Technorati Profile

The Torn in the title refers to the internal conflicts in Starbuck, Ty, and Baltar, the eternally conflicted. Torn was a great episode to watch and a significant episode as far as fleshing out the Battlestar Galactica universe and advancing the storyline. The more exciting half of the episode occurred on two Cylon basestars, one detaining Baltar and the other, an even more fascinating one, being a base star sent by the Cylons according to Baltar’s direction and encountering a biological weapon that “kills” the entire Cylon crew. Dissimilarly to the original series, the writers for the new series won’t turn Baltar completely over to the Cylons; Baltar does agree to collaborate with the Cylons after pathetically begging for his life, but he holds back information from the Cylons whenever he feels his life is not in danger. Baltar’s ambiguity is in keeping with the producer’s higher concept for the new series.
We also learn that the Cylon’s have a “hybrid” Cylon that runs the base star. The hybrids reminded me of the pre-cogs in Tom Cruise’s Minority Report, an idea I don’t find brilliant. The viral weakness of the Cylons is exciting as it gives us hope of a human victory.
The story on the Galactica was inconsequential and represented a tidying-up of loose threads from the previous two episodes.

I purchased the EX110 combo from Logitech because when I auditioned the keyboards at the Best Buy, its keyboard had the quietest keys. Well, the keys are quiet except for the spacebar which has a cheap-sounding clack. The keyboard's media buttons are sparse, but I only use the volume buttons anyways.

The real problem with this keyboard combo and the reason I can't recommend it is the radio signal's range. Placed about three feet away from the receiver, the mouse would function horribly erratic, breaking up every couple of seconds. I thought the problem was the battery or perhaps interferance from another device. When I moved it closer, however, the problem went away. "That's it," I thought "One foot?" I would buy another keyboard combo besides the EX110.

OK here we go again. Like shooting fish in a barrel.

BLOG | Posted 11/02/2006 @ 1:20pm
Rove Rides the Swift Boat Once More

PERMALINK SEE ALL POSTS
EMAIL THIS POST COMMENTS (82)

John Kerry's not even on the ballot. So how come everyone is talking about the 2004 Democratic presidential nominee's failed attempt to make a joke at the expense of George W. Bush's education -- or lack thereof?

He believes the lie or is repeating it. It was not a botched joke?-that was the joke.

Because media coverage of this campaign, at least in its final days, is going according to Karl Rove's script -- thanks in no small measure to the inability of most political reporters to chart their own course on the eve of an election.

So Kerry was following Rove's script??? Chart your own course=attack Republicans instead.

Rove needs the focus to be on Kerry.

The White House political czar is fully conscious that the Republican base -- social conservatives, people who don't want to pay their taxes and angry white men with an exceptionally narrow view of what it means to be a patriot

Narrow view of being a patriot=A patriot should also include people who contantly attack America like us (including in this paragraph) but we don't want to be called unpatriotic because, well, people might not vote for people who hate the country.

People who don't want to pay their taxes=people who vote for policies that take money away from us and the people we patronize who, of course, pay no taxes.

Of course, if people vote for lower taxes and pay those lower rates, then they are "paying their taxes."

-- has been trained to despise and fear the Massachusetts senator in a way that there just is not enough time to gin up hatred for Nancy Pelosi or any other Democratic "infidel" of the moment.

The Nation doesn't despise Santorum

With Rove shifting the entire Republican pre-election push toward a base-energizing initiative that relies almost entirely on stoking disdain for Democrats, he's got to get people focused on Kerry.

stoking disdain for Democrats=reminding Americans that many liberals dislike the military.

The Nation would never stoke disdain for any group.

It's not fair to Kerry, whose comments are being taken out of context. It's not fair to the political process, which ought not be focused on such silliness at so critical a point.

Kerry and the Democrats' opinion of the people who risk their lives for their country is silly. Let's focus instead on whether or not Allen used the "n" word thirty-five years ago.

What exactly was the context of Kerry's speech? Do people just say "out of context" now anytime they say something they regret?

But no should expect Karl Rove to play fair. And, unfortunately, no one should expect most political reporters to recognize that, by again helping to swiftboat John Kerry, they are working from Rove's political playbook.

How was the Foley scandal relevant again?

