Redstate

being usually correct, it's probably just the case that Red America is more popular than expected.

Whether by popularity or foul play, in the long run this can only help spread its influence.

...not least that if there was a DOS attack going on I'd probably have heard about it by now.

but I find it a bit difficult to believe that the WaPo people would have such a low bandwidth limit that Red America couldn't even make it past a few days.

WaPo has proven itself behind the curve in so many political issues, I would be singularly unsurprised to find their technical infrastructure was 10 years old.

According to the error, it is Apache that reached a limit (not that it can't serve more, it just won't right now.)  Now I'm not the one running the server, and you can pretty much do anything you like to make any error pop up (because it's NOT Microsoft.)

The first reply was correct, your site generated too much traffic.

Red State. Red America. Red, red, red....

Has anyone considered a Sammy Hagar marketing deal? I see Mr. Red Rocker is playing in Tahoe in May. Beautiful time of the year there.

Speaking of Van Halen-related things, I note that Ray Davies did a very nice cover of their song, "You Really Got Me," when I saw him at the 9:30 Club on Monday.

Ray's sort of a conservative fellow, at least instinctually, I think. It was fun to hear the crowd sing along to Sunny Afternoon:

The tax man's taken all my dough,

And left me in my stately home,

Lazing on a sunny afternoon.

And I can't sail my yacht,

He's taken everything I've got,

All I've got's this sunny afternoon.

A case before the court, depending on the basis of their decision, could upset thousands of intellectual property and biotechnology patents, including those for the 20% of the human genome already patented. Here's why you should care:

Supreme Court May Decide Who Owns Your Genetic Code

Your link is a perfect example of it.  Telling researchers they can't do research into Alzheimer's because someone else patented the gene that causes it is just plain insane.

"Where ar' ye goin'?"

"Goin' ta pick a fight..."

I'm curious, oh open-threaders: What do we cut from the Federal Budget?  2.3 trillion in tax revenue, but we're spening at least 2.7.  So what needs to go?

Today, the Times is running a front-pager about the problems the College Board seems to be having recently while scoring the SAT.  And they're pretty bad, although so far they've affected only about 1% of the tests.  

Here's the headline:

"SAT Problems Even Larger Than Reported"

It includes a few juicy zingers from people who are rightfully shocked, dismayed and inconvenienced:

"Everybody appears to be telling half-truths, and that erodes confidence in the College Board," said Bruce J. Poch, vice president and dean of admissions at Pomona College in Claremont, Calif....

...

Robert A. Schaeffer, public education director for FairTest, a group that criticizes heavy reliance on testing, said the new announcement reinforced "the need for an outside independent investigation to find out how many more problems have not been reported."

"The College Board and Pearson are clearly not competent to police themselves," Mr. Schaeffer said.

Well, a failure to correctly score approximately 1% of anything as important as the SAT is a problem, but not a catastrophe.  It's interesting to see that you can't a reference to this article anywhere on the front page of the Times' website: (h/t: Drudge)

NEW YORK For the second time in less than a week, The New York Times today admitted to a serious error in a story. On Saturday it said it had misidentified a man featured in the iconic "hooded inmate" photograph from Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. Today it discloses that a woman it profiled on March 8 is not, in fact, a victim of Hurricane Katrina--and was arrested for fraud and grand larceny yesterday.

Can the New York Times and Arthur Sulzburger, Jr. be trusted to police themselves?

The USPTO is completely broken. Business process patents are even worse. The patent farmer operations that employ a half dozen lawyers and crank out over 100 applications a month for obvious ideas that involved no development effort or plans to ever implement are a serious problem. They just lie in wait until a victim looks big enough to extort some serious cash out of.

There are so many ridiculous patents out there like the Amazon one click patent (though at least they were just using it to be anti-competitive rather than as a means to get rich).

Demands in an open thread, I recommend a copy of Parliament of Whores especially Section Three:

OUR GOVERNMENT:  WHAT THE &@&# DO THEY DO ALL DAY, AND WHY DOES IT COST SO G&@*#(ed MUCH MONEY?

Updated for the present day, of course.  O'Rourke undoubtedly realizes what needs to be changed about the book to make it current:  A frank admission that everything has gotten worse since he wrote these immortal paragraphs:

What is this oozing behemoth, this fibrous tumor, this monster of power and expense hatched from the simple human desire for civic order?  How did an allegedly free people spawn a vast, rampant cuttlefish of dominion with its tentacles in every orifice of the body politic?

The federal government of the United States of America takes away between a fifth and a quarter of all our money every year.  That is eight times the Islamic Zakat, the almsgiving required of believers by the Koran; it is double the tithe of the medieval church and twice the royal tribute that the prophet Samuel warned the Israelites against when they wanted him to anoint a ruler...

As for myself, all that I can add in the space of this open thread is: Don't blame me, I supported Shadegg.

which we can regurge into our collective napkin:

• National Fribbage Months and National Days of Fribbaging
  
• The United Nations
  
• Targeted Federal grants to States
  
• Defense procurement reform
  

The first item may prove the least controversial :-).

The U.N. sounded nice in 1946, but it amounts to an open-ended treaty, which once having ratified now obligates us to the transnationalists.  It's a treaty that changes its meaning with each international event.

Federal grants should be given to States to do with as they wish, not tied to pork projects or Federal mandates.  The pork projects do nothing but help keep incumbents in power.  They use the Federal power to tax as a club, robbing States of their individual power and making a mockery of the Republic.

Finally, while it's hard to find "$600" toilet seats outside Beverly Hills, military procurement still involves creating a manufacturing process that involves as many states and Congressional districts as possible, regardless of efficiency.  The process needs an overhaul, and there's plenty of room to demagogue even further on it than I have done.

