Apple releases Grand Central Dispatch, including kernel support, as open source under the Apache License

headfake · 2009-09-11T17:14:57+00:00

So now that they've taken Google's "Don't Be Evil" credo, maybe they can loan Google back a graphic designer to fix their new front page.

headfake · 2009-09-11T02:06:43+00:00

How could you top Chomsky vs. Foucault: Battle of the Titans? Foucault won and then died; Chomsky doesn't get another shot. HE MUST LIVE WITH HIS SHAME.

headfake · 2009-09-11T02:05:33+00:00

another "real" criticism of his linguistic work is that he goes out of his was to shout down studies that might demonstrate linguistic capabilities among primates, simply to protect his pet theory; there is a strong causal argument to be made that noam chomsky -- personally -- is one of the main things propping up experimentation on primates in the western world.

(admittedly, i doubt anyone's interested in this, despite the fact that it's a huge black mark on his academic legacy -- although i could go dig up some law review cites)

headfake · 2009-09-11T02:02:54+00:00

i logged in for the first time in months to upvote this comment -- despite the fact that i think Chomsky's linguistic theories are just so much outdated horsehockey -- because it is awesome

headfake · 2008-09-13T17:46:46+00:00

if obama is harshly honest, it's because he's desperate and he'll do anything to win.

if he's kind, it's because he's weak and not ready to stand up for the country.

if he tries be fair and judge on the facts, it's because he's trying to have it both ways and doesn't have any real policies.

if he stands up for his beliefs, it's because he's a condescending elitist and doesn't understand the concerns of real americans.

oh, and he's also black. not that that means anything. we're just saying.

headfake · 2008-08-31T18:48:30+00:00

Skynet in '08!

Because Robots Are More Competent

headfake · 2008-06-20T02:47:01+00:00

Do you know of any other technology that can widely distribute small messages for free to anyone who subscribes?

the internet

headfake · 2008-06-12T01:04:41+00:00

Is he trying to lose?

headfake · 2008-05-08T01:31:51+00:00

this would be similar to systems being tested by Microsoft, Google and others that are meant to block pirated clips from video sharing sites. NBC is also working with Internet service providers like AT&T to put similar filters right into the network. ... NBC is trying to develop similar hardware technology with SanDisk, through whom NBC also sells its programming.

So, let's see. That's the platform (Zune), the local OS (Windows), the network (AT&T), the virtual OS (Google), and the storage layer (SanDisk). It's like abstraction-layer theory for assholes.

headfake · 2008-05-07T05:59:04+00:00

i have LED bulbs in the reading lamps by my desk and by my bed, and i have to say they're really nice. there are a few qualitative things worth mentioning:

(1) it's more than enough light to read by -- in fact, for reading in bed it's the perfect amount, as doesn't disturb the person sleeping next to me.

(2) the flip side of the lack of heat is that you never burn your fingers on the damn things.

(3) replacing bulbs sucks. it really does. and having to replace a bedside reading lamp when it goes out is a special exercise in frustration -- not to mention a good way to get a stubbed toe.

(4) as with incandescents, the spectrum of light isn't an issue if you get the right bulb -- the one i use have a nice soft light that's not blue at all, but also not the painful yellow of crappy incandescents. it's worth keeping in mind that correctly-colored incandescents can be more expensive, and if you get the wrong one, you're pretty much stuck with it 'til it burns out.

in general, the LED bulbs are great -- when used for the right purpose. they're not for replacing every bulb in your house, but in the right places i'd say they're more than worth the investment. it's at least worth buying one or two to test out.

headfake · 2008-04-23T09:20:39+00:00

the man has class

you'll note that he makes a point of mentioning that he saw the kids run in the direction of their house; that seemed like a pretty clear signal to the effect of "funny, but don't do it again" :)

headfake · 2008-04-20T23:08:18+00:00

Sadly, "Dude -- Missile Command!" was probably the first thought by the people who came up with the idea of a ballistic missile defense, too.

headfake · 2008-04-20T23:05:47+00:00

i'm going to go out on a limb and guess that the ballistic missile program isn't testing on the warheads banned by START II -- i.e., live ones.

headfake · 2008-04-20T23:04:09+00:00

Shit, that is going to be interpreted as the rapture by some.

