Pangloss

Actually I'm not sure that there's any such thing as a "high incidence" of BSE. People are regularly eating locally grown beef in all of the countries that have been affected by BSE with no ill effects, and to me that seems like a great example of media frenzy outweighing the facts. But yeah I agree about food bourne illness in general. We need to pay more attention to food preparation in particular. But getting back to the subject of the thread, I could see benefits of labelling in that case. In fact I don't really have a problem with origin labelling in general. I have a right to know where the stuff comes from, right?

Well I've been ragging on Republicans lately over morality issues. I think it's time to give them a pat on the back over economics, which were an important cornerstone in John Kerry's campaign. (Reminder: I voted for Kerry, so give me a little credit for objectivity here.) The States collected a record $600 billion in tax income last year, according to this report from ABC News(1). Some states don't know what to do with it all. Republican governor Mitt Romney wants to give it back to his constituents but his Democrat-controlled state legislators thinks that would be irresponsible (gee). Florida saw a huge surplus in spite of four hurricane strikes and a record number(2) of claims that surpassed even the disastrous 1992 Hurricane Andrew event (though not dollar amount, thanks to Republican legislature-mandated building codes). The GDP, the indicator most often cited by the far left in 2004 as a sign of our economic "rough times", is up(3). Personal incomes and spending are also up(4). This certainly doesn't seem to jive with the claim that everyone is getting laid off and having to settle for lower-paying jobs, now does it? The way some in the far left were selling it, we'd all be working for Wal-Mart by now if we'd re-elected Bush. But that doesn't seem to have happened. Speaking of jobs, they just keep growing and growing. They were up another 274,000 in April. The monthly figures have been up every single month for almost two years now, and have been over 120,000 for 9 straight months.(5) Meanwhile Americans are watching an average of 78 hours of DVDs per year (about a movie per week), according to the MPAA(6). 2006 will be the year of HDTV, according to one consumer group(7). We sure seem to be spending a lot of time entertaining ourselves, and conspicuously not out foraging for our daily provender or tearing down the government fortresses of Washington or the corporate fortresses of New York. I guess we must be doing okay.... Seems like the only bad news these days is the price of oil(8), and even that was down something like eight weeks in a row before it went back up again last week in advance of Memorial Day. I guess you'd also have to count the trade deficit, the budget deficit, and the national debt, but those are long-term concerns and the budget deficit seems to be under at least some degree of control. You know, with rough times like these, one has to wonder what the GOOD times will be like! We'd better get those "wrong-headed tax cuts" (9) repealed in a big hurry or we're gonna be in for more of this horrible economy, for sure! After all, that tax cut was "ill-considered" (10), and "too big"!(11) Sources: 1: http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Business/story?id=794714&page=1 2: http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/southeast/2005/05/26/55485.htm 3: http://www.nationalreview.com/kudlow/kudlow200505270859.asp 4: http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/business/AP-Economy.html? 5: http://www.bls.gov/ces/home.htm 6: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/27/business/media/27movie.html?ex=1274846400&en=e13dc8a7977cee1a&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss 7: http://changewaveresearch.ecnext.com/coms2/summary_0272-921_ITM 8: http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=796394 9: http://www.dailyorange.com/media/paper522/news/2004/02/19/Opinion/From-The.Left.Bushs.Economics.Work.For.Rich-612287.shtml 10: http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/001579.html 11: http://economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=S%26%288%20%2DP1%3F%27%0A

Looks pretty nice. The old link doesn't seem to be working, I can still only get in via IP address. Are we waiting on DNS propagation?

I just wanted to follow up on the Scrushy case by mentioning that the jury appears to be hung. They've told a judge three times now that they can't reach a verdict. Some info here: http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB111712341667444154,00.html?mod=rss_whats_news_us

I find your post to be pointless and pedantic.

Wired has a cool article up about Peter Lynds, the New Zealand amateur physicist who's paper proposing that time has no discrete increments shook things up a bit last year. http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.06/physics.html Here's a very brief excerpt (the full story runs four pages):

Well put, IMM. Yes, he will veto. He's not going to make a statement like that and then step back from it, that would just be handing the political agenda for the next congressional session to... well... congress. I do think the US will still have important contributions in stem cell research. There's plenty of private funding flying around, even before certain states like CA getting in on the action. But yeah, it's a big blow. Just to look on the bright side for a moment, the NSF's budget ain't gettin' any smaller. All that money's still gonna be spent, and they always get more requests than they have money for. Maybe we'll get lucky and discover warp drive or something. ;-) (Actually more like "a secure Internet". Last year the NSF was only able to fund about 8% of the cybersecurity proposals it received. It wanted to fund 25%. Source. )

(shrug) Ok. I'm all for the public debate. But I think we're going in circles here. At this point I'm feeling the urge to restate my "lead, follow or get out of the way" mantra, which seems pointless. And you feel your polls show something and I feel that I've successfully disputed that, and it's the same thing with your comparison on scientific investigation. There doesn't seem to be any room to continue. But I will continue to follow the discussion with interest. (BTW, I don't feel that was an unfair comparison or an invoking of Godwin's Law; I just happen to disagree with the comparison. On the contrary, I respect your opinion on this subject and admire your tenacity.)

