Pangloss

Bascule, your post #50 is a perfect example of what I complain about when I talk about PCness on this issue. First I want to give you credit for this, though: Cool, great point. But then you leap into this unfair personal characterization that is unnecessary and counterproductive: So what are these the horrible quotes from Aardvark that attack science? Well let's see: Those quotes -- which came straight from his quote area in your post -- are not attacking science, they are questioning it. Those quotes do not indicate "denialism" -- they indicate valid questions that deserve objective answers. If you have those answers, fine, toss 'em out there! Several posts above went on to do that, and you often do as well -- great, more power to you, but that's not what you did in that post, you just pointed and said "hey look everyone, it's another denialist!" That's the kind of thing I'm talking about when I say we need to do better.

I saw it and I agree with iNow, he's not promising to count those votes, at least not exactly. Though I do believe in the end they will be counted somehow. (In fairness and accuracy, Florida and Michigan votes counted already, they just haven't been used for their intended purpose just yet. Nobody gets to tell a state how to run its election. But the national party has the right to determine how it gets to pick its candidates. Seems fair enough -- that's the whole point of this fiasco in the first place, the fact that I don't WANT Howard Dean's home state determining who my candidates are. I think Florida has made its point, and the point has not been lost on national officials, and perhaps over time the underlying problems will finally be addressed, but in the meantime let's move forward.)

God was declared dead in the '60s. What did that accomplish? Religion is not the enemy of science, folks. Zealots are. There is a difference.

Sure, CS programs still have to cover database manipulation, and they're not going to demand that students learn a new programming language for that, so it makes sense. I assume they all do something along those lines. Actually I wouldn't be surprised if some CS programs do at least a brief overview of Web application technology just so that their students will know what's going on out there, since that's where a lot of the jobs are. It's awkward that CS programs are cranking out programmers who are overqualified and untrained for the most common variety of programming positions. (Not that it matters, since a CS grad should be able to get up to speed on that stuff in about 5 nanoseconds with just a few tutorials.) But of course ultimately you don't want CS grads taking those jobs. That's what they did 20 years ago, but today we want those people developing the next generation of programming techniques, as well as really advanced current-gen applications that step way beyond current garden-variety ASP/PHP techniques. I'll deal with the local grocer's web site needs. Go win some patent cubes and make me the next Google.

I think you're being dismissive of my argument and dodging my question. I don't think TDS is news either, but I do think it's political commentary, just exactly the same as Bill O'Reilly, which is also not news, but in fact political commentary. Do you or do you not agree with that statement?

Yup. Look at it this way: If you never hit a single stumbling block in your entire program then you probably picked something that was too easy and you have sold yourself short. What's really crazy is that years from now it's those stumbling blocks, those walls, that will really bring back the best memories. You'll jump up and down and curse about how awful they were, but you'll be smiling because you beat them or you at least tried and gave them your best shot. It's funny how that happens.

Bear in mind that many programs that have shifted away from C/C++ aren't teaching system programming, they're teaching client/server business database programming, which is a whole different animal. Microsoft and Sun have made is so easy to write these sorts of programs that they really almost can't even be called "programming" anymore, at least in the same sense that Computer Science programs are talking about, and for jobs like you'll notice that they're not asking for CS degrees. Any IT area will suffice, or they may even settle for management with IT focus. So Java and C# have a very firm and important place in the programming language hierarchy. It's just not the correct place for CS majors.

To me the interesting question is how parents come to acquire this f'd up worldview in which musical talent and ability can only be recognized through heavy electronic manipulation and mass marketing appeal. With a case like Britney Spears (however the frack it's spelled), at least you can write off the parents as gold-diggers, and their idiotic public displays will back you up. But with a case like Cyrus, wouldn't you think he would know better? What the heck could someone like that possibly be thinking? When your pre-teen daughter comes to you asking if she can be "just like daddy", what possible reason could you have for NOT screaming "WHEN HELL FREEZES OVER!" and locking her in the deepest dungeon in the castle? Oh well, go figure.

Are you kidding? With the US Government at work? Having to wait 5,000 years to test the results sounds just about right!

