Pangloss

LOL Bud! Classic! That's a great point Basc. Google News has become a central focus for me as well.

That's more or less JBuilder's original design goal, if I'm not mistaken. It seems to have the best GUI designer between the ones that I've used. Most of the Java IDEs do very little in that area. The newest version of NetBeans (4.1) does have much better support for Swing, with a nice palette kinda like Visual Studio.

This may not mean much to our international guests -- sorry about that. But I think some here might find it interesting. Last week all three networks reported the Gallup poll numbers showing that the President's approval rating had dipped to 40%. I thought it might be interesting to see if the networks reported the new poll numbers from Gallup today, which showed a 5 point bump to 45%. A five point bump in a single week is actually quite a story -- generally anything over four points is considered to be a major change, and entire initiatives have been tossed out or shuffled to the back burner over less dynamic poll results. I didn't get to watch NBC News, having only one Tivo, but I did watch CBS and ABC. Neither reported the new poll results. Shocker, eh? You can read about the new poll here: http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/29/bush.poll/ (Waits for the obligatory post from Nevermore.)

<blink blink>

Hehe! I love it when conspiracy theorists accuse others of being closed-minded. Just makes my whole day.

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=1173194 In a nutshell, the Russians continue to sell technology and build a nuclear power plant for Iran, which is putting a strain on its relationship with the United States. The political angle to this that I think is interesting is that it seems to suggest that if Russia wants to continue its space program, which is an important part of its national pride, then it may need to stop dealing with Iran. Thoughts?

I sure don't, and it's an interesting question. If you find something more on it please pass it along.

Actually that ship's already sailed (and sunk). Clinton was given the line-item veto, but it was struck down by the Supreme Court. (Interestingly, the power was given to him by the newly-Republican congress, as part of the "Contract with America" deal from Newt & Co.)

BTW, a lot of these units have a hardware reset button on the bottom that takes the unit back to factory defaults.

Indeed, but my point is that the Phoenix's ultra-long-range capability wasn't replaced. CAG air superiority with Tomcats consisted mainly of long-range standoff capabilities backed by a cross-your-fingers approach to the determination of enemy intentions. Great when you're pondering a fleet of incoming Backfires, but not so great when you're pondering a rogue civilian airliner or a handful of poorly maintained Foxbats, and your main goal is keeping developments off the six-o'clock news. CAG air superiority with Hornets is much more flexible and adaptable, and employs a broader range of response options and determination capabilities than it ever had under the Tomcat or Phantom. Ironically, the Hornet is in many ways an inferior airplane, and the Navy has shown little interest in the Raptor. The future of the CAG is very uncertain at the moment. But since it's unlikely that any carriers are going to be attacked by long-range bombers (or even high-tech attack fighters) anytime soon, it seems to be of minor import. (Though perhaps we should tell Bill O'Reilly to cool it with the "Boycott France" rhetoric, eh?) ;-) So for the near future, most Hornets likely will continue to be payloaded for ground attack in combat situations, with a couple of Sidewinders slung under the wings just to keep the flyboys (and girls) happy.

The SunCruz case has been fascinating. It seems unlikely to me that DeLay was involved, but it's an interesting angle that may get more play in the political arena before this story is done. The SunCruz story reads like a Carl Hiaasen or Elmore Leonard novel. In a nutshell, SunCruz is a casino boat company, which was founded by an immigrant named Gus Boulis, who was shot to death under unusual circumstances in 2001. The first boat's Fort Lauderdale berthing location has always been controversial, because it's a HUGE catamaran that pulls up right alongside a quiet residential area, which just annoys the local residents to no end. Picture thousands of drunk, broke passengers screaming out of the parking lot at four in the morning -- every morning. We know a family that lives down the street from it, and they hate the boat with a passion. Much of the speculation about Boulis' murder over the past couple years has centered around that angle. But there were always hints as well about a possible business connection, which seemed to be confirmed when these arrests happened a couple of days ago. Apparently at the same time that Boulis was having to deal with irate locals, he got involved with speculators who wanted to buy him out. This is where Abramoff (one of the speculators) comes in. Abramoff is a former movie writer and producer who once made a really bad action movie called "Red Scorpion", which starred Dolph Lundgren. Naturally he went on to become a major political operative. (cof) He was a big money raiser not only for DeLay, but also for George Bush -- a serious player. Anyway, they allegedly faked a wire transfer in order to convince Boulis that they could afford to buy the company. It worked, Boulis sold the company to them, and he was murdered less than a year later. The speculation is that Boulis figured out he'd been hoodwinked and threatened to try to get the company back, so Abramoff and Kidan took him out. It gets even stranger -- I've just scratched the surface here. There are so many subplots and sub-stories to this one that we could talk about it for a week and still not cover it all. It's truly bizarre. I haven't even mentioned the involvement of the immigration department, or the attempts to sink the boat. (No, really.) Now is it just me, or does this have a "Get Shorty" or "Striptease" kind of feel to it? Every time I read about this in the news I just shake my head in wonder. Mark my words -- you will see all of this on the big screen some day. BTW, the boat itself is practically right down the street from me, and I also have two friends who worked the SunCruz boats. Lost and forgotten amidst all the hoopla are all the people who lost their jobs when the company went under earlier this year, in part because of all the various controversies. Sometimes you just want to shake people and ask them what they were thinking.

