This is one of the oddest arguments I've seen. And it honestly strikes at the heart of the problem. It's simply exposes the ignorance of the issue itself. It snowed in my area of California for the first time in more than like 20 years last winter. I mean, several inches of snow in Southern California (not in mountains). This is a rather stunning departure from the standard climate. Hm.
1958 video on Global Warming. It's pretty good, the calculations are off by a lot. It would sink most of Florida, but a lot of that flood isn't going to happen.
Saturday, July 14, 2007
Friday, July 13, 2007
The Ori and Religious Pluralism.
As an avid Stargate SG-1 fan and an atheist, there's a couple little fun cross sections. In a recent episode, Line In The Sand, had perhaps the weirdest combination of Sci-fi and Religious Pluralism. Tomin the faith-head quasi-husband to Vala, is moving up in the ranks of the Ori fleet. The Ori are ascended evil aliens which seek to take over the galaxy by gathering worshipers on the promise of an afterlife etc. However, while reading the Book of Origin, they took a lot of care to have the Prior (religious empowered guy) misinterpret the book.
That's right, the sacred book of evil ascended aliens with wishes to take over the universe (who actually exist (in the Stargate universe)) and to do evil... it simply *MUST* have been misinterpreted.
That's right, the sacred book of evil ascended aliens with wishes to take over the universe (who actually exist (in the Stargate universe)) and to do evil... it simply *MUST* have been misinterpreted.
Thursday, July 12, 2007
Quote: William H. Gascoyne
"I’m not convinced that faith can move mountains, but I’ve seen what it can do to skyscrapers."
Prayers in Senate... an abomination!
Senate prayers (which shouldn't exist anyway) were disrupted because they were given by a Hindu rather than your typical Christian prayer. Oddly this caused a stir. As if Christians only want Christian prayers rather than morality and religion of all types in the public square. That would be rather hypocritical.
As a staunch defender of kowtowing to Christian will, I would like to volunteer my services of giving a Christian prayer in congress.
As a staunch defender of kowtowing to Christian will, I would like to volunteer my services of giving a Christian prayer in congress.
I telepathically beseech you, first-century, wish-granting Jewish zombie. May your death which satisfied your vendetta against us for something not of our doing also satisfy your bloodlust within this hallowed chamber. Amen.
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
Invention of the Day
Robotic reversing vasectomies. The obvious fact is, one's testicular junk is just hanging there. It is, by far, the easiest method of birth control, you get at it and get at it once. However, even with plenty of access, the obvious plan is to cut the vas deferens. This isn't a good sounding idea for men (at least not all men). Surgical reversal is possible, though, expensive and not something you want to plan on having in advance.
This is where my invention comes in. Reversing vasectomies. Rather than cutting, why can't we use any other method of stopping something at A from getting to B? Clamping, removing, bridging, blocking, etc. I propose, for your favorable consideration, cyborg penis! Basically hook something to the vas deferens which prevents sperm from getting through, until you want it to. It wouldn't be hard to power something and switch the settings (perhaps even installing a password) through thin scrotal tissue. One could reverse their own vasectomies repeatedly. Turn it off with your wife, turn it on with your lover. Leave it off until you choose to have kids. Basically, it would be actual birth *control*. You could turn that sucker on and off at will.
This would have mass appeal. If you might sometime in the future want some kid, you could still get one while you sew your wild oats. It doesn't have the this is forever feel that snipping that cord does, and rather than breaking ones junk... it gives you awesome cyborg powers. It would be something men might want to have, just to have. Now that's an invention! The reduced number of unplanned pregnancies, simplicity in the realm of birth control, and easing the options for women (none of which are remotely as easy) are just little bonuses.
This is where my invention comes in. Reversing vasectomies. Rather than cutting, why can't we use any other method of stopping something at A from getting to B? Clamping, removing, bridging, blocking, etc. I propose, for your favorable consideration, cyborg penis! Basically hook something to the vas deferens which prevents sperm from getting through, until you want it to. It wouldn't be hard to power something and switch the settings (perhaps even installing a password) through thin scrotal tissue. One could reverse their own vasectomies repeatedly. Turn it off with your wife, turn it on with your lover. Leave it off until you choose to have kids. Basically, it would be actual birth *control*. You could turn that sucker on and off at will.
