This video makes for an interesting watch. Lawrence O'Donnell does a pretty good job trying to get Herman Cain to look bad or make a statement that he would regret, but seriously I think the MSNBC host just caused Herman Cain to shine brighter.
Although Cain gives a few answers that seem to dance around the questions, he largely hits O'Donnell's questions right on and also attacks the reasoning that O'Donnell seems to be using in his questions. This candidate makes O'Donnell look like an idiot... it's too funny.
Saturday, October 8, 2011
Thursday, September 22, 2011
Two Monitors
Just updating the world... I officially have a dual monitor setup. It's amazing how handy a second one proves to be. I can't see how I got along with only one before this.
Saturday, September 17, 2011
Who Can Write?
I find myself pondering a question on the eve of trying out for the LeTourneau Yellow Jacket. Specifically, I intend to become a freelance writer for them. I have a problem though... the school newspaper is so bad, do I want to associate myself with them?
Don't get me wrong. I am not that pompous. I simply wonder that if by writing for the Yellow Jacket I will also become one of those school paper writers who are quietly dismissed and pitied as oblivious and amateur writers (oblivious to their amateurishness). Or, maybe that thought was unique to my mind.
Why do I hate reading the articles in the school newspaper so much?
I think it's because they sound just as if the writer were there talking to you. This may be a desirable attribute to some when they are consuming reading material, but if I want this, I can just go talk to someone. When I want to read about things at LeTourneau, I want to read poetry!
Oh, it's LeTourneau...
Don't get me wrong. I am not that pompous. I simply wonder that if by writing for the Yellow Jacket I will also become one of those school paper writers who are quietly dismissed and pitied as oblivious and amateur writers (oblivious to their amateurishness). Or, maybe that thought was unique to my mind.
Why do I hate reading the articles in the school newspaper so much?
I think it's because they sound just as if the writer were there talking to you. This may be a desirable attribute to some when they are consuming reading material, but if I want this, I can just go talk to someone. When I want to read about things at LeTourneau, I want to read poetry!
Oh, it's LeTourneau...
Sunday, September 4, 2011
The IQ of LeTu just bumped up a few notches.
I have renewed hope for the state of LeTourneau students. I can even say there is a bastion of cynicism on campus, above and beyond myself, that is.
Sunday, I got a chance to read a well-written paper by an honors student from cohort '10. This little essay was questioning the legitimacy of some Peterson material in a Biblical Literature class.
Thursday, I had a wonderful time at supper with a number of the Davis 1 community, the new Honors cohort this year.
Friday, I observed some of the trappings and floor life of this new Honors floor on Davis 1. I was fairly impressed by what I saw, and a little bit jealous.
This last Sunday (yesterday, technically speaking), I had one of the most stimulating conversations with fellow LeTourneau students that I have ever partaken of. You don't just have that kind of a conversation... you partake of it. And, thus I discovered another one among a handful of cynics on campus.
Sunday, I got a chance to read a well-written paper by an honors student from cohort '10. This little essay was questioning the legitimacy of some Peterson material in a Biblical Literature class.
Thursday, I had a wonderful time at supper with a number of the Davis 1 community, the new Honors cohort this year.
Friday, I observed some of the trappings and floor life of this new Honors floor on Davis 1. I was fairly impressed by what I saw, and a little bit jealous.
This last Sunday (yesterday, technically speaking), I had one of the most stimulating conversations with fellow LeTourneau students that I have ever partaken of. You don't just have that kind of a conversation... you partake of it. And, thus I discovered another one among a handful of cynics on campus.
Thursday, August 25, 2011
A Checklist
Today, I...
1. Survived my second day in Engineering Project Management class. My team turned in our project roles, and I am now the Project Manager.
2. Sat through a seminar given by a visiting Ph.D. who was being considered for the LeTourneau Chemistry/Physics department. I discovered that I knew nothing of multiscale coupling and nanometer physics before the seminar, and now I understand possibly two vague ideas about the subject.
3. Survived frisbee golf out in almost 100 degree weather for over an hour.
4. Tripped a breaker in my apartment when I was performing an electrical experiment... *ahem* I mean testing something out.
