Pangloss

Just to update this, the plan was dropped after public outcry. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/03/the-great-california-black-car-crisis-is-over-for-now-at-leastthe-california-air-resources-board-said-friday-that-it-has.html

You know, prior to Dover I wouldn't have paid that much heed, but now I feel like I absolutely have to. There's just way too much ground that can be gained by that movement by a single success, however minor or reasonable it may seem. These groups are going to continue to be around and I agree that we have to pay attention to what they're doing.

It's possible. Having voted for him a few times myself, I'd be watching closely, but he more or less lost me when he started siding with the religious right. I don't agree with his born-again interest in market economics, either. He's one of those conservatives who believes in the "starve the beast" theory, but his own speakership is recent proof that it doesn't work -- even with his own party in charge. PBS may have forgotten that the budget grew something like 180% under Bill & Newt, but I haven't. Newt will be 69 at election time, btw. Not that that would necessarily stop him or his supporters, it's just worth pointing out that he's a bit older than he looks on TV, and Republicans will almost certainly be looking for a younger candidate. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged They already have. The most recent battles have revolved around an attempt to circumvent that ruling by calling it something other than "creationism". Hence the popular phrase "cdesign proponentsists", referring to an incident related to the Dover case in which a failed Microsoft Word search resulted in an unknown user trying to replace the word "creationism" with "design proponents" in a textbook and missing a couple of letters. Personally I think we're worrying over nothing. After the McCain nomination the religious right took one too many Tylenol PMs, and I doubt we'll hear from them in 2012 either. I could be wrong, of course.

I don't know the answer to your question, but I thought they ruled out prions?

It's also intended as humor for the older readers.

Cool. I teach mainly the senior programming students, but I have a long-standing interest in the history of storytelling and classical studies, and asked if I could teach the freshman storytelling classes, even though we have people with English and history PhDs on campus, and was lucky enough to talk my way into it. IMO game design students have an even bigger reason than most to learn as much as they can about human history and sociology, and it's a blast to teach those two classes. I'm also developing a "special topics" class on the history of warfare, emphasizing tactics and strategies for game design. I don't know that particular one, but I've become something of an anime gourmand in recent years (literally -- I'm sure I've gained weight from all the extra time spent sitting on the couch!) and have checked out many of the more popular titles, ranging from Watanabe to Kon to Miyazaki (the usual suspects). I think the Japanese are doing some of the most creative storytelling on the planet right now, and it's still far too unrecognized in the States because of the social taboo against "cartoons". But it doesn't really matter -- your observations are largely accurate about the down side of Hollywood, IMO, but cream still rises to the top in the entertainment business, as much or more than in any other human endeavor. (My two bits anyway.) I think the two above quotes compliment each other and suggest one definable attribute of "youth fiction" -- lower degree of detail. In The Hobbit much of that detail did not yet exist -- Tolkein wrote it later in preparation for LOTR (and compiled and dumped it into The Silmarillion and the massive postscript in Return of the King). It's almost as if adults just need more detail in order to suspend disbelief. (Interesting... does this say more about adults or children?) (grin) Gregory Maguire dramatically illustrates this point in his fascinating novel Wicked: The Life and Times of the Wicked Witch of the West. Maguire does to Baum's Oz exactly what Tolkein did to Middle Earth for LOTR. He adds tremendous depth and detail to the tapestry of Oz, making it a more "serious" story, clearly aimed at adults instead of children. Interestingly, I think Rowling is aware of this and actually ratchets up the detail as the series progresses (perhaps never to the adult level, though), as well as ramping up the seriousness of the consequences of the decisions made by the characters (this is a different subject, really, but arguably another definable attribute of youth fiction might be "less-serious consequences"). That ties in with the bit about Rowling's characters aging at the same rate as her readers -- by the end of the series all the children have become young adults, just like their readers. Kinda spooky. (Though I'm not sure it will play out over time -- good luck stopping an excited 11 year old from grabbing Book Two, now that they're all out!)

The president is also a religious person who supports public funding for faith-based organizations, a concept that got a big shot in the arm last week with new legislation making its way through Congress that greatly expands AmeriCorps. The opposition party is quite up in arms about it, concerned about public funding for faith-based organizations. No, really -- Democrats are now extolling the virtues of these organizations, and Republicans are expressing concern about the government supporting groups that promote a specific ideological agenda. The hypocrisy of politicians never ceases to amaze.

I know you and I don't see eye-to-eye on Harry Potter, but having given it some thought since our last discussion, I actually agree with your point here that it's not an appropriate comparison. It's not really fair to J.K. Rowling, actually -- it's a great accomplishment, just of a different sort. She has produced arguably the best children's fantasy book series ever written, worthy of comparison with the works of C.S. Lewis (Narnia), Madeleine L'Engle (A Wrinkle in Time), Edward Ormondroyd (David and the Phoenix), L. Frank Baum (The Wizard of Oz) and many others. I would also say that it's unique in the way it transcends a specific age group (or at least the manner in which it does so, aging a year with each book). Which actually makes it difficult to classify in the traditional "children's" genre, but of course it has to be viewed that way since the initial target age is only 11 years. And if it offers something to adults as well, that's hardly unique to good children's literature. Many of the best works for young people offer a great deal for adults.

Cool. Is it a game-changer or just a promising sidebar?

You folks know about Joseph Campbell and The Hero of a Thousand Faces, right? Not that Tolkein followed Campbell, of course, but it does explain why so many of these stories seem so similar. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monomyth I hit my Game Design students with the concept every term and their mouths just drop open. Ah, to be young again, and innocent in the ways of the world. (grin) If you ever get a chance to see the famous Bill Moyers interview of Campbell, don't miss it. Caught McKellan on PBS the other night doing a new Lear. He played him as kind of a cross between his Gandalf and his Magneto, which seemed appropriate given the material. Must've been fun for the other actors to play off of.