I don't admire many politicians, but Rick Santorum is one of the exceptions. Not only is he a devoted father of 6, always a good thing, but Santorum is one of the few politicians who see the current international and social battles in context instead of as isolated conflicts. He sees the battle for traditional marriage as a stop to the decent of our nation into complete selfishness. He sees the conflict in Iraq as one of the theaters in a clash of civilizations, which is the reason he compared Iraq to the archetypical war in The Lord of the Rings.

Everytime I've heard him on the radio, he has been an eloquent spokesman for my pro-Western and Catholic worldview. I wonder what he did to upset the Pennsylvania voters?

Kerry's unintended message
"you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well.

"And if you don't, you get stuck in Iraq,"

There's one part of Kerry's controversial statement in Pasadena that I agree with: Kerry said that students are responsible for their own destinies. He didn't say that they're stuck in Iraq because the government doesn't spend enough on education; he said that they get stuck because they don't study. I agree with Kerry that studying often leads to greater academic achievement. Students: listen to Kerry and study so that you have a better chance to make a nice income. Oh, and if you study hard and still want to join the military, most of America won't think you're dumb- just Kerry.

Can Nicaraguans really vote in Ortega again? Can't one of the anti-Sandinista candidates sacrifice his candidacy to prevent the failed policies of Ortega to reoccur? Unless many Nicaraguans, amongst the poorest in the hemisphere, are excited about petro-dollars flowing in from Venezuela and Hugo Chavez.

Can Nicaraguans really vote in Ortega again? Can't one of the anti-Sandinista candidates sacrifice his candidacy to prevent the failed policies of Ortega to reoccur? Unless many Nicaraguans, amongst the poorest in the hemisphere, are excited about petro-dollars flowing in from Venezuela and Hugo Chavez.

John Kerry insulted the intelligence of the troops and now he insults the intelligence of the rest of America by offering a ridiculous explanation. A botched joke? If you listen to the speech, it's obviously untrue. I think whoever writes Kerry's jokes would have made the reference a little clearer. But, let's take him at this word and say that it was an attempt at a joke. Why is it funny to say that people who don't study history make policy mistakes in which thousands of people have died? Is that a laughing matter?

OK, so which history is Kerry talking about? Vietnam? Would Kerry like to repeat the most shameful foreign policy decision in American history (leaving the thousands of Vietnamese who fought for their country to the Communists who then proceeded to kill thousands and place millions in re-education camps) and abandon the Iraqi troops and civilians who are dying to preserve a fragile democracy from the most evil, hateful, people on Earth?

Kerry goes on to say that he would never insult the troops because he's a veteran. What gall! The first thing he did upon returning from Vietnam is insult the troops; and in front of the whole nation!

He follows with gratuitous vast right wing conspiracy comments.

By the way, in his explanation below, Kerry comes up with more convoluted reasoning when he explains his Iraq policy. He insists that leaving Iraq will not embolden terrorists. I guess he thinks terrorists will decide to keep fighting the other factions in Iraq until the Americans leave and then just embrace their fellow Iraqis.

John Kerry insulted the intelligence of the troops and now he insults the intelligence of the rest of America by offering a ridiculous explanation. A botched joke? If you listen to the speech, it's obviously untrue. I think whoever writes Kerry's jokes would have made the reference a little clearer. But, let's take him at this word and say that it was an attempt at a joke. Why is it funny to say that people who don't study history make policy mistakes in which thousands of people have died? Is that a laughing matter?

OK, so which history is Kerry talking about? Vietnam? Would Kerry like to repeat the most shameful foreign policy decision in American history (leaving the thousands of Vietnamese who fought for their country to the Communists who then proceeded to kill thousands and place millions in re-education camps) and abandon the Iraqi troops and civilians who are dying to preserve a fragile democracy from the most evil, hateful, people on Earth?

Kerry goes on to say that he would never insult the troops because he's a veteran. What gall! The first thing he did upon returning from Vietnam is insult the troops; and in front of the whole nation!

He follows with gratuitous vast right wing conspiracy comments.

By the way, in his explanation below, Kerry comes up with more convoluted reasoning when he explains his Iraq policy. He insists that leaving Iraq will not embolden terrorists. I guess he thinks terrorists will decide to keep fighting the other factions in Iraq until the Americans leave and then just embrace their fellow Iraqis.

