"What next: Bailout the oil-guzzling SUV?" written by Tinypliny on estrip.org

Category: whine

11/08/08 11:32 - 41ºF - ID#46609

What next: Bailout the oil-guzzling SUV?

From

Two representatives in the congress have written a letter to the Idiot-W urging him to bail-out the makers of the oil-guzzling SUVs and inefficient cars.

Pelosi and Reid:

"A healthy automobile manufacturing sector is essential to the restoration of financial market stability, the overall health of our economy and the livelihood of the automobile sector's workforce."

How can you perpetrate such constant fraud on the public? Can this get anymore outrageous? WHY should more money go into energy inefficient cars and SUVs while bus and metro prices are going up all over the place? For once, can't you just bail out the average population's livelihood by investing a fraction of that $700bn in a healthy PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION system??

Pelosi and Reid also said:

"It is our hope that the actions that Congress has taken, and that the administration may take, will restore the pre-eminence of our domestic manufacturing industry so that it can emerge as a global, competitive leader in fuel efficiency and in new and path-breaking energy-efficient technologies that protect our environment."

Yeah. Right. Fat chance of that ever happening - seeing as how the US goverment, the domestic automobile manufacturers, the oil industry, and the Californian government played key roles in very skillfully murdering the concept of the energy-efficient electric car back in the day.

This is a barefaced effort at siphoning of public money to the oil industry for immediate gains, and it makes me sick.

libertad writes at 10:45:04 11/09/08 - Comment #41883: I am NOT happy with these bailouts. Here we are getting F'd again because of fear.

Why should we give these lousy companies any money? It wasn't a big secret that gas is a limited resource. Fuel efficiency standards should have become more stringent, however, Biden and others rejected raising fuel efficiency standards.

I know that these jobs are necessary but maybe these people (auto workers) should be given opportunities in new sectors of a greener economy. This would include the building of a new infrastructure that focused on public transport.

We are in big trouble and it has been made that much worse by the bailout of the banks. The auto industry will be no different. My hope is that Obama will choose the right Treasure Secretary that can properly advise him. This is a very crucial moment.

tinypliny writes at 05:27:38 11/09/08 - Comment #41858: That's actually a good suggestion. But when AIG executives could easily blow the bail-out money and go to a collective spa treatment, you can't really expect any better of any other industry; especially the auto industry.

The US auto industry has been actively blocking all the efforts to improve the public transport infrastructure for the past so many decades and is dead against developing alternative-fuel vehicles because its hand in glove with the oil industry. The idea is to make inefficient oil-guzzlers so that people would keep on buying oil no matter what the price.

metalpeter writes at 10:05:11 11/09/08 - Comment #41829: But it on the side of the people who want the bailout it gets more complicated (wow double comments I feel like (e:tinypliny)). I know that chevy is working on and has some cars that are highly fuel efficent and I think a sports car then runs on all batery power. If they don't have money to stay open how will these cars ever come into being. What I suggest is not a bail out but to put money to these companies that would be ear marked or to be used for Gas Alternatives. Maybe that would be a fair compromise.

metalpeter writes at 09:59:20 11/09/08 - Comment #41828: I see this a little bit differently. Most automakers because of the unions pay their workers pretty well. Some who has a family and a house and a car or maybe 2 lives off how much money they make. That person can't all of a sudden then live off $4 less an hour. Did the unions get greedy over the years, yeah sure but cutting peoples pay isn't an option for them. It isn't only the unions though the big bosses want there money also, so they will fire workers to keep there bonuses and stock pay outs. I do understand where the car companies are coming from though. They think hey it isn't our fault the banks screwed everything up and now no one can pay for cars. But see that isn't true really. The bottom line is that the Japanese can make cars generaly cheeper, better, and more gas efficant. It is true that there is no such thing as an American car any more. None of the electonics are made in america and some other parts are also. Then You have Toyota who has some models (trucks I think ) built in the united states. I think it is crazy to bail out the automakers, I also think it isn't fair why only GM and not everyone who sells cars in America.

james writes at 12:04:27 11/09/08 - Comment #41821: The conservative perils of the American far left agenda...

