Hopefully not methane fluxes. If they do (and they exist in huge amounts under the Siberian permafrost, which is also melting, we're seriously screwed.
This is the double-edged sword of modern liberalism. (Note that I am not talking about liberals vs. conservatives, as most in the US frame the debate, but about modern democratic government, which is, by classical definition, liberal). We've been so devoted to the idea that everyone must have their say, and that all sides must be heard, and that everyone's opinion is equal and must be respected, that we can't make any progress at all. It has led to education of the lowest common denominator, in which no-one's precious beliefs must be challenged, no crackpot idea dismissed for fear of hurting someone's feelings.
Ironically, this was done for good reasons: there were a lot of minority voices asking for decency and respect that were being drowned out by the majority. But it's gone too far.
Full disclosure: I'm a teacher. And one of the first things I introducein class is this rule: not all opinions are equal. You are more than welcome to introduce your own argument, if you can back it up with facts. If you can't, I'm not terribly interested about how you "feel" about something, or about how what I'm teaching you contradicts the sayings of your Great Being In The Sky.
In media, this same condition has lead to "balance" for fundamentally wrong ideas. It's lead to columnists equivocating over facts, because "all sides have to be represented." There is no controversy over anthropocentric global warming. From a scientific standpoint, the case is closed, and the more evidence we find the greater the prosecution becomes. The exceptions are for the most part industry-paid pundits, industry-paid politicans, and their constituency, who have been led to believe that anything more than the most trivial of gestures to the environment will mean that their way of life will end.
Yes, consensus is important. Yes, respect is vital. But you cannot advance by listening to every opinion. Attempting to do so shackles your intellect, your imagination, and human progress.
It's important to note that the change to US daylight savings time does not only affect the US. Canada has changed its daylight savings to match the US, due to the amount of trade that takes place between the two countries. It's not clear if Canada is addressed in the IntelliAdmin patch - it appears localised.
In the sense that science, by itself, can never "prove" to a delusional person that their brain is not, in fact, controlled through etherial waves from the planet Venus, you are correct.
Religion for the most part, and God in particular, does not fall into any of those categories. Thus science is not in a position to speak to religion, either positively or negatively.
Wrong. Lack of evidence for the existence of God(s) through the advancement of science does speak to religion. To rephrase what you've said:
"Rationality is not in a position to speak to irrationality."
To quote again: "It would be a mistake for scientist to attempt to go all they way into religious territory and address concepts such as God where there is no observation, experimentation or calculation possible. Science has no traction there. You have to know where your ground lies, and defend that ground. But don't go where you don't belong."
This is a variation on the "God of the gaps" argument that has existed since man started to see with instruments. Galileo was told he couldn't explore the heavens (and reach his own conclusions about heliocentricity) because that was "God's domain". Today, it's genetics, and to some degree brain science (there's some evidence that there is a "God center" to human brains responsible for "mystical" or "spiritual" experiences - but by your rule, we couldn't go there, because it's religious territory).
It is "natural" for me to breed with as many women as possible, and kill any offspring that I suspect are not mine. Many species do so - as have humans, in the past. From an evolutionary perspective, that is the strategy that makes the most sense for survival of my gene line.
We don't consider that "natural" today because we have a value system that says that (in very general terms) genetically different human life is equal to our own.
To return to the central point - it is "natural" that we breed and consume to the very edges of our planet's - or any other planet's - capacity. But, as Kim Stanley Robinson would point out, even if there is no life on Mars (and the search for life would have to be extremely thorough before we attempted any large-scale climate change there) there is still value in Mars' natural geography, just as there is granduer in the Grand Canyon that would be spoiled by the "natural" addition of a hydroelectric dam.
... however using the courts to overule the decisions of the majority is wrong.
Brown vs. The Board of Education forced integration of schools. The majority of people (that is, whites) in the South were against it. That does not make seperate schools for blacks and whites, or the concept of "seperate but equal", right.
Progress - social, scientific, and otherwise - is often made against the wishes or beliefs of the majority. Occassionally it needs to be legislated, or defended in the courts. That does not make the "will of the people" - often an ignorant mass - right or correct.
> FNC is one of the several channels on in my office all day. They only claimed WMD were possibly found when a source within the government, military, or other source in Iraq claimed WMD were possibly found.
Quite correct. And this is the problem. A good journalist - or a good news organisation - is cynical, even suspicious, when handed a story. They ask questions like - Can this be verified by a secondary (outside) source? As originally told, how does this story benefit the original source? Are there details missing that could be important to the context of the story?
The problem is that Fox News doesn't question Republican government sources. They are notorious in softballing the Bush administration - and they happily swallow whatever pabulum the administration happens to be feeding that day.
The difference with FNC is that they reported on things much earlier and with less verification, resulting in less reliable news at any point in time, but MORE TIMELY news over an extended period of time....And no, they don't just silently sweep it away, they often spent the next several hours saying that the initial reports were inaccurate.
What would you rather have - verified, accurate, and time-delayed news... or up-to-the-minute, unfiltered, error-filled hysteria and hyperbole?
Define your terms, and provide examples. From a foreign perspective, NPR seems rigorously balanced. More importantly, they go in-depth on subjects that standard news organisations simply won't touch.
Clinton's elimination of the Fairness Doctrine
The Fairness Doctrine was eliminated under Reagan, not Clinton.
...and now the Mob has seen through the bread and circuses, picked up javelins, and become bloggers.
And how is your typical blogger any more informed or connected than a journalist?
Now, everybody has their own AP/UPI feed
Which is fed by who? Journalists
Once, everybody who became a professional journalist did so not because he wanted to present world events in a fair and balanced manner, but because he wanted to influence world events, crusade for a cause, and be a celebrity. Then, journalists had to pretend they had interestes other than their own in mind. Soon, they can cease pretending completely.
Error of generalisation. Also, you are saying that things have actually improved, in the sense that the attempt at masquerade is increasingly dropped.
Every major news outlet ceases delivering "the news" in primetime as they currently do, and instead they are all attempting to imitate the success of Bill O'Reilly on Fox...
