Pangloss

Well I've posted this before, but I guess there's no harm in repeating. I think Iraq has been a done deal since the November elections. The fat lady sang. We've crossed the Rubicon. Had our Waterloo. Well into extra innings. Insert your metaphor here. This space intentionally left blank. Wups, where was I. Oh yeah. There was an interesting report making the rounds today from ABC News that said... well let me post a quote: http://abcnews.go.com/WN/IraqCoverage/story?id=3236822&page=1 Doesn't mean they're coming home right away, and we could still in theory field a small force for many years to come, at least in terms of the numbers problem. But it does put things into perspective. The Bush administration has refused to give timetables, and yet here are its top military people saying that it's time to start packing.

Yes. Well, Slate is an opinion page, not a "news magazine" (I wouldn't compare it with, say, Time/Newsweek), but it is considered respectable and tends to follow traditional news organization ethical rules. That's what makes it valuable, as opposed to a typical blog site, which has almost no value. That's interesting about its Post heritage; I wasn't aware of that. I do have to correct your categorization of the Washington Post as "typically conservative" -- that's not the generally accepted view (though you're welcome to disagree with that view). I know it's been a long time since Watergate but it hasn't changed THAT much. As for Slate, I guess I can go along with "liberal-leaning" (it was, after all, Michael Kinsey's creation, wasn't it?). They host a column by Christopher Hitchens, after all (wow... I just mentioned Hitchens in the same paragraph as Kinsey). They take great pains to provide moderate and opposing viewpoints. It's what makes it a valuable source -- they're more interested in truth and accuracy than partisan ideology. But I'm preaching to the choir, of course.

We use software as well, but I've heard that some universities stopped using it (including the one where I got my Masters) because of questionable accuracy. But I have noticed that the result requires a bit of analysis; it's not just an upload-and-know kind of deal. It may be more a problem of training.

New member Snake Oil asks: Can anyone help him out with this?

Thanks! I was a Mac user for many years, up through the early PowerMacs and OS9. Just recently went back to it with the purchase of a slightly used G4 iBook from school surplus. I've noticed that you can use the Fn key for page-up and page-down from the arrow keys, but when I try the two fingers tap on the trackpad it just does the same thing. I'll look for a control panel option on that.

We shouldn't expect China to listen to us. That's not what international politics is about. What we should expect is that in order to get anything done we're going to have to pay for it. ALL of us. Not just Republicans. We all have to give in order to get. No matter how many liberals cry about it, the world doesn't revolve around starving children in Africa or melting icebergs in the Arctic. It just does not.

First of all, that's not what Phi said at all. He wasn't talking about JFK trying to prevent a war in the sense that the anti-war crowd means (e.g. leave other countries alone). He was talking about JFK trying to influence foreign regime change by way of covert instead of overt means. Kennedy had about as much in common with the anti-Vietnam demonstrators of the latter half of that decade as Rush Limbaugh has in common with Cindy Sheehan. I tried to drop you a hint by mentioning the Bay of Pigs, but I guess it didn't take. You are welcome to believe whatever you like, but we have a standard of evidence for factual statements around here. This is a SCIENCE board. Not a popular or politically-correct beliefs board. Further speculations on this subject will be relocated to the Pseudoscience and Speculations subboard, where you can trade theories with the 9/11 conspiracy crowd.

Been done.

Apf! In Cindy Sheehan's history text, maybe. Not in mine.

Mary Smith Jones of Palm Beach Florida?

Double-tapping is a LEFT mouse button click, not a right mouse button click. That's true on the Mac as well as the PC. What it sounded like he was saying is that there's a way to simulate a RIGHT mouse click with two fingers.

I don't understand this statement at all.

He didn't pull out of Kyoto, it was voted down in the Senate during the Clinton administration by every single Democrat and every single Republican. Bush's contribution was to "fail" to demand domestic political support for a very bad idea that, coincidentally, could not have passed if it was dressed up in garters and a very short skirt. Politically speaking, he's not so much interested in "environmentalists" as he is moderate voters. This falls under the heading of laying groundwork for the 2008 Republican candidates (something in very short supply at the moment).

A policy which worked out really well when applied to Cuba, didn't it? There are a number of things you can point at. None of them really make much sense in the long run. If motivations were needed, there was a ready supply.

Now there's a beta test I won't automatically sign up for....

Not quite sure I followed that. It behaves differently when you tap it with two fingers instead of one?

Math 1950-2006 Last week I purchased a burger at Burger King for $1.58. The counter girl took my $2 and I was digging for my change when I pulled 8 cents from my pocket and gave it to her. She stood there, holding the nickel and 3 pennies, while looking at the screen on her register. I sensed her discomfort and tried to tell her to just give me two quarters, but she hailed the manager for help. While he tried to explain the transaction to her, she stood there and cried. Why do I tell you this? Because of the evolution in teaching math since the 1950s: 1. Teaching Math In 1950 A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is 4/5 of the price. What is his profit? 2. Teaching Math In 1960 A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is 4/5 of the price, or $80. What is his profit? 3. Teaching Math In 1970 A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is $80. Did he make a profit? 4. Teaching Math In 1980 A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is $80 and his profit is $20. Your assignment: Underline the number 20. 5. Teaching Math In 1990 A logger cuts down a beautiful forest because he is selfish and inconsiderate and cares nothing for the habitat of animals or the preservation of our woodlands. He does this so he can make a profit of $20. What do you think of this way of making a living? Topic for class participation after answering the question: How did the birds and squirrels feel as the logger cut down their homes? (There are no wrong answers.) 6. Teaching Math In 2006 Un hachero vende una carretada de maderapara $100. El costo de la producciones es $80. Cuanto dinero ha hecho?

