Pangloss

We have a lot of folks here who can answer questions. Post some questions and we'll take a shot at it. You'll need to be a little more specific than "how exactly". Post what's confusing you and we'll take a shot at it. With regard to your specific question about pixels, the computer is programmed to understand the existence of a grid of specific dimensions, and each position on that grid is given a coordinate. The position can have two coordinate values and a color value, all three of which are stored in computer memory.

Both valid points, but look at how far you had to travel to get there -- that's practically hair-splitting territory compared with the usual ABB arguments. The average peacenik is pretty much a "if they're waving a board with a nail in it you've already failed" kind of person. And even amongst the mainstream anti-Bush crowd there's been a rallying cry of war=bad/peace=good for the last several years. Now we're talking about giving them exactly the kind of political change they've been asking for, right on a silver platter (first legislative then executive), and yet here are their heroes suddenly mouthing the same plattitudes that they've been complaining about from the Bad Guys. As they say on ESPN, "oooo, that's gotta hurt". And it's gonna hurt again if they decide to bite the bullet and defend Obama anyway, and the right starts throwing it back in their faces. And it's gonna hurt even more if they decide to abandon him and have nothing left to embrace but political obscurity. Incidentally, I believe this may also mark the end of the race to see which candidate amongst the Democrats is farthest to the left.

I think it's been an interesting development to follow in the news this week, but I'm so cautious about it that I hesitated to even post a thread about it here, lest I jinx it somehow. The governmental situation in Iraq is unchanged and far below where it needs to be, and this good news is almost entirely focused on the results of the military surge. It's going to be some time before we really see if this is actually going to work. Don't expect Democrats to flip-flop anytime soon. As abhorrent as the anti-war message is for them (because it makes them look like losers), they have no choice but to stick with it for a while, if for no other reason than the fact that it's going to take some time for the message to trickle down to the people in their districts who are screaming at them about Iraq. It's certainly not the only progress that we've seen, and there's always been SOME good news buried amongst the bad. I had a friend write up a little summary of the electrical situation the other day that I thought was interesting. You hear a lot about how the citizens of Baghdad are always complaining about the fact that they had electricity before the war, right? But what they don't tell you is that most of the rest of the country did not. Saddam kept the lights on in Baghdad, but everyone else had very little juice; sometimes only 3 hours a day. Iraq's actual generating capacity before the war was something like 4500 megawatts, but demand today has grown to something like 8500 megawatts, so they would be in serious trouble today even under Saddam (which of course is impossible, because the reason for increased demand is increased trade, which wasn't allowed under Saddam due to the embargo). All of this information is available, but the (as Rush Limbaugh likes to put it) "drive-by media" doesn't bother to pass it along. Much easier to just tell us how bad things are, and hit us with a few straw men to "prove" it. (I never knew how many single working moms were raising children in Iraq until the US invaded....) Oh well, so it goes.

I agree that what Obama meant was to "take the terrorists out", and not intending to threaten the Pakistani government. Of course it would be TAKEN as threatening locally, but what I think is really interesting is the position that that would put our hypothetical President Obama in. After years of criticizing President Bush's foreign policy, after saying that he would not have gone to Iraq, he would be pushing a REMARKABLY similar policy.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=18652E04-E7F2-99DF-3824FFAA3F933FDB&chanID=sa007 The above article is from a news story that made the rounds a couple of days ago is headlined "Climate Change Linked to Doubling of Atlantic Hurricanes". The story goes on to talk about the link between global warming and Atlantic sea temperatures (which is based on two peer-reviewed studies of actual temperature data. It all sounded very interesting and legitimate, but then I read this: Uhh... sure it leaves the conclusions unaffected -- because you chose a number that wouldn't affect them! Hello! I have to give SciAm credit for including criticism, but most of the HUNDREDS of articles I saw posted on news sites about this were making outrageous claims about this study that even the scientists who published it weren't claiming. Just look at some of these headlines: "Global Warming Causing More Atlantic Hurricanes, Study Finds" "Tropical storms doubled due to global warming, study says" "Hurricane Frequency, Climate Change Linked" Argh. It's bad enough trying to convince people global warming is real and that we should do something about it. But my goodness, why don't we just fax these studies right to Rush Limbaugh's desk with the weaknesses underlined, for pete's sake?

