Pangloss

I have an older nVidia card. A GeForce Ti500, I believe. It's just sitting around these days. Might be easiest just to shove that into the box. But of course then I won't learn anything.

APOD has an incredible picture of Katrina, taken this afternoon by GOES 12. http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap050829.html I can't get over the size of the thing. At one point the feeder bands were stretching from Cancun, Mexico to Gainesville, Florida (way north of Orlando). Unbelievable.

Ok, I see the forums now -- they're actually kinda hard to find from their web page (and it's .org rather than .com, btw). I'll register and post the error there. I see a couple of posts from other people using the 945 chip set, but they don't appear to be asking about the on-board video. It'll have to wait a bit. After I got the error I ghosted the workstation back to normal WinXP mode, and then the hurricane came through and knocked down my server and I lost my ghost image store. (They're sitting on the hard drive, I just need to get the server back up and running.) But I appreciate the help -- it'll be interesting to get this going.

Installation went fine. The error is an X-Windows error, and it asks me if I want to look at the full details, but the details didn't seem too relevant. I assume it's missing drivers for the on-board video for the 945GNT motherboard chipset. Considering it's one of the mainstream chipsets, I would imagine this is a very fixable problem. Unfortunately I don't know anything about X-Windows configuration or the Ubuntu support system (I ran a couple of searches over there and struck out). If anything it's probably a good thing -- a chance to learn something new, and all that. I just need a little pointing in the right direction, really. Thanks guys.

I tried the default Ubuntu CD on my testing computer but it wouldn't load the GUI. I was wondering if you guys might have any suggestions. System: Intel 945GNT mobo (using onboard video) Pentium D 820 2gb 667mhz RAM 300gb HD on SATA

The way I see it, creating music is not a science, but there is a fascinating science behind the structure of music. If you study traditional music theory you can learn about this. Some of the work done by the 17th and 18th century masters in laying the foundation of modern musical theory is (IMO) very much akin to modern scientific analysis. One of the questions raised by music theory that I think is interesting is the following question: Are we simply so used to hearing the 12-tone polyphonic scale and accompanying chords that we view anything that adheres to that structure as "music", or is there something about that structure that causes it to be music regardless of our preferences or interests? It's kind of a chicken-or-egg problem, and it can only be solved in a few ways, perhaps one of these: - Ask aliens (if they ever show up) - Stop using it and start using something else Most experiments with the latter (and there have been many) have failed. But is that because there's something wrong with the creative process used, or because there's something fundamentally better about the well-tempered scale? Nobody really knows the answer to these questions. But answering them is very much an application of science.

Hehe, no worries. Apollo was the program that went to the moon. It used Saturn rockets. The space shuttle was never designed or intended to go to the moon. Atlas rockets were used during the earlier Mercury program, to launch the first American into orbit (John Glenn, if I spelled that right).

Now up to 175mph and 907mb pressure (Andrew was ~922). The only good news there is that hurricanes can rarely sustain that kind of energy for very long, so there's a good chance it will drop down to Cat4 before it hits. But any way you look at it, it's going to be very bad, and perhaps worse than Andrew, because as I understand it New Orleans lacks even the pre-Andrew building codes of South Florida, especially in the older parts of town (like the French Quarter). Katrina passed right over my house, by the way, but of course it was just a Category 1 then. We just closed the shutters and hunkered down. Lost a plantain tree in the backyard, and my server got zapped by a power surge. But even with all our preparations and building codes there are still half a million people here without power, a bridge collapsed on a major highway (that I was supposed to use Monday morning), and seven people died foolishly trying to drive around town in the middle of an "only a category one" hurricane.