When somebody read my blog, they were nice enough to complement me. but said that they weren't a "political animal" and thus didn't read Asymmetric. I automatically assumed he was happy and later began to wonder if my instinct was correct; that apolitical people are happier on average.

If one thinks about it, political people would be so because they were motivated by some grievance. If grievance makes one unhappy, then that fact would tend to support my reaction. Political people may also be more inclined to think oppositionally. If I may paraphrase Yoda, anger breeds hate, hate breeds conflict and conflict breeds unhappiness.

I can't think of a reason why political people would be happier.

What do you think?

Very few things are all good or all bad. Most have some disadvantages and some benefits. Two exceptions to this rule, things having only negative consequences, also represent the two worst parenting decision of my nine year career as a father. The first one I can blame on my wife as it was she who convinced me to purchase a Nintendo Gamecube last Christmas. I didn't need any help to make the other poor decision: ordering cable television.

Now, it's not that my son didn't like the Gamecube. In fact, he liked it better than reading, playing outside, chess, and the lovely educational computer games he enjoyed previous. It was that he wouldn't do anything else. I still don't understand why a parent would let Santa squeeze one of those monstrosities through their chimney. Scratch that. I think parents buy these horrible devices to keep their kid entertained, freeing mom and dad to pursue their reading or TV viewing (or blogging) without the cries for attention that accompany children until they're 16 and don't want anything to do with you.

Cable television was worse. The parade of fart jokes, lightning quick cuts, and jokes meant more for immature adults than children serve no uplifting purpose at all. If you've seen the show Ed and Eddy or listened to the effect television has on your child's vocabulary, you know what I'm talking about. I managed to take away television. I did miss Battlestar Galactica, but after a couple of days, nobody in the house noticed it was gone. Besides, we have Netflix, which is great. The Gamecube might be tougher and, darn it, I can use the blogging time.

So, fellow parents, Just like there is no advantage to having cookies in the house, there is no advantage to having video games or cable TV. You'll save some money as well.

Very few things are all good or all bad. Most have some disadvantages and some benefits. Two exceptions to this rule, things having only negative consequences, also represent the two worst parenting decision of my nine year career as a father. The first one I can blame on my wife as it was she who convinced me to purchase a Nintendo Gamecube last Christmas. I didn't need any help to make the other poor decision: ordering cable television.

Now, it's not that my son didn't like the Gamecube. In fact, he liked it better than reading, playing outside, chess, and the lovely educational computer games he enjoyed previous. It was that he wouldn't do anything else. I still don't understand why a parent would let Santa squeeze one of those monstrosities through their chimney. Scratch that. I think parents buy these horrible devices to keep their kid entertained, freeing mom and dad to pursue their reading or TV viewing (or blogging) without the cries for attention that accompany children until they're 16 and don't want anything to do with you.

Cable television was worse. The parade of fart jokes, lightning quick cuts, and jokes meant more for immature adults than children serve no uplifting purpose at all. If you've seen the show Ed and Eddy or listened to the effect television has on your child's vocabulary, you know what I'm talking about. I managed to take away television. I did miss Battlestar Galactica, but after a couple of days, nobody in the house noticed it was gone. Besides, we have Netflix, which is great. The Gamecube might be tougher and, darn it, I can use the blogging time.

So, fellow parents, Just like there is no advantage to having cookies in the house, there is no advantage to having video games or cable TV. You'll save some money as well.

Is there a more spoiled class on Earth thatn American College students? Read this story. I think it merits a complete response.

Corey Goodman and Carla Shatz had a grand vision for UC Berkeley: to build the greatest neuroscience program in the world, to figure out how healthy brains work, and to use that understanding to cure disease.

They wanted a place where chemists and physicists, geneticists and other scientists could work alongside neurobiologists like themselves to unlock the secrets of the body's most mysterious organ. They wanted to change the world. The university wanted them to do it.

But there was no money to build their neuroscience center or equip their hoped-for high-tech laboratories. Today, Shatz is pursuing similar research at Harvard Medical School, and Goodman is the chief executive of a biotechnology company that develops drugs to treat neurological disease.

Harvard is a private institution. How did they do it?

"I was told, 'Corey, help us raise money for X, Y and Z, and then we'll get around to yours,' " said Goodman, who took a leave of absence in 2001 to start Renovis and resigned his tenured position last year. "I didn't want to wait five years for my turn to come up. When I see something is good for society and good for research, I want to go for it."

