Touchstone Test Group Message Board
Liity LibraryThingin jäseneksi, niin voit kirjoittaa viestin.
Tämä viestiketju on "uinuva" —viimeisin viesti on vanhempi kuin 90 päivää. Ryhmä "virkoaa", kun lähetät vastauksen.
How many other crazy people on LT own The President Vanishes, besides you and me?
Though I can't think myself over-welcome ;) , it seemed a solemn duty to be here, in case my comments on the use of touchstones had led you into fatal mistakes, through my own fuzziness and error... (I hope this sounds faintly theological?)
I always told you I wanted to be an author!
I'malmost tempted to lay a Hammett - and not just any Hammett, but The Continental Op - that I'm holding the aces here.
All I can say on #61 is, 'What's wrong with the world?'
On the subject of this touchstone... well, in context the book is rather funny. And who needs help to tell?
Seriously: Now that the new Home page alerts one every time there's a new post, I almost automatically click the little link like a Pavlovian rat. (Yes, I know it should be Pavlovian dog; I just like the "rat" thing more.)
What's this blockquote html tag? What's this blockquote html tag? What's this blockquote html tag? What's this blockquote html tag? What's this blockquote html tag? What's this blockquote html tag? What's this blockquote html tag? What's this blockquote html tag? What's this blockquote html tag?
What's this blockquote html tag? What's this blockquote html tag? What's this blockquote html tag? What's this blockquote html tag? What's this blockquote html tag?
I don't see how "the cartoonist" site can complain, since they took the image from somewhere else. I mean, they must have; they're obviously not the original TV station that aired the series.
IIRC, some people object to hotlinking because it affects their bandwith charges fom their hosting service.
I can’t think of what you mean. Perhaps you’re thinking of some of his early stuff? If he showed women in subservient roles in 1940, I think he can be forgiven; we are all creatures of our time. Anyway, cite some examples, please.
The Justifiable Rape thing is in questionable taste, though he obviously meant it as a joke, but the man wrote - what? 3/4 of a million? (just guessing here) -words in his career. Let's not take that as representative.
So yes, they do know their place. Deety Burroughs is a math genius, not to mention karate expert, superb computer programmer, etc. Friday is a secret agent who gets through every problem in her rough-and-tumble world due to the fact that she’s smarter, stronger, faster, and just generally...better than everyone else. Hazel Stone is a revolutionary who helped overthrow Luna’s oppressive government - when she was just a kid! The girl in The Menace From Earth is studying to be a spaceship designer. Star in Glory Road is the Empress of the Galaxy. Dagmar from Tertius (Time Enough for Love and sequels) is a genetic engineer. Do I really have to continue? Etc.
Against allllllllll this we have...what? That Heinlein’s women occasionally cry on a man’s shoulder? What, that’s not realistic? Oh my God! In between being a math genius, computer genius, kick-ass karate expert, playing hockey better than Wayne Gretsky, etc., Deety Burroughs cries once (or twice, whatever)! Obviously Heinlein’s condescending toward women!
A common theme is emerging here. Clearly some people have a deep, overwhelming need for Heinlein to have been a male chauvinist, and they are firmly determined to ignore what the man actually wrote to get to that desired conclusion. Odd.
Sorry this is late; the clipping was buried under some other stuff.
From an AP report Jan 31:
At least 42 people have died...and conditions are worsening in many places days after an ice storm knocked out power to 1.3 million...Local officials were growing angry with what they said was a lack of help from the state (i.e., Kentucky) and the Federal Emergency Management Agency.* CNS chimes in: “But, according to (Whitehouse spokesman Nick) Shapiro, Acting Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Administrator Nancy Ward did not arrive in Kentucky until Feb. 4 – 10 days after the Jan. 26 storm struck.”
In Grayson County, emergency management director Randall Smith said...FEMA has been a no-show so far.
FEMA spokeswoman Mary Hudak said some FEMA personnel already were in Kentucky working in the state’s emergency operations center and that more would be arriving in coming days.*
Meanwhile, the death toll was rising...
As we all learned from Hurricane Katrina, if anyone dies in a natural disaster it’s the President’s fault. Also, if FEMA doesn’t instantly solve all problems it’s the President’s fault.
Lefties, start your “That’s totally different!” argument
However, I must concede your point about tits not being everything. I have to, because you simply have reality on your side.
There is also ass.
ma ma sa
ma-ma coo sa ♫
♪ ♫ Ma-ma se
ma-ma coo-sa! ♫
WITH THE SOUND OF MUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUSIC! ♫ ♪ ♫
Oh, wait, you meant the musical notes! Alt+ 13 does the single one ♪ and Alt+14 does the double one ♫. Pretty cool, huh! I can't wait until I get a chance to use it.