I don't disagree. But that is a symptom of the Cult of Celebrity, rather than the nature of news.
Freed the people of Iraq from a brutal dictator, saving the lives of thousands upon thousands of Iraqis in the process...
Really? As opposed to the 12,000+ Iraqi civillians killed so far in the invasion and occupation? Just how much worse would Saddam have to be to beat that?
...as well as captured 75% of the leadership of Al Qaeda.
I think you're confusing Iraq with Afghanistan. That's okay. The White House does it all the time.
Good. America is running out of people with morals and values.
There is little to no correlation between "morals and values" and religious belief. If anything, the religious believer is more likely to justify his or her unethical actions through religion ("God told me to kill the unbelievers.")
The invasion of Iraq was predicated not on what Saddam was trying to acquire, but on what he had.
The problem was, the sanctions were working. No-one - not the Syrians, not the Nigerians, not even the North Koreans - were crazy enough to supply Hussien with components or technology for WMD and risk the economic, political and military repurcussions.
As it is becoming increasingly clear, the Bush administration was aware of this fact. In response, they lied about it.
From my perspective, part of the problem that the American electorate finds itself in currently is that most journalists are pressed by time and deadlines - in addition to being lazy, intellectually dishonest, and unoriginal. Lies are repeated ad nauseum until they attain the polish of fact; lies, evasions or misrepresentations aren't confronted.
Bloggers aren't much better in this regard. Indeed, some myths or misunderstandings ("Al Gore claimed he invented the Internet") circulate longer on the Web than they do in mainstream media.
I think that blogs are useful for keeping attention on things: the costs of the war in Iraq, the veracity of the TANG memos. But they should not be mistaken for serious investigative journalism. Bloggers have even lower standards than journalists, if that's possible, and will rapidly jump to conclusions that a halfway decent journalist never would. (Almost every point raised by the conspiracy theorists over the TANG documents was quickly discredited. That is not to say that the combination of oddities and anachronisms in the memos wasn't worthy of attention, just that the bloggers were focussed on entirely the wrong things - such as trying to to determine kerning in a document that was a PDF of a photocopy of a photocopy of a photocopy).
Sites that specialise in getting hold of original source material, such as thememoryhole.org - are often worthwhile. Writers with an actual understanding of the situation on the ground, or academic qualifications, such as juancole.com, are also good. Otherwise, it is mostly rampant speculation and spin.
I have a very real problem with Little Green Footballs (LGF) being listed as a "recommended favorite."
It should be noted that I don't mind partisan blogs - but LGF goes way over the line. Before 9/11, Charles Johnson (the blogger in question) was a road cycling PHP hacker with moderate political views, able to share the occassional joke about Bush and poke fun at both political parties.
Like many, 9/11 radicalized Charles Johnson - in his case, to hatred and fear of Muslims and a rabid defence of Israel and President Bush. The blog could now accurately described as a hate site. This is a place where:
A typical comment in response to Bush's reversal that "the War On Terror" will never be won is: "He's right - it won't be won until every Muslim is dead."
The site showcases photographs of "Palestinian Car Swarms" - bloody pictures of crowds surrounding the results of an Israeli missile attack, with taunting captions.
Any Muslim involvement in a Western community, from education in schools to the establishment of a mosque, is seen as part of a broader plot to subjugate the West.
It is my feeling that Mr. Johnson deliberately incites his own community in several ways. First, comments in the blog are not threaded, and cannot be moderated - leaving the most extreme rascist comments on equal footing with every other. (It is important to note that the community rarely attempts to moderate extremist views through discussion or censure - and by failing to do so, condones it.)
Second, Mr. Johnson will occassionally wade in himself. The most telling occassion, for me, was when he deleted the post of a commentator who suggested that the mother of Rachel Corrie (a Western activist killed by an Israeli bulldozer while blockading the destruction of Palestinain homes) be sent eMails telling her that her daughter was now providing oral sex to Palestians in hell. The mother's eMail address was supplied.
Charles Johnson deleted the post - but then added that he was sure people could find Mrs. Corrie's eMail address by themselves, with a Google search.
While what you're saying is true - the artist should have complete creative control over his work (and, I would add, that it's my belief that purchasers should have near-complete creative control over their purchased version of the work) - what the debate is about (aside from those who are screaming about how Lucas raped their childhoods) is this:
Is the urge to tinker with a work and the ability to do so always a good thing?
The best analogy I can make is with word processors. Compared to writing longhand, a word processor gives the user the power to instantly change, delete, and re-order text. Has that ability made for better writing, on the whole?
My argument would be that it hasn't. Word processors have given people the ability to ramble in text, to endlessly edit without actually improving the narrative. At the same time, appreciation of language itself is steadily eroding, since writing is so easy - there's no compelling pressure for clear or consise writing.
Yes, Lucas has the right to change his work as he wills. The problem is that his original vision, as poor as he sees it now, was perfectly adequate to the vast majority of his audience, and the "improvements" that he makes are, for the most part, not. (I certainly enjoy the clarity of the digital remastering, clearer sound, and improved SFX - but that's equivalent to cleaning the Sistine. What Lucas is doing is comparitive to adding Jesus Christ on a motorcycle to the fresco during restoration).
Define your terms. Yes, it is digital information. But your standard DVD will never be able to show more lines of resolution than it does right now. (Yes, you can use line doublers (which don't) and progressive scan, which slightly improves the picture - but the number of original lines of resolution remain the same.)
In other words, take that same DVD to your new 1080i HDTV and it will look exactly the same. In fact, upscaling the 480 ~ 520 original lines of resolution on the DVD to 1080i might well make it look worse, albeit bigger.
HD-DVD and Blu-Ray do have a purpose - just because you don't see immediate personal gratification from the format is no cause to put it down.
Geeks here like to think that by mirroring the american hatred of the rest of the world, they can be part of the intellectually superior and socially sophisticated crowd (and hopefully get laid at the same time).
That's right. And all the "hippies" protesting the Vietnam War in the 70's were just at the rallies to get laid and smoke pot. Ignore the tear gas, the intimidation, the bullets, and the fire hoses.
