We don’t want him…
So MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough has a book about how Republicans can win again.
Like many, I’ve seen enough of Morning Joe. He makes me sick. He takes a paycheck for standing by while legions of lefties assault everything he’s supposed to stand for. Has he stood up and called for the firing of Martin Bashir?
Uh, apparently it doesn’t matter to National Review’s Jim Geraghty or Hotair’s Ed Morrissey. I won’t reproduce their twaddle in support of his book, but I’ll give you the links.
Jim Geraghty at National Review
What I will say is that such promotions of an unscrupulous turncoat are useful. The only explanations are 1) you want him to promote your book on MSNBC when the time comes, 2) you guys are all just playing a game in which your supposed differences matter less than the income you get from TV, conferences, and so-called new (but oldtime corrupt) media, or 3) uh, both.
What you don’t get is that all of us in the unwashed are paying attention. We hold Scarborough in utter contempt. As you hold his hand, we withdraw our credulity and respect for what you say.
By the way, everyone, the most important part of the links above is the Comments. Read them all.
Can we talk some more about quantum physics? That’s far more interesting than the latest limp dick moment from the eunuchs at Hotair. I mean, what do you expect?
Actually, a eunuch can’t have a limp dick, can he? Replace that with “sissies”.
You start. What have you learned?
I’ll overlook that you skipped a major post that wasn’t about limp dicks.
Sorry. I liked the Obamacare post and you’re absolutely right, but we’ve known that all along. I commented in a previous post that I fear the conversation is now about what the government needs to do to fix Obamacare rather than pointing out it never should have gotten involved in the first place and needs to be repealed. That’s exactly what’s happening. “Ooooh, Obama’s really in a fix! Look how low this week’s poll numbers are! CBS had a two-minute report last night that was slightly critical! We’ve got him now, lads! Time to be really nice & cooperative for the next 12 months and not argue with anybody so we can woo all of those independent voters.”
This time next year the MSM narrative will be about how many brilliant fixes have been made in such a “short time” after Obamacare’s launch, and many more are a mere 3-5 years away. In the meantime, yes, quite a lot of people will be going bankrupt and dying. When the people die, they can’t vote in the next election. Whey they lose all their money, they tend to become dependent on the government. Sarah Palin was right. So was I when I had these arguments with my liberal “friends” in 2008 & 2009. They still don’t fucking care and will be voting a straight Democrat ticket next time around. What’s that the agent says in Serenity? “We’re building a better world.”
I’d much rather talk about quantum physics.
Unfortunately, I’m at the level you described as “dumber than high school physics”. I think I got a D double minus in high school physics. Doesn’t mean I’m not interested, just means I don’t know shit about it. I have a pretty good grasp on the double slit experiment thanks to the video Winston linked to. It’s fascinating. What I don’t get is how or why that implies the existence of infinite parallel universes. Does it or is the scientist in the Daily Mail article making an unfounded leap?
Infinite universes is only one explanation of the quantum experiments. They’re not necessary to submarine the meaning of time.
More about time:
http://www.instapunk.com/archives/InstaPunkArchiveV2.php3?a=2234
I read over the “Who-What-Which” article and it reminded me of something nerdy: specifically, the programming language Prolog. In a nutshell, it allows you to enter statements about relationships between things, and discover new relationships from the propositions entered. Wikipedia uses this example:
mother_child(trude, sally).
father_child(tom, sally).
father_child(tom, erica).
father_child(mike, tom).
sibling(X, Y) :- parent_child(Z, X), parent_child(Z, Y).
parent_child(X, Y) :- father_child(X, Y).
parent_child(X, Y) :- mother_child(X, Y).
This results in the following query being evaluated as true:
?- sibling(sally, erica).
Yes
In college I created a program called TENUOUS (I can’t remember what the acronym stood for). It was intended to help with story plotting, to help uncover hidden relationships that could be useful to keep in mind. You could enter as many relationships as you liked, and then you could request that it find all the shortest links between two people (or entities–that what what the E stood for, I think).
If one character is, say, a murder victim, and you’ve entered some people directly related to her, then you could find other people who were indirectly related (therefore potential suspects).
Notice that both Prolog and TENUOUS shared the trait that, at least in their basic forms, the element of time is missing. The relationships you entered were a snapshot of a specific moment. Many of the relationships could last over a long period of time, but not all the relationships at the end of the story can be the same as those at the beginning. Unless nothing ever happens in the story. Then I guess you’d have a sitcom.
Thinking more about it, I think the user had the option either to find the shortest paths between two people (useful for playing Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon), or find people who were related to a person by N steps or less (also potentially useful for playing Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon, if it weren’t for the combinatorial explosion). I guess it all comes down to Kevin Bacon. But that game didn’t yet exist back then.