of land, water would likely serve a myriad of purposes. In any case, with free markets, all land, and water too, would tend to be used in the manner that maximized profits; that is, produced the most value for all members of society. If it were not, if land or water was not utilized to obtain the most value, this failure would set up profit opportunities for other entrepreneurs. They would tend to purchase the facilities in question, and shift them to a use that would create even more wealth. Does this system work perfectly? Are we always and ever in equilibrium? Of course, not. But, there is a continual grinding market force that works in this direction. It is not for nothing that we seldom have crises in industries (rubber bands, tooth picks) that are relatively free.

4. Mr. Mair exhibits an astonishing degree of economic illiteracy. He is attacking one of the most fundamental principles in all of economics: that if you own it, you tend to take care of it better than if you just rent it, or if no one owns it. People are concerned about an oil change for their own automobile, but, when is the last time anyone worried about this in a rental car? The cow never came within a million miles of extinction, the buffalo did. Why? It cannot be because the two species are that different. It must be due to the fact that the former was owned privately, and, at least for many decades, the latter was not. No farmer goes into his lower forty and shoots all his cows; if he does, he bears a great cost: he doesn’t have these bovines tomorrow. Things are different when the buffalo ran free. Then, the economically rational thing to do was to shoot them all. If you didn’t, you didn’t have them tomorrow anyway. It was virtually costless to shoot a buffalo; thus more of them were killed, and indiscriminately so. It is the same for elephants, rhinos, whales, fish. There is over-fishing in the unowned ocean; fish farms do not at all face that problem. Why should it be any different for rivers or lakes? We are talking basic economic principles here; they apply to all and any resources. If Mair opposes private water, why not land, too? Don’t get me started on Soviet collectivized farming.

Private land, private businesses, private schooling, private rivers ... private goods are better managed and make the whole of society better off.

Wishlist: no more public schools

(originally posted June 23, 2009)

Reaction to Bill 47 has been pretty apathetic. Most commentary has focused on how the current bill "lacks balance", and how tricky it is to "strike the right chord" when "public safety" and individual rights are "at odds".

If it weren't, as J.L. Bryan points out in his excellent essay, if it weren't for public schools, adults would not fall for this false dichotomy (among many other falsehoods our government thrives on) between "public safety" and individual rights:
If a private actor took away some of my rights, he would be reducing my "safety", my "freedom from loss", which includes loss of freedom. If the government does so, I lose safety too, as does everyone in society. The result of the government taking away individual rights is a reduction of public safety. Clearly, it is not public safety that is at odds with individual rights, indeed, they are the same thing!

So what is the government driving at with its new legislation? The same thing as always: Power. If only people weren't conditioned, as Bryan puts it, by "all the weird ritualism and pressure to conform" in public schools ...

Of course, as Jana Ball wrote in response to Bryan's essay, changing away from the status quo, even just for yourself, is a big hill to climb:

[T]he group-think, Prussian model is so entrenched in our culture, that merely mentioning the idea of dismantling public education will get you horrified looks of astonishment, if not ostracism from your social circle.

Still, if you enjoy reading this blog you may already be used to that ...

Take every opportunity to remind parents that they are the Primary Educators of their children. That schools function best when they are responsive to parents, rather than some faceless bureaucracy and its formulae. That, in practice, this only happens when there are no bureaucrats, but when the schools are directly funded by parents and charity.

If you have children, do your best to get them out of the public system. If you don't, do your best to make sure that private schools are available to parents in your community. (Most private schools are happy to accept donations of time, money, matterials, etc. ...)

Whatever your situation, speak out! For most of us, that (free speech) is the only weapon we have, and if we don't use it, and learn to use it well, once a few more "Bill 47's" get passed, we may find ourselves without it.

Socialist, National Socialist

(originally posted June 18, 2009)

During last year's election I commented on the Socialist credentials of all the parties. Indeed the only substantive difference seemed to be that one wanted to break up the country, on purpose.

Of course, in order to save our economy from problems caused by the distortions of fiat money and fractional reserve banking (the favourite twins of big government), our "leaders" are blaming capitalism, pushing more regulation, and proping up failed businesses (GM and Chrysler and now the forestry industry). (Oh, lets not forget the "accommodations" made to the banksters themselves!)

