A brief review of the stupid movie by Lileks:
I made two attempts this weekend to watch “Elysium,” but was hampered by the fact that it was stupid.
There’s actually a little more, but that’s the bottom line.
A brief review of the stupid movie by Lileks:
I made two attempts this weekend to watch “Elysium,” but was hampered by the fact that it was stupid.
There’s actually a little more, but that’s the bottom line.
…is a myth. Eric Raymond on the history of open source, and the ahistorical knowledge of young programmers.
Roger Pielke on the warm-mongers Internet antics. I look forward to his book.
[Update a couple minutes later]
Related: The president’s (anti)Science Advisor.
The Holdren appointment was just one among an appalling many.
…is apparently personal score settling. Holman Jenkins discusses the Mann suit, and the “exonerations.”
Also, Jim Lindgren weighs in on them.
I ran across this old piece I wrote a few months after the loss of Columbia. It has some of the underlying themes of what later became the book, and holds up pretty well, I think.
It’s not as crazy as The Economist thinks:
No doubt water, pension liabilities and Democrats (who would let this happen over their dead bodies) pose seemingly insurmountable obstacles to partition. But this is a reform movement we hope gains steam over time. The competing interests and priorities of California’s unmanageable, schismatic population are bad for democracy and bad for Californians.
It’s a mess.
Yes, that is the way we talk in America, you stupid fascists:
Bittman likes Freudenberg’s debunking of notions of “rights and choice,” because he agrees that “we need… more than a few policies nudging people toward better health.” As Freudenberg told Bittman: “What we need… is to return to the public sector the right to set health policy and to limit corporations’ freedom to profit at the expense of public health.” Oh! Did you see that? Freudenberg said “right.” He said “right” in the context of government, and he spoke of returning this “right” — a right to control people — to government. He’s saying “right” where the legal term is actually “power.” He wants government power at the expense of rights. And the fact that he speaks of the “return” of power to the government is either deceptive or unAmerican. We are free and have a right to do what we want until we give power to government. If the laws that restrict us are repealed, it makes sense to speak of returning rights to the people, but it’s wrong and really offensive to characterize new restrictions in terms of returning a right to the government.
I know it sounds like crazy talk to you, but we really do have rights to do things of which you disapprove.
People like this should be “nudged” out of town on a rail, bedecked with petroleum bi-products and bird coverings.
As a side note, I’d bet this guy would also tell me I don’t have a right to risk my life in a spaceship.
In which a (probably serial) rapist sues Amy Alkon for being called a rapist. I’m pretty sure that shoving your hand into a unwilling woman’s vajajay is rape by almost anyone’s definition.
“Democrats should be embarrassed to appear with Bill Clinton.”
I think they proved pretty conclusively fifteen years ago that they’re shameless.
…doesn’t have a daily box score.
This is something that creationists don’t understand.