People died protesting the Vietnam War. It's likely that people will die protesting this one. Yes, some of the protest was fashionable - there was a culture war going on at the same time. But to say "oh, they're protesting because it's trendy" is to ignore the real arguments and issues at hand, and the very real determination they have to protest an illegal action.
Installing a successful liberal democracy in the heart of the middle east...
First: it's extremely difficult to "install" a democracy. It has been done, but only in countries in which millions died before being defeated.
...is the only way to bring lasting peace to the region and the world.
Really? The only way? As opposed to, say, finding a solution to the Palestinian crisis, which has been the touchstone of religious fundamentalism and terrorism in the region for the last 60 years?
They think the only reason the terrorists attack is because of grievances, not because they want to take over the world
Please show me how 9/11 was an attempt to "take over the world."
Bottom line: terrorism doesn't allow you to defeat nations. The goal of terror is to drive nations crazy with grief, fear, and anger, and nudge them in the direction you wish. It's not about defeating the enemy - it's about influencing policy. You need an army and modern weapons to take over a nation - not nineteen guys and boxcutters.
Yes, there are dreamers on the fringe that talk of a "Muslim world" and a "new Muslim empire". That kind of rhetoric even works with some people. The reality is cells working in the dark.
Those who doubt the Iraq mission are no different from those who doubted America's efforts to rebuilt post WW2 Europe and Japan. Back then they said it couldn't be done, was a waste of money and that the people would not be able to handle US-style democracy.
It's very different. No-one in the Allied countries believed that Japan and Germany should be left to their own devices after being defeated. Both nations had functional demoracies before being taken over by extremists pre WWII. In addition, their culture was one of obidience to central authority - imposing a system of governance was not difficult. There was a slow, dawning realisation of shame amoung the citizenry - a realisation that they had been, at best, misled. Both nations had largely homogeneous cultures. Finally hundreds of thousands of civillians had to be killed.
The situation in Iraq could not be more different. Iraq has never experienced democracy. It is riven by tribal, relgious, and cultural differences. Authority is at the behest of the tribal leader, the "strong man", or the iman - all of whom have different goals. Amoung the general populace (as opposed to English speaking, Internet connected bloggers) there is a tremendous feeling that Iraq did not deserve to be invaded and occupied - and the reasons for invasion have little to do with lofty ideals of "democracy". The war, to them, is about control of the region, politically and economically, by the US.
No other country has sacrificed so much and given so much for complete strangers and yet you only see protestors in NYC protesting Bush's 15 billion dollar AIDs policy but you never see them protesting Europe's 0 dollar AIDs policy.
Garbage. The EU has an annual budget of 800 million euros towards HIV/AIDS in the developing world. In addition, it pledged 120 million euros towards a Global Health Fund to combat AIDS this year. This
Actually the 9/11 commission did conclude that there were links to al-Qaeda (just not to the 9/11 attacks).
Quite correct. In short, the links amounted to:
- al-Qaeda asks Saddam: "Can we set up a radio station inside Iraq to broadcast propoganda into Saudi Arabia?" Saddam says yes - it makes sense to him to help destabilize Saudi Arabia.
- al-Qaeda asks Saddam: "Can we set up a terrorist training camp inside Iraq?" Saddam says: "Sod off!" He's not stupid.
And they did find that sarin gas bomb that had about a gallon of sarin gas.
Quite correct. There are, however, two points that you missed.
The "bomb" - it was an IED - consisted of a unmarked 155mm mortar round. There's no proof that the round itself came from, or was manufactured in, Iraq. It was found near the Bahgdad airport, so it may have some from Syria... but let's say that it was made in Iraq.
The bomb did explode, or partially release - yet it didn't kill anyone. Why not?
One of the unspoken details of the whole "WMD" fiasco is that chemicals decay. Nerve, chemical and biological agents have a limited "shelf life". Sarin gas - even in binary format, as the round apparently was - is effective for only a limited period of time.
Based on the available evidence (rather than hearsay) it most likely that the round was over a decade old. In other words, it was produced before Gulf War I. In other words, based on available evidence, the various bans and inspections in Iraq were working prior to the invasion. No new weapons were being produced, and Saddam only had a small, poorly developed, ineffective and rapidly decaying stockpile of decade-old weapons.
Note: I'm not an American. But I do follow both sides of this overblown, politically-motivated "controversy".
all I've seen is attacks on this group of veterans. I've hardly seen ANY attempt at all to discredit even a single claim of theirs.
Then I strongly suggest you take a moment to read Salon, The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, or The Washington Post. And actually read, rather than filtering input according to your own biases. I'll start you off with a quote, from the LA Times: "These charges against John Kerry are false. Or at least there is no good evidence that they are true."
So far almost every attack on the Swift Boat Veterans has been a personal, ad hominem attack on these veterans' character, not on their claims.
False. Here are the facts:
Thurlow and others in the same five-boat Swift flotilla as Kerry on the night in question (when Kerry recued Rassman) also came under fire. Indeed, Thurlow won a Bronze Star for his actions in rescuing a comrade under enemy fire. This is the same Thurlow who has claimed that there was no enemy fire that night. In other words, if what Thurlow says now is correct, he should have refused the Bronze Star citation, or returned it once he started making his claims. He has not done either.
Why won't he (kerry) release all his medical and other service records?
He has. The only records he has not released are his review papers.
Why did Kerry lie about spending Christmas in Cambodia?
There's a difference between "lying" and "being mistaken." For example:
- After 9/11, President Bush claimed repeatedly that he had seen the second plane fly into the WTC live on television. This is obviously incorrect - he was sitting glassy-eyed in a classroom of children leafing through "My Pet Goat" at the time.
- At the RNC convention, Govenor Schwarzenegger claimed that growing up in Austria he had seen Soviet tanks parked in the streets. This is patently flase - the Soviets had retreated from Austria years before he was born.
