
Then she ran and hid. Heh.

Of course, as with every Bloggy Award, there are A Few Rules. They are, forthwith:
Each Superior Scribbler must in turn pass The Award on to 5 most-deserving Bloggy Friends. Each Superior Scribbler must link to the author & the name of the blog from whom he/she has received The Award. Each Superior Scribbler must display The Award on his/her blog, and link to This Post, which explains The Award. Each Blogger who wins The Superior Scribbler Award must visit this post and add his/her name to the Mr. Linky List. That way, we'll be able to keep up-to-date on everyone who receives This Prestigious Honor! Each Superior Scribbler must post these rules on his/her blog.
Look, you lot - we're the smartest kids in class. Teacher said so. You you all just fall into line. Don't make me want to change my tone.Recently the American media has begun to notice the odd incongruity of saturation media coverage here which insists that global warming is both man-made and urgent, and a British public which increasingly doubts either to be true. 60 per cent of the British population now doubt the influence of humans on climate change, and more people than not think Global Warming won't be as bad "as people say".
Both figures are higher than a year ago - and the poll was taken before the non-summer of 2008, and the (latest) credit crisis.
Yet anyone looking for elected representatives to articulate these concerns will have been disappointed.
The closest thing to a British Inhofe is Ulsterman Sammy Wilson, Democratic Unionist Party, who'd wanted a "reasoned debate" on global warming, rather than bullying, and recently called environmentalism a "hysterical psuedo-religion".Sammy, here's yer "reasoned debate", you
"When the history books come to be written people will ask why were the only five MPs... who voted against this ludicrous bill," [Tory barrister Christopher Chope] said.Nah. We've seen this before. Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.
"Free Download" is Internet-speak for "open your mouth and close your eyes."Firewalls have gotten very good, at least as far as home users are concerned. They are very effective in stopping attacks that we used to see all the time. That is, they are if they're turned on. If the firewall software is disabled, then your home computer is almost certainly riddled with malware. So you should check it out, by using one of these online scanners (note: while I think Steve Gibson has an over-the-top description of what's happening, his scanner is safe and effective).
#1 son: I'm riding my bike to the library.Rock 'n' Roll. Corrupting the youth of America. As Insty would say, "Faster, please."
Me: Well done, you. What are you getting?
#1 son: Faust. By that german dude.
Me: Goethe. You get that assigned in English?
#1 son: Nah. Camelot has some cool songs about him, and so I thought I'd read it.
Me: !!!
“I am horrified that Madonna can see these shoes as fashion,” says Lyn Costello, part of the Mothers Against Murder And Aggression group (MAMAA).That said, I do think you have to give Madonna credit for the definitive rendition of "Santa Baby." Just sayin'.
So, is this a problem for you? Not if one or more of these apply to you:It’s a nasty vulnerability in the Server service that allows remote code execution without authentication. You should already be blocking TCP ports 139 and 445 at the perimeter, so nothing unusual to change on the firewall.
But this is totally wormable, requires no authentication, and allows arbitrary code execution. It’s the evil trinity of vulnerabilities. Oh, did we mention it’s being actively exploited and that’s how MS found it? This folks, is a true zero day.
Says Gallup; “Early voting ranges from 14% of voters 55 and older (in aggregated data from Friday through Wednesday) to 5% of those under age 35. Plus, another 22% of voters aged 55 and up say they plan to vote early, meaning that by Election Day, over a third of voters in this older age group may already have cast their ballots.”I've said before that I flat out don't believe the polls, because the numbers look funny when you look at them. There seem to be some assumptions that run completely counter to historical norms. We're now seeing actual results (early voting) that suggests that the historical norms are right, and the new weightings are wrong.
The last two statements are very good news for McCain and bad news for Obama. This is because it demonstrates that enthusiasm to actually vote by republicans is equal to enthusiasm to vote by democrats. This runs directly against claims made in polling up to now, demonstrating that participation in polls is not directly related to voting this year. Second, the higher participation by senior voters and weaker participation by younger voters is directly in line with historical norms, again running against the poll expectations that this year would see a wave of young people voting but seniors staying at home.
Schooling, maintains Nozick, breeds in intellectuals a sense of superiority, and with it a sense of entitlement to the highest rewards society has to offer - not just top salaries but praise comparable to that lavished on them by their teachers. After completing their formal academic training in the centralized environment of the classroom, intellectuals go forth into a seemingly chaotic capitalist society, which purports to reward individual citizens by merit but in fact applies a different standard of merit from the one imparted in the classroom.Orson Scott Card (a writer, and therefore an intellectual by definition) is sharper in his criticism, and moves from the general to the specific (as far as societal value is concerned):
So an open, capitalist society falls just short of satisfying intellectuals' sense of entitlement.
These "intellectuals" show not even the slightest sign of ever having questioned their own opinions.What is striking is the number of conservatives or small-l libertarians who used to be liberals. I am firmly in this camp, as is Lissa. If the Intellectual Class were healthy, you would expect former conservatives taking up a liberal mindset, which doesn't seem to happen almost ever.
