February 28, 2006
Just-So: Rediscovering Kipling
Edward Cline waxes forth on a Kipling poem, to good effect, here. I've not read much of Kipling's poetry, and I should probably rememdy that.
I was an English major, back in the day. Pretty good school, pretty good English department. But I don't recall that we read any Kipling. I spent an entire semester on Chaucer, and to this day I thank the Fates for that, but even in survey courses on British lit I don't believe there was any Kipling on the syllabus. Just a bit more than forty years after his death, and yet no mention of him.
Was he a modern giant? Well, he was awarded a Nobel Prize. His stuff is still in print and some of it has been filmed. I read The Jungle Book in fourth grade, and then went on the The Second Jungle Book (did you know there was such a thing?) and to the Just-So Stories. Great stuff, all of it, and "Shere Khan" is a great name for a great villain.
Modern English poetry means Pound and Eliot and worse. But it's well to remember that it also means Yeats and Frost. And Kipling.
Fungible is Funny
Humor is often the surest road to truth.
If you liked Economics in One Lesson, and you're tired of hearing about hybrid cars, you'll like this Dilbert bit.
Dogbert may be seen as evil by some, but he speaks truth, and he's a pretty fair economist.
"Fungible." Heh.
February 27, 2006
Good Day Sunshine
Heh.
| You Are Sunshine |
 You are often held up by others as the ideal But too much of you, and they'll get burned You are best known for: your warmth Your dominant state: connecting |
Hat tip: Gus Van Horn)
February 26, 2006
The New, Improved Seven Wonders of the World
Pejman Yousefzadeh alerts us to candidates for new Seven Wonders of the World; in fact, you can vote for your preferred nominations here. Novelty nominations on the order of How did anyone ever find out that Dolly Parton has great legs? or Why does anyone think we still give a shit about the Rolling Stones? are, presumably, not welcome.
Going by criteria of "How in the heck did they do that?" has me going with 15, 16, and 18; by beauty, 8 and 19.
Do they all deserve some kind of vote? Sure.
The Virtuous Egoist
Wow, Tara Smith has another book coming out on the ethical concepts of Ayn Rand. Cambridge University Press is to bring it out, and it's title is Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics: The Virtuous Egoist. I look forward to this one. Here's an excerpt:
The heart of the book consists in an elaboration of seven major virtues. Chapter 3 examines what Rand regards as the principal, overarching virtue, rationality. I begin by clarifying Rand’s understanding of what a virtue is, given that some of her formulations may sound at odds with contemporary accounts. In the end, her conception is compatible with the prevalent characterization of virtue as a disposition to act or feel in certain ways, though Rand especially emphasizes virtues as types of action that reflect recognition of facts about the most basic demands of life.Rationality is the acceptance of reason as one’s only source of knowledge and fundamental guide to action. I will explain Rand’s view of what reason is to show how a rational person is guided exclusively by the evidence of his senses and by logical inferences from that evidence. Rationality consists in a deliberate policy of grounding one’s thinking in the way things are, as best as one can discern through the exercise of his perceptual and conceptual capacities. Essentially, rationality consists of fidelity to facts.
We can appreciate why rationality is a moral virtue by reminding ourselves of the reason for having morality and for considering anything a moral virtue: survival. Rationality is the fundamental means by which human beings can maintain and advance our lives. Our more specific needs can be satisfied only through what is, at root, rational action (occasional flukes aside). Because things in external reality are what they are independently of an individual’s thoughts or wishes about them, because we control whether and how we use our minds, and because, as fallible beings, our beliefs are not automatically correct, human beings must exert a concerted effort to base the thinking that guides our actions on the way the world actually is. This is what rationality enables us to do.
Looks good, and I hope it does well -- although, selling at textbook price as it will, that might be tough. Anyway, I can also happily recommend Dr. Smith's lecture The Value of Purpose.
(And Hugh Akston is listed in the index!)
(Hat tip on the book: Gus Van Horn)
Toonophobia!
Nicholas Provenzo links to this outstanding color cartoon by Cox and Forkum, "Toonophobia."
Obviously, such a thing as toonophobia has been proven to exist. And just as obvious is that it can be fatal. Funny thing is, it's not exposure to toonophobia itself which proves fatal, but unfortunate exposure to those who have toonophobia themselves. Epidemiologists, take note.
Bikinis Over Burkas
Hell, yes.
Glenn Reynolds got that title from Hugh Hewitt. I like it, too.