In other words, people often confuse their own histories. Was Kerry in Cambodia? Almost certainly - Larry Thurlow, one of his chief accusers, was recorded telling Nixon that he (Thurlow) had been in Cambodia. Was it neccessasarily in Christmas? No - and that;s probably where Kerry's recollection is getting mixed up. That doesn't mean that Kerry is lying, any more than Bush or the Govenator are. Memory of emotional situations is simply extremely poor.
Why do so many people that served alongside and above Kerry...
First, you are stretching the term "served with him". You mean "were also in Vietnam during the war". Few of the SBVT's "served" with Kerry (i.e. on the same boat, or the same unit). And they're saying what they're claiming because of Kerry's Congressional testimony, which they felt "slandered" vets. They feel that Kerry lied over that, but can't contradict it (that whole messy My Lai incident, amoung others, kinda gets in the way) - so they feel justified in lying about his record.
...(including almost all of his commanding officers)...
Really? Like the officer who had his name added to the SBVT's claims without being asked? Or the officers who claimed, up to two years ago, that Kerry was a fine and outstanding officer? Or the officers who have since recanted adding thier names to the SBVT's list?
When are we going to get answers from Kerry and not ad hominem attacks?
You've had answers. Every single piece of Naval documentation, every crewmember on Kerry's boat (with the exception of that one gunner - who has changed his story several times) and several naval personell who were never part of Kerry's "Band of Brothers" or the SBVT's but who have now voluntarily come forward, have reinforced and confirmed Kerry's record.
This is really, really exciting. I can think of several possible reasons for the anomalies found in the signal thus far. I'm also aware I'm twisting the facts to fit a theory.
The signal originates where there is "no known star system". Of course. You (advanced alien culture) place the radio source outside your own system, for several reasons - so that the signal won't be confused with a natural source (pulsar, etc); so it won't interfere with radio reception on your own planet; and (for those of an especially paranoid bent) so that if anyone does try to physically investigate the source of the signal, they're not lead directly to your home planet. Instead, set a "tripwire" up on the device - if it's disturbed, send a signal back to the home planet (a scenario explored in Clarke's short story "The Sentinel", which became the basis for "2001").
The frequency is wavering? Of course! Set the signal to repeat over as broad a frequency range as possible, to attract as much attention as possible - not everyone will be looking at the "waterhole".
As previously noted, this tragedy comes far too close on the heels of the anniversaries of the Challenger explosion and Apollo 1 fire.
However, the moment I read the post I thought - "It's a hoax - I've read this before." I was thinking of the opening scene of Stephen Baxter's novel Titan, in which the space shuttle has an accident on re-entry and begins to break up, killing most of the crew (some egress and survive, since the accident happens lower in the atmosphere, i.e. at a slower speed).
Baxter described the futility of trying to keep a 30 year old design aloft. Let's hope the rest of the novel isn't as prescient (the mothballing of NASA, a US slide into fundamentalism, sole military access to space, and war with China).
If you're one of those that reads comments before following the link, be aware that Dyson's review basically enscapsulates the entire book, and gives away the end. If you want to read the book without spoilers, it might be best to read the review later.
It doesn't matter to me - I gave up on Crichton after "Timeline" (:: shudder:: ) but I wouldn't want to spoil the potential enjoyment of others.
From the screenshots, this appears to be what Cyan was calling "Project Mudpie" a few years back. They had a very nice feature on it in "Wired", as I recall.
There are two really interesting aspects of the game to me:
It was designed for broadband from the ground up - no deliberate crippling to support analog modem users...
The Miller brothers, the designers of the original Myst are (or at least were, a few years ago) fairly reverent Xians... and as part of their belief (and game philosophy) did not wish violence to appear in their games - Myst and Mudpie included. The challenge of keeping the user's interest will therefore be a very interesting one... in the Wired article they were talking about co-operative solving of puzzles... objectives that could only be achieved if you worked together with other players, rather than competing against them. If nothing else, it's a unique approach.
Not to sound like a kook here (I don't believe that UFOs are extraterrestial craft) but the reason that we (a) haven't been visited and (b) haven't yet picked up SETI signals may be that advanced civillisations "gone stealthy" in their communications (think fibre optics and cable), rather than blasting episodes of "I Love X'wirr" into space. (which they did thousands to millions of years ago - meaning that the signals passed us during the Late Jurassic, and can no longer be detected.) To them, signs of intelligent life might be something quite different - the "warp signature" that drew the Vulcans to Earth in the Star Trek chronology, for example. So we've been left alone as an evolutionary backwater - much as animals in a safari park might be unaware of the game warden, and assume they have the park all to themselves.
Three years ago I was responsible for teaching a great many of the public school teachers in Calgary basic computer skills. The Calgary Board of Education decided to make said skills required for their staff, and contracted the training company I was working for at the time to teach classes on basic use of the computer, Internet, scanners, etc.
The experience led me to the conclusion that it is not the presence of computers that makes for a poor classroom experience - it is the ability of the teacher. Many of those I taught actually resisted learning something new, either being techno-phobic or holding the attitude that they were being "forced to learn" by the board. Many had a hard time learning anything at all. The overall attitude I got from many was that they had learned everything they needed to know in teacher's college 10, 20, 30 years ago and through their own experience - and how dare this young whippersnapper try to show them something new.
The reality is that the vast majority of students in any classroom, except for those in low-income areas, will already have access to a computer at home. They will have grown up with one, unlike their teacher, and likely know how to use it better. My advice would be to throw off the censoring software and let them at it. Let the students come up with new and interesting ways to fulfill their assignments with these tools. The same skill is likely beyond the abilities or comprehension of their teacher.
Statement 1: Human beings are sensual animals. Anything that gives a rush of pleasure can be addicting. It doesn't have to be a directly injested chemical to cause addiction, although that helps. Eating, shopping, fuc*ing, running, gambling, smoking, cleaning, sky-diving, drinking and gaming can all be addictive.
Statement 2: While there are certainly some drugs and activities that can be more addictive than others, broadly speaking induvidual psychology and personality type plays a far greater role in determining if you will become addicted than the activity itself. There are millions of people who play computer games without showing any signs of addiction. There are millions of people who drink without ever becoming alcoholics. People who are prone to addiction tend to find new addictions if one is denied to them. As proof of this, walk into any AA meeting and count the number of people who have substituted smoking, eating or sex for alcohol.