K, that's "not at all", then. Tonight's TDS rip into Justice Scalia over his 60 Minutes interview was a typical example. Scalia was talking about the legal question of whether torture fell under the constitutional prohobition against cruel and unusual punishment, suggesting that it did not do so because it isn't punishment, but rather interrogation. That position can certainly be debated with valid arguments on the other side, but Jon Stewart pulled a complete logical fallacy in his criticism, quoting him out of context on several issues. But TDS's ideological criticism, framed as comedy, will probably have 5-10 TIMES the visibility amongst young people, versus 60 Minutes, a show typically watched by older people. So young people who didn't see 60 Minutes will walk away with an unfairly negative opinion of Justice Scalia. Even if they know it was a comedy piece. Bill O'Reilly or The Daily Show: Pick your poison.

Yeearr! Gotta trounce them Republicans! Oh well, that's his job now, so I guess he has an excuse, unlike some people.

I don't think Rev. Wright's re-appearance on the public stage says a single thing about Barrack Obama. Unfortunately I think it says a great deal about Rev. Wright, and none of it good. Like watching a train wreck in slow motion, that is. But I remain completely satisfied with Obama's response. Some of the talk about how the Wright issue affected white voters in PA last week was a real shame to see -- it's the first real sign of racism in this campaign, and I was thoroughly disappointed to hear it. I don't know, maybe I have just completely overestimated my fellow WASP Americans. Not to make too big a deal out of it, though -- it was still a small segment, and most of the poll questions were improperly framed anyway. (Asking voters whether you think race will be a factor in the election is actually asking them whether they think OTHER people will vote based on race, not whether THEY will vote based on race. But even so the polls were disturbing.)

This story has taken an interesting twist that does not bode well for the polygamists. It turns out that of the 416 children, 31 of them are either pregnant or have already given birth! Talk about getting caught red-handed! And as if that wasn't enough, some of the mothers have lost their status as plaintiffs. Why? Because it turns out that they're under the age of consent themselves, and have been reclassified as victims! Not a good week for the polygamist's lawyers, that's for sure. http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2008/04/28/texas-polygamyranch.html

I've read that sales of non-fiction books have been on the rise for a few years now. I think it's great to see the logical/rational side of society waking up a bit and taking an interest in things. Thank you President Bush!

Ah, you've hit the wall. I know this wall. I hit that wall many times myself -- I know how frustrating it can be. Ultimately it's something you have to answer yourself, but I would just say that you really won't know the answer that question until you've explored all the avenues available to you for getting help. Talking to the professor is just the beginning. You can get help from other students, tutors, other professors, and any campus facilities that may be available, and there are also thousands of resources available on the Internet. With undergrad it's sequential (it's different with grad studies -- the wall can show up at any time), so you can also take into consideration that the material was supposed to get harder as you moved forward. But this very much works in your favor when it comes to answering your question, because the fact that you got As on all the prerequisite course means you are positioned exactly where you are supposed to be, and that your instructors have full confidence in your ability to handle the next step. That doesn't mean you're an idiot for hitting a wall, though -- it happens to virtually everyone who stays with academic studies, sooner or later. Every time you tackle something new you roll the dice and maybe you'll hit that wall and maybe you won't. But the wall isn't an insurmountable obstacle, it's just a hurdle. All you need is the proper ladder to get over it. The good news is that (in answer to your other question) it's actually NOT likely that you will have the same problem in all your remaining courses. You may well get something that seems "easy" next term. In my experience as both student and teacher it really has a lot to do with the subject -- some students have trouble with certain subjects, others have trouble with other subjects. Of course a bad instructor or textbook can also cause trouble. I also have had some luck doing what I call "simplifying". Break the problem down into steps or components, and then figure out what it is you need to do to accomplish each of those steps. Then you can figure out where your specific bottlenecks are, and and whenever I do this I don't feel quite so overwhelmed. So simply put, my advice is to try every single resource that's available to you. What've you got to lose? Good luck!

Right. And that's different from The Daily Show... how?

Yah, I've used those free CSS template sites before for small projects; they can be real time-savers.

Right, I don't think it's news. Do you feel that it is news?

