Pangloss

I don't follow that reasoning. The Shah died before Reagan even came to office. Maybe I'm just not following you.

Well, to be fair, "easy to find" is a conclusion based on facts not in evidence. We don't know how long he took to find acceptably stupid responses, how many questions each participant answered correctly, etc. It just isn't a controlled environment. But I share your concern and your suspicion that it may be a valid clue. Could this be a reflection on how we teach? We throw 1000 facts and dates at students, a technique that's hardly any better than the "great man" theory, and if half the students can remember 700 of them we toss them a "C" and call it a day. Should we really be surprised, then, if half of the walkers-by can't answer 30% of our questions?

I fully agree. I really don't recall anything like that in the report. But again, this is the kind of statement that gets Ron Paul in trouble as well -- what excuses al qaeda chose for attacking us aren't relevent. What matters is whether we were correct and justified in taking those foreign policy steps. I don't recall any international outcry over our bases in Saudi Arabia, for example, and we weren't even TOUCHING the Taliban. This is why these "reasons" never really wash, and why the Republican candidate were correct to rebuke Paul on this issue. But again, he has a valid point in saying that we need to fully understand the situation and any contribution our actions and errors may have had. We may contribute to its enlargement, yes, but again if we contribute to its enlargement through correct actions then we need to be extremely cautious about suddenly deciding those actions were incorrect just because they enlarged fanatical Islam. Put another way, overreacting to "our contributions" may in fact be another form of contribution. Five years from now we may be saying the exact same thing about our contributions, but the contributions in question will be the actions of doing what Al Qaeda wanted us to do and thereby encouraging them to do more (and pick new complaints).

Jay Leno does a weekly segment along the same lines called "Jaywalking". http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=jaywalking I don't think it really means anything, it's just good comedy.

That would cause it to open in PowerPoint, but not in presentation (slide show) mode. I believe there is a way to do that, however. Perhaps a command line toggle or something.

That's my understanding as well. XP had the same problem. If it's any help, you will probably be able to run 64-bit Vista just fine. It runs most 32-bit programs. The main issue there is drivers. Check and see if all the ones you need are available in 64-bit versions before you upgrade, and if that's the case I would say go ahead and do it. We've run it extensively at our school and have had only minor application compatibility issues thus far. (For example, a program used to broadcast the computer's image data to a projector via IP address instead of direct cable doesn't run under 64-bit Vista yet, though the manufacturer has promised it this quarter.) We run mainly Maya (a 3d rendering/design program) and the Adobe application suite (Photoshop, etc) on those machines. We also run it on some of our laptops. One useful fallback is to throw a (free) copy of Virtual PC 2007 on there and put a WinXP image in it. I've been using that approach for Visual Studio 2005 because of its Vista incompatibilities and I have my students run it that way in their classroom (on the 64-bit Vista machines). I'll probably upgrade to Visual Studio 2008 this term and abandon VirtualPC, because it's a bit slower than the "real" OS (it never allocates more than one thread at a time!), but you may find it useful for running old, incompatible programs.

You really need to see the whole thing; it won't change your opinion (because they really did laugh at Paul and disrespect him), but it will provide a better context for the point of view that Giuliani and the others were putting forth. Paul had a valid point, but I felt he pushed it too far. He's correct in that we need to be more aware of the impact of our foreign policy decisions, but he's wrong to say that we caused 9/11. That's NOT what the 9/11 Commission Report says (I've read it cover to cover). The others had a valid point in criticizing Paul, though I felt they were being unnecessarily disrespectful. That's such an awesome book. An interesting follow-up on Ellis would be Burns' "Infamous Scribblers", btw. He quotes Ellis a lot, and builds on some of what he's saying, although Burns' focus is a different subject.

The debate tonight on ABC was *amazing*. Best debate format yet.

And how's that working out so far? There are no legitimate objective grounds by which you can claim that "Jerusalem is the righteous home of the Jews". You can only express your opinion, which we respect here. You'll completely fail if your goal is to establish this as an obective truth. Be advised; the logic just isn't there. 1) You have no idea who the original inhabitants of that land were. 2) Just as it's wrong to categorize all Jews as "zionists", it's equally wrong to decry the Palestinian cause as a mere anti-Jewish plot. 3) It's just land. Dirt. We get that it's important to you, but to most people that is not deemed to be as important as human life, and your mystical connection to it is really not anybody's problem but yours. 4) There will be a Palestinian state. Every internationally-supported path to peace includes it. Get used to the idea.

