Pangloss

This thread is now on 24 Hour Suicide Watch. The thread starter has failed or is failing to support their position, has not managed the thread direction in a manner which supports its purpose, or is actively encouraging a disorderly discussion. The thread starter must bring the thread under control in order for the thread to stay open. Alternatively, there are more reportable posts breaching the SFN Rules in this thread than there are non-reportable posts, and all participants are expected to improve their level of input if this thread is to remain open. If the thread does not turn into a productive and rational discussion within 24 hours of this post, then it will be closed without any consideration of the moderation policy. All participants are responsible for helping to bring the thread back on track. This post is a standard text set by SFN policy.

Discussion moved from here: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=39550

The discussion regarding MustKnow's blanket refusal of evolution have been moved to this thread in Pseudoscience & Speculations. The discussion may be continued there. http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=40448

Sweet -- 1050 is really sharp for a 13". Most 24" monitors have that number of lines. I just bought a nice 24" and had to pay a extra to get the 1200-line model. Hm, I can't think of anything to support the notion that a Mac user has "less control" over their PC than a Windows user. Were you thinking of anything in particular?

Another great question. Does it?

Why do we need to judge the people who hold opinions on this issue? Does this give us some sort of insight on the issue of gay marriage?

Incidentally, Apple has become one of the most influential manufacturers of Windows PCs, especially when it comes to laptops. Macs are even starting to make significant inroads in corporate purchasing. The big "fight" in the PC industry right now is between Apple and Dell, where in 2008 Apple had half Dell's sales volume, but made twice as much money. I read somewhere that the industry as a whole is in a serious downturn, with something like 30% fewer desktops expected to sell this year. That makes Apple's growth even more impressive. But I've often wondered whether Apple's "quality" perception would survive the loss of competition for comparison. Perhaps we'll find out. (Incidentally, I've noticed recently some of my students have attached a plain white Apple logo sticker on the back of their school-subsidized Dell laptops, overlaying the Dell logo. I wondered about it, but not enough to actually ask. Then the other day I bought my wife an iPod Touch for her birthday, and I noticed that it came with two plain white Apple logo stickers. Answers that question, eh?)

Seems a bit harsh to say she can't have an opinion that same sex marriage is natural just because she has breast implants. Is she barred from using artificial sweetener as well?

Where did I leave my pants?

I think people do listen, and ideas have a tendency to percolate and coalesce over time. It just doesn't happen very often under direct confrontation, which is why I usually advise folks here to focus on listening. Everyone who walks in the door here already knows what their own opinion is. What's interesting about discussion is hearing what others have to say. Even if it doesn't change your mind, it may give you new insight or ideas. But hey, we all close our ears now and then. Just human nature. But it may be better not to advertise it when it happens.

Then why discuss it?

I'm not sure I understand the question. Many Asians and Europeans enjoy the same or better standard of living as the average American. And I think if you ask most people in developing nations they'd much rather focus on increasing their wages to our level, and in fact this is one of the most important guiding motivations behind the international effort to manage global trade in a fair manner. Perhaps you could define what you mean by "start over"?

Gateway has been banned for inane threads that were annoying the membership (for lack of a better description).

Well I for one welcome our new female overlords. With open arms.

Thankfully in a good way -- Justice Souter is stepping down at the end of the current session (June). Souter is generally considered part of the liberal side of the court's current socio-political balance (though he was actually placed there by Bush 41), so his Obama replacement would be unlikely to change the balance. With a 60-seat majority in the Senate any confirmation will likely be pro-forma, so it could be someone much farther to the left. On the other hand the president runs the risk of angering moderate conservatives with an extreme candidate. So this could be an interesting decision for that reason. IMO Obama will pick someone considered liberal but also fair and impartial, and with a record of counter-indicative decisions (supporting the conservative direction, indicating impartiality). Here's an article at the New York Times with some info: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/01/us/01souter.html?global-home

I think what you may be trying to say is "stimulus + bank/corporate bailouts". Certainly that's over a trillion, yes.

