Pangloss

Just out of idle curiosity, what position could Paul Wolfowitz be nominated for that wouldn't draw a boatload of ire from the left? But looking at it from a centrist position, it does seem to be another deliberately provocative appointment. I don't understand that approach from the President who claimed to be a uniter. The New York Times had some interest points in its editorial about this today: But they also said: I think that's a fair assessment.

They shot her because conservatives are evil, Blike. Don't you get it?

They shot her because Americans are evil, Blike. Don't you get it?

Well no, it's a take-off on the old H.G. Well novel where the Martians finally died from the common cold (or some other disease, which I don't believe Wells specified). But yeah, I'm sure Spielberg is quite familiar with the 1953 George Pal movie. It should be interesting to see if the martian machines walk on tripods (as they did in the book) or fly (as they did in the Pal movie). One difference I can guess at is that this invasion will all be George Bush's fault somehow. Distracted by Iraq, we were taken unaware, etc etc... ;-)

Well they're remaking it again.

Yeah it was on recycling in general. Good thread. One thing I like about P&T:BS is that they aren't afraid to challenge politically-correct thinking. A lot of skeptics these days trend to the far left and adhere to PC-thinking (global warming leaps to mind -- I've read lifelong skeptics refer to anybody who challenges any aspect of that issue as "global warming deniers"). But a skeptic (not to mention a scientist) shouldn't be afraid to challenge any assumption or assertion.

Ah well, no worries. Rofl Bud... Actually Bud you've got it all wrong. See, I saw a news story that said that Ken Lay was already convicted, and had in fact spent 42 years in prison. Then he got out and was accidentally trampled by a pack of rabid left-wing journalists lead by Dan Rather. Yeah, that was it. I think the reporter's name was Karen Ryan, and she said she was reporting for KXYZ NewsTeam6, so it must be true.

Whoa!! You heard it here first, folks! I don't think your milliner will need to wait by the phone, though.

Yes it's out on DVD. I actually rented it from Netflix a while back, but it wasn't compatible with my DVD player for some reason.

TT, no offense, but I'm not sure how any of that relates to the conviction of Bernard Ebbers or the taking-on of corporate corruption cases under the Ashcroft chairmanship of the Justice Department. I don't generally mind digressions or other subject changes, but changing course *specifically* to make a political point seems a bit off the charts. Can we at least talk a LITTLE bit about corporate corruption cases? (grin) I looked at your link on the Anthrax case, and I don't see the relevence of that at all. It's just some guy ranting about how the whole thing might have been secretly manufactured by the government. WTF? That guy needs to take his drugs or something. Sure, it was probably a right-winger, but this guy wants us to think Bush licked the 'lopes himself. I voted for John Kerry in *spite* of guys like this, not because of them. Come on, guy, you can do better than that. Anybody-But-Bush is sooooooooooooooooo 2004. (grin)

It's a Showtime thing. I think that's why a lot of people haven't heard about it, unfortunately.

Anybody else watch this show? I did a quick search and saw that Sayonara started a poll about the recycling episode, which I just caught in re-runs the other day. Some fun posts in there. I'm hoping for new episodes to start soon.

Don't let Sayo's obligatory (and welcome) Admin stuff put you off. You didn't commit any great sins as far as I can tell.

Bernie Ebbers convicted. http://money.cnn.com/2005/03/15/news/newsmakers/ebbers/index.htm?cnn=yes I said before that the thing Ashcroft OUGHT to be remembered for is not the Patriot Act (which half the Democrats in congress, including both Kerry and Kennedy, voted for), but for attacking the corporate corruption beast. I read somewhere that there were over 600 convictions, compared with NONE from the Janet Reno Justice Department (a reign known more for its pandering to corporate political donors than for any kind of "justice"). One more Big One to go. Ken Lay was on 60 Minutes, which was screaming about his connections to the Bush White House (never mind the fact that it was the Bush White House that brought this thing to trial!). Sounds like he's getting desperate, watching all his friends go down. Run, Kennie! Bwahaha.

Well I've read the site, and I'll say it: It is a left wing site. As far as I know (not having done any in-depth analysis), it's not deceptive (being a Nader product might have something to do with that -- he's a stickler for "screaming with accuracy"). But there's no question about its ideology, at least with regard to the Iraq war. I think people should consider all the facts, and then make up their own minds. Ideologues, on the other hand, think people should consider all of THEIR facts, ignore other facts, and then think their way. I see little value in that, except to point out the line of demarkation between extremism and moderacy/centrism. (There's nothing funnier and sadder than a liberal screaming about free speech with one hand, and with the other hand trying to silence anybody who doesn't agree with him.) In short, I guess I'm with Sayonara on this. I don't really mind people passing links along, but I'm more interested in what you think about that information.

Boycott Fra... er... I mean Boycott Fox?

Pass.

