] The president of Harvard University prompted criticism
] for suggesting that innate differences between the sexes
] could help explain why fewer women succeed in science and
] math careers.
]
] Lawrence H. Summers, speaking Friday at an economic
] conference, also questioned how great a role
] discrimination plays in keeping female scientists and
] engineers from advancing at elite universities.

[ It's nice of Summers to provide such glaring evidence of the work that still needs to be done in this area. Jackass. -k]

Women Lack 'Natural Ability' In Some Fields, Harvard President Says

[ Wow. Ooops? I guess? -k]

'It's a pretty rare injury' - World - www.smh.com.au

[ FARK has it's ups and downs, but there are a lot of really excellently executed photoshop jobs here. I dunno if they count as using talent for good or evil, but damn. -k]

Prince Harry's Rejected Costume Ideas

MOST two-term American presidents lose steam in their second four years. If scandal doesn't get them (Watergate, Iran-contra, Monica Lewinsky), weariness does. Sitting presidents rarely campaign on a revolutionary agenda, just feel-good blather: Ronald Reagan's “Morning in America”, or Bill Clinton's “Bridge to the 21st century”. And a re-elected president is a lame-duck long before his second term ends, leaving little time to get much done.

George Bush seems determined to be different. He has laid out a second-term domestic agenda more ambitious than anything seen in the first term, and that was hardly a lull. It brought the biggest tax cuts since 1981, the broadest education reform in a generation and the costliest expansion of Medicare, the state health system for the elderly, since it was set up in 1965.

If the first-term legacy is largely a deficit, the second term promises to shake some of the country's economic pillars. At the Republican convention last September, Mr Bush spoke of transforming America's fundamental economic institutions for the 21st century, and offered two broad organising themes. The first was to make the United States the best place in the world to do business. That covered changes from tort reform (fewer burdensome lawsuits) to a simpler tax code, spurring more economic growth. The second theme was to foster an “ownership society”, by giving individuals greater control over, and responsibility for, their own health care and pensions. In particular, it meant restructuring Social Security, America's public pension system, by basing it partly on private accounts.

Empty campaign promises? Not so. At his post-election press conference, the president left no doubt that he regarded his victory as a mandate for reform. “I earned capital in the campaign, political capital”, he said, “and now I intend to spend it.”

[ Not particularly objective, unsurprisingly... the economist is often on the Right side of the issues, but at least provides a decent picture of what to expect. -k]

George Bush's second term

skullaria wrote:
] I did 72% with an average of 80 miles error.
]
] What's your score?

[ 92% with avg. 18 miles of error.

That being said, the order of the states is random, and that could affect the difficulty a great deal. If you happened to start off with a lot internal states, and non adjoining ones, you'd have a tougher time than if you happened to get all of the coastal and border states and then only states adjacent to those, etc. My set was somewhere in the middle, but after the first 4 or 5 i got none wrong, because i had a few easy ones, and then a lot of context. -k]

RE: Test your knowledge - US geography

This is an important, and infuriating issue.

] "The Supreme Court's decision to place this extraordinary
] power to sentence a person solely in the hands of a
] single federal judge - who is accountable to no one -
] flies in the face of the clear will of Congress," Mr.
] Feeney said in a statement.

1. In general, we have a problem, and we won't talk about it because its extremely unpopular to do so. The problem is that our democratically elected government is selected based on the whims of a fully and readily manipulated populace. More then half the people in this country think Sadam Hussien was connected with Al'Q. Do we think their opinions about crime are any more informed?

The "I'm gunna get tough on crime" story gets votes, and it is played entirely for marketing reasons. It has absolutely no relationship to a reasonable, considered view about how to actually lower crime rates. I'm not interested in having important matters of policy be constantly dominated by "what sells."

Congressmen refer to their democratic legitimacy because they can't refer to the credibility of their policies. Congress is a constant slew of bad ideas. I'd prefer to have certain questions be more isolated from the political process, particularly when lives are at stake.

2. Federal judges are certainly accountable for their decisions, which are vetted by several levels of hierarchy. People don't get to be federal justices because they fell out of bed this morning and figured they'd get into law.