Counter-statement 1: Human beings are thinking animals. Being aware of the dangers of addiction means being aware of your own weaknesses and capacity for abuse. Understanding that you are an addict means being able to step back from the activity and see its effects on yourself, your work, and your family.
Counter-statement 2: If you are a self-aware induvidual, you have no-one to blame for your addiction but yourself. It's not Sony's fault that they make a compelling product, or that Phillip Morris' is wrong for making cigarettes that are addictive. On the bright side, if you are a thinking induvidual you also have the power to stop your own addictive behaviour. This takes effort, and is not always easy - but it can be done.
Slashdot Mirror
Hopefully not methane fluxes. If they do (and they exist in huge amounts under the Siberian permafrost, which is also melting, we're seriously screwed.
This is the double-edged sword of modern liberalism. (Note that I am not talking about liberals vs. conservatives, as most in the US frame the debate, but about modern democratic government, which is, by classical definition, liberal). We've been so devoted to the idea that everyone must have their say, and that all sides must be heard, and that everyone's opinion is equal and must be respected, that we can't make any progress at all. It has led to education of the lowest common denominator, in which no-one's precious beliefs must be challenged, no crackpot idea dismissed for fear of hurting someone's feelings.
Ironically, this was done for good reasons: there were a lot of minority voices asking for decency and respect that were being drowned out by the majority. But it's gone too far.
Full disclosure: I'm a teacher. And one of the first things I introducein class is this rule: not all opinions are equal. You are more than welcome to introduce your own argument, if you can back it up with facts. If you can't, I'm not terribly interested about how you "feel" about something, or about how what I'm teaching you contradicts the sayings of your Great Being In The Sky.
In media, this same condition has lead to "balance" for fundamentally wrong ideas. It's lead to columnists equivocating over facts, because "all sides have to be represented." There is no controversy over anthropocentric global warming. From a scientific standpoint, the case is closed, and the more evidence we find the greater the prosecution becomes. The exceptions are for the most part industry-paid pundits, industry-paid politicans, and their constituency, who have been led to believe that anything more than the most trivial of gestures to the environment will mean that their way of life will end.
Yes, consensus is important. Yes, respect is vital. But you cannot advance by listening to every opinion. Attempting to do so shackles your intellect, your imagination, and human progress.
It's important to note that the change to US daylight savings time does not only affect the US. Canada has changed its daylight savings to match the US, due to the amount of trade that takes place between the two countries. It's not clear if Canada is addressed in the IntelliAdmin patch - it appears localised.
In the sense that science, by itself, can never "prove" to a delusional person that their brain is not, in fact, controlled through etherial waves from the planet Venus, you are correct.
Religion for the most part, and God in particular, does not fall into any of those categories. Thus science is not in a position to speak to religion, either positively or negatively.Wrong. Lack of evidence for the existence of God(s) through the advancement of science does speak to religion. To rephrase what you've said:
"Rationality is not in a position to speak to irrationality."To quote again: "It would be a mistake for scientist to attempt to go all they way into religious territory and address concepts such as God where there is no observation, experimentation or calculation possible. Science has no traction there. You have to know where your ground lies, and defend that ground. But don't go where you don't belong."
This is a variation on the "God of the gaps" argument that has existed since man started to see with instruments. Galileo was told he couldn't explore the heavens (and reach his own conclusions about heliocentricity) because that was "God's domain". Today, it's genetics, and to some degree brain science (there's some evidence that there is a "God center" to human brains responsible for "mystical" or "spiritual" experiences - but by your rule, we couldn't go there, because it's religious territory).
We don't consider that "natural" today because we have a value system that says that (in very general terms) genetically different human life is equal to our own.
To return to the central point - it is "natural" that we breed and consume to the very edges of our planet's - or any other planet's - capacity. But, as Kim Stanley Robinson would point out, even if there is no life on Mars (and the search for life would have to be extremely thorough before we attempted any large-scale climate change there) there is still value in Mars' natural geography, just as there is granduer in the Grand Canyon that would be spoiled by the "natural" addition of a hydroelectric dam.
Brown vs. The Board of Education forced integration of schools. The majority of people (that is, whites) in the South were against it. That does not make seperate schools for blacks and whites, or the concept of "seperate but equal", right.
Progress - social, scientific, and otherwise - is often made against the wishes or beliefs of the majority. Occassionally it needs to be legislated, or defended in the courts. That does not make the "will of the people" - often an ignorant mass - right or correct.
Quite correct. And this is the problem. A good journalist - or a good news organisation - is cynical, even suspicious, when handed a story. They ask questions like - Can this be verified by a secondary (outside) source? As originally told, how does this story benefit the original source? Are there details missing that could be important to the context of the story?
The problem is that Fox News doesn't question Republican government sources. They are notorious in softballing the Bush administration - and they happily swallow whatever pabulum the administration happens to be feeding that day.
The difference with FNC is that they reported on things much earlier and with less verification, resulting in less reliable news at any point in time, but MORE TIMELY news over an extended period of time....And no, they don't just silently sweep it away, they often spent the next several hours saying that the initial reports were inaccurate.
What would you rather have - verified, accurate, and time-delayed news... or up-to-the-minute, unfiltered, error-filled hysteria and hyperbole?
Define your terms, and provide examples. From a foreign perspective, NPR seems rigorously balanced. More importantly, they go in-depth on subjects that standard news organisations simply won't touch.
Clinton's elimination of the Fairness DoctrineThe Fairness Doctrine was eliminated under Reagan, not Clinton.
And how is your typical blogger any more informed or connected than a journalist?
Now, everybody has their own AP/UPI feedWhich is fed by who? Journalists
Once, everybody who became a professional journalist did so not because he wanted to present world events in a fair and balanced manner, but because he wanted to influence world events, crusade for a cause, and be a celebrity. Then, journalists had to pretend they had interestes other than their own in mind. Soon, they can cease pretending completely.Error of generalisation. Also, you are saying that things have actually improved, in the sense that the attempt at masquerade is increasingly dropped.
