Pangloss

BTW, The Animatrix is officially part of the Matrix story, having been produced by the same guys (and I think they wrote and directed some of the segments in it as well). It tells some of the backstory and also some of the story in between the movies. One of the segments explains the presence of the kid who looks up to Neo and does those ammunition runs for the general in the Battle of the Docks, for example.

I was just wondering if one (or more) of you good folks in the UK could summarize and outline the results of the election for those of us who find British politics just a wee bit confusing. Blair stays on as PM, correct?

"Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal". It's a very short (337pps paperback with references and bibliography, currently in publication -- I think about eight bucks from Amazon), and a good general introduction to various Objectivist ideological positions and general philosophies. I mention it over some of the other works because some of the subjects covered have come back to "haunt" us in a way, such as Alan Greenspan's essay on monopolies (he has two essays in the book). Fascinating stuff; just remember that there are logical counterpoints to their positions. IMO it's just excellent food for thought.

The smoke screen is all yours, Coral -- the debate IS the matter at hand, not your low opinion of someone else's point of view. I see no reason to respond further on this. I've made my point, and see no relevent disputation to it.

No, I agree that your questions were not the problem. Let me quote you again, and add some bolds just to clarify. He didn't attack you, but you certainly went after him. His point is not unreasonable, and it deserves the respect due to a respectful fellow debater, not belittlement and ad hominem attack.

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1558,1791164,00.asp?kc=ETRSS02129TX1K0000532 Interesting article about CERN's grid for the Large Hadron Collector. Apparently it will be handling 1.5 gigabytes of data per second for over ten years. The data will be passed around "a global grid that stretches across Europe and the United States". Cool. My favorite stat from the article: Translation: They're hosting electronic distro for Doom IV.

He actually did elaborate about his level of involvement in the affairs of the homeless. Eventually you hit a point that he clearly felt he couldn't cross or it would reveal personal information, then you started crying foul. I have a problem with that, because there is no way that EITHER of you can prove your involvement with the homeless short of revealing personal information, and you knew that going in. So no matter what he did, at some point you would be able to just cry foul. All any of us has in these debates, aside from verifiable citations and references, is the weight of our reputation from previous posts. What you've done here is to resort to an attack on the basis of reputation -- asking us to judge Darth Tater on whether we are more inclined to believe him, or to believe you. I have a problem with that. I'm here to debate. Not to be given lessons by people who tell me their opinion is more valuable because of their personal experience. You want to tell me what you think, and why you think it? Great -- that's what I'm here for. But don't dismiss mine or someone else's opinion just because you don't think they have the proper experience. In short, don't tell someone they're not QUALIFIED to have a say. Tell them WHY they're wrong.

Ad hominem, Aardvark. 10 points, go sit in the box. See what I mean? Coral didn't like what he has to say, so accused him of "having contempt". Aardvark can't fathom that Tater could possibly form that opinion having had that particular set of experience. So what does he do? He accuses Tater of not having that experience. These reactions are not atypical in the homeless debate, though I'm sorry to see them here from people whose opinions I've found enlightening in the past. I see nothing in Tater's posts to warrant that kind of personal attack. This quote sums up his point briefly: This is a reasonable, studious, intelligent point of view. It also happens to be one shared by a great number of people who work in public service, welfare, churchs and other humanitarian areas all around the country. You may not like what he has to say -- nobody said you have to agree with him. But as far as I'm concerned you both have slipped into ad hominem that has seriously degraded your message. I for one am very disappointed.

You do have a point, Coral, but it seemed to me that the reason you pursued Tater's personal involvement in the homeless is because of this statement that he made: This is the part that liberals just can't understand. There is no amount of rationalization -- no level of human suffering -- that can put the "will" back in "goodwill" once you've used force to take it away. It doesn't matter how far removed you are from that use of force, either. Sure, it's cadswallop to say that ALL homeless are hoist by their own petard. But in the end it's more or less irrelevent unless it teaches you something about how to get them back on their feet. Ignorance is not an excuse to get the public to bend over and take it up the rear.

Interesting article about RSS integration features in Safari: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/28/technology/circuits/28pogue-email.html? Safari is Apple's web browser for Mac OSX, so don't bother trying to get it. But check out this cool features: Nifty.

Beneath you.

I'm a little unclear on exactly what you want this thread to be about, but I'll respond to a couple of points, and if they're off subject then feel free to steer accordingly, with my apologies. No, the government already owns the airwaves under the auspices of "public trust", a very old concept that basically means that anything not owned by a private individual in this country is owned by the government. This raises interesting questions, and in fact I recently re-read some old Ayn Rand essays on the subject from the 1950s that seem equally viable today. But unfortunately this is a very old and ingrained concept at this point. The public is just not very likely to accept concepts like "permanent private ownership". As unpopular as things like condemnation through imminent domain are, the alternative is viewed by the majority as worse. So we're pretty much stuck with it. Who should be invoved with this "deal"? The issues at work here are actually a little more complicated than they may initially appear to be. For example, it may seem at first blush that Congress, in removing the additional channels at the end of 2006, is penalizing the local broadcasters. In fact it's exactly the opposite -- the broadcasters are the ones who want to dump the old analog stuff. The reps are trying to decide if they need to require the broadcasters to keep broadcasting their old signals a little longer in order to serve a still-reluctant public. (One congressman even suggested last year that federal funds be used to pay for set-top DTV tuners for low-income viewers!) The original agreement called for analog broadcasting to end at the end of CY06, IFF (if and only if) 75% of households had converted to DTV. It has become abundantly clear that this percentage will not be met by that date, which is the why the issue is being debated now, as opposed to next year (it also takes about that long for CONgress to decide anything, so this is "good"). Anyway, I guess the answer to your question is that the stakeholders are the broadcasters and the viewing public, with the federal government acting as intermediary. The reason why "millions of dollars" are involved is that once the broadcasters are released from their obligation to provide the old analog signals, the government can then re-sell that bandwidth for other purposes in the form of FCC licenses to various corporations (highest bidder). Companies are already lining up to buy that bandwidth, which may actually sell for upwards of $17 billion (with a B, not an M).

