Pangloss

Pfft, somebody would have made that comparison even if I hadn't said anything. At least this way I got to pre-empt some of the wind out of that sail. ;-)

Wallace seemed a bit winded to me as well. The jacket is apparently a trademark, and I've seen it described in a number of biographical sketches as ranging from "dilapidated" to "threadbare", or in more generous descriptions, "familiar" or "comfortable". The one he wore during this interview didn't seem threadbare to me, just a bit bland. If you combine that piece of information with the part of the interview where they were discussing his appearance (after the aid handed him a note about adjusting that very same jacket), it seems clear that it's part of a visual package which he and his associates deem important to the exercise of power. I imagine it ties in with his public image as a common, humble, every-day Iranian. That is, of course, far from the truth. But I imagine that it is more effective than the uniform he wore in the 1980s while he was putting political prisoners to death as the executioner at Evin Prison.

Chaos is certainly possible. I don't know if people realize how thoroughly connected the Cuban exile community in South Florida is with the people of Cuba. I mean, Cuba is closer to where I'm sitting than Orlando or Tampa. They'd be in our local television network affiliate range if they weren't blocking our signals. My hope is that it will be viewed as an opportunity for peaceful opening of relations. I've felt for a while now that the embargo was probably a mistake, that we should have taken a more open, trade-oriented approach.

I dislike the need for people to post politically-correct addendums and stipulations in order to have their words taken and responded to exactly as they were posted. Maybe we should talk to Verisign about getting some PC digital certificates stamped up for us.

Reading between the lines of people's words is not what I consider to be elevated debate.

It's more what he didn't say that was interesting. The main thing that impressed me was his intelligence and control. In terms of denial of reality and truth, picture Fidel Castro or Muhammad Saeed al-Sahhaf (you know, the former Iraqi Information Minister). But instead of a comic, table-pounding exterior and utter stupidity behind the mask, there is instead a vast intelligence and utter conviction and determination. Looking into that man's face is like peering into the gates of hell. This is a man with a PhD in civil engineering, and he and his party identify themselves with science, reason and charity. They claim to believe in the power of education and helping their fellow man. But what do they do in reality? Carry out a religious pogrom on science, engineering and mathematics in universities across their country. If you're an educator in Iran these days, you'd better be properly connected and correctly religious. Or else. These guys are the Taliban with graduate degrees. This is the kind of man that the Bush haters have been trying to warn us about for the last six years. They just had the ID mixed up. Seriously, when you look at a guy like this, and the danger he represents to the entire world, it's embarassing that we were so wrapped up in trivialities compared to what's happening in Iran. Over here our biggest worry is whether a scientist will be able to get federal funding for a politically incorrect project, and if he doesn't then he can always go on 60 Minutes and blast the administration! These people live in a whole other world.

I heard a bit about this earlier today. I'm not sure I understand the implied reasoning behind the allegation. The article seems a bit scanty; have you heard anything further about what the administration's motive might have been? If it had been a couple of weeks earlier I would perhaps link it with the Lieberman Senate race, but of course it broke too late for that.

Boy that guy is scary. Hitler reincarnate.

I agree with that point but I would rephrase it slightly to say that teaching is not competitive. Low teacher pay is bit of a myth -- they make well above the national median even if you don't consider the 3-month break, plus they get government-quality benefits. The problem is that there are simply better opportunities for people with that particular level of education. The people we want teaching simply have better options for their careers. The most eggregious examples are in the technical fields. Don't we WANT science and math teachers with graduate-level science and math degrees? But it's absolutely *impossible* for those people to go into high school teaching with that kind of education experience. The *only* way that happens is if they make a nice chunk of change and then decide to "give something back to the community" by semi-retiring as a teacher. And therein lies another dilemma, because how can you pay your high school math and physics teachers TWICE what you're paying the english and social studies teachers? BTW the concept of high pay as an incentive is included in the points I listed above, except from the perspective of bonuses for good teaching. Basically the same thing, just end-loaded instead of front-loaded. (shrug)

