Pangloss

"I will work harder!" Oh, sorry. I'm channeling Horse again.

The safety of your data is another matter. Be sure and put in a good third-party firewall, spyware blocker and antivirus software.

If you are connected via SVGA or DVI cable on each monitor, then each monitor can have a different resolution. This is a built-in function of Windows and does not require third party software.

Is there a question...?

ABC News' John Yang on Saturday's nightly broadcast, talking about Friday's casualties in Iraq: I don't know what's more infuriating about this -- the statement that families of dead marines take their deaths "in stride", the implied connection between a death in the family and needing to take a political stand, or the underlying premise that opposing the occupation of Iraq equates to forward progress!

Not that I know of. Once you spit out analog video I believe you're basically stuck in NTSC-land. It is, for all intents and purposes, standard definition television -- 480 lines of interlaced video. The computer no longer sees it as a computer monitor, per se. The best you can do is adapt the incoming video within the monitor's built-in software, if it has any (a lot of projectors have features in this area). If you have a monitor with DVI or HDMI input (e.g. an HDTV), it's a different story. But you posted you were using s-video going to composite with an adapter, so I'm assuming this is not an option. By the way, with LCD displays, resolution *is* your problem, not "DPI". You can never change the actual dots-per-inch of an LCD device. They are whatever they are. Manufacturers and driver-writers really confuse the issue by talking about "DPI" but what they really mean is resolution. Resolution can be less than a device's DPI by grouping pixels to act together as if they were a single pixel, giving you the appearance of a lower resolution than the display actually has. But resolution can never exceed the highest DPI setting of the display device. (It's a little different with CRTs, because there are no fixed pixels per se, so DPI does actually change. But it still can't exceed a maximum value for the device. So even with CRTs "resolution" is determined by the computer, and "DPI" is determined by the device.)

Slashdot has an article on this which seems to be the best place to start, because it has some convenient hyperlinks to specific places of interest. http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/06/26/0139251&from=rss

(ROFL! The board software shortened that hyperlink because the word was so long. Hahahaha....)

One of my favorite "longest words" that I actually use: "Antidisestablishmentarianism". (A philosophy that has received new life in the present American political climate, I might add.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antidisestablishmentarianism

The ability to use eminent domain was already in existence for things like hospitals, schools, roads, etc. What's different about this case is that it allows land to be seized (siezed?) for shopping malls and high-rise condos. Husmusen, you may be surprised, but many on the American political left are in favor of this decision. That's the socialistic side. They like it because it gives the government more power to take things away from individuals. Are you kidding? They eat that kind of thing up. Check out this excerpt from the New York Times editorial on the subject: O'Conner's fears aren't exaggerated. They're REALITY. More examples of support for this decision can be found in such places as moveon.org, democraticunderground.com, and similar places. Fortunately much of the American political "left" is very much opposed to this. Left-leaning libertarians and "classical liberals", and many left-leaning people in general, are surprised and disturbed by this decision. Unfortunately it won't make any difference. This will be forgotten by next week, and just be another example of our gradual, seemingly inevitable (and in my opinion tragic) slide into "accidental socialism".

Dismissing other people's opinions is what's not useful. Yet you do it here constantly. How's that working out for you? Promise?

Here's the thing that bothers me about this kind of sentiment: If Americans have become polarized it is in part because of paid attack dogs like these, on BOTH sides, who have come to set the agenda of American politics. It's almost as if, in this post-9/11 world, Americans have hired a new proxy to deal with politics for them -- the television demagogue! Karl Rove is not an objective reporter of conservative sentiments! He's a paid, partisan, political manager, doing a job. James Carville and Howard Dean do the same thing, not "for liberals", but for the liberal side of arguments. There is no difference, and none of these people are valuable or important in any way. They do not "wake up their side to the excesses of the other side". They do not "open people's eyes to what's been going on". They only cause DAMAGE. They're ALL wrong, ALL the time. Everything they do is BAD. I stand by what I said above -- Rove has nothing to apologize for when it comes to those comments. But to stand behind that kind of thing as if it's actually REASONABLE and SENSIBLE and FAIR? That is insane. What the holy heck are we doing?! People need to stand up for themselves. Set their OWN agenda. Stop letting these dangerous demagogues tell us what is important and what is not. Before it's too late.

Follow the link in the first post -- some additional (not complete) information about the poll is available there. Usually the poll percentages do not add up to 100%. There's a link on methadologies there. The Wikipedia has a good article on opinion polls as well, as I dimly recall.

Aside from contributing to the general atmosphere of disunity, I don't see any real harm in Rove's comment, or any comparison with Durbin's outrageous remarks. A better comparison for Rove's comments would be with Howard Dean. Both Rove and Dean are paid political attack dogs, not elected politicians, and they've acted accordingly. I don't see Senator Clinton getting upset about Howard Dean for saying Republicans are the party of white men, or Richard Durbin for comparing our treatment of prisoners to the Nazis and Gulags, but she demands an apology from Carl Rove for making a silly joke about liberals? Ridiculous.

In other words, Java is more "useful" than C++. Because only a tiny portion of programming takes place at a level that can really take advantage of C++. When you're waiting on the database to respond to your Crystal Reports request for last month's sales figures, it really doesn't amount to a hill of beans if your program can execute in 0.1 seconds or 0.01 seconds.

Yes, in fact Rasmussen polls were the most widely read and distributed polls during the most recent Presidential election cycle. (The Gallup people must be idiots, requiring a paid subscription to look at even their basic poll statistics. Bizarre.) Regarding the subject of autodialers, that's not just a Rasmussen thing, although I don't know precisely how widespread their use is. If memory serves, political pollsters are exempt from normal telemarketing restrictions. (Autodialing is normally illegal in the state of Florida, for example.) (BTW, "autodial" doesn't necessarily mean "pre-recorded call". A human may very well be on the line when you answer the phone. Pre-recored calling is also illegal in Florida, and the political pollsters have an exception to that as well.)