My wife has a really expensive French bicycle. I forget the name... Peugot maybe? She's a serious rider and does 150-mile charity runs and stuff like that. I'm not in her league but I ride with her for fun and exercise. I just have a plain old 12-speed I picked up at a local sporting goods store. She won't let me touch hers, which is crazy light. I couldn't ride it anyway since you need special shoes that clamp into the pedals.

I actually use both Vista and OS-X 10.4 on a frequent daily basis. I like both operating systems quite a bit, and it's interesting to see how they've fed off one another. Apple's search functions showed up in Vista and are a vast improvement over WinXP. Meanwhile Vista's drive management is going into OS-X 10.5. Eventually someone will push that stuff into Linux, which has provided many innovations of its own to Vista and OS-X. It's a very productive and healthy competition, IMO. One complaint I have is that switching back and forth between Vista and OS-X is awkward. It's not so much a weakness in one OS or the other as it is just a reflection on the differences in keyboard layouts of the two computers in question (Macbooks are notoriously shy on function keys -- no page-up/page-down, for example, which makes browsing a little awkward IMO), and differences in hotkeys. And I still think Apple is just flat-out wrong about one-button mice. That's not just the Windows guy in me talking -- I've been a Macintosh user since the late 1980s. (Thankfully you can resolve that button situation by simply buying a two-button mouse and adjusting a few control panel features.)

I think it does, especially when I look at further potential enforcement measures. MADD and Nader want to see mandatory breathalyzers on every car, but there are so many holes in that argument it's not even funny. And nobody wants to live in a police state, with more roadblocks and random checks. You see a lot of people (including posts above) suggesting harsher punishments, but how's that worked out so far? The punishments have been getting harsher for 40 years and yet here we are. Do people think there's just some sort of magical punishment amount that will suddenly and drastically reduce the number of these deaths? Seems kinda unlikely to me. Though in fairness the number of deaths seems somewhat flat, and I suppose an argument could be made that harsher punishments has produced that curve.

Oh and we still do. I don't really give much credence to those who scream about "no blood for oil", but you'd have to have real blinders on not to see the lack of US economic interest in Sudan or the value of China's economic interests there (which extend far beyond oil). I don't think there's any question that the game of international politics is still based on national self-interest rather than humanitarianism. But there's also no question that it's a lot easier to enlist countries like the United States in an humanitarian effort that is contrary to national self-interest than it is with China. And we'll spend most of our time beating ourselves up over the Sudan and a tiny portion of the time beating up China -- doing most of their work for them. Oh, to be a Chinese diplomat these days! The luxury! Just look at this statement from Barack Obama yesterday: He's actually holding the administration responsible for the lack of UN support for intervention in Darfur while at the same time not condoning any direct action himself, and failing to hold the true culprit responsible. And he'll get away with that statement because of the perception that still persists that George Bush is responsible for the behavior of other nations. If they're not doing what they're supposed to be doing, that's surely George Bush's fault somehow. Why, he just hasn't said the right things to them! All we have to do is elect so-and-so, and those magic buttons will automatically be pushed just right every time. With friends like that, who needs enemies!

They may ultimately go along with more sanctions. China's not unreasonable, they're just extremely focused on domestic economics. And lacking the politically correct moral underpinnings of western cultures, and not being responsible to a fourth estate, they can push that farther than most other states can.

Well you know what we genocide enablers always say: It's better to beg forgiveness for killing 20 million people than to ask permission. Now all I need to do is find an appropriate rehab clinic.

President Bush ratcheted up the sanctions on Sudan today, and promised that Americans would not turn a blind eye on genocide. China responded promptly, turning a blind eye to genocide by calling sanctions an unhelpful complication. China, which buys a lot of oil from Sudan, even threatened to veto further UN sanctions, which the US also called for today. I just can't wait to be told this is all my fault.

Drunk driving deaths in the US are at a 16-year high. Almost 18,000 people died due in alcohol-related accidents. These are 2006 numbers which just became available from the DOT last week. 43,000 people were killed in accidents, so that's about 42% of all accidents. Yikes. But perhaps the real story here is that the trend is pretty flat, or so it sounds to me. The actual number of highway deaths has been gradually descending for a long time, though surely not as fast as we all would like to see. One glaring number is that 55% of the deaths involve people not wearing their seatbelts (but surely most had airbags!). Perhaps a little more spending on seatbelt education is in order -- I don't know that it's ever been well-communicated that airbags are not a panacea. The recent case with New Jersey governor Jon Corzine comes to mind. Perhaps that opened a few eyes. Another interesting point made in the report (although they don't state it this way) is that highway accidents cost the public more than the Iraq War (or at least somewhere in the neighborhood, depending on how you look at it). The total cost in 2006 was over $230 billion, which makes your personal cost $820. So even if you dismiss idiots who don't wear their seatbelts, you're still impacted in a pretty significant way (wouldn't $369 be better?). Friday's DOT Press Release here: http://www.dot.gov/affairs/dot5307.htm