Permalink: What_next_Bailout_the_oil_guzzling_SUV_.html
Words: 261
Location: Buffalo, NY

Category: music

11/08/08 10:15 - 40ºF - ID#46608

Nostalgia: Its a Beautiful Life [Or Not]

Whatever happened to this group?! I had an audio cassette of this album back... back... really back in the day and I remember the magnetic tape kind of disintegrated because I rewound it so many times the first month I had it on my Sony Walkman.

And YIKES. What a freakishly scary video. I had no idea. Thankfully, I never saw this abomination of a video before now! I might have been brain damaged forever. I think the most ghastly bits are when they come to "walk in the park" and "laughing child" bits.

Permalink: Nostalgia_Its_a_Beautiful_Life_Or_Not_.html
Words: 103
Location: Buffalo, NY

Category: science

11/07/08 09:22 - 62ºF - ID#46596

Complexity Atomized

Artist Linda Nye captures the incredible gradient of complexity of circulation in a human being. As you start your trace from your heart and venture deeper and deeper into your vessels and bloodstream, you see the red blood cells, the vessel walls, the members of the immune system - the body's dedicated mafia, down to the biochemistry of Haemoglobin - the oxygen carrying complex with its little oxygen atom.

Here is the same balance of complexity destroyed by unwieldy chunks of flaky lard from those countless beers, triple servings of pasta, humongous bagels for breakfast, random potato fries and all those burgers of abandonment.

Science 26 September 2008: Vol. 321. no. 5897, p. 1768 DOI: 10.1126/science.321.5897.1768

Permalink: Complexity_Atomized.html
Words: 116
Location: Buffalo, NY

Category: {dodo}

11/06/08 08:04 - 57ºF - ID#46578

Mr. Super-Colourful

-- He once sent a 2.5 feet long dead rotting fish to a pollster whom he disliked.

-- He is a classically trained ballet dancer.

-- His brother is a Hollywood agent and he has had movies made about him.

-- His other brother is the head of bioethics unit at the NIH and an oncologist.

-- He once stabbed a steak knife through the table to make a point.

Meet Rahm Emanuel. He is the future chief-of-staff of Obama's White House Team!

Whoever said only Palin could make SNL's life easy??!! Exciting times ahead for the Republicans. LOL :D

Permalink: Mr_Super_Colourful.html
Words: 118
Location: Buffalo, NY

Category: music

11/05/08 11:18 - 51ºF - ID#46567

Antonio Lauro - Maria Carolina

The new user sound is an awesome rendition of Maria Carolina - a famous Venezuelan waltz written for the Guitar by the pitch perfect Antonio Lauro.

Its played by the awesome John Williams as part of his perfect,
El Diablo Suelto.

What are you waiting for?? Check it out! Load and play my usersound! :)

Permalink: Antonio_Lauro_Maria_Carolina.html
Words: 57
Location: Buffalo, NY

Category: science

11/05/08 07:23 - 60ºF - ID#46564

Proposition 8 drama. WAKE UP MORONS.

I need to keep this short and sweet. This is a message to people who voted against gay marriage in those loony states.

Sexuality is, to a large extent, GENETICALLY determined. There is scientific proof to this effect. DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND THAT? Thus, by voting against rights for people whose sexual leanings are different from yours, not only do you show that you are unscientific, but you are also heartless, discriminating and "racist". Would you deny people rights and dignity because they happen to have a different eye colour or because they had a metabolism that processed fats differently or hmmm.. let's see, lived to a 110 years because their ageing genes kicked in slower?

I am sure many of you wouldn't. And why? Not because these traits are *any* different from sexuality, but because these traits are not linked to a flawed artificially created nonsense "definition" of "marriage" (and by proxy cultural, social, financial and legal rights).

THIS is precisely why science needs to be the new culture of people. THIS is why we need to dissect the flaws of a religion-politics liaison and burn them forever. THIS is why we need forward thinking and tolerant education in schools. THIS is why we need a better appreciation of human evolution, myths and culture. THIS is why we need open-minds and take our mistaken and demented prejudices apart. THIS is why we need to re-learn what respect to our fellow-humans means. THIS is why we need change - at its most basic and pure level. Not an "ad-lib" top-heavy lip-service "change" but CHANGE from the grassroots on how we think about our roles in our society and how we think about others who live in it.

