Pangloss

I didn't have any problem with what Obama said, and it didn't even seem insulting to those people, way I read it. Relating to voters is one of his strengths, and it's supposed to be something we WANT in politicians. I think what this sort of story is really about is people being concerned with how OTHER people are going to vote. My suggestion is that they focus on how they themselves are going to vote.

Why, I'd be happy to, thanks for asking! Come now, Bascule, have you ever known me to be afraid to speak my mind? I have no hesitation in that regard, I just question what the point is. This thread and much of this sub-forum have become about establishing political posturing and getting the last word on foolish red-staters. You're drowning out opposition, not establishing science. Why do you think Swansont has been riding herd on these discussions so asiduously the last few months? The perfect example of this is that any time anybody raises the fact that the IPCC specifically stopped short of blaming humans for causing global warming, a well-defended and logical position based on the evidence, this board leaps up and drowns out that perfectly valid information with mounds of information, which while also quite valid, but which does not counter the actual point, which is that statistical evidence does not prove causality. Which brings the whole issue of global warming -- which is really about what to DO about global warming -- right back into the arena of POLITICS, not science. Which is, quite frankly, what this is really about. The basic problem is this: 1) We do not fully understand what causes global warming. The evidence strongly indicates human contribution, but it doesn't prove it outright. 2) Some people won't do anything about human contribution issues unless we can prove that GW is caused by humans. That's not a science problem. That's a political problem. And acting like it's a science problem is hurting, not helping, both here and in society. And yet this post will no doubt be replied-to with charts and graphs and reports and statistical evidence, all of which ignores the point. Let me use an analogy. I've got mileage records on my automobile, records of fill-ups, gas mileage (miles per gallon), fuel costs, tire wear, oil life, all kinds of useful data. That data STRONGLY suggests that SOMEONE has been driving my car. But it doesn't say who. But my analogy is not finished: I also have a lot of evidence around my house that I drive a car. The car keys sitting on the counter. The driver's license in my wallet. That sort of thing. To extend that analogy to global warming, what we don't have is an insurance record tying my name to that specific automobile, or a print-out from the charge card showing me filling up a car with that license plate number, that sort of thing. That kind of evidence is missing from the global warming debate. Now as I said people will no-doubt flood this thread with replies to my post pointing all all sorts of charts and graphs about the Earth heating up (completely ignoring the fact that I've acknowledged that point), and all sorts of charts and graphs showing human industrial actions, etc. None of which will answer the point I've made here. So what's the point? You're not esablishing science, you're just drowning out the politically incorrect. These (above) are the kinds of posts I'm talking about, by the way. I'm not trying to be rude to iNow, who's opinions I do have great respect for, but in the final analysis those statements are political in nature, not scientific. The use of the word "we", the insistent and repeated declaration of something not established, the spin of saying you're just trying to clarify misunderstandings, those kinds of statements are about taking the high ground and establishing what this board's membership will tolerate and what it will not. That's politics. Not science. And it's a battle that's already been fought and won, by the way, by your side and iNow's. There is no debate, the debate's over -- you won, both here and in the scientific community, the media, and for the most part, the public at large, which is simply ill-equipped to do anything about it. Not the science, that hasn't been finished at all. But the DEBATE's over, because it's no longer tolerated. Politics. Not science.

I was thinking of gel as well, but iNow beat me to the punch. Maybe Ballistic gel? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballistic_gel

Most decent web sites (note sites not pages, hint hint) are far too complex to rate the curmugeonly, nostalgic reference to Notepad. I use Visual Web Developer from Microsoft. It's basically Dreamweaver for free. The new 2008 version has very nice CSS support, plus intellisense for JavaScript (although there are better Javascript tools out there). It's a very slick HTML editor. And, as I say, it's free. http://www.microsoft.com/express/download/#webInstall

Has anybody heard from NeonBlack lately?! (grin) You're probably right, iNow!

Consider my usual boilerplate about circumstantial evidence not equalling proof (just ask the IPCC) inserted, rejected by the board as politically incorrect, wups I mean "scientifically inaccurate", and the pointer moved forward.

Slower. This box I'm typing on has a dual-core Extreme Edition processor (2-cores but acts like four cores because of hyperthreading) running at (if memory serves) almost 4 ghz. It's actually getting a bit long in the tooth (maybe close to two years old now) but I'm loathe to replace it because I'm not convinced a newer box would actually be faster. (It scores a 5.2 in that Vista Experience rating, but we built some boxes at work with 2.4-ghz Dual Xeons and dual Quadra boards in SLI and they only get a 5.4 rating. I'm not convinced that rating means a whole lot, but I am pretty sure this box will render my Camasia Studio screen captures faster than those Xeon boxes.) Which just goes back to my theory that computers aren't really getting faster anymore, and nobody seems to be noticing this. But I guess that's another discussion.

