Pangloss

Damn, I'm sorry to hear that. This sounds to me like a good example of where some degree of federal dollars would help, because the Rockies are clearly a national resource, not just a Coloradoan one (though you all are kind enough to do most of the preservation work for us). Yah we're completely on the same page with ski transportation. It's a very limiting set of circumstances -- carrying specialized equipment, going mainly to a few specific locations, and so forth -- absolutely ideal for rail service. I could also see tourists connecting to maybe Grand Junction and then picking up a green-bus-based sightseeing service to see those amazing national parks in the summer time. Utah would spit a brick. I hope they work that out.

Interesting. I had been under the general impression in the past that that "down home" image was working for him with the right, just as it does with Sarah Palin. I can certainly see how it rubs the latte-sippers the wrong way, but it must be right for the jambalaya crowd. I think the real question is how well it plays over the radio while waiting in line for a harried foreclosure judge at the courthouse. Probably not so great.

Nice pic.

What exactly is a volume discount? Does it have to reflect an actual, logistically-realizable deduction, or can it simply be a marketing ploy and still have validity both for end user and manufacturer?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/03/09/obama-says-government-open-door-human-cloning/ Interesting. If Bush had said that (and I think he did!), this board would have been all over him for stupidity in the face of science. Other countries are already exploring cloning, right? So is Obama just another stupid religious zealot? I don't agree with his decision here, but I think he's walking a fine line between religious objections and legitimate ethical concerns. This has the feel of a statement that's just meant to appease people about embryonic stem cell research, doesn't it?

Yay, now we can fix the world, which of course is our job. The sunburned-man's burden!

I see a lot of ideological preference creeping into this thread, which always seems to happen when this subject comes up. There's great power in the mobility and flexibility created by personal transportation. We're managing our space very effectively, in my opinion. Why do some people feel a compulsion to throw away one of the very things that have made us so effective at marshaling our resources and building this incredible economy? The answer seems far more ideological than scientific. In my opinion we're going to work out the energy and environmental issues WITHOUT giving up our mobility or even our SUVs. Why shouldn't we? It's not "greed" or "attachment", it's flexibility, freedom, and POWER. There's no reason to give that up if we don't have to, and we don't have to. Here's a crazy thought (which, by the way, happens to be Obama's plan): What if we just used the best technology in the most suitable places? In places where high speed rail actually makes sense (like the I-70 corridor in Colorado), let's build high speed rail. In other places where it's not suitable, we won't build it.

VB has perfectly serviceable IF statements. I think Klaynos has the best answer here so far.

The problem, of course, being that you have no idea what the "point of no return" may be. Your opinion is as modified by your ideology as everyone else's here, so I think you know that nobody's taking your posts as objective evidence. Economics is an inexact science. I don't know what you mean by "Separating Fiscal and Social Conservatism are non negotiable." If you mean "can't be done", that seems quite silly. You don't get to determine other people's ideologies. Also you should consider stopping your equating of governmental systems with economic ones. We've known for many years now that the two are not the same.

Well I don't know, Objective C, C#, Java, it seems like six of one, half a dozen of the other to me. I always listen to what you say when it comes to programming because you seem to know a lot more about it than I do, but at the lighter level that I tend to work at what makes iPhone programming different is actually the IDE and tool set combined with the underlying iPhone operational philosophy, which is really unique and interesting. I've been working on this off and on for a couple of months now, borrowing a Mini from my Dean, and I think it's great stuff. From purely a standpoint of mobile HCI it's really groundbreaking. A lot of the stuff about the iPhone that I saw as limitations suddenly became features, like the lack of multitasking. For example, if the iPhone runs out of memory, it doesn't give the user an error message -- it just reboots. It gives the PROGRAM several opportunities to recover, but at that point any sane desktop operating system will prompt the user for some sort of action before collapsing into dust, right? BUT this is a TELEPHONE -- you don't want users dealing with error messages while driving down the road at 60 mph. Better to just recover by the most expedient method available -- rebooting. The iPhone OS is chock full of interesting little twists in HCI philosophy like that. And IMO you really should get to know it through the standard tools, known as the iPhone SDK, which includes IDE, Interface Builder (a cute way to do your forms -- a bit toylike, but pretty efficient and very easy to use), and the iPhone simulator (very clever -- works exactly like the real thing, even letting you tilt it, though of course it doesn't support all the hardware features such as GPS). Apple controls this stuff pretty tightly. The SDK is free, but you have to join their developers program if you want to actually put one of your OWN applications on your OWN iPhone (yeesh). I believe that was $99 for a year. (I got our university into the program so I can get students on it for free; maybe you can talk to your school about that.)

And it's a reasonable concern. One of the reasons we're going to AVOID sliding into socialism is because we're still listening to the voices from fiscal conservatives and taking them into consideration. With the exception of only a handful of politicians (like my favorite pincushion Maxine Waters), most of them are openly stating that they understand that these moves are dangerous, bring us further into debt, and must be balanced out at the end of the day. Whether or not that actually happens is another question -- the track record is abysmal. But we'll just have to wait and see, because the reasons for taking these actions are logical and well-considered.