Now, I have to regard this as the minimum standard for being regarded as a genuine intellectual -- that you have questioned your own beliefs and subjected them to rigorous tests of logic and evidence.
In the UK at the moment, we have a number of ex-Islamists bravely speaking out about the extremism they once espoused. Surprisingly, not all the criticism they have had has come from those they have “betrayed”. Some has arisen from the left, who accuse them of creating trouble, or toadying to Western interests. Perhaps it is a racist view that “brown people” shouldn’t speak out about their religion in the same way that white liberals feel free to do about their own religious backgrounds; perhaps it’s a fear of the extremists themselves; or perhaps it’s a loathing of their own society’s assumed hypocrises that leads to this sort of snidely remark from a liberal academic.The ultimate example (again, with the feminists) was the sad spectacle of Bill Clinton:
So a warning to Muslims who choose to criticize their religion or even extremist segments of it. Don’t expect to get away with the sort of thing white liberals get away with saying about Catholicism or the Church of England, because they won’t like you causing trouble.
Don’t expect solidarity or support, you will be seen as the authors of your own misfortune.
Most of all, don’t expect the snidely liberals to watch your backs.
They are so very tired of you.
Yet, when sued under that same law by a state employee for an incident that occurred when he was a governor--having a state policeman escort her to his hotel room, where he allegedly demanded oral sexual services from her--he brazenly declared that the law didn't apply to him. Fortunately, the Supreme Court ruled otherwise.Too often, "debate" is little more than a middle-school level name calling, like "Bush Lied." Card again:
And when the law suit progressed, he not only lied under oath, but suborned perjury from others, both through bribes, and through threats, both direct and relayed through others, to prevent her from getting a fair hearing in court. It came out that he had not only engaged in the incident for which he was being sued, but had also indulged in sexual activity with another extreme subordinate, on company time at the work place, and (as the most powerful man in the world) exposed himself to potential blackmail through this reckless behavior.
When they trumpet examples of Republican "lies," they usually turn out to be in the following categories:His final point is correct, but does not address why they act like they do:
1. Statements that turn out to be wrong, though they were believed to be right at the time they were spoken. (In the rational world, we call these "mistakes.")
2. Statements that interpret legitimate data in ways that support the Republican view. (In the rational world, we call these "differences of opinion.")
Statements that point out obvious contradictions between what the Democratic candidates say and what they have said and done in the past. These are called "negative campaigning" and "mudslinging" and "distortions" and, of course, "lies," but these countercharges are offered instead of coherent explanations.
What I find from most self-styled "intellectuals" in American public life is a laziness so profound as to be frightening. These are our opinion leaders and university professors? Have they forgotten that "the never-doubted opinion is not worth speaking"?Have they forgotten? Of course not (remember, they aced the final). So why do they act like this? A marketing person would say that they're damaging the brand. We certainly see this with the public's reaction to the media: By 5-to-1 Public Thinks Media Trying To Elect Obama. Chart the New York Times share price over the last 5 years and you'll see the downside of what they are doing. Perhaps the most important intellectual tool I learned in Economics, was qui bono? When something doesn't look rational, ask yourself "who benefits"? This is the key to the mystery.
I have encountered entire academic fields that have been effectivelyOK, so professors are dumb pointy-headed pinkos. So what.
destroyed by Left politics, in the sense that they can no
longer talk about anything other than power relations. Postmodern
literary criticism is only the most obvious example; for that matter,
postmodernist anything is reliably a nihilist swamp obsessed
with ‘agendas’ and ‘power relations’ to the exclusion of its
ostensible subject matter.
Here’s one that affects me particularly: the damage done to
cultural anthropology has been horrific, with the perverse effect of
making my amateur and tentative essays in it look far stronger than
they would have if the field were actually healthy.
Well, you filled up my head with so many lies.
You twisted my heart till somethin' snapped inside.
I'd like to give it one more try,
But my give-a-damn's busted.
You can crawl back home, say you were wrong;
Stand out in the yard and cry all night long.
Well, go ahead and water the lawn:
My give-a-damn's busted.
I really wanna care.
I wanna feel somethin'.
Let me dig a little deeper:.
No, sorry: nothin'.
You can say you've got issues, you can say you're a victim.
It's all your parents fault, after all you didn't pick 'em.
Maybe somebody else has got time to listen:
My give-a-damn's busted.
Well, your therapist says it was all a mistake:
A product of the Prozac an' your co-dependent ways.
So who's your enabler these days?
My give-a-damn's busted.
I really wanna care.
I wanna feel somethin'.
Let me dig a little deeper:.
No, still nothin'.
It's a desperate situation, no tellin' what you'll do.
If I don't forgive you, you say your life is through.
C'mon, gimme somethin' I can use:
My give-a-damn's busted.
Well, I really wanna care.
I wanna feel somethin'.
Let me dig a little deeper:
No, I'm sorry.