And you know what? Even without the scientific argument, would you deny rights to a person who wore a white shirt to work when a majority of the employees were wearing blue just because the person wearing a different colour happened to have a sense of style different from you???? It's about respect of choice. The bottomline is, scientifically backed up or not, by voting against rights for everyone, you just cast a cloud of doubt over the fact that you even have some of the most human of traits - a sense of justice, equality and tolerance. Additionally, you also proved that you can let others think for you (another herd-like non-human trait, by the way). If you had taken the time to weigh the matter and form your own opinion, instead of letting your rational brain go off into the recesses of unconsciousness, you might have realized how unfortunate this decision has been. :/

Permalink: Proposition_8_drama_WAKE_UP_MORONS_.html
Words: 441
Location: Buffalo, NY

Category: the odes

11/05/08 12:07 - 52ºF - ID#46540

Taking a break from little girl news...

This channel would like to triple cheer

Science!
..Choice!..
...Peace!...
....Dreams!....
....Justice!....
.....Courage!.....
.......Evolution!........
..........Rationalism!...........
....................Moderation!....................
.................................Forethought!....................................
.......................................and................................................

Obama!

CONGRATULATIONS!!!!!

tinypliny writes at 11:29:58 11/05/08 - Comment #41673: Hehe, it would awesome if I had a centre-allign formatting tag as well. :)

And my, your teenage strong brood of 522 teenage kids create such loudly deafening and opinionated babble. Thank goodness you are quite a generous cool parent. LOL ;-)

paul writes at 10:30:08 11/05/08 - Comment #41669: First, I love your use of the size tag. Barely anyone takes advantage of that feature.

Religion - If I never heard about it again it would be awesome. I find it ironic that estrip is pretty much my only exposure to it. Religious people would probably say it was a sign - that my own creation is speaking back to me in religious terms. I just think its irritating like a teenager that talks back to its parent.

jim writes at 10:06:23 11/05/08 - Comment #41667: With that bit I was talking more about day to day necessities then scientific practice, starting to get tangential to the original question.

tinypliny writes at 10:02:27 11/05/08 - Comment #41666: @(e:Jim): "I have no problem creating a personally preferred/privileged frame of reference, as a by product of my existence limited in space and time. To me that's a situational necessity, but allowed to persist only to reasonable limits as such."

I don't have a problem with creating such a frame as well, but I have a big problem when scientists ignore this frame of reference, conveniently forget about limits and start to generalize the results of a few such limited experiments to everyone and every scenario. *That* is bad science.

Generalizing without recognizing limitations and not being cognizant of pitfalls in such a generalization is equal to being dogmatic, married to your hypotheses and practicing scientific fundamentalism (equivalent to religious fundamentalism or even extremism).

I personally want to release a fatwa against such scientists. Or may be a well-directed jihad might be better? Hmm...

drew writes at 09:57:59 11/05/08 - Comment #41665: hmm. Those thoughts will have to come later. I promised Janelle I would watch law and order with her.

drew writes at 09:53:46 11/05/08 - Comment #41664: some quick thoughts, and then maybe a longer response will follow.

Of course we are friendly--that's well established.

Also, no doubt that Science produces wonder--I've experienced as much.

Now for the things that require more thought . . .

drew writes at 09:51:08 11/05/08 - Comment #41663: Sadly, not every scientist requires "thinking for oneself" (although it should) Some teachers of science simply want the old orthodoxy repeated.

The proclamations of a person of faith should also be held to a standard. No, I do not use the scientific method every week (as that would be science) but there are other measures of truth that are considered.

Good liturature isn't less good or less life changing because it isn't subject to independant observation. It resonates with experience, and with the established body of knowledge, or it doesn't. It makes people better, or it makes people worse.