And, I feel like I have done almost nothing all day. Honestly, this is the slowest start to a semester I have ever had.
1. Survived my second day in Engineering Project Management class. My team turned in our project roles, and I am now the Project Manager.
2. Sat through a seminar given by a visiting Ph.D. who was being considered for the LeTourneau Chemistry/Physics department. I discovered that I knew nothing of multiscale coupling and nanometer physics before the seminar, and now I understand possibly two vague ideas about the subject.
3. Survived frisbee golf out in almost 100 degree weather for over an hour.
4. Tripped a breaker in my apartment when I was performing an electrical experiment... *ahem* I mean testing something out.
And, I feel like I have done almost nothing all day. Honestly, this is the slowest start to a semester I have ever had.
Wednesday, August 24, 2011
Rain, rain, rain... you know the rest.
Of the 4 days I have been in Longview Texas, it has rained 3 of those days. I conclude that Longview is a rainy location OR it is abnormally rainy in Longview for this time of year.
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
America's Sterling Monetary System
The debt limit talks/arguments/rabid war in Congress has been amusing, disturbing, and frustrating to say the least. But, I've been thinking... this whole concept of needing to raise the debt ceiling seems rather ironic.
If the money you spend is based on something you don't have, and not even something that will ever exist... what is more outrageous than that you should never break trust with what you don't have, with a fake trust? So, we need to raise the debt ceiling and say to our creditors, "No, we don't plan on paying you back yet. In fact, we're going borrow more because we have authorized ourselves to do so."
So, the way this works (and if I get my facts messed up, don't hesitate to try and correct me) is that the Treasury decides that it needs more money, so it sells these things called bonds or securities to the Federal Reserve, a private bank. These bonds represent something I guess, at least I think they do in theory. But, I really don't know.
Anyway, the Federal Reserve says, "All right, I'll take those bonds.", and gives the US Treasury X amount of money. Now, the Federal Reserve doesn't mind paying for the bonds because, well... it has a limitless supply of money. Those things you stuff in your wallet and are perhaps pinching a little more in this strained economy... they're called Federal Reserve Notes, and that is what the Federal Reserve pays the Treasury for their "valuable" bonds. When they agree to buy more bonds, they just print off another batch of "money" notes. What this means is that the US Government can get as much money as it wants from the Federal Reserve, as long as it has bonds to sell.
Now, the problem. The US Treasury is going to reach the debt limit soon and oops... it won't be able to sell any more bonds! No worries! We can just raise the debt limit, and voila! we have more bonds to sell. Just. Like. That.
But, unfortunately (depending, of course, on who you talk to), many Republicans don't feel like raising the debt limit anymore... or they at least won't do it unless we drastically cut spending and NOT raise taxes. Oh, and they want this Constitutional amendment for ensuring balanced budgets.... never mind the fact that Congress hardly pays attention to the Constitution anymore.
I don't know, I just kinda found the idea that Congress needs to allow itself to sell more thin air amusing. Also, if defaulting (not paying bills, interest payments, etc.) is bad faith with our creditors... how is borrowing more, to pay our debts (but borrowing more than we pay, nonetheless), good faith on credit?
I haven't really made up my mind whether the government should or should not raise the ceiling. I mean I am one for standing on principle, but it seems like a kind of artificial limit. Nothing more arbitrary than Congress has already done.
The reason so many conservatives are against this, I believe, is that they feel that now should be the time when America should turn from its fiscal irresponsibility. It's kind of obvious that both Republicans and Democrats have been trying to use the issue politically, though. They just can't keep their eyes off of next year's elections.
If the money you spend is based on something you don't have, and not even something that will ever exist... what is more outrageous than that you should never break trust with what you don't have, with a fake trust? So, we need to raise the debt ceiling and say to our creditors, "No, we don't plan on paying you back yet. In fact, we're going borrow more because we have authorized ourselves to do so."
So, the way this works (and if I get my facts messed up, don't hesitate to try and correct me) is that the Treasury decides that it needs more money, so it sells these things called bonds or securities to the Federal Reserve, a private bank. These bonds represent something I guess, at least I think they do in theory. But, I really don't know.