But it's a different poll!

Sounds like the hard drive could be bad. Have you tried swapping it out for a different one?

Oh, a very nice addition. Scary-zade, I used to call that. We are apparently terrible collectors, though -- you're supposed to get the books that are in GOOD condition! I enjoyed Guns of the South and eventually I'll probably get around to reading his longer series/timeline collections. I enjoyed the one about the aliens showing up in the midst of WW2 with something akin to Vietnam-era (?) technology. He always has such clever setup, but sometimes his execution leaves something to be desired.

If the election were held today, which of these Iowa winners would you vote for? Barack Obama Mike Huckabee Note: This poll will close on Tuesday (the day of the New Hampshire primary).

"Do you mean to tell me, Katie Scarlett O'Hara, that Tara, that land doesn't mean anything to you? Why, land is the only thing in the world worth workin' for, worth fightin' for, worth dyin' for, because it's the only thing that lasts. "

If it's any consolation, I was talking about your nationality, not your race. As I understand it Kosova's status is not yet fully determined, and it's written up in the Wikipedia as a state within Serbia, with soverignity but under UN control (so I said "Serbian"). Your racial identification is of no importance to me. Regardless, no offense was intended. The fact that I find the situation embarassing is not a reflection on your country but rather a reflection on mine. Your reaction certainly underscored my point about Balkanization, though. Gee.

Two wrongs don't make a right. That's a little axiom the middle east has never quite learned. Too busy with "an eye for an eye", I suppose. But make no mistake about it, the Palestinians must ALSO let go of their anger while under direct assault. There are absolutely two sides to this story, and frankly there always have been. I don't mean to trivialize, and I realize it's very easy to critisize from to far away and so safe a region as I'm in. But there's no denying the fact that the basic logic of the middle east conflict is about as screwed up as it gets, with plenty of blame to go around.

Yah, a very beat-up copy but I'm not really a collector, I just think it's cool. Mum also has a 1911 Brittanica, similar to this set. I try not to drool on it when I visit. BTW John have you ever read Household Gods?

The great thing about an Edwards vice presidency is that it's relatively non-threatening to conservatives and may even calm the far left at the same time. He can champion various causes and even wield a certain extent of constitutional power (breaking ties in the senate) while stopping short of having any influence on the supreme court, signing bills into law, or determining foreign policy -- the things that conservatives are scared about with him. And he's just a damn good spokesman for any Democratic-run government. The freaky thing about your Obama/Edwards ticket, iNow, is that I'm actually MORE compelled to vote for it than I was while considering Obama on his own merits. As you point out it doesn't buy him the moderates, which have been looking more influential in 2008 than in most of the elections I've participated in. But I can't help but think that Hillary's much-decried "high negatives" could prevent her from being picked up for the VP ticket. Plus the fact that I think she might actually not be interested in the post, since she's already a senator with several powerful committee memberships. And of course Hillary becomes even less necessary if Giuliani isn't on the Republican ticket, since he gets New York automatically.

I'm not sure what's more embarassing, the fact that thedarkshade is right, or the fact that I'm being lectured on the legitimacy of war by a Serbian. An ironic situation, given the way we're balkanizing Iraq!

Sorry guy but that's a total shot in the dark. You're talking about someone who's already made several compromises in his "libertarian views". It's reasonable to suspect there might be more compromises waiting in the wings, and I see no reason to think he might break the other way on an issue he's already stated a belief on -- and it's in the OTHER direction. I get what you're saying, we can't assume we know his opinion on every single issue that could conceivably come up during his presidency. But in my opinion there's actually more reason to be concerned about science funding under Ron Paul then there would be if we were facing eight more years of Bush Jr.

I agree with the above.

But if that was all there was to it then he didn't have to let her back into the country. Killing her is clearly far worse than ignoring US requests to let her back in. And he knew for a fact that he couldn't get away with it because several attempts were made and he was blamed for those events as well. Not saying you're wrong, it just seems unlikely to me.

Now THAT's interesting. That plays right into my reservations about McCain (age and adaptability, which Huckabee could help him with, but his appeal to the far right causes me to hesitate for a third reason). Obama/Edwards is very balanced and broad-based in its appeal, especially if Billary folds its tent pleasantly. A very insightful ticket, IMO.

There's no "win" in it for Musharef that I can see.

Didn't I just say that? Full stop, man. I agree. I can't agree with you here, though. I think we need heavy government involvement in scientific research because of the cost and scope involved, and because so many projects would be otherwise overlooked. I know you do.