Pangloss

Good for them. I don't think the portrayal of withdrawl-advocates as "cut and runners" is fair, but I still think it's a bad tactical move to set a timetable, and setting a timetable has always been more about politics than realities anyway, so it's just a bad idea. If you want to see how your congresscritter voted, this article has a list of each vote, broken down by state. My critter voted for the resolution. I guess the down side of this story is that the House spent 13 hours debating a non-binding resolution instead of getting on with the business of government. There's something to be said for that, but I think this was the right thing to do.

Yes, that is the problem. Bear in mind that even investigative and prosecutorial focus is a form of "help", and we do this every time we decide to have a "War on N", where N = whatever people are most annoyed about today. For example, the "War on Terror" had a direct "cost" in the Justice Department -- the setting-aside of the "War on Pornography", which was all set to launch in early September of 2001. We also work with them/help them every time we cut a deal with a drug dealer for information about his supplier, etc. That certainly helps the drug dealer who was caught. So I don't think we can express something like this in absolute terms. It's more a question of what degree we want to work with these kinds of people, and being careful about what kinds of direct help we give them and paying attention to what it's going to cost us in the long run. This is the kind of thing, by the way, that points out the need for non-partisanship in politics. The very last thing you want getting in the way when decisions like these are being made is whether one party or the other is in power, making the other party look bad, and so forth. When Tom DeLay stamps his feet and talks about the benefits of partisanship in Washington, he's got a point, but he's forgetting about stuff like this.

Ok, I can confirm that it does the same thing in Vista, in spite of the other Notepad bug fix I mentioned earlier.

That's not the kind of caution I was thinking of, no. The thing you have to watch out for is that in the process of "working with" the drug cartel you don't inadvertently give them a pass for things they should be held accountable for. You also have to watch that you don't increase their power and capabilities so as to make enforcement impossible in the future. There's something to be said for allies of convenience -- nobody wants the ship to sink while we're busy fighting over who gets to steer. But once the holes are patched and the water is bailed out, we really ought to deal with the rusty rails and get that new paint job we've been talking about.

Perhaps the problem lies in the fact that CNN doesn't have a peer review board. Even more to the point, the major journals are now essentially compromised as well, not only be subscriber and advertising revenue, but by the undercutting of standards due to overwhelming pressure to produce revelatory new articles.

Maybe to some extent I could see some benefits here, but you have to be careful with stuff like this. Iran-Contra comes to mind.

I guess you're right, it's just a fun thing to play with, and the particular phrase just adds to the humor.

I wonder if this happens in Vista. I've noticed that Vista's Notepad is missing the well-known bug where if you save a document then the cursor immediately jumps back four or five characters (a real nuisance if you save while typing, at least until you get into the habit of typing control-end right after your control-S). I'm backing up my Vista machine at the moment but I'll try it later and see what happens.

I'm glad to hear that, thanks for posting it. Exactly the sort of reality check I was hoping to get here to balance this book out. Would you guys like me to post some specific examples from the book? That might be an interesting discussion.

I figured out how to recharge my worn-out Li-ion battery-powered cell phone today: I went to the Sprint store and asked them for a new phone, got one for free, had them transfer my phone number and contacts to the new phone, and walked out the door. ;-)

It also works for "Kerr hid the facts" (I tried Kerry but that didn't work). Clearly it's a specific set of ANSI characters that's triggering a Notepad bug of some kind. Since Notepad bugs are legion, this is really no surprise at all, and clearly has nothing to do with, for example, any anti-Bush sentiment at Microsoft. I don't think Computer Science is where this belongs. It's not political either. I guess I'll leave it here but this is clearly bunk and I'm disappointed to see it posted at all.

Ok I wanted to reply to this separately because the above was more in the nature of an aside.

Yeah as I mentioned before I'm definitely keeping that in mind -- I've seen this criticism peppered around in various places, common enough that it's worth noting. But.... In terms of finding an objective baseline viewpoint, what's the difference? Isn't that just exchanging one ideology for another? Cato/Milloy/libertarians aren't Republicans, either, so that title (which I've seen associated with criticism of Milloy elsewhere as well) makes me suspect on that basis as well -- why is he lumping them in together? Is it because of the corporate associations with Cato, and just ignoring the ideological differences? Let me know if that book is any good, I'll add it to the list. I'd like to hear more about his basic premise as well -- if you want to start a thread on it here that'd be great.

