You know, with all the hubbub over Clinton's victories last week in Ohio, Rhode Island and Texas, you'd think she scored some kind of major victory.

But no. Out of 292 delegates assigned that day she got 18 more than Obama (not counting superdelegates). Is this a "comeback?" Was Obama really that far ahead anyway? According to CNN's current numbers, he's about 100 delegates ahead, out of about 3000 delegates awarded. That's a tie if I've ever seen one.

Basically, other than the candidate's home states and states with a history of racism, they've been splitting the vote about 50-50, where the "winner" of a state has more to do with who happens to come out to vote than any real majority opinion.

Thus, Obama's trail of victories is akin to Rosencrantz winning 92 flips in a row. Just a statistical improbability.

But this, I suppose, would be a far more boring story on your evening news.

Now that I've had the pleasure of using Vista for about 2.5 months, I feel I should comment on a few things. Plus, this has the advantage of putting off the grading I'm supposed to be doing.

First, all of the Vista-panic of last year is really unwarranted by now. Yes, some older peripherals (USB non-class-compliant) will not work with Vista, and it looks like they're not going to bother updating the drivers on some really, really old hardware. My casualties? An old POS Midi controller and a webcam from 1999. I also had some difficulty using a firewire camera, solved by making sure the camera was plugged in before it was turned on. Everything else worked fine.

Vista Aero is pretty sweet-looking. Blows MacOS out of the water for looks (I've used both for significant amounts of time). They've improved some little features, a lot of which was stolen from Mac (or stolen by Mac, who knows really? X windows was doing all this stuff in the 80s...), including incorporating search features into the start menu (want a program? just type the name), little widgit support on a sidebar, and a very useful program switcher which shows live versions of the windows as they actually exist (though the 3-d version of this is just a waste of time). It also has far superior file browsing abilities, though I still just keep it on "Details" mode. There's transparency, window animations - it's a bit of a resource hog, but as long as you have a video card of some sort it won't slow you down any. Turning off Aero features on my computer saved about 80 megs of ram.. not worth worrying about.

All this is possible because they separated the windows from the programs - essentially they added a window manager which handles drawing to the screen. This allows Windows to exit programs gracefully without visual artifacts. Crashed programs are handled FAR better than they were in XP - I rarely need to reboot to fix those problems. Of course, this is the real resource hog - running Vista takes about a gig of RAM on its own.. and with a max cap around 3 gigs for 32-bit architecture, that's unfortunate.

Sleep functions on the laptop are better, including a hibernate feature that actually works (and is mysteriously the default action.. do they really think this thing won't need a reboot that often?). They also have Tablet PC features which look like they'd be cool if only this was a tablet. Why those features are enabled by default, I'll never guess.

But, alas, Windows still cannot handle local network computer operations. I click on a link to a computer that doesn't exist, and the damn thing hangs for 30 seconds while it looks for it. Why, Windows, why?

If I had to pay for the upgrade, I wouldn't bother. But I also won't be reformatting my laptop to "upgrade to XP."

A reporter tries to railroad an Obama supporter in this interesting video.

You think you know how it's going to go, but you're wrong.

This kind of thing gives me hope for the universe, only offset by Facebook group comment areas.