Pangloss

I don't know why you'd say that. Fox has had many successful programs.

Uh, the movie was two years ago and Whedon has long called this a dead horse. Whedon even has a interesting new SF series called "Dollhouse" beginning in January. I liked FF too, but it's time to move on. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dollhouse_(TV_series)

a Clown has been banned due to hazmat violations (deliberate posting of pornographic material).

Interesting point raised on Meet the Press today. NBC's Chuck Todd was talking about the convention with Tom Brokaw, and the issue of which Clinton would speak at the convention came up. The Obama camp doesn't want Clintons to dominate the convention, so they only want a Clinton-named speaker on one night. Well that has to be Hillary, out of respect for her candidacy and desire for her voters (a quarter of whom currently say they'll be voting for McCain). You only typically have one headliner on an evening, so you'd undermine her by having Bill speak after her. You can have Bill introduce her, but according to Todd there's a whole history there of speaking engagements going poorly when they do that, and it could still be seen as undermining her. More likely, says Todd, we'll see Chelsea introduce her. But of course that leaves Bill out in the cold, or as Todd put it "the recipient of a tribute video". Rofl! So the last President of the United States from the Democratic party, a president who enjoyed two terms in office and departed with a 60% approval rating, may not be speaking at his own party's convention. Astonishing. Doesn't really mean a whole lot in the grand scheme of things, but I think it's an interesting historical/political footnote.

Thanks, I appreciate that. And I've no doubt we'll be talking about the Bush administration for many years to come. The one Bush legacy we can all agree on.

No, they're more important because of the situation on the ground. If they're too focused on protecting individuals then they're not doing their job. But as I said before, I'm not suggesting our soldiers don't have to follow the rule of law, or that Iraqi citizens aren't entitled to some level of protection. Accidents and incidental damage happen in war, and the rest of that is not necessarily indiscriminate just because you don't like what they're doing. Infrastructure is often targeted because it was an asset for the enemy at the time. Depleted uranium is used because it cuts through armor. If you want to see every aspect of conflict as negative, that's your prerogative, but that just proves my point that this is about ideological opposition to war -- no war, regardless of the cost. Certainly you're welcome to feel that way. Obviously I disagree. Interesting. Sound like a separate issue, really, but I'd be willing to hear more about it, perhaps in another thread. Same with your accusations about Karzai. Oh yes, I think there very much is.

Testimony from a former White House official actually involved in the decision to go to war would be nice. There have actually been several, many of them extremely critical of the President, and yet not one of them has shown any evidence that the decision was entirely, or even paramountly, "about oil". Bob Woodward -- no friend of the Bush administration -- wrote no less than three books on the subject, with unprecedented access to staff and communications, and never found any evidence that the war was "about oil". It was obviously on their minds, I don't think there's any question about that. How would it not be? There were tactical considerations, of course, but also strategic considerations. Woodward cites one document listing the reasons for going to war, and the very last item in a very long list says something along the lines of "minimizing interruptions in the international oil market". That would actually be COUNTER to your purpose, since the underlying premise of this conspiracy theory is that the Bush administration wanted $150/barrel gas for its chums. But I will admit that it at least supports the idea that oil was a factor in the decision to go to war. That's on page 153 of Plan of Attack, if you're curious. But I see no evidence for a firm conclusion that the war was "about oil" above all else, or this whacky notion that Cheney wanted Americans paying $7/gallon to help his buds in ExxonMobil. That is simply unsupported. Woodward, who interviewed Greenspan last year, made the point himself in this quote from that article, which raises the same note I made above: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/16/AR2007091601287.html In fact according to that article, even Greenspan doesn't believe the war was about oil, at least in the sense that bascule seems to mean: Gee.