Maybe it's just me, but this does not appear to refute my response. You're advocating burying our collective heads in the sand, and I've pointed out why (a) that's not the same thing as your example, and (b) why it won't work. Restating your case does not constitute a refutation. Actually you stated above that we don't know the public's position at all. Let me quote you: We agree, it's not clear what the public is backing. Nonsense. There's always a moral or ethical position taken in a decision to fund or refuse funds for this research. Your own position--that trading embryonic tissue as commodity is wrong--is already addressed in international law; it is illegal in much of the world to commercially deal in human tissue. And of course the opponents of embryonic stem cell research have considered the possibility they would lose the debate; everybody expected HR 810 to pass the House and its not too hard to imagine a Republican President after this one signing it into law. Perhaps that was a bit of an exaggeration on my part. As you say, you can always take up the issue of how the embryos are harvested if you lose the primary debate. I certainly hope that happens. A valid comparison, IMO, and I do feel that uncompromising positions play an important role in our society. Just as compromises do.

Most of the commercial/business development today seems to be split between Java, C#/C++ and (at the low end) Visual Basic. Certainly that encompasses the lion's share. But the question of "what you intend to program" (or "what you need to do") is still of primary importance in making the decision of which language to use. Java, for example, has serious drawbacks for certain kinds of programming that prohibit its use, and the same certainly applies for the others. I recommend a good book in programming languages, their construction and methodology, etc. Sebesta's "Concepts of Programming Languages" is pretty good. Thorough and current.

Well that's one interpretation. But, to follow your principle to its logical conclusion, I don't think you're going to find much support for invading South Korea because of unethical research practices. Nor are we likely to, say, shut down US access to the Internet because it leads to exploitation of child labor in third world countries. And given the global nature of scientific research (and the domestic demand that will clearly arise from its results), there's also a grave danger in your position. By taking that impossible stand you force a disengaged, superficial public into making an either-or decision. The result of that could be a complete lack of interest in any moral and ethical examination or caution. We'd end up proceeding without any moral guidance whatsoever, since none has been suggested or discussed because opponents refused to even consider the possibility that they might lose the debate. So you may want to consider a more realistic (and perhaps less debate-discouragingly inflamatory) interpretation. I agree with you on one thing: The moral/ethical side of this decision need to be fully heard and considered. It is not at present. But in the end, it's not going to be possible to ignore these developments. As I said before, choose wisely.

(shrug) You could well be right, both about popular opinion and about the morality of the situation. On the other hand, you could just as easily be wrong. The polls go both ways. Here's one that says 57% support ESCR. http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=24197 Here's another one that suggests the same. http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/poll010626.html I bet if I look hard enough, I can find one that backs my decision to purchase new running shoes. I share some of your concerns, but in the end I don't believe this situation is as complex as you make it out to be. And polling or not, I suspect that the majority of people in this country are going to lose interest the moment you drag out a word like "pluripotent". My guess (and my opinion) is that people are willing to compromise in the manner I described above. It's all moot anyway. We're not the masters of the universe. As the South Koreans demonstrated last week, this research is going to happen whether we like it or not. You can lead (and thereby have influence on how the moral choices are made), follow (and have no say in the matter), or get out of the way (not benefitting from the technology OR having a say in the morality of it). Choose wisely.

As I indicated above, I don't. I meant not that researchers give us moral authority, but rather that they've demonstrated a place where the technology provides a clear deliniation. In other words, the needs of research can be satisfied without a straying into the moral territory that I believe most Americans are concerned with. If you feel I'm wrong in that belief, then I invite you to state your opinion, which I will read with interest. In the end it doesn't really amount to a hill of beans to me what a "researcher" believes are the correct morals (or ethics, if you prefer) for a given situation. What matters to me is whether or not a clear moral difference exists between the use of an embryo which was grown for the purposes of artificial insemination, which would normally be discarded, and the use of an embryo which was grown for the purpose of profit. Obviously what I wrote could be interpreted a number of ways, so I don't mind you asking for clarification, but I've given you that now. Twice. Let's move on.