Anyway, the Federal Reserve says, "All right, I'll take those bonds.", and gives the US Treasury X amount of money. Now, the Federal Reserve doesn't mind paying for the bonds because, well... it has a limitless supply of money. Those things you stuff in your wallet and are perhaps pinching a little more in this strained economy... they're called Federal Reserve Notes, and that is what the Federal Reserve pays the Treasury for their "valuable" bonds. When they agree to buy more bonds, they just print off another batch of "money" notes. What this means is that the US Government can get as much money as it wants from the Federal Reserve, as long as it has bonds to sell.
Now, the problem. The US Treasury is going to reach the debt limit soon and oops... it won't be able to sell any more bonds! No worries! We can just raise the debt limit, and voila! we have more bonds to sell. Just. Like. That.
But, unfortunately (depending, of course, on who you talk to), many Republicans don't feel like raising the debt limit anymore... or they at least won't do it unless we drastically cut spending and NOT raise taxes. Oh, and they want this Constitutional amendment for ensuring balanced budgets.... never mind the fact that Congress hardly pays attention to the Constitution anymore.
I don't know, I just kinda found the idea that Congress needs to allow itself to sell more thin air amusing. Also, if defaulting (not paying bills, interest payments, etc.) is bad faith with our creditors... how is borrowing more, to pay our debts (but borrowing more than we pay, nonetheless), good faith on credit?
I haven't really made up my mind whether the government should or should not raise the ceiling. I mean I am one for standing on principle, but it seems like a kind of artificial limit. Nothing more arbitrary than Congress has already done.
The reason so many conservatives are against this, I believe, is that they feel that now should be the time when America should turn from its fiscal irresponsibility. It's kind of obvious that both Republicans and Democrats have been trying to use the issue politically, though. They just can't keep their eyes off of next year's elections.
Thursday, July 21, 2011
Tale of Linux Addiction: Post 1
So, ever since I installed Linux on my netbook, I don't know that I have ever booted Windows, except maybe to leave immediately. Hey, my options are Windows 7 Starter or Ubuntu 10.04... not much competition there. I have wireless internet access, touchpad control, and tons of apps and utilities to mess around with. I haven't been able to print using my Dell Laser yet, but I am not giving up on that.
I have also discovered that youTube is about as useful as any Linux forum for getting how-to information for problems. Some of the videos preclude the user from even being anything near a computer geek. There is hope yet that we may put Microsoft out of business... well, maybe we can get a few more personal users at least.
I have also discovered that youTube is about as useful as any Linux forum for getting how-to information for problems. Some of the videos preclude the user from even being anything near a computer geek. There is hope yet that we may put Microsoft out of business... well, maybe we can get a few more personal users at least.
Saturday, July 16, 2011
Science Is as Science Does
Regarding the old Creation vs. Evolution debate and what should be taught in schools...
The I.D. movement has made claims that their concepts are science... I cannot really agree.
The proponents of the Big Bang theory and macro-evolution claim that their concepts are scientifically produced... I cannot agree to that either.
What is science? Science is knowledge. The word's etymological roots are in Latin: scientia - knowledge, sciens from scire - to know. Ok, knowledge. Both intelligent design people and Big-Bangers claim to possess this knowledge.
But, as science is understood in the present day (hopefully it hasn't been changed too much to obviate this discussion), and more specifically the scientific method, science is a practice that produces knowledge gained by observation and the practical testing of theories. The way I learned about it from a wee age is that you observe some phenomenon, create a hypothesis to explain it, test this hypothesis, approve it enough to claim it as a theory, test it more, and eventually (usually post mortum) it becomes a scientific law. Voila!
Now, as far as I can understand, the I.D. people cannot claim to be practicing science. But, I am not really focusing on that now. My main intent here is to show that the evolutionary crowd and those who tout the common explanation of cosmological origins that goes in hand with evolutionary theory cannot claim to practice science either. Why? They have an explanation of origins... an idea not based on observation, or at least only observation and then a guess. An explanation not tested by practical methods at hand. Not reproducible. Not even falsifiable, as far as I am aware with our present body of knowledge.
Wait, those are the same accusations they lay at the feet of proponents of Intelligent Design. How strange?
