The following is a chain of thought from this morning
Headline:Did They FindNoah's Ark?
Archaeologists Are 'Amazed'
Mark: There's no such thing as Noah's ark. Why would this be news? No sane archaeologist would claim such a stupid thing.
[clicks on article] (June 29) - Texas archaeologists ...
Mark: Oh! *Texas* archaelogists! That explains it.
Friday, June 30, 2006
Thursday, June 29, 2006
Spiderman 3
The trailer is out, looks pretty good. For those of you who are comicy, it seems like they are doing the excellent Venom story.
For those of you who are not, the Venom story is about ... well...
Maybe you should just see the movie, it should be good. :)
For those of you who are not, the Venom story is about ... well...
Maybe you should just see the movie, it should be good. :)
Logorrhea
A kind of amusing take down of bloggers who take themselves way too seriously. In this case, InstaPundit
But what would we-dia actually look like? This is a question that can be easily answered by InstaPundit. Reynolds's blog consists largely of links to news or opinion articles and other blogs followed by comments consisting of such profound observations as "Heh," or "Read the whole thing," or "Indeed." (These are recurring tropes whose centrality can't be exaggerated.) What Reynolds lacks in analysis, he makes up for in abundance of content. On any given day, he'll provide his readers nearly 20 entries--or, if you can stomach it, more.
The blogosphere doesn't universally suffer from this extreme case of logorrhea or vacuity. (Nor are newspaper columnists immune from the latter syndrome.) It contains plenty of experts and thoughtful analysts who excel at precisely the analysis that is hardly the forte of newspaper reporters and eludes old-fashioned pundits. But Reynolds exposes how the blogosphere, at its worst, values timeliness over thought. After linking to an article on congressional earmarks, he'll add, "Well, that's encouraging. Sheesh." Quod erat demonstrandum. Or he'll carp, "Nancy Pelosi, on the other hand, is just dumb"--a point that may be perfectly true but probably requires some explanation or proof beyond the simple assertion. In the end, this method provides the intellectual horsepower of, say, an Andy Rooney commentary. To wit, he wrote in December, "A battery recall on the XM portables. Is it just me, or are we seeing more battery recalls lately." Well, no need for The New York Times, then.
But what would we-dia actually look like? This is a question that can be easily answered by InstaPundit. Reynolds's blog consists largely of links to news or opinion articles and other blogs followed by comments consisting of such profound observations as "Heh," or "Read the whole thing," or "Indeed." (These are recurring tropes whose centrality can't be exaggerated.) What Reynolds lacks in analysis, he makes up for in abundance of content. On any given day, he'll provide his readers nearly 20 entries--or, if you can stomach it, more.
The blogosphere doesn't universally suffer from this extreme case of logorrhea or vacuity. (Nor are newspaper columnists immune from the latter syndrome.) It contains plenty of experts and thoughtful analysts who excel at precisely the analysis that is hardly the forte of newspaper reporters and eludes old-fashioned pundits. But Reynolds exposes how the blogosphere, at its worst, values timeliness over thought. After linking to an article on congressional earmarks, he'll add, "Well, that's encouraging. Sheesh." Quod erat demonstrandum. Or he'll carp, "Nancy Pelosi, on the other hand, is just dumb"--a point that may be perfectly true but probably requires some explanation or proof beyond the simple assertion. In the end, this method provides the intellectual horsepower of, say, an Andy Rooney commentary. To wit, he wrote in December, "A battery recall on the XM portables. Is it just me, or are we seeing more battery recalls lately." Well, no need for The New York Times, then.
A Terrifying Message from Al Gore
"Yes, I play a streetwise pimp. With a hybrid pimpmobile"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BjrOi4vF24
(kudos to Geoff for this)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BjrOi4vF24
(kudos to Geoff for this)
Wednesday, June 28, 2006
A Masterpiece of Sloppy Thinking
[This is my once every few week non-humorous posts]
From Pharyngula:
What else can I think, when reading Echidne of the Snakes, I run across this astonishing gem of self-loathing femininity.
