![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Mar. 26th, 2012 05:32 pmWell, let's see. An eyewitness reportedly said Zimmerman was the one crying for help while Martin was on top of him, beating him. And the reported physical evidence is that Zimmerman had a bloody nose, a cut on the back of his head, and grass stains on his shirt. Could it possibly be that people who don't have access to the physical evidence and witness testimony should refrain from prejudging the case, instead of declaring someone guilty based on news reports? That it is foolish to presume guilt on incomplete information, and that the accused should be presumed innocent until presentation of the evidence at trial?
But of course, there are no endorphin rewards from reserving judgment, no emotional satisfactions to be gained by waiting and seeing instead of loudly demanding "justice".
But of course, there are no endorphin rewards from reserving judgment, no emotional satisfactions to be gained by waiting and seeing instead of loudly demanding "justice".
Look out for "iBooks Author"
Jan. 20th, 2012 12:49 pmThe iBooks Author EULA says any file you create with it must be sold through Apple, and not anywhere else.
Conversations with the Cat
Oct. 5th, 2011 05:34 am"STEEEEEEVE! LOOOOOOOOK!"
"What?"
"I CAUGHT SOMETHING! I CAUGHT SOMETHING!"
"That's a plastic fork from a fast-food place, Apollo. With a paper napkin. Still packaged together in plastic."
"AND I CAUGHT IT!"
Steve sighs. "Good kitty."
Cat at this point notices Steve is reading. Cat drops fork, jumps between Steve and reading material.
"PET ME!"
"What?"
"I CAUGHT SOMETHING! I CAUGHT SOMETHING!"
"That's a plastic fork from a fast-food place, Apollo. With a paper napkin. Still packaged together in plastic."
"AND I CAUGHT IT!"
Steve sighs. "Good kitty."
Cat at this point notices Steve is reading. Cat drops fork, jumps between Steve and reading material.
"PET ME!"
Annoyed at the world.
Jun. 5th, 2011 11:37 am22 people are dead and hundreds are hospitalized because an inexpensive food safety technology, first developed sixty years ago and repeatedly proven safe, is discouraged to the point of near-prohibition by government regulations in the EU.
In a sane world, people would point to the massive public health benefits of universal government-mandated food irradiation as one of the arguments against letting the free market have free run to make its own decisions. In this one, it's a great "government failure" counterexample to people who talk about "market failure".
In a sane world, people would point to the massive public health benefits of universal government-mandated food irradiation as one of the arguments against letting the free market have free run to make its own decisions. In this one, it's a great "government failure" counterexample to people who talk about "market failure".
Kindle good.
Feb. 17th, 2011 07:30 pmI like mine very, very much, after almost two months (since Christmas!) of near-daily use.
(Prompted to post this by seeing![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
sharrukin 's latest post.)
Just in case you needed a link to impulse-buy one.
(Yeah, with my Associate ID.)
(Prompted to post this by seeing
sharrukin 's latest post.)Just in case you needed a link to impulse-buy one.
(Yeah, with my Associate ID.)2012 prediction
Nov. 3rd, 2010 05:39 amThe Republicans will keep the House no matter what.
There have been, since the ratification of the 17th Amendment, 20 flips of a chamber of Congress by a vote of the people. 17 of them happened when the incumbent President was the same party as the party that controlled the incumbent chamber. One was a result of both a weird muddle (the 2000 election) followed by a wartime rally effect in the next election (2002). Two happened in 1948, which was a strange election (that was the "Dewey Defeats Truman" year).
So, since a Democrat will be President in 2012, the House will remain Republican.
See, if people think things are going well, they vote for incumbents. (See Clinton in '96, and how the Republicans retained Congress, or see Reagan in '84, and how the Democrats retained the House.) If they think things are going poorly, people will vote against the President's party (see 2008 or 1992, where the party of the incumbent president lost the presidency but the incumbent opposite-party Congress stayed in power). Since the Republicans are both the House incumbents and not the president's party, they're in good shape for 2012.
Throw in that a bunch of state legislatures went GOP, while California handed over Congressional redistricting to an independent commission, and the post-Census 2012 districts are going to generally be more favorable for Republicans.
There have been, since the ratification of the 17th Amendment, 20 flips of a chamber of Congress by a vote of the people. 17 of them happened when the incumbent President was the same party as the party that controlled the incumbent chamber. One was a result of both a weird muddle (the 2000 election) followed by a wartime rally effect in the next election (2002). Two happened in 1948, which was a strange election (that was the "Dewey Defeats Truman" year).
So, since a Democrat will be President in 2012, the House will remain Republican.
See, if people think things are going well, they vote for incumbents. (See Clinton in '96, and how the Republicans retained Congress, or see Reagan in '84, and how the Democrats retained the House.) If they think things are going poorly, people will vote against the President's party (see 2008 or 1992, where the party of the incumbent president lost the presidency but the incumbent opposite-party Congress stayed in power). Since the Republicans are both the House incumbents and not the president's party, they're in good shape for 2012.