She's been called the "Muslim Madonna." Yes, it means what you think it means. And she's received death threats because of it, too.
I know you're shocked.
Check out her video, here. Actually it's a pretty good song. The duct tape images are effective in making her point. Take a look at some of the other links, too (including lyrics).
Yeah, Deeyah's a babe. She's also a free speech hero.
Sunday afternoon in the snow
Massachusetts wants to make certain I understand what the phrase "New England winter" means, so I'm holed up in a hotel room while the weather gods play outside. Okay, put this in the "I just couldn't resist" file, but, courtesy largely of The Corner, we present a few alternate takes on Brokeback Mountain. I haven't seen that one, by the way, and a few people I respect report that it's quite moving...but these are funny:
Star Wars: The Empire Brokeback
Hey, at least I never posted my "Top Ten Rejected Titles for Brokeback Mountain." No, you really don't want to know.
Nor have I jumped into the fray over the controversy about Dubai City Rollers...
Afghan "Students" Display Innovation
I guess you already know what they say about doing the same thing over and over while expecting a different result. Well, it seems that some "students" in Afghanistan are a bit put out over those Danish cartoons, and they're crying that if they keep being provoked, why, they're just gonna up and join al-Quaeda:
"If they abuse the Prophet of Islam again we will all become al Qaeda," the students shouted.
Two weeks ago in Afghanistan, at least 10 people were killed in several days of protests over the cartoons but violent demonstrations there have largely petered out.
Yeah, all of the "students" in Afghanistan. Somehow I doubt that many of them are students of the Cavalier poets or differential geometry...although I imagine quite a few of them enjoy first-hand familiarity with the differential geometry of post-explosion buildings and vehicles.
So, (sigh) go ahead, boys. Knock yourselves out. It's done so much for your culture, and your country, in the past.
February 24, 2006
Bush and Carter: Brothers under the Skin
Dr. Michael Hurd quotes this news bit about former president Jimmy Carter:
... 'My presumption is, and my belief is, that the president and his secretary of state and the Defense Department and others have adequately cleared the Dubai government organization to manage these [American] ports,' Carter told CNN. "I don't think there's any particular threat to our security.'"
Let's not dwell on the actual security aspects of this, even though we're dealing with Mr."Inordinate Fear of Communism" himself.
Instead, let me offer something not mentioned by Dr. Hurd: why should we even take Carter at his word? He has rarely "presumed" that any of his successors are doing anything right, or even minimally ethical. So now he "presumes" and "believes" that George W. Bush, along with key members of his administration, are doing just okey-dokey on the Dubai-ports thing? And we're to believe him? Is there a reason anyone still grants this guy any credibility at all?
Hurd supports the title of his piece with his conclusion:
Inconsistency in ideas must sooner or later evolve into consistency. Contradictions cannot be sustained forever. George W. Bush is moving towards consistency. And we can see which direction he's heading.
(Dr. Hurd compared Bush to his predecessor Clinton here.)
UPDATE: John Derbyshire on Jimmy Carter's book on "values:"
It is the little things that stick in the mind, those transient items that show up on an inside-page paragraph of one’s newspaper for a day or two, then vanish, forgotten by everyone else but oneself. Here is one of those oddities from the Carter years. In mid-September 1980 a Russian soldier sought refuge in the U.S. embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan. Astoundingly — this, please remember, was nine months into the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, a geostrategic event of the first magnitude — there was no one at the embassy who could understand Russian. After a few days, during which the air in the embassy must have been well-nigh crystalline with embarrassment, a deal was struck — no doubt “assurances” were given — and the unfortunate squaddie was returned to the tender care of the Soviet military authorities. I often wonder what became of him. Better not to know, perhaps.
No shit.
February 23, 2006
Gregg Valentino's Arms Explode, Again. Uh, Or Not.
And they never exploded the first damn time, either, despite what you've been told.
Okay, so tonight I watched that TLC program about Gregg Valentino again, the one I discussed here. My god...anyway, a few more observations.
Steve Michalik tells his interviewer that "we [the bodybuilders of his era] were being used, basically, as guinea pigs." Sorry, Steve, but no, you weren't. Doctors and athletes knew that anabolic steroids had certain effects, and certain side effects. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Larry Scott and Dave Draper did, too, and that's why they took them. You, too.