The comparison was against XP, not Leopard. Sounds like a bad MacBook, though. Vista should take no more than 40 seconds if Leopard is running in 30. Check the memory -- Vista uses more of it, so it could be hitting a bad patch of it somewhere. That just goes to show you how it is with laptops, though. My desktop boots Vista in 32 seconds cold. More like 10-15 coming back from standby.

Ok, but then I'm removing all Bush bashers who can't back up their pointless, airheaded hatred with logical arguments.

I for one welcome our ape overlords.

Boot time, and recovery from hibernate and sleep, are fantastically improved over XP. On the down side, recovery from sleep can produce more issues with peripherals than seen in XP, in my experience. Microsoft has recently moved up its timeline for Windows 7 to 2009, only a year or so away. That pretty much acknowledges Vista's shortcomings. On a more positive note, I haven't reinstalled the OS on this Vista box in over a year now. With XP I would have reinstalled at least twice during that same period, mainly due to slowdown from the file handles issue. Vista's memory and drive management is a vast improvement over XP.

It's just a (bad) pun. I know what you're doing, but I think the attack was pointless. He's just not interested.

D'oh, I thought bascule fixed that last week.

I know. Isn't it great? Because we're not kowtowing! (Sorry, that was awful, I know.)

My personal opinion is that there is some impact, and parents do have valid concerns, but I'm opposed to government regulation in this area. I would like to see the industry do a better job policing the stricter ESRB ratings, coming up with some way to at least ostracize violating companies that resonates with the buying public (which I DO think is possible), and providing more resources for parents who do make the effort to check game content before buying. I bring this up with my Game Design program students (I teach in an IT program but I'm sometimes asked to take classes on game design and storytelling) and I enjoy getting them to talk about this issue. Usually by the time we're done they're screaming at ME for the immediate enactment of strict government censorship. But we look at all aspects of the problem.

Wups, thank you. My high-school-era rote memorization of US capitals leaping to my keyboard, there. Most embarassing.

Oh yes I thought you made a good point there, and I agree with it -- one can hardly accuse Carter of being in bed with the Chinese, as they sometimes do with Bush. It's a good point. But watch -- the Bush h8ers are already finding plenty to criticize here, such as his attendance at the opening ceremony. By the time the games are over I'm guessing the whole situation will be his fault. Why oh why didn't he personally stop the Olympic Committee from awarding the games to China in the first place?! That way the ABB crowd can sit back and enjoy the spirit of peaceful international endeavor without a guilty conscience. Well, after they buy enough carbon credits to offset the cost of watching the games on TV, that is.

More people probably believe in 9/11 conspiracy theories than ID, and I *know* more people believe that Kennedy wasn't killed by Lee Harvey Oswald, because a majority of Americans actually buy that one (F.U. Oliver Stone). I asked a classroom full of students ages 18-23 that one the other day and almost every student raised their hand. (sigh) In a free society you take the bad with the good. It's just the way things are. I do agree with efforts to fight ID, though, and I'm not saying that should be stopped. That's what keeps stuff like that in crackpotland where it belongs. The fight also leads to better understanding and education itself -- the Dover, Delaware* case being an example. So it's worth fighting over from time to time, but it's not worth losing sleep over. My two bits on it, anyway.

I haven't watched that yet (it's in my Tivo) but on the surface that's a pretty stunning bit of hair-splitting by Carter. Boy, it really takes an expert politician to spin something that hard. (grin) But as with all good spin, it does have a factual basis, and his point would seem to be valid. It's also an interesting example of how far we've come from the Cold War.

True enough, and Mahar, like Stewart, is still in that category of critics who don't lose my respect, at least to the extent that someone like Al Franken has, Franken being a very funny comedic writer who wrote some of SNL's best stuff over the years, but who has completely discarded sanity and reason for the sake of partisanship (and is now running for the Senate!).

I do agree that there are states between partisan and non-partisan, and I've reflected examples of two of those states in this discussion, distinguishing between the Rush Limbaugh/Al Franken types and the level promulgated by Jon Stewart and Bill O'Reilly. I'm not trying to draw absolutes here, just make observations, and I realize that my generalizations are not all-encompassing. It's not my intent to pigeon-hole anyone, it's my intent to try and better understand what's happening in the world, and why. I misunderstood; I apologize. I'm respect your opinion on it, but yes, we disagree on this. I do agree that people DO realize that it's not really news, but I believe that they DO see themselves as being informed and educated by the common-sense, no-nonsense, and clandestinely left-skewed perspective that Jon Stewart is clearly offering, and perhaps more importantly they believe that others are informed and educated by that. Gotta wake up the red states, you know. In other words, it's not just comedy, it's political commentary. And it follows a very long, clear tradition of political comedy (ala Mark Russell). I just think it adds a twist of partisanship that hasn't been there in previous political-comedic efforts. Incidentally, I think you make a very valid point about Bill O'Reilly as well -- that people often see his show as news when in fact it is commentary. You're absolutely right in saying that the hosting network (at least in that case) colors the perception of the programming. That's not just a question of partisanship, either. Is it right that CNN has Larry King on every night at 9? Or Lou Dobbs? Where exactly is the line between news and commenatry? These are issues that the entire news industry is struggling with right now. No question about it, it's an accurate observation and a very interesting thing to follow. I highly recommend to anyone interested in following that issue further to check out the books and columns of Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post, who is an acknowledged expert on the subject (and considered extremely independent and objective), as well as the magazine "Editor & Publisher", which regularly tracks and reports on this issue. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/03/24/LI2005032401283.html http://www.editorandpublisher.com/