Note: Oddly, it only works when I press the numbers on the numeric part of the keypad; if I use the numbers above the letters on my keyboard nothing happens.
I didn’t say anything about the law. I was talking about whether it warrants an investigation by the standard of basic decency.
But since you’re interested in the legal aspects of this...
From the Alaska ethics link in 66:
(b) Unethical conduct is prohibited, but there is no substantial impropriety if, as to a specific matter, a public officer's...There it is in black and white: Conjecturing that a crime might have been committed is explicitly excluded from being considered an ethics violation.
(2) action or influence would have insignificant or conjectural effect on the matter.
Sec. 39.52.110. Scope of code.Regarding her defense fund, Palin is not even accused of taking any official action to benefit those who donated. Thomas Daniel, the author of the report the AP obtained, has said that her merely being helped pay her legal bills is in and of itself an ethics violation...contradicting the clear language in Alaska ethics law.
(a) The legislature reaffirms that each public officer holds office as a public trust, and any effort to benefit a personal or financial interest through official action is a violation of that trust.
His entire testimony is quite damning, but among other things:
Third Federal Savings and Loan’s (Cleveland) has a 35% delinquency rate on its “Home Today” loans versus a rate of 2% on its non-Home Today portfolio. Home Today is Third Federal’s CRA lending program...
Bank of America noted on its Q3:08 earnings call with equity analysts that while its CRA loans constituted 7% or $18 billion of its owned residential mortgage portfolio, they represented 29% of net losses.
The Fed is credible when it is not embroiled in a political matter and when it has no incentive to engage in, pardon the bluntness, bureaucratic ass-covering.
(1) On politics, recall the notorious Boston Fed study that used falsified data. The authors, as far as I know, never retracted their conclusions even when it was shown that the “data” that produced those conclusions were nonsense. The Fed is a creation of Washington and is, not surprisingly, a political beast. As Mr. Dooley famously said, “Ben Bernanke follows the election returns.”
(2) Bureaucratic ass-covering: The Fed was one of the principal enforcers of the CRA and so of course, now that it has become a scandal, would try to exonerate itself. This is hardly the first time a defendant has said “I didn’t do it!” In this light, it is fascinating to see what the Fed had to say about the CRA before it became a scandal and they had any incentive to try to minimize the problem.
This is vital to generating the desired conclusion, because, in Pinto's House testimony (link above) he mentions that most CRA loans weren’t classified as subprime, even though they should have been by normal lending standards. The difference is huge:
Ninety percent of CRA lending was not classified as high-rate subprime, even though much of it had subprime and other high credit risk characteristics: This is because CRA lenders generally, along with Fannie and Freddie (the GSEs), did not classify CRA and affordable housing loans that had high risk characteristics (i.e. low FICOs, high LTVs, or high debt ratios) as subprime so long as they did not contain other features such as higher fees or higher rates, interest only or negative amortization, or low initial payment features with adjustable interest rates. Under this narrow and misleading definition, only an estimated 10% of CRA lending ended up being classified as subprime. Ironically, the reason that these were not high-rate loans was that the big banks and the GSEs were subsidizing the rates, as recent events have painfully demonstrated.And the Fed’s definition of “subprime” in its 2008 study is (drum roll): Loans that had a high interest rate!
So the Fed excluded 90% of the problem from its study, then triumphantly announced that there was no problem!
Actually, that wasn’t good enough for the Fed, they go on to say that subprime loans in CRA areas do slightly better than those in areas just above the CRA income level.
Pinto demolishes this approach in his first footnote. There, he gives an example of how, if a bank’s lending wasn’t perceived as widespread enough by “community activists,” they would pressure it to expand its lending to more areas, never mind whether the zip codes were CRA zip codes.
Also, the Fed’s methodology of comparing lending in areas with incomes just above, and those with incomes just below, the CRA threshold doesn’t make much sense anyway. After all, income can be measured in various way and fluctuates from year to year. Is a bank going to play it right up the line, or are they going to play it safe and go over the line a little? Come on. This year ZIP code #1 is just above the threshold of the CRA. But next year its income could be lower and if we’re not lending enough in that area we’ll be out of compliance with the law! Yikes. So this methodology seems reasonable on the surface, but really doesn’t make much sense if you think about it.
Pinto was, by the way, an executive at Fannie Mae. So if anything, he has incentive to try to exonerate them.