We're also told that by the time Michalik's "steroid journey" was over, he was left with the testosterone level of a prepubescent girl. Okay. But you didn't tell me about his "journey," did you? As in, what did he take, in what doses, under what circumstances, and for how long? I'm no physician, nor a biochemist, but is this kind of thing at all credible reporting? I'll tell you one other thing I'm not: I'm not anti-Michalik, either. The guy had a fantastic physique in the 70s -- better than I'll ever have -- and he looks pretty damn good now. But is he knowledgeable enough, or qualified enough, to attribute all of his health problems to his steroid use in the 1970s? Wouldn't some discussion of his family/genetic background have been useful -- or would it have gotten in the way of the agenda of the program's producers?
Michalik mentions onscreen that heart attacks and heart surgery "happened" to "many bodybuilders." But none are named. Not one. Again, I have to wonder why. We all know about Schwarzenegger's surgery and about the deaths of the Mentzer brothers -- but those instances have all been explained, by the physicians involved, as something that ran in those families, not as having resulted from steroid use (Schwarzenegger and Mike and Ray Mentzer all used anabolic steroids during their careers as professional bodybuilders, and admitted to doing so). So who are the "many?" Well, if we're to depend on the people who brought us this show, we're not to know.
One segment goes from Dr. Harrison Pope's "what if" as far as the effects of steroid usage long-term, to the narrator saying long term use of large doses...yeah, well, we'll never know, will we? 'Cause it's illegal to find out! Come on, guys. Doing such research on athletic use of anabolic steroids is ILLEGAL, so where is such knowledge, long-term or otherwise, going to come from? Huh? No answer there, drug warriors?
Later in the show, Dr. Pope informs us that "My guess" is that guys taking large amounts are more likely to have bad effects on their health, later in life. His guess. Damn...Good thing guessing isn't illegal, eh, Dr. Pope?
The show's narrator, to end a segment, tells us that Gregg Valentino took so many steroids that his arms "fought back"
When the program returns after commercial messages, the narrator reminds us that "Steroids destroyed Gregg Valentino's body," and that he took so many steroids "his body finally fought back. His bicep exploded."
Bullshit: and this is not only bullshit in the sense of being wrong, but of being a lie. Anyone watching the program would have seen and heard -- and the program's writers and producers had to have known -- Valentino's own explanation of what happened, as I repeated here.
Ah, well, tabloid television -- and it appears that The Learning Channel has descended to that level -- loves a morality play. This particular Jerry Springer of "educational" TV tells us of Gregg Valentino: "He paid a price for his steroid use." The hell he did. He paid a price for his own unsanitary habits -- which he admitted to onscreen -- and for the illegality of dealing steroids (that is, of being willing and able to sell people something they wanted to buy).
You may not like Valentino. Tough shit. You may not like sports or physique enhancement by chemical means. But tell me what that has to do with the actual effect of synthetic testosterone. Until you can, I stand by everything I wrote here and here -- which includes my conclusion that damn near everything in this program was bullshit.
February 20, 2006
A Day for the Indispensable Man
I'm in New England for a few weeks on business, and I noticed something in the television commercials: mention of Washington's Birthday (these were Toyota commercials, and I don't recall hearing the term in El Paso).
Today's holiday is generally referred to as President's Day, something I've long thought one of those Richard Nixon-created monstrosities, along with SALT I and II, the EPA, wage and price controls, and whatnot. But things are not always what they seem, and I read this in John Miller's comment (he's quoting Matthew Spalding of the Heritage Foundation on The Corner:
The third Monday in February has come to be known - wrongly - as President's Day. ... Although it was celebrated as early as 1778, and by the early 19th century was second only to the Fourth of July as a patriotic holiday, Congress did not officially recognize Washington's Birthday as a national holiday until 1870. The Monday Holiday Law in 1968--applied to executive branch departments and agencies by Richard Nixon's Executive Order 11582 in 1971--moved the holiday from February 22 to the third Monday in February. Section 6103 of Title 5, United States Code, currently designates that legal federal holiday as "Washington's Birthday." Contrary to popular opinion, no action by Congress or order by any President has changed "Washington's Birthday" to "President's Day."