Lance, I agree with you about Iraq, but not Afghanistan, though I respect your opinion on it. I believe our response was warranted, we enjoyed international cooperation and support, and our effort there is noble and above-board. Progress is slow, but that's normal in any international endeavor (even peaceful ones), and if it wasn't for Iraq we probably wouldn't even be talking about it. Condemnation based on current level of accomplishment is, in my view, premature and unwarranted. Skepticism, certainly. Criticism in certain areas, absolutely yes. Condemnation, no. Doom and gloom predictions like the one you make above, no. But even if it ultimately fails, that doesn't mean it was a mistake. Want a lesson from history? Try this one: Correlation does not imply causation, it is only a hint (you of all people should know this). If one wants to dig deeper, one must set aside ideological partisanship, or never find the true lesson. As to whether this argument is about ideologies: None of the examples raised here by opponents to military intervention address the issue of whether military intervention can be successful. You're criticizing stuff that could have failed for any number of reasons, and under no circumstances can be attributable to the thing you're attributing it to. How does eventual failure prove that it could never have succeeded in the first place? What does corruption have to do with military intervention? (I know that last one wasn't your example, but you applauded it.) So what's really happening is that you're just passing on popular and politically correct memes that are equally fallible under the "humanitarian aid" approach (as if "humanitarian aid" could have stopped the Taliban anyway). No, this is an argument about ideology, supported with nothing more than straw men. That having been said, I'll say something I've said before here at SFN, and something I often say to die-hard conservative friends: There are worse things in this world than people who place the value of life above freedom. Embrace these people; they work hard and drive society in creative, important ways, and we need them as much as they need us. And sometimes they're not wrong. Which is why I say I respect your (and Rev's) opinions on this subject.

Well that's your opinion. It is, however, not the prevailing one. And while it might be interesting to see if the state could somehow strip that land off them, what would actually happen is that the land would stay where it is, and the situation would grow worse. So that's a nice little ideological rant, but it doesn't clean my back yard. You realize, I hope, that Obama is going to do a lot more things like this if he gets elected. Your post suggests that the environmental extremists are going to find his tenure very frustrating, because he's going to accomplish a great deal by crossing lines they wouldn't dare cross, lest some "fat cat" get fatter. (I'm moving this thread to Politics for further discussion, btw. It's not a demotion, I just thought it might merit some attention from a different subforum.)

Iraqi officials met with members of Al Qaeda before 9/11, but that didn't prove that Iraq was involved in 9/11, now did it? You know better than to listen to a partisan like Bill Moyers. How can you chastise me for watching O'Reilly and then turn around and quote that man? You might as well be quoting Al Franken or Michael Moore. Whatever.

On the whole, in a normal, peaceful environment, they wouldn't be. In that situation they are. If they're too focused on protecting individuals then they're not doing their job. But as I said before, I'm not suggesting our soldiers don't have to follow the rule of law, or that Iraqi citizens aren't entitled to some level of protection. More or less correct. And exactly how it should be. I didn't pay for their training just to throw them away in close combat just because you think it's more fair to civilians. That having been said, I'm not in favor of indiscriminate bombing. And neither is the military. Isn't it? Perhaps that attitude is why occupying armies tend to lose insurgencies. You're entitled to your opinion, but I would suggest that unsupported generalizations and gross exaggerations like the ones above don't make your case and don't teach us anything. Putting civilian lives ahead of, or on equal footing with, the soldiers, for example, isn't exactly going to win an insurgency either -- not when the insurgents are actually hiding amongst the civilians. By all means, if we can actually absorb that much poppy production, I'm all for it. Except that's not what we've done. We've put people in office. We only let our buddies run for office, and the highest office in the land is held by an oil company shill. Corruption is massive. There is no freedom of the press...there are journalists locked up for questioning the Koran. Women are still badly abused. Karzai is an oil company shill? (Remember, this was regarding Afghanistan.) That's a new one on me, but I'll assume there's at least some story floating around that I just hadn't heard. But obviously your assessment is very debatable. Women are more free, the government was clearly elected and not fostered upon them, and the situation is greatly improved over where it used to be. More to the point: There's no particular reason to think that any of the things you're talking about here could not just as easily happen had Afghanistan traded hands peacefully. Corruption is a possibility everywhere. Clearly your attack is misdirected, because all of the examples you cited could just as easily happen in times of peace. Your argument isn't about Afghanistan or Iraq, it's about making the U.S. wrong. But ultimately the differences between you and I on this issue are ideological and not something we can resolve, so we might as well agree to disagree. To exaggerate both positions to an equal degree, you're okay with people enslaved so long as they're alive, and I'm okay with slaughtering them if that's what it takes to free them. What else is there to say? Why do you keep asking me a question you already know the answer to?