What did they Fed have to say in 2000, before there was a scandal about lax lending standards? A rather different account.
The CRA at the Fed's Board of Governors: http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/surveys/craloansurvey/summary2000.pdf contains a summary. The summary is damning in two ways:
First, it finds that CRA loans did, in fact, perform worse than non-CRA loans.
Second, it finds the discrepancy is worse for larger banks: “a greater proportion of large banking institutions report their CRA-related home purchase and refinance lending is either marginally unprofitable or unprofitable than medium- or smaller-sized institutions.” Why does this matter? Because a few years later there was a regulatory shift to enforce CRA more strongly for larger banks! (*) It looks like larger banks did significantly worse with their CRA loans, and then the govt made it worse by strengthening the enforcement for those very banks!
If you go to figures 1a - c, you can see the deleterious effect of CRA loans. Figure 1c reports that 56% of reporting banks found that CRA loans performed about the same and 44% (=19% + 25%) found they performed worse. However, as the Fed itself says in several places in that document, loans by institution aren’t necessarily the best measure anyway. Loans by dollar is a better metric. E.g., it silly to compare an FI that made 1,000 CRA loans and reported they performed poorly to one that made 1 CRA loan and reported it did fine, and then conclude, “Fifty percent of lenders say CRA loans were fine.” As an example, this quote from the study: “63 percent of the CRA dollars originated in 1999 were originated by respondents that report that CRA-related one- to-four-family home purchase and refinance lending is less profitable than other lending, higher than the 44 percent of institutions that report that CRA-related lending is less profitable on a per institution basis.” (Emphasis added.)
Not surprisingly, large lenders accounted for more dollars of CRA lending than small lenders. And this matters, because again, larger institutions had significantly worse experience with CRA loans than smaller ones.
Figure 2 present results by dollar instead of by lending institution and the results are even worse: only about a third (36%) of CRA dollars were “about as profitable” as non-CRA residential lending. The rest were less profitable.
Chart 8b: Only 42% of CRA lending dollars were profitable!
(If the metric is institutions (chart 8a), the figure is even worse: Only 29% of institutions had CRA lending programs that were profitable! Ouch! But I think dollars lent is a better metric, so let’s go with 42%.)
* John Carney, “The Phony Time-Gap Alibi For The Community Reinvestment Act” says the following. The first paragraph looks good for liberals, but keep reading to the end:
In early 2005, largely at the behest of the banking sector, the Office of Thrift Supervision implemented new rules that were widely perceived as weakening the CRA. Supervision of banks with under $1 billion in assets was loosened, and larger banks were allowed to voluntarily reduce the amount of regulator scrutiny of their “investment” and “service”––two long-standing categories of assessment under the CRA.
This had two unintended consequences that would later prove to be very costly. In the first place, it increased CRA scrutiny of larger banks, who were now the main focus of regulators. This put even more pressure on the banks to make CRA loans.
Is it possible, through breeding, to move an animal to (one) definition of speciation—inability to breed with other members of the (former) species? That is, can you breed a dog until it's not really a dog anymore—it can't breed with other dogs? Or, for example, can you breed A and B and get a C that can only breed with other Cs? (Donkeys don't count as they're sterile.)
I suspect not, although it's a question of degree. You are, however, at some point denying degrees.
Äänestys: Do you like touchstones?
I just had to try some of these.
• This is the first one.
• This is the second one.
• This is the third one.
You who have eyes, see and understand.
A bullet point is Alt + 7 on the keypad.
I've read a lot of Swanwick. I don't recall him being especially left-wing. Less right-wing than most US sf authors, certainly. But not left-wing...
♪ ♪ ♫ Nothing to lose but their chaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaains! ♫ ♪
♪ ♫ ♪ Nothing to lose but their chaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaains! ♫
Coming up next: A discussion of Inuit epistemology, with an application to golf.
Here’s a look at some of the myths and realities...Health care overhaul is going to lower your health insurance premiums.So Obama has asserted that prices would be below what they would be without the bill. Notice the subtle distinction: It allows for prices to rise, but for him to say, “Well, they would have risen even more if this hadn’t passed.”
Obama says that once new competitive insurance markets open for business, in 2014, individuals buying coverage comparable to what they have today will pay 14-20 percent less. Family coverage costs about $13,400 a year, so that could be real money.
But the president's assurance is based on a selective reading of a Congressional Budget Office report that found most individuals would probably buy better, more expensive coverage than what's available today.
And Obama skips over an important caveat: The budget office didn't say premiums would be lower than currently. It said premiums for some people would be lower than they would have been without the bill. Premiums for others would be higher.