3. No one knows more about the specifics of an individual case then the people who are handling it. Different cases have different specific circumstances and should result in different sentences.

] "We are disappointed that the decision made the guidelines
] advisory in nature," Assistant Attorney General Christopher
] A. Wray said in a statement. "District courts are still
] required to consult the federal sentencing guidelines, and
] any sentence may be appealed by either defense counsel or
] prosecutors on the grounds that it is unreasonable. To the
] extent that the guidelines are now advisory, however, the
] risk increases that sentences across the country will become
] wildly inconsistent."

I'd accuse Christopher Wray of intentionally lying, but thats what politicians do, isn't it?

What you want is consistency of standards. Two people who commit the same crime in the same circumstances should get the same sentence. You want to avoid favoritism or situations where different judges have wildly different approaches.

Wray isn't offering consistency of standards. He is offering consistency of results. Thats not the same thing. He offers one while complaining about the lack of the other. Consistency of result is unfair, because two people who commit the same crime in wildly different circumstances get the same sentence. Congressmen cannot fairly apply a blanket rule that impacts every case in the country.

Congressmen, as previously pointed out, don't even have experience with the subject matter. They are making their rules base on political fads and not based on a knowledge of how to address real problems.

If their is a problem with inconsistency of standards among judges it ought to be addressed by looking at the decision making process involved in sentencing and the selection process for judges rather then by creating a system that could as easily be operated by a computer as by a human.

As usual, you're not going to see that, because that would be reasonable. This isn't about reason. Its about power.

The New York Times - Reactions: New Fight Over Controlling Punishments Is Widely Seen

] Safecracking
]
]
] Matt Blaze has written an excellent paper: "Safecracking
] for the computer scientist."
]
]
] It has completely pissed off the locksmithing community.
]
]
] There is a reasonable debate to be had about secrecy
] versus full disclosure, but a lot of these comments are
] just mean. Blaze is not being dishonest. His results are
] not trivial. I believe that the physical security
] community has a lot to learn from the computer security
] community, and that the computer security community has a
] lot to learn from the physical security community.
] Blaze's work in physical security has important lessons
] for computer security -- and, as it turns out, physical
] security -- notwithstanding these people's attempt to
] trivialize it in their efforts to attack him.

Schneier on Security: Safecracking

[ Just caught, accidentally, a segment on the local Fox News affiliate the DeKalb county has lost it's legal battle over the stickers they placed in science books stating the "evolution is only a theory, not a fact". The ruling, apparently, hinged on the fact that the stickers represented a linking of secular with religious, and thus violates the separation of church and state.

I, for one, think the stickers are silly, but mostly harmless. It is a theory. It's a really fucking good one and probably true, but I don't think it harms all that much. Possibly it causes less harm than the expenditure of money to defend against the lawsuit. Likewise, I'm not sure I agree with the camp that the church and state doctrine is violated every time anything secular touches on matters of faith. I think the far left can take this fight too far, honestly.

Still, more interesting were the comments from a couple of parents outside the school.

"I mean, I know they're gonna teach it... I wish they wouldn't, but I'm glad the stickers were removed." -DeeDee Cargle

I wish they had explored that further, because I'd like to know, honestly, why someone who's against the teaching of evolution would want them removed. I can see not wanting to spend the money on them on the first place, because they're pointless, but why spend more time and money taking them out?

"In a way it's hard, because you can't instill, like, the values we had, growin' up. Now it's like you have to explain everything." -Katherine Myles

Yeah. Anyway, I know a lot of people here were paying attention to this at some level, so here you go. -k]

] NOW, CHECK THE EXPLANATION. YOU'LL FIND THIS VERY
] INTERESTING.
] Research has shown that young children cannot identify
] the intimate couple because they do not have prior memory
] associated with such a scenario

[ I sure couldn't find the damn dolphins without effort. -k]

What Do You See?

] Researchers at the University of Toronto have invented an
] infrared-sensitive material that's five times more
] efficient at turning the sun's power into electrical
] energy than current methods

[ Rad. They say something like 30% efficiency, so maybe something like 300 W/m^2 if I'm remembering right. Not bad. -k]

CTV.ca | New plastic can better convert solar energy