Because there's no direct evidence to that effect. And regardless of whether I'm "writing off" Kucinich, that's exactly what the Democratic leadership is doing to him.

That's not what I said, I said our soldiers are more important than their citizens. That doesn't mean infinitely more important, it doesn't mean our soldiers don't have to follow the rule of law, and it doesn't mean their citizens aren't entitled to some level of protection. It means more important. Why? Our soldiers sign up more or less willingly. They know what they are getting into. The civilians don't have that knowledge or make that choice. Irrelevant. The task at hand is not protecting the lives of individual citizens. Nope. The ideas of replacing a totalitarian regime with a freely elected one, justice and freedom for all people (not just men), and growing crops that don't poison and kill innocent people. Don't be silly, you'd have burned those poppy crops too, had you gotten in there by peaceful means, and you know it. Though I do support (and imagine you do as well) the growing of some poppy for medical purposes, and helping those limited numbers of farmers find secure and transparent markets for those goods. And yes, I think your point about spreading ideas without violence, whenever possible, is preferable. But there were no peaceful inroads into Afghanistan, and they directly supported terrorists who attacked our country, so they went down, end of story.

Well, as I pointed out, Pierre Salinger was a former White House press secretary, but nobody took him seriously, just like Nancy Pelosi doesn't take Pete Kucinich seriously. And 9/11 conspiracy theories go to the heart of the matter of who is to govern our country, so they would seem to be politically relevant too. I wouldn't object to a thread on Kucinich's impeachment bill, by the way. I just think unsupported conspiracy theories (like this one) probably belong in speculations. Still, unless another moderator objects, it will stay here. Incidentally, I was in and around the Capital when Kucinich was introducing his impeachment bill. He kept the House open until something like midnight that night. My tax dollars at work.

I'm having a hard time justifying leaving this in Politics and not moving it to the Pseudoscience and Speculations subforum. I'll refrain from doing that since I have an iron in this fire, but that's how it seems to me. This is little more than a popular conspiracy theory. Bascule at the very least it would be courteous for you to grace us with your opinion on this subject. This is not a news blog, and we do have a long-standing precedent of asking people to include their opinions in first posts. Thanks.

Yes it is. Obviously we have a difference of opinion here. So be it. But while I respect yours, I think mine is equally valid and defensible. It is. I'm opposed to the war in Iraq, btw. I don't support our reasons for being there, it was bogus and ill conceived. But we're there, and our soldiers' lives are more important than their civilians' lives. Just my two bits, of course. Yup. Oh well. There are more important things than life. You also fight ideas with ideas. But ideas don't do you any good if the other guy has a gun and is willing to use it, but you're not.

I don't understand why you wouldn't see that as relevant. If you're going to tell me that I need to listen to what Alan Greenspan says about the root cause of the Iraqi war because he was a high government official and believes that the decision was about oil, then surely it's reasonable to raise the fact that he wasn't part of that decision and had no knowledge of how that decision came about. If you were on the other side of the issue then you would be raising that point, which is why I sometimes accuse you of partisanship.

Great op-ed piece in today's Washington Post about Dobson vs Obama, written by a Christian Evangelical who has a problem with Dobson's complaints. Peter Wehner is even a former deputy assistant to President Bush! This was a really smashing quote in particular: Nice. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/27/AR2008062702490.html

Yeah that's malarky. Typical ideological nonsense, and quite objectionable. We've kicked people off these boards for less, though I don't subscribe to that measure.

Former White House press secretary Pierre Salinger was convinced TWA 800 was downed by surface-to-air missiles, but I had no reason to believe him either. I do appreciate your including my quotes, saving me from having to repeat myself. That was a polite thing to do. You keep saying you're not a partisan and complaining when you get treated like one. Then you post something that's clearly an outsider's opinion without any causative basis whatsoever (something you constantly harp on when your opponents do it), but call it evidence. I don't get that, but ok. Let me know when you come up with something more substantive.