Throw in that a bunch of state legislatures went GOP, while California handed over Congressional redistricting to an independent commission, and the post-Census 2012 districts are going to generally be more favorable for Republicans.
No, really. Granting that anthropogenic global warming is a very important, serious problem . . . why is reducing Australia's emissions a major issue in Australian politics? Australia emitted 1.28% of the world's carbon dioxide in 2007. Estimates I see are Australian methane and other emissions are equivalent to about half the warming effect of their CO2, so making the impact-maximizing assumption there are no other greenhouse gasses than carbon dioxide emitted by anyone else anywhere, Australia is responsible for about 2% of global greenhouse emissions, which share is declining as the developing world industrializes.
If Australia's emissions magically went to zero, it would have no discernible impact whatsoever on global warming. The science says there is nothing Australia can do about global warming on its own that will have any effect. So why is Australia even considering expensive, unilateral cuts in emissions that won't do anything to actually prevent global warming?
If Australia's emissions magically went to zero, it would have no discernible impact whatsoever on global warming. The science says there is nothing Australia can do about global warming on its own that will have any effect. So why is Australia even considering expensive, unilateral cuts in emissions that won't do anything to actually prevent global warming?
(no subject)
Aug. 6th, 2010 01:22 pmNot that I have any objection to the result of the case, but has anybody tried projecting the ban on laws of moral disapproval as a general principle?
The item that comes first to mind is animal cruelty laws. However much one might hate the idea of, say, microwaving live cats to death, what's the state's rational interest in preventing such behavior, under the new standard?
The item that comes first to mind is animal cruelty laws. However much one might hate the idea of, say, microwaving live cats to death, what's the state's rational interest in preventing such behavior, under the new standard?
(no subject)
Aug. 4th, 2010 10:21 pmVaughn Walker almost lost his chance to reach the federal bench because of claims that he was anti-gay and hostile to civil rights. Two dozen House Democrats, led by Rep. Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco, opposed his nomination because of his alleged "insensitivity" to gays and the poor. His first appointment, from President Ronald Reagan in 1987, stalled out in the Senate Judiciary Committee.
His nomination was renewed by President George H.W. Bush in early 1989.
Back then, Walker struggled to assure skeptical liberals that, as a judge, he could rule with impartiality even though he had represented the U.S. Olympic Committee in its successful effort to prevent an athletic competition in San Francisco from being called the Gay Olympic Games. He was harshly criticized for putting a lien on the home of a gay-games leader who was dying of AIDS. Walker insisted that he was not anti-gay and was only doing his best to serve his client.
—From the San Francisco Chronicle.
Among the organizations that led the fight against Judge Walker were the Human Rights Campaign, the Lambda Legal Defense Fund, and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.
Yes, this is the same judge who just struck down Proposition 8.
His nomination was renewed by President George H.W. Bush in early 1989.
Back then, Walker struggled to assure skeptical liberals that, as a judge, he could rule with impartiality even though he had represented the U.S. Olympic Committee in its successful effort to prevent an athletic competition in San Francisco from being called the Gay Olympic Games. He was harshly criticized for putting a lien on the home of a gay-games leader who was dying of AIDS. Walker insisted that he was not anti-gay and was only doing his best to serve his client.
—From the San Francisco Chronicle.
Among the organizations that led the fight against Judge Walker were the Human Rights Campaign, the Lambda Legal Defense Fund, and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.
Yes, this is the same judge who just struck down Proposition 8.
(no subject)
Apr. 3rd, 2010 04:59 pmNot demanding we roleplay out the negotiation of the exact terms, so that I, the flesh-and-blood I, know exactly what they are, was the compromise on my part. In return I expected that I, the flesh-and-blood I, would never, ever, under any circumstances, no matter how bad the rolls, suffer any consequence for not getting a full detailing of the terms to me. I'm willing to risk being blindsided by the meaning of the terms, but only if I've been told the exact terms.
NPCs are not flesh-and-blood human beings, and I will not compromise myself to be "fair" to figments of the imagination. This is not a matter of protecting a PC, this is a matter of preserving the peace of mind of the person playing him.
Comments disabled for a reason.
NPCs are not flesh-and-blood human beings, and I will not compromise myself to be "fair" to figments of the imagination. This is not a matter of protecting a PC, this is a matter of preserving the peace of mind of the person playing him.
Comments disabled for a reason.
NetHack Ascension
Mar. 22nd, 2010 02:10 amJust ascended for the first time in NetHack.
Lots of luck, starting with the first room on the level having an altar and a suit of +4 splint mail randomly generated. Pick up armor, drop it on the altar to see it's not cursed, put it on, find out it's +4. Made a few stupid plays and almost got killed (worst, fainting from hunger in the Castle while being attacked by two dragons, praying to Tyr, and getting an angry response that stripped me of over ten points of protection. Managed to kill and eat a dragon anyway.)
Polypiled and pudding-farmed some. Hey, overprepping for your first ascension is a tradition, right?
