Pangloss

That's fine, you can accuse me of being ignorant of the facts (and ask me to explain, as you did). What you can't do is accuse me of being ignorant of a larger subject because I appear to be ignorant about specifics. That's an appeal to ignorance, and a logical fallacy. One thing is a logical question. The other is just an insult. (Just so we're clear on this.) I don't dispute that our "meddlings" (and I think that's a reasonable word for it) have had an impact on Iran. What I dispute is your insistence that we remove any and all responsibility for Iran's actions from... Iran. When I pointed this out to you, instead of agreeing with me that they also share responsibility for their actions, you instead accused me of being ignorant of Iranian history. Now do you see what that approach is a mistake? Had you instead agreed with me that they share responsibility for their actions, then we would have agreed on at least that one point. Completely. So maybe you need to ask yourself if perhaps staying on your ideological message is more important to you than agreeing on points that we clearly do agree on (because unlike you, I don't make the assumption that you're ignorant about the larger issue of national responsibility -- I strongly suspect we agree on this). By the way, staying on an ideological message rather than agreeing with a debate opponent on an issue you clearly agree with them on is an example of a closed mind.

Turns out that what caused the computers to malfunction on the space station over the past week was a static surge caused by the unfurling of a new set of solar panels. This according to Russian engineers yesterday (article here).

I see your point, but I remain skeptical. We'll see what happens after they've had a few months of struggle with these often-difficult issues.

I'm warning you again not to go there. If you do you'll lose for three reasons -- first because you're wrong about me, and second because it's logically ridiculous to state that sufficient knowledge will automatically lead anyone to the "correct" conclusion (yours). It's also insulting as hell, which of course brings me to the third reason -- it's against board rules regarding persistent use of straw men (in this case an obvious association fallacy). I don't mean to end an otherwise pleasant disagreement on a sour note, but like I said, don't go there. Please take note.

I'm under the impression that the "rise" is actually due to an increase in detection capability. The science is better, and it's politically correct to shout "autism!" every time a child stumbles over the word "onomonapoeia". ("Ow! Stop that!") But I'm keeping an open mind about it, mainly because I just haven't had time to read up on it yet.

I completely agree, and I thought that was really well put. The ongoing, innate conservatism of American parenting is (and has always been) a bit of a stumbling block in our society. On the other hand, cultural censorship of swearing is not exactly the sort of thing that's really holding us back. On our list of socio-political priorities these days, I'd say it would have to be pretty low. So I have to watch what I say in public. Who cares? It keeps the parental types happy, and as long as I can say "oops sorry" and move on (without having to pay some sort of stupid penalty), I'm content. It's only when they start talking about real censorship that I start to get concerned. Prohibiting movies if we can't police them for sub-18-year-olds, for example. Burning books. Banning video games. Please, give it a rest. Sooner or later your child is going to learn how the world works. GET OVER IT. It's kinda like when parents try to tell me about the antics of their children at work. All new parents brag about their child's random discoveries (mistakenly presumed to be examples of vast potential!) as they pass through the stages of pre-sentience like Paris Hilton staring at the front page of the Wikipedia. I'll tolerate their nonsense up to a point. After that I start to get annoyed.

Always a dangerous question to ask in this forum. I have considerable knowledge of the history of Iran, as well as the Persian and Parthian empires. Insulting my knowledge level is probably a really bad idea. I recommend another direction. A very common view. Also a highly biased and blindered one that focuses on specific instances rather than the whole. But as I've said above, I really have no problem with your expression of your opinion. It bothers me not in the least that it's completely polarized from my own. That's what makes the forum interesting. Amusing that you gave that particular example -- George is one of the worst at closed-minded ideological demogoguery. There's a difference between having an open mind and declaring everyone who disagrees with you to have a closed one. But that's a common tactic with extremists -- painting themselves as the normal ones, because they can't handle being outsiders. (shrug) But like I said, it's cool. I won't let this board be turned into an Air America call-in show, but I don't believe we have to silence friendly, cooperative people like yourself in order to accomplish that. By all means, keep posting away. Sorry you got suckered into that quagmire, but you'll work youself out of it eventually. And it's not uncommon around here. There are respectable scientists and engineers on this board who are utterly convinced that we never went to the moon, that we were visited by aliens in 1957, and/or that Bush was behind 9/11. You'd think scientific-minded people would have a built-in immunity to unsupported "evidence", but it just doesn't seem to be so. Ah well.