Well it's important to China because they consider it their territory (and because it's like Hong Kong -- a major source of capitalist revenue). It's important to the US because it's a democracy (not to mention a major trading partner, albeit a much smaller one). The US has always treaded a fine line here, trying to be protective but at the same time not go so far that it looses China's trade. That's why we don't officially recognize Taiwan as a separate country. China's approach has been to push its level of trade with the US so far that the US will ultimately find it to be too expensive to support Taiwan. Both nations have been moderately successful with these approaches to date, basically postponing the problem. It's creeping back into the news because of things that have come up in both Taiwan and in China. Taiwan made a few waves recently (not sure if I can recall why offhand -- something about a new flag or a declaration perhaps). China passed a new anti-secession law obviously intended as a finger-wagging move aimed at Taiwan (like an authoritarian government needs a law to stop secession). China lacks the military capability to do anything about Taiwan other than lob missles at it, which of course would be pointless. So at the moment there's no real fear of actual conflict. The struggle is entirely political in nature.

What?! I believe everything I read in Pravda!

BTW, that no-subscribe link someone posted above just goes to an excerpt from the article. It's a full-length article in the Sunday Times, and it runs eight pages on the Times web site. I strongly advise reading the whole thing. Registration at the Times is easy and (last I checked) doesn't even require email confirmation. Well worth having, IMO, because... well... it's the Times. It's not like anybody ELSE is doing real news anymore. Here are a couple of quotes I thought were particularly interesting: To me the above quote says a lot. (And by the way, anybody who reads the above quote, or my reaction to it, as anti-Bush, is completely missing the point here. The above quotation would obviously be true even if Gore had won in 2000.) This has to be the best bit in the whole article right here:

The sad thing about this is that it's not secret. They're basically taking advantage of something that has been known for a long time now about the TV news business. According to the article, they're perfectly up front about these "stories", telling the newsies exactly what they are and how they were made. The newsies show them anyway because they "play in Peoria". They're catering to their markets. They don't see the difference between something like this and showing the latest bear cub being born at the local zoo. Who cares, so long as the ratings are going up? Not that it's any better at the network level, mind you. At that level the problem is "reporters" who take press releases from special interest groups or corporations and run them as news stories without ever so much as setting foot outside the newsroom or even picking up the telephone. They know full well that you're only going to watch ONE network at 6:30, so you're never going to notice the fact that, by some amazing coincidence, all three networks are running the same story that night. (Tivo two network broadcasts and two local news broadcasts per night for a few nights and you'll notice this almost immediately. You'll laugh the first few times because it's so obvious and absurd -- this can't really be the way news is done, can it? And then you'll stop laughing.) What are you going to do about it, folks? You don’t really need to find out what’s going on You don’t really want to know just how far it’s gone Just leave well enough alone Eat your dirty laundry

Thank you Ronald and Paul.....

Sure, and I agree with your point, and won't bother to quibble about how a lot of retailers (if not most of them) allow the buyer to remove Windows and get credit -- an irrelevent point since most consumers aren't even aware of it. Even worse, a lot of the bigger retailers have contracts with Microsoft that specify this kind of packaging. There's a *reason* why if you go to the Dell web site and "customize your PC", Windows can't be deselected. And really it's just the tip of the iceberg in the long history of Microsoft's collusive, underhanded and in some cases outright illegal tactics. And this is court-established fact, now, not even something that's subject to debate anymore. The book is closed on this. But it's not the only reason why Windows is on top. There is another factor, and it's arguably a greater one. That is Microsoft's ability to embrace and extend technologies, make them easier to use, and alleviating the tedium and complexity of computing. One has to look no further than KBE or Gnu to see the influence Microsoft has had on the industry. 20 years ago computer people would laugh out loud at the notion that a common interface would make it easier to learn new software. I could go on and on about this, but I really think this is fairly obvious. Whether or not that has bearing today is a good question. Windows XP very much resides on its own laurels, and Microsoft seems well aware of the fact that they have a massive market share and consumers who don't seem too eager to make changes. I think the industry in general is also somewhat stagnant when it comes to innovation right now. It's been *ten years* since Al Gore invented the Internet for us (while he was busy cleaning up Chernobyl and building the tsunami early warning system, right?). Where is the killer app of the 21st century? But getting back to the point, I agree that Windows is resting on its laurels today, and this is prime time for Linux and other tech to leap to the fore. The recent progress of Firefox is definitely showing a chink in the Microsoft armor, and Java continues to grow. Microsoft isn't standing still -- Java fans are already cringing over the upcomig Visual Studio revamp. But it's looking better for competition than it has in a long time. The question is whether or not those of us who are smart enough to use leading-edge technology are also smart enough to recognize that competition won't succeed unless people are willing to TRY IT. Guys like us have to get out there, embrace that stuff, and put it to work. Tell our friends about it. Get the ball rolling. That's how you win this thing.

Of course.

Said the kettle to the darkly-colored pot.