Tuesday, August 09, 2005
random
This is a directory of text files from 1980-1995, going from informative to weird, back to pointless and then over to shocking.
Monday, August 08, 2005
Did you get my memo?
Yeeaaah, I'm going to need you to turn in a TPS cover sheet with that report, mmmkayyy? Thaanks.
Sunday, August 07, 2005
Lesser-Known Movie Prequels
BY SARAH GARB
Ocean's Three
Borderline-Inappropriate Dancing
There Are Plenty of Mohicans
Charlie and the Limited-Production Chocolate Startup
Thursday the 12th
Four Bachelorette Parties and a Friend in the Hospital
Babette's Snack
Joseph and the Nondescript Monochrome Sportcoat
My Brunch With Andre
Triassic Park
The Upwardly Mobile Tenenbaums
discover
Interesting flash site detailing flight information on Discovery. Be sure and check out the "shuttle re-entry" part.
Friday, August 05, 2005
quotes of the day
"I've always found it's a lot easier to ask for forgiveness than for permission."
--said to me by Robin Laurie at the office today
"Talking to Tom is like trying to take a sip out of a fire hose."
space blogging
Super high-res photos taken by the shuttle astronauts can be found here and here. There are also a lot of interesting pics and movies here, of course.
hopefully
Not surprisingly, Ann Coulter is calling U.S. Supreme Court nominee John Roberts a "Souter in Roberts' clothing."
Thursday, August 04, 2005
Whose fish?
This brainteaser, reportedly written by Einstein, is so difficult that he said that 98% of the people in the world could not figure it out:
There are five houses in a row in different colors. In each house lives a person with a different nationality. The five owners drink a different drink, smoke a different brand of cigar and keep a different pet, one of which is a Walleye Pike.
The question is-- who owns the fish?
Hints:
1. The Brit lives in the red house.
2. The Swede keeps dogs as pets.
3. The Dane drinks tea.
4. The green house is on the left of the white house.
5. The green house owner drinks coffee.
6. The person who smokes Pall Malls keeps birds.
7. The owner of the yellow house smokes Dunhills.
8. The man living in the house right in the center drinks milk.
9. The man who smokes Blends lives next to the one who keeps cats.
10. The Norwegian lives in the first house.
11. The man who keeps horses lives next to the one who smokes Dunhills.
12. The owner who smokes Bluemasters drinks beer.
13. The German smokes Princes.
14. The Norwegian lives next to the blue house.
15. The man who smokes Blends has a neighbor who drinks water.
There are no tricks, pure logic will get you the correct answer. And yes, there is enough information to arrive at the one and only correct answer.
If you get the correct answer, you are one of an exclusive group of 121,348,731 people in the world.
exactly
"This translator will take what you write in it and turn it into the manner a 12-year-old AOLer would write it."
"FOUR SCOR3 AND SEVAN Y3ARS AGO OUR FATHERS BROUGHT FORTH ON THIS CONTIENNT A NU NATION CONCEIEVD IN LIEBRTY AND D3DICAETD 2 DA PROPOSITION TAHT AL MAN R CREAETD EQUAL NOW111! W3 R ENGAEGD IN A GREAT CIVIL WAR TASTNG WHETH3R TAHT NATION OR ANY NATION SO CONCAIEVD AND SO D3DICAETD CAN LONG 3NDURE!1!!!1 OMG W3 R MET ON A GR3AT BATL3-FEILD OF TAHT WAR11!! OMG LOL W3 HAEV COME 2 DEDICAET A PORTION OF TAHT FEILD AS A FINAL R3STNG PLAEC FOR THOS3 WHO HERE GAEV THEYRE LIEVS TAHT TAHT NATION MIGHT LIEV111!1!1! LOL IT IS AL2G3TH3R FITNG AND PROPAR TAHT WE SHUD DO THIS BUT111!1 OMG WTF LOL IN A LARG3R SENSE W3 CAN NOT DEDICAET - WE CAN NOT CONS3CRAET - WE CAN NOT HALOW - THIS GROUND!!!!1! DA BRAEV MEN LIVNG AND DEAD WHO STRUGL3D HARE HAEV CONSACRAETD IT FAR ABOVE OUR POR POW3R 2 AD OR DETRACT111!111! LOL TEH WORLD WIL LITLE NOT3 NOR LONG REMEMBR WUT WE SAY H3RA BUT IT CAN N3VER FORGAT WT DID HERE!!!1 OMG WTF LOL IT IS FOR US TEH LIVNG RATHAR 2 B DEDICAETD HAR3 2 DA UNFINISH3D WORK WHICH THEY WHO FOUGHT H3R3 HAEV THUS FAR SO NOBLY ADVANCED!1!!!!1 WTF IT IS RATHER FOR US 2 B HARE DEDICAETD 2 DA GRAAT TASK R3MANENG BFORE US - TAHT FROM THASE HONOR3D D3AD WA TAEK INCREAESD DEVOTION 2 TAHT CAUSA FOR WHICH THAY GAEV TEH LAST FUL MEASURE OF D3VOTION - TAHT W3 HARE HIGHLY R3SOLVA TAHT TH3S3 DEAD SHAL NOT HAEV DEID IN VANE - TAHT THIS NATION UNDER GOD SHAL HAEV A NU BIRTH OF FREDOM - AND TAHT GOVERNM3NT OF DA P3OPLA BY TEH PEOPL3 FOR DA PEOPLE SHAL NOT P3RISH FROM DA AARTH1!!!! OMG"
Wednesday, August 03, 2005
why 'christian pseudoscience' is bad