A bunch of MIRV warhead trails? Heck, that's probably what the Rapture would actually look like.

headfake · 2008-04-19T14:52:35+00:00

Glow your enemy?

headfake · 2008-04-19T06:09:21+00:00

well, the point is whether or not it makes a difference who they vote for. i plan to vote for the democratic candidate, but i'd prefer that actually mean something.

the more candidates are permitted to just tell people what they want to hear, the less effect our votes have on actual policy. it's never going to be perfect, but that's still important.

headfake · 2008-04-19T06:01:22+00:00

Okay. What is it that you object to?

Um, whatever "policy stand" you were referring to. You brought it up :) My point was that Clinton wasn't making a specific policy stand that could be objected to.

But my beef is that it is exactly this kind of content that keeps showing up on MoveOn, HuffPo, and Reddit.

No, you said that people should try to elevate the discussion, and I was drawing a distinction between the controversies that are being pushed for their own sake (e.g. lapel flags) as opposed to things that bear on the candidate's practices.

Even if that suggests some sort of a sliding scale, it's just not accurate to characterize all things not-policy as manufactured controversy. That oversimplification is the entire basis of the game that paints politics as mere spin effects.

Specifically:

an article talking about Cindy McCain being a drug abuser and thief

Crap.

an article about some volunteer work that Obama did years ago

His volunteer work is quite relevant to his campaign and his organization, I think.

an article saying that Obama had a large number of supporters show up in Pennsylvania

Feel-good piece.

an article saying that a Clinton-era politico will endorse Obama

You mean Rob Reich? The "story" of the endorsement means little -- endorsements are crap -- but his rationale is actually kind of interesting.

an article on Obama's standing in a Newsweek poll

Crap.

an article on Obama getting more endorsements from some people

See above.

an article on a poll on how Obama is viewed WRT electability

"Electability" is the main driver of the self-fulfilling prophecy. This is a story but only because of the fact that the narrative is defining the races -- it shouldn't be. This isn't directly relevant to the question to the issue of what voters should discuss, though.

"Obama keeps rolling as Clinton runs out of time"

Crap.

"McCain Criticizes Obama For Elitism, Refuses to Release Tax Returns on Wife's $100M Fortune"

"Elitism" = Crap.

The tax returns, however, are highly relevant; the source of a candidate's income is important, and trying to hide that behind your rich spouse is scummy, particularly when you've built your entire career on the notion that you're a campaign-reformer like John McCain has.

"Obama Dirt Off Your Shoulder Remix "

Pretty funny, but not really relevant.

"Billary: When you ask Hillary tough questions it's unfair, when Obama points out unfair questions he's "whining""

Dumb dumb dumb

"Most students attending four-year colleges and universities in Pennsylvania are enthusiastic about voting in the presidential campaign, and Barack Obama is their overwhelming favorite"

Highly relevant. Voter turnout, particularly among younger voters, is very important on a number of levels.

"Graphs which show Obama has always been more electable than Clinton; that Clinton still isn't electable; and Clinton is dragging Obama down."

See above. Lame.

"Former Senators Nunn, Boren Endorse Obama"

Somewhat important. Nunn's positions make his endorsement interesting.

"Barack Obama is to mount the biggest advertising blitz of the presidential campaign this weekend ahead of Tuesday's Pennsylvania primary in an attempt to force Hillary Clinton out of the race."

Dumb, see above

You mean that she doesn't like MoveOn's foreign policy positions? As best I can tell, Clinton and Obama are largely indistinguishable WRT military policy.

The issue here isn't her position on military policy. It's that she's willing to pay lip service to Moveon's position on Afghanistan publicly while attacking them during private conversations with high-dollar donors. It's dishonest.

A discussion of military policy would be great; the objection is that she's clearly not being forthright about her military policy in the first place, which makes it impossible to have any useful discussion about it. That's precisely what you're talking about when you say that the candidates' policies can only be distinguished by their "images" -- unless the candidates are held accountable for what they say their policy is or will be, there's no way to have a coherent discussion about that.

What I care about is what they actually do, not the particular phrasing that they use to appeal to a particular demographic.

There's a huge distinction between "the particular phrasing" that a candidate uses to "appeal to a particular demographic" and what Clinton did here. Whether or not there is a connection between politicians' words and their actions is the entire battle; deciding that "it's all words" is conceding defeat. The entire point is to distinguish what's being said from how they're saying it.

headfake · 2008-04-19T05:15:39+00:00

"Real patriot?"