That's helpful. I just checked BOINC's Wiki and they do seem to have a switching scheme that lets you effectively drop the CPU utilization (e.g. set it to "50%" and it will only computer every other second). Thanks Cap'n. I can actually build on that -- perhaps an add-on BOINC module where you can plug in your local energy costs and then set a target dollar amount you want to spend each year, etc. It's just a proposal for a paper, though, I don't plan to actually write it.

As if they're not affected by high oil prices even more than we are. That's not outrage at "American imperialism", that's an attempt to misdirect British voters from the fact that they're paying $10/gallon because their own government is gouging the heck out of them. As I understand it motorist outrage is very bad over there.

How about that? And it only cost US taxpayers 2.5 million dollars. A bargain!

Has anyone heard of a utility or programming approach that allows you to set a MAXIMUM CPU utilization or power consumption rate? I know you can set task priority or cpu/core affinity with Task Manager, but that still allows a process to use up to 100% of the CPU's time. What I really want to do is run a process at a low power consumption rate, which is actually a much trickier animal. I'm not sure if the kernel will even allow this. But I know some processors have step-down modes that can be triggered programmatically, and it also occurred to me that perhaps if you can deliberately force the processor to run at less than 100% utilization then it might be effectively the same thing. I'm also interested in whether any of the above can be done in Linux or MacOS or any other OS. The idea is for a paper on distributed computing in which I want to address the issue of the high (and hidden) personal cost of participation, especially in light of rising energy costs. I've been tentatively starting to dig around a bit in journals but haven't come up with anything so far (though I haven't really dug in yet). Any suggestions would be appreciated. (Another way to address this might be a step-and-pause approach, introducing mandatory periodic "wait states" -- this would be fairly easy to program.)

Well, I think they were entitled to some sort of compensation, given that they've had that business (and employed people in that area) since long before we understood what it was doing to the ecology. I realize $1.7 billion sounds rather extreme, but that's not all going to the land/business owners. A lot of that goes to workers and outside investors (paying off debts), as I understand it. I think a third of the company was owned by the employees, and I've linked some information on that below. I think skepticism and serious inspection of this deal is warranted, and I have no doubt that will happen over time. Your suggestion (if I read you right) that they remain in business but fork over a portion of their profit towards restoration efforts is interesting, but they'd still be using that water, and I don't see how you can do both. This wasn't a sustainable situation any way you looked at it. Perhaps with their output cut in half or something, I don't know. It's an interesting idea, though. (Haven't we seen that done in other areas of industry? It sounds familiar.) Lake Okeechobee, just to the north of that area (and the reservoir for all of South Florida), has been in a very dire drought situation for a while now, and this is partly aimed at recovering that resource. There's a problem, though, in that water on those lands is contaminated with pesticides, which we don't want to feed into the lake (especially since they just finished a massive project cleaning up the exposed mud in the newly drought-exposed shores of the lake, which was thoroughly contaminated with as much as four times normal safe levels). This article at Bloomberg talks about that aspect of the story: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aDZ_gjt0UxKE&refer=us (Ironic that Miami just passed one of those popular new no-bottled-water ordinances, eh? I wouldn't drink my tap water if you PAID me to.) Here's an article from the AP talking about the impact on people living in the area: http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5i20qSM0a30NczVhksyYrUAMXu6wgD91HU23G0 That's several hundred million right there. Here's where Clewiston is on Google Maps, btw: http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=clewiston&sll=26.025531,-80.387418&sspn=0.006826,0.007596&ie=UTF8&ll=26.592211,-80.816803&spn=0.86943,1.505127&z=10 The lake is truly magnificent in that area and I really can't help but wonder if they ought to put some state money into building up a tourist trade in that region, working out some mass transit options to places like Miami Beach and Orlando. It's always been a vastly underutilized nature park. Oh well, one can only hope. There are other criticisms of the deal, by the way. The one in the article linked below talks about the deal could ultimately cost twice the posted price because of interest in the bonds. http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20080627/APN/806270951