Good, so his research is going to be done/

Instead of going for it at Berkeley, Goodman just left, albeit reluctantly. And he is just one in a line of prestigious researchers who have abandoned the university in recent years — or are threatening to today — in part because UC Berkeley simply cannot afford to build enough labs, upgrade technology or even keep the floors shiny.

Let's start with cutting all of the chearleading majors-Gay studies, various ethnic studies. Then we can get rid of their snazzy gyms and resort-like dorms.

As voters consider Proposition 1D — the $10.4-billion bond measure to benefit California's schools, colleges and universities — some say UC Berkeley offers a cautionary tale about what happens when the state fails to invest enough money to keep its very foundation healthy, let alone accommodate growth.

California has added some 10 million people in the last 20 years and is expected to grow at about the same pace in the next 20. But growth has barely registered this campaign season, its discussion relegated to a series of bond measures that at best would patch the state's crumbling infrastructure. If they pass — and that's a big "if."

At least the LA Times isn't biased.

As it strains to keep up with technological innovation, protect against the Big One and safeguard its reputation while absorbing a decade of enrollment growth, UC Berkeley could be a stand-in for the state that created it.

So regulation like earthquake retrofitting does cause hardships.

The oldest school in the University of California system, Berkeley is ranked as the leading public university in America by U.S. News & World Report. It sits atop the Hayward fault and has spent more than $300 million in the last 20 years retrofitting its aging buildings to meet stiff seismic standards. But it needs twice that, and another decade, to complete the job.

The campus has nearly $600 million in deferred maintenance costs and struggles to keep roofs patched, pipes sound and heating and ventilation systems working. It no longer washes windows, waxes floors, replaces worn carpets or paints interior walls.
Plastic sheeting is tacked above equipment in some Birge Hall physics labs as protection from dripping pipes. The chairwoman of the music department raided research funds two years ago to paint dingy hallways so picky donors wouldn't turn away. Only 30% of the university's classrooms are wired for updated teaching technology.

I've got an idea. Instead of another Iraq War teach-in, why don't the students get together and fix some of that stuff? Or maybe hire cheaper workers.

The School of Public Health's main building cannot be seismically retrofitted and is slated for demolition. To date, there is no money to build a replacement, and Dean Stephen Shortell is trying to raise $150 million for his school's new home. "Securing the necessary funding is critical for the future of public health in California," he said.

Nervous administrators hope other distinguished faculty don't turn their backs on the Bay Area, lured away by institutions offering facilities UC Berkeley can only dream of. And they worry about how long their university's stellar reputation can last in the face of budget constraints and wealthy Ivy League competitors.

"We are in a war for our intellectual talent right now with major institutions that are far better-funded than we are," said A. Richard Newton, dean of Berkeley's College of Engineering. "We as a society just have to decide: Is this something that we're prepared to invest in, or not?"

Competition- You gotta love it.

One of the toughest battles for Berkeley is over the future of renowned bioengineer Luke P. Lee, an expert in the field of bio-nanotechnology who is on a leave of absence. The Swiss Federal Institute of Technology has made Lee a full professor for systems nanobiology, crowing in a press release that he is "one of the world's leading experts in the area of micro-fluidics and 'Lab-on-a-Chip' technology."

Lee did not respond to requests for comment. But Berkeley administrators said the Zurich-based institute made the bioengineer a "staggering" offer of facilities and financial support — something they could never even meet, let alone best. Still, they remain hopeful that Berkeley's cachet can woo him back.

"He's said, 'Let's see what you can do in the next year,' " Newton recounted. "He absolutely, positively does not want to leave Berkeley…. [But] he wants to make an impact on the world that is profound and deep through his teaching and work. The challenge: Can he do that in an institution that is not making the necessary investments?"

Those money-grubbing, profiteering academics.

Although Berkeley is a state institution, money from California's general fund covers less than 30% of its annual expenditures, down from about 50% in the late 1970s and early 1980s.

Has their operating budget decreased in that time? No, it's probably gone up much fater than inflation.

Not an especially exciting episode, but a necessary transition from last week's emotional triumph. I suppose the producers are trying to return to their naïve and offensive U.S./Cylon political allegory with the tribunals, but it wasn't as obvious in Collaborators as in the first episode. Anyways, the tribunals did provide some great moments of suspense. The fearless Ronald D. Moore doesn't seem to care about killing off important characters or adhering to any Sci-Fi conventions and, therefore, the viewer simply can't predict the outcome of any situation. With Baltar being captured, he may return to his role in the original series where he is actively helping the Cylons aboard one of their crafts.