Readers of this blog will know that I do not celebrate the presidencies of Woodrow Wilson, either of the Roosevelts, or Jimmy Carter (for starters; I'm not on the Lincoln or Bush bandwagons, either), and I've been known to bitch about Richard Nixon's designation of "President's Day." But, fair is fair, and if he really didn't do it, then I'm back to blaming him for not getting a raise in my allowance out of my old man back in the day. And the EPA, of course. But, given that you should read the whole thing, let's let Spalding have the last word:
Several times, legislators have introduced legislation to direct all federal government entities to refer to the holiday as George Washington's Birthday. Better yet: the President could issue an executive order that, in one stroke of the pen, would not only enforce the law, but also remind all Americans that this George W - George Washington, that is - still deserves to be "first in the hearts of his countrymen."
February 19, 2006
Fatwas or Free Speech
Leonard Peikoff wrote these words in 1989, in response to the Ayatollah Khomeini's fatwa against Salman Rushdie:
A religious motive does not excuse murder, it makes the crime more dangerous. It took the West centuries to move from medieval mysticism to the Enlightenment, and thereby discover the only safeguard against endless, bloody, religious warfare: the recognition of man's inalienable right to think and speak as he chooses. Civilization depends on reason; freedom means the freedom to think, then act accordingly; the rights of free speech and a free press implement the sovereignty of reason over brute force. If civilized existence is to be possible, the right of the individual to exercise his rational faculty must be inviolable.The ultimate target of the Ayatollah, as of all mystics, is not a particular "blasphemy," but reason itself, along with its cultural and political expressions: science, the Industrial Revolution, the American Revolution. If the assault succeeds, the result will be an Age of Unreason -- a new Dark Ages. As Ayn Rand wrote in Philosophy: Who Needs It, in her prescient 1960 essay "Faith and Force: The Destroyers of the Modern World":
"The conflict of reason versus mysticism is the issue of life or death--or freedom or slavery--or progress or stagnant brutality. . . . Reason is the only objective means of communication and of understanding among men; when men deal with one another by means of reason, reality is their objective standard and frame of reference. But when men claim to possess supernatural means of knowledge, no persuasion, communication or understanding is possible."
(Note: Philosophy: Who Needs It is worth a purchase and a read both for "Faith and Force: The Destroyers of the Modern World" and for the title essay, which was originally delivered as a speech to a graduating class at West Point.)
Peikoff goes on to make a point which could have been written about today's furore over the Danish cartoons about Muhammad:
Many people have denounced the Ayatollah's threats, but have then undercut their own stand by offering apologies to those whose "sensibilities" the book has "offended." No apology is necessary. No creed, Islamic or otherwise, which leads to "holy terror" can demand respect from civilized men.
Whether Rushdie's book in particular is good or evil, noble or depraved, is now irrelevant. Once death is threatened, there is only one issue to discuss and defend: an individual's right to speak, whether anyone or everyone likes what he says or not. "Blasphemy" violates no one's rights. Those who feel insulted do not have to listen to or read the insults. In defending religious liberty, Jefferson observed that "the operations of the mind" must not be made "subject to the coercion of the laws," adding:
"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."
But those agitating and rioting over the cartoons -- cartoons -- aren't talking about picking pockets or breaking legs: they're talking about executions and beheadings. And they sure as hell aren't talking about rights.
The problem is, many of those you would expect to speak out in defense of human rights aren't doing so, either.
Testosterone: Training, Diet, and Babes
A site I check out every day is Testosterone Nation, and one item I read there is Chris Shugart's Blog. The other day he posted something called his hurried man's guide to diet. A few selections:
* Eat smaller amounts of healthy foods often. Never be starved. Never be stuffed.
* Fats are good, but eat mostly healthy ones with omega-3s and stuff. There's a difference between fish oil and grease.
* You know all that junk food and fast food you eat? You know it works against your physique goals, right? So stop eating it. Control yourself. Have some pride. Stop acting like a stray dog who eats whatever is dropped on the ground without even sniffing it.
Not content to rest there, Chris followed up with another hurried man's guide, this time dealing with training:
* Recovery: You're probably not paying enough attention to it.
* Be aggressive without sacrificing form. Do not just "go through the motions." Strain, sweat, focus, suck wind.
* If you're a fat guy who can bench a lot because the bar only has to travel two inches down to your tittie-pecs, then don't brag about your bench press max.
* If you can do a lot of pull-ups because you weigh 115 pounds, then we don't want to hear about that either.
Two of Chris' tips point back to the topic of diet:
* Don't take diet advice from fat guys.
* The best ab training exercise involves pushing yourself away from the dinner table.
Finally, a wise approach to integrating weight training with cardiovascular work:
* Cardio: Do a little. Not a lot. Jogging for miles? No. Do sprints, intervals, or strive to increase NEPA (non-exercise physical activity.)
