Pangloss

That's interesting as well basc. You've got me thinking... you know how much I like politics... I wonder if I could use something like Berkeley's FrameNet approach to parse political blogs and advise a browser as to whether they are "liberal" or "conservative" or "moderate", etc. (Just a random thought. I've got a couple more days to write a proposal on this.)

Very interesting suggestions, thank you.

That's a very middle of the road position on abortion, Douglas. Don't you care about unborn children? (You see my point, right? I'm not actually suggesting that you don't care about unborn children.)

You understand that Congress can override a veto with that kind of majority, right? And that Bush hasn't actually vetod it yet? I'm not saying you don't have a valid argument, bascule, and I'm definitely not trying to single you out. It's just that when you speak in such absolutist terms like "The use of torture in any form makes us no better than the Nazis...", you make it sound like Bush is running around Guantanamo with a pair of pliers and some Turtle Wax. The points you outlined from the UN are painted in very broad strokes, not procedural specifics, and as such they leave room for interpretation. There is a position here that merits some critical thinking regarding the level of comfort we allow prisoners to have, and I don't think that should be dismissed out of hand by pawning every single thing we don't like as "torture". As Libertarian Neil Boortz put it on his talk show recently, I don't like to see anybody being harmed. But if a little ridicule will save American lives, then I say "stack 'em up like cordwood". And obviously we're not the only ones who feel that way, either. France, Israel, Russia, and a host of other countries do the same thing, and you're not calling them Nazis. Isn't torture always torture no matter where it takes place? In short, I agree that you have a legitimate argument, but I believe that we can establish some reasonable boundaries without resorting to ideological demonization.

You guys really disappoint me whenever this subject comes up. You do so well in other areas, but whenever Abu Graib rears its ugly head, it's back to the "Nazi" calls. Deliberately avoiding defining the meaning of "torture" makes this a partisan/ideological argument, not a logical/objective one.

Well and here we see the reason why taking a middle road, rather than an ideological road, is a good idea. When it comes time to pass an objective assessment about something, people are more inclined to listen to you if you have not shown partisan bias in the past. I like the bit above about how the right wing will now vote for a third party candidate. A year ago we were talking about how the left wing was going to do that because Kerry had come too far towards the center. A couple of years from now we'll be talking about the same thing again when Hillary gets nominated. It's a completely empty threat, because it would simply be handing the other side a victory -- the one thing that ideologues can NEVER do. The way you deal with partisan ideologues is by IGNORING THEM. One of these days we'll figure that out. I tell you what, why don't we just take the 30% of this country (the 15% far left and the 15% far right) that has no interest in compromise or middle ground and put them all on Lost island. We'll tell them that they have to punch in a computer code every 108 minutes or the nukes will be launched (an apocryphal apocalypse, if you will). We'll put one group down the Hatch with the computer, and the other group on the shore. And then we'll make a TV reality show out of it, for the entertainment of the 70% of us who think they're a bunch of clowns. I give them a day before the conspiracy accusations start flying, and a week before they're dead to the last man. (Hey lookie there, I just figured out "Lost"!)

I'm looking for a few suggestions for a programming project for my Master's class on Artificial Intelligence. Here are the terms of the project: Course Project The purpose of the course project is for the student to demonstrate an understanding of the various AI techniques and concepts. The student will develop a software application that demonstrates the use of one of the AI concepts covered in the course. All programming must be done in Java. The project must be a standalone application developed using Java 2 and not a Java applet or servlet. Project Deliverables Project Plan - The project plan will be limited to one page and will include a description of the proposed application, including the AI technique(s) that will be used, and a description of the application process (i.e. what it will do). The project plan will be reviewed by the instructor and comments and recommended modifications will be provided as necessary. The project plan must be approved by the instructor before the student begins work on the actual software application. The project plan is worth 5% of a student’s final grade. Project Report - The final deliverable will include a copy of the well-documented source code used in the application and a one page overview of the application that describes the AI techniques used, the application process, and the results provided by the application. The project application is worth 20% of a student’s final grade. Any suggestions?