This would have mass appeal. If you might sometime in the future want some kid, you could still get one while you sew your wild oats. It doesn't have the this is forever feel that snipping that cord does, and rather than breaking ones junk... it gives you awesome cyborg powers. It would be something men might want to have, just to have. Now that's an invention! The reduced number of unplanned pregnancies, simplicity in the realm of birth control, and easing the options for women (none of which are remotely as easy) are just little bonuses.
Rudy Giuliani is America's Mayor! He is a hero to the New York's firefighters and a certified terrorist killer...
... and nobody should say otherwise until after the primary.
Don't sink the leaky boats, until they are put into the race.
After, he's the nominee, then he's a dress-wearing hero killer who used your loved ones to fill pot holes.
Don't sink the leaky boats, until they are put into the race.
After, he's the nominee, then he's a dress-wearing hero killer who used your loved ones to fill pot holes.
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
Ad Homs and Fallacies.
There's an odd sort of idea that calling anybody a name is an ad hominem. However, a fallacy is saying, you are wrong because you are X. Rather, I sometimes go so far as saying "You are wrong AND you are X".
On rare occasions I call people names. On those occasions I don't do it to be mean, I do it to be accurate.
On rare occasions I call people names. On those occasions I don't do it to be mean, I do it to be accurate.
I love YouTube sometimes.
There's this guy who dresses up like a ninja and lays the smack down on evolution via Unicorns. I must admit. I am very impressed.
Evolution isn't dog eat dog.
Evolution is not dog eat dog, in fact, if you take a look at actual dogs you will notice that they are a pack species. They hunt in groups. They work together to the betterment of all and the betterment of each.
It is in the gene's best interests to support other members of the same species and quite likely the same family which should also share the same gene which encourages cooperation.
Economics are by and large evolutionary. A good idea is duplicated, and whatever makes the most money is the most likely to spread. Good ideas are spread, better services take over, etc. However, a lot of capitalism is the idea that prices and services will always be optimized for the consumer. However, that's not true. The prices and services will always be optimized toward profit. If that means colluding, it means colluding. If that means fixing prices to aid a political party in an attempt to prevent a reduction in profit, that is what it means. Lobbyists are a logical consequence and an impressive adaptation. To take control of the built in power structure is to control one's environment, an ability which in the terms of biological evolution, is nearly impossible to match.
The consumer isn't always right. The consumer is the enemy. The consumer is prey. However, it is in the best interest of the organism to convey this message, much as it is in the best interests of butterflies to, especially if tasty, to convey a message of poison. The general capitalistic idea is that optimally all the companies cannot collude with each other and thus, like the traveler's dilemma, progress toward the lowest possible value. And, much like the traveler's dilemma it just doesn't work in practice. One doesn't sacrifice potential wealth for the sake of rationality. It make look like it should be the optimal solution to deprive yourself of wealth (if you setup economies like giant traveler's dilemmas) but evolution isn't fooled.
It is in the gene's best interests to support other members of the same species and quite likely the same family which should also share the same gene which encourages cooperation.
Economics are by and large evolutionary. A good idea is duplicated, and whatever makes the most money is the most likely to spread. Good ideas are spread, better services take over, etc. However, a lot of capitalism is the idea that prices and services will always be optimized for the consumer. However, that's not true. The prices and services will always be optimized toward profit. If that means colluding, it means colluding. If that means fixing prices to aid a political party in an attempt to prevent a reduction in profit, that is what it means. Lobbyists are a logical consequence and an impressive adaptation. To take control of the built in power structure is to control one's environment, an ability which in the terms of biological evolution, is nearly impossible to match.