I don't think that's a black-and-white view any more than your view promotes the pitchforks and hangin' ropes. There's a lot of middle ground here, both in terms of what AIG could have done, and in terms of how the government can handle these situations. They do have a duty to their shareholders, which at the moment is mostly (80%) the American people, and much of the reaction is more media spin and public frenzy than clear thinking. Not to mention politicians dodging their own share of responsibility. That's not to say that I think your position is wrong either. I just think the situation is complex and calls for thoughtful handling.

Well at the very least this points out that it's just another complication that can arise from bailouts. If we're going to have a problem with it then we need to plan in advance how we want to handle it, and build it right into the bailout agreement. Otherwise ignore it and move on.

It's a good argument, but you don't actually know that for a fact. And even if true it doesn't address the issue of demotivation at the time that we're trying to improve education. Your better political tack here would probably be to disprove (or point out the lack of proof for) the position that MJ causes demotivation. (Of course, your point about people using it in moderation would seem to contradict that argument. After all, there must be a reason why they feel it necessary to moderate their intake.)

Those points do seem to change the equation quite a bit.

D'oh, you included the word "corporate" right there above the chart and I just completely overlooked it. I think that must be the source of my confusion -- I was thinking of personal income tax. Thanks.

I think the main objection amongst people who don't have religious/moral objections is that we have a lot on our plate at the moment and this is probably something that's going to have to wait. But it also means having to address the counter-productivity, demotivation argument. We're talking about massive increases in government spending on education for the purpose of better competing in the global economy through more educated workers, and at the same time contemplating legalizing something that may directly undermine that very effort. These two factors are, I suspect, the main reasons why most people feel this is an issue best served later. If you wait until we're already doing a great job of producing educated workers, and THEN bring this up, many will look at it and say "well we can probably afford to find out by doing it and seeing what happens".

He actually probably knew how much fuel he had (at least when he took off), he just didn't know how much fuel he was using. It's a surprisingly complex thing. You might have to fly around storms, and of course headwinds and tailwinds greatly complicate calculations. If the weather report when you leave shows X headwinds, but when you actually arrive in the area and the headwinds have changed to a higher speed, it can take a while to figure that out and then adjust your calculations to see if you still have enough fuel. Computers and internet-connected information systems are changing this, but it takes time. I once had to sit on a 757 at the short-runway, high-altitude Veil, Colorado airport (EGE) for an extra couple of hours because the weather at the alternate destination was bad, and they couldn't carry enough fuel to reach a different alternate destination and still take off at the current temperature. I imagine those calculations were really interesting. Eventually the pilot just gave up and flew us to Denver where we got a much larger fuel load. It just stuck in my mind because I'd never had a commercial jet pilot tell me that he couldn't put as much fuel on board as he needed to meet the FAR requirements -- it was an odd thing to hear. But of course that airport is a bit unusual.

Every time I... how shall I put this... visit the restroom, I have sitting on the back of the toilet this old marketing piece that came in the mail one day extolling the virtues of buying a house with no money down and only paying the interest. On the piece a beautiful, happy, somewhat lascivious couple laughs and grins up at me, and I find myself wondering if they're still laughing and grinning about their decision. I keep it as a souvenir to remind me of the day I showed the piece to my wife and suggested we do the same, and she said "No dear, that's not what we're going to do." (grin)

Just to explore this a bit, as I understand it there's a distinction between a simple error and criminal negligence. A pilot who just "screws up" might be liable for a malpractice suit, but for a criminal negligence charge something more serious has taken place. I believe it's basically a question of whether the pilot knew there was a danger and decided that it was an acceptable risk, when a reasonable person with the same training and education should have known better. It's a difficult thing to prove, as I understand it, because the standards are high with the defense holding a lot of advantages. A good illustration of this can be seen in the case of Joseph Hazelwood, the captain of the Exxon Valdez, where prosecutors sought a charge of criminal negligence, but had to instead settle for "negligent discharge of oil", a misdemeanor, mainly because they were unable to sufficiently prove that he was drunk at the time of the accident. (According to his Wikipedia entry he still has his license!) The test may be lower in Italy, of course, but I wouldn't automatically assume that. It is worth noting that when a Marine E/A-6B pilot sliced a cable car wire in Northern Italy in 1998, resulting in the deaths of 20 people, extradition was denied, but not because it was felt that an Italian court would be unfair (not that anyone here was suggesting this; I'm just exploring the topic a bit). In fact it was an Italian court that denied extradition based on the NATO treaty which gave the US jurisdiction. The prosecutors in that case also sought criminal negligence (the Wikipedia says "negligent homicide" which I believe is the same thing) convictions but failed to achieve them, even though the record showed that they were flying faster and lower than normal and actually destroyed a video tape of the incident! Their navigational chart didn't show the cable so they were acquitted -- in other words, they didn't know the risk, so they couldn't decide that it was acceptable. (They were found guilty of obstruction and the pilot went to prison briefly.) That case is still the subject of a great deal of discussion in aviation circles, and I imagine this case will be as well, if it isn't already (if it is I haven't noticed it; I'm a bit of a lurker when it comes to aviation-related forums, though I do try to keep informed).

I think we should probably let the suicide watch stand this time.

ROFL! Well there is a really high humor value here, for sure. But in a way they're responsible to ME for making sure they pay the correct amount in taxes. Odd though that may sound.

Agreed. Thanks for the info.

The thought that that puts in my mind is "two wrongs don't make a right".

Almost like folks have been reading SFN! http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090326/pl_politico/20526 I'm afraid this didn't get much support from the President, though: My color commentary: "Oof, that's gotta hurt!"

I agree, that's very strange.