Pangloss

Okay, what would be "Bush taking it seriously" in your mind? This situation is complex, and let me clue you in on something, iNow: Putin didn't return to Russia in order to "lead the attack". That was a political move, and so is it political that Bush remains in Beijing. From today's Christian Science Monitor, which always has an interesting take on international politics: Europe doesn't WANT Bush making dramatic statements towards Russian right now. Frankly they want him to keep his nose out of it. As I say, this situation is complex. Georgia is one of the few countries that still has troops in Iraq. The international consensus is that Georgian leadership has been acting as it has been because it believes it can count on the United States to push Russian back to the bargaining table no matter what it does. It's wrong. And Russia is explaining that fact to them right now in rather dramatic and inexcusable fashion. You're not wrong in laying some of the blame for the situation at the feet of the Bush administration. But focusing on beach volleyball, suggesting that he's ignoring the situation -- in my opinion that kind of superficial, partisan slur just perpetuates problems. It doesn't resolve them. line[/hr] Related Addition: Almost as if to underscore my point, the Georgian President is today begging for US diplomatic intervention. I think I can actually hear European leaders wincing from here in South Florida. http://www.voanews.com/english/2008-08-10-voa30.cfm

I read somewhere that 70% of the population of that region carry Russian passports. I don't really know if that means they see themselves as Russians more than Georgians, though. Oh please, what a cheap shot. I think our adventure in Iraq has caused us to have less international influence over situations like this one. But I don't see where the president's visit has had any impact on the situation whatsoever.

Shooting a likeness of Charles Darwin will make us more aware of the validity and importance of evolution. No, really. Actually that's pretty dated. We should be talking about dressing Darwin up as a whore and putting him on a virtual street corner, then having the protagonist steal a cab and run him over, then outrun the ensuing police pursuit.

The bookmark one? Yes, that struck me as cluttered as well. And I've never been a big fan of roll-off-the-screen-when-not-in-use toolbars either. The tradeoff there was pretty steep and I'm not sure it makes up for those annoyances, but I am really glad SOMEBODY is working on bookmark organization and general usability.

HALT! PASS PLEZ! There's a new version coming out based on the new Tech 4 engine from id. They showed it at E3, and I think it's due out some time next year, presumably for the Xbox 360, PS3, PC and possibly Linux.

Full Metal Gear Auto: Darwin City! I sense a franchise! With sequels and Japanese manga and anime to follow!

She does seem to be making that effort, even though it bit her back a couple times this past week where reporting made it look like she was stirring up more trouble. And there's a very ugly misogynist aspect to the story circulating amongst some of the less mature blogger types, revolving around the idea of "women needing to be calmed down" (the implication being that women are less mature in general, or less experienced in politics than men). That sort of thing can't help Dems in November.

Good to know my tax dollars are being well spent! http://www.theonion.com/content/video/pentagons_unmanned_spokesdrone

So the Dems finally made a decision on the most important issue facing Americans today: Whether to give Bill or Hillary the most prominent speaking positions at the convention. Hillary was given the less prestigious 2nd-night spotlight, and Bill gets the third-night spotlight, ahead of the vice presidential nominee. Neither is likely to get more than mere excerpt coverage by the networks, who will likely only live-broadcast Obama's acceptance speech on the 4th night. Now perhaps Dems will press on to more urgent matters, like how to convince the president to release a little more oil from the national reserve which we all know will instantly cut $3.99/gallon off the price of gas as well as solving global warming and instantly rejuvenating several species currently on the endangered list. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0798195c-65ab-11dd-a352-0000779fd18c.html

I actually got the most (from the Mozilla site in the OP) out of the short video about bookmark organization and history. The concept shown in the video has some minor disadvantages, but the real plus were the unusual search characteristics for re-finding bookmarks you made earlier. It would be a nice step forward. I never can seem to get my bookmarks properly organized, and I constantly lose track of where I put things.

One might also consider a "Roman Republic" variation, in which you have elected representation, but all citizens participate in the passage of most legislation (Romans voted by economic group as well as social/familial structure). Modern technology would presumably permit this, but of course there are some serious drawbacks, as the Romans discovered. Just because a citizenry is enabled doesn't automatically mean it is fully informed. Demagoguery was a leading factor in the fall of the Republic.

That's true. In fact he could even be said to have encouraged it, in that the book clearly intends to spark critical thinking along those lines (e.g. those classroom scenes).

As an idea, not a solution. Too many obvious flaws, or so it seemed to me. Kinda like Atlas Shrugged. Good conversation starter, though. In what way did you feel the novel explored the concept's shortcomings? I always had the general impression that Heinlein more or less whitewashed it completely, and all the criticisms were external. It's been a while since I read it, though.