A new Rasmussen Reports survey shows a 70% approval for the treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. Clearly the left wing of American politics has failed to make its case. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2005/Gitmo.htm

Prove it. I'm a little disappointed in the quality of responses Crim's been getting here. He's asked for a scientific/objective challenge, not one based on opinions and assumptions. We ought to be able to handle his request.

The Onion this week is an absolute riot. Celebrating its 300th anniversary of being America's finest news source. (rofl) http://www.theonion.com/2056-06-22/index_b.php Some of my favorite headlines: "Lunar Olympic Officials Continue Search for Missing Pole Vaulter" "117-Aerocar Pileup Clogs Troposphere for Hours" "Time-Travel Pilots Union Dispute Resolved Instantly" My favorite feature is the Alert that says "Your browser does not support ambient alpha-wave memestreams. Concentrate here to upgrade." ROFL! (Okay, I've been spending WAY too much time on the Internet....)

And today John Rigas and his son were sentenced to 20 and 15 years respectively for their actions in the Adelphia fraud case. Things certainly don't look too good for former WorldCom CEO Bernie Ebbers, who is up for sentencing next month.

Well on that note from dave, let me just say, then, that I respect your position on it, atinymonkey (and dak and others as well). Obviously we don't agree on the details, but I understand and respect where you're coming from. Frankly I can think of far worse things in this world than people who are "overly protective of human rights". I'm willing to point out what I perceive to be flaws in that kind of position, but I'm glad there are people out there who are willing to take up those banners and stand behind them. We're far better off for it.

Hmm. I find it interesting that you, a scientist, said "...you would see how it all fits together" rather than "...you would find their response to those criticisms." I dislike the implications of this, and it does not encourage me to pursue a dialogue with you on the subject. As a scientist, are you interested in learning what others have to say, or are you only interested in convincing us of the superiority of technocracy? Because if you, a scientist, think that technocracy is so far above reproach, then it doesn't sound like you, a scientist, have an open mind about it. I don't mean to give offense, I'm just saying that I don't want to invest my time bouncing any criticisms I might have off a solid brick wall. I can read a book as well as the next guy. I come to discussion boards to participate in critical discussion, not to receive partisan advocacy. As a scientist, you can understand what I'm saying, can you not? Then you are very much in the wrong place, I'm afraid.

One of the things that bothers me about this is the hypocrisy by the far left over the issue. They are essentially exploiting people's "Law & Order" knowledge pool. I mean, we all know that cases are always over in 42 minutes or less, right? And another case is solved every week. The bad guys always crack, and all it takes is just a HINT of the "good-cop, bad-cop" routine. Shake the table a bit, get angry, but that's it, and whammo, case solved! (And if you're a bad guy, boy, watch out for the old "would you like a cup of coffee" trick!) So people just assume that it must be EASY to make a criminal talk. You just MAKE them. That's all there is to it! Baloney. The reality, even in our own justice system, is far, far different. One reason I have for thinking that is just the vast time difference between what I see in a television program and what I see on the news. It often takes months or even years to crack a case even when you have suspects. What's happening to the people in Guantanamo Bay is likely not much more severe than what happens to typical suspects in America. But ultimately we will find out, one way or another. There are no secrets in government, folks. We will find out, and if lines were crossed, we will write new rules and establish new guidelines and do whatever else is necessary. But we won't do it now, in the middle of the fight, and we won't do it for political gain. That would be wrong.

K. How would you distinguish between "meritocracy" and "technocracy"? Not asking how you feel these terms are distinguished in the literature. I'm asking for your opinion here. (By the way, stating that the Wikipedia is wrong about a subject says more about you than it says about the Wikipedia entry in question. The Wikipedia is an open system -- anybody can change it. So if you're saying that it's wrong, what you're really saying is that you're unable to change it because you are biased. If you were to change it to read the way you want it to read, then others would declare your changes to be biased, and change them back to a more fair/objective state. What you've done above is suggest to me that the entry in the Wikipedia is extremely fair and balanced, and I thank you for making that clear.)

By the way, I've said this before here and I'll say it again, even though I realize it's a rather unpopular position. I respect George Bush for his willingness to put convention to the test. To see what will happen... "if". - The rack is unethical? Okay, how about loud music? I don't know, let's find out. - Hot coals and Chinese water torture is out? Okay, what about flushing their religious book down the toilet? I don't know, let's find out. - Are there ANY forms of information-gathering that are not legal in the US that might still be productive in some way? I don't know, let's find out. - Is "torture" EVER a valid means of information-gathering? I don't know, let's find out. - How long can we hold these people without a trial? I don't know, let's find out. - If we take extensive measures to make these people comfortable in terms of sanitation, nutrition and basic living conditions, but selectively deny them any comfort and/or abuse their religious beliefs, is this still an ethical thing to do? I don't know, let's find out. This has been a hallmark of his presidency, for good or bad, and it's something you can find in almost every aspect of his political agenda, whether it be domestic, foreign, economic, or whatever. We're going to find out. It's not what I would do, but as a student of history, I make note of it, with a great deal of awe, and not a small amount of respect. As I say, I realize this position is unpopular. It's unpopular because everyone likes to think they "know better", when in fact what they "know better" is actually just the same politically correct assumptions that everyone else is repeating ad nauseum. Say something often enough, and everyone starts to think it's the truth. Torture, and our general set of beliefs about it, is one of those things. Due process is another. The "correct" treatment of wartime prisoners is a third.