Just as a side note to the above, I would go so far as to say that MiG isn't even in the ballpark these days. The competition, if there is one, is more or less entirely between Typhoon and Raptor, both of which are amazing aircraft.

I don't want to suggest that Cpl Luke is wrong (because he's not), but it's also worth keeping in mind that maneuverability is still an important part of a fighter's mission. The missiles-only philosophy got American air power into trouble during the Vietnam conflict, and it's a lesson that has not been forgotten by designers. Missiles don't always hit their targets (especially in a closing profile) and rules of engagement don't always permit firing missiles from a distance. Some interesting examples of the designer response to these problems can be seen in the return of "machine guns" to fighter designs, and the demise of the Phoenix missile program (which had extremely long range but a very low hit probability). So maneuverability does still play an important part in design. I don't think you'll be seeing any F-22s replacing F-16s on the Thunderbirds flight line even in the distant future, but there's no question that agility was a serious design consideration for the Raptor. Some examples of this can be seen in the close proximity of the engine mounting (compare with the F-15) and the thrust-vectoring capability of the exhaust system (neither of which are unique to the Raptor). Incidentally, another important factor worth consideration is that the Raptor will be the one of the only fighter planes in the sky with supercruise capability (I believe the Typhoon is the only other plane slated to get this). That's the ability to go supersonic without using afterburner. That gives it extended high speed range, meaning it can get into a superior engagement position much faster than the opponent (several hundred miles per hour faster) and maintain an engagement profile for a much longer period of time. The other guy can burn his afterburner getting there, but from that point on he's going to have one eye on the fuel gauge. The Raptor pilot will... not.

Yah, too soon to say. I'm pondering whether to post something on the subject of the SunCruz/Abramoff connection, if you guys are interested. That's a whole fascinating story in itself.

hehe

I was speaking more about the general side of politics he represents rather than any specific actions. Obviously no politician is going to come out and say that they oppose any rights for gay people, or that they would force children to pray whether they wanted to or not. But that is, in my opinion, the position of the religious right wing that DeLay most closely represents. Sadly, it may be too soon to count the chicken here. I was just watching a story on the subject which pointed out several things: - The indictment is based on the notion that corporations paid the Republican Party (in Texas), which then wrote checks to various campaigns. Since money comes into the party from many sources, it'll be hard to prove where it all went. - The only evidence listed in the indictment was a check written to the party. - The hints of bias on the part of the prosecutor are pretty strong. He first talked about this case in front of a Democratic party fundraised (idiot). - He's actually famous for stuff like this. His most "prestigious" prosecution like this before was against Republican Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, which was thrown out the moment it hit the judge's desk. I'd love to see DeLay go down in flames, but at the moment it's starting to look like this was just a political move to shake things up a bit in the House.

The new Doppler sin radar is the best. You can see the sin accumulating around porn stores and disapating around churches, etc. It's still a little problematic dealing with "ground clutter" from red light districts, though.

Mokele, no! Soylent Green is PEOPLE!!! Bad reptile!

Here's a link to an article at Reuters for those who missed it: http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2005-09-28T191517Z_01_YUE863422_RTRUKOC_0_UK-DELAY.xml DeLay is considered the #2 Republican in congress. The position is party-only, not a constitutional one, and not in the succession of power. Basically he rallies other Republicans to whatever the cause of the day happens to be. House ethics rules require the person in that position to step down when indicted. He will, of course, get his day in court. If convicted, he could face a couple of years in the slammer. My personal opinion on it is that DeLay is a representative of the religious right wing of American politics, and as such, good riddance. I believe in innocent until proven guilty, and I reserve judgement and will keep an open mind about whether he is in fact guilty of the charges, but I'm hopeful that this means that he's on his way out the door. This is the kind of Republican that makes conservatives look bad, opposing any gay rights, forcing all children to pray in school, leading the federal intrusion to keep Terri Schiavo alive, and demonizing atheists and non-christians at every opportunity. All the while performing the worst kind of back-room politics. Too bad he's just one of many examples.