Every major news outlet ceases delivering "the news" in primetime as they currently do, and instead they are all attempting to imitate the success of Bill O'Reilly on Fox...I don't disagree. But that is a symptom of the Cult of Celebrity, rather than the nature of news.
Really? As opposed to the 12,000+ Iraqi civillians killed so far in the invasion and occupation? Just how much worse would Saddam have to be to beat that?
I think you're confusing Iraq with Afghanistan. That's okay. The White House does it all the time.
Good. America is running out of people with morals and values.There is little to no correlation between "morals and values" and religious belief. If anything, the religious believer is more likely to justify his or her unethical actions through religion ("God told me to kill the unbelievers.")
The invasion of Iraq was predicated not on what Saddam was trying to acquire, but on what he had.
The problem was, the sanctions were working. No-one - not the Syrians, not the Nigerians, not even the North Koreans - were crazy enough to supply Hussien with components or technology for WMD and risk the economic, political and military repurcussions.
As it is becoming increasingly clear, the Bush administration was aware of this fact. In response, they lied about it.
From my perspective, part of the problem that the American electorate finds itself in currently is that most journalists are pressed by time and deadlines - in addition to being lazy, intellectually dishonest, and unoriginal. Lies are repeated ad nauseum until they attain the polish of fact; lies, evasions or misrepresentations aren't confronted.
Bloggers aren't much better in this regard. Indeed, some myths or misunderstandings ("Al Gore claimed he invented the Internet") circulate longer on the Web than they do in mainstream media.
I think that blogs are useful for keeping attention on things: the costs of the war in Iraq, the veracity of the TANG memos. But they should not be mistaken for serious investigative journalism. Bloggers have even lower standards than journalists, if that's possible, and will rapidly jump to conclusions that a halfway decent journalist never would. (Almost every point raised by the conspiracy theorists over the TANG documents was quickly discredited. That is not to say that the combination of oddities and anachronisms in the memos wasn't worthy of attention, just that the bloggers were focussed on entirely the wrong things - such as trying to to determine kerning in a document that was a PDF of a photocopy of a photocopy of a photocopy).
Sites that specialise in getting hold of original source material, such as thememoryhole.org - are often worthwhile. Writers with an actual understanding of the situation on the ground, or academic qualifications, such as juancole.com, are also good. Otherwise, it is mostly rampant speculation and spin.
I have a very real problem with Little Green Footballs (LGF) being listed as a "recommended favorite."
It should be noted that I don't mind partisan blogs - but LGF goes way over the line. Before 9/11, Charles Johnson (the blogger in question) was a road cycling PHP hacker with moderate political views, able to share the occassional joke about Bush and poke fun at both political parties.
Like many, 9/11 radicalized Charles Johnson - in his case, to hatred and fear of Muslims and a rabid defence of Israel and President Bush. The blog could now accurately described as a hate site. This is a place where:
It is my feeling that Mr. Johnson deliberately incites his own community in several ways. First, comments in the blog are not threaded, and cannot be moderated - leaving the most extreme rascist comments on equal footing with every other. (It is important to note that the community rarely attempts to moderate extremist views through discussion or censure - and by failing to do so, condones it.)
Second, Mr. Johnson will occassionally wade in himself. The most telling occassion, for me, was when he deleted the post of a commentator who suggested that the mother of Rachel Corrie (a Western activist killed by an Israeli bulldozer while blockading the destruction of Palestinain homes) be sent eMails telling her that her daughter was now providing oral sex to Palestians in hell. The mother's eMail address was supplied.
Charles Johnson deleted the post - but then added that he was sure people could find Mrs. Corrie's eMail address by themselves, with a Google search.
While what you're saying is true - the artist should have complete creative control over his work (and, I would add, that it's my belief that purchasers should have near-complete creative control over their purchased version of the work) - what the debate is about (aside from those who are screaming about how Lucas raped their childhoods) is this:
Is the urge to tinker with a work and the ability to do so always a good thing?
The best analogy I can make is with word processors. Compared to writing longhand, a word processor gives the user the power to instantly change, delete, and re-order text. Has that ability made for better writing, on the whole?
My argument would be that it hasn't. Word processors have given people the ability to ramble in text, to endlessly edit without actually improving the narrative. At the same time, appreciation of language itself is steadily eroding, since writing is so easy - there's no compelling pressure for clear or consise writing.
Yes, Lucas has the right to change his work as he wills. The problem is that his original vision, as poor as he sees it now, was perfectly adequate to the vast majority of his audience, and the "improvements" that he makes are, for the most part, not. (I certainly enjoy the clarity of the digital remastering, clearer sound, and improved SFX - but that's equivalent to cleaning the Sistine. What Lucas is doing is comparitive to adding Jesus Christ on a motorcycle to the fresco during restoration).
Define your terms. Yes, it is digital information. But your standard DVD will never be able to show more lines of resolution than it does right now. (Yes, you can use line doublers (which don't) and progressive scan, which slightly improves the picture - but the number of original lines of resolution remain the same.)
In other words, take that same DVD to your new 1080i HDTV and it will look exactly the same. In fact, upscaling the 480 ~ 520 original lines of resolution on the DVD to 1080i might well make it look worse, albeit bigger.
HD-DVD and Blu-Ray do have a purpose - just because you don't see immediate personal gratification from the format is no cause to put it down.
... is that this "mushroom cloud" happened on the day of the 56th anniversary of the founding of the Democratic Republic of North Korea.
While it could well be a coincidence, governments have also been known to provide military shows of strength on significant patriotic-themed days.
Geeks here like to think that by mirroring the american hatred of the rest of the world, they can be part of the intellectually superior and socially sophisticated crowd (and hopefully get laid at the same time).
That's right. And all the "hippies" protesting the Vietnam War in the 70's were just at the rallies to get laid and smoke pot. Ignore the tear gas, the intimidation, the bullets, and the fire hoses.