Actually we were just discussing that in another thread. You can find that thread (and reply to it) here: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=27476

Thanks Lockheed, I corrected the OP. I really look forward to watching the fanatics abandon Obama over this. It's just gonna make my whole week. I might actually have to log into DemocraticUnderground.com just to see the cranial explosions. "Wait, I have to support him, because he's the farthest left! But oh no, I can't support him because he would go to war! But I HAVE to support him because he's criticizing Bush! But I CAN'T support him because he would use the military! But I HAVE to ...." <BOOF> (Error 420: Limited cranial capacity exceeded by ideological demands; please see administrator.)

Well the no-war-ever crowd is gonna have a tough time swallowing this one. Their man Obama said today that he would invade Pakistan to hunt down Al Qaeda with or without Pakistan's permission. Unauthorized US raids under Bush have come under fire by the political left, but apparently Obama has no problem invading a sovereign nation without its permission in order to pursue US national security. How politically incorrect! http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6926663.stm

Thraxed1, if you want anybody to accept that kind of tin-foil-hat analysis as fact (which is how you stated it, rather than being clear that it's just your opinion) you're going to have to source it, and the sources are going to have to be acceptably objective/non-partisan (or I will delete them, along with consistently unsupported opinions stated as if they're facts). (The bit about terrorists often being Saudis is well-documented and commonly accepted, so you can skip that part. But I'll need you to back up the bits about CIA wanting to keep the Iraq war going, and the Saudi government being being the insurgency in Iraq. Let's see your evidence.) There's no "trust me" in science, so why should there be "trust me" in politics?

Of course, I understand all that. But we live in a complex and busy world. I don't have time to read scientific data and form conclusions on every issue that affects the entire world at any given moment. I need objective, comprehensive analysis to boil it down for me. And even if *I* find time for that sort of thing, as I frequently do on many (but not all) issues, how is the average person, with far less experience at this sort of thing than I have, supposed to do it? The answer is that they can't, which is why we need objective, comprehensive analysis that's not tainted by bias. Like I said, at some point you have to work at a level above the data, and that becomes a matter of imprecise judgement based on your understanding not of the issue, but of the qualifications and background of the person making the assessment that you're reading. I stand by that statement. I'm not making a strawman of your position at all, I'm holding you to what you said. You oversimplify and overgeneralize these issues, and you're doing it right there in that quote, as if "The Republican Attack on Science" (your caps) is a formal organization that meets every Tuesday at Rush Limbaugh's house. That's absolutely a generalization, and your assessment of that group's membership, goals and characteristics is different from other people's. Note that I didn't say you're wrong. I said you're overgeneralizing. There is a difference. I agree, and I have the same problem with it that you do. Where you and I might not agree, however, is what constitutes a valid counterargument, and where I *know* you and I don't agree is that each of us gets to decide what constitutes a valid counterargument. I agree with you that facts are facts, but you don't get to take evidence and call it fact when it's actually just evidence OF fact, as is so often the case in modern statistical analysis, especially when it comes to climatology and medicine. And there is a huge difference between those two things (fact and evidence). I snipped a bit because I think I've covered the gist of what I wanted to say in the bits above, but the last point I just wanted to make here, which seems applicable in response to the quote above, is that I'm actually IN science, and yet I only have time to read up on a small number of scientific papers out there. I imagine it's much the same for you -- I'm sure you've spent as much time (or perhaps far more) in searching those databases as I have, and have probably been just as surprised at some of those topics (and wished you had time to read those papers). I can't cover it all. And if *I* can't cover it all, what about Joe Workaday, with three kids, two ex-wives and an extra part-time job? He still has to vote, guy. And that means he still has to understand the issues well enough to contribute an informed opinion, does he not? ------- Let me give a perfect example of something that I think is absolutely disputable, but which many people seem to feel cannot be disputed without "attacking science". http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jul2007/2007-07-30-01.asp The above article is from a news story today that is headlined "Climate Change Linked to Doubling of Atlantic Hurricanes". The story goes on to talk about the link between global warming and Atlantic sea temperatures (which is based on two peer-reviewed studies of actual temperature data, and which therefore I don't even have to read (hint, hint) to know is valid). But then it goes into what I consider to be perfectly disputable territory: In other words, there's an obvious statistical link between warming temperatures in the Atlantic -- that's a fact that can't be disputed. But the link between water temperature and hurricane severity (and formation) is not understood well enough to actually form conclusions here. So it's perfectly valid to talk about whether or not this is actually causing more and greater hurricanes. Absolutely it is. It's even worse when you look at medicine, with studies contradicting each other practically every week. You see studies all the time that are peer reviewed and then a couple of years later turn out to be utter hogwash, either because the methodology or data were flawed, or because some variables were not accounted for. No, you CAN'T expect an outsider to always spot these shortcomings. You just cannot.