* Sex = Best. NEPA. Ever.
And guys, you do want to check out the "Powerful Images."
Good riddance, Chairman Gresham
Statists left, right, and center -- whatever those terms may mean these days -- tend to employ the same word for freedoms they dislike. That word is "loopholes."
Alan Greenspan has long been referred to by writers in the mainstream media as a former "acolyte" or "disciple" of Ayn Rand. There are, even today, those who both call themselves Objectivists and profess admiration for the job Greenspan has done as Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board. It is difficult to imagine why.
From a USA Today story, published near the end of Greenspan's term of office: "In a letter released late Wednesday, Greenspan urged Congress to close a regulatory loophole that lets businesses own an Industrial Loan Corporation (ILC), a type of bank operated for specific purposes, such as processing payments."
Lovely word, loopholes, and Greenspan likes it:
The exemption allows the corporate owners of these industrial loan companies to avoid the regulatory requirements that apply to corporate owners of other types of insured banks overseen by the Federal Reserve, said Greenspan. He found this troubling.
"The character, powers and ownership of ILCs have changed materially since Congress first enacted the ILC exemption. These changes are undermining the prudential framework that Congress has carefully crafted and developed for the corporate owners of other full-service banks," Greenspan wrote.
"Importantly, these changes also threaten to remove Congress' ability to determine the direction of our nation's financial system with regard to the mixing of banking and commerce and the appropriate framework of prudential supervision," he said.
These crucial decisions should be made after careful deliberations in Congress, Greenspan said. "They should not be made through the expansion and exploitation of a loophole that is available to only one type of institution chartered in a handful of states," he wrote.
Quick questions: do you really believe that Congress has "carefully crafted" anything other than their own reelections? Do you really think that Greenspan believes this? Do you really think that he regards them as prudent, as in capable of "prudential supervision" or anything like it?
So that's how Greenspan bowed out: by asking for yet more regulation of the US economy. Let's compare that to Greenspan the acolyte, shall we? A Greenspan article, "The Assault on Integrity," was published in The Objectivist Newsletter in its August 1963 issue:
Government regulation is not an alternative means of protecting the consumer. It does not build quality into goods, or accuracy into information. Its sole "contribution" is to substitute force and fear for incentive as the "protector" of the consumer. The euphemisms fo government press releases to the contrary notwithstanding, the basis of regulation is armed force. At the bottom of the endless pile of paper work which characterizes all regulation lies a gun. What are the results?
To paraphrase Gresham's Law: bad "protection" drives out good. The attempt to protect the consumer by force undercuts the protection he gets from incentive. First, it undercuts the value of reputation by placing the reputable company on the same basis as the unknown, the newcomer, or the fly-by-nighter. It declares, in effect, that all are equally suspect and that years of evidence to the contrary do not free a man from that suspicion. Second, it grants an automatic (though, in fact, unachievable) guarantee of safety to the products of any company that complies with its artbitrarily set minimum standards. The value of a reputation rested on the fact that it was necessary for the consumers to exercise judgment in the choice of the goods and services they purchased. The government's "guarantee" undermines this necessity; it declares to the consumers, in effect, that no choice or judgment is required -- and that a company's record, its years of achievement, is irrelevant.
Which Greenspan makes more sense: the "acolyte" of 1963, or the walking, talking example of Gresham's Law of 2006? In light of what we know about markets, human behavior, law and legislation and regulation, and everything else, which Greenspan makes more sense?
Who acted first in the case of Enron and Arthur Anderson: government regulators, or investors and markets?
But don't take my word for it: financial professionals, those not sucking on the federal teat, can see Greenspan for what he's done:
Back when times were relative prosperous under Greenspan (mid-1999) – when he should have quit while he was ahead – an editorialist for The New York Times wrote an op-ed piece titled “Who Needs Gold When We Have Greenspan?” He noted, correctly, that the gold price had been declining for many years (to below $300/ounce), that both inflation and unemployment rates were low and falling, while the U.S. economy and stocks were rising robustly. All true. But the editorialist took that to mean Greenspan was far better as a “standard” for the dollar than the gold standard ever was or could be. How wrong he was. That same month (May 1999) Greenspan was hatching his plot to raise the Fed Funds rate, invert the yield curve, smash stock prices and push the U.S. into recession – to slay “irrational exuberance” and force everyone else to live by his preferred sentiments: dour pessimism and malevolence. Ignoring the message from gold, Greenspan helped destroy trillions of dollars of business wealth. And now the gold price is twice as high as it was then, while U.S. stock prices remain lower and the yield curve is again inverted – signaling yet more trouble in 2006-2007.
