I Already Googled It

Walking from the office to the parkade, I walked through Centennial Square and was disgusted by the communists out in force.

Got home and wrote/sent this:

Today – May 1^st – is “International Workers Day”, and consequently the communists were decorating Centennial Square with their signs and slogans.

I must question why people flirt – even in such small numbers – with such a dangerous ideology.  In the past century, in its various incarnations – China, the U.S.S.R., and Cambodia most notably – it has claimed over one hundred million lives.

There is nothing good about Communism.  It is an ideology to which only those who covet power and unearned wealth flock.

Apologists claim that the implementation was flawed, that it would be paradise were only the correct people in charge.  This is not mere rhetoric, this is the prospect of millions more sacrificed to the insatiable flame of “the common good”.

We treasure – if not other property – our self-ownership.  The right to decide for ourselves what happens to our body and in our lives.  Communism and communists seek to take that away.  They seek to bind themselves and their fellow man in perpetuity to the will of the state.

Under our (mostly) capitalist system, you find vast supermarkets overflowing with the essentials of life.  Millions of Chinese, Russians, and Cambodians starved in squalor desperate for such a miracle.

The minimum wage here in B.C. recently jumped from the lowest in Canada to the highest ($10.25).

I sent a letter to the editor to honour the occasion:

Today the minimum wage in B.C. rose to $10.25.

Despite what many people may instinctually believe, this is not a good thing.  In fact, a higher minimum wage will only cause one of two things: Higher unemployment, or higher prices.

When you work, you do so to add value to your employer.  The way that you do this is by producing more than you cost.  If someone is paid $10.25/hr, they must increase the revenue of their employer by at least $10.25/hr, otherwise they simply will not be employed – the employer would lose money by keeping them on.

If we understand employment in this way, it becomes apparent that raising the minimum wage does one of two things: It either forces those who are particularly unproductive out (i.e. raises unemployment), or it forces employers to make it easier to add value (i.e. raises prices).

Counter-intuitively, if we want to improve the lot of those un- and underemployed, we must abolish the minimum wage.  This will allow unskilled workers – those who cannot add $10.25 of value per hour – to be employed, giving them both an income and experience – allowing them to become skilled and more productive rather than wallowing in unemployability.

The highest minimum wage in Canada – B.C.’s newest distinction – is nothing to be proud of.

Perhaps you’ve seen this dialog when using Microsoft Outlook:

You may have noticed that occasionally the “[a]lways ask before opening this type of file” is greyed out—as it is in the screenshot above. There’s actually some very interesting Windows heritage to this.

For backwards compatibility (the hallmark of all things weird and interesting in MS Windows) there’s a redundant registry hive in Windows—HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT, otherwise known as HKCR—which presents a “merged” view of HKLM\Software\Classes and HKCU\Software\Classes.  The reason it exists “[f]or backwards compatibility” is that back in the day, when Windows was 16-bit, it wasn’t multi-user—there was no HKCU, since the distinction of multiple users didn’t exist, so it didn’t make sense to have a “current” one, and accordingly HHLM\Software\Classes and HKCU\Software\Classes were one hive—HKCR.

Under HKCR is Windows’ file association data.  There’s a key under it for each file extension—all the keys which begin with a dot—and a plethora of keys with descriptive names.

The information about file types is split out into two keys—the key which represents its file extension, and the key which represents its actual logical type.

The key which represents a file extension has as its default value a REG_SZ which points to the actual logical type of that file extension, and accordingly another key under HKCR.

For example, if you have Chrome installed and setup as your default browser, you should be able to obtain the following from the command prompt:

C:\Users\rleahy>REG QUERY HKCR\.htm /ve

HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\.htm
    (Default)    REG_SZ    ChromeHTML

C:\Users\rleahy>REG QUERY HKCR\.html /ve

HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\.html
    (Default)    REG_SZ    ChromeHTML

.htm and .html are two separate file extensions—there are two separate keys for them under HKCR—but both of them have a pointer to the same logical file type—”ChromeHTML“.

UAC means that even if you’re logged in as an administrator, your programs are still running with user-only privileges.  This means that even though all this file association data appears to be in the same hive, it’s not.  Accordingly, Outlook may have the rights to modify some—if they’re defined in HKCU\Software\Classes—and may not have rights to modify others—if they’re defined in HKLM\Software\Classes. This is why the checkbox is always greyed out, and why tutorials elsewhere on the internet tell you to run Outlook as administrator to put these dialogs to rest.

But, editing the registry is a much simpler, much more straightforward, and much more scalable way to change this behaviour.

Under the key which represents the actual logical type of a file—in our example ChromeHTML—there either exists, or may exist, a value called “EditFlags“.  It should be of the type REG_BINARY.  Setting it to 00 00 01 00 will suppress the behaviour, whereas setting it to 00 00 00 00 will reenable the dialogs.

