So I promised to implement a new design here at -273 last spring. It took me a while to get around to it, but here it is. So far, I've only rolled it out to the main page, but I'll be updating all the other pages on the site over the next few days. But be prepared to jump back and forth between the new look and the old look. I'd like some feedback on the new look, so please leave me a comment letting me know what you like and what you dislike.

Oh, and if you had a particular attachment to the old look, you might want to bookmark this page.

Comments: 2 Posted by david on 30 November 2006 at 9:59 PM

The image above is of Microsoft's Steve Ballmer ringing the opening bell at the Nasdaq exchange today in honor of Vista's release. Someone should have told him they were going to take some pictures. But at least he wasn't throwing any chairs.

Comments: 0 Posted by david on 30 November 2006 at 11:00 AM

I got a Wii on Sunday. It took a bit of work, and I'll post some details about that in a bit, but in the meantime, here's a review of Excite Truck that I wrote for amazon.

Excite Truck, in adding a vertical component to a standard racing game, has created one of the more enjoyable games that I've played in recent memory.

Controlling the trucks in Excite Truck is both unique and simple. Holding the standard Wii remote sideways (keep the d-pad under your left thumb and the 1 and 2 buttons under your right), you steer the truck by turning the controller. The courses feature many ramps from which you can launch your truck into the air and control how long it stays aloft by rotating the controller back toward you. And if you stick the landing, so to speak, by aligning all four of the truck's tires with the ground (again, by rotating the controller), you can get a speed boost.

The game play in Excite Truck is very compelling. The game offers a head-to-head mode that pits two racers against each other, but my friends and I preferred collaborating on clearing the levels. In a twist that is, in my experience, unique to Excite Truck, you do not clear a track based just on score. Instead, you must collect stars as you run through the course. Stars are granted for, among other things, jumps with long hang-times, daring runs through trees, hard slides through curves, and smashing other trucks. You can also get points for how you place in the race, but it is much more important to collect stars during the race as you cannot get an 'A' or 'B' for a course simply by coming in first. In fact, no matter how fast you race, your competitors will likely be able to match your pace, especially in the 'Gold' and 'Platinum' level tracks. It takes deft maneuvering at the end of the race to secure a first place finish in some of these later levels. All things considered, the focus on tricks and jumps makes for a very enjoyable game, especially for a group of players.

Quibbles:

• The initial setup of the game -- all of the game actually -- requires that you hold the remote sideways. However, no indication of this is given when you are asked to create save data at the beginning of the game, so you have to figure out on your own why pressing the up arrow moves the cursor to the left. Driving the menus with the standard Wii point-and-click interface would have been a useful improvement.
  
• The controls take some getting used to. Some of my friends had a tendency to try to steer with the directional pad. Others would over steer by turning the remote all the way past vertical when steering, which had unpredictable results. But a little more time with the game will probably get people used to the controls. (And, as a full disclaimer, none of the ones who had difficulty steering had completed the tutorials.)

All that aside, Excite Truck is a must-have game for the Nintendo Wii.

Comments: 0 Posted by david on 20 November 2006 at 9:51 AM

Disclaimer: This was originally an email to michael, but I thought I'd see if an one else had an opinion on this.

It would appear that the Democrats are the party of "cut and run." Whether this is a good idea or not is apparently an open question. I am torn on this issue. Unfortunately, while it is easy to come up with metrics that we can use to determine when we should withdraw (for example, when insurgent violence stops or when basic infrastructure is restored), no one seems confident that any of these metrics can be attained in the short-term and no one wants to stay for the long haul. But I don't like the idea of "bombing them back to the stone age," to quote our vice-president, and then bailing out before we've even restored basic things like electricity and oil production. It does make it seem like we're cutting and running. Your take?

Comments: 0 Posted by david on 13 November 2006 at 10:53 PM

The Democrats found success in the last election by moving to the center. This shouldn't be news. In the pre-Rove, pre-polarization days, the conventional wisdom was that elections were decided by the undecided centrists. But in recent elections voters have punished the Democrats for their centrist policies by voting for Green Party candidates -- notably Ralph Nader.^* But the left didn't decided this election. Instead, right-wing voters, perhaps dismayed by the GOP's profligate spending, gave this election to the Democrats by voting Libertarian in key races.

Here are two key examples of this. First, in Montana, where the Democratic candidate has a 2,847 vote lead over the Republican incumbent, the Libertarian candidate, picked up 10,324 votes. By carrying 3% of the votes, Stan Jones, the Libertarian candidate, was able to take this election away from Conrad Burns, the Republican incumbent. And in Missouri, where Claire McCaskill has a 41,537 vote lead over Jim Talent, Frank Gilmour, the Libertarian candidate, received 47,007 votes. Again, these votes could have easily tipped things in favor of Talent, the Republican incumbent.