And a priest/minister/rabbi that does not take a scripture and proclaim it in such a way that it builds a healthy community can and should be criticized, and often is.

tinypliny writes at 09:49:06 11/05/08 - Comment #41662: Nice thoughts, (e:drew). Two additional comments.

"Both are a way of life (or should be) both can reveal truth, or conceal it--when it is practiced wrongly."

I couldn't agree more. There is good science as well as bad and one rotten science experiment at the base can topple the whole pyramid of sound experiments built on top of it.

"For the spiritual world, for meaning, for purpose--for those questions, I find science lacking. (I know science gives answers, but they don't resonate with me or inspire)"

And here, I have to disagree a bit. What is inspiration? Is inspiration not 50% hope and 50% wonder? Science provides both in more generous doses than any other discipline. What is purpose? What is the purpose of what? Of us being here? Or being what we are? Or us doing anything "worthwhile"? I think practicing good science aids humanity in many many ways, touches lives through healing and small comforts, shapes lives by understanding a bit more of our being everyday, brings purpose to the pursuit of a happy contended life, defines contentment in terms of service to others, helps us examine disparities and come up with solutions, examine evolution and yet impose our strong inherent need for equality by erasing the unequal and sometimes brutal effects of evolution in populations. Thus, depending on how you look at it science can be as resonant and inspiring as you want it to be just as social science can be as rigorous and real as you make it. :D

jim writes at 09:44:12 11/05/08 - Comment #41661: And disagree in a vehemently friendly way (just to be clear).

jim writes at 09:43:00 11/05/08 - Comment #41660: Ah, I disagree of course, Drew.

Lack of reproducibility makes me very suspicious. It's hard for me to take specific religious claims seriously when they require preferred frames of reference in a general sense. That foundational distrust means I can't derive any satisfaction from religion.

I have no problem creating a personally preferred/privileged frame of reference, as a by product of my existence limited in space and time. To me that's a situational necessity, but allowed to persist only to reasonable limits as such.

And so there's my horror at any hint of special or revealed truth in a nutshell.

tinypliny writes at 09:38:28 11/05/08 - Comment #41659: I have to agree with Jim word for word. :)

Also, science requires you to think for yourself and practicing it well requires that you try and critique what is believed every time you think of something new. A scientist, unlike a priest is not received well (and may in fact be denied funding or booed off the stage), if s/he preaches without experimental/observational evidence and logic to back up his/her statements in a sound fashion.

drew writes at 09:34:15 11/05/08 - Comment #41658: Good faith, like good science, involves constant examination and constant re-evaluation.

Like science, religion tends have rituals, habits, disciplines. These can become a healthy way of life, or mindless superstition and dogma.

Both are a way of life (or should be) both can reveal truth, or conceal it--when it is practiced wrongly.

I love science (well, I studied a social science, so the "real" scientists might disagree) to understand the truth of the natural world, there is no better method.

For the spiritual world, for meaning, for purpose--for those questions, I find science lacking. (I know science gives answers, but they don't resonate with me or inspire)

jim writes at 09:26:46 11/05/08 - Comment #41657: Heidi, my take:

Scientific claims can be verified independently. The scientific method aims to increase accuracy and precision in understanding the world. Things which are science could conceivably be rediscovered were the world to fall into a dark age and we forgot all current knowledge.

Religion is that which will never arise the same way twice. Religion and faith are about things that can't be assessed outside of the context of their own claims and culture. If we all forgot about Jesus today, tomorrow he'd be gone for good. Unless he came back for a second time of course :)

Some science is messy and imprecise - we model weather with only the ability to understand some of the patterns and systems that occur, and global warming is tough to explain with concise equations, but it is possible to picture an outside alien taking notes and coming up with similar theories.