Hehe, cute. Can I be a neo-lafferian? We will hold our meetings on Lost island. (grin) Yeah I think we're still waiting for Bush's first veto. It's something that both sides have used in various political arguments, but at the very least it underscores the fact that Republicans clearly control the federal government.

In another thread Bascule made the interesting (and as I later determined by visiting the Congressional Budget Office, *correct*) point that income revenues have been lower under the Bush administration in spite of the Bush tax cut. Apparently there's been a bit of a turnaround. I guess the general idea (whether true or not) is that you cut taxes, wait for the change to percolate, and then look for a result. But of course that's a Republican ideal, and the real picture is obviously going to be far more complex than that. Still, it seems that Republicans will have something to cheer about this fall. http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/business/12758013.htm But of course the real story here SHOULD be the fact that we haven't done anything about SPENDING. It makes no sense at all that we'll be collecting the largest amount of income tax money we've ever collected (assuming that turns out to be the case) and still show a deficit in the budget! In my opinion Democrats and Republicans are both accountable for this problem, but Republicans in particular are going to have to bear the brunt of the blame for any increase in the deficit this year. They control both houses of congress and the presidency. The buck stops here, as they say.

In my opinion he's a "leftie spin doctor" because he proceeds on the assumption that everything bad that happens anywhere in the world is the fault of Bush and Republicans, and he angles his reportage to promote and foster that assumption. One does not acquire truth and fact from Dahr Jamail. One acquires amunition. For examples (you really need to look up the definition of the words "opinion" and "proof") one need go no farther than the latest entry in his blog: Such bias is evident in every single post on his blog. Why would there even be any discussion about this? I'm sorry it offends you for people to point out the obvious, but if you really believe in scientific analysis, as you say, then surely you believe in observing the truth. Note that I've not said, anywhere in any of my posts in this thead, that there is a single thing wrong with anything he is doing. On the contrary think he does a nice job of promoting his point of view. He's an excellent spin doctor. I am simply balancing your claim that he is providing some sort of objective reportage on the war in Iraq. Now I've answered your question, I've stated my opinion, and I say again, if you don't like it, state yours. You're the one who tried to pass off a biased web site as a factual, objective news source. If that's not working out for you because people like me frustrate your efforts, then I suggest a different approach -- one based on friendly persuasion and common ground, rather than foot-stomping and semantical hair-splitting. Not only will you find the audience more receptive, but I think you'll find them more responsive as well. Good luck.

Most people who were affected by Katrina were white as well. [/realism]

Here's a great example of someone who doesn't get it. It's Harold Meyerson's column in today's Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/27/AR2005092701467.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns He's talking about the JetBlue incident last week and the issue of offshoring American airline maintenance, which is a big issue these days. At first blush, it looks like a great point. There have been a number of maintenance-derived issues lately, and it certainly appears to be a valid concern. But in fact Meyerson is completely wrong. A couple of quotes from the article: He's absolutely right in suggesting that poorly trained mechanics are a problem. But he's missed something really critical, which becomes a little more obvious in the following quote: See how he's leapt from "lack of licensing" to "outsourcing" as the issue? He draws no connection between the two. In other words, in his mind the simple fact that outsourcing has taken place IS the issue. That's all that matters. Never mind the fact that incidents like this took place even when all maintenance was done within the US. Never mind the fact that airplanes maintained by offshore facilities are clearly flying along just fine in the overwhelming majority of cases. No, in Meyerson's mind, offshoring makes reliable maintenance *impossible*, without any further exploration of the facts. And it gets worse. In his view the problem is not offshoring at all, but *capitalism*! What the heck does he think it was when American workers fixed planes? Socialism? What an idiot! I do agree with some of his points, such as the way shareholder power (and the demand for increasing stock value over resposible growth and reasonable profit-taking) has become an issue. But he's way off in Kool-Aid territory on the airplane thing. There's a lot of this nonsense out there. It's up to us to cut through it and get to the truth, however unpopular it may be.