Actually it's kinda funny that mules came up (see post #7 above), because there was a story in the news the other day about a mule becoming pregnant. I guess you really can foal mother nature!

I don't mean to put words in your mouth; perhaps you didn't mean that 58 million christian conservatives voted for Bush in 2000, but that's what it sounded like so let me respond to that, with the understanding that you might have meant something else. My response is that I don't think that's a reasonably accurate number. It's too large. I just went and looked this up, and while the source is only the Wikipedia, if you're uncertain about these numbers I'd be happy to look for a more reliable source on this. It's not my intent to quote the Wikipedia as authoritative. The 2000 presidential election results reported there show Bush at a little over 50 million voters. Al Gore came in at a hair over 51 million. In 2004 it shows 62 million voting for Bush and 59 million for Kerry. And even if we say that it's 50 million (in 2000) instead of 58 million (christian conservatives voting for Bush), that number is still clearly inaccurate, at least in that it's off by one voter (namely me). (grin) Joking aside, you see the problem here, I'm sure -- obviously not every single voter (or even close to every single voter) was a christian conservative. In fact we know this to not be the case; Republicans enjoyed moderate support in 2000 due to Clinton's perceived failings, the economic downturn (bubble burst), security issues (pre-9/11, of course) and so forth. I think a reasonable position might be to suggest that as many as 40% of Bush's 2000 voters did so for reasons that can be attributed solely to Christian conservative fundamentalism. Much of the other 60% could well have taken social conservatism and religious factors into consideration, but I don't believe they voted entirely on those grounds. (This being entirely my own opinion, mind you.) I think this is an important distinction because I sense a note of anti-fundamentalist paranoia hovering in the background of your otherwise accurate and relevent observations. That impact can absolutely be a "whopper" of a factor without declaring every Bush vote to be from fundies.

I believe you may be referring to an excellent episode of "Frontline", which pegged the number (if memory serves) at about 40 million people. Which is actually not enough to win an election at the moment (Kerry lost, for example, with something like 56 million, again going by memory here), but you're certainly not very far off the mark. Christian conservatives have been one of the most successful (and interesting) movements in American electioneering history. I think that's a pretty good observation, even if it falls somewhat short of the actual conclusion and even if the word "dupe" is more a matter of opinion than objective conclusion. It may even be the closest anyone's come in American history to actually "buying" an election. A perfect storm of public opinion matching corporate determination. And look at all the reaction it touched off on the left. I don't think the objections to conservative talk radio, for example, were a mainstream opinion (commonly held by moderates) until the 2000 election cycle. Air America launched in 2004. Jon Stewart took over The Daily Show during that time frame (1999). Etc. But I'm getting a bit far off topic now.

