Glenn: I believe it's critical that we keep that in mind as we discuss him for the next seven months.

Can't we discuss Hagee the horrible, too? Since the US has no problems, we should have time to talk about him as well.

Glenn:Self-evidently, every problem that Hiatt argues is created by "mere" air strikes against other countries is magnified by many magnitudes by the types of invasions and long-term occupations which Hiatt cheers on for Iraq.

Perhaps my ironimeter is not working today, but this statement appears to be merely well constructed and true. Since Hiatt knows what he is doing, he deserves so much worse.

wrote: 50 or a 100 thousand hours are great. If you are >+4STD in the quality control area. But if the bulb fails early you are hosed. This is the tradeoff we learn from 6-Sigma; the cost to push from 5 to 6 sigma can be almost asymptotic for certain processes. And since no one will pay for that the actual failure distribution is far less than 5 or 6 STD, often less than 4, which sounds great until you churn out a billion units of something.

I do not see what you mean. To say anything sensible about light bulb failure, you need the failure distribution curve for each of the light bulbs being compared. It is very easy to get confused. Remember this: "Consider two idealized light bulbs in use simultaneously--what is the difference in their failure times? It will be true that once one of the bulbs fails, the remaining bulb, being as good as new, will have a remaining failure lifetime given by the standard waiting time distribution." (Mantel and Pasternak, ASAJ, Sep 1966).

That statement was written by a statistician, and ignores the obvious physics about real light bulbs, which shows that an old light bulb is more likely to fail than a new one. (evaporation from the filament, etc.)

So, can you explain what it is you mean, and actually show that it is true?

Reporting biased towards the administration continues; media ownership is concentrated in a few corporations, and until that changes, bias will continue.

wrote:What is the quality of manufacturing. If I buy 1 billion light bulbs how many conk out early. Given they cost a fortune, if there is a significant enough probability that any given bulb conks out then the obscenely high price of each bulb isn't worth the risk to me, unless the bulb vendor provides a warranty.

Perhaps you do not understand the meaning of "mean time before failure". If you have the actual mean time, then those that burn out early are compensated for by those that last longer. That is how the mean is computed.

If, on the other hand, you are implying that the width of the distribution about the mean has some second order effect, I agree that it is possible that widely different relative widths about the mean could have some effects on the relative costs. But you cannot answer that question here, not without the complete distributions and a study of the usage.

I think Pablo's simple calculations are a good guide.

Radio telescopes are sensitive to electromagnetic radiation, but girl friends? In any case, fluorescents are not allowed at radio telescopes, but LEDs are.

The same reason it changed "change" into "chage".

I think you are right to be concerned about surges and square waves. Both of these conditions can increase the average current through the LEDs and cut the life. It is possible to build them with good solid state constant current sources, but that is expensive.

First: Glenn's comments are about Kathryn Jean Lopez and others expressing similar ideas, not about catholics or religious people in general.

Second: This post is about how people treat other people, not about religion.

There is no need for a religion war today.

A purpose of the judiciary check over the legislature, would seemingly be to protect constitutional rights AGAINST the will of the people especially for minority opinion and/or during times of popular panic and hysteria. "Displaying interest in the will of the people" seems to be exactly what the framers (whom McCain proudly invokes) DID NOT INTEND for the judiciary to do when considering whether or not a law is constitutional.

That is the way I have always understood it. But it seems that ideas that were standard in "social studies" classes when I was in primary and secondary school are now minority ideas, and perhaps even considered radical. Strange, but very deadly for our democracy. Although no candidate completely embraces my accidental and unintended radicalism, surely there is enough difference to make the choice of party obvious?

In the comments on Glenn's previous post you said this:

When doing a blog that relies on character assassination and unrelenting criticism, what else do you expect from the commentariat?

The topic of this new post offers you a fine opportunity to substantiate your claim that Glenn relies on character assassination. Can you show us, line by line, where he does this? Or will you continue to avoid specific, documented, thoughtful criticism? The answer is apparent, but you should have every chance to prove your point.

I am not sure what you are actually saying, but the post does raise a few questions.

1. In what way is Iran a less responsible neighbor than Israel? Which country has more of a history of invading its neighbors?

2. Why does Iran have any less right to have nuclear weapons than Israel?

3. Which side do you think would start the nuclear exchange? (That is, which government really thinks that obliterating itself is a good idea?)

4. Is it possible that US led invasions in the ME might cause countries there to seek better defense?

wrote: If we allow iran to develop nuclear weapons, are we then responsible for any ensuing use of those weapons?

A better question: if we allowed Israel to steal our nuclear capabilities, are we then responsible for any ensuing use of their weapons?