If you could change one thing about the world, regardless of guilt and politics, what would you do? Hoo-boy, this is where I get in trouble, and that starts with "T" and that rhymes with "P" and that stands for "pool." I'd like to jump in a pool right now. Some may tell me to jump in a river for this one: I would remove women's suffrage, and I might even consider making voting rights tied to property ownership.
Well, actually, she doesn't get in trouble: read the comments and everyone is quite supportive, and think that disenfranchising the majority of Americans is simply a wonderful idea. It would clear the roles of all those worthless welfare queens who always vote for Democrats, dontcha know. Women aren't supposed to vote or run for office or do anything other than serve their families.
And they're very, very happy about it all.
Happy indeed. Positively jubulent.
A sample:
I completely agree with both removing women’s suffrage and coupling voting rights with property ownership. I am always hesitant to admit my views on the suffrage movement, but I strongly feel that our nation made a grievous error when we allowed women many of the same “rights” as men. First off, I think that voting should be a family affair with the wife putting in her input, but the man ultimately deciding on which candidate he votes for. I think women are too emotional and often vote for the “bleeding heart liberal” cause because it feels right to them. When I tell folks my view on this they always ask if I vote. Yes, I do because my husband wants me to.
My solution is the same as the solution to the abortion question: if you don't think women should vote, and you are a woman, don't vote.
I'm a little shocked that almost a century after woman's sufferage anyone, anyone at all, can still think like this.
From Pharyngula:
What else can I think, when reading Echidne of the Snakes, I run across this astonishing gem of self-loathing femininity.
If you could change one thing about the world, regardless of guilt and politics, what would you do? Hoo-boy, this is where I get in trouble, and that starts with "T" and that rhymes with "P" and that stands for "pool." I'd like to jump in a pool right now. Some may tell me to jump in a river for this one: I would remove women's suffrage, and I might even consider making voting rights tied to property ownership.
Well, actually, she doesn't get in trouble: read the comments and everyone is quite supportive, and think that disenfranchising the majority of Americans is simply a wonderful idea. It would clear the roles of all those worthless welfare queens who always vote for Democrats, dontcha know. Women aren't supposed to vote or run for office or do anything other than serve their families.
And they're very, very happy about it all.
Happy indeed. Positively jubulent.
A sample:
I completely agree with both removing women’s suffrage and coupling voting rights with property ownership. I am always hesitant to admit my views on the suffrage movement, but I strongly feel that our nation made a grievous error when we allowed women many of the same “rights” as men. First off, I think that voting should be a family affair with the wife putting in her input, but the man ultimately deciding on which candidate he votes for. I think women are too emotional and often vote for the “bleeding heart liberal” cause because it feels right to them. When I tell folks my view on this they always ask if I vote. Yes, I do because my husband wants me to.
My solution is the same as the solution to the abortion question: if you don't think women should vote, and you are a woman, don't vote.
I'm a little shocked that almost a century after woman's sufferage anyone, anyone at all, can still think like this.
Quote of the Day
"There is nothing that has a greater hold on the minds of people than ignorance fraught with technicalities."
Trying to find who said this, but it's great.
From here
Trying to find who said this, but it's great.
From here
Tuesday, June 27, 2006
Up Your Funk and Wagnalls
A new word dawns:
: What is “blogofascism”?
A: Blogofascism is a violent online political philosophy and movement. It is characterized by:
A cult of personality built around dangerously charismatic 2002 US Spelling Bee quaterfinalist and apple-cheek’ed nerd despot Markos “Kos” Moulitsas;
A reactionary rejection of all standards of human decency and/or invitations to subscribe to The New Republic;
Many other terrible qualities, TBD.
Q: Is blogofascism real?
A: Realer than anything you could possibly imagine.
Q: Is there any evidence for this?
