Pangloss

Cute.

Would this be the same CBS that took an ostensibly 40-year-old typewriter-generated document from a known-to-be-biased source that said it proved that Bush didn't serve his National Guard duty and never noticed that the document was produced in Microsoft Word on the default settings? Oh come on. You can't tell me you've never heard of a competing company arguing that the bidding process was unfair, or complaining that their bid was better. You have no reason to think that his statement is accurate, and quite a huge reason to suspect that it is not. That's right, and the determination of whether or not that was a good idea needs to be based on whether or not it WAS a good idea, not the fact that he was a Republican, the fact that he's had three heart attacks, the fact that he's a mean-spirited monster who eats small babies, or any of the other nonsense the far left spouts on a routine basis, couched as criticism of the no-bid process. So you're biased on the subject of whether no-bid contracts are beneficial to the military-industrial process, and predisposed to determine that they're a bad idea regardless of any logic in their favor that may exist. Got it. The whole[/i'] reason?! I doubt that with every fiber of my being. I think the Dopeler Effect had more to do with it. By all means, doubt away, but when you make a statement like that you're saying you're not interested in any evidence. That makes you partisan on the subject, and renders your opinion on its value irrelevent. And this board wouldn't tolerate it if someone spoke like that about Global Warming ("I doubt that it exists with every fiber of my being" -- yeah, sure iNow would let THAT stand). That makes it an example of political correctness. It is politically correct on this forum to criticize republicans and conservatives, and disallow criticism of global warming and certain other aspects of the progressive agenda. I didn't say that the situation required it, I said the situation "cried out" for it. The divisive politics of 2003 strongly advised that a no-bid approach was necessary because the country would not tolerate a long presence in Iraq -- BECAUSE of the criticism coming from the left. Can you dispute this on point, or only shoot the messenger? You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. But your bias on the issue is clouding your judgement. That is simply not how the history books will be written, and they will be written differently because of logic and reason, not irrational, unsubstantiated angst.

Maybe p'd off that I'm inching toward a liberal and I want to understand why. But I stand by my posts as writ -- there's no underlying motive. Bush said that? I know Obama's said it, and you'd better believe I'll hold him to it, no matter how urgent the need for aid after the next Katrina. But Bush? You'll have to show me that one. But if it's true it's certainly interesinting -- I had no idea. I guess that falls into the same category as "no nation building," eh? If there's one thing I've learned from the past two presidencies it's that the number of people who believe a thing is no longer relevent to the facts of the case. I added a quote to my last post to clarify what it was about. I usually don't bother quoting when I'm responding to what's immediately above my post, but it's a bad habit I really ought to shake.

1 <dramatic pause> Oh, there's a test?

There's an interesting story going around about voters, especially in California where they've been voting since January, suddenly finding that the candidates they voted for are no longer even on the ballot. Some of the news stories spin things even further by declaring that the voters HAD to vote early because they were confused and uncertain about electronic voting machines. Here are a couple of amusing articles on the subject: http://www.sanluisobispo.com/breakingnews/story/267654.html http://www.kansascity.com/445/story/475084.html All I can say is, welcome to voting irrelevency! The oranges over in the corner were donated by the state of Florida -- help yourself!

One of the surest signs of ideological partisanship is an inability to admit when they (or their candidate) are wrong.

Exactly. Now if we can just get the left to toss Al Franken off the Minnesota Senate ballot, we'll be on our way to doing the same thing for "progressives". But look how far down the list I have to go to find an extreme case from the left to match what Sisyphus just said. A case like Al Franken, who is glaringly extreme even to people left of center. Obama certainly can't be called an extremist, even at his most eggregious efforts in pandering to the base (it's almost as if they know they're being childish and respect him for not stooping to their level!). I think that's just another example of how Democrats have recaptured, and are continuing to recapture, the "big tent" -- the middle ground of American politics. And Republicans are throwing it away like hamburger buns on the 5th of July.

