Pangloss

Computer Science programs are declining in general. Enrollment has been down for some time, mainly due (IMO) to the rise of alternative educational strategies for business-style programming methods (client-server database querying and presentation, which is something like 90% of all programming). The article you linked is four years old, right about the time this was first really being noticed, but I did post something the other day about how CS enrollments are climbing again, which I believe is part of a new wave of CS majors who will focus more on new product development and research, rather than "routine" programming tasks, in their careers. I've not done a study on this, but the more I think about it, the more I think I might have to considering doing one. It fits neatly with a lot of what I've been doing lately.

Back in January we had what I felt was a pretty congenial and interesting discussion about the surge (which can be found here). People seemed willing to agree that the surge seemed to be producing a lower level of violence, and some degree of political progress was happening. More has occurred since then, including further coalition steps between Shiite and Sunni, and a continuance of Al Sadr's cease fire. But I for one am becoming increasingly concerned that the dip in violence has bottomed out (and, as we saw the last few days, may be increasing again), and that we may not see the desired conclusion of political progress before it ends and we have to pull back from the current level of deployment (I believe they're planning to draw down to about 140,000 troops by July, but someone please correct me if that's wrong). As Obama put it rather succinctly today, we've returned to the previously intolerable level of violence we were at in 2006. Is that really a success? Reducing it to a previously-seen-as-disastrous level of violence? Still, I have to point out that there wouldn't have been THIS level of progress without the threat of imminent departure that the surge indicated. As iNow put it in that other thread, "... their free lunch leaves office in 11 months, and they know they must do something on their own to FINALLY make things work before that happens." So I guess the question at this point becomes how do we continue the political progress while *lowering* troop levels? It seems likely that the continuing pressure of imminent departure might have an impact, but I'm not sure that's enough to offset increasing levels of violence, if they come.

True, but I'm sure Al Qaeda hasn't forgotten what happened when they tried that. Perhaps. I've read accounts of Mexicans sometimes receiving support from smugglers, but I've never read anything that smugglers check the nationalities of their customers, cast them out if they're of arab descent, and so forth. Which is why we need to crack down across the board.

As far as I'm aware, there is no direct evidence that oil was a factor. I agree with the above. These points are consistent with Bob Woodward's three excellent books on the subject, which I highly recommend.

Research can also be very time-consuming, and we do need more good people in computer science research. Society needs that a lot more than it needs more programmers! From what I've seen it's mainly teaching that produces extra free time, but that also carries the risk of unemployment (i.e. "publish or perish").

I wonder if the OP might instead have been referring to the difference between bitmaps and vector drawings. If so please reply, flower, and we'll discuss it.

That's not a true statement' date=' swansont. The definition of "it works" was given in the very first post of that thread, which was that in that specific case waterboarding produced information that lead to lives being saved. Now that I've answered your question (again), how about you admit that scientific evidence can be qualitative as well as quantitative, swansont? You said I wasn't presenting evidence [i']because I didn't have a control[/i], which is incorrect. I think opponents of waterboarding are going to have a problem with the word "simulated". But it would make no difference to me.

This conversation from my perspective (by all means correct me if I'm reading you wrong): Pangloss: This evidence seems to suggest that waterboarding may not be torture and it may produce results. If it's torture it's not acceptable, but I see this evidence that it may work and more than a few people who say it isn't torture. Don't we have to consider that? Bascule: Why do you keep saying torture works and that it is a good thing? And you wonder why I seem to define political correctness differently from you?

That was well put. It's a subtle distinction but I think an important one.

Thanks for that, I appreciate someone trying to see it from my pov. That was my reaction as well -- that it was a strong argument, but it was, in the end, just his opinion (which in fairness to McCain is what he'd been asked for by the interviewer -- his opinion). It didn't constitute an answer to my underlying question (which I think this thread would go a lot better on -- if people realized that I'm simply asking a question that nobody here has an answer to). Regarding my irked respones to swansont above, I wasn't mad in this thread until he said that, but I'm sorry if I got carried away with that response. I just think it's unfair to act like there's no such thing in science as qualitative evidence. I just spent three days in a doctoral course in research methodology and sat there for HOURS listening to an expert lecturing on that very point. Ugh. I apologize, iNow, I guess I'm so used to jumping on your case that I didn't think to step back and take a closer look. (And I guess I'm feeling a bit surrounded in this thread.) Sorry about that.

Great, maybe it's more than a PC meme, then -- I'm willing to admit it if I'm wrong about that. Let's hear the evidence you say doesn't exist but really does (??). But that's torture, not waterboarding. You have to connect the two -- politically correct assumptions aren't good enough. I'm actually kind of surprised at you, given the way you fight that sort of thing in the GW threads. But it's cool, I respect where you're coming from.