This story contains this telling passage:

"By abandoning comprehensive immigration reform and embracing election-year political stunts, President Bush and Republicans in Washington have once again put the interests of their party above the interests of the American people," said Democratic National Committee spokesperson Luis Miranda.

Interpreted in regular English, this means: Darn, you just did something very popular and we are at a loss for words. We cannot provide an alternative as popular.

Blog page

I think a serious study of the differences in national senses of humour is warranted, Charles. You, more than most, are qualified to write it. I have frequently gotten into trouble in England with my “Irish” (not “Oirish”) sense of humour, and many Irish find English humour very stilted and formulaic – although there are quite a few honourable exceptions. Most people like self-depreciating humour, and take exception to humour intended to demonstrate the superior intellect, virility, or social standing of the humourist. Using humour as a weapon in debate seldom travels well, unless it is to demonstrate a certain ironic awareness of the fallibility of aspects of one’s own case. Did I tell you the one about the French, English and Irish Scientists?

“After having dug to a depth of 1,000 meters last year, French scientists found traces of copper wire dating back 1,000 years and came to the conclusion that their ancestors already had a telephone network more than a thousand years ago.

Not to be out done by the French, in the weeks that followed English scientists dug to a depth of 2,000 meters and shortly after headlines in the U.K. newspapers read: 'English archaeologists have found traces of 2,000 year old fibre-optic cable' and have concluded that their ancestors already had an advanced high-Tech digital communications network a thousand years earlier than the French.

One week later Irish Newspapers reported the following: After digging as deep as 5000 meters in a County Mayo bog, Irish scientists had found absolutely nothing. They therefore concluded that 5,000 years ago in Ireland its inhabitants were already using wireless technology”.

Two parental regrets
Very few things are all good or all bad. Most have some disadvantages and some benefits. Two exceptions to this rule, things having only negative consequences, also represent the two worst parenting decision of my nine year career as a father. The first one I can blame on my wife as it was she who convinced me to purchase a Nintendo Gamecube last Christmas. I didn't need any help to make the other poor decision: ordering cable television.

Now, it's not that my son didn't like the Gamecube. In fact, he liked it better than reading, playing outside, chess, and the lovely educational computer games he enjoyed previous. It was that he wouldn't do anything else. I still don't understand why a parent would let Santa squeeze one of those monstrosities through their chimney. Scratch that. I think parents buy these horrible devices to keep their kid entertained, freeing mom and dad to pursue their reading or TV viewing (or blogging) without the cries for attention that accompany children until they're 16 and don't want anything to do with you.

Cable television was worse. The parade of fart jokes, lightning quick cuts, and jokes meant more for immature adults than children serve no uplifting purpose at all. If you've seen the show Ed and Eddy or listened to the effect television has on your child's vocabulary, you know what I'm talking about. I managed to take away television. I did miss Battlestar Galactica, but after a couple of days, nobody in the house noticed it was gone. Besides, we have Netflix, which is great.

So, fellow parents, Just like there is no advantage to having cookies in the house, there is no advantage to having video games or cable TV. You'll save some money as well.

When somebody read my blog, they were nice enough to complement me. but said that they weren't a "political animal" and thus didn't read Asymmetric. I automatically assumed he was happy and later began to wonder if my instinct was correct; that apolitical people are happier on average.

If one thinks about it, political people would be so because they were motivated by some grievance. If grievance makes one unhappy, then that fact would tend to support my reaction. Political people may also be more inclined to think oppositionally. If I may paraphrase Yoda, anger breeds hate, hate breeds conflict and conflict breeds unhappiness.

I can't think of a reason why political people would be happier.

What do you think?

I'm shocked that such a rational person as Richard Dawkins can succumb to the kind of Christophobic bigotry that has led to millions of dead Christians from Rome right on through the French and Communist revolutions. I find it curious that people will publicly quibble with people's theology in such a disrespectful manner; and in a political context at that. I don't believe in reincarnation, but I don't go around calling Hindus idiots. I don't have time to fully respond until Thursday, when school is out for me, but please ruminate on Dawkins' hate until then.