So says a guy who would have made a pile of money off the deal. Gee, he MUST be right. I don't think no-bid contracts are a good idea either, but the reason I don't think they're a good idea is very different from the reason you (apparently) don't think they're a good idea. The reason you (apparently) don't think they're a good idea is because of cronyism and corruption, which is not a case that you've proven or even demonstrated. The reason I don't think they're a good idea is that they give the impression of cronyism and corruption to bandwagon-hoppers and left-wing ideologues, and aren't generally necessary. But I note that the whole purpose of awarding them at the time was to try and make a difference QUICKLY in a place where speed was of the essence. Why was speed of the essence in late 2003? Because people like yourself were already leaping on the we-need-to-leave-immediately-because-this-cannot-possibly-succeed bandwagon. A bandwagon which, by the way, turned out to be WRONG. So here you sit, after being proven wrong, conjecturing about something for which you have no evidence, when in fact you're the reason we had a situation that cried out for no-bid contracts in the first place. If you wonder why I complain about partisanship in this country, there's a great demonstration right there. That's exactly the kind of ridiculous catch-22 that partisanship produces left and right in this country. It is no longer possible to celebrate any success, achieve any victory, win any goal in this country any more, under any circumstances. Arguments like that one make it IMPOSSIBLE. The legacy of the Bush administration will not be Halliburton and more than it was Monica Lewinsky for Clinton. The legacy of the Bush administration will the the SAME as the legacy for the Clinton administration -- a complete and utter inability to succeed, not because of inability to do so, but because of inability of half the country to accept or even consider the possibility of success.

That's all very interesting on a technical level, but in the end it just confirms what I said above, albeit less technically accurate. As you agreed before, properly done high definition video looks way better than well done regular definition video. In my experience that difference is best seen not so much as a resolution improvement, but in additional color definition and sheer image power. Regular definition video has an overall dullness to it -- I know the moment I throw in a regular DVD that it's a regular DVD. High definition has a major bump in intensity/brightness/power/presence (whatever you want to call it). I do understand the essence of what you're saying and I've had similar arguments myself over the years. When I switched projectors a while back I briefly lamented the loss of the Faroudja processor that was built into the older, lower-resolution PJ I had discarded. With the Faroudja it's DVD output was much superior to the new projector, even though the new projector was HD and the old one had only been ED, because the new PJ was relying on the DVD player for 2:3 pulldown, and it was a dirt-cheap player. I had to change over to much more expensive DVD player to compensate for the loss, and even so I've never felt that the image quality on regular DVD is quite where it used to be. So you're preaching to a very experienced choir when it comes to realistic expectations and exaggerations. I'm no newb. I think if you were to be unable to see the difference between the NTSC Casablanca transfer and the high definition one, you'd have to find another job. No, it's also about transfer rate. All that extra resolution does you no good if you have to throw away 3/4th of your data just to squeeze it through the pipe in the same amount of time as your 1/4-resolution previous-generation image.

Sounds like conjecture to me.

What difference does it make where the study comes from? I'm still the one paying for it. The turbines can be seen on radar. What can't be seen are objects in the blind spots they create. I suppose they could add big picket ships with giant wind turbines to hide the battle fleet behind them. Which of course would be silly because the presence of the picket ships would give it away. This is science, folks. Why do the anti-science jokes come flying out when the subject becomes the application of science by the military?

How does awarding a contract to Halliburton fail to spread it around? Do you mean in terms of awarding the contracts to a wider collection of companies, or in terms of spreading the wealth amongst eventual recipients of the spending that takes place as a result of the contract? (I.E. Joe Smith gets his salary.) I can see the former, but I thought you meant the latter, which seems odd to me because if they're only getting 2% profit then they're spreading it around pretty good. But if you mean applying these contracts to more companies, then it seems like a valid point. The question there is whether other companies were available. It was my understanding that there weren't a lot of choices there. Nonsense. I'm not going to be your partisan opposition under an Obama presidency, and you know it. That'll be the Rush Limbaughs and Ann Coulters. Guys like me are going to give him an even hand. I'm challenging YOU to be even-handed during the election, rather than partisan. I already know I have an open mind. After all, I've voted a roughly equal number of times for Demcorats and Republicans. Can you make the same statement? And I submit to you that demonizing everyone who questions anything that happens under the Obama presidency is going to make YOU the partisan, not the questioners. How did that work out under Bush or Clinton? That's not "transcending" the "domains" of the past, iNow. That's perpetuating the problem.