In a farewell cocktail party at the Fed on his last day Greenspan sanctimoniously told his colleagues: “We are in charge of the nation’s currency. The central bank, because of that, is involved in everyone’s daily lives. We are the guardians of their purchasing power.” By then Greenspan had entirely lost his honesty and integrity – if not also his mind. This was the man universally acclaimed for his astute knowledge of the data. Yet during his tenure the U.S. Consumer Price Index rose from 114 to 198. The reciprocals of these numbers provide a rough measure of the dollar’s power to purchase a representative basket of goods. Fact: the dollar’s purchasing power declined 43% on Greenspan’s watch. No such thing ever happened under the gold standard. Why did he never mention this? No central banker – least of all Alan Greenspan – has ever served as the “guardian” of the purchasing power of the currency he issues. He’s the proverbial fox guarding the henhouse.
Only gold can preserve a currency’s value. Greenspan’s track record at the Fed was nowhere near as good as gold’s – because the dollar itself wasn’t as good as gold under Greenspan. He made sure of that. He refused to foreswear policy arbitrariness; instead, he reveled in it – and in the encomiums. That he never lifted a finger to restore a gold-based dollar, let alone a gold-based monetary policy – despite knowledge of its virtues – was his main vice. The question we should be asking today is the reverse of the one posed by The New York Times editorialist: “Who Needs Greenspan (or Bernanke) When We have Gold?”
I urge you to read all of Salsman's piece, and to follow the links he provides. He provides real perspective on the man who once wrote an article called "Gold and Economic Freedom (The Objectivist, July 1966)." Pay attention to a comment such as, "The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves," and then remember Salsman's statement that Chairman Gresham Greenspan "never lifted a finger to restore a gold-based dollar, let alone a gold-based monetary policy." He knew what he was doing.
Let's hear from Acolyte Greenspan (vintage 1963) one more time:
The hallmark of collectivists is their deep-rooted distrust of freedom and of the free-market processes; but it is their advocacy of so-called "consumer protection" that exposes the nature of their basic premises with particular clarity. By preferring force and fear to incentive and reward as a means of human motivation, they confess their view of man as a mindless brute functioning on the range of the moment, whose actual self-nterest lies in "flying-by-night" and making "quick kills." They confess their ignorance of the role of intelligence in the production process, of the wide intellectual context and long-range vision required to maintain a modern industry. They confess their inability to grasp the crucial importance of the moral values which are the motive power of capitalism. Capitalism is based on self-interest and self-esteem; it holds integrity and trustworthiness as cardinal virtues and makes them pay off by means of virtues, not of vices. It is this superlatively moral system that the welfare statists propose to improve upon by means of preventive law, snooping bureaucrats, and the chronic goad of fear.
That, ladies and gentlemen, is evidence of serious corruption and decline: what the Greenspan of the 1960s accurately pegged as "force and fear," the Greenspan of 2006 lauds as "prudence."
Better get to work plugging those loopholes.
I could be an object in space
With which SF crew would I be most comfortable?
 | You scored as Serenity (Firefly). You like to live your own way and donâ t enjoy when anyone but a friend tries to tell you should do different. Now if only the Reavers would quit trying to skin you.
Your Ultimate Sci-Fi Profile II: which sci-fi crew would you best fit in? (pics) created with QuizFarm.com |
Well, Serenity does have the babes...
(Hat tip: Stephen Green)
Viruses spread to Mac platform
Traditionally, the assumption was that the better graphic user interface was found on the Macintosh platform, while the more talented writers of viruses and Trojan horses devoted their attention to Windows. Sounds like a livable arrangement to me (I do prefer the Mac).
Alas, the real world does intrude, and as a frequent Windows XP user, I have to say that I find it pretty good, and even pretty Mac-like. I also have to pass on word, from this Washington Post story, that Macs aren't invulnerable to malware, either:
A rare piece of malicious software targeting Apple's Mac OS X operating system -- instead of the more common victim, Microsoft Windows -- has been spotted online and appears to be spreading. Like many computer viruses, the bug lures people to click on it by posing as something else, in this case a file containing a picture of the next-generation Apple operating system.