I agree not every dollar can be scientifically determined to be going in the most effective direction. I'm not actually asking for that, I'm just expressing my concern that many of these dollars weren't. Exactly.

An entirely logical reason to question which spending is used as stimulus is whether or not that spending is more effective than other spending. The stimulus bill was less than $800 billion (not over a trillion, Sherlock). The economy is something like $14 trillion. The idea is sound (or so it seems to many economists), but every dollar you spend has to have a massive impact. I also think those who are saying "all spending is stimulus" would be singing a different tune if there was a program in there to buy 300 million copies of "Of Pandas and People", or a massive tax break for the wealthy, or 5,000 new coal-fired power plants, or immediate development of ANWR and offshore drilling, or a massive subsidy for the timber industry on the sale of public lands, etc, etc, etc. I disagree with that hypocrisy -- I don't see a problem with stimulus money going to some programs that have an ideological bent. What I have a problem with is stimulus money going to ideological programs regardless of stimulus efficacy. Every single stimulus dollar should have been rationalized and judged entirely on stimulus grounds. Instead Congress snuck in every program it could think of and slapped a "stimulus" label on its backside. Maybe it'll be effective, maybe it won't, but hey, at least Senator ____'s program got funded. And while it's true that as Sisyphus points out it's intended to be temporary spending, I've pointed out in other threads that Democrats in Congress are going to make it very difficult for the President to not massively increase the departments that got that money in the next budget, especially since that fight it going to take place right before the mid-term election. (For the love of all that is holy, can we PLEASE give President Obama the line item veto, before it is too late?)

Really? Let's see... I find it worth noting that iNow's opinion above is not representing an American majority opinion here. Most of us recognize that we speak for ourselves, not others, and have only minimal concern over local community opinion (recognizing that it's relevant and hugely important in many arenas, but that community support for one's opinion is not really required). Most of us see that we can do better, and that subverting one's opinion to the will of the community is a recipe for disaster, regardless of we support the community or not. Nope, still seems like appeal to ridicule to me.

Moved to Pseudoscience and Speculations.

iNow, appeal to ridicule is not an acceptable argument on this forum. It is a logical fallacy. You do not speak for this community, and I expect you to challenge opinions from your own perspective, not the perspective of others whom you purport to speak for. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ridicule

All I've ever offered on this subject is my opinion. In my opinion pandemic preparedness, and most other science funding, should have been funded separately from the stimulus bill, for the reasons I've outlined here. And, as we now know thanks to my expression of my opinion, I'm not the only one here who thinks so. When a diversity of previously unrecognized opinions has been revealed in a community I call it a successful discussion.

Fascinating. I intend to steal this and flaunt it about as if it were my own idea! (maniacal laughter)

It's probably hard to say for sure without knowing a lot about the program. It's possible that the program was optimized for 64-bit and that the 32-bit version is the one that's actually showing a difference (i.e. hobbled by the "smaller" architecture). Or perhaps the routines it uses are just wildly enhanced by the wide register access of 64-bit chips (I'm told some mathematically-intense programs are much faster in 64-bit environments). Check back, there are folks here who might have a better answer for you.

Interesting article in the LA Times about Democrats skeptical about Specter's switch: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-specter-assess29-2009apr29,0,1532737.story My favorite bit: Goodness! Yes sir, we certainly want him to toe the party line! As opposed to, oh I don't know, maybe... representing his constituents? Heavens no, he's a Democrat and he'd better act like one, or else! (rofl) (Yeah, that didn't work out so good for Harry Reid when he tried to steamroll Lieberman, did it?) Actually this quote is even better: HAHAHAHA!! I'm sure Oxman knows full well that voting 76% with your party is, by Washington standards, an official rating of "HOLY SWEET MOTHER OF CHRIST HOW DID THIS PERSON GET INTO OUR PARTY?!" The two most recent presidential candidates, both of whom were seen as moderates, each had track records in the nineties. That is a hilarious piece of spin! The insiders will be chuckling about that one for months. You just gotta love party-changes as a news event. They really bring out all the best political stuff.