For those interested in the attributes/etc:
( Read more... )
Lots of luck, starting with the first room on the level having an altar and a suit of +4 splint mail randomly generated. Pick up armor, drop it on the altar to see it's not cursed, put it on, find out it's +4. Made a few stupid plays and almost got killed (worst, fainting from hunger in the Castle while being attacked by two dragons, praying to Tyr, and getting an angry response that stripped me of over ten points of protection. Managed to kill and eat a dragon anyway.)
Polypiled and pudding-farmed some. Hey, overprepping for your first ascension is a tradition, right?
For those interested in the attributes/etc:
( Read more... )
Amazon's a big boy, and they're obviously acting in what they see as their own selfish interests. And those interests aren't mine, given I've never bought an ebook through Amazon, and have no interest in doing so.
It's just that I don't trust the statements of publishers. Maybe I've read too many stories of authors being screwed by their publishers, and I have a cockeyed view of the situations. But, I'm a skeptic when it comes to a publisher's statement. So I poked around, and tried to see if Macmillan's claims are consistent with their actions. And their actions involving the publication, format, and pricing of Serpent Moon (ISBN: 978-0-7653-6425-8, ISBN10: 0-7653-6425-5), eighth book in a successful series, sure seem inconsistent with their statements.
It's just that I don't trust the statements of publishers. Maybe I've read too many stories of authors being screwed by their publishers, and I have a cockeyed view of the situations. But, I'm a skeptic when it comes to a publisher's statement. So I poked around, and tried to see if Macmillan's claims are consistent with their actions. And their actions involving the publication, format, and pricing of Serpent Moon (ISBN: 978-0-7653-6425-8, ISBN10: 0-7653-6425-5), eighth book in a successful series, sure seem inconsistent with their statements.
So, is Macmillan losing money on Dominion?
Feb. 4th, 2010 10:34 pmDominion, by Fred Saberhagen, is a direct-to-paperback release from Macmillan, under the Tor imprint. The price is $6.99. Serpent Moon by C.T. Adams and Cathy Clamp , is another direct-to-paperback release from Tor, for $6.99. Both were released February 3rd, 2010.
That sure looks like proof that Macmillan can, in fact, currently edit, typeset, and otherwise prepare a book, then sell it for a profit at a retail price of $6.99. Which would pretty strongly suggest that they could edit, typeset, and otherwise prepare an ebook, and then sell it at a profit for a retail price of $6.99. It's not like an ebook has any of the printing, warehousing, and distributing costs of the paperback; surely it isn't more expensive to make than a paperback?
Maybe, of course, the author royalty on the book is razor-thin. So we then could, say, add an additional $3.00 to the price, to represent a compensation to the author equivalent to a 12%-of-retail-price royalty on a $25 hardcover. That would bring us to a price of $9.99 for the ebook as high enough to make a profit for Macmillan and definitely reward the author.
Interestingly, ten bucks is the same price Amazon was using as a standard, and that Macmillan is saying was way, way too low for an ebook.
Oh, well. I'm sure on the $12.99 ebook sales they're paying authors a royalty in excess of $3 a copy, right? Right?
That sure looks like proof that Macmillan can, in fact, currently edit, typeset, and otherwise prepare a book, then sell it for a profit at a retail price of $6.99. Which would pretty strongly suggest that they could edit, typeset, and otherwise prepare an ebook, and then sell it at a profit for a retail price of $6.99. It's not like an ebook has any of the printing, warehousing, and distributing costs of the paperback; surely it isn't more expensive to make than a paperback?
Maybe, of course, the author royalty on the book is razor-thin. So we then could, say, add an additional $3.00 to the price, to represent a compensation to the author equivalent to a 12%-of-retail-price royalty on a $25 hardcover. That would bring us to a price of $9.99 for the ebook as high enough to make a profit for Macmillan and definitely reward the author.
Interestingly, ten bucks is the same price Amazon was using as a standard, and that Macmillan is saying was way, way too low for an ebook.
Oh, well. I'm sure on the $12.99 ebook sales they're paying authors a royalty in excess of $3 a copy, right? Right?
(no subject)
Jan. 4th, 2010 03:22 pmFool that I am, I recently registered for a website using the same password as my GMail account password, and using my GMail address. Of course, the result was that someone got ahold of both and tried the combination on GMail, then used that access to spam every address in my address book. They also set up an autoresponder to re-spam the message at anyone who mailed me.
The situation has been corrected; my GMail password is now unique and the autoresponder is deactivated.
My apologies to anyone inconvenienced by my foolishness.
The situation has been corrected; my GMail password is now unique and the autoresponder is deactivated.
My apologies to anyone inconvenienced by my foolishness.
College football commentary
Nov. 15th, 2009 02:01 amFor your consideration:
A team in the FBS (Division 1-A) that plays FCS teams (Division 1-AA) for three of its four non-conference games by definition does not have a tough schedule, and should be roundly mocked. Especially if their best opponent that year is also a team that ran up its record by playing FCS teams for three of its four non-conference games.
A team in the FBS (Division 1-A) that plays FCS teams (Division 1-AA) for three of its four non-conference games by definition does not have a tough schedule, and should be roundly mocked. Especially if their best opponent that year is also a team that ran up its record by playing FCS teams for three of its four non-conference games.