I've been reading Steven Milloy's "Junk Science Judo", and I have to say it's pretty intriguing. I do understand the criticisms, and I think a true skeptic has to recognize that someone who is allegedly on the payroll of a company like ExxonMobil or the tobacco companies cannot objectively speak out against global warming or the dangers of second-hand smoke inhalation. But it's really the larger issue that I'm interested in anyway. Specifically, this allegation by Milloy that the practice of science in this country (the US) has become a matter of scare tactics and what he calls "junk science". I'm not sure I agree with him about the extent of the problem, but it's not hard to see the logic in what he's saying. Scientists get ahead these days by doing single epidemiologic studies (which right off is a concern -- one study is not science!) which they take straight to the nearest media outlet. The problem is that the government, media, and scientists are ostensibly trying to err on the side of caution. But in the process of erring on the side of caution, they end up so radically shifting the terrain that the entire issue is settled before any further science is done to try and verify the claim! So for example a study comes out claiming that there "may" be a correlation between Vitamin E and heart disease. Next thing you know the FDA or EPA is passing regulations, and then voila -- millions of dollars are being spent. Then another study comes out that completely contradicts the evidence, and we're back to square one -- only the new regulations and budgets stay intact. It's enough to make one wonder if any real science is even done anymore! Is it all just faulty epidemiology? What do you guys think? Am I the only one who cringes these days when the talking heads open a new story with "a new study released today by...." This can't be good for science!

No, not at the moment, as I understand it (was that your point?). The peace process involved some activities along those lines, but of course that's all on hold now because of Hamas. I have no idea how we could even jump start anything at this point, given the current situation, especially in Gaza. I've been very critical of Israel over the years, and I feel I'm pretty objective on the subject in general, but it's pretty hard not to side with Israel at the moment, and wonder what in the world the Palestinians are thinking. I can sympathize with their frustrations over the years, but that was a giant leap backwards.

You know, I hate to sound like an old curmugeon, but I can't help but be struck by the irony of being scolded about the arts, which is something I've probably forgotten more about than most kids today have had shoved into their transfat-scrambled, hip-hop-addled brains. Not saying that applies to anyone here -- I may disagree with you, bascule, but I respect your opinion and find it to be far more interesting and informed than most people of your (apparent) generation -- I just think it's amusing. At any rate, in my opinion this isn't a higher, artistic expression, that's somehow too subtle for the great unwashed masses to understand. What it is is just another piece of rambling, left-wing, political ranting, off the mark and steeped in misconceptions, couched in artistic clothing. And the only reason it's (very revealingly) posted at Sundance instead of YouTube is because it is left wing in its sentiments. Your mileage may vary. More power to you.

Well that's a contradiction in itself' date=' but let me also remind you of this quote from your opening post: So which is it? A work of art that's not intended to be analytical, or a brilliant pointing-out of America's foibles in the international marketplace and an explanation of how China has grown into a business juggernaut through the exploitation of its own human resources? It can't be both. Ah yes, the old "if you disagree with me you must not get it" argument. Only those who agree can understand the creative process and parse the complex combination of artistic expression and political insight. If you disagree with the expressions, you must not have understood them, and/or must not be able to appreciate the artistic value. So... why bother? Why preach if only the choir speaks latin? In fact I've demonstrated above that I know exactly what they did, I "got it" just fine, and I even drew an obvious analogy to other work. It's interesting to me that you seem intent to elevate this to some sort of higher plane of satire or, as you put it, "art". To use my earlier (and apparently very apt) analogy, I think Jay Leno is a hoot, but I know better than to take him too seriously. You seem to have missed that part of my response, to your detriment.

Well you're probably right, but you can't force people to change their minds. The best you can really do is to create an environment that fosters positive change over time. A two-state solution may be the best avenue to achieve that. After they learn to get along in peace, maybe some day they can "reunify". You're certainly right about the pointlessness of arguing over who owns the land. Documented history goes back, what, 5 or 6 thousand years? Before that, if memory serves, archeology that the caucasian race came in only two varieties: aryan and semetic. The arabs come from the same branch as the jews -- semetic (I think the Iranians are the nearest aryan race (persian)). They can't even be anti-semetic -- it's a non-sequitur. Since THAT history probably dates back TENS of thousands of years, it's kinda silly to argue about a few land disputes in relatively recent history.

Is that the only way to accurately assess the situation with China to you? Fear and panic? Go back and re-read my last post, and in particular the part where I mentioned the costs of dealing with China.

If that's true (and I think it's a debatable point), then very few, if any, of the points raised in that film are examples of it. There are no eye-openers in that piece of work, only mind-closers. I highly recommend more objective and analytical works, such as Friedman's "The World is Flat" or Milloy's "Junk Science Judo". Both of those authors further the concept that China has done very well for itself, and point out the costs that the relationship has had with regard to the US, but both authors would laugh themselves silly over the immature and misleading "information" in this piece of work. It's just fear-mongering nonsense. It's like Jay Leno joking about the President. You laugh but you (ought to) know better than to think it's actually on target.

If their point was that America's relationship with China has been bad for both countries, then it's an excellent demonstration of ignorance.

Jay Leno: "Scientists now say that Mars may be experiencing global warming. I mean, is that even possible? We only have two vehicles up there...."

Yeah I don't mind folks having opinions on it, of course, but I'd rather not see congress debating stuff like this right now. They've got more than enough on their plate at the moment.

It's going to be one of those things were people are just going to have to try it and see for themselves whether they like it or not. I prefer something like KDE over WinXP, and find the Mac OSX interface a bit toy-like, but I know a few people who swear it makes them more productive (than, say, OS 9). My main point at the moment is just that Vista seems like a major improvement over Windows XP.