Well, you have a point. I admit that it's probably true that not everyone would see the difference even on a well-tuned system. I would like to see that Criterion comparison as well, btw -- interesting idea. But yeah, it's kind of an acquired thing. But I think if you spent more time watching BR titles on your PS3 you'd acquire the taste and begin to look at it differently. That's how it went for me, at first I didn't really see much difference, but over time I gradually found myself switching my Netflix queue movies over to HD DVD, and buying HD DVD titles over regular DVD ones. By now I can tell at a glance whether a movie is HD or not, even if I'm not the one who stuck it in the player. IMO the main benefit of HD is not the increase in pixel resolution, but rather than vast improvement in intensity and color contrast that stem from the four-fold increase in bandwidth. Ironically, the Casablanca example I mentioned above is a great illustration of this. I have the previous "Special Edition" Casablanca release as well (the one that the HD DVD release was based on, including all the same "extras"), and when you do an A-B comparison the difference is really something. If it were just a matter of uprezzing, there shouldn't be much difference -- it's a black-and-white movie, after all. As you mentioned, source material is important, so the cigarette smoke I mentioned, it makes sense that that wouldn't be visible in an uprezzing, but would show up in the HD version. But it's more than that -- the whole picture just seems to acquire this amazing 3d-like immersiveness that's just completely absent from the DVD. It's like going to the theater on Day One of release, before all the dust motes settle on the film and it breaks in the projector a few times. It's just a whole other experience. I agree much of that is lost on the current consumer, but I think this will change over time. I don't think people like watching stretch-o-vision, i think they just tolerate it because the picture looks a little better than the crappy set it replaced, and they just accept it because nobody has explained HD to them yet.

Of course one or the other can be moved. It's simply a matter of money. We move things all the time. Oh the poor farmers, desperately crying out for wind power so they can save the planet! Yeesh. Build them a big solar power plant a couple counties away, throw in a power subsidy, and call it a day. One more mountain reduced to a molehill at the expense of ideological partisanship.

I don't know; it's an interesting question. I wonder if there's actually been a case of war boosting the economy since WW2. Maybe it's just one of those things people say but isn't actually the case. The economy today is so different from what it was in the 1940s, or even the 1960s. A couple hundred billion a year is peanuts in a $3 trillion budget, much less a $14 trillion economy. I have a feeling if you were to ask the economy about the war, it would say "Eh? What?". We're going to have to modify that famous old Everett Dirksen quote to "A trillion here, a trillion there, and pretty soon you're talking real money." BTW, picking on Halliburton is more PC. It's a public company and has to report its earnings. Unless it ressurected and hired Arthur Andersen when I wasn't looking, it's profit margin is about 2% on those no-bid contracts. It's corporate profit is something like 22%, well above average for Fortune 500 companies, so the irony here is that the deal really wasn't so great for Halliburton's investors. Unless, of course, people were secretly stealing from them as well. We all talk about cutting red tape, but if a Republican actually goes out and does so, why, that MUST be corruption. I wonder what we'll call it when Obama gives those deals to Jesse Jackson's companies? Equal opportunity corruption?

Do they allow African Americans to donate blood? They have a higher incidence of sickle cell disease, do they not? What is the difference?

I don't remember them saying that, but I was probably too focused on the needle. (grin) But if that's case, that the tests can fail, then it sounds like some sort of precautionary exam is necessary. But isn't that question basically the same thing as asking if they're gay?