It is an interesting subject. As you say, I think the main concern is the moral/ethical angle -- just because someone is intelligent doesn't mean they have society's best interests at heart. I always found compelling Robert Heinlein's solution in Starship Troopers -- you only get the franchise and the right to hold power if you complete service to the community through the military or (I don't recall if he included this option or if I got this elsewhere) some sort of other, non-military service ala Peace Corps. Everyone else gets basic civil liberties including judicial redress, but the vote and the power go to the franchised only, and they're a small segment of society.

Really. It's an inaccurate example, IMO. More like, you just looked at her with lust in your heart. Others will look at her with lust in their hearts again in the future. Facts of life. (Loved the example! Alas I had no witty rejoinder today. Probably just tired, I pulled an all-nighter last night, heh.) I'm not entirely unswayed by the argument, and it could play out that way, I admit. If it does I will eat the appropriate crow. I think that horse left the barn long before this event. Even Hugo Chavez has had his fill of FARC and sides with the Colombian government now. You make a reasonable argument. But setting aside my other objections and just looking at it from a diplomatic point of view, the problem with condemning the action is that it's such a rare sign of progress in the region that you need to support that, not condemn it. It was a PEACEFUL resolution -- nobody got hurt -- so you have to support that as well, especially with the way things have gone in Iraq and Afghanistan -- everyone wants to see peaceful resolutions. So while I don't entirely disagree with your point, I don't think it's very easy to condemn Colombia for this action, and condemning just the technique is a really fine line to walk -- it won't play in Venezuela, for example, Chavez would have a field day with that -- just one more sign of Bush hypocrisy. Realpolitiks can be ugly that way.

Bascule I answered your question and you responded with such obvious strawmen (like the one above) that it boggles the mind. As ParanoiA says you have some nerve accusing me of being like Fox News or of not doing my research. You have a perfectly valid opinion and so do I, and I will not sit here and let you distort other people's opinions or move the goalposts on them just because they aren't following your agenda.

They apologized for using the symbol, and that's good enough for me. I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. It's a minor transgression, and nobody is likely to be hurt over it. Like I said, the terrorists already have sufficient reason to mistrust and be cautious about inviting aid workers into their midst. What are we supposed to do, provide some sort of international organization to monitor and ensure the sanctity of international aid workers? Well-funded out of my wallet, no doubt. I'd rather just get rid of the terrorists.

I know the history of the region and I just don't buy the premise of your argument that they're likely to fail (or be "ruined") because of it. Nor do I see what civil liberties even have to do with the discussion. Budgets are matters of economics. They have a surplus. It's better than not having one. End of story.

I read something about this right after it happened. Humanitarian organizations are concerned that terrorists won't accept their aid workers in the future because the Colombian military posed as aid workers in this case. They may be right, but there's no expectation of honesty here, and plenty of other reasons a terrorist might shoot an aid worker. FARC can file a complaint with the central office on The Planet of the People Who Care, and if the aid workers think it's dangerous they shouldn't go there. I LIKE the fact that terrorists need aid workers. I WANT them scared and nervous and constantly checking their backs for betrayal. Means we're putting the screws to 'em.

I never said Saudi Arabia wasn't having problems, I said it wasn't as bad as Iran. Again, how many international sanctions are in place against Saudi Arabia? And Saudi Arabia is NOT governed by religious extremism, it's ruled by monarchy. Religious is extremism IS A PROBLEM in Saudi Arabia, but not to the extent that it is in Iran. This is internationally recognized and exhibited by the lack of sanctions and acceptance of Saudi diplomats in foreign governments. People think Saudi Arabia can be fixed short of sanctions. Not so with Iran. QED. I said that Iran was more of a failed state than Saudi Arabia. That does NOT mean I think Saudi Arabia is problem-free. So my comments in answer to this question were absolutely valid: Asked and answered. Yeesh.

An obvious (and very popular) straw man. 19 Saudis committed a great atrocity, therefore Saudi Arabia is a failed state that must be condemned. Yes, Iran, governed by religious zealots with extreme hatred for a neighboring enemy and little regard for civil liberties, is more of a failed state than Saudi Arabia. That's why it has sanctions in place against it, and Saudi Arabia does not. (Quick, someone throw out another straw man about the US's own problems with civil liberties and religious zealotry. Al Franken might stop by and see it!)

Thought you all might find this interesting. Mozilla is apparently opening up the discussion on the future of web surfing. Here's the site: http://labs.mozilla.com/projects/concept-series/ Several videos on that site talk about specific concepts. Here's a link to an article about it: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080806-mozilla-mocks-up-possible-firefox-successors-in-idea-factory.html Some of the ideas coming out are pretty interesting.

Amusing. Seems a bit above her pay grade. Unfortunately the Constitution has an age requirement that she does not appear to meet. (Though if you need someone to take a closer look, I'm available!)

Well I wouldn't call Saudi Arabia a ruined state. They have problems, but you need examples more along the lines of Venezuela or Iran. It's certainly a valid point, but other countries have done just fine with oil wealth, and Iraq has the same opportunity. It's better than the alternative. One good bit of news from this is that we won't have to keep spending billions over there after we leave.

Never? Obama would disagree with you, you know.