That's not a fair assessment. I saw this myself -- McCain was asked point-blank whether waterboarding constituted torture, and he responded INSTANTLY with a "yes", going on to IMMEDIATELY point out that we convicted Japanese interrogators after WW2 on the basis that they used waterboarding. I thought it was one of the most powerful arguments against waterboarding that I'd heard to date. He went on to talk at length about the importance and difficulty of defining torture, but for you to suggest that he was being equivocal on torture is utterly unwarranted, and pure partisanship on your part. No objective person could have possibly looked at that interview and concluded that McCain is equivocal on torture. Only someone who has a specific, partisan goal in mind (like, oh I don't know, voting for Obama?). (That's where I'd end with an ellipses, but I don't hide behind those. Hint, hint.)

It would be composition fallacy if I said it constituted proof. It's only evidence. But it IS evidence, and calling it composition fallacy is just a way of ignoring this evidence because you don't like what it says. But that's an assumption based on facts not in evidence. Very convenient if you have an ideological axe to grind, but when trying to get at the truth, not so much. I tend to agree, but of course that's just my personal opinion, not an objective fact. That's an opinion, not an objective fact. I don't need an education, John Cuthber, and the fact that you think I need an education rather than recognizing that the problem here is getting people to agree on common ground is why we (society) keep having a problem with this and haven't agreed and found common ground. Do you want to stop torture, or do you want to grind an ideological axe? Choose. That's not proof either, but more importantly, as I said above, it's a different subject. I haven't made the claim that torture works. I'm saying coercion may work. And we know that's the case, objectively, otherwise police would never interrogate suspects. Which is also why I say that "torture doesn't work" is just a politically correct meme, it doesn't reflect an objective measurement. Put another way, if we state for the sake of argument that (a) torture doesn't work, and (b) coercive interrogation works (which seems to be the commonly accepted set of "facts"), then we're basically saying that there is some sort of demarkation between torture and coercion, with the line of demarkation being what works (versus what doesn't work). Is that really likely, though? Isn't it more likely that there are forms of torture that do work, but we won't use them for moral reasons, and forms of coercion that probably don't work (so we don't use them) even though they're politically acceptable? Isn't that the more likely conclusion? So people need to get off the high horse of "torture doesn't work" -- it's just political correctness. What matters is (a) what works, and (b) what's morally acceptable. We need to determine waht those two things are, not sit around singing songs and dancing around the problem. You should be ashamed of this statement, pretending that qualitative research methods don't exist just to make me look bad. Unbelievable. You want me to stop "playing the PC card", how about you treat me with a little respect instead of rudely and abusively (and dishonestly) dismissing a valid argument?

An excellent point. It's not a small number, either, as I understand it, and some post-9/11 efforts to improve visa tracking have lead to borderline harassment of legally-operating aliens in the country. All of these issues have to be handled, and they need to be handled in a non-partisan, non-ideological manner, or they'll just keep coming up every time a new administration (or challenger) decides it needs a political football to play with.

What, my ellipses wasn't completely self-explanatory?? No, I'm saying disabled people who voted via early voting in January would also be able to do so again during a new (normal) primary this spring. We don't need to have a special mail-only primary just to help out the disabled people, as you were hinting with your ellipses in post #5 above (unless, of course, I misunderstood your ellipses).

I agree with this point, which I mentioned in this post late in the other thread: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showpost.php?p=381438&postcount=101 But I think that we have to be wary of just playing, as I put it in that thread, "whack-a-mole", where every form of coercion that becomes identified during a Republican administration is instantly labeled "torture" regardless of whether it actually is or not. We need to know all the forms of coercion that are used, and determine whether or not they are acceptable or constitute torture. Every single one of them. Full definitions. And then we need to shut up about it and stop using it as a partisan tool just because we don't like Republicans. It's counter-producting AND inaccurate -- IMO anybody who thinks a Democratic president would not have used all available methods approved for use following 9/11 is just deluding themselves.