Well perhaps this will be an education for me, then. I've never seen any indication that he's a member of the organizations that lead the neo-conservative movement (PNAC, Heritage, AEI, etc). Perhaps I just missed it? But I guess the purpose of the comment was to suggest that he merely identifies or aligns with neo-cons. In other words, "he's a neocon" just means he's "just like" the neocons, in a more general or ideological sense. Which, as a matter of one's personal opinion, is certainly valid to speculate. I guess what I'm suggesting is that that is not necessarily the case. Certainly in some key areas his politics are very similar to the president's politics, but then I've always questioned whether Bush is actually a neoconservative, or if he instead simply chose men who happened to represent a prevailing viewpoint within the party, and one that was seemed more "progressive" in key areas than the failed policies of his father's administration. Certainly Robertson and the president match up in areas like altruism -- vast contributions to African relief, for example. And of course the extent of influence from the christian religious right. But neither of those things are hallmarks of the neo-conservative movement. Altruism was more of an initial tool -- a means to an end. Something they could use to hold up and say "we're not your father's Republicans". (After all, when's the last time you heard a neo-con talking about the return of welfare in this country? The tax cut was certainly not a hand-out for the lower classes -- at best if helped everyone, and at worst it mainly helped the rich.) And if anything Robertson has been excessively critical of the neo-con-lead party that he helped to put in place. Robertson and the White House have parted ways on a number of subjects, including relations with Israel. The neo-cons are all about "entangling foreign alliances" (as Jefferson would say). Robertson is all about religious/ideological alliances, regardless of convenience or necessity. Perhaps some of that is nothing more than sour grapes, but there is very little that Pat Robertson does that does not have an ideological edge to it (the current mistake we're discussing being a notable exception, at least at first blush). So if Pat Robertson is a neo-conservative, he's certainly not on marching orders from PNAC. But hey, maybe I'm reading too much into it. Having given it some more thought, I can understand that initial statement, though. I probably just misread the context.

Still scratching my head over the "neo-con" comment above. Pat Robertson is not a neo-conservative.

Or put another way, opinions are not facts. If you're going to claim that something is the case, you should be prepared to back it up. After all, why should anyone take your word for it? We had a case like this on the Politics board recently, where a member got pretty incensed at being constantly reminded to back up his claims, saying that he felt that they were "common sense". It's fine to state an opinion on something -- everyone has opinions that are based on gut reactions, instinct, a "general feel for things", and so forth, and those things have value as well, so long as they are given in the proper context. But statements of fact should always be supported, or at least the poster should be ready to support them if asked. It's just that simple. A couple of points: 1) If you come in late to a discussion, be aware that some points of fact may not be stipulated because they were stipulated, say, in an earlier thread, or earlier in the same (long) thread. The polite thing to do is to ask nicely for further support, and if you are the repsonder, politely point to earlier discussions, or if you don't know where they are, either provide the support again, or at least politely suggest keywords for the newcomer to use in a search. 2) Nobody expects APA format references from academic journals. Post what you have. We'll weigh in on the value of the reference. Just understand that references have relative value based on where the reference is coming from, who wrote it, and what their agenda may be. This is true in any critical investigation, whether it be science, politics, or whatever. 3) Attack the credibility of the reference, not the poster for posting it. 4) Don't be offended by criticism of the reference. 5) Understand the difference between primary sources and media stories. Journalists make mistakes all the time -- they're the first to admit it. Source quality looks something like this: Credible: 1) Original research from respected source 2) Analytical product from unknown but not immediately discreditable source 3) News story on one of the above from a respected/mainstream news source 4) Opinion piece from a known source (with the slant stipulated and understood) (not useful for all purposes, but sometimes applicable, e.g. when the writer is admitting something that normally goes against their slant) Not Credible: 1) "Studies" and "Reports" from special interest groups and agenda-based organizations (e.g. "A Report on the State of Freedom in America" by the ACLU) (factual information in such sources can be credible only if supported by external information) 2) Articles from obviously biased sources (e.g. "The president was complicit in a massive conspiracy to allow 9/11 to take place" from FromtheWilderness.com or 911truth.org) 3) Opinion pieces that are not supported by facts (e.g. George Will says on TV that 53% of Americans are baseball fans, but no evidence can be found to support the assertion) We should make a FAQ or something.

Remember that the theme of the thread is that you may be an extremist, etc. I think it's a little more respectful, but that's just my two bits on it.

What neo-cons? Did I miss something?

I like O'Reilly, and we often agree, but he is a Populist as well as a demagogue (someone who stirs people up with spin and misleading rhetoric), two traits which I find abhorant and counter-productive. I'm a borderline libertarian. We're both slightly to the right (him a bit farther to the right than me, I suspect), but when I agree with O'Reilly, I tend to see it as a case of "doing the right thing for the wrong reasons". I support laws that protect children because, unlike adults, they lack the ability to defend themselves. So to me it's more of an issue of freedom for the parents. So yes, I support Jessica's Law, which applies only to violent sexual offenders against victims 12 or younger. On the other hand, I'm opposed to the 2500-foot rules that are popping up around my area, because they affect all offenders, even the "accidental" kind (e.g. a guy meets a girl in the bar who's just slightly under age and gets convicted of statutory rape). O'Reilly would have no problem with the 2500-foot rule, and the issue of fairness would never enter into the equation. "Better safe than sorry," he would say. O'Reilly's general rule of thumb in life is "whatever helps the folks". Mine is "you should be free to do whatever you want so long as it doesn't hurt anybody else".