For our ChromeHTML example:

C:\Windows\system32>REG ADD HKCR\ChromeHTML /v EditFlags /f /t REG_BINARY /d 000
00100
The operation completed successfully.

In response to this:

It is nonsensical to oppose “legislatures […] buy[ing] votes with other provinces’ money”, and yet advocate “tax recognition for the costs of raising children”.  They are the same thing.

In one instance, costs are transferred from the people of one province to the people of another.  In another, costs are transferred from those with children to those without.

Having children is a choice.  Many people opt out, many people opt in.  Since the costs of running the government do not go down when tax deductions are given, those costs must then be borne by others.  Advocating for deductions for those with children is advocating for those without children to pay more.

Moreover, children are a driver of government costs.  Public schooling – in particular – is entirely child-driven.  These costs are borne by everyone, and yet benefit only those with children.  So rather than taxing those with children more – to reflect their increased advantage – we should give them tax breaks, expecting others to pay more for less?

If we value equality, the government should remain neutral and allow everyone to live equally – without special advantages or disadvantages.  A wealth transfer from those without children to those with – whether in the form of spending or tax breaks – is a special advantage.

Children are expensive, it’s a fact of life and a consequence of the decision to have children, not something the government should be trying to ease with other peoples’ money.

In response to this:

Every controversial event is followed by cries of “there ought to be a law!”  I imagine the people crying out do not consider the implications thereof:

If someone went independently to a car dealership, discovered they were – for example – selling cars capable of a top speed of over 150km/h, and proceeded to take money (i.e. levy a fine) or kidnap the owner and/or employees (i.e. jail them), we’d be aghast and expect the police to find and arrest the perpetrator.

Unless, of course, the people committing this act weren’t acting independently, were wearing uniforms, and were there in accordance with “the law” – i.e. edicts written on pieces of paper – then we’d feel that the perpetrators deserve to be praised and thanked for their “service”.

This dissonance alone should be sufficient to make reactionaries question their premises.  If something is abhorrent for one person acting independently, why is it any less so for a group of people acting on orders?  Is being mugged less evil and less undesirable if you’re mugged by five people rather than one?

This also raises the question: Is violence an acceptable solution?  Should any person – or any number of people – be authorized to use violence simply because some influential person or people don’t like the victim’s otherwise benign behaviour?

We’re appalled by dictators who punish people for their speech and religious beliefs, but do we really have the right to assume the moral high ground?

In response to this (and some pent up angst about collectivism in general):

The question “[w]hat do we want our city to look like?” demonstrates a common fallacy and blight upon politics: That “the people” collectively own the sum of wealth available, and that “owners” merely hold some portion at the leisure of “the people”.

Regardless of any vote, “the people” do not legitimately own the City of Victoria or any of its municipalities.  They may each individually own some part of it, but there is no “the people” with its own independent volition or claims to ownership.

This is the fundamental fallacy of the politics of collectivism.  That “society” or “the people” exist as entities with their own wants, needs, and desires.  These are rhetorical tricks to disguise problems of consent.  People do not unanimously concur in anything, so to glaze over the fact that they’re advocating mob rule, collectivists use “we” or “society” or “the people” to create a veneer of unanimity that does not exist.

We see this in “[s]urely we want […] a[n] […] art gallery, music conservatory and historical sites”.  I know of many people – myself included – who do not want these things, and thusly do not want to pay for them.

The justification for taxation is that it funds things held in common, for the use and benefit of all.  I do not benefit from art galleries, nor do I use them, so subsidizing them with a tax break is illegitimate.  They must survive on individual wants, expressed through the free market on an even playing field.

In response to this:

People crying for “proportional representation” ought to consider their premises.

Why is 51% the magic number?  Why is gaining control of the country with the vote of 51 out of every 100 people somehow more legitimate than gaining control with 40 out of every 100 people?

If you are a member of a group of 100, and you disagree with 40 of them, would 11 people agreeing with those 40 somehow make the 40 more correct or you less correct?  Would “there are more of us” be a convincing/compelling argument?  77.1% of people in Canada are Christians, does this mean that there is a God and that atheists are incorrect?

Argumentum ad populum is not a convincing or compelling argument.  Advocating for the total control of 51% – democracy – is no more or less noble than advocating for the total control of 1 – autocracy.  You are still advocating a system of control and coercion.  What difference is it to the oppressed if they are oppressed by 51% or 1?  Does the number of people deciding upon the oppression lessen its impact or increase its justification?

Moreover, one should consider the purpose of our parliamentary structure before advocating changes to it.  Our voting system is not designed to select a party to rule the entire country – the Constitution limits the power of the federal government – it’s to select representatives to take our local concerns to Parliament.  We should work to lessen the power of political parties, not exalt them.

Programs may return a code when they exit.  In C this is the value that main returns.  By convention, success is 0, failure is non-zero.