We’ve moved on to unicorns that are actually a fusion powered nuclear robots able to communicate with your nanobot techno-virus using an ad-hoc short range wireless network.
Can the TPTB rig up one of these on the subway ride home?
This is why reductionism, even if true - which I think it is - isn't helpful most of the time. You might be able, in principle, to explain the workings of a firm by noting the position and velocity of every single subatomic particle in any piece of matter in the firm (shut up, Dr. Heisenberg) and whatnot. But even if you could, that's not useful in explaining other firms' behavior. It's not a theory of the firm, in other words.
It hits the wrong level of abstraction, the right level being the one that includes most of what you want to explain while still being simple enough to be useful.
Here's a continuum:
Truth ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Usefulness.
You get to pick ONE point on it.
Oh dear, Booksloth, one of us is rather confused here, and it isn’t me. Legally, a lot of things are sexual harassment, not all having to do with people “not knowing where to draw the line between relatively innocent sexual banter” and other things.
Trading promotion for sexual favors for instance. It is not as though anyone mistakes this for “innocent sexual banter.”
Sexual harassment includes many things... Among others:
Actual or attempted rape or sexual assault.
Unwanted pressure for sexual favors.
Unwanted deliberate touching, leaning over, cornering, or pinching.
Unwanted pressure for dates.
Touching an employee's clothing, hair, or body.
Here we have:
The U.S. Supreme Court has simplified matters somewhat by explaining that there are two basic types of unlawful sexual harassment. The first type involves harassment that results in a tangible employment action. An example would be a supervisor who tells a subordinate that he or she must be sexually cooperative with the supervisor or he or she will be fired, and who then indeed does fire the subordinate for not submitting.So you’re saying that people who do this just don’t know better? Wow, interesting point of view. So I was right, sexual harassment law is unnecessary. All we have to do is tell the perpetrators that their behavior is unwelcome, and they’ll snap into shape. “I just didn’t know that telling her to put out or be fired was unwelcome!” they’ll say regretfully.
The conduct of the harasser must either be severe or it must be pervasive to be sexual harassment. A single incident is probably not sexual harassment unless it is severe. For example, a single incident of rape or attempted rape would probably be sexual harassment (it would also violate criminal laws).I will also note - though at this point driving the knife in even deeper almost seems mean - that even if you were right, the point I made can be restated by simply removing “sexual harassment law” and substituting whatever is appropriate; “rape law” if you’re talking about rape, “fraternization” law if you’re talking about fraternization, etc.
If you scroll through the images at the top you can see one in which he's standing in some sort of dancing pose against a brick background, holding a silvery-looking object in his right hand.
What the hell is he holding? My first reaction was "cell phone."
But this album came out in 1979.
Äänestys: Tim Spalding should cover himself in whipped cream and perform Jimi Hendrix's version of the national anthem on the top of the Empire State Building
(The voting, not the idea of a whipped cream guitar solo.)
GDP growth in 1940s recession:
1946: -10.9% (Yes, that’s almost minus eleven percent!)
So GDP in 1947 = (GDP in 1944)*(0.989)(0.891)(0.991) = 87.3% of 1945 GDP. So altogether the decrease in GDP over that 3-year period was 12.7%.
For the recent recession GDP growth was 0.0% in 2008 and –2.6% in 2009. So in that recession the total decrease in output was –2.6% in one year.
Is unemployment you favorite recession metric? In the recession of the early 1980s unemployment was above 10% for ten consecutive months, and hit 10.8 for two consecutive months. In the recent mess it was only over 10% for one month (it was 10.1%).
output file=c:\random.out reset;
"All I'm saying is that";
if x(less than)1;
elseif x(less than)2;
elseif x(less than)3;
"the right wing";
if y(less than)1;
elseif y(less than)2;
"Why are you";
if u(less than)1;
elseif u(less than)2;
"lying about what I said?";
elseif u(less than)3;
"so eager to excuse monumental stupidity?";
"unable to see that?";
if z(less than)1;
elseif z(less than)2;
"pointing out stupidity.";
"telling important truths.";
Sorry, there's a typo there. It should say:
asefjkgyusefuj ssjlsfjhbvasefjhv seafjsBvhj s asd
This post was never edited.
Except that it actually was. Where's the "This post was edited" notice?
EDIT: Oh, at the top right.
post 314 is a brilliant post.
To display a "less than" sign, type an ampersand, then lt, then a semicolon. To display a "greater than" sign, type an ampersand, then gt, then a semicolon.