No, I sure don't.

I know it's mostly Linux users around here (cheers!), but I wanted to pass this along because it's not being widely advertised. Along with the commercial introduction of 64-bit Windows XP today, Microsoft has announced a free upgrade for owners of the 32-bit version. Note that this only applies to people who bought a computer with a 64-bit chip with the 32-bit version of Windows pre-installed. So it's not really going to affect very many people -- basically Athlon 64 buyers who bought fully pre-built computers, ala Alienware, etc., but it also affects Opteron workstation buyers in companies, etc. Here's a link to the site where you apply: https://microsoft.productorder.com/clientx64/default.aspx

I was opposed to the war as well, and voted against the administration (after supporting Bush in 2000). But that's the breaks in democracy -- you voice your opinion and then you takes your chances. If the results are not to your liking one year, hang around a while. They have a funny way (at least in my country) of working out pretty well over the long haul. I don't want to eliminate all government force, I just want people to get the stars out of their eyes without losing their interest in having good government. If we can improve the homeless situation without totally solving it or further compromising citizen's rights, then we should do that. If we can reduce the taxpayer burden without increasing homelessness, we should do that. I'm a big believer in compromise. I think it's something we've forgotten how to do in this country, very much to our detriment. It's when we forget how to compromise that our worst behavior comes out. This thread is a great example of how discussions start out on perfectly reasonable grounds and then stampede straight for the use of force to solve the problem. It's a horrible rut we've fallen into -- throwing money that doesn't belong to us at problems that we know full well cannot be solved that way. The ideological conviction that this will work is born out of a lack of respect for the source of that money, and it is as much an ideological conviction as the opposing notion that the homeless should be ignored. The truth, and the solution, are somewhere in between.

Okay. So we're not talking about charity. We're talking about state-mandated welfare. Why do people see this as the same thing? This thread started out talking about the problems of the homeless. That's an important problem, I agree. I also happen to think that a limited amount of welfare is good for society. Helping people when they're down is good for ALL of us. A safety net is a good thing. But here's the thing: The implication of this thread is that we don't do enough. Now I agree that we don't do enough in general as a society -- we can always do more. What I resist is the implication that we aren't doing enough mandated welfare. That is a position which, in my opinion, is born out of ignorance, bolstered by political correctness. Let's take a look at the US budget for 2005, shall we? Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_budget_process Function Title FY 20051 050 National Defense 423,098 150 International Affairs 29,569 250 General Science, Space and Technology 24,459 270 Energy 1,883 300 Natural Resources and Environment 30,286 350 Agriculture 22,353 370 Commerce and Housing Credit 8,092 400 Transportation 69,494 450 Community and Regional Development 12,949 500 Education, Training, Employment and Social Services 91,817 550 Health 248,780 570 Medicare 293,574 600 Income Security 342,324 650 Social Security 516,457 700 Veterans Benefits and Services 65,444 750 Administration of Justice 40,781 800 General Government 19,392 900 Net Interest 177,909 920 Allowances (798) 950 Undistributed Offsetting Receipts (63,108) Total: 2,354,755 Out of that $2.35 trillion, it's pretty obvious that over $1.6 trillion is being spent on welfare and entitlements. That's 68% folks. And that $1.6 trillion is probably three or four times what any other nation on earth spends on welfare and entitlements. (In fact I believe that's more than the entire budget of any other nation.) So. Why do we need to spend more? What evidence do you have that spending more money on welfare and entitlements will bring about a decline in homelessness? Make your case. I'm all ears.

K. What about enforced birth control for mothers on welfare?

The search for alternative fuels may be getting a boost in the form of bacterially-produced hydrogen. (Producing hydrogen is one of the problems with fuel cell technology. If it can be made cheaply then it could serve as an alternate fuel. If not, if it costs as much to make the hydrogen as what you saved from not using oil, then it's not as alluring.) I've started a science-oriented (non-political) discussion on it here: http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?p=158443#post158443 (with two links to stories that came out today about it)

http://www.newindpress.com/NewsItems.asp?ID=IE320050424061423&Page=3&Title=Features+-+Health+%26+Science&Topic=166 http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/04/050422165917.htm Also known as "microbial fuel cells", this technology is interesting because it suggests less energy-expensive ways to produce hydrogen, one of the biggest barriers in the search for alternative fuels.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H1B

National parks are exploited all the time. Conservation, the principle that the parks were founded under, does not imply lack of use. It implies thoughtful allocation and exploitation of land rather than thoughtless, greed-oriented use. But it doesn't deny use. So long as the land and its ecosystem are preserved, it's fine. Environmentalists see things differently, of course. But it is the function of special interest groups to only see one side of an issue. Our duty as citizens is to weigh relative merit.

It actually might not help the US become less dependent on foreign oil. Due to the logistics of the situation, it can really only be sent to west coast refineries, which are already operating over capacity. Most likely it will be sold in the Asian markets -- China especially. But hey, it'll help with the trade deficit at least.

Hehe... that's funny, I didn't even realize that when I posted it. I just meant "leave them alone" -- totally missed the other meaning. (grin)