What happened to two news choppers covering a car chase in Phoenix on Friday: Four people died. Following the crash the other news choppers immediately swooped in to film the aftermath, and the local televisions stations, whose employees had just died a fiery death, immediately and repeatedly aired the last video footage from the two choppers, including the shouts and screams of the dying men. All of the footage was immediately picked up and transmitted over national video services and broadcast on the cable stations, and on all the major network outlets at the usual hour. But hey, at least they died for entertain- er, I mean the news! Yeah, that's it -- the news. <cof> Story: http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/helicopters-collide-in-fatal-chase-for-live-news/2007/07/28/1185339319505.html

I think they can get along just fine. I saw a great story a couple of days ago about unity on the Iraqi national football team as it participates in the Asian Cup. That unity goes beyond the team, too -- they're celebrating each victory right alongside one another in the streets. Human behavior is just human behavior, nothing more, nothing less. There's no fundamental difference between millenia-long standing religious fueds and the Hatfields and the McCoys of the Wild West. It's all a bunch of hooey, they know it's a bunch of hooey, and they want to put it aside just as much as you and I want them to. I agree that we're attempting to give them an opportunity. I'm not sure that the window we're giving them is going to be large enough, given that our presence gives the instigators more fuel to work with. At some point it's going to be a better idea not to be there than it is to be there. (Some would argue that point has already passed, but I don't feel qualified to say one way or the other.)

Fair enough. I'll happily wear that moniker, but to be fair I'd probably have to wear the "pretentious snob" label as well.

I've always wondered if there's a "Hundred Mile High Club".

You're wrong. Enron is a 1990s problem, not a 2001 problem. And one of the reasons Enron happened is a lack of federal attention to a then-known and then-growing problem of inept and corrupt financial accounting practices. I have no idea what the second sentence of your post means.

Just as it was starting to look like NASA was overcoming an awfull 2006, this painful story breaks. Apparently the investigation into the Lisa Novak incident (the astronaut who got involved in a love triangle and ended up stalking another NASA employee) produced another startling revelation. Not only did some astronauts fly drunk, but NASA knew this and covered it up. http://www.business-standard.com/common/storypage_c_online.php?leftnm=11&bKeyFlag=IN&autono=25959 I still think NASA has undergone significant change since 2003, and deserves a chance to carry out its new program for lunar and martian manned exploration. But it appears they have a few more internal problems to resolved first.

Well I've read the Rama books and I can't agree with the comparison, but I admit to bias here -- I think Gentry Lee is an awful hack. Anyway, I don't think you have to start Harry Potter at age 11, but yes I agree that the point I made only applies to that specific situation. But is that a bad thing? Given all the literary opportunities out there, isn't it a GOOD thing that somebody tried that approach, and was successful at it? Doesn't this improve the literary world, even if only in a small way? But I guess you've already agreed to this point, we just disagree on the significance of it. Fair enough. Finally you mention a work I'm not familiar with. I guess there's some benefit to this thread after all. (chuckle) I can't comment with the comparison, because I haven't read it. But it's going straight onto my reading list. Hint, hint. But I can say this: Comparisons of quality are invariably tainted by opinion. I have no problem with someone reading Harry Potter and deciding that they don't like it. I just think you're way off track and being unfair in saying that it sucks and trying to prove it objectively when you haven't read it yourself and by quoting other subjective sources. No matter how qualified they are, the point is moot. It's like trying to say Star Wars sucks because Roger Ebert didn't like it. Isn't this obvious? And aren't literate people supposed to be more intelligent than this? But even if it is objectively lesser in quality, again I ask so what? Nobody ever said it was James Joyce. Why does it have to be? I just don't think you've made that case at all, and you haven't responded to my counter points. LOL!

And yet which administration prosecuted Ken Lay and convicted him? And which administration sat idly by while Enron fell apart at the hands of greedy bastards costing thousands of good people jobs and investments? While the Clinton/Reno tag team did little or nothing about corporate corruption (and specifically ignored cases involving companies that donated millions to Clinton's campaigns), Bush/Ashcroft did a great deal -- literally hundreds of successful prosecutions. I agree with Lockheed's point that Bush is responsible for increased corporate influence on government. But hat doesn't exonerate Clinton, it indicts him -- much of Bush's failures wouldn't have been possible had it not been for Clinton's actions (or lack thereof). These problems need to be fixed, and the solution doesn't lie in declaring Democrats to be good and Republicans to be bad.

