Microsoft Windows 7 Home Premium Upgrade

19999. Slick Shoes - Tired Of You
20000. Motion City Soundtrack - This Is For Real
20001. The Presidents of the United States of America - Last Girl on Earth

	Top 15 Artists Overall	Plays
1	The Presidents of the United States of America	943
2	Fountains of Wayne	858
3	Less Than Jake	741
4	The New Pornographers	567
5	Gnarls Barkley	494
6	Reel Big Fish	493
7	MxPx	480
8	Cake	459
9	Beck	452
10	The White Stripes	451
11	Goldfinger	446
12	The Hippos	428
13	Five Iron Frenzy	426
14	Incubus	415
15	Ben Folds Five	333

Noticed Paddy is coming up on 20k scrobbles too and we only share 1 Top 15 Artist yet our compatibility is VERY HIGH.

AN ACT EXEMPTING FROM FEDERAL REGULATION UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES A FIREARM, A FIREARM ACCESSORY, OR AMMUNITION MANUFACTURED AND RETAINED IN MONTANA; AND PROVIDING AN APPLICABILITY DATE.

If you aren't too familiar with interstate commerce, I found this excellent analysis of the original purpose for the federal government's power of regulating interstate commerce. The power to regulate was not meant to be on the actual items themselves, but the imposition of tariffs by states on each other and with foreign countries. If State A imports widgets from State B and State C, it would be harmful to state relations to allow State A to impose a tariff on the goods from State B and not on State C. State B could retaliate on State A and C with its own tariffs. It doesn't matter what the widget is, it is the actual "commerce" and "trade" that needs to be regulated.

The federal government has developed lots of powers using interstate commerce as a justification. Let's look at the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. In United States vs. Lopez, the government argued it could ban firearms in schools because possession of a firearm there would lead to violent crime which would cause damages, increase insurance rates and then spread to the greater economy there by affecting interstate commerce. The Supreme Court struck this down in 1995 because it gave the federal government nearly unlimited power to regulate anything that might eventually lead to violent crime. The powers of the federal government are enumerated in the Constitution and the court found that possession of a handgun was not a commercial activity or even remotely related to one.

So what's all this have to do with Montana? The law Montana passed makes firearm regulations justified by interstate commerce moot. If the federal government wanted to impose a 50 cent tax on each round of ammunition, it would use interstate commerce as a justification because that ammunition could move over state lines. Remember, there is no enumerated power given to Congress that specifically gives it the power to regulate ammunition. The Montana law says that if the ammunition is manufactured, sold, possessed and used in Montana, then the federal government has absolutely zero power to regulate that ammunition.

This is big. Utah and Texas have similar laws going through their state legislatures. States are telling the federal government that they want them to go the hell away. This isn't just about firearm laws either. The DEA has been prosecuting people here in California for marijuana violations even though the state okay'd medical marijuana over a decade ago. A similar law passed here could say that all marijuana grown, sold and used for medicinal purposes in California is exempt from federal law. This isn't about what issues you agree or disagree with, this is all about state rights and fighting back against unenumerated powers held by the federal government.

I truly believe the founding fathers never intended the government to wield such far reaching powers and any movement back towards the idea of putting the federal government in a box and leaving everything outside that box up to the states is okay with me. It will be interesting to see what happens with these laws and how things go down in the Supreme Court when they're eventually challenged. Something tells me the bureaucrats won't cede their power quietly.

• 1A - Extend tax increases for 2 more years with $16 billion coming out of tax payer pockets
• 1B - Takes money from 1A and gives it to schools
• 1C - Borrows $5 billion from future lottery "profits"
• 1D - Takes $600 million in tobacco revenues from some kids and gives it to other kids
• 1E - Takes $200 million of mental health money from some mental health programs and gives it to other mental health programs
• 1F - Politicians can't give themselves pay increases when there's a budget deficit

1F is the only one that even remotely looks like a good idea on the surface, but what the hell does it actually accomplish? Politicians aren't going to be more motivated to pass a balanced budget knowing they'll get a little bump in their salary when lots of them are already rich bastards. Funny how none of the propositions propose reducing the burden of government, the only option we have is to increase the burden or shift around who receives our money. If you missed it, here's my little quote I call The Encumbrance of Government.

So yeah, NO on all the propositions.

There were a couple things I wanted on the replacement stereo: black face and red backlighting to match the rest of the dash and a front auxiliary input for easy and cheap iPod integration. The Kenwood KDC-MP208 matched this pretty good and the price was hard to pass up, $59 shipped from one of the third party sellers at Amazon. If you are hooking an iPod up to an auxiliary input I highly suggest a cable that gives you a line level output like this Cables To Go - 4ft iPod Dock Connector to 3.5mm Cable

Head Unit: I got the Kenwood KDC-MP208 CD receiver. This looks like a good match too: Sony CDX-GT330

Wire Harness: Scosche HA08B Power Speaker Connector for 1998-Up Honda

Installation Steps

1. Pull off bottom plastic dash cover that houses the power adapter plug. There are little tabs on the side to get a screwdriver in. Pop one side out and firmly work the rest of it out. It might be tough at the end, just give it a good tug straight out and it will give.
2. Unplug power adapter to get it out of the way
3. Using a small ratcheting wrench with 8mm socket or stubby Philips screwdriver, unscrew the two screws going up towards the stereo. They're at a funky angle and there's not a whole lot of room to work. Might be a good job for someone with smaller hands. I loosened the screws and backed them out by hand to avoid the risk of dropping them into the bowels of the dash.
4. Once the screws are out the whole stereo and hazards section will slide out with a little force. Grab the back of the stereo mount through the dash and give it a real good pull. Mine had never been removed and it took some pretty good yanking to get it to budge. I used a screwdriver to pop a clip on the top right corner above the hazards switch. Slide it out a few inches and disconnect the hazards wiring harness and then the stereo's harness.
5. Unscrew the stock stereo from the bracket and replace it with the new unit. Plug it in with your prepared wiring harness and test to make sure everything is working. Pan to each of the channels to verify the speakers are connected correctly.
6. Plug the hazards harness back in or your turn signals won't work. Wonder how I know that?
7. Slide the whole thing back into the dash while trying to keep all the new wires on top of the stereo so they don't get smashed behind it
8. Replace the 2 screws and pop the dash cover back on. That's it.