"This is your brain on Drugs."

"Any questions?"

That has been weighing on my mind.

Finally, while it's hard to find "$600" toilet seats outside Beverly Hills, military procurement still involves creating a manufacturing process that involves as many states and Congressional districts as possible, regardless of efficiency.  The process needs an overhaul, and there's plenty of room to demagogue even further on it than I have done.

It is my personal opinion that the only difference between Duke Cunningham and all other congressmen has been their political acumen.

Duke used the procurement process to obtain rugs, dinners, and antiques (which is apparently frowned upon).  Other congressmen use it to obtain and maintain power and their positions of authority, including all the perks that come with it (which is considered perfectly acceptable).  Looks to me like different breeds of pigs, but all are still just pigs, and both kinds endanger our troops and waste our money.

And if even one single earmarked procurement disadvantaged one of our soldiers, let alone hurt or killed one, I hope the responsible Congressman suffers an ignominious fate which will remain unmentioned due to the tender sensibilities of other posters who are not such bloodthirsty warmongers as myself.

If two residents disagree over whether to allow a search, the search ought not to be allowed.

Unless, that is, any evidence uncovered incriminates them both equally.  Otherwise a roommate (or jilted lover), with much more access than the police, can plant evidence against another and invite a search.

The potential for mischief is just too great.

'cedible source' that prison planet uses to forward their 'The Government carried out 9/11' conspiracy theory. Good job, knuckleheads.

'Article' found here:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2006/200306charliesheen.htm

PS. I STILL suck at HTML  :(

Anyone catch the new episode of South Park last night?

No spoilers from me yet, but this one's an instant classic!  :D

Take THAT Isaac Hayes, you narrow-minded hypocrit!

I thought they were quite gracious to Isaac Hayes, actually, in their own way of course.

Brain washing thing was a big time slap at scientology though. You just know it!!  :)

Liberal Media Bias? Absolute nonsense:

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash9ab.htm

Well, maybe just a tad.

is a must read.

Everyone involved in any activity should, as much as possible, learn from the mistakes of others.

First of all, Roberts, Thomas, and Scalia were all dissenting. So when you say "Roberts has it right, as usual" what you mean to say is "Souter has it right, as usual."

This is a ridiculous ruling that has nothing to do with planted evidence. Just because evidence is found in a residence does not mean the court assumes it belongs to a particular person. It would implicate the person who planted it as much as the other person involved. There can also be more than 2 people involved. So if there are 10 people living in a house do you need permission from everybody? What if it isn't clear who lives there? What if household members can't be located? What if a landlord wants to consent but the renter does not? What if the rightful owner of a place wants to consent but a squatter does not?

I agree that was a great episode with Chef last night, but still I think nowhere near as hilarious as the original Scientology episode (the Tom Cruise one) that sent Isaac Hayes slithering off in a snit. That's the episode I really think will become a classic, and hopefully fodder for many sequels.

I still don't know if the preemption of the normally scheduled rerun of the Tom Cruise episode was Comedy Channel buckling to pressure from the Church of Scientology, or it was just an ordinary programming decision. I guess we'll only find out we see if that episode turns up in the reruns of old South Parks.

who supposedly gave a "no Mission Impossible 3 publicity tour if you air that episode" ultimatum to Viacom.  Viacom owns both Comedy Central and Paramount.  Viacom has a rumored $150 million tied up in MI3 production costs, so they would be wise to keep Tom happy.

but this one takes the cake. What was that expression about being caught with your pants down? How about if you continue to insist that they're not! ;) (BTW, Rove, that e-mail was a neat trick, it's nice to see you back again, thought you'd left for good.)

The ruling, that one resident's consent trumps the refusal of another, seems to me to fly in the face of the Fourth Amendment.  It's not reasonable for one person to grant access to someone else's property.  Allowing access to common areas necessitates access to private ones.

Privacy is as important as the freedom of speech or press, and like those should not be lost due to the actions of another.  Saying the judge should decide assumes judicial infallibility. The system should not be set up to err on the side of convicting the innocent, but of letting the  guilty go free.  Yes, I mean that.

The occupants, if present, must all agree.  Those  not present have rights, as well; a search to which they don't agree, absent probable cause, should be as inadmissable as if they refused.

Squatters/tenants vs landlords is a red herring, a separate issue.  The squatters have rights, despite their trespass.  Book 'em on tresspassing, but (unless that or something else gives probable cause to search) nothing found in a search matters.

If you agree that when a present occupant refuses to consent to a search, the search is unconstitutional, then you Disagree with Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas. They dissented. They argue that when multiple occupants are present when the officers request consent for a search, and one refuses, the search is still constitutional

weren't implicated by this decision. The concurrences make it clear that prior precedent is unchanged. Such precedent establishes that officers DONT have to go find other occupants to be sure they consent. They are only prohibited from searching based on consent if an occupant present at the time of the request refused.

was that a friend of his said that "John feels so badly about this email. He is a straight shooter and great producer who is always fair. That said, he deeply regrets the sentiment expressed in the email and the embarrassment it causes ABC News."

If the sentiment was so regretable why the H*ll did he send it? He deeply regrets it alright; regrets that it became public.

Hypocritical SOB

about OBL's ties with Saddam? That's heavy stuff. Wonder if all the "straight shooters" will make a big deal about that. Won't hold my breath. Oh, and BTW, Cheney likes Fox News. What a surprise.

Chief Justice John Roberts was among the dissenters, saying the ruling could have severe consequences on domestic violence cases.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5295373&ft=1&f
=1001

and be right? :-)

Had the USPTO existed in 17th century England, Newton could have patented calculus and held back science 100 years.