This is an odd story at first blush, but it may be that both sides have a valid point here. The problem apparently arises not so much from the fact that they don't want people with HIV giving blood (which is obviously something nobody wants), but rather from the fact that people who have a higher risk of having HIV are not allowed to donate. Specifically, gay men are denied. And therein, of course, lies the rub, because that's discrimination, or at least it appears to be. The article below talks about one university in California that has banned blood donation from campus because of its anti-discrimination policy. But I'm somewhat confused by this, because I've been told by Red Cross people in person, when giving blood myself, that the blood IS TESTED for things like HIV. So why do the pre-screening? Is the test less than certain? I don't know but I think the answer to that question could have a major impact on the issue here. Here's an article talking about it: http://www.insidebayarea.com/sanmateocountytimes/localnews/ci_8149514

Can one or the other not be moved at lesser expense than the cost of the studies? And yes, it IS politically correct to keap on the it-must-be-the-money bandwagon. It is.

I just loved the writing in this story, so I thought it might make a nice opening to a broader discussion about the looming economic downturn/recession. (And wouldn't that subject line make a great name for a punk rock band? The PINK SLIP BLIZZARDS, everone!) http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080202/ap_on_bi_go_ec_fi/economy_162 A shower of pink slips! My my! The analysis is accurate, though -- it seems clear that the economy is heading for low ebb of some kind. I suggest our focus should be -- is this the fault of politicians? I don't think you can really escape blame -- the president has forced us to spend a veritable fortune on Iraq, for example, running far over his projected spending on that effort at a time when we're already running a deficit. And congress I think has to accept some blame here as well, on both sides of the aisle, with hidden earmarks approaching the kind of money we're spending on Iraq! Yowsa! But are they culpable for the recession? Or is this just another inevitable, cyclical effect?

I'm gonna have to disagree with you about the "only... wealthy people" point. A high-definition projector capable of throwing an 8-foot image at a brightness and color clarity more or less in the ballpark of a Plasma screen is typically an order of magnitude cheaper than the typical Plasma/LCD/DLP screen at a quarter of that size. Even adding in the cost of the screen leaves you far and away in a better price range. The only real down sides are room/wall space and room lighting issues (can't have a lot of other lights on in the room). In most cases those issues can be dealt with easily, so it's really just a matter of lack of consumer knowledge/interest. We're used to backlit TVs -- it's familiar and comfortable. Projection is something you do in a darkened theater. I agree with you that on a 30-40" set most people can't tell much difference. But at 8' size anybody can tell the difference between regular-def DVD and Blu Ray/HD DVD. At a glance. You could certainly make a case that typical college students or low-income families can't afford them, I agree with that. But HDTVs have outsold regular definition sets for almost two years now. The interest in HDTV is there. It's just that the knowledge is lagging behind. Just to show how crazy-stupid the typical consumer is, while HDTV outsells regular TV, only something like 10-20% of the number of people who buy HDTVs actually spring for HDTV service from their provider. Everyone else is watching stretch-o-vision, and wondering why their favorite heroes have all put on so much weight.

Mass hysteria!

Ok fair enough, I understand now why you brought up the electronic emissions on airliners issue, and I agree that it's relevent. Hmm, yeah, we wouldn't want any studies conducted. Somebody might actually be tempted to inject science into the issue! Unforgivable! No, I'm simply pointing out that it's logical that windmills could interfere with RADAR and the decision should be based on whether or not they do so, and whether no other recourse is possible, not politically-correct opinionating like "well it hasn't been much of a problem in the past, so it must be about money".

He's also part of the Gang of 14, the group of 7 Democratic and 7 Republican congresscritters who worked out a compromise on appointment blocking that managed to annoy the extremists in both parties. (Hooray!)

The FAA will be the final arbiter in THIS dispute? Over wind turbines and the military? Or did I misread that? If not, then I don't see the connection at all. You might as well be saying that the government is wrong because of Watergate, the JFK assassination and the 2000 election fiasco. As it stands, this thread would be nixed if it were in any other forum on this web site aside from Pseudoscience and Speculations. I got no problem with people expressing their opinions, but you all don't accept opinions when they run counter to the politically accepted view in other subjects. Is Politics just the jumping ground now for stuff you're not allowed to say elsewhere because someone might challenge you for evidence?