29 November 2006 • 1:18 0
Some of you may be wondering why I hadn’t posted in three weeks. In essecnce, personal concerns got in the way, and then Thanksgiving here in the US (during which I was away from my computer). I’m back, though, and have a couple things in store, including catching up on all the developing posts…
Stay tuned.
Filed under: Uncategorized
28 November 2006 • 6:55 6
Absurdist Argument: the current embryonic stem cell lines have not shown any promise yet, so we need not research them. Thus, we might as well continue the ban which makes research into their promise nearly impossible.
If research is highly restricted, of course the lines will be less promising. Especially in a cutting-edge, emerging field. Like the electric car, it’s a question of will, not capability. Science, society, indeed, life is based on pushing the envelope of understanding, research, biology, and discovering new solutions. Just because there were 2,000 failed attempts at the light bulb does not mean Edison failed. If he gave up after a couple years, after trying three different approaches, then he would have failed.
Here are some arguments that use the same logic as the absurdists…
1) I am only allowed to have one sip of water, and I’m still dehydrated. Water, therefore, cannot have any usefulness in solving dehydration, so I might as well not demand more than one sip.
2) Science hasn’t solved the greenhouse gas problem, so I might as well produce cars which emit more of them.
3) US Gov’t, 1942: Nuclear weapons research (while theoretically possible) has not produced a single nuclear weapon. Thus, I might as well continue to not invest in research.
4) Crick, 1949: While there is likely a chemical basis for inheritance, very limited research hasn’t found it yet. Thus, I might as well not try to put more research into effect.
5) USA, 1859: Efforts to end slavery have failed, so we need not continue to try. Thus, we might as well continue enslaving people.
Others? Comment comment.
EDITS (29 Nov 2006, 13:22): Links added.
Filed under: Culture, Philosophy, Politics, Science
• 6:36 0
http://www.ncta.com/ContentView.aspx?ContentID=3526
Saw this on Food Network a few weeks ago. Not only is it dishonest, not only it is written like any political attack ad, it also tries to dismiss a relevant topic the same way polluters try to dismiss scientists – ”Mumbo-Jumbo”. Basically, anti-intellectual propaganda that ignores the issues. Net neutrality is an important topic worthy of debate – using attack-ads to dismiss its value as a topic is disingenuous (because the telcos are fighting hard against it). The claim that net neutrality will cost consumers money is at best speculative, and at worst dishonest.
Plus, it’s on the Food Network, which means they’re pushing HARD to win the uninformed viewers.
Extremely basically, net neutrality is the idea that stuff that goes over the internet (from the person who creates it to you) is not segregated based on who the sender is. It is a hot topic, worthy of serious debate. Unfortunately, the opponents of this idea are not trying to engage in the debate honestly.
One post-script – I have had conversations with someone who believes there is a difference between “the Internet” and data traveling using “internet protocol“. There is not. The Internet is an open network of computers where data is transmitted via internet protocol. Other things, like office “intranets”, also use internet protocol. Intranets, technically speaking, ARE mini-internets. The fundamental difference between an intranet and the Internet is that the Internet is open, and intranets are closed. (Note: if you use a router or wireless access of some sort, you create a mini-internet of your own, too). When anti-net-neutrality people speak, they try to create a distinction where one does not exist. Anything on the open, publically-available Internet, is part of the Internet, because it travels via internet protocol. I know that sounds self-evident, but the cable companies are trying to argue that it is not true.
8 November 2006 • 9:24 0
Kind of. I felt like I was watching the “postgame show” after an American football game. After completely attacking each other, trying to get away with fouls, and doing everything possible to win, the two sides were (suddenly) gracious. (Note: I know of one particular exception.)
Candidate 1: “I just went out there, did my, best, and things fell into place. I can’t take all the credit.”
Candidate 2: “It was good game, but the team that played better won. Every day is different.”
Candidate 1: “I have to hand it to my opponent – fought tough, hung in there. On another day, it could have been him.”
Candidate 2: “Gotta give my opponent credit – went out there, and got the job done. Congratulations.”