A: The evidence is right there on your home computer. Open up Miscrosoft Word, and type “blogofascism”. Note that “blogofascism” - the most dangerous political movement in America, bar none - is not even in the Word dictionary! An oversight? Recall now that Bill Gates announced his intention to step down as head of Microsoft - the world’s most powerful computer company - just as blogofascism - the world’s most dangerous computer cult - has come into its own. Is Gates planning on turning Miscrosoft over to “Khairman Kos”, as part of a dastardly scheme to bundle “Halloween III”-style exploding novelty masks with every install of the long-anticipated “Longhorn” operating system? Connect the dots, people! We went through the looking glass a long time ago. We went through the looking glass, walked around the looking glass world for a while, and then went through a couple of looking glass looking glasses we found in there, and we’ve all been flipped inside out and upside down so many times we don’t know if we can believe anything anymore. What does it all mean? Fucked if we know, but if a chronically tardy bunny in a gold-button’ed waistcoat starts waving weird pills at you, for God’s sake, just say no!
Also, we are in the process of forging some really incriminating emails.
: What is “blogofascism”?
A: Blogofascism is a violent online political philosophy and movement. It is characterized by:
A cult of personality built around dangerously charismatic 2002 US Spelling Bee quaterfinalist and apple-cheek’ed nerd despot Markos “Kos” Moulitsas;
A reactionary rejection of all standards of human decency and/or invitations to subscribe to The New Republic;
Many other terrible qualities, TBD.
Q: Is blogofascism real?
A: Realer than anything you could possibly imagine.
Q: Is there any evidence for this?
A: The evidence is right there on your home computer. Open up Miscrosoft Word, and type “blogofascism”. Note that “blogofascism” - the most dangerous political movement in America, bar none - is not even in the Word dictionary! An oversight? Recall now that Bill Gates announced his intention to step down as head of Microsoft - the world’s most powerful computer company - just as blogofascism - the world’s most dangerous computer cult - has come into its own. Is Gates planning on turning Miscrosoft over to “Khairman Kos”, as part of a dastardly scheme to bundle “Halloween III”-style exploding novelty masks with every install of the long-anticipated “Longhorn” operating system? Connect the dots, people! We went through the looking glass a long time ago. We went through the looking glass, walked around the looking glass world for a while, and then went through a couple of looking glass looking glasses we found in there, and we’ve all been flipped inside out and upside down so many times we don’t know if we can believe anything anymore. What does it all mean? Fucked if we know, but if a chronically tardy bunny in a gold-button’ed waistcoat starts waving weird pills at you, for God’s sake, just say no!
Also, we are in the process of forging some really incriminating emails.
Monday, June 26, 2006
The Kind of Thing You'll Like if You Like That Kinda Thing
New episodes of Original Series Star Trek, made by fans with digital rendering.
(here)
I downloaded the first teaser and the first episode. It's not all that bad. Certainly watchable. I was quietly impressed.
One interesting thing (at least for me) is that all the scenes with the ship are rendered digitally with models that are publically available and fan made.
(Update: Fixed link)
(here)
I downloaded the first teaser and the first episode. It's not all that bad. Certainly watchable. I was quietly impressed.
One interesting thing (at least for me) is that all the scenes with the ship are rendered digitally with models that are publically available and fan made.
(Update: Fixed link)
Friday, June 23, 2006
Monday, June 19, 2006
9 Years to the Singularity
So says no less a publication than the Economist:
So what does the future hold? With only five data-points, it is hard to be sure exactly which mathematical curve is being followed. If it is what is known as a power law, then the 14-bladed razor should arrive in 2100. The spate of recent innovation, however, suggests it may be a hyperbola. In that case, blade hyperdrive will be reached in the next few years and those who choose not to sport beards might be advised to start exercising their shaving arms now.
Who knows? After the Rapture/Singualrity, I might finally get a perfect shave!
Tuesday, June 13, 2006
Maybe I Should Tune Into Fox Once in Awhile
This is ... well many things. Terrible, unprofessional, unexpected from Fox and... hilarious!
Behold the power of a well shaken can of Whoop-Ass.
Backstory: For those of you who are unaware, the Rev. Phelps and his church became famous in the '90s for disrupting the funerals of AIDs victims with signs, loud speakers and protesters. Really, just-not-done kind of stuff. It made them famous, doubtless got them lots of backing from rich crazy folks and really showed how little compassion some Christians have.