His failed speech, eh? You guys on the left sure toss that word "failed" around a lot. You know it bounces, right? I think I mentioned this in another thread, but I think part of what's happening here is due to the abandonment of the Republican party by centrists and moderates. Fiscal conservatives who got fed up with the social conservatives and threw in the towel. That's pretty much left the party with a religious monster that appears to be going back to bed (as shown by their election "turnout"), and, well, Rush Limbaugh.

How's that working out so far?

You know, it's been a long time since Sunday School, but I think you're right. I believe the traditional view (which of course is what's really important to true believers) is actually that they were married. Their union (the part where he yanks a bone out of his ribs!) is often referred to as the "first wedding". But I don't think it ever actually comes right out and says it, although there is a bunch of generalized stuff right after the Adam's Rib parable about how women should obey their men and so forth. Huh. Maybe Eve didn't screw up so bad after all. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedBTW, religion's influence doesn't appear to have vanished just yet. Here's a promo for a new NBC series starting next week, and I'm guessing most people who've seen it have no idea that "Kings" is the name of a chapter from the Bible, and that the story appears to be copying it precisely. Of course, in this case the story isn't Christian, exactly, but I imagine they'll be watching with interest. (So will I, actually. Some of that Old Testament stuff is pretty exciting!) 46AXq0er-Og

BTW, a 16% profit margin is a whopper for a Fortune 500-class company. An absolute whopper. If I'm not mistaken, only insurance and, recently, the oil companies do better.

I don't know that we're so much missing it as wondering whether or not that can actually happen. I was encouraged by the healthcare summit the other day where he had people from all the different interests and industries present, but the insurance industry is the one of the most powerful lobbies there is, and they're not going to go down easy.

Okay, rofl, now I'm really starting to see iNow's point. Can anyone babelfish the above for me, please?! Sorry jackson, I'm not trying to pick on you! But come on, man, complete sentences, please! I think I get what you're saying in the second sentence, at least -- are you saying that Ken Star was the lead attorney in favor of Proposition 8, perhaps in some court case, if I'm reading you right. No clue on the first sentence at all, man. Holy cow.

Well actually the proposal is that healthcare would be paid for specifically by the tax increase realized by cutting the charitable donations exemption. Unfortunately according to George Stephanapoulos at ABC News that measure is D.O.A. due to lack of support amongst Democrats who feel that it would unfairly hurt charities. Obama says he's going to fight for it, though.

My point was that it's not just the religious right who's opposed to gay marriage. But your last two posts went way beyond the influence of religion on this issue -- that was an outright condemnation of religion across the board. You're the topic cop around here -- I'm surprised at you. Your irrational fear and loathing for religion is clearly a different subject from gay marriage, and you can start a thread on that subject if you wish. I think it would be quite interesting. Wow. Somebody get a rope!

Holy cow, dude! I'm glad you're feeling better now! Yikes! Your first sentence there brings up something I've always wondered about -- is there an easy way to definitively tell if you have a virus or a bacterial infection? (I.E. without going to the doctor.) I've read that if it lasts for more than a day or so it's probably a virus. But I don't know if that's really a good rule of thumb or just an old wives' tale. (Thanks Baub! Drinking water right now!)

No offense, but I think you may need to take your own advice there, man. At any rate, are you sure you really want to bring religion into this? Some opponents to gay marriage who aren't religious conservatives:

Is there a Door Number Three?

<<cough>>

I definitely agree that debate about policy is a good thing. I'm not sure that it IS "unquestioning adoption of Keynesian policy". What's really interesting to me about this whole process is that the policy makers seem to be aware of the potential pitfalls of this approach and genuinely want to strive to avoid them.

I was just reading a thread on a conservative board that followed an AP story about new lead removal regulations taking effect, and the poster had given it a subject line of "So this is change we can believe in?", and he ranted about the impact on small motorcycles/ATVs and the nanny state. I wasn't unsympathetic to his point (sometimes regulations do have to be tweaked over time), but the reason I mention it here is because the law in question in this case was actually passed by the Bush administration! The AP story didn't mention that so the guy who posted the rant didn't know, and just assumed it was a new Obama rule. This is the unfortunate consequence of letting Rush Limbaugh lead them around by the nose. I think part of what we're seeing is that so many centrist conservatives (like myself) have abandoned the party for the time being, and while we may not harbor any illusions about Congress, we like Obama and his plan, and want to see it given a chance. But that's left a gaping hole in Republican party politics, because the moral majority has gone back to silent mode (as demonstrated by the low election turnout, James Dobson retirement, etc), which pretty much leaves only the automatic-Obama-opponents (Rush) manning the front office. It's a lot like what happened to the Democrats after they lost the middle and became dominated by the ABB (Anybody But Bush) crowd.