(Warning: This post contains spoilers about the 7th book. Beware!) I'm going to try and be brief on this because I have a day-long conference tomorrow and I need to get some sleep. So I apologize for my brevity, which I hope will not be mistaken for lack of interest. I promised above to give a defense of Harry Potter on a literary level. Let me start that by first pointing to a specific criticism that has appeared in the last few days which I believe echos some of bascule's sentiment. The link below is to a literary review of the 7th novel, written by an accomplished freelance writer and children's literary critic: "Missing from Harry Potter -- A Real Moral Struggle" http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20070725/cm_csm/ysawyer The gist of her essay is that Harry Potter fails at a literary level specifically because of the lack of moral journey, which the author claims is a necessary component of real literary works. Because, you know, all great works of fiction must follow the exact same formula. We all know that there is never any deviation from that formula, and all great authors must write in exactly the same manner, or their works are, by definition, crap. Yeah, right. I say *that's* crap. Let me quote a brief excerpt that sums up her point: This reviewer has missed a very important point in the series, which is that while she's absolutely correct in pointing out that Harry never wavered from "good", she somehow ignored the fact that every single adult around him did waver. Rowling is specifically acknowledging the concept of moral journey and using it in a new and interestingly different manner. Isn't that what good literature is supposed to do -- recognize the "rules" and shake them up a bit, showing us something interesting and new? But that's not all she's missed. Check this out: This is just amazing. The author is picking up on a character trait that Rowling deliberately wrote into the character (his predicament in having to choose between Voldemort and Dumbledore), and then using it to claim that Rowling doesn't understand that very same character! Hello! But in fact the author of this review was just incorrect about Rowling's feelings about fans towards Snape. Just this morning I saw an interview where a child asked Rowling a question about why Snape had become a hero, and Rowling expressed that in her view Snape isn't a hero. It's more complicated than that. One of the problems here is that the movies have oversimplified the story. The books are far more complex. Snape's predicament is very much akin to (and was very likely inspired by -- she's cited this many times) the dilemma faced by Tolkien and his characters at the end of Lord of the Rings. Frodo *cannot* throw the ring into the fire! If you don't understand that key point, and the fact the entire series has built up to this dilemma, then you cannot understand Lord of the Rings, no matter HOW old you are. How Tolkein resolves this is one of the most exciting moments in all of literary history. He's told you exactly how he's going to do it, given you all the clues ("Smeagol will play some role..." says Gandalf). Yet no matter how good a reader you are, no matter how diligent, intelligent, thoughtful, careful, attentive and enlightened -- you're still surprised! THAT's good writing. Harry Potter is no different. She accomplished that kind of surprise many times. That's what makes it good writing. I wanted to mention another key point in the brief time that I have, which is that I think one of the things that Rowling has done here is actually unique in all of literary history: She's created a work that matures with the reader! When the books begin, Harry is 11, and parents can present the first book to an eleven-year-old child. As the child ages and the parents think he or she can handle it, more books can be presented, with the full understanding that each year is progressively more mature in theme. One year, in fact. Each year the situation grows more serious; the consequences more grave. In book four a boy dies for the first time. By the time Harry turns 17, the situation is absolutely grave -- a situation no 11-year-old should ever be asked to handle. But a 17-year-old, that's different. (After all, we let 17-year-olds into rated-R movies, but not 11-year-olds.) That's unique. Nobody's ever done that before. Not in fantasy, not in science fiction, not in any other kind of fiction. Not ever. Whether that approach is entirely successful is another question, but think of the inspiration that will cause. Which brings me to my last point, which is that inspiration. You can quote all the studies you want about children reading Harry Potter and then turning away from literature (surely an incomplete study at the very least -- how can they say that they'll never return?). But one thing you cannot deny is the number of people who will be inspired by these books, and go on to produce other works, building and exceeding the past. That's what literature is supposed to be. And by the way, I'll bet you dollars to donuts James Joyce (who broke all the rules and wrote for the common man!) would have not only LOVED Harry Potter, he would have beaten you roughly about the head and shoulders for suggesting that it's not a perfectly legitimate read, and time well spent in reading it.