However, the thrill is gone form that. There are, unfortunately, too many AIDs funerals now and, fortunately, most respectable media outlets refuse to give them air time. So they did what any brand-savy media organization does when the market moves, they followed it. Consequently, they rarely picked funerals of AIDs victims anymore.
Now they picket the funerals of Iraq war dead.
Yeah.
Theoretically, that's what Mrs. Phelps is there to discuss.
Behold the power of a well shaken can of Whoop-Ass.
Backstory: For those of you who are unaware, the Rev. Phelps and his church became famous in the '90s for disrupting the funerals of AIDs victims with signs, loud speakers and protesters. Really, just-not-done kind of stuff. It made them famous, doubtless got them lots of backing from rich crazy folks and really showed how little compassion some Christians have.
However, the thrill is gone form that. There are, unfortunately, too many AIDs funerals now and, fortunately, most respectable media outlets refuse to give them air time. So they did what any brand-savy media organization does when the market moves, they followed it. Consequently, they rarely picked funerals of AIDs victims anymore.
Now they picket the funerals of Iraq war dead.
Yeah.
Theoretically, that's what Mrs. Phelps is there to discuss.
Monday, June 12, 2006
That Sounds About Right
I don't remember this, but it sounds exactly like what I would do. My mother responds to the sparkler incident:
Hi Mark: was reading your blog never knew about the sparkler incident but I do remember when you about 3 years old we were at grandma's and you decided to see if toilet paper would burn in a circle. so you locked the door and lit the toilet paper then you got scared and wouldn't unlock the door I climbed through the window and got you out you were so scared and looked so sad I didn't even punish you.
Actually, I very vaugely remember my mother climbing in the window of the bathroom to rescue me from something gone wrong. This could be the same incident or it could be after I moved from fire to water as a hobby...
Hi Mark: was reading your blog never knew about the sparkler incident but I do remember when you about 3 years old we were at grandma's and you decided to see if toilet paper would burn in a circle. so you locked the door and lit the toilet paper then you got scared and wouldn't unlock the door I climbed through the window and got you out you were so scared and looked so sad I didn't even punish you.
Actually, I very vaugely remember my mother climbing in the window of the bathroom to rescue me from something gone wrong. This could be the same incident or it could be after I moved from fire to water as a hobby...
Friday, June 09, 2006
Pinkerton Nails It (again)
This is an excellent guide, although I dont agree with all his choices.
The opening minute of Last Action Hero casts Arnold Schwarzenegger as Hamlet. Arnold Schwarzenegger. As Hamlet.
Okay, that's worth seeing, at least once.
The opening minute of Last Action Hero casts Arnold Schwarzenegger as Hamlet. Arnold Schwarzenegger. As Hamlet.
Okay, that's worth seeing, at least once.
Winner: The Egg!
Finally! Closure!
"Therefore, the first living thing which we could say unequivocally was a member of the species would be this first egg," he added. "So, I would conclude that the egg came first."
The same conclusion was reached by his fellow "eggsperts" Professor David Papineau, of King's College London, and poultry farmer Charles Bourns.
Mr Papineau, an expert in the philosophy of science, agreed that the first chicken came from an egg and that proves there were chicken eggs before chickens.
"Therefore, the first living thing which we could say unequivocally was a member of the species would be this first egg," he added. "So, I would conclude that the egg came first."
The same conclusion was reached by his fellow "eggsperts" Professor David Papineau, of King's College London, and poultry farmer Charles Bourns.
Mr Papineau, an expert in the philosophy of science, agreed that the first chicken came from an egg and that proves there were chicken eggs before chickens.
The Central Conceit
Brian Dunbar at Liftport send me over a copy of a book they're working for review, and I, for my part, am going to blog my comments. Liftport is a private company working to build a Space Elevator as a cheap, high tech access to space.