You would remove that freedom even if they're just minding their own business and not defrauding anybody? Or is that not what you meant? I don't want to put words in your mouth here, but if that IS what you mean it's interesting that you said that in the same post that you brought up the establishment clause, because the purpose of that clause was not to remove religion from government, but to protect the right of individuals to continue to perform their own religious beliefs, free of government intervention. (But if you just meant "convince" and "persuade" against that sort of thing, I'm all for that.)

It's a reasonable question, but (if I'm making the correct mental adjustment to what we were talking about earlier here) I don't think it's really very relevent what Bill O'Reilly states about what his show is. It is clearly a political commentary program, with occassional slices of variety in the form of cultural analysis (1950s trivia), common causes (e.g. helping the needy), etc. That doesn't mean that nobody watches it thinking it's news -- I'm sure some people do. But I think it's also pretty clear that many people (especially young people) don't watch the news and get what they mistake for insightful political analysis, taking the place of objective news reporting (since they haven't heard the story at that point), from Jon Stewart via The Daily Show. That makes him a liar about his partisanship, not a news reporter with bias.

(NOTE: This is a bump of an old thread, and this post is the original post from April of last year. Please see my reply below.) This week's action on the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act was interesting to follow. Lilly Ledbetter was a manager at Goodyear Tire for 20 years. In her lawsuit she alleged that she only found out after she retired that she had been paid significantly less than male managers -- even those with less seniority -- for her entire tenure at the company. A jury agreed and awarded her a quarter-mil in back pay and 3 mil in damages. The case went to the Supreme Court last year, and the justices overturned the case, on the grounds that it violated the 180 day statute of limitations from her first paycheck in which she was discriminated against. Obviously this rule doesn't recognize the fact that it may be almost impossible to find out that kind of information (Goodyear specifically forbade managers from discussing their salaries with one another!), and the ruling was close, 5-4. So congress has been working on a bill that essentially resets the 180-day statute of limitations with each paycheck. To a certain extent that makes sense -- it could be viewed that each paycheck is a discriminatory act. But Republican Senators filibustered and even that was more or less moot because President Bush planned to veto it anyway. Their position was that it creates a "field day" atmosphere, in which there is essentially no statute of limitations at all. (Which doesn't seem true to me -- it just renews the 180 day statute each time they get paid.) I disagree with that position so I may not be representing it very well. The Wall Street Journal has an editorial on the subject from the other day at this address: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120916465140946149.html?mod=googlenews_wsj Maybe someone can parse that out and figure out if they have a legitimate point or not. Here is a Slate article discussing the other point of view: http://www.slate.com/id/2189983/ I think Slate is right, and Pres. Bush and Republican Senators are wrong. What do you all think?

It's an excellent course of action, sending that stuff to the sentator's office, IMO. They can't throw it away; they're obliged to keep it. That means they have it, which means they're responsible for it. It may not seem like a big deal, but they cannot now say that none of their constituents are concerned about the issue or aware of the facts. It matters.

Yes, at least I hope so. It reminds me a lot of the recession at the end of the bubble burst around '99/'00, which is often cited as a factor in Gore's defeat (or perhaps "incomplete victory"). We'll punch through it fairly quickly and come out on top again. On a less positive note, the boom we experienced following the last recovery had a number of down sides, many of which have been raised here. Some of those are just fodder for neosocialist ideologues like Ariana Huffington, but some of them are real warning signs that need to be heard. The housing situation should not have happened, for example. But we learn and move forward, albeit usually in a two-steps-forward-one-step-back manner.

I got a letter from my employer's health insurance carrier today saying that I have to prove my marriage is legitimate, and not a "domestic partnership" or common-law arrangement. Failure to do so will result not only in loss of coverage (unprotected by COBRA?!) but loss of employment. (Presumably under the same reasoning as above, which I guess I can understand.) I really hate it when my employer digs into my personal life like this -- it just does not seem like any of their business. I guess I'll have to dig out my marriage license. I'm not even sure I have one, but the wife says we got something from the state of Florida around here somwhere. (She screamed "You're not getting off that easy!" and dashed off to a closet somewhere. <grin>)

I think the "recession" will be over before the next president takes office. It may even be over before the election. And my secret housing market indicator (sorry, cannot divulge) is whispering in my ear that the market may already be coming out of its slump.