People died protesting the Vietnam War. It's likely that people will die protesting this one. Yes, some of the protest was fashionable - there was a culture war going on at the same time. But to say "oh, they're protesting because it's trendy" is to ignore the real arguments and issues at hand, and the very real determination they have to protest an illegal action.
Installing a successful liberal democracy in the heart of the middle east...
First: it's extremely difficult to "install" a democracy. It has been done, but only in countries in which millions died before being defeated.
Really? The only way? As opposed to, say, finding a solution to the Palestinian crisis, which has been the touchstone of religious fundamentalism and terrorism in the region for the last 60 years?
They think the only reason the terrorists attack is because of grievances, not because they want to take over the world
Please show me how 9/11 was an attempt to "take over the world."
Bottom line: terrorism doesn't allow you to defeat nations. The goal of terror is to drive nations crazy with grief, fear, and anger, and nudge them in the direction you wish. It's not about defeating the enemy - it's about influencing policy. You need an army and modern weapons to take over a nation - not nineteen guys and boxcutters.
Yes, there are dreamers on the fringe that talk of a "Muslim world" and a "new Muslim empire". That kind of rhetoric even works with some people. The reality is cells working in the dark.
Those who doubt the Iraq mission are no different from those who doubted America's efforts to rebuilt post WW2 Europe and Japan. Back then they said it couldn't be done, was a waste of money and that the people would not be able to handle US-style democracy.
It's very different. No-one in the Allied countries believed that Japan and Germany should be left to their own devices after being defeated. Both nations had functional demoracies before being taken over by extremists pre WWII. In addition, their culture was one of obidience to central authority - imposing a system of governance was not difficult. There was a slow, dawning realisation of shame amoung the citizenry - a realisation that they had been, at best, misled. Both nations had largely homogeneous cultures. Finally hundreds of thousands of civillians had to be killed.
The situation in Iraq could not be more different. Iraq has never experienced democracy. It is riven by tribal, relgious, and cultural differences. Authority is at the behest of the tribal leader, the "strong man", or the iman - all of whom have different goals. Amoung the general populace (as opposed to English speaking, Internet connected bloggers) there is a tremendous feeling that Iraq did not deserve to be invaded and occupied - and the reasons for invasion have little to do with lofty ideals of "democracy". The war, to them, is about control of the region, politically and economically, by the US.
No other country has sacrificed so much and given so much for complete strangers and yet you only see protestors in NYC protesting Bush's 15 billion dollar AIDs policy but you never see them protesting Europe's 0 dollar AIDs policy.
Garbage. The EU has an annual budget of 800 million euros towards HIV/AIDS in the developing world. In addition, it pledged 120 million euros towards a Global Health Fund to combat AIDS this year. This
Actually the 9/11 commission did conclude that there were links to al-Qaeda (just not to the 9/11 attacks).
Quite correct. In short, the links amounted to:
- al-Qaeda asks Saddam: "Can we set up a radio station inside Iraq to broadcast propoganda into Saudi Arabia?" Saddam says yes - it makes sense to him to help destabilize Saudi Arabia.
- al-Qaeda asks Saddam: "Can we set up a terrorist training camp inside Iraq?" Saddam says: "Sod off!" He's not stupid.
And they did find that sarin gas bomb that had about a gallon of sarin gas.
Quite correct. There are, however, two points that you missed.
The "bomb" - it was an IED - consisted of a unmarked 155mm mortar round. There's no proof that the round itself came from, or was manufactured in, Iraq. It was found near the Bahgdad airport, so it may have some from Syria ... but let's say that it was made in Iraq.
The bomb did explode, or partially release - yet it didn't kill anyone. Why not?
One of the unspoken details of the whole "WMD" fiasco is that chemicals decay. Nerve, chemical and biological agents have a limited "shelf life". Sarin gas - even in binary format, as the round apparently was - is effective for only a limited period of time.
Based on the available evidence (rather than hearsay) it most likely that the round was over a decade old. In other words, it was produced before Gulf War I. In other words, based on available evidence, the various bans and inspections in Iraq were working prior to the invasion. No new weapons were being produced, and Saddam only had a small, poorly developed, ineffective and rapidly decaying stockpile of decade-old weapons.
Note: I'm not an American. But I do follow both sides of this overblown, politically-motivated "controversy".
all I've seen is attacks on this group of veterans. I've hardly seen ANY attempt at all to discredit even a single claim of theirs.
Then I strongly suggest you take a moment to read Salon, The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, or The Washington Post. And actually read, rather than filtering input according to your own biases. I'll start you off with a quote, from the LA Times: "These charges against John Kerry are false. Or at least there is no good evidence that they are true."
So far almost every attack on the Swift Boat Veterans has been a personal, ad hominem attack on these veterans' character, not on their claims.
False. Here are the facts:
Thurlow and others in the same five-boat Swift flotilla as Kerry on the night in question (when Kerry recued Rassman) also came under fire. Indeed, Thurlow won a Bronze Star for his actions in rescuing a comrade under enemy fire. This is the same Thurlow who has claimed that there was no enemy fire that night. In other words, if what Thurlow says now is correct, he should have refused the Bronze Star citation, or returned it once he started making his claims. He has not done either.
Why won't he (kerry) release all his medical and other service records?
He has. The only records he has not released are his review papers.
Why did Kerry lie about spending Christmas in Cambodia?
There's a difference between "lying" and "being mistaken." For example:
- After 9/11, President Bush claimed repeatedly that he had seen the second plane fly into the WTC live on television. This is obviously incorrect - he was sitting glassy-eyed in a classroom of children leafing through "My Pet Goat" at the time.
- At the RNC convention, Govenor Schwarzenegger claimed that growing up in Austria he had seen Soviet tanks parked in the streets. This is patently flase - the Soviets had retreated from Austria years before he was born.
In other words, people often confuse their own histories. Was Kerry in Cambodia? Almost certainly - Larry Thurlow, one of his chief accusers, was recorded telling Nixon that he (Thurlow) had been in Cambodia. Was it neccessasarily in Christmas? No - and that;s probably where Kerry's recollection is getting mixed up. That doesn't mean that Kerry is lying, any more than Bush or the Govenator are. Memory of emotional situations is simply extremely poor.