And the media eats it up. I wish the BBC were the main resource for election-night coverage here in the US. I would love to hear a reporter talking to a candidate who just lost, in the middle-class London accent, “Don’t you think it was your position in support of the the US continuing in Iraq, despite all the evidence demonstrating the harm the US is doing, which drove voters away?” or “Do you think it’s fair that you won an election simply because you associated your liberal-minded opponent with President Bush’s war, even though you know full well that he opposed it?” In the run-up to the election, I would liked to have seen fewer poll numbers predicting who will win the race, and more juicy content on what people thought and would do. But, as usual, it was all horserace (which is fine, to a point).
Oh… I should note the Massachusetts gubernatorial candidate, Deval Patrick, promised and delivered exactly zero negative ads. Meanwhile, his opponent, Kerry Healy, went on the attack heavily. Polls showed her numbers slipping in the final weeks of the campaign, and my sources in the state tell me that the negative ads were working against her. With a couple weeks to go, she stopped running negative ads altogether. Her numbers stopped falling, but the message was very resounding: Massachusetts residents were done with the Republicans in the big office, and Healy failed to present a hopeful image.
Finally… What does the American election actually mean? There are approximately three possibilities, generally speaking, which not mutually-exclusive.
1) Punishment – Americans are punishing the Republicans for their recent performance as the stewards of the nation. The Iraq War and scandal after scandal have left Americans without faith in the party that says it has the most faith. If the Republicans repent, all will be well (eventually).
2) Republicans Lost – They failed to effectively get the fear message out. Democrats succeeded in demonstrating how Republicans failed.
3) Democrats Won – They succeeded in showing that they are the party of hope, and Republicans are the party of fear.
Predictions: The remaining Virginia Senate seat goes to the Webb (Democrat). Republicans will make every effort to assure that the new Congress does very little. Bush will make more use of the veto (used ONCE in six years). Republicans will accelerate the campaign of fear. Americans will tire of fear-mongering. A moderate (Chafee (R) or Webb (D) type) takes the White House in 2008.
Filed under: Culture, Philosophy, Politics
1 November 2006 • 9:13 6
For the non-technical… Linux is an operating system (like Windows) which is open-source. That means, in essence, it can be edited and modified by anyone. The license of Linux requires that all “distributions” (or builds) are free. The result is that there are several free Linux builds out there. Ubuntu is one of them (along with Red Hat, Debian, and others).
Ubuntu, however, has made my list of bad things because it messed my system royally.
The whole idea behind Ubuntu is trying to make a Linux that’s user-friendly, and not all geekified. In fact, their tagline is “Ubuntu: Linux for human beings”. Being only a semi-geek, Ubuntu appealed to both sides of my computing personality.
I went to their website, downloaded a CD image, burned the CD, threw it in, and installed it on a separate hard drive. (Note to non-geeks: ALWAYS install big things on a separate drive.) I booted, and instead of the crappy Windows XP loading screen, I got a crappier text screen, with a list of possible OS options. Ubuntu was default. XP was there, too, but wasn’t the default.
Try as I might, I couldn’t change the default. I also couldn’t get Ubuntu to recgnize my video card (an extremely common one), no matter how many different directions I followed. It was, in a word, Linux-y: geek-friendly, human-unfriendly. But here’s the kicker – it changed my master boot record. The master boot record is a spot in the main hard drive of any computer, and it tells you where to go to find the operating system(s). Every computer has one.
Ubuntu NEVER warned me that it was going to change anything. It just did it. Not very friendly. In fact, there was no simple way to undo it. I had to trawl the web searching for a way to restore the Windows booter. There was some board which said I need to put the Windows XP disc into the CD drive, boot into it, and go into the repair console… etc etc.
Side note: Getting to that answer wasn’t easy because an annoying personality trait of anyone who is religious about anything, be it food, software, or God. Several Linux people are religious about Linux. On this board (I have to trawl to find it again), someone (appropriately) asked, “How do I go back to the Windows booter?” there were approximately ten “Why would you want to replace Ubuntu with crappy Windows?” answers before the actual useful answer. Here’s the thing, evangelists: if Ubuntu told me what it was going to do to my computer, I would not be nearly as pissed. It didn’t. It went and pulled “a Microsoft” – it changed everything around and expected me to be content with it. The fix is even harder, and completely user-unfriendly. Moreover, if this is Linux for human beings, shouldn’t it be more user-friendly than Windows?
Tally: Windows XP 1, Ubuntu 0
I can’t wait to be able to afford an Apple… One day.
Filed under: Tech
Recent Comments