no more "Wayne's World"

Cable flips channel on public access TV - Los Angeles Times:

For decades, public access programming on cable television has provided a virtually free forum for community activists and aspiring entertainers, for preening star wannabes as well as serious-minded political watchdogs.

But in Los Angeles and across California that forum began crumbling last week, a development that advocates say will strip ordinary citizens of a valuable 1st Amendment platform.

A provision of a law passed by the Legislature in 2006, which took effect Thursday, allows cable television providers the option of dropping their long-standing obligation of providing free studios, equipment and training to the public. In return, providers must pay a substantial annual fee and continue to provide a minimal number of public education and government channels.

Yet another way in which the national media conglomerates are given free reign to remove any local distinctiveness at all.

At least in buying satellite (both tv and radio), I'm acknowledging up front and by choice that I'm putting a national platform ahead of anything local (aside from the local channels and flipping to WTOP and WETA on occasion).

But with radio, HD radio, and now regular cable, the illusion that you're still contributing to a local economy and getting local benefits out of it is just that, a complete illusion. And now that illusion is being shattered even more.

wow, what a quote...

West Wing season 5 (while Bartlett is taking time off due to the daughter's kidnapping), in a discussion on violence breeding violence, Leo finishes by saying to him:

"Dr. King wasn't wrong.  He just didn't have your job."

No Bible? The Constitution has something to say bout that...

Article Six of the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

You know, I would love it when an openly gay person is elected to Congress or even President, that he swear his oath on a copy of the Washington Blade.

One of my favorite movie jokes ever is in Airplane II (one if its few REALLY funny ones, if damn subtle).  At the trial, the bailiff holds this heavy 3" thick book to the jive dude and goes "Do you swear on the Constitution of the United States to tell the truth ...".

amazing what you find when you actually read the damn thing

I was curious about the 25th Amendment (the current rules for succession) and Article 1.  Specifically, since so much of the House and the Senate rules are defined by the Constitution as to be decided upon by those houses, I was wondering if those two "officers" (Speaker of the House and President pro tempere of the Senate) actually exist in the Constitution or only by house rules.

It wouldn't be the first time that an amendment used a term that's not actually in the original document: the 14th amendment refers to rights of "Citizens" and yet there is no official Constitutional definition of what is or isn't required to be a Citizen.  It is defined by law, but not by Constitution.  There's reasons the Bill of Rights was specific about "no person" rather than "no citizen" - using a loophole in vocabulary should be no excuse for violating the spirit of the intentions of the Bill of Rights authors...even though it has, repeatedly - FISA is a clear violation of that spirit, for example.

But on the two house offices, yes, both are mentioned in the Constitution, and the houses are free to decide who that person is through their own rules and traditions.

I note that the VP is different from any other Presidential appointment: he must be approved by BOTH houses, not just the Senate.

On the cover article from New Scientest: "Darwin Was Wrong?"

Sandwalk: Darwin Was Wrong?:

[...] for the last three billion years of evolution the tree of life is a very good metaphor for evolution. Darwin was mostly right about that. On the other hand, the New Scientist article discusses some problems with the tree of life that extend beyond the early history. It makes several valid points that should make everyone skeptical of claims about evolution that are too simple. The tree isn't perfect.

The bottom line is that it's unfair to say that Darwin was wrong. It's as unfair as saying the Newton was wrong because of Einstein. We need to recognize that modern evolutionary biology is an improvement over the view of the Victorian founder of the field, but a cover saying that Darwin was wrong conveys the wrong message. It suggests that up until recently scientists believed that Darwin was right about everything.

A better headline might be: "More evidence that Charles Darwin didn't know everything there is to be known about evolution when he published his book in 1859."

As a comment there says: 'You forgot the "Duh" at the end.'

*sigh*

Pharyngula: Deranged and destructive:

We had a little drama in St Paul this morning: an anti-choice kook decided that an effective way to silence a family planning clinic was to smash the entrance to Planned Parenthood with his SUV.

Several employees were in the building at the time, said Planned Parenthood spokeswoman Kathi Di Nicola. She said the SUV hit the front door of the clinic two or three times, damaging the clinic's front door and surrounding stonework.

When Di Nicola arrived at the clinic, she said the man had gotten out of the SUV and was pacing around it, holding a crucifix and chanting. "He was agitated and he was saying, 'shut down this Auschwitz,' " she said.

Violent, unthinking, incoherent, and flaunting his piety. Typical.

In contrast, the staff at the clinic responded calmly and with discipline.

and some people wonder why, in spite of unchanging beliefs, I won't call myself a Christian anymore...

how hard should it be...

...to get a simple answer to the following question:

What is the optimal resolution an image file should have to not look like absolute crap when enlarged to 5x7, 8x10, 8x12, a 12x36 banner, or a 12x24 poster?

My google-fu is failing me on this.

I keep seeing things either useless, or in "DPI" - I don't think "DPI", dammit, I'm looking at 3456x2304 and 3280x2460 and I want a straight answer dammit.  DPI is all about the printer - I don't care about the printer, I am asking about the source image itself.

(I also keep seeing sites about 5mp and "expensive memory", and all that is SO 3 years ago...).

Ok, one site is finally hinting that 7200x4800 (or 34mp) is best for that 24x12 poster, so that's out with what I've got... guess I'll go with a set of 8x12s mounted side by side.

of course, along the way I run into sites about resolutions to enlarging the european parliament, and high resolution images on other...enlargements...

oh well.  gotta go for now.

Geek Power!

Obama's personal win: keeping the BlackBerry - Yahoo! News:

The first family settled into their new lives in the White House on Thursday as President Barack Obama won an important personal victory: He gets to keep his BlackBerry.

Obama will be the first sitting president to use e-mail, and he has been reluctant to part with his ever-present handheld device. Its use will be limited to keeping in touch with senior staff and personal friends, said White House spokesman Robert Gibbs.

"I've won the fight, but I don't think it's up and running," Obama said as he walked through the White House briefing room Thursday evening to meet reporters.