The malicious software causes computer programs to crash and transmits itself through an instant message program for the Mac called iChat. To get infected, users must download the file, called "latestpics.tgz," and install it on their computer. Infected computers will then automatically attempt to send the program to all contacts on the infected user's "buddy list."
Now, I'm almost tempted to say that by now, anyone who opens an attachment from a source they're not familiar with deserves what they get -- almost, but not quite. Nobody, no computer user, deserves that kind of treatment. Fortunately, it appears that Windows still attracts the virus writers and Macs are still being attacked by the B-team:
One software expert who examined the bug's code yesterday downplayed its author's programming abilities as "lame."
"Whoever wrote this isn't particularly skillful," said Andrew Welch, president of Ambrosia Software Inc., a firm that develops programs for Macs. "It's not a very viral virus, I'll put it that way."
Welch examined the code and tested it on a few computers. He said the "malware" failed to work on most of the machines he tried to infect with it.
Heh, I've known programmers like that in the corporate world...
Vincent Weafer, senior director of Symantec Corp. security response, called the bug "a proof of concept."
"Many Mac users feel they don't have to worry about viruses and following security best practices," he said. "I think we're absolutely likely to see a lot more attacks."
"Proof of concept." Ah, so there appear to be, ahem, PC viruses on Macs...
But Vincent Weafer is correct, I fear: there is more to come for Mac users. Probably for iPod users, too.
I'm not the most sophisticated computer user, but I did spend a few hours last week with a corporate IT guy, who gave me the following pointers, some obvious, some new to me:
1. Keep your anti-virus software updated.
2. Install anti-spyware software and keep that updated, too.
3. Run both anti-virus and anti-spyware programs frequently.
4. Windows users: never, ever close a pop-up window by clicking that 'X' in the upper right corner: too many of them have been reprogrammed by malware writers. Instead, right-click and use the "Close" command.
5. As much as you can, avoid gliding your mouse over advertisements, pop-up or otherwise. Far too many of them are not simply innocent ads.
Make Mine Muhammad!
Aeon Skoble (in the NoodleFood comments) hurls the charge of blasphemy against Paul Hsieh, a guilt which I probably share.
For what it's worth, here's my take on Muhammad trying to please a (probably Western) woman:
(((:~0~>
For more Muhammad emoticons, check NoodleFood.
February 13, 2006
The Show with Exploding Logic
I really think the only reason professional media people have for bashing white supremacists and UFO abductees is because that's the only way they can feel superior to anyone else. Generally, concern for a rigorous process of reasoning is given a pretty low priority -- and especially when the subject is any sort of illegal drug. Lately, it seems, the favorites are meth and steroids.
Case in point: tonight, on The Learning Channel, I watched a program with the (ahem) attention-grabbing title "The Man with Exploding Arms," which according to this schedule should be rebroadcast on the 23rd and 24th of this month. The narrator kept referring to the medical problems experienced by former bodybuilder and heavy, heavy steroid user Gregg Valentino. His arms, we're told, exploded because of Valentino's use of anabolic steroids.
Valentino himself tells the real story on camera: he was careless with needles, by using them more than once each, for example, and by using needles even after he'd dropped them on the floor. Uh oh. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that Valentino is risking infection by such practices (he admits that such behavior was idiotic). Well, one arm did get infected. That's when it exploded, right? Not quite.
Valentino figured that he could take care of his infected arm himself: puncture that swollen bicep, excess blood and pus flow out or are drawn out, abscess is drained, problem solved. Right. He finally went to the ER and had a doctor take care of his infection and his arm, but...
Where's the steroid connection? What well-known anabolic or androgenic effect of these drugs caused Valentino's infection? What little-known effect are we talking about? What side effect? For that matter, which steroid?
Other segments included Steve Michalik, former competitive bodybuilder and steroid user, who blames his cancer, heart attack, and stroke all on steroid use. I can't possibly know, of course, and perhaps the producers or editors of the show made Michalik look bad, but he claims that he competed, won some titles, then went to Europe and finally tried steroids -- and yet in this interview, he says his doctor gave him samples of Dianabol and then recommended injecting Deca, after which he went to Europe. Am I just being too picky here? I don't think so, because it's a matter of credibility: in another scene, Michalik is shown working with some younger athletes, presumably bodybuilders-in-training, and he's shouting at them, "You don't need doze steroids!" But it depends, of course, on what one means by "need." The guys he was training looked pretty good. Excellent physiques. But not comparable to a professional bodybuilder of today.