Why do so many people that served alongside and above Kerry...
First, you are stretching the term "served with him". You mean "were also in Vietnam during the war". Few of the SBVT's "served" with Kerry (i.e. on the same boat, or the same unit). And they're saying what they're claiming because of Kerry's Congressional testimony, which they felt "slandered" vets. They feel that Kerry lied over that, but can't contradict it (that whole messy My Lai incident, amoung others, kinda gets in the way) - so they feel justified in lying about his record.
Really? Like the officer who had his name added to the SBVT's claims without being asked? Or the officers who claimed, up to two years ago, that Kerry was a fine and outstanding officer? Or the officers who have since recanted adding thier names to the SBVT's list?
When are we going to get answers from Kerry and not ad hominem attacks?
You've had answers. Every single piece of Naval documentation, every crewmember on Kerry's boat (with the exception of that one gunner - who has changed his story several times) and several naval personell who were never part of Kerry's "Band of Brothers" or the SBVT's but who have now voluntarily come forward, have reinforced and confirmed Kerry's record.
This is really, really exciting. I can think of several possible reasons for the anomalies found in the signal thus far. I'm also aware I'm twisting the facts to fit a theory.
The signal originates where there is "no known star system". Of course. You (advanced alien culture) place the radio source outside your own system, for several reasons - so that the signal won't be confused with a natural source (pulsar, etc); so it won't interfere with radio reception on your own planet; and (for those of an especially paranoid bent) so that if anyone does try to physically investigate the source of the signal, they're not lead directly to your home planet. Instead, set a "tripwire" up on the device - if it's disturbed, send a signal back to the home planet (a scenario explored in Clarke's short story "The Sentinel", which became the basis for "2001").
The frequency is wavering? Of course! Set the signal to repeat over as broad a frequency range as possible, to attract as much attention as possible - not everyone will be looking at the "waterhole".
Did I mention I was excited?
As previously noted, this tragedy comes far too close on the heels of the anniversaries of the Challenger explosion and Apollo 1 fire.
However, the moment I read the post I thought - "It's a hoax - I've read this before." I was thinking of the opening scene of Stephen Baxter's novel Titan, in which the space shuttle has an accident on re-entry and begins to break up, killing most of the crew (some egress and survive, since the accident happens lower in the atmosphere, i.e. at a slower speed).
Baxter described the futility of trying to keep a 30 year old design aloft. Let's hope the rest of the novel isn't as prescient (the mothballing of NASA, a US slide into fundamentalism, sole military access to space, and war with China).
If you're one of those that reads comments before following the link, be aware that Dyson's review basically enscapsulates the entire book, and gives away the end. If you want to read the book without spoilers, it might be best to read the review later.
It doesn't matter to me - I gave up on Crichton after "Timeline" ( :: shudder :: ) but I wouldn't want to spoil the potential enjoyment of others.
From the screenshots, this appears to be what Cyan was calling "Project Mudpie" a few years back. They had a very nice feature on it in "Wired", as I recall.
There are two really interesting aspects of the game to me:
Not to sound like a kook here (I don't believe that UFOs are extraterrestial craft) but the reason that we (a) haven't been visited and (b) haven't yet picked up SETI signals may be that advanced civillisations "gone stealthy" in their communications (think fibre optics and cable), rather than blasting episodes of "I Love X'wirr" into space. (which they did thousands to millions of years ago - meaning that the signals passed us during the Late Jurassic, and can no longer be detected.) To them, signs of intelligent life might be something quite different - the "warp signature" that drew the Vulcans to Earth in the Star Trek chronology, for example. So we've been left alone as an evolutionary backwater - much as animals in a safari park might be unaware of the game warden, and assume they have the park all to themselves.
Three years ago I was responsible for teaching a great many of the public school teachers in Calgary basic computer skills. The Calgary Board of Education decided to make said skills required for their staff, and contracted the training company I was working for at the time to teach classes on basic use of the computer, Internet, scanners, etc.
The experience led me to the conclusion that it is not the presence of computers that makes for a poor classroom experience - it is the ability of the teacher. Many of those I taught actually resisted learning something new, either being techno-phobic or holding the attitude that they were being "forced to learn" by the board. Many had a hard time learning anything at all. The overall attitude I got from many was that they had learned everything they needed to know in teacher's college 10, 20, 30 years ago and through their own experience - and how dare this young whippersnapper try to show them something new.
The reality is that the vast majority of students in any classroom, except for those in low-income areas, will already have access to a computer at home. They will have grown up with one, unlike their teacher, and likely know how to use it better. My advice would be to throw off the censoring software and let them at it. Let the students come up with new and interesting ways to fulfill their assignments with these tools. The same skill is likely beyond the abilities or comprehension of their teacher.
Statement 1: Human beings are sensual animals. Anything that gives a rush of pleasure can be addicting. It doesn't have to be a directly injested chemical to cause addiction, although that helps. Eating, shopping, fuc*ing, running, gambling, smoking, cleaning, sky-diving, drinking and gaming can all be addictive.
Statement 2: While there are certainly some drugs and activities that can be more addictive than others, broadly speaking induvidual psychology and personality type plays a far greater role in determining if you will become addicted than the activity itself. There are millions of people who play computer games without showing any signs of addiction. There are millions of people who drink without ever becoming alcoholics. People who are prone to addiction tend to find new addictions if one is denied to them. As proof of this, walk into any AA meeting and count the number of people who have substituted smoking, eating or sex for alcohol.
Counter-statement 1: Human beings are thinking animals. Being aware of the dangers of addiction means being aware of your own weaknesses and capacity for abuse. Understanding that you are an addict means being able to step back from the activity and see its effects on yourself, your work, and your family.
Counter-statement 2: If you are a self-aware induvidual, you have no-one to blame for your addiction but yourself. It's not Sony's fault that they make a compelling product, or that Phillip Morris' is wrong for making cigarettes that are addictive. On the bright side, if you are a thinking induvidual you also have the power to stop your own addictive behaviour. This takes effort, and is not always easy - but it can be done.