The question looms... is origins a field in which we can actually practice science --contribute to the body of knowledge found in the study of the natural world by way of the scientific method? I kinda of doubt it. We can make guesses based on data, but they remain guesses. We can suggest explanations, but we cannot reproduce the events to test our case. So, if they only want science to be taught in the classrooms when teaching origins, they should probably just shut up altogether.
Maybe, they could include it in a philosophy course...
The I.D. movement has made claims that their concepts are science... I cannot really agree.
The proponents of the Big Bang theory and macro-evolution claim that their concepts are scientifically produced... I cannot agree to that either.
What is science? Science is knowledge. The word's etymological roots are in Latin: scientia - knowledge, sciens from scire - to know. Ok, knowledge. Both intelligent design people and Big-Bangers claim to possess this knowledge.
But, as science is understood in the present day (hopefully it hasn't been changed too much to obviate this discussion), and more specifically the scientific method, science is a practice that produces knowledge gained by observation and the practical testing of theories. The way I learned about it from a wee age is that you observe some phenomenon, create a hypothesis to explain it, test this hypothesis, approve it enough to claim it as a theory, test it more, and eventually (usually post mortum) it becomes a scientific law. Voila!
Now, as far as I can understand, the I.D. people cannot claim to be practicing science. But, I am not really focusing on that now. My main intent here is to show that the evolutionary crowd and those who tout the common explanation of cosmological origins that goes in hand with evolutionary theory cannot claim to practice science either. Why? They have an explanation of origins... an idea not based on observation, or at least only observation and then a guess. An explanation not tested by practical methods at hand. Not reproducible. Not even falsifiable, as far as I am aware with our present body of knowledge.
Wait, those are the same accusations they lay at the feet of proponents of Intelligent Design. How strange?
The question looms... is origins a field in which we can actually practice science --contribute to the body of knowledge found in the study of the natural world by way of the scientific method? I kinda of doubt it. We can make guesses based on data, but they remain guesses. We can suggest explanations, but we cannot reproduce the events to test our case. So, if they only want science to be taught in the classrooms when teaching origins, they should probably just shut up altogether.
Maybe, they could include it in a philosophy course...
Sunday, July 10, 2011
In which I share a thought or two about our nation's economics...
So, these talks are happening, and I am starting to grow a little concerned about the whole thing.
Two things come to mind from the article above. One, the US Congress surely could have started addressing this issue long before now. It seems rather short-sighted to be on a crash course of debt-reduction planning on the eve of defaulting.
Second, this idea of tax hikes or closing tax loopholes (depending on who you talk to, it seems to be referred to by either of those terms) has me confused and wondering. If these are actual tax loopholes, I am beginning to wonder at the conservative opposition to the plan. Obviously, though, I don't know the details of what these "tax loopholes" are. I have my doubts that something illegal is happening on a massive scale with these supposedly profitable businesses.
On the other hand, though, one can make an argument that, even if big businesses and banks are getting a break on taxes, this is probably better for the economy anyway. If you want liquidity and credit flow, I think your best bet for the source of that liquidity is going to be in the top-tier of earners, especially large banks and other such businesses. It seems a little ridiculous, especially when the employees of these rich companies bring in million dollar bonuses, but hey, you're going to have unequal situations in a market-driven economy.
Two things come to mind from the article above. One, the US Congress surely could have started addressing this issue long before now. It seems rather short-sighted to be on a crash course of debt-reduction planning on the eve of defaulting.
Second, this idea of tax hikes or closing tax loopholes (depending on who you talk to, it seems to be referred to by either of those terms) has me confused and wondering. If these are actual tax loopholes, I am beginning to wonder at the conservative opposition to the plan. Obviously, though, I don't know the details of what these "tax loopholes" are. I have my doubts that something illegal is happening on a massive scale with these supposedly profitable businesses.
On the other hand, though, one can make an argument that, even if big businesses and banks are getting a break on taxes, this is probably better for the economy anyway. If you want liquidity and credit flow, I think your best bet for the source of that liquidity is going to be in the top-tier of earners, especially large banks and other such businesses. It seems a little ridiculous, especially when the employees of these rich companies bring in million dollar bonuses, but hey, you're going to have unequal situations in a market-driven economy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)