You needn't agree that pro bodybuilders today look better than Steve Reeves did in his day (I don't). But to say that a young man can get there today, get to be a bodybuilding professional, without the use of steroids, is to be either delusional or dishonest.
If former steroid users such as Lyle Alzado or Steve Michalik wish they'd never used anabolic steroids, that's one thing. And such drugs do, of course, have side effects, as do all drugs (ask your liver how it likes Tylenol). But to blame all subsequent health problems, war in the Middle East, planetary misalignment, and the designated hitter on steroid use is ridiculous, and outrageously so.
You may find Gregg Valentino's physique development repulsive (you can read and interview with him, and see some photographs of him, here). That's fine. Maybe you dislike the very idea of performance-enhancing drugs. Okay. But this show was insulting, and its very title should cause it to be condemned as fraud. And not even a very slick fraud, at that.
February 12, 2006
Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali
Diana Hsieh refers us to this interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali. I'll quote the same bit Diana chose to quote, because there's more to be said on it:
SPIEGEL: What should the appropriate European response look like?
Hirsi Ali: There should be solidarity. The cartoons should be displayed everywhere. After all, the Arabs can't boycott goods from every country. They're far too dependent on imports. And Scandinavian companies should be compensated for their losses. Freedom of speech should at least be worth that much to us.
SPIEGEL: But Muslims, like any religious community, should also be able to protect themselves against slander and insult.
Hirsi Ali: That's exactly the reflex I was just talking about: offering the other cheek. Not a day passes, in Europe and elsewhere, when radical imams aren't preaching hatred in their mosques. They call Jews and Christians inferior, and we say they're just exercising their freedom of speech. When will the Europeans realize that the Islamists don't allow their critics the same right? After the West prostrates itself, they'll be more than happy to say that Allah has made the infidels spineless.
I agree with most of what she says here: an Arab-Muslim boycott of all European countries would mean a return to the seventh century for most of the boycotting nations, if not worse. So, true, it's not likely to happen.
But compensating Scandinavian companies for those losses? No, I can't see it. They are taking a chance by doing business with those societies which place, let's be frank here, a lower priority on rationality and human rights and just simple respect. Yes, freedom of speech is worth a lot to those of us in the west -- but why should we bail out those companies for their losses? None of them asked me before they took that risk.
Her statement that the Islamists don't allow their critics the right to exercise freedom of speech deserves more emphasis, too. Try starting a Christian radio station in Saudi Arabia. Or an Objectivist one, for that matter. But we're supposed to be "tolerant" and "sensitive."
Which is bullshit. Not to put too fine a point on it, but we've been kissing their asses and have been for years. As she puts it, "the West prostrates itself." I've no desire to foment a war -- of any sort -- with the entire Muslim world, but we damn sure should defend ourselves when one is declared on us.
"Statism is extremely hazardous to your health"
I went out with a girl who, as does the state legislature in Maryland, despises Wal-Mart: it's causing mom and pop shops to go out of business, it has been documented that its employees make somewhat less per month than Donald Trump, poor people are sacrificed on the roofs at midnight, yadda yadda yadda. You've heard the same lines I have. Of course, she buys all of her hair care products at Wal-Mart, but hey, she saves money that way.
I bring up Maryland because Jamie Smith Hopkins of the Baltimore Sun brought it up while interviewing Objectivist philosopher Andrew Bernstein:
What do you think of Maryland's new law requiring Wal-Mart to pay 8 percent of its payroll on worker health care?
It's immoral as hell. In a free society, the government has no moral right to force any individual, any honest individual, to do anything.
More on labor unions, outsourcing, and why capitalism is the moral system as you read the whole thing.
Majority Rules?
What's the perfect major for me?
Well, Catherine Bell, actually, would have been the first thing crossing my mind. But as for a course of studies, I can't argue with this:
You scored as English. You should be an English major! Your passion lies in writing and expressing yourself creatively, and you hate it when you are inhibited from doing so. Pursue that interest of yours!
Philosophy
100% English
100% Linguistics
100% Journalism
100% Psychology
92% Dance
75% Theater
75% Anthropology
75% Engineering
75% Mathematics
67% Sociology
67% Art
58% Chemistry
42% Biology
25%
What is your Perfect Major? (PLEASE RATE ME!!<3)
created with QuizFarm.com