The Daily Parker

Busy day, so I'm just flagging these for later:

• Microsoft has released new Azure Database tiers in preview, with migration required in a year.
• Stephen Colbert told Jon Stewart he's leaving.
• Via the Atlantic Cities blog, an interactive map of London rents by Tube stop.
• Atlantic Cities also reports on a new opera about Jane Jacobs that tells the story of her victory in 1960 over Robert Moses.
• Also check out the interactive Manahatta Project map showing New York in 1609 overlaid by 2014, in block-level detail.

Back to the mines...

As of today, 8 million people have signed up for health insurance under the Affordable Care Act. Krugman puts it in perspective:

[T]he benefits of Obamacare, for all its imperfections, are immense. Millions of people who lived extremely anxious lives now have far more security than before. Compared with those benefits, the complaints of some already insured people that they have less choice of doctors than before, or that they’re no longer allowed to retain minimalist plans, look like whining. (And of course not one of the more serious-sounding stories about soaring premiums and all that has held up under scrutiny.)

And speaking of whining, the GOP response seems to be to make every possible insinuation to the effect that the numbers are somehow fraudulent. I actually don’t think there’s a game plan here; their whole position was premised on the inevitable collapse of health reform, and they have no plan B.

Winning.

Right on time—i.e., six months after screwing up worse than any HHS secretary in history—Kathleen Sibelius has resigned:

Health and Human Service Secretary Kathleen Sebelius is resigning, U.S. officials told NBC News on Thursday.

U.S. officials told NBC News that President Barack Obama would nominate Sylvia Mathews Burwell, currently director of the White House Office and Management and Budget, to succeed Sebelius, 65, the former governor of Kansas, who was an original member of the Cabinet that Obama appointed when he took office in January 2009.

No reason for Sebelius' departure, was immediately available, but she came under sustained criticism as head of the agency in charge of the controversial rollout of Obama's health care reform initiative.

For those of you reading overseas, particularly in the U.K., we do things differently than most other democracies. In the U.K., when a minister completely fails at his job, he resigns more or less immediately, and gets back in government (or shadow government) usually at the next election. In the U.S., when a cabinet secretary completely fails, she waits six months, resigns, and never holds that level of responsibility again.

Now, contrast British and American bankruptcy laws and you will see how completely backwards these things are. British bankruptcy ruins a person; it's really the very-last-ditch thing you can do before living on the street. American bankruptcy is a chance to start over, and usually done just at the point where a person is in serious default but not yet destitute.

So it's interesting how our government resignations are just the opposite. Then again, someone like Sibelius will usually has no trouble earning millions on the lecture-and-book circuit, which I believe isn't an option in the U.K.

Anyway, Sibelius has resigned pretty much six months to the day that her epic failure became public knowledge. It's the American way, after all.

First, we get the worst cold and the most snow of any winter in the last 32 years. It even alienates many of its allies with its stubbornness in the face of popular (and meteorological) opposition, refusing to give up a fight it can't win. Finally, warm weather finally prevails, ending the snow's doomed effort to hold ground it will never be able to keep. This is Monday morning:

Then, just when we were loosening our scarves, Arizona hit this morning:

Winter, you're just making people despise you more. It's the middle of March already. Not only will you be gone and forgotten in two months, but an ENSO event is forming in the Pacific right now, so you won't even be back next season.

Go away, winter. You're obsolete, losing even your friends, and damaging the country.

One of the funnier things I've seen recently:

I'm David Braverman, this is my blog, and Parker is my 7½-year-old mutt. I last updated this About... page in September 2011, more than 1,300 posts back, so it's time for a refresh.

The Daily Parker is about:

• Parker, my dog, whom I adopted on 1 September 2006.
• Politics. I'm a moderate-lefty by international standards, which makes me a radical left-winger in today's United States.
• The weather. I've operated a weather website for more than 13 years. That site deals with raw data and objective observations. Many weather posts also touch politics, given the political implications of addressing climate change, though happily we no longer have to do so under a president beholden to the oil industry.
• Chicago (the greatest city in North America), and sometimes London, San Francisco, and the rest of the world.
• Photography. I took tens of thousands of photos as a kid, then drifted away from making art until early 2011 when I finally got the first digital camera I've ever had whose photos were as good as film. That got me reading more, practicing more, and throwing more photos on the blog. In my initial burst of enthusiasm I posted a photo every day. I've pulled back from that a bit—it takes about 30 minutes to prep and post one of those puppies—but I'm still shooting and still learning.