Here are a couple of reference articles on this subject: http://www.techworld.com/mobility/features/index.cfm?featureID=3465&pagtype=all http://www.networkworld.com/news/2007/061407-wwdc-developers-split-on-iphone.html In a nutshell, developers are unhappy that Apple has not provided the ability to create 3rd-party applications for the iPhone, which is due to be released in a few days. This is actually mostly about money, because Jobs has said that he does want to provide this ability eventually, so mainly developers are upset about not being able to get in on early popularity. But there are some interesting twists to this story that I think have a larger context in the realm of the computer industry. Initially developers will have the ability to write applications for the iPhone, but only using AJAX and CSS techniques in the built-in Safari web browser. This has important cost implications because it has not yet been announced whether the iPhone will have an "unlimited internet" type of plan. If it doesn't then that would make those applications very expensive to use, not to mention the fact that they wouldn't work at all if no access to the network was available. But what's most interesting to me are some of the comments coming out of the Apple fanboys. Some typical examples of which may be found here: http://www.macworld.com/forums/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=editorsnotes&Number=508325&page=0&view=collapsed Some notable examples: How delightfully, ironically Orwellian! I guess 2008 will be... just like 1984. Of course, most of the comments on that page are in support of open access and are saying "just be patient". But isn't this so typical of Apple's ongoing open-or-closed dilemma? So historic, and yet, so current.

Hogwash. When has that popular, traditional 3rd-party developer excuse ("it's the operating system's fault! not mine!") EVER been accurate? You write software to the operating system, you don't write software to some fantasy world that doesn't exist. Besides, OSX, like Linux, is perceived as more secure because fewer people are attacking it and because it's popular to say that it's more secure. The real security issues relate to the current state of the technology and of human effort. "Real" scientists may scoff all they like, but computer science really does involve more than just "Hi, I'm a Mac!" I'm all for competition, and if they work out their issues and contribute something new to the PC browser market, I'll be all over it. But I'm not the least bit interested in shiny baubles and feel-good marketing.

In my opinion Iran is responsible for its current position. Not the West. I agree that "meddling" has taken place, but you keep making excuses for everyone except the US. Isn't that a rather obvious violation of Occam's Razor, if nothing else? Not to mention a common far left tactic. Well at least you included the world "usually". But boy does this say a lot about your predisposition to prejudge any and all US actions on any issue. This seems like a good time to point out one of my favorite positions: That if you are a partisan, your vote doesn't count. All it does is offset a partisan from the other side. If your mind is closed, what's the point in either (a) voting, or (b) debating? Aren't you just setting yourself up to fail 50% of the time? But hey, maybe I'm wrong. (shrug)

Doesn't matter why. Some subset of the community has decided that they are, and they've stated a reason which has nothing to do with personal choice, but rather with their ability to carry out an important responsibility that we've entrusted to them. Their reason has a certain logic behind it, so you have to confront it on that level. You can't just ignore it and pretend it doesn't exist. Put another way, is society willing to *force* children to confront these issues before they can walk and talk? Because if you have no restrictions, then it is force that we're talking about. Not freedom.

Well gosh darnit, bascule stole the main thrust of my argument. (But at least I got to use the new icon!) The question is why are we paying for something that doesn't stop ICBMs either. No one has an answer for that, just repeated rationalizations that we have to physically defend ourselves from ICBM's. You wanna hold up a trillion dollar umbrella and pray it doesn't rain, go right ahead and try. Just don't expect me to sit quietly while you take the money from my pocket to do so. This is the false analogy I mentioned earlier. You need to stop using this persistent straw man. Seriously. It's really undermining your argument. This is another rude straw man, twisting the questioning of whether the system is worth the money into "too focused on who's making the money". You're leaping to some really unproductive and inaccurate conclusions in this thread. The implication being that none of us care about saving lives. THIS close to straw man #3. Oh my god, finally an argument! Sure it is. Let's keep pursuing missile defense concepts. I'll happily keep paying for that research, because thus far SDI has lead to all kinds of fantastic advancements. All I'm asking for you to do is not roll out a system that doesn't work. (Unless I'm just flat wrong about it not working. I've invited you to explore that but so far you've declined, just insisting that we need missile defense. Hey, I got a missile defense system for ya. Do you have a paypal account?)