Apparently, however, the developers of Robocopy — which is otherwise an exemplary and indispensable utility – didn’t get this memo, which caused a problem that plagued me for 2.5 years.

A bit of background here:

When a database is modified, the database engine writes the changes into the database proper, and also logs the change in aptly-named log files.  It’s usual to put the log files on a separate physical volume from the database proper.

This way, if the volume containing the database proper fails, you can take your last backup, merge all the changes recorded in the log files into it, and it’s like nothing ever happened.

The issue here is that the database engine has to know that a backup occurred, at which point it can purge all log files (since you have the database in a consistent state with the transactions in the logs merged in, which makes them irrelevant and unnecessary).

Under the hood a bit here.  Windows has the abilities to make shadow copies, which are basically a snapshot of a drive.  So you take a snapshot — i.e. make a shadow copy — of a drive, and then you can copy off of it while the drive is still being used.

This is a great way to backup production servers.  But what if you take a snapshot with a file to be backed up in an inconsistent state?  And if you create a shadow copy and then copy it, how does a database engine know you created a backup?

For this reason, database engines have a VSS writer, which the shadow copy service can contact and notify about copies.  When you create a shadow copy, the write is notified, and can delay the snapshot until it’s placed the files it controls in a consistent state.  When you use a shadow copy to make a backup, the writers are notified and can purge logs.

The way you can do this simply and easily is with a command line utility present in Server 2008 and Server 2008 R2 — DiskShadow.

DiskShadow can operate unattended by running from a DSH file, which is essentially a script that runs within DiskShadow.

Here’s what one looks like:

set verbose on
#delete shadows all
set context persistent
writer verify {76fe1ac4-15f7-4bcd-987e-8e1acb462fb7}
set metadata C:\Backup_Scripts\shadowmetadata.cab
begin backup
add volume C: alias SH1

create

expose %SH1% P:
exec C:\Backup_Scripts\exchangeserverbackupscript1.cmd
end backup
delete shadows exposed P:
exit

(A detailed explanation of the above can be found here.)

The important lines are “begin backup” and “end backup”.  These cause VSS writers to be notified.  And assuming success, on “end backup” will cause log files to be purged automatically.

However, when Robocopy returned 1 — causing the script containing it to return 1 also — DiskShadow thought the backup had failed, and therefore my Exchange — which is what was being backed up (its write has the identifier seen above) — thought the backup had failed, and therefore believed that I didn’t have a copy of the database in a consistent state, and therefore kept every log file for 2.5 years, which accumulated to 45 gigabytes.

For comparison, the database itself is only ~5 gigabytes.

The solution?  Filter Robocopy’s return codes, as follows:

robocopy "P:\Program Files\Microsoft\Exchange Server\Mailbox\First Storage Group" "\\leahyfs\J$\E-Mail Backups\Day 1" /MIR /R:0 /W:0 /COPY:DT /B
IF ERRORLEVEL 1 exit /B 0
exit /B 1

You’ve been warned…

In response to this:

The reason that unions exist is to collectively bargain on behalf of their members, but this only works when both parties have equal and opposite incentives.  Management in the private sector has an incentive to minimize costs, whereas workers have an incentive to maximize wages and benefits.  Their relationship is adversarial, and therefore they must strike a balance.

Management in the public sector has an incentive to achieve political gains, accomplished by pleasing the electorate.  This same electorate placidly pays exorbitant rates of tax, has little to no regard for fiscal rectitude, and may be swayed by union advertising dollars.

A public sector union elects their own boss, who pays them with other peoples’ money, and has no incentive to turn a profit or even break even.

As the teachers debacle has shown us, public sector unions have nothing to do with raising or maintaining high levels of payment.  The government can rewrite contracts willy-nilly to pay however much they want, provided the political incentives are in place.

Increasing government revenue to save money is an oxymoron.  Ronald Reagan was right; government doesn’t tax to get the money it needs, but rather needs the money it gets.

I have nothing against public sector workers, but I have everything against programs funded by money I am compelled to pay.

The rhetoric of politicians and public sector union leaders boils down to one word:

More.

Public sector unions are a pet peeve of mine — they’re a massive wealth transfer – so if the letter seems vitriolic, that’s why.

In response to this:

Rob Maxwell states that as someone who “usually walks, cycles, or takes transit” he “resent[s] having to subsidize the ‘free’ parking for those who choose to drive”.

Does he not realize that the transit he so proudly takes does not turn a profit?  That the revenue from fares and tickets does not cover B.C. Transit’s operating costs?

Where does he think the difference between revenue and costs comes from?

The taxpayer, of course, some of whom drive and never use transit – just as he never uses “free” parking.

This is a problem with any “free” or subsidized services from the government.  People resent those receiving handouts which they aren’t, but readily take and defend the handouts that they do benefit from.

TANSTAAFL.  Let’s pass the costs through to the point of use.

It’ll certainly make me feel better about the $156 I pay to park downtown each month.