There's a tremendous irony here in the way Republicans are talking about qualifications. The right wing is pretty offended by the fact that they didn't get their ideologue, and any talk about "qualifications" is just a smokescreen to cover the fact that they know darn well that her lack of ideology is not a valid excuse for failure to confirm. In short, they're behaving exactly like Democrats were during the Roberts nomination. And Republicans were all over that, saying that Democrats were putting up a smokescreen for the fact that Roberts wasn't conforming to their desires with regard to abortion. From my perspective, as a radical moderate intent on pointing out any and all hypocrisy in politics, the irony is delicious, and I'll be milking this one for years.

It's a bad thing in the sense that we were hoping to sell them finished goods and were unable to do so. I still think American *manufacturing* can compete in a world market. We just need to take a more realistic view of what that means (esp wrt labor rates). I wouldn't mind seeing a new view of manufacturing in this country where young adults take a turn through that world as part of their experience profiles, in much the same way that they currently pass through areas like retail sales, on the way to "something better".

Regarding thrust vectoring, it depends on how you look at it. It doesn't have thrust vectoring in the sense of being able to adjust the rear nozzle, but of course it has separate nozzles used for VTOL, which could presumably be used to modify its in-flight trajectory to exactly the same (or better) effect.

1) Actually income tax revenue is rising, not falling. It may be the highest this year that it's ever been. See this thread for our discussion on that subject last week, including source citations: http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=14884 What is falling (or was falling before Katrina loomed on the budgetary horizon and Bush decided that he needed to prove that he really doesn't hate black people) is the deficit. Bush promised to cut it in half within five years, and it was looking like he'd instead accomplished that goal in one. The New York Times had a good piece on this a few days ago about how it may still fall by $100 billion anyway, in spite of Katrina. Revenue is that good. 2) Buying goods from Wal-Mart is a good explanation for a rising trade deficit, but it says nothing at all about bankruptcy. 3) Regarding "The Chinese are not buying anything from us because they are so poverty stricken they couldn't even if they wanted to", you know they have more people in their middle class than the entire population of the United States, right? They're not failing to buy American goods because they're poverty stricken. To generalize for a moment (which I'll correct in point #4), they're failing to buy American finished goods because their government goes and makes the same goods cheaper domestically. (I read somewhere that China has lifted more people out of poverty in the last decade than have been lifted out of poverty in all the rest of the world in the entire preceeding century.) 4) The Chinese do buy something from us. It's just not what we were expecting them to buy. They buy raw materials instead of the cars and computers we were expecting them to buy. I agree that this is not a good thing, but it would seem to stand against your bankruptcy claim, wouldn't it? In a nutshell, the Clinton administration granted China MFN status based on a pack of lies and deceptions, and we fell for it, hook, line, and sinker. The worst of it is, China knew exactly what they were doing, and they're doing an even better job of it with the Bush administration. They play the globalization game hardball, while we sit back and watch TV and listen to idiots tell us how evil and rotten we are and then we give them awards. So I repeat, please make a connection between outsourcing and going bankrupt, or retract the statement.

Sure, but that doesn't have anything to do with outsourcing. Plenty of people buy American debt -- there's no shortage of buyers. If memory serves, the third or fourth largest holder of the debt is a Carribbean banking consortium! Please make a connection between outsourcing and going bankrupt, or retract the statement. So what? We worked hard for our standard of living. Why should I give an iPod and a BMW to every man, woman and child on the planet? It's their job to keep up with me, not the other way around. You want to talk about food and medicine and emergency relief and technology and cultural exchange, hey, I'm right there with you.

hehe

What you're forgetting is how Japan went from being like China is today. No, what we should do is make the best products that we can make and we should make them at a profit, because if we don't then someone else will. The rest is a self-correcting problem. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a pure capitalist or objectivist -- I believe in a strong federal government doing more than just enforcing contract law. But I don't believe for a moment that stomping on outsourcing is going to (as you put it) prevent this country from going bankrupt. More likely the opposite is true.