I'm really happy with the results. The sound on the inexpensive Kenwood unit is much better than the stock stereo. The bottom end was very lacking before, but now it is more than adequate with the stock speakers. Radio reception is good and overall this just seems like a real solid, inexpensive car stereo.

Let's take one hypothetical situation, tweak the parameters a few times and see what effect the different parameters have on the outcome of an event like a public shooting.

Constant conditions:

• 1 large room with 1 door and no windows
• There are 20 people in the room
• A man enters the room armed with two semi-automatic pistols and extra loaded magazines with the intent of murdering everyone in the room (public shooters are overwhelmingly male so that was intentional)
• The gunman has the element of surprise and has a pretty good idea about who will be occupying the room

Situation #1: All 20 people in the room are members of law enforcement armed with Glock 21 .45 semi-automatic pistols.
Result #1: The gunman enters the room and begins firing immediately. By the time officers identify the gunman as a threat and neutralize the threat, several of them have been struck.

Situation #2: All 20 occupants of the room are normal citizens. 2 of the occupants have concealed weapon permits and are carrying semi-automatic pistols concealed on their person.
Result #2: The gunman enters the room knowing that someone could potentially have a concealed weapon. He cautiously opens fire as he does not know who might be armed. Both armed occupants draw their weapons and neutralize the threat. Several occupants were struck including one of the armed occupants.

Situation #3: All 20 of the occupants are normal citizens. State law either prohibits all weapons in the building and the surrounding area or concealed carry is explicitly illegal everywhere. The gunman, who has premeditated the murder of everyone in the room, breaks this law when he pulls into the parking lot with the firearms.
Result #3: The gunman enters the room and begins methodically murdering the occupants of the room. The gunman is confident that he will not encounter armed resistance. Several occupants attempt to rush the gunman, but are killed before disarming him. After killing the resistive occupants, the gunman orders his hostages against the wall. He moves to each one and shoots them in the head. After making sure everyone in the room is dead, he turns the gun on himself.

1. Which situation sounds the most familiar?
2. Which situation is the most tragic?
3. Are gun free zones like a university safer than areas saturated with legally carried firearms like a police department?
4. Does concealed carry by law abiding citizens increase or decrease a murderer's effectiveness in carrying out a multiple victim public shooting?
5. Would someone intent on murdering innocent people go where he will meet zero armed resistance or where he might encounter armed resistance?

Common sense questions that have common sense answers.

For St. Patrick's Day we had dinner and hung out with friends and babies. Lighting was fairly low with a chandelier fixture in the dining room and one floor lamp bouncing off the ceiling in the living room. Even wide open at f/1.8, AUTO ISO was getting bumped up to keep the shutter above 1/40 second in some shots. Combine that with babies who don't politely sit still for pictures and you have yourself a difficult shooting situation. Take a look through the gallery:

From St. Patty's 2009

With one of the kit lenses or even the 18-200mm VR, most of these shots wouldn't have been possible. I had some ISO to play with on some, but most of them are hitting 1600 or 3200. If I stepped up to a minimum f/3.5 lens, my shutter would have dropped even more and my "keeper" rate would have dropped from 10% to maybe 3-5% without adding flash.

I'm extremely pleased with the lens. I swore off pixel peeping so I'm not going to go into boring details or shooting test charts. All I cared about initially was if the lens let me get indoor shots without using flash all of the time. If you're happy with the DX format (and happy not spending thousands more on a new FX body and lens) then I suspect you'll find the image and build quality of the lens more than satisfactory. What surprised me is that I'm starting to like the 35mm f/1.8 more than the 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 VR AF-S DX .

One thing to consider with lenses is the size and weight. Compared to the 18-55mm the 35mm isn't a whole lot smaller or lighter, but next to the 18-200mm it is night and day. I got the 18-200mm as a walk around, jack of all trades lens and now the size and weight have become deterrents to taking it out with me. The 18-200mm weighs 1.23 lbs. The 35mm weighs 0.45 lbs. The D90 weighs 1.6 lbs by itself. That's a lot of weight to carry around all day on vacation or on a night out and I'd rather have 0.78 lbs less most of the time. The other difference is the 35mm situates it's weight closer to the body of the lens. The 18-200mm is front heavy and more awkward to carry around, it usually ends up pointed straight down with the zoom fully extended when I hang the camera on my shoulder.

I could never use the 50mm f/1.8 as a walk around lens because it was simply too long. I use the wider end of the 18-200mm more than I use the long end so I don't think I'll miss the extra reach. The 35mm f/1.8 isn't perfect, but it is such a well rounded lens that it might replace my 18-200mm and never leave my camera. At $200 I think it packs the best bang for your buck in the entire Nikon DX lens line up.

I got my Nikon 35mm f/1.8 at Amazon.