Just nothin', no.
You've really done it this time, ha, ha.
My give-a-damn's busted.
Sheesh. Hope these guys are more l337 than that Democratic politician's kid who got into Sarah Palin's email. And the Ohio techies are busy doing damage control:Service has been restored to the website that handles Ohio's voter registration and elections information after hackers breached its defenses. The intrusion is just one of several assaults confronting the Secretary of State's office as tensions mount over next month's presidential election.
IT workers took the site down on Monday to "detect and prosecute any illegal breach of our voting infrastructure to maintain voter confidence," Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner said in a statement. On Tuesday, the site returned, although parts of it remained in "static" mode, meaning a campaign finance search database and other features were unavailable.
Brunner's office has not disclosed details of the breach, except to say that voters' personal information was not accessed.So they didn't know enough to keep those meddling kids out of the server farm, but don't worry your pretty heads about your info. Well, that's sure a relief!
The RealClear Politics website’s average of polls, which gives Mr Obama a lead of 6.8 per cent over Mr McCain, offers a better guide to the situation. It compares to John Kerry’s lead just a few weeks before he lost the 2004 election to Mr Bush. It is also slightly lower than Mr Obama’s lead over Hillary Clinton shortly before she bested him – and the media – in the New Hampshire primary at the start of the year.Via Jules Crittenden, who has more from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the New York Post.
The variance for current polls listed at Real Clear Politics for this morning ranges from the Pew poll which advertises a 14-point lead for Obama, to the Battleground poll which says the lead is only 2 points. The variance is too great (and there are polls relatively close to both ends, demonstrating proof of statistical invalidity for the published confidence level) for even the casual observer to accept as a reasonable. There are four polls which show a 10 point lead or greater for Obama, and another five which show a 6 point lead or less. It is mathematically impossible for so many polls to be valid, yet disagree to such a degree with valid methodology. [emphasis in the original]Lots of discussion of statistical confidence intervals in the post, but it's mostly painless. The key parts, though, are about how the pollsters (Gallup, in this case) are just making up the methodology:
Gallup has admitted that this model has no precedent, and uses over-samples of urban and youth voters, in the presumption that they will sharply increase participation this year.Other than the "this model has no precedent" bit, it's rock-solid.
For example, in the Oct 20 poll Pew undersamples seniors and oversamples the 50-64 age group, oversamples high school only education by a large amount, and fails to note regional breakdowns or the urban/suburban/rural split. These are critical points which Pew fails to address, and which hshould [sic] make the reader wary.JD Drummond has a must read about lousy polling methodology, and concludes that while the press is happy to be fooled, the candidates aren't acting like they are:
So, could I be wrong? I have to be honest and admit that I could. But in that case, we'd have to ask why the polls do not generally agree with each other, why Gallup is trying to spin three different models at the same time to get a grasp of the picture, why McCain and Obama are both so interested in Pennsylvania, yet neither is working very hard in Ohio right now. We'd have to explain why McCain-Palin rallies are now attracting thousands more people than Obama-Biden rallies, why Letterman suddenly found it cool to have McCain on his show and SNL decided they wanted Palin on theirs. We'd have to explain why there are not a lot of Obama signs visible, but we hear about his army of lawyers getting ready. We'd have to explain why McCain and Palin appear to be so relaxed while Obama and Biden look like they're worried.So what does this all mean?
The Cliff Notes explanation is that if I’d ever designed a commercial qualitative research study with so obvious a set of prejudices and misconceptions, I’d have been fired.UPDATE 22 October 2008 21:15: It just keeps on coming. Zombietime has a post about the "Clever Hans Effect" as a source of polling bias.
This phenomenon is now called "The Clever Hans Effect": the attitude of questioners can affect respondents' answers even if the questioner is trying to remain neutral. If a horse can notice subtle verbal or visual cues, then a person -- who is much more attuned to human culture and emotions -- can probably notice them even more so (possibly also without even realizing it).I'd really like to see an analysis on what this does to the confidence interval and margin of error. Interestingly, the CE does not relate to accuracy, but rather to repeatability. In other words, you can have a perfectly repeatable poll stuffed full of, well, what comes out of Clever Hans.
When I raise the gun and feel it hit my cheek right on the sweet spot, and the bead appears, following the clay, and I know it's going to break before I pull the trigger, there he is.Me, I just blather stream of consciousness. When I find someone who can really write, I have to confess a twinge of envy. Or more than a twinge, here.
When I go out with the juniors or assist at a Ladies Day, and I'm teaching someone to how to hold and point a shotgun, I can hear his voice.
Research presented to a gathering of international fertility researchers in Brisbane today was told that the sperm volume carried by the average New Zealand man decreased from about 110 million to 50 million per millilitre between 1987 and 2007.No problem in either Oz or the Home of the Brave:
This contrasts with Australia and the United States, where no decline has been seen. Studies from Scotland and France show marginal declines.That's now serious the crisis is for kiwi men - the french are kicking your ass in manliness. Ouch.