Incidentally, I expect the subject of replacing the ESRB with a government-regulated ratings system to come up again in Congress soon, especially if Hillary Clinton (by some miracle) wins the nomination. Did you all catch the underlying subtext about video game influence in that story last week about the 3rd graders planning an attack on their teacher? It got quite a bit of news attention. Here's one story about it (video games mentioned on page 2): http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/DougGiles/2008/04/05/children_of_the_damned_when_third_graders_attack Stuff like that comes up fairly regularly, and I've made the point over on our Politics board a few times that this is an area that national Democrats have identified as useful for regaining lost ground with the red states, which is why there's so much bipartisan support for the idea.

It's a free country. I'm simply drawing a distinction between non-political, non-partisan comedy and political humor that purports to be non-partisan but really isn't. In your previous post you defended them as bipartisan, now they're not supposed to be objective? Pick one position or the other, guy. That's just part of the act. Nobody takes the part about it claiming to be an alternative news service either, right? Similarly Stephen Colbert (who of course is part of the TDS/JS brand/franchise) purports to be conservative, but of course it's just a gag and viewers are expected to understand that it's just a gag. Well you're just reinforcing my point. First of all, I commented on Bill O'Reilly, not Fox News Channel. You do realize the difference, don't you? Not recognizing the difference, by the way, is functionally akin to not realizing that Stephen Colbert isn't actually a conservative. Hint, hint. I think most liberals understand that, but they'll lump the two in together at need for the sake of making an argument they know will play with their own crowd. I'm kinda disappointed seeing it come from you, though, since you're normally pretty centrist. Anyway, the issue of whether FNC is "fair and balanced" is a whole different debate. As far as I'm concerned it purports to be news, and therefore it should be held to a news standard (in which bias is wrong). But that's not what we're talking about here. Bill O'Reilly isn't a news program, it's a talk show and political commentary program. So the standard here is that it should be what it purports to be, or else viewers are being deceived, albeit in a fairly minor way. I believe that BOR viewers ARE being deceived, just as Jon Stewart viewers are being deceived. In both cases it's exactly the same deception -- the programs purport to be one thing, but are in fact another. But aside from that minor deception (which I believe is more the fault of society for not standing up and stating that it doesn't want to be deceived in this manner anymore), both shows are honest in what they purport to be. ----------- By the way, I think it's really interesting that when people critize the Jon Stewart show they're accused of not understanding the format, or not getting the joke, etc. It's part of the whole "conservatives are stupid" racket, and it's a pretty obvious logical fallacy. I think most conservatives, most people right-of-center (which, btw, I suspect is most Americans) get Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert just fine. They get the joke, and most of them even think it's amusing. Just like they can go to the movie theater and watch the most preachy, pushy, agendized Hollywood thriller imaginable, and NOT walk out of the theater and vote Democrat for the rest of their lives. They got it, they might even agree with it, but they're not going to assume it's accurate, because they realize that Hollywood, like Jon Stewart, has zero real credibility. Hollywood threw that away on the altar of the entertainment dollar, and continues to throw it away every time they put out a new movie that distorts the truth in order to make the story more interesting, and yet the very same Hollywood people will come right out and express open astonishment that Americans can still vote Republican, as if that actually makes some kind of logical sense. And this in the age of instant-access to the sum total of human knowledge at everyone's fingertips! Do they really think conservatives are so stupid that they can't use the Wikipedia after hitting the stop button on the DVD? You can see it in practically every joke Jon Stewart makes, that consternation and incomprehension of right-of-center viewpoints. It's quite amusing, really.

Oh yeah, he'll make fun of President Obama or Clinton, for sure. But that example actually reinforces ParanoiA's point -- it's just a little joke about a campaign giving away Dave Mathews tickets, of all things. Right in line with tie jokes or funny facial expressions. Quite a very long way from the kind of thing he does with Bush, Cheney, et al. Example: http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=89061&title=non-executive-decision&tag=generic_tag_dick_cheney&itemId=104995 That one "jokingly" tries to make real-world arguments -- not jokes. His punch lines are "For god's sakes!" or "Does anyone else find this strange?!?!" and "this administration just ships logic to Bulgaria". Mind you, it's a pretty good argument! But the thing to note there is that it clearly IS MAKING a non-humorous, partisan, political argument, while at the same time completely failing to represent the opposing side's arguments, and his excuse for doing that is "well it was just a joke".