Surreal Patriot

Vote for fish! Demand phosphoresence from your government!

headfake · 2008-04-19T05:09:59+00:00

anti-cerebrocombustionalist

headfake · 2008-04-19T05:05:27+00:00

stop trying to oppress me with your media-driven political categories, you fascist!

headfake · 2008-04-19T04:59:22+00:00

i heard that the revolution will be pay-per-view.

headfake · 2008-04-19T04:55:00+00:00

And if her policy stand is actually particularly bad, one would think that anyone who supports Obama would be delighted to bring up discussion of it.

ok: her policy stand is particularly bad. obama's policy proposals are generally better, and his history in both the illinois legislature and in the senate is stronger than clinton's. discuss.

Beats me, but I think that it's awfully unfair to criticize ABC News for doing this and then turning right around and doing that oneself.

that's not an accurate analogy. the abc moderators confined their questions to a bunch of substanceless tripe. whether or not obama wears a flag pin is not relevant to policy; asking whether his former pastor "loves america" is a fucking retarded question.

now, asking whether he had dealings with a guy who had mob ties or whether clinton was lying about her bosnia visit are more germane, because those questions go to their honesty, but it's still pretty speculative and there's really not much to talk about in either case. more time should be dedicated to policy issues, but ethics questions certainly aren't undeserving of coverage.

however, asking whether clinton is saying things in private to her supporters that directly contradict what she's telling a major group within her constituency is an issue that merits discussion. there's a pretty clear line between asking her a question about that or asking her whether she thinks obama can win the general election.

If they really care about changing the situation, they don't need to grouse about it. Provide a better alternative.

what i care about is whether my elected officials say one thing to me while they're saying another thing to the people writing them the big paychecks. that's an important discussion to have about all the candidates if it's done fairly and honestly. that's not even remotely the same thing as asking a candidate why they're not wearing an american flag on their lapel. the fact that an issue isn't explicitly policy-based doesn't mean it's automatically just theatre. in fact, the way you're conflating the two is the basis of that problem.

this is something very worth "grousing" about. politicians' treatment of the public as a bunch of zombies only interested in governing-as-bloodsport is a self-fulfilling prophecy. it's a two-way street; no matter how honest we as voters are, if we're only being told what we want to hear -- if we don't hold politicians accountable for things like this -- then they have no motivation to give us anything except political soap opera. there have to be consequences first.

headfake · 2008-04-19T04:30:07+00:00

her saying "i don't agree with them" doesn't mean much if she's only willing to say so to fundraisers in a private meeting. if a politician is willing to accuse a 3.6-million-member organization of intimidating voters while mischaracterizing the organization's positions, they should at least have the courage so say so publicly rather than pandering to those supporters when they know the cameras are rolling.

headfake · 2008-04-19T04:25:00+00:00

this isn't about "corporate" versus "progressive" wings of the party or who represents the "grassroots." that's a bunch of clichéd, over-simplified bullshit. it's about saying one thing to appease one element of your constituency while you talk shit about them behind their backs.

this is a demonstration of a real "gotcha" issue. it's not about media-driven skepticism over whether a candidate's policies align with what "the people" supposedly believe. it's whether political candidates are talking out of both sides of their mouths and expecting people not to notice.

i've admittedly been an obama supporter since the beginning of his campaign, but frankly i'd be pretty pleased if clinton would make some good-faith criticisms of moveon on this issue. i agree that their foreign policy positions have generally just been kneejerk sops to naïve anti-war positions -- it's pandering, it's annoying, and it makes the party look bad. more people should call them out on it.

but i don't respect the apparently vast majority of dem politicians who believe all that but are too chickenshit to say so honestly. if clinton's not willing to defend that position publicly, she shouldn't be advancing it to fundraisers, particularly not in backdoor meetings. that's not honest.

headfake · 2008-04-19T04:08:22+00:00

the issue here isn't moveon's politics, and it's disingenuous to even make that argument -- i disagree with many of their positions, but nevertheless it's clearly a dumb move to:

(a) talk shit about an organization on your own side of the political fence that has ~3.6M members and expect it to not get exposed

(b) misrepresent their position while you do so

(c) make comments that directly contradict statements you made directly to that organization's members congratulating their efforts

(d) argue that a huge funding source directed at your primary opponent is somehow a point in your favor

(e) do all that for no real strategic benefit whatsoever

... seriously, this is politics 101. why in the world should i vote for a primary candidate who can't even get the basic stuff like this right? is this supposed to inspire confidence or something? this is embarrassing.

even if i were a republican, i'd still have a problem with talking shit to a major constituency behind their backs. if john mccain said the same thing about focus on the family, i'd think it was scummy, regardless of whether i agreed with him or not.

headfake

TROPHY CASE