A couple of days ago I posted that I thought George Bush was being irresponsible in endorsing the teaching of Intelligent Design, a new theory in biological science that holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. Most of you are familiar with the debate between Evolutionists and Intelligent Design adherents, especially as it has played out in the grade school classrooms. At any rate, an anonymous person added the following comment to my post, which I appreciated and felt obliged to respond to in a thorough manner:
There's no reason religion and science can't inhabit the same discussion. Intelligent design doesn't necessarily mean Christian, either. Virtually every religion on the planet endorses some kind of intelligent design. Doesn't the failure to address this in public education put blinders on the students with regards to the beliefs of the vast majority of the human race?
In answer, I offer the following explanation of my views on the subject. I have shortened it for the sake of brevity.
1) There are LOTS of reasons religion and science can’t inhabit the same discussion, especially in schools. The first is that their aims are in conflict: the religious perspective posits an explanation of the world’s origin (Genesis, etc.) and then seeks scientific truth within that context. Pure science posits no such explanation, and thus does not have to rationalize its conclusions. It is impossible to reconcile these positions, because pure science cannot be confined within the limits set by Biblical authority or any other belief-based authority. The search for Truth must allow for questioning all perspectives, which religion by definition does not allow. Religion asserts that it has an answer. Science only asserts that there are conclusions that can be drawn from repeated observations.
The second reason is that many scientific truths are in direct conflict with asserted religious truths. For example, Buddhists believe that the universe is infinite in time and space, and filled with an infinite number of worlds like our own. They believe that there are two realms above our ordinary world, the realm of form (rupa-dhatu) and the realm of formlessness (arupa-dhatu), and that below these is the realm of desire (kama-dhatu). There is no verifiable explanation for any of this-—it is a matter of faith and personal intuition. Therefore any scientific theory which holds, for example, that survival of the species is based on genetic trial and error, will ALWAYS be in conflict with religious teachings because it does not first acknowledge “God” or "Buddha" or "realm" or anything that is not a direct product of repeated human observation. In fact, including “God” –an admittedly unverifiable factor—into any scientific explanation defeats the very purpose of the scientific endeavor. Science’s aim is to look for a more direct cause and effect.
All this is not to say that it is impossible to reconcile science and religion. But in the limited context of the grade-school curriculum, we need to acknowledge that children should be taught science and the scientific method, and religious teachings have no place there. Until religious assertions, i.e. that “God” created the world, can be proven by scientific method, they should never be offered as scientific truth.
2) I never said that Intelligent Design means just Christian. Of course every religion on the planet tends to embrace intelligent design, because that theory allows faith-based assertions to enter scientific discourse. Every religion on the planet has its own version of cosmological explanation. And like all historical myths, each particular cosmology tends to justify the religion’s existence. Therefore, every religious authority feels threatened by modern science when it attempts to offer an alternative non-religious cosmology. Religion’s authority is weakened when its fundamental justifications are shown to be mere myths and storytelling. That is why, for example, Galileo in the early 1600s was forced to recant his groundbreaking scientific observations, because they conflicted with and threatened the church’s authority.
Again, study intelligent design and it becomes obvious that it is simply an attempt to insert “God” into the scientific inquiry into the workings of biological development. The scientific community has largely dismissed the theory as unsound and pretextual. The problem is that the theory of evolution is just that, a theory, so it is hard for scientists to refute Intelligent Design on grounds of truth because we’re not exactly sure what the ultimate truth is. But most of the world’s scientists remain certain that the theory of evolution is WAY closer to truth than any theory of intelligent design. And our students should be taught only those theories that have the best chance at approximating the truth.