I also write a lot of software, and will occasionally post about technology as well. I work for 10th Magnitude, a startup software consultancy in Chicago, I've got more than 20 years experience writing the stuff, and I continue to own a micro-sized software company. (I have an online resume, if you're curious.) I see a lot of code, and since I often get called in to projects in crisis, I see a lot of bad code, some of which may appear here.

I strive to write about these and other things with fluency and concision. "Fast, good, cheap: pick two" applies to writing as much as to any other creative process (cf: software). I hope to find an appropriate balance between the three, as streams of consciousness and literacy have always struggled against each other since the first blog twenty years ago.

If you like what you see here, you'll probably also like Andrew Sullivan, James Fallows, Josh Marshall, and Bruce Schneier. Even if you don't like my politics, you probably agree that everyone ought to read Strunk and White, and you probably have an opinion about the Oxford comma—punctuation de rigeur in my opinion.

Thanks for reading, and I hope you continue to enjoy The Daily Parker.

Security guru Bruce Schneier wonders if the iOS security flaw recently reported was deliberate:

Last October, I speculated on the best ways to go about designing and implementing a software backdoor. I suggested three characteristics of a good backdoor: low chance of discovery, high deniability if discovered, and minimal conspiracy to implement.

The critical iOS vulnerability that Apple patched last week is an excellent example. Look at the code. What caused the vulnerability is a single line of code: a second "goto fail;" statement. Since that statement isn't a conditional, it causes the whole procedure to terminate.

If the Apple auditing system is any good, they would be able to trace this errant goto line not just to the source-code check-in details, but to the specific login that made the change. And they would quickly know whether this was just an error, or a deliberate change by a bad actor. Does anyone know what's going on inside Apple?

Schneier has argued previously that the NSA's biggest mistake was dishonesty. Because we don't know what they're up to, and because they've lied so often about it, people start to believe the worst about technology flaws. This Apple error could have been a stupid programmer error, merge conflict, or something in that category. But we no longer trust Apple to work in our best interests.

This is a sad state of affairs.

I shouldn't have done it, but I just smacked someone down on Facebook. The exchange started when a college friend posted this photo (click for full size):

You will recall that Connecticut passed a firearms law about a year ago in response to the horrific mass-murder of children at Newtown in December 2012. Connecticut's law prohibits certain assault weapons and larger magazines in an effort to make it harder to kill 26 children with one weapon at one sitting.

I happen to think this law doesn't go far enough, preferring Australia's response to a similar event. Unfortunately, too many Americans prefer more guns and more murders to fewer guns and "less liberty."

So, after I posted a gently sarcastic response to someone's line about Connecticut's "tyranny," the guy fired back, and then I unloaded in a six-point, well-reasoned response. I know, it was a futile waste of time. It's just that I have a right to stand my ground and defend myself with everything in my intellectual arsenal, because FIRST AMENDMENT FUCK YEAH!

Here's the full exchange:

Jennifer (O.P., sharing the photo): Don't let anyone tell you "no one's coming to take your guns" because it's happening. - http://gunown.rs/1egzGtS

Sherman Kearns: Agreed Motherfuckers!

Wilson E Cuevas: Let's just pray that they take a stand against this tyranny.

David Braverman: Yeah, it's awful. Now in Connecticut, you can only kill 10 people at a time instead of 50. Tyranny, indeed. A democratically-elected state legislature passed a popular bill limiting the destructive power of individual weapons, to the great relief of an overwhelming majority of the state's residents.

Looked at another way: the line between permissible and impermissible firepower in Connecticut shifted in the direction of less firepower. If you argue that's tyranny, you'll have to discuss whether you think nuclear weapons should be permissible in Connecticut. Or tanks. Or armed fighter jets.

