The NYTimes has an interesting article on catapults, ancient weapons of mass destruction:
One aspect of this ancient weaponry that caught Dr. Cuomo's attention was something Hero of Alexander wrote in the first century A.D., which has the ring of the cold war policy of mutual deterrence."You didn't just have to have catapults to use them," the historian said in an interview. "You needed your potential enemy to know that you had catapults so they would not attack you in the first place."
Other scholars praised the essay, especially its insights into the close relationship of science and technology in ancient political affairs.
"She's right on target," Adrienne Mayor, an independent scholar in Princeton, said of Dr. Cuomo's thesis. "A lot of people still think of ancient science as something carried out in ivory towers. But war and science are intertwined from the beginning — something military historians have not ignored, but others have."
Ms. Mayor is a classical folklorist whose latest book, "Greek Fire, Poison Arrows & Scorpion Bombs" (Overlook Duckworth, 2003), describes biochemical warfare in antiquity, including many instances of catapults that rained fire and pestilence in battle.
Came home early today and found a letter from the IRS.
"Official Business," the envelope said. "Penalty for Private Use, $300." Well, that certainly put me in a relaxed frame of mind.
Tearing the envelope open, I noticed the following words: "We Changed Your Account"
Uh-oh. They must have found a problem with my amended return. But I kept reading and soon enough I realized that it was simply a notice that they had accepted my amended 2002 return and the check for $2,268 is in the mail. Or on its way to direct deposit.
Whew!
Why can't they just say that upfront?
I just received a check for thirteen dollars as my share of the Compact Disc Minimum Advertised Price Antitrust Litigation.
I just vaguely remember signing up for it, many, many months ago.
Update: The web site appears to be down, so here is the Urban Legend-eye view.
This joke has been making its way around the Internet. A search via Google ranks this New Zealand site at the top. Anyone know where it originated?
With all your honour and dignity what would you do?
This test only has one question, but it's a very important one. Please don't answer it without giving it some serious thought. By giving an honest answer you will be able to test where you stand morally. The test features an unlikely, completely fictional situation, where you will have to make a decision one way or the other. Remember that your answer needs to be honest, yet spontaneous.
You're in Florida... In Miami, to be exact... There is great chaos going on around you, caused by a hurricane and severe floods. There are huge masses of water all over you. You are a BBC 24 Hrs photographer and you are in the middle of this great disaster. The situation is nearly hopeless. You're trying to shoot very impressive photos. There are houses and people floating around you, disappearing into the water. Nature is showing all its destroying power and is ripping everything away with it. Suddenly you see a man in the water, he is fighting for his life, trying not to be taken away by the masses of water and mud. You move closer.
Somehow the man looks familiar. Suddenly you know who it is - it's George W. Bush!
At the same time you notice that the raging waters are about to take him away, forever. You have two options. You can save him or you can take the best photo of your life. So you can save the life of George W. Bush, or you can shoot a Pulitzer prize winning photo, a unique photo displaying the death of one of the world's most powerful men.
And here's the question (please give an honest answer):
Would you select colour film, or rather go with the simplicity of classic black and white?
I just received my copy of the latest issue (dated Feb 26) of the NY Review of Books featuring a review written by Paul Krugman of the recent Kevin Phillips and Ron Suskind/Paul O'Neill books. It's not on the web yet. Their web site is still showing the previous issue.
Update: It's now online.
So Phillips is right: the Bush administration is deeply hypocritical with regard to its core policies; what it says is at odds not only with what it does, but with what it really thinks. But then what does drive its policy decisions?Let's flash back to what John DiIulio told Suskind in late 2002:
There is no precedent in any modern White House for what is going on in this one: a complete lack of a policy apparatus. What you've got is everything--and I mean everything--being run by the Mayberry Machiavellis.O'Neill confirms DiIulio's picture, with a vengeance. Consider, for example, what may in the long run be considered the administration's most fateful decision: to abandon the Kyoto Protocol and, in effect, abandon any attempt to face up to global warming. O'Neill's account makes it clear that nobody even tried to ask what the facts were, what the tradeoffs might involve. Instead, "energy concerns and the thinly supported jeremiad by industry lobbyists had eclipsed considerations about action on global warming. Period." Or as O'Neill summarized this approach to policymaking, "The base [i.e., Bush's Republican political base] likes this and who the hell knows anyway."
What emerges from Suskind's book is a picture of an entirely cynical administration--much more cynical than Nixon's, in which the corruption was localized, and large parts of the policy process continued to be run by serious, even idealistic people. (Old hands at the Environmental Protection Agency describe the Nixon administration as a golden age.) Under Bush, it seems, political rhetoric bears no relation to reality--what officials say has nothing in common with what they do, or what they think. and policy decisions are driven almost entirely by politics, by what the political arm thinks will play well with "the base."
This has long been one of my favorite Heinlein quotes. It seems especially apropos right now.
"If God hated flesh, why did He make so much of it? God is no sissy. He made the Grand Canyon and comets coursing through the sky and cyclones and stallions and earthquakes-can a God who can do all that turn around and practically wet His pants just because some little sheila leans over a mite and a man catches sight of a tit?"-Robert Heinlein, Stranger in a Strange Land
Let's see Apple releases version 1.2 of the Safari browser on the same day that the beta version of OmniWeb 5 appears.
Not to mention a new release of ecto.
And I just discovered that the IRS has finally changed the rules for electronic filing so that I can once again qualify.
Oh, my.
After upgrading to Panther (the code name for Mac OS X 10.3), I noticed that Safari, the Mac's excellent web browser, seemed to have slowed down. Frequently, and for no apparent reason, Safari became non-responsive and the mouse pointer changed to the dreaded beach ball.
A visit to Apple's Safari discussion forum cleared up the problem.
Go into Safari's Preferences and select the AutoFill tab. Click on the Edit button for Other Forms and then click on Remove All. (Alternatively, you could go through the list of web sites and manually delete particular ones, or you could just uncheck the box next to Other forms.)
Whatever you do, don't select Reset Safari from the Safari menu. That will erase all your cookies as well as saved passwords and other things you might not want to lose.