One of the more intriguing black hat ideas floating around the Internet these days is the idea of exploiting operating systems running on dual-core processors in such a way as to fool the user into thinking they're running a normal Windows session, when in fact they're actually only running in a simulated setting known as a "virtual machine". A "real" operating system would be running in the background, completely hidden from the user, providing resources to the "fake" operating system, and also monitoring everything the user does. (Hence the "blue pill" label, derived from The Matrix.) Along the way, of course, it would make note of all your usernames and passwords, credit card information, and anything else of importance to the hacker. Part of the fear at work here is generated by the improvements in what hardware nerds euphemistically call "virtualization". The latest round of dual-core processors (such as those being released by Intel this month and next) have greatly improved technology for dealing with multiple sessions of operating systems. In the past if you were running in a simulated setting it was fairly easy to tell that you were doing so because, for example, the system would feel a big sluggish at times, such as when you open the Start menu. That sluggishness may soon be a thing of the past. There are other ways to tell if you are in that environment, but they may not be readily apparent to the average user. Of course, actually getting the machine into that kind of configuration is not as simple as most exploits. For one thing, the user is already in a regular, non-virtual setting when they connect to the Internet. In order for something like this to work, the computer would obviously have to be restarted, and booted off the protected, invisible operating system. It would also have to present a completely familiar and consistent environment to the user after doing so. And even then, many analysts believe that it will still be possible to detect the virtual environment. And if that's the case, routines could be built into anti-spyware and/or anti-virus programs that could detect this. But there remains a problem here in that if the user is the actual owner of the system, then they are authorized to do things like run virtual sessions within a normal operating system. That being the case, you don't want to be constantly interrupted by your spyware program -- it defeats the very purpose of having this ability. A lot remains to be seen here, but it's one of the more interesting debates/discussions in the hacker community at the moment. An interesting example of the discussion can be found in this article at Slashdot.

Interesting op-ed piece by Florida Governor Jeb Bush and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg in the Washington Post today regarding the No Child Left Behind act, which is apparently up for reauthorization soon. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/11/AR2006081101565.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns The gist of their piece is that the act should be reauthorized, and the following changes should be made to improve it: - Making the testing standards completely uniform so that states can't dumb it down - Track individual student progress to show improvements beyond whether or not X number of students have met the minimum goal (per FL & NYC model) - Replace the pass/fail metric with a grading metric (A, B, C, D, F) to show relative degrees of progress and failure - Reward high quality teachers (pay for performance) and fire the bad ones Makes sense to me.

American viewers may wish to tune in to 60 Minutes tonight. Mike Wallace will be interviewing Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. (No, I pasted it in from the Wikipedia, are you kidding?)

Just remember to bring your own seat covers. We used to sanitize them for your protection, but it was either that or the pension fund....

Interesting subject. One ABC News story I saw yesterday on TV noted that five years ago we started having to take off our shoes at the checkpoint, and we're still doing that today. The point being that a lot of these new measures may become permanent. I'd like to know more about what's been stopped by airport security. There's been so much criticism of it, and how frought it is with loopholes, but have they actually caught people that way? I have mixed feelings on the subject in general. I think most Americans are willing to forgoe a certain degree of privacy/freedom when they fly because of the inherent danger. The idea that there should be no security whatsoever has been relegated to the extremes. But at the same time, it's such a difficult thing to measure success with that it makes you wonder if it's worth doing.

Interesting article about the promotion of circumcision to fight AIDS: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/st...ectID=10395765 Thought I'd toss it out there for discussion. My personal opinion has always been that circumcision for religious reasons is a bad thing, but I try to keep an open mind about it since science has always seemed, to some degree, inclusive.

I don't really have a problem with what you're saying, Bud, I'm sure that's part of the answer too. But all that says is that they're "Drama Queens with Guns". Everyone has their own set of reasons for their own set of failures -- why should they be treated any different? People should be given a helping hand (NOT a free ride) out of poverty because it's right to do that, not because they're pointing a gun at someone else.

The good news is that the Security Council unanimously passed a measure on Friday that Lebanon and Israel have agreed with. The agreement will put Lebanese and UN forces in the area with strong rules of engagement to prevent rocket attacks, and Israel will pull out of the country. Of course, Hezbollah can end the agreement at any time by launching more rocket attacks. All we can do is hope they learned their lesson and try to seek peaceful means, mindful of what happened to their countrymen when they chose violence instead. We have an old saying in this country that I think Hezbollah could stand to learn from: Don't sh*t where you eat.

Not quite sure I get it. It's a couple of guys stacking up some rocks and then knocking them over....

Here's another good question: Why in the world would you want to change or undermine something that you know is objectively, morally right, just because someone else hates you for doing it?

abskebabs, I'm not sure how that's different from what the Security Council is trying to do right now. The problem is not minutiae in the details of where the borders lie, but in the violent attacks flying back and forth. Israel has no intention of stopping until Hezbollah has stopped, and Hezbollah has no incentive to stop because they're getting exactly what they want through violence.

Bascule and I were referring to Iraq. Israel did attack Iraq from the air in 1981, and I'm guessing that's what Chupacabra was thinking of when he said that Israel had attacked "Iran". Only one letter difference, you see. Obviously there is, in reality, a world of difference between Iran and Iraq.

Oh my, I missed that one. You have sharp eyes Basc. Iran... Iraq... they're all the same, right? (chuckle)

Yet another desperate moral equivalency. I guess this ties in with the famously superficial "suicide bombers = freedom fighters" argument. Pretty much Romper Room material. For real debate between intelligent adults, not so much.