Wilson E Cuevas: David Braverman,you seen to be confused or your a democrat. Our constitution gives the same equal fire power as the government when it comes to tyranny. So better explained so you can understand it,in 1776 our founding father fought the king of England who in todays world would be considered the government. When they won the battle they knew that the only way to defeat the gov was weapon for weapon. In time the gov,weapon has gotten advanced. And as theirs did so did ours. As for your dumm remark about tanks and nuclear,those are weapon of war against foreign enemies not for our soul. Which is why we have a law in our constitution against our own military on our streets. But don't get me and the real American citizens,in time of a civil war,it will be weapon for weapon. As for the American people possessing 100 rnds or 500 guns it's our business not the government. We all have the rights to defend our selves and our loved ones. And with the very same guns that will be used in war. If a criminal brakes into a house then that's the criminals problem which weapon the home owner decides to defend himself with. But if you have a problem with our rights to near arms,then you need to get in contact with pierce Morgan and leave America. And why your even on this page beats the heck out of me. How can you confuse Michael Bloomberg jenniferwarewolves?

David Braverman: Some quibbles:

1. The Constitution says, "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." In other words, the *states* have the right to have *state* militias. "The people" in this case is ambiguous, and there are valid arguments today (and there were in 1791, when the amendment passed) on both sides whether it meant "the people" as a group (i.e., states), or "the people" as individuals. We've been having this argument for 223 years. You're not dumb, and neither am I; it's just you want an absolute rule that says "all guns are fine" and I want a compromise that most people can accept.

2. George Washington, John Adams, and everyone else leading our revolution were very, very clear that they were engaged in treason, and had they lost, they knew they'd be hauled back to London and beheaded on the Mall. The only reason New York is part of the US instead of Canada is that the Patriots won. And the UK didn't accept our independence until 1815, which is why we fought a second war against them in 1812.

3. Jennifer is far better looking than Michael Bloomberg.

4. There is nothing in the Constitution prohibiting the U.S. military from acting domestically. The Posse Comitatus Act is a simple law, and can be repealed, and has been broken more than once. For example, did you know that the governor of Illinois called out the U.S. Army, complete with tanks, against the Chicago mob in the 1920s? Or that the U.S. Navy shelled New York City in 1863?

5. Even though the likelihood of another civil war in the U.S. is lower than the likelihood of Sarah Palin seeing Russia from her front window, do you honestly believe a few people with assault weapons would slow down the U.S. army? A quarter-million Iraqis with assault weapons didn't make a dent in our forces.

Our best defense against a civil war is a set of strong political institutions backed up by an educated, reasonable populace. Once the shooting starts, we've all lost. To think otherwise is dangerous fantasy.

6. Getting back to #3, I'm here because I've known Jennifer for many years, since we were kids in college, and I respect her opinions even while I disagree with them. We met when I was president of the Young Democrats and she was in the College Republicans. Which goes back to #5, I'd bet money that she and I both agree on having a political argument without firing blindly into the rhetorical crowd. Which brings me back to my main point: unregulated firearms with unlimited firepower, like ill-informed opinions, sometimes wind up in the hands of people without the skills or sanity to deploy them without hurting themselves and others.

No response yet from either Jennifer or Wilson, except he liked point #3.

Update, 14:00 CST: Cuevas responds:

I must admit,you had me laughing with #3. I so much agree. And I respect your feelings about who and what a person can and should have. But I am sure that when our founding fathers write the second amendment,they did not mean only a state militia. You have to keep in mind that not only was the king on a power trip,so is a state. And they we're aware of this and knew that the people will one day have to raise up again. As for #4,it's very true,it's also true that at this moment the government has candles it again. Which is why we have foreign troops trying to disarm us. The constitution was written to protect the people. It wasn't written to be suspended when ever they chose too. And yes our founding fathers knew they we're breaking the law,and they also knew that it was an unconstitutional law. So in reality the laws they broke we're laws that was wrong and illegal. We can go on and on till the lights go out,but in the end it all books down to one thing,and that's that their coming and their not coming for coffee. And no matter how you feel about the 2nd amendment,I know your not an idiot and you yourself are or need to be prepared.