So while the MSM has been chalking this election up to voter's unhappiness with Iraq -- certainly, a very important component of the Democrats' success -- things could have gone very differently if the Republicans had been able to rein in their desire to spend, spend, spend. Democrats need to seize this opportunity by staking out a position as the party of fiscal responsibility. When you have the chance to take a core group of the oppositions voters into the fold, you need to seize that opportunity and run with it. Especially when the policy you'd be enacting is beneficial to the country. In the '90s, eliminating the deficit was a huge coup for the Republicans. Democrats need to emulate that success by reining in domestic spending.

Comments: 0 Posted by david on 9 November 2006 at 12:34 PM

A few thoughts before bed:

• Who would have thought that so much would hinge on Yellowstone County, Montana?
  
• Chris Matthews is speculating that Webb's lead in Virginia is large enough (~8,000 votes) that Allen will concede the election without a recount. I'll believe that when I see it.
  
• I very much did not expect Claire McCaskill to win by a larger margin than the Stem Cell initiative passed by. Everything I read about the stem cell constitutional amendment led me to believe that it had wide support. But apparently it didn't as it seemed to ride McCaskill's coattails, trailing for most of the night until the urban votes were tallied.
  
• I feel sorry for Katherine Harris. I don't think she deserves the reputation that she got in 2000. Plus, Republicans seem to like her even less than Democrats. When President Bush was campaigning in Florida earlier this week, she showed up at an event and he wouldn't let her participate. He made her sit in the gallery. This was his party's nominee for Senate. Talk about cheap. But, despite feeling sorry for her, I'm quite happy that she lost her campaign.
  
• Who would have thought the Democrats would be this close to taking both houses? We'll have to see how things shake out tomorrow for the final result, but the signs are good for the Dems.
  
• Why does it take St. Louis so long to tally votes? They had similar problems in '04, but have since upgraded all the election equipment. Some needs to explain this.

Comments: 0 Posted by david on 8 November 2006 at 3:18 AM

For purposes of discussion tonight I've been treating Joe Lieberman (Independent, Connecticut) as a Democrat since he has repeatedly pledge to caucus with the Democrats if elected. However, I can imagine that if the (actual) Democrats get 50 seats and the Republicans 49, there are going to be a lot of offers made to Mr. Lieberman to switch sides. And, presumably, a lot of offers to not switch sides. Let's just say that there'll be a lot of "Joementum" if this scenario plays out.

Comments: 0 Posted by david on 7 November 2006 at 5:59 PM

Early exit poll numbers (links are below) suggest I may have been a bit pessimistic in my Senate estimate. The early numbers are looking good for the Dems in Missouri and Montanta, two states I had consigned to the GOP in my estimate. If this trend holds, the Senate will still be split 51-49, but the Donkeys will be in control.

Exit polls:

• Washington Monthly
  
• New York Observer
  

Comments: 1 Posted by david on 7 November 2006 at 5:51 PM

The last 2006 World Series celebration pictures you'll ever want to see.

Comments: 0 Posted by david on 7 November 2006 at 4:44 PM

Okay, time for some prognosticating. Before I spoil myself by reading exit poll data and hashing things out with those who know more about this than me, here are my 2006 election predictions. The categories are a bit scatter-shot, but this is what you get.

US Senate
I spent a lot of time playing around with the NY Times election guide and here is my take on how things will play out. Virginia will go blue. Tennessee, Missouri, and Montana will go red. The rest go the way everyone expects things to. This leaves the Senate split with 51 GOP Senators and 49 Democratic ones. Here's what my map looks like.

US House of Representatives
I used the election map at NPR to gain some insight into the key House Races and then used the NY Times election map to create my scenario. In the end, I think the House will go blue with 222 Democratic members and 213 Republicans. Here's what my map looks like.

Gubernatorial Races
Republicans lose eight of their 28 states (Minnesota, Nevada, Ohio, New York, Massachusetts, Maryland, Colorado, and Arkansas), giving control of 30 governor's mansions to the Democrats. Here's what my map looks like.

Indiana 8th (see map)
I'll be taking my first celebratory drink of the night when crazy John Hostettler loses to Brad Ellsworth. And if you aren't familiar with why I'm no Hostettler fan, make sure you read the controversy section of the wikipedia entry I linked to above.

MO Senate
As I alluded to above, I think Missouri will probably go red. I hope I'm wrong here, but that's the feeling I'm getting right now. I'm also worried about how the fallout from this race will effect the MO ballot initiatives.

MO Ballot initiatives
The results are hardest to predict in this category because of the dearth of useful polling on the subject, but here's my prediction.

• Stem cell initiative: The poll I saw showed Missourians strongly supporting this initiative. But I'm concerned that a big right-wing turn out could adversely effect things. It's a tossup, but I'll go with the poll and predict that the measure will pass.
  
• Smoking tax: I have no idea how people will vote on this, but I"m predicting that this passes.
  
• Withholding pensions from felons: Pass.
  
• Minimum wage increase: Pass.

Agree or disagree? Let me know through the comments. And don't forget to vote today.

Comments: 0 Posted by david on 7 November 2006 at 2:04 PM