Sunday, March 30, 2008

When they say WYSIWYG ...

They mean it.

This image shows how Windows Live Writer allows the blog author to see exactly how the blog post will look while writing.

Fresh Windows and Live Writer

I spent most of yesterday spring cleaning: my computer.  What's new?

  1. Windows Vista reinstalled.  It used to be 64-bit, and now I've gone back to 32-bit for greater compatibility.
  2. Windows Vista SP1 installed.  Things seem to be a little faster.  I'll see how I feel after a week.
  3. I'm also trying out the new Windows Live desktop applications
    • This post is being written in the new Windows Live Writer. 
      • So far I've been impressed at how easy it was to set up to use my special "Blogger blog published to my own domain" setup. 
      • The application is really clean, and seems to do everything I want. 
      • I'm inserting a picture below to test out how that works ... when blogging with Word 2008, that did not go so well.  And check out that nice drop shadow on the picture.  Lovely.
      • Notice I'm writing a numbered list with sub-bullets (rather than numbers).  This is something that the Blogger online editor does very poorly.  Hopefully this shows up well once uploaded.
    • Live Photo Gallery and Live Mail are looking pretty promising too.
  4. Hey, cool, Back-dent (the opposite of using the tab key to indent) works :)

Anyway, today is basketball.  Some friends are coming over and we're going to have pancakes and root for Texas and Davidson. 

This photo was taken by Hugo on Easter weekend.  The tulip is form Pike Place Market.

Saturday, March 15, 2008

Pennsylvania

In the Clinton campaign's continuous quest to move the goalposts, they have trotted out a new ante based on Pennsylvania:


From a March 13 Press Release

Did You Know? The path to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue goes through Pennsylvania. No Democrat has won the presidency without winning Pennsylvania since 1948. No candidate has won the Democratic nomination without winning Pennsylvania since 1972.
Hillary Clinton has been polling fairly well in Pennsylvania. Publicizing these numbers seems to imply that Pennsylvania has some magical ability to predict the fate of Democrats. This can be useful since it is to Hillary's benefit to shift attention away from the fact that she is behind in delegates, states won and the popular vote. The implied message here is pretty clear:
If Hillary wins the Democratic primary in Pennsylvania, then history shows that she should be the Democratic party nominee, because winning PA equals winning in November.
Let's take a look at this data to see if it really makes sense.
First part first: "No Democrat has won the presidency without winning Pennsylvania since 1948."
This is true if you interpret "winning Pennsylvania" to mean in the primary election. (In 1948, Harry Truman won the presidency but lost Pennsylvania in the general election to Thomas Dewey.)
So if that much is true, what else is true?
  • Since 1972, there are five instances where the Democrat who won the Pennsylvania primary went on to lose in the general election anyway.
So if Hillary's claim is true six times (1948, 1960, 1964, 1976, 1992, 1996), and the opposite is true five times (1956, 1984, 1988, 2000, 2004), what is the point? Seems like Pennsylvania isn't so magical after all.
And now for that curious last sentence: "No candidate has won the Democratic nomination without winning Pennsylvania since 1972."
There are two ways to interpret "winning Pennsylvania": Based on the primary or general election.
  • No candidate has won the Democratic nomination since 1972 without first winning the Democratic Primary in Pennsylvania. This is actually a false. Jimmy Carter won the Democratic nomination in 1980 - but he lost in the Pennsylvania primary to Ted Kennedy.

  • Well, since the first interpretation was false, the Clinton campaign must have meant "winning Pennsylvania" to mean in the general election. But what does that even mean? Are they implying some sort of reverse causation? If this is the proper reading, then it would mean "Since 1972, no person can be the Democratic nominee if they do not win Pennsylvania in the (future) general election." Let's look and see if 1972 happens to be the last year that a Democratic candidate won the party nomination but didn't win Pennsylvania in the general election ... nope. 1988. Michael Dukakis was the nominee, and he lost in Pennsylvania in the general election to George H. W. Bush.
Can anyone provide an way to parse this sentence that such that it is true? I really want to believe that the Clinton campaign isn't flat out lying here.
We deserve better. Out of three sentences: one blanket statement, on half-truth, one lie. Thanks Hillary.

Saturday, March 01, 2008

Researchers discover gene that blocks HIV

From an article on website of the University of Alberta:
 
A team of researchers at the University of Alberta has discovered a gene that is able to block HIV, and in turn prevent the onset of AIDS.
 
Stephen Barr, a molecular virologist in the Department of Medical Microbiology and Immunology, says his team has identified a gene called TRIM22 that can block HIV infection in a cell culture by preventing the assembly of the virus.
"When we put this gene in cells, it prevents the assembly of the HIV virus," said Barr, a postdoctoral fellow. "This means the virus cannot get out of the cells to infect other cells, thereby blocking the spread of the virus."

This is incredibly promising news in the fight against one of the worst diesaeses our world has ever seen.  What surprises me is that this isn't being picked up as much in the latger media.  For Example, The Atlanta Journal Constitution, (which is incidentally the home of the Centers for Disaese Control) puts this news fifth in a "Health Highlights" combo article, below a piece about a recall of Walker's Four Bean Salad.