No, I'm stating my personal opinion on what the valid moral question(s) is(are), having considered various moral aspects of the issue. I believe the moral question is important, and not something that can be dismissed.

The House passed the bill today, but short of the majority needed to override a veto. Meanwhile the President did a photo-op with families with children adopted from frozen embryos. I guess that's supposed to imply that we need to introduce another 400,000 people into the population for no apparent reason. In my opinion, the only valid moral question here is whether we are capable of drawing the line at the level researchers say that we can draw it at. Which is to say that we cannot allow the production of embryos specifically for the purpose of harvesting stem cells. This strikes me as a reasonable compromise, because it leaves plenty of study material and weeds out those only interested in commercial exploitation.

It's not just big business that corrupts government. Special interests often represent non-corporate entities and belief systems. Religion would be one example of that. First amendment orgs would be another. That's not to say that all influence is evil, either. But the problem is not corruption per se, but rather the negative aspects of influence. We don't have a standing problem with corruption (just too-regular outcroppings of it). But we do have a standing problem with influence by special interest groups, imposing the will of minorities over the majority. And it comes from both sides. The left is every bit as bad about "legislating morality" as the right is. And let's not forget that if there's one thing about the Bush administration that all sides should be able to agree on it's that big business doesn't get a pass on corruption no matter how much it donates to political parties. Anyway, getting to your question: The question I've asked in this thread is this: Is this question (the one you've posed above) more important than the question of equal justice under law? Is it more important to put people in jail than it is to ensure that one is innocent until proven guilty? By all means, we should go after corruption and fraud wherever it lies. But we should never do so in such a manner that compromises our most important founding principles.

I agree, and I think the really surprising story the last couple of years has been the explosion of Linux in the server market and the way it's kept pace with Windows. It's more profitable, faster, more secure, and the convenience/ease-of-use advantage that Windows has traditionally had seems less relevent by the month. Still, you can never count Microsoft out. Either way, I think we (the consumers) win. Competition rules.

Enron was Enron's fault. But most of what happened with Enron happened on Clinton's watch, and could have been addressed by an alert administration that was actually interested in doing something about corporate corruption rather than measuring the merits of every prosecution by the level of donation to the Democratic party. (Voters in Florida didn't forget, though -- Janet Reno's run for Governor was a joke.) And, in fairness, nobody wanted to do anything that might burst The Bubble.

Yes, it was in that discussion and the quote was directed at vanden Heuvel. My wife missed it as well; I caught it later on Tivo. He kinda leans over a bit and I think it muffles his mike briefly so it's a bit unclear, and it went by so quickly that I had to back up and be sure I'd heard what I thought I'd heard. After that I was rolling on the floor for several minutes. (hehe)

But as I understand it a lot of IBM's server sales are based on Intel or AMD products. IBM makes around $5 billion/yr off the PowerPC and abotu $15-20 billion off server sales, right? The PowerPC chips don't run Windows Server, which accounts for something like 32% of server sales (IDC, Q4 2004, now tied with UNIX for #1). PPC buyers are limited to Linux (or AIX or Solaris, but IBM is pushing those users towards Linux). And four or five million lost unit sales per year from a change at Apple will make a dent in anybody's wallet. But no, I think a move to Intel chips is unlikely for Apple. This is just a move to prompt IBM to hurry up with its next-generation chip plans, which have not yet been announced.

Yah, that is interesting. It's also particularly noteworthy given the rumor flying around today that Apple is considering using Intel chips in future Macs, which would put a serious dent in IBM's chip business. A year from now the consoles may be all that's keeping them in business. Of course it's probably just a bargaining position on Apple's part, but you never know.

Oh, I see. Well that's as reasonable a line of inquiry as any. I think you're inquiring in a somewhat predisposed manner, though. Do you want the truth, or do you want something that supports your position? What if the information you believe is hidden reveals a connection between the Enron corporation and the current administration at the time? You know, the one that was in charge of the country from 1993 to 2001, when most of Enron's shenanigans took place? (dangle, dangle) ;-)

Ok, I'm always open to a change of subject. What are you implying or suggesting? BTW, your argument above also delves deeply into two-wrongs territory.

Well that's not the case in the Ken Lay prosecution, Douglas. They have physical evidence in the form of written and electronic communication, as I understand it, as well as the testimony of people who aren't being charged with a crime (and therefore aren't receiving plea bargain deals). I haven't read anything comprehensive on this specific subject, but I would imagine that there have been a lot of cases where CEOs were nailed by paper trails. Edit: Come to think on it, Martha Stewart was nailed by a paper trail and non-indicted testomony as well.