If not necessarily super-literate? Oy, again with the presumptions..... These prejudices and preconceptions about Harry Potter fans are really amusing, not to mention incredibly ironic coming from people who consider themselves well-read, and therefore presumably well-educated! If you've never read a book for sheer entertainment value then you're a very different reader from me. But hey, it's a free country. IMO that's one of the great things about modern entertainment -- there's something in it for everybody. Yeah that has its drawbacks (you're not THAT far off the right track with this), but it also has its advantages. I'm glad that I live in a time where books aren't an elite, expensive, rare commodity. You should be kissing the ground Rowling walks on for contributing to that situation, not lamenting a minor (and questionable) side effect. You're really arguing out of ignorance here, and again judging something that you haven't read. Would you let someone judge James Joyce who hadn't read him? I'm going to write a separate post on this (the literary aspect of Rowling's accomplishment), but there's something really fundamental and important that you're not aware of, and I'm going to do something about that right now. See below. Fair enough, even if your study turns out to be false IMO you're asking perfectly valid questions. But I still think you're on a pretty obvious ideological mission. If you're lamenting the fact that adult-oriented (and I know we both mean normal-adult, not pornographic-adult, but it's a statement about that industry that I have to make this qualification, isn't it?) fantasy and science fiction is not accepted by society, I wholeheartedly agree with that sentiment. But I think this is due in part to your youth, if I may be a bit presumptuous myself. I grew up in the 1970s and 1980s reading hard SF and fantasy, and I don't think you have any idea how unacceptable and non-mainstream these genres used to be, compared with today. We live in a world that knows that those genres exists and at least respects their entertainment value and marketing potential. Tha was not the case in the pre-Star Wars world I grew up in, my young friend. That having been said, I still think you have a valid point -- it would be nice if those genres were more accessible to the unaware. I just don't think that problem has anything to do with Harry Potter. You can't blame Rowling for that, IMO. Well that was a great suggestion, and I applaud the effort. Where you went wrong is raining on Potter in the process. Why can't both works be terrific for what they are? Snow Crash is one of my favorites. So is Harry Potter. So is The Iliad. Aren't I a contradiction? How do you explain me? Go ahead and be personal (albeit politely) -- I'm inviting the reply. (Though I recommend reading my next post first.) My reply: There is no fixed number of books that adults are allowed to read. They aren't burning available time slots by wasting their time every now and then on bad literature. They really aren't. And Harry Potter isn't bad literature.

This thread is a left-wing version of the religious right's objections to Harry Potter on religious grounds. This is the kind of things I'm talking about when I say that the left can be just as bad as the right in pusing its ideological agendas. We're talking about opt-in entertainment, for pete's sake. You know, the stuff the left is supposed to be in favor of, remember? It's actually pretty amusing, because what it shows is that these literature buffs need affirmation about their judgement from other people. They're annoyed because Rowling is more popular than Joyce or Hawthorne or Hemmingway or whomever. But if it's great literature, isn't it great literature regardless of how many people read it? But the main thing that's kinda daft about this argument is the notion that children should only be reading great works of literature. Nonsense. We're discussing entertainment, not education. As for the study that says that the "Harry Potter effect goes away", that's fine, we can talk about ways to improve and develop the link between entertainment and education. But picking on something like Harry Potter, which actually stimulates and challenges readers, at a time when intellectually decrepit "reality television" programs dominate the airwaves, is just silly.

Just out of idle curiosity, do you hold Air America to the same standard? Or are they less accountable because their listenership is smaller?