To me the most fascinating thing about the Miers story is the way it's turn conservatives against Bush. I'm astonished by the level of outrage and disgust. The George Will column floored me. I turned in Rush "My Middle Name is Bush" Limbaugh for an hour at lunch and couldn't believe my ears. The idea that this nomination could fail because of lack of *Republican* support is something I never in my wildest imagination considered for even a moment. Of course, as far as I'm concerned anything that disappoints extremists is probably a pretty good idea. But I'm concerned about the fact that she has, as they sometimes say, two birthdays. "Objective born-again Christian" is practically a contradiction in terms. Still, I think she's going to sail through the Senate like a John Kerry photo-op.

Henry Ford didn't have Japan to deal with, so that's actually a perfect example of why outsourcing is a good thing! Thanks!

But they do make you blink more.

Yah that's my understanding as well, that most of the imported terrorists are coming from Syria or Jordan and fighting on the Sunni side. I think it's safe to say that Iran is watching things closely, trying to influence politics in the country (such as through the alleged connection with politicians like Chalabi) and is quite capable of importing terrorists if the need arises (gee, you think?). But so far their side is already "winning". I'm sure there are politically connected Iranians operating in Iraq, though. I don't see how there could not. Pushing Sunni buttons left and right, no doubt.

Sales of SUVs are plummeting. These numbers are really huge -- perhaps unprecedented in the history of domestic auto sales. http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/invest/extra/P131570.asp?GT1=7159 Fascinating. I had no idea they were dropping that fast. It could end up beign a spike, and no doubt the numbers are being enhanced by the end of the hugely popular "Employee Discount Pricing" program, but as Toedtman states, this really looks like a major shift in the market.

I think as a percentage of tax revenue the number is going to still be relatively high compared with other countries. What might be more "normalized" may be a comparison with GDP.

This time it's Thomas Jefferson rolling in his grave.

Yeah it's a fascinating subject. I did a brief (and inferior) write-up on this a few months ago -- nice job on the numbers and links. I think it's an awful lot, and while I've ranted quite a bit lately on how much we spend on entitlements (which is about 3x what we spend on defense), I'm a firm believer in NOT "making two wrongs a right" (so much so that as far as I'm concerned anybody here has carte blanche to nail me on it if I ever fall prey to that ridiculous trap). A mis-spent dollar is a mis-spent dollar, tanjit. I may take some of the counter-point on this, for the sake of argument, in order to throw in some key talking points that sometimes get overlooked in this debate. But we have a smart bunch here so I'm sure someone will pop in with an honest defense on defense spending (if you'll pardon the pun). My general position is that we could spend 2-3x what the Chinese spend, still project force and save the world from Europe's SNAFUs (just kidding!), and STILL have enough leftover to wipe out the deficit. (Well maybe not, but it's pretty darn close.)

Thanks H W. That summary, by the way, appears to be formatted under Florida's Sunshine law, and in accordance with the most recent constitutional amendment (2003?) regarding monetary impact on the budget (see the last sentence of HW's post above). Similar sentences appeared on this past year's constitutional amendments on the ballot itself, which was kinda interesting. I like the changes, but I think the summaries on monetary impact are kind vague (and never substantiated). (Just as another side note, I don't see why people can't punch up a few hyperlinks right there at the ballot box.)

I figured it was just a vagaries-of-online-communication thing. Regarding Mokele's point above, I guess I can understand where you're (Mokele) coming from with that. I just don't see how we can condemn Bennett like that on the basis of that single remark, which *must* be interpretted in order to find him to be a racist. If you have to read between the lines to reach a conclusion, that's a time to ask for clarification, not round up the townfolk and grab a rope.