Yup. Although I think it's gotten to the point now where the idea that we cannot build a fence has become an assumption when it's actually not true at all, it's just a simple matter of cost effectiveness offset by bureaucratic inefficiency. I don't see people slipping into Fort Knox and stealing all the gold on a daily basis. Technology isn't the problem, it's cost and will. Also I think there is a problem definition issue in play here. We get caught up in political absolutes, like "stopping terrorists at the border", when really the goal should not be stopping all border incursions -- it should be stopping mass border incursions, and making it more difficult for terrorists to get in that way, so that they prefer other (more trackable) methods. Put another way, if crossing the Mexican border were something that produced a 90%, or even a 50%, chance of capture, a highly trained terrorist involved in a long-term plan would never risk it, opting instead for things like false passports or even a legal means (if his association with terrorism is not known to authorities). But a Mexican worker in that situation would still make that crossing, since if he failed he could just go back again the next day (as they do now). And those in-between captures would put the Mexican worker in the system where he could be tracked (if he decides to, say, start getting drunk and running into school buses). This is why I think it's a bit ridiculous for conservatives to insist on a closed border before offering "amnesty" to current in-country illegals -- we don't need the border to be fully closed, and we probably don't want it to be. It's better if we leave small "gaps" that we KNOW about and can track (as opposed to thinking it's closed and finding out later that it really wasn't). But I think vast improvement IS called for and can be achieved with quite realistic budgets.

Based on the historical precident of the Clinton administration's animosity from the right wing. Why won't they do the same exact thing under the next Democratic president, iNow? What incentive have they received over the past eight years of watching the left wing slam Bush to NOT do the same to Obama or Hillary? Dear god, you don't think we're just going to all magically come together in happiness and harmony just because we elect Obama, do you? Come on, I think I know you better than that. No, it was empirical data from an established expert in the field. And you haven't established that it didn't work "99 times" -- that's anecdotal, a popular assumption based on a politically-correct meme, from someone who is NOT an expert in the field. At any rate, I said it was evidence, I never said it was proof. Don't change the subject just because you don't like the evidence.

Who would be allowed to vote via mail-in ballot if we held a new primary as well.......................................

Hehe, I think you have to give him a nod on that one, iNow. But I know what you meant, 200 years in this country, and you're right. Unfortunately our "smart technology" has been tried in a few places and doesn't seem to be working out too well. The virutal fence has been more or less a failure thus far, over budget and under-performing. But I tend to agree with you that a technological solution is the way to go there, for both logistical reasons and for humanitarian ones.

Rofl. It's amusing the way I get asked for evidence for my opinions when something I say isn't politically correct, but when I provide it I just get walked-around and/or ignored. Whatever. ------- Ecoli, there are additional reasons why the Geneva Convention may not apply to specific cases aside from the declaration-of-war issue. As I said above, the Geneva Convention is an explicit agreement covering very specific actions, which is why its value is more in the political arena than the legal one. You want to run around screaming "Geneva Convention! Geneva Convention!", more power to you (really, I applaud the thought), but the only thing that will get you in a courtroom is a toss out the door. What this administration has taught us (and really the last several administrations, but let's be honest here -- this administration more than any previous one) is that there is no hair too fine to split, no law so well written that it cannot be successfully parsed and marginalized when inconvenient, and no definition that cannot be challenged in the arena of public opinion. Some of that I've applauded over the last few years -- some of those things needed challenging, and the division of power between the executive and legislative branches does require better definition. But after a while you really have to question whether this is a proper way to run an ostensibly democratic government. And frankly (as I think we might agree) that question is far more important than whether some terrorist is getting his lawyer or being forced to anchor a naked pyramid. These objections about "torture doesn't work" or "Geneva Convention! Geneva Convention!", especially when undermined by bald partisanship (not in your case, I well know), are just another example of society spinning its wheels while the real problem -- checks and balances that are inadequate to the times -- remains unaddressed. Want proof? Elect a Democrat, then sit back and watch the next eight years get progressively worse in the exact same way, just with a different set of people doing the complaining. (Although I'm gradually becoming more and more convinced that Obama might be different. Maybe. Possibly. If we're reeeeeallly lucky.)

Mail-in ballots aren't a great answer. It might be cheaper, but it's an untested approach and would likely just lead to litigation and further drawing-out of the process. Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz (who happens to represent the district where I work) was on a local political show today and shot the idea down. She's a senior member of the Clinton campaign so she's got an iron in this fire, but I think she's right that it won't fly with either side. This is not the time for an experiment. But I don't agree with her about the re-vote -- I think that's probably the better way to go, rather than just seating the current delegates. (Wasserman Schultz has become fairly well known of late, as Pelosi's main initiative leader on the floor of the House.)

The fact that Serbia is struggling actually underscores the logic of Kosovo's departure. I'm sorry that's not working out the way European hegemonists desired, but calling that anti-democratic is pretty hypocritical, IMO.

Assuming for the sake of argument that waterboarding constitutes torture, this statement has been demonstrated to be incorrect. Waterboarding has worked -- producing actionable intelligence. You may wish to review the thread in which we discussed this. http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=30182

Two wrongs don't make a right. Next?