The consumer isn't always right. The consumer is the enemy. The consumer is prey. However, it is in the best interest of the organism to convey this message, much as it is in the best interests of butterflies to, especially if tasty, to convey a message of poison. The general capitalistic idea is that optimally all the companies cannot collude with each other and thus, like the traveler's dilemma, progress toward the lowest possible value. And, much like the traveler's dilemma it just doesn't work in practice. One doesn't sacrifice potential wealth for the sake of rationality. It make look like it should be the optimal solution to deprive yourself of wealth (if you setup economies like giant traveler's dilemmas) but evolution isn't fooled.
Monday, July 9, 2007
Required Reading
Isaac Asimov's 1989 Essay The Relativity of Wrong.
One of the best explanations to how science works.
One of the best explanations to how science works.
Those tricky bastards!
As every conspiracy theorist in the world knows the United States government was actively involved in the planning and execution of the 9/11 terrorist attacks (MIHOP). But, think for a moment, how tricky those bastards are... in order to start an unjustified war in Iraq they directly and clearly implicated Saudi Arabia rather than Iraq. That takes balls.
Scientology cures serious mental illness.
Okay, really it's gets a family killed because they swear that their crazy daughter didn't need help. The irony exceeds the tragedy.
Saturday, July 7, 2007
God Hates Lee Polikov!
Lee Polikov the County Attorney for Sarpy County filed several charges against Shirley Phelps-Roper, daughter of Fred Phelps. While protesting the funeral of Nebraska Army National Guard Spc. William "Bill" Bailey she allowed (probably told him to) her son Jonah to stand on a US flag. She was charged with negligent child abuse, contributing to the delinquency of a minor, flag mutilation and disturbing the peace.
She is innocent of those charges. The government is completely out of line here. The Phelps aren't a hate group, they always pitch their message as God's message rather than their own, it is always "God Hates X" and never "I Hate X" (this is actually a pretty important line, as is the fact that they are non-violent). The law passed a year or so back banning protesting at a funeral is extremely unconstitutional (it bars one type of activity whereas other activities are fine). I don't think that the theological arguments they make are that flawed. One can, and they do, make a pretty good case Biblically speaking. If the Bible wasn't completely stupid and idiotic, unsubstantiated, and morally bankrupt... they might actually have a point.
If you really think that the Phelps children should be taken away, you must also conclude that we should steal Amish children as well. While we're at it, why don't we take away those poor home-schooled kids? We might also want to get our paws on Suri Cruise (although unlike the other two this might rally some support).
Really, they only thing I think they are doing wrong is believing the Bible is the word of God. They could be far more moral if they, rather than believing the entire book, would just cherry-pick the sane parts. One can, with a bit of work, make a religion out of parts of the Bible that one could show to their neighbors without too much embarrassment. Though, that does require a substantial amount of gutting. And personally, I don't think that there is much reason to keep the bathwater, if you already threw out the baby.
I tend to have more respect for the Phelps than I have for your average religious person.
She is innocent of those charges. The government is completely out of line here. The Phelps aren't a hate group, they always pitch their message as God's message rather than their own, it is always "God Hates X" and never "I Hate X" (this is actually a pretty important line, as is the fact that they are non-violent). The law passed a year or so back banning protesting at a funeral is extremely unconstitutional (it bars one type of activity whereas other activities are fine). I don't think that the theological arguments they make are that flawed. One can, and they do, make a pretty good case Biblically speaking. If the Bible wasn't completely stupid and idiotic, unsubstantiated, and morally bankrupt... they might actually have a point.
If you really think that the Phelps children should be taken away, you must also conclude that we should steal Amish children as well. While we're at it, why don't we take away those poor home-schooled kids? We might also want to get our paws on Suri Cruise (although unlike the other two this might rally some support).
Really, they only thing I think they are doing wrong is believing the Bible is the word of God. They could be far more moral if they, rather than believing the entire book, would just cherry-pick the sane parts. One can, with a bit of work, make a religion out of parts of the Bible that one could show to their neighbors without too much embarrassment. Though, that does require a substantial amount of gutting. And personally, I don't think that there is much reason to keep the bathwater, if you already threw out the baby.
I tend to have more respect for the Phelps than I have for your average religious person.