And to give you a little bit of info about me,I was a gang banger. I robbed,stole,pumped,sold and took. Today I am 44 yrs old who opened his eyes to the other side of the world. Today I am a public servant,I pay my unconstitutional taxes,and I help those that people like you refuse to help because of fear of the consequences. I am a very strong supporter of my constitution. I believe in freedom liberty and God. If I was to see you getting hurt I would be that stranger who would stop and defend your life. If I saw you being abused by a crooked law enforcement,I would help you. If you ran out of bullets I would give you mine. But what I wouldn't do is let someone trample on my constitution,bill of rights and our freedom to privacy and especially my guns and God. So no matter what you believe in,you need to prepare yourself for what's coming. Because no matter what you believe in it's not going to feed you,protect you. So go hear up,and if you think we're all crazy,I would to be there to see you fight with a kitchen knife or screaming while they beat you down.

No response from me, I think.

Mother Jones' Climate Desk takes a look at the (actually scientific) argument between climatologists Jennifer Francis and Kevin Trenberth over whether the mid-latitude jet stream is changing permanently, making winters more intense:

Jennifer Francis, of Rutgers University, has advanced an influential theory suggesting that winters like this one may be growing more likely to occur. The hypothesis is that by rapidly melting the Arctic, global warming is slowing down the fast-moving river of air far above us known as the jet stream—in turn causing weather patterns to get stuck in place for longer, and leading to more extremes of the sort that we've all been experiencing. "There is a lot of pretty tantalizing evidence that our hypothesis seems to be bearing some fruit," Francis explained on the latest installment of the Inquiring Minds podcast. The current winter is a "perfect example" of the kind of jet stream pattern that her research predicts, Francis added (although she emphasized that no one atmospheric event can be directly blamed on climate change).

Francis's idea has gained rapid celebrity, no doubt because it seems to make sense of our mind-boggling weather. After all, it isn't often that an idea first published less than two years is strongly embraced by the president's science adviser in a widely watched YouTube video. And yet in a letter to the journal Science last week, five leading climate scientists—mainstream researchers who accept a number of other ideas about how global warming is changing the weather, from worsening heat waves to driving heavier rainfall—strongly contested Francis's jet stream claim, calling it "interesting" but contending that "alternative observational analyses and simulations have not confirmed the hypothesis." One of the authors was the highly influential climate researcher Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, who also appeared on Inquiring Minds this week alongside Francis to debate the matter.

What's going on here? In climate science, too many of the "debates" that we hear about are fake, trumped up affairs generated by climate skeptics who aim to sow doubt. But that's not the case here: The argument over Francis's work is real, legitimate, and damn interesting to boot. There is, quite simply, a massive amount at stake. The weather touches all of us personally and immediately. Indeed, social scientists have shown that our recent weather experience is a powerful determinant of whether we believe in global warming in the first place. If Francis is right, the very way that we experience global warming will be vastly different than scientists had, until now, foreseen—and perhaps will stay that way for our entire lives.

Skepticism underpins scientific inquiry, so this should be a great and healthy debate. We'll also get more data in the next few years that may support or dispute Francis' position.

Meanwhile, here in Chicago, the temperature plunged overnight to -17°C (also know as "minus fuckall"), and will stay down there at least through next week. This means that for the entire meterological winter season, from December 1 to February 28, Chicago will have had only six low temperatures above freezing, and since January 1st only 5 days above freezing.

Go home, Arctic. You're an asshole.

A person was removed from a commuter train this morning and taken to a hospital for psychiatric evaluation. Why? It could have to do with where he was standing:

Passengers on the Metra Union Pacific North line train heading out of the city witnessed a person jumping from the top of the outbound train to the inbound train that was headed to downtown Chicago.

"We can see his shadow," passenger Mike Pastore told RedEye. "There's a building next to the train and we can see the shadow of the man on top of the train. We can't see him directly, but we can hear him running back and forth on top of the train."

In another story about a man being removed from somewhere he should never have been, CNN has fired Piers Morgan. Don't let the door hit your ass, Piers.