Fair enough, I'll give you credit for consistency, and agree to disagree on that point. But why is it that whenever the US starts something, it justifies another country's retaliatory action, but whenever THEY start something, we're supposed to just sit back and take it?

Yah, I agree, which is why I favored the solution that didn't pass Congress this week. Also unrealistic is the idea that we're going to make the border "100% secure". Yes, it does need to be improved (badly). Yes, we need to do something about the people we have here already. Yes, both of these things can be done. Isn't that what compromise is for? The collapse of the reform bill made no sense to me at all, either for its politics or its relationship with reality.

Ok, I can play Devil's Advocate. Inevitably when issues like this (or video game violence or TV/movie rating systems, etc) come up, people act like all children are just-slightly-under-the-legal-drinking-age and pretty much ready for anything if only their repressed parents will let them have access. But that's just not the way the world works -- there's no way you're going to make a convincing argument that a 4 year old is able to handle the same stuff as a 12 year old. We charge parents with the legal responsibility to raise their children in a responsible manner, and then consistently yank the rug out from under them by shoving the raunchiest filth into their faces in public, regardless of their age. In short, who are you to decide at what age my children are to be indoctrinated into the culture of cool and the hypnosis of hype?

Apparently this thing is just riddled with security vulnerabilities. Hey wait, you mean something's NOT automatically better just because Microsoft didn't make it? Shocking! http://www.itwire.com.au/content/view/12856/1103/

Nice. Now if we could just do something about NASA's ridiculous assertion that it actually visited the moon in the late 1960s. (As if!)

Interesting article in Slate yesterday about placing a monetary value on immigrants. But I think he makes a major logical error. http://www.slate.com/id/2168060 Here's a quote to show roughly what the article is about: In my view, his error is in the implication that we're not responsible for the current value of Mexican workers. That's like holding us responsible for the color of the moon. This is one of the most common fallacies proponed by the far left -- that Americans are responsible for everything and thus need to pay for everything to be fixed. I do agree with him about the value of Mexican labor and that even once you parse out all the disadvantages it actually works out to our advantage. That part of what he's saying makes sense. The problem I have is with the concept that we OWE something to Mexicans. IMO we do not. I don't suggest that immigration is strictly a cost-benefit scenario; I do think there's a humane aspect involved. But I reject the notion that we're responsible and that we owe. What do you think?

Logical fallacy. Just because someone's not in favor of missile defense doesn't mean they're not in favor of defense in general. The arguments *I* see in this thread focus on the accuracy of the system and the influence of the military-industrial complex on good government, not questioning the need for strong national defense. Wouldn't YOU be opposed to spending billions of dollars on a system that doesn't work? Have you never ranted about government waste? I find THAT weird. No, actually, it's just downright unlikely. The more likely explanation is that, unlike that other government waste, you simply don't see these missile defense systems as flawed. So isn't the onus on you to explain to us why they're not flawed, and provide evidence to that effect?

Interesting, I didn't know that. Makes sense, though.

Personally I'm with you, bored_teen, but just as I have to watch what I say when I'm teaching a class (I'm regular potty-mouth), we also have to watch what we say on these forums, for much the same reason. (shrug) But it's an ironic twist to your post, sure.

It's almost like we're speaking backwards. (grin) But I'm guessing you just overlooked my point there, so I'll reiterate it in the hopes that you'll catch it and respond.

Well, competition is a good thing, but from what I understand most Mac users prefer Firefox. I think bascule may have it right -- this is useful for site-checking, but little else.

I was driving in the right hand lane of a curvy, poorly-lit, four-lane divided street the other night when I came around a corner and suddenly there's a guy coming right at me in my lane on roller blades, pumping hard! Pitch black darkness, no reflectors, no street lights, nothin. And there's a perfectly servicable, very wide sidewalk right off the street! I see people make these mistakes on bicycles as well, and I think too many people just have no concept of how non-motorized traffic is supposed to work. You can use the street if you want, but you go WITH the traffic, not against it, unless you are walking. The regular bicycle riders seem to get it; I guess it's mainly the inexperienced who don't know about this.

I don't understand this at all. In media res is great for fiction, but not the best way to explain socio-political events.