Friday, July 6, 2007
Kent Hovind
Understanding creationism is certainly a worthwhile thing to do, if for no other reason than the entertainment value. However, since the first video is almost unwatchable (though worth it for the laugh), I've included the second video a stress reliever.
Ten years for making such stupid videos? He should have gotten longer for his support of this heterodox God idea. Where's a good stake burning when you need them. The state abhors blood too.
California during the hottest summer on record.
You got to love global warming. The rest of the week is set to be 100f+ (hot). And that's only because they can do weather predictions for only the rest of the week.
Well, at least it will sweat the disbelief out of some people easily fooled by transparent PR campaigns against science.
Well, at least it will sweat the disbelief out of some people easily fooled by transparent PR campaigns against science.
Thursday, July 5, 2007
Blinky the Fish and Nuclear Power
As all of you know, from my never having mentioned it before, to all of nobody who reads this blog. I am a firm supporter of nuclear power (gay rights and abortion too... gotta keep up my liberal cred). I think that nuclear power is one of the best and most available methods of stopping greenhouse gas pollution within the near future (when we really need to do so in reality). Modern reactors are safe, and the older reactors (save a few Russian ones) weren't dangerous either. The latest generation are passively safe, which is to say that they cannot melt down. Moreover, we are currently using about 1% of our nuclear fuel before calling it nuclear waste and putting it away forever. If we recycled the fuel and burned off the plutonium, we could use our current nuclear reserves to power our country for the next several hundred years at least (probably in the thousands).
Whence Blinky?
A third eye is most likely not due to a genetic mutation such as could be introduced via nuclear radiation (nuclear power releases less radiation than coal burning power plants (by a lot)). Rather it is much more likely to be due to a developmental error where a second embryo is reabsorbed into the first causing a very minor chimerism/conjoined twins situation.
Whence Blinky?
A third eye is most likely not due to a genetic mutation such as could be introduced via nuclear radiation (nuclear power releases less radiation than coal burning power plants (by a lot)). Rather it is much more likely to be due to a developmental error where a second embryo is reabsorbed into the first causing a very minor chimerism/conjoined twins situation.
Wednesday, July 4, 2007
Why don't Christians cite Wernher von Braun more often...
I understand why people cite that Newton quote (paraphrasing): "I'm too tired to bother to actually solve the N-body problem and develop perturbation theory and instead will force people to wait another century for Laplace, so I'm just going to say that God makes the planets stay in orbit."
But, why not Wernher von Braun? Here was a rather famous scientist who was unabashed about religion: "Nature does not know extinction; all it knows is transformation. Everything science has taught me, and continues to teach me, strengthens my belief in the continuity of our spiritual existence after death."...*...
Sure, he was a nazi and a stupid one at that. Nature does know extinction. In fact, most species are extinct. The idea that because our matter isn't created or destroyed that we, as the complex organization of matter we are, are immortal is just stupid beyond belief (though apparently not beyond belief). I'd love to see this quite more often.
But, why not Wernher von Braun? Here was a rather famous scientist who was unabashed about religion: "Nature does not know extinction; all it knows is transformation. Everything science has taught me, and continues to teach me, strengthens my belief in the continuity of our spiritual existence after death."...*...
Sure, he was a nazi and a stupid one at that. Nature does know extinction. In fact, most species are extinct. The idea that because our matter isn't created or destroyed that we, as the complex organization of matter we are, are immortal is just stupid beyond belief (though apparently not beyond belief). I'd love to see this quite more often.
Romney is a Good Chrisitan. And nobody should say otherwise...
...until after the primaries.
Sure, the Book of Mormon is the like the anti-Koran. Reading the BoM made me laugh at so many places it was silly. Reading the Koran just made my eyes glaze over. There's certainly criticism there, but don't sink the leaky boat until it's the one they put in the race.
Sure, the Book of Mormon is the like the anti-Koran. Reading the BoM made me laugh at so many places it was silly. Reading the Koran just made my eyes glaze over. There's certainly criticism there, but don't sink the leaky boat until it's the one they put in the race.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)