While not intentional, I am glad that I used the broad brush "Socialist" when describing our leaders. At the time, I believe I was thinking of a Socialist as a "softer" Communist ... silly me! There is a reason the "Socialist" title is such a broad brush: the other kind of Socialist, what some once called "National Socialist".

OK. Calm down. Yes, I did just associate our leaders with Fascism, but probably not the fascism you're thinking about. 21st century Fascism has been "improved", and we can easily miss it if we use the horrors of Third Reich as the tell-tale signs of a fascist regime. But, consider that:

Fascism is much defined by what it opposes, what scholars call the fascist negations - its opposition to individualism, rationalism, liberalism, conservatism, capitalism, and communism.^[11][12]

And look at how our leaders oppose everything a fascist should:

• Just review this blog, and others (LRC, C4L, LvMI) to see the strong opposition to individualism and capitalism (which are very much related) by our modern States.
• Soviet-style communism, what fascism grew to oppose, now exists only in North Korea, and has clearly been pushed to the fringe in our society.
• For a long time leaders in our democracy have sacrificed rationalism on the alter of political expediency.
• Liberalism and conservatism are what we pretend marks a difference between our leaders. With those "differences" fixed firmly in our minds, we can be proud of our democracy and our freedoms, while whichever leaders we chose expand our government and "regulate" our freedoms.

Based on the fascist negations, we are very much living in a fascist country, under fascist leaders.

But back to the point about the false blame being put on capitalism, the new regulations, threatened and promised, and government control of businesses. This is Mussolini's dream of "the corporate state", alive and well, in Canada.

Always work

(originally posted May 27, 2009)

With the current state of financial markets, some people are wondering whether they'll ever retire.
With the current state of the economy, others are wishing "retirement" hadn't been thrust upon them.

Over 12 years ago William Diehl exclaimed that he'd never retire because that would make him a shell of himself. Diehl reminds us that our vocation is an essential part of who we are:

With the loss of vocation has come a loss of identification.

Does this mean that someone (a.k.a. the state) has to find, or provide, work for everyone? NO!
It does mean that artificial restrictions on a person's ability to work (e.g. minimum wage laws; mandatory retirement ages; professional associations, enabled by government decree, who "regulate" practitioners) are concrete violations of that person. Not just the person's right to work, but the person himself.

This is just another example of how civil law not only fails to uphold the natural law, but even contradicts and attacks it.

But how do we go about changing our laws and restoring sanity?
Perhaps, in this example, at least, we can resolve to always work, even if it is unpaid, and not give in to the illusions and false promises of retirement.
Sure, that doesn't really change the law, but at least we assert our independence from it.
And, if enough people do that, there might be enough will to change it.

Free roads in Saskatchewan?

(originally posted May 22, 2009)

Not free as in beer (gratis), but free as in liberty (libre).

Check out this except from Walter Block's latest book The Privatization of Roads & Highways.

I wonder what kind of response those tax revolting, the revolt certainly hasn't got much news coverage - and no wonder!, those tax revolting Saskatchewan farmers have given this idea? If anyone knows more, I'd like to know more too.

Farmer or not, Prof. Block's treatment of raods is refreshing, and encouraging in its deft challenge of common assumptions about roads and other "public" goods.

Swine flu: Get a clue!

(originally published May 1, 2009)

Someone is talking sense about swine flu ... can you guess who?
It's not the WHO!

OK, sorry for that. Its Dr. (yes he's a real MD) Ron Paul.
Someday I hope to find a Canadian Leader with half as much sense as Dr. Paul. Until then, thank God there's Ron Paul!

A tangible threat from global warming

(originally published February 10, 2009)

While the media loves to write headlines like this one from Time:
"Why Global Warming May Be Fueling Australia's Fires"
James Ostrowski gives us one of the simplest summaries for Global Warming Denial.

Seriously, Global Warming Denial.

The Time article works hard to reassure us that, yes, man-made Global Warming is making these recent fires worse than ever. This in the face of mounting evidence that "many of the fires may have been deliberately set", and the fact that:

the sheer increase in the number of homes built in fire-danger zones in southern Australia today puts more people in harm's way, raising the potential death toll.

Those quotes actually come from the fourth paragraph in the Time article, which is where the hysteria dies down and some sanity returns.

Daily, there is some report like this in the news, and the underlying message in all of the reports is that we must give more of our freedoms to the State so that it can solve, or at least protect, or at least be responsible for, or at least be seen to do something, about "Humankind's Greatest Challenge".