So I got a copy, opened it and immediately looked for the section I care the most about: does the physics of this work? Every story I've ever read on this technology (and there is lots, all well documented in the book) has as it's central conceit, some kind of fudge about the strength of materials involved, i.e. diamond hyper- filament, electrosupported nanocarbon tubes, carbon re-enforced Unobtainium etc. Without some really solid physics backing the engineering, this falls into the bin of Things-I'd-Like-to-See-But-Can't-Happen, like a moonbase or a secular government.
But wait, your saying to yourself, wouldn't most people say, "they are a funded company. Surely smarter, better people than you, say actual, factual certified engineers, have worked this out already. Isn't this just your usual physicist-arrogance. If they have raised money, surely the market has validated the approach. What’s wrong with you that you don’t believe anything?"
Most people would say that, but then, most people didn't work for CertCo.
I raised $35M for CertCo in the last year of the company, and now I've been on the other side of funding decisions. While I don't know what Due Diligence was done for the Liftport folks(likely lots), my experiences have me questioning business plan central conceits. Most people *want* these things to work badly enough to … overlook some of the red flags. Maybe they are really yellow. Maybe some breakthrough will happen etc. Don’t know that this happened here (and given this is hardware not software I suspect the level of DD is an order of magnitude higher), but that’s my concern since I also want this to work. The chapter is very well written and comes with it’s own fairly skeptical caveats as well. Very well done.
So this weekend I find myself re-learning some of the stuff I failed to learn around materials science (I got a C+ at Penn State) and, not having access to Mathematica, I am looking things up in The Russians.
In other words, I'm having the best time I've had in months. Thank you very much Brian! I'm rooting for this to work out.
So I got a copy, opened it and immediately looked for the section I care the most about: does the physics of this work? Every story I've ever read on this technology (and there is lots, all well documented in the book) has as it's central conceit, some kind of fudge about the strength of materials involved, i.e. diamond hyper- filament, electrosupported nanocarbon tubes, carbon re-enforced Unobtainium etc. Without some really solid physics backing the engineering, this falls into the bin of Things-I'd-Like-to-See-But-Can't-Happen, like a moonbase or a secular government.
But wait, your saying to yourself, wouldn't most people say, "they are a funded company. Surely smarter, better people than you, say actual, factual certified engineers, have worked this out already. Isn't this just your usual physicist-arrogance. If they have raised money, surely the market has validated the approach. What’s wrong with you that you don’t believe anything?"
Most people would say that, but then, most people didn't work for CertCo.
I raised $35M for CertCo in the last year of the company, and now I've been on the other side of funding decisions. While I don't know what Due Diligence was done for the Liftport folks(likely lots), my experiences have me questioning business plan central conceits. Most people *want* these things to work badly enough to … overlook some of the red flags. Maybe they are really yellow. Maybe some breakthrough will happen etc. Don’t know that this happened here (and given this is hardware not software I suspect the level of DD is an order of magnitude higher), but that’s my concern since I also want this to work. The chapter is very well written and comes with it’s own fairly skeptical caveats as well. Very well done.
So this weekend I find myself re-learning some of the stuff I failed to learn around materials science (I got a C+ at Penn State) and, not having access to Mathematica, I am looking things up in The Russians.
In other words, I'm having the best time I've had in months. Thank you very much Brian! I'm rooting for this to work out.
Thursday, June 08, 2006
A History of This Kind of Thing
Promoted from the comments section of yesterday's post involving sticking birthday candles in the toaster:
Actually, I was using the toaster because I was 4 and had already been punished for playing with matches. The way I figured it though, the toaster was acceptable and a source of much needed fire for the candles on my bear's birthday cake.
Later, when this proved also to unacceptable to my parents, I figured the cigarette lighter in the car would also work. I out clevered myself there though and tried to light a sparkler in the front seat of my fathers 65 Thunderbird. I remember thinking it would be fun to light the sparkler, that the car lighter would work (having been chased off matches and the toaster), I remember pushing the lighter in, watching it heat, touching it when it popped out with the heating element a wonderful cherry-red, touching the sparkler to the element, waiting, waiting, waiting and being totally and completely surprised by the unexpected thing which happened next.
The sparkler lit.
I have no idea why this surprised me since it was the goal of the experiment, but I was so shocked when the front seat