3) The failure to address Intelligent Design in public education does not “put blinders on the students with regards to the beliefs of the vast majority of the human race.” It opens their eyes to the beauty and power of scientific truth. Look at the world around you, the car you drive, the phone you use, the roads, the planes, the clothes you wear, the entire structure of civilization—it is all the fruit of the scientific process. And by “scientific process” I mean the drawing of conclusions based on repeated observations. This process allows us to study and learn how the world works. Its endless aim is the collective increase of humankind’s knowledge and understanding. The effectiveness of scientific inquiry is weakened when it has to cite religious authority on a subject we have no way of verifying other than by faith.
Again, this is not to say that scientists cannot be religious, or vice versa. Many of the world’s foremost thinkers have been very devout. But there comes a point when science ceases to be religious and when religion ceases to be scientific, and that point is reached in the labroom and in the grade school classroom. When a science teacher has 40 minutes in which to explain modern biological science, it is counterproductive to qualify the whole thing by saying that, in essence, it is only a theory and that other theories exist. Do churches do the same thing in bible school? Do they qualify the story of Adam and Eve by explaining that it is just a theory and that actually there is this other theory called evolution out there? Of course not.
This brings me to the central point: Because modern science tends to expose children to facts which make them question religious teachings, parents and religious authorities are worried that children are questioning their faith. We do not actually know with certainty how the world was created, and scientists admit as much. And because this flies in the faith of faith-based teachings, Intelligent Design is born. Intelligent Design, whatever its scientific merits may be, is at bottom a way to tell children that “You don’t have to question your faith. There is a theory out there that says God in fact created everything.” Although the theorists shy away from actually using the terms “God” or “Allah” or “Jehovah” it is clear what they mean when they say that the world was created by an “Intelligent Designer.” In fact, William Dembski, in his 1998 book “The Design Inference” even lists God or an alien life force as two possible options.
Put simply, Intelligent Design theories have simply not achieved enough scientific validity to deserve a place in grade school classrooms. As the Wikipedia article cited above notes, “the National Academy of Sciences has said, intelligent design ‘and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life’ are not science because their claims cannot be tested by experiment and propose no new hypotheses of their own, instead they find gaps within current evolutionary theory and fill them in with speculative beliefs. The scientific community does not recognize ID as a scientific theory and considers it to be creationist pseudoscience.” Virtually every other educational subject is required to pass this peer-review test before it is taught in our schools, and science should be no exception.
Tuesday, August 02, 2005
Earth Works
For over 20 years Stan Herd has worked the earth using indigenous materials to produce evocative and mystical works. From 160-acre plowed portraits to one-quarter-acre intimate stone designs, his work has become a platform for discussion of mankind's contemporary relationship to the land.
Hiroshima cover-up exposed
"In the weeks following the atomic attacks on Japan almost 60 years ago, and then for decades afterward, the United States engaged in airtight suppression of all film shot in Hiroshima and Nagasaki after the bombings. This included footage shot by U.S. military crews and Japanese newsreel teams. In addition, for many years, all but a handful of newspaper photographs were seized or prohibited.
The public did not see any of the newsreel footage for 25 years, and the U.S. military film remained hidden for nearly four decades."
George Bush is stupid
Or he has no idea what he's talking about. Anyone who has learned even the most basic principles of the "Intelligent Design" theory of life should know that it should not be taught in our schools as merely "another school of thought." It is not just another school of thought. It is a subterfuge to introduce Christian teachings into scientific discussion. The president should know better than to endorse such a controversially unsound doctrine.
Monday, August 01, 2005
anti-Hitler
During the Second World War, three anti-aircraft forts were built in 1941-42 to protect the Thames Estuary near London.
More info here. Another good article on WWII may be found here: Atoning for World War II, 60 years later.
More info here. Another good article on WWII may be found here: Atoning for World War II, 60 years later.
more motorcycling
This is a fascinating collection of photographs of Chernobyl, 20 years after the meltdown. Our host is Elena, a young motorcyle-riding Russian woman with enough curiosity and guts to witness first-hand the devastation of the Chernobyl "dead zone." She apparently knows a bit about radiation, and explains exactly how much she is being exposed to as she cruises the blasted countryside..
"My name is Elena. I run this website and I don't have anything to sell. What I do have is my motorbike and the absolute freedom to ride it wherever curiosity and the speed demon take me . . . I travel a lot and one of my favorite destinations leads North from Kiev, towards so called Chernobyl "dead zone", which is 130kms from my home. Why my favorite? Because one can take long rides there on empty roads. The people there all left and nature is blooming. There are beautiful woods and lakes. In places where roads have not been travelled by trucks or army vehicles, they are in the same condition they were 20 years ago - except for an occasional blade of grass or some tree that discovered a crack to spring through. Time does not ruin roads, so they may stay this way until they can be opened to normal traffic again........ a few centuries from now."
quote of the day
from the Complaint I just read:
"The Defendant was knocked, shocked, bruised, contused, lacerated, twisted and sprained. . ."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)