The great thing about science is that it encourages you to throw out that which has been disproved. Religious texts have crufty old stuff that ends up just conveniently ignored, treated as literature, or in the worst case sneaks up and snares the unlucky innocent village herbalist.

tinypliny writes at 09:22:57 11/05/08 - Comment #41656

Oh yeah, I also have rituals like compulsive journal feed checking and scheduling at least one meeting a week with my advisor during which I babble on and on about everything new in whatever I read that week till she throws me out of her office*. LOL

---------

For the record, she has never thrown me out and always (strangely) seems to be interested in what I am babbling about, but she does look at her watch when the 1/2 hour is up and I am still babbling.

tinypliny writes at 09:17:50 11/05/08 - Comment #41655

I treat science not only like a religion but almost as a life partner. Haha. I live and breathe it, practise it, preach it, am married to it, think about it constantly, read about it, speak about it, build shrines to it - as in small mounds of books with notes on them, worship it, have super-strong faith in its potential and last but not least, push it on people and also try to convert them. All criteria satisfied. Except one, maybe. Science* does not make its followers blind and close-minded. :)

------------

not to be confused with Scientology, btw.

heidi writes at 09:09:20 11/05/08 - Comment #41654: Yea, SCIENCE!!

Someone has accused me of treating science like a religion, having faith in it like Christians have faith in Jesus. Thoughts?

Permalink: Taking_a_break_from_little_girl_news_.html
Words: 22
Location: Buffalo, NY

Category: work

11/03/08 07:07 - 54ºF - ID#46485

Question for the web experts here

I am responsible for the setting up an interactive web portal for a bunch of researchers. I am not doing any of the active coding or programming or any behind the scenes work for actually setting it up but merely giving the web people an idea of what I would like to see.

((e:paul), this is the same project I talked to you about, ages back. Its finally being hosted at the NCI.)

Ideally, I want a forum-like interface online with email functionality. The forum should have the ability to accept emailed posts from researchers (who are disinclined to login and post online) and display these emails in appropriate subject threads - somewhat like Google Groups + Gmail. The forum should also have sections with restricted memberships for say, certain working groups.

The question is, am I making a reasonable request and is this kind of thing do-able on a website? Would I need to provide any extra information?

Permalink: Question_for_the_web_experts_here.html
Words: 159
Location: Buffalo, NY

Category: the odes

11/02/08 11:31 - 42ºF - ID#46472

How big a pile was this?

From
The search for a missing Buffalo girl came to a happy ending Saturday night.

Police combed the neighborhood after the girl's mother reported her missing from their Sweet Avenue home Saturday afternoon.

It turned out Reid was home all along.

The six year-old was found sleeping under a pile of clothes in the house.

One has to wonder...

Permalink: How_big_a_pile_was_this_.html
Words: 69
Location: Buffalo, NY

Category: e:strip

11/01/08 01:59 - 47ºF - ID#46460

E:Strip: The Written Word

Thank you SO MUCH for the party, (e:paul), (e:matthew) and (e:terry)! I LOVED seeing you all. (e:peeps), ALL OF YOU ROCK!

The humble comment bubble rose from the footnotes this Halloween and carried out its alphabetized vendetta.

The armed attack of the comment bubble extracted some arbitrarily awesome sweet personal, political and candy-raver responses!!

I don't think any other bunch of folks can quite randomly turn a last-minute hastily-put-together costume into such a rich and varied interactive real-time experiment. It speaks volumes about us as a community.

Step out from your virtual pixels and claim your real comment bubbles by dropping virtual ones. :)

Indeed!

(e:hodown), you are hands down miles and mountains better than the Joan character. I am positive she cannot make those figs-from-heaven that you made. Nor can she ever look as awesome as you did!

Get over it! ;)

Yeah, and I will see you in hell.

I will leave you with this powerful message.

Thanks for the pen (e:paul). I think I lost it...
Sorely missed:

(e:imk2): Are you feeling better???? I missed you. :( How did (e:limsey)'s show go??
(e:boxerboi): You! You! You m&m! See you on Monday. ;)
(e:mrmike): You are probably the world's only handsome zombie!
(e:gardenmama): I can't wait to meet you!
(e:theecarey): Did I miss you????!!!
(e:leetee) & (e:uncutsaniflush): Hope you had an awesome Halloween!
(e:lilho): Good wishes for getting better!
(e:ladycroft): Wish you were here!
(e:Chico): Missed you as well.
Other (e:missingpeeps): Have an awesome weekend!