You guys are blowing me away here with the originality of some of these responses: (l) if you think that giving birth control to poor African women improves their standard of living ® if you think that by forcefully removing governments you are promoting democracy (l) if you dress up as a condom for two consecutive Halloweens - You've got a bumper sticker that says "One Nation Under GOD" but think people with the stickers "Freedom and Justice for ALL" are traitors - You kill and eat animals but call yourself "pro-life" - You find yourself saying things like "You'll burn in Hell you pagan!" Not that there's anything wrong with any of the other responses, some of which are really fascinating, but these in particular struck me as very original.

Some very funny stuff up there.

In a case like that I'd use a third-party program that controlled access to the Internet through a server. You've got to control a number of computers at once, so fiddling with the settings on each computer is not very efficient, and you don't know what they might be able to hack locally while they're sitting there. You can do it with policy, but it'd take a lot of fiddling and a good bit of testing. Microsoft's ISA Server can do the job, and conveniently can be set up as a domain with policies governing the local workstations. But that's not a very cost-effective approach, except in the Small Business Server approach. I think most Internet Cafe type places use other software, but I don't know what they use.

I believe you can do that with a mandatory computer policy. If you're not familiar with setting up policies it can be a bit tricky, though.

Excellent additions. An interesting point! Just to expand on it a bit' date=' I guess what you're saying is that it's only truly "extreme" if you're actually going to do something radical about your frustrations, like blow up a bus or something. One advantage of this point of view is that it encompasses the idea that sometimes people say things in haste or anger that they don't really mean, and when they stop to think about it in a larger context, they realize their error. Such instances are hardly examples of extremism, but they may LOOK like extremism on (for example) a message board. This is something I firmly believe in, and why I [i']try[/i] not to flame people for airing their views (and respect mods/admins who try to balance and calm things down if they feel they're getting out of hand). That problem is also sometimes aggravated by, for example, not having a mirror to bounce your ideas off of, or an objective voice to listen to on various subjects. If all you listen to are demogogues like Rush Limbaugh or Al Franken, they can exacerbate (sp?) opinion and turn it into something much worse. The down side of that point of view (that the word "extremism" only applies to actions rather than words) is that it denies the ability to distinguish between critical and non-critical thinking. Obviously keeping an open mind about what someone is saying is important, but when you're not allowed or able to categorize speech and make judgements on it, then that affects your free ability to decide what it is that you are reading, and form an opinion of your own. Obviously some kind of balance is called for.

Oh, you were trying to be funny. Well in that case, let me add one in a similar vein: - You harp about Americans who assume that everyone outside of the US is fully versed in their local politics

Oh come on, don't be a jerk. If there's something you don't understand, you can simply ask. I think you'll find that there are many people here, myself included, who are willing to explain anything. How does phrasing something in familiar terms make one an extremist? This is a US board (owned by a guy in Florida) which, yes, has many international visitors. But it's not like anybody but Blike OWNS this board -- you don't set the rules here, sir, and neither do I. I don't understand why this keeps coming up. In the short time I've been here (18 months?) I've seen several instances where a European gets all pissy when some new thread isn't phrased from an international perspective, while the Americans and the Europeans who've been around a while tend to simply ASK if they don't understand something. I don't understand that. Is there some sort of forum in Europe where this board is advertised or represented differently from what I've perceived? Have I misunderstood something? Does Blike not live in Florida? Yeesh.

ROFL! Still one of the funniest damn posters on the board....

Can be anything you like! Just be aware that what you list as extremism may say more about you than it does about the extremists you're trying to out! --------- Here are a few to start us off: You may be an extremist if... - You think everything Bush does is wrong - You think everything Bush does is right - You think everything liberals do is wrong - You think everything conservatives do is wrong - You think Michael Moore accurately reports the truth - You think Rush Limbaugh accurately reports the truth - You think Cindy Sheehan's rants about America make a lot of sense - You don't think Cindy Sheehan should be allowed to protest at all - You think Terri Shiavo was conscious and aware of her surroundings when she was executed by the state

Challenging an author's assertions: Good thing. Drawing judgemental conclusions about them because you're offended by and afraid of the material: Bad thing.

I thought I detected a thread there. I need to yank a couple of those off the shelves. It's been a long time since I've read them -- it might be interesting to read them again in a modern political context. I appreciate the inadvertent suggestion. What I dimly recall is that for every interesting Moon is a Harsh Mistress, there's a bogged-down Number of the Beast (I tell you three times, I will never read this book again!). But perhaps I'll see them differently now. Good lord... please let us not discover that there was actual VALUE in all those horrid reality shows....