Whatever you think about Global Warming, you should consider points 3, 4, and 5 from James' summary, which boil down to:
3. Don't trust the government to solve any problem; history show that outside ensuring sufficient death and taxes for its needs, it doesn't excel at anything.
4. Given freedom and responsibility, individuals are able to solve far more complicated problems than central planners ever have, or will.
5. The government's preferred way of dealing with any problem is more government, ultimately culminating in totalitarianism; and the "climate crisis" caused by CO₂ provides the perfect excuse for government power over everything.

I have had the fortune of knowing many people who, I believe, have sincerely wanted what was best for me; but these people never tried to make me do anything. Although they may have fooled themselves, I have never met anyone who would force me to do something, who didn't have something other than my good as their ultimate purpose. We all realize this at an individual level; it is important to realize that this also applies to government and the people in it.

Everything that is really great and inspiring is created by the individual who can labor in freedom.
-- Albert Einstein

What is ominous is the ease with which some people go from saying that they don't like something to saying that the government should forbid it. When you go down that road, don't expect freedom to survive very long.
-- Thomas Sowell

Cheerfulness in Defending Liberty

(originally published February 3, 2009)

John Hasnas has an interesting piece on what it feels like to be a Libertarian (someone who believes and promotes the cause of Liberty).

I found the last paragraph especially relevant:

If you’d like a taste of what it feels like to be a libertarian, try telling people that the incoming Obama Administration is advocating precisely those aspects of FDR’s New Deal that prolonged the great depression for a decade; that propping up failed and failing ventures with government money in order to save jobs in the present merely shifts resources from relatively more to relatively less productive uses, impedes the corrective process, undermines the economic growth necessary for recovery, and increases unemployment in the long term; and that any "economic" stimulus package will inexorably be made to serve political rather than economic ends, and see what kind of reaction you get. And trust me, it won’t feel any better five or ten years from now when everything you have just said has been proven true and Obama, like FDR, is nonetheless revered as the savior of the country.

All hail the Obamessiah! Come on, now, even Republicans are doing it!

This all reminds me of a recent gathering of fellow Catholics, where one could earn more scorn by voicing concerns about "Climate Change" than by denouncing the teachings of the Church.

It is hard not to despair in times like these, but we must remain cheerful. Thanks to the Internet, the ideas of Freedom are being propagated faster than ever, and they are making their way into the public debate. Our arguments are sound and they ring true to those of Good Will.

Golden Freedom

(originally published February 2, 2009)

If you ever wondered why gold is important, consider inflation (as nicely described a few days ago). Basing a currency's value on gold (or another scarce asset) limits the government's ability to inflate. This is the case for the simple reason that at anytime, anyone can trade in their paper money for gold, and that keeps the government (more) honest.

Currently, every government currency in the world, including the Canadian dollar, is back by nothing but government force. We live in a world of fiat money, where every government can, and does, inflate (by creating new money "out of thin air") as much as it dares.

While gold serves a critical purpose in the short term, history (note that a gold standard is always weakened, or completely dropped, in times of "crisis") history shows that citizens must be vigilant or the government will find ways out of, and around, the restriction on their ability to inflate. Public awareness of the injustice of inflation is essential to keep the government "in check", however, it seems unrealistic to expect that such vigilance can be maintained as there is no example of a people who have done so.

Even an asset backed currency and vigilance probably aren't enough to stop the government from inflating bit-by-bit for its benefit, and that of its supporters (special interests, be they socialist, corporatist, or simply nepotist). Indeed, this is what the US government did under the Breton Woods system, which ultimately lead to its collapse in 1971.

To truly end the injustice of inflation, competition is required. Not competition between nations, but competition in the market. A competing domestic currency would keep government currency "in check" far better than any controls or regulations the government could impose on itself, as people could choose to accept, or reject, either currency based on their perceived value and trust. (I don't think it is too hard to come up with a business plan for a company that provides a competing currency ... even one that doesn't engage in some form of fractional reserve banking.)

The legal freedom to introduce a competing currency will require some revolutionary changes to our laws, but perhaps there will opportunity during the global economic crisis and its fallout (it is about time we used a crisis to increase the freedom of individuals instead of empowering the government). While the budget is a setback (not just because of its substance, but because there is no longer a single party that even talks about reducing the burden of government), if we bring attention to how the policies contained within, and the de facto policies of our government, are hurting "the most vulnerable in our society" and draining away our prosperity, our politicians will, at least, have to address the arguments for sound money. And once we start shaking the foundation of the "house of cards" that is fiat currency, it can't help but fall ... indeed, even if we do nothing it will eventually fall, but I'd rather not live through the resulting chaos.

Help Wanted: Defenders of Liberty Needed

(originally published January 29, 2009)

It is really exciting for me to start writing on this new site, Canadians for Liberty. Over the last two years, largely spurred on by Ron Paul's Presidential campaign, our Southern neighbours have been getting exposure to the ideas and ideals of Liberty. Unfortunately, as I wrote after the English language debate for our 2008 Federal election, and as has been irrefutably proven by the 2009 Federal budget, Canadians are being treated to Statism from all sides:

Our public debate is limited to how much government needs to spend without there ever being a question about whether it should.

As a society we rarely consider the freedoms lost when we expand government.

Whatever benefits are promised by increasing government spending, we never weigh them against the additional burden they place on our society (n.b.: the real burden of government is not the weight of taxation, but the weight of government spending).

Given all of that, it is really exciting that Canadians for Liberty is up and running, providing a platform for bringing balance to our public debates and to defend and promote Liberty, and I am honoured to be a part of it. If you want to be part of it, let us know. If you want to find out more about our vision for Liberty, check out the sites that roll over under "Let the Revolution Begin" on the left sidebar.

Incoming!

I'm going to start cross-posting my Canadians for Liberty blog entries here.
And I'm going to do it retroactively too.
The reason? Just for myself, I want simple access to my catalogue.

A new beginning

Today is an exciting day: my first post is up on the new website Canadians for Liberty.
I will be posting most of my blogs on that website with a focus on Liberty in Canada.
Beta Bytes will stay around for historical reference, and as a place I can dump whatever comes to mind that doesn't really fit on the Canadians for Liberty page (as you might guess from the "Beta Bytes" name, I actually thought I'd write about technology when I started this blog!).

I hope you will join me over at Canadians for Liberty, and get involved too!

Save us, O Holy State

While the US is continuing to raid the businesses of those evil peddlers of medical marijuana (even under the Obamessiah), and spending hundreds of millions of dollars a year locking up dangerous marijuana users and entrepreneurs.
Canada is raising the bar to protect citizens from a most dangerous substance: raw milk!

The defendant, farmer Michael Schmidt, had this to say in his opening remarks (he's defending himself):

the respect to the individual's freedom has been lost or willfully ignored

So true ... it will be a shocking outcome for the court to start upholding individual freedom now.
But we can all sleep better knowing that regulators are keeping us safe (don't worry, Canada is not China, right?), and saving us from our foolish selves.

I can't wait to see the wonderfully stimulating budget later this week!
Don't you just love when the government stimulates you?

If you're determined to use nothing but the stick you're already holding ...

... and all you have is a dead horse, what are you to do but keep beating it?

So given the persistent problems with the economy (notice all the "weasel words" in Bernanke's appraisal of the effect of Obama's stimulus package), and our politicians' single-minded focus on stimulating the economy, is it a breath of fresh air to read Robert Murphy debunk the whole idea of there being "special" economic rules during downturns.

If you are skeptical of everything being proposed by our "leaders", and tired of being told (at least in a roundabout way) that "economics is complicated and, for a bunch of reasons you need a Ph.D. to understand, what your 'common sense' is telling you just doesn't work" and "trust us, we're the experts, and everyone who's an expert like us, agrees with us" (sounds similar to what we hear about the great threat of global warming climate change, but that is another story, for another time), please take some time and and read Robert's piece. At the very least, it is good to know that there are economists who disagree with bailouts and "stimulus", and not just of the Austrian variety.

Anyone want to hazard a guess on where this is going?

Terrorists are using social networking sites!

Remember what happened when we found out that terrorists used phones?

In a few more years we might read news like this:
This just in:
Literacy enables terrorist to communicate more effectively.
And in related news:
Troops in Afghanistan will begin rooting out insurgent teachers who are instructing the next generation of terrorists the techniques of reading and writing (arithmetic, a.k.a. math, had been banned long ago once it was discovered that 3rd grade Afghans were surpassing the proficiency of Western public high school graduates).

Or maybe instead of Afghan teachers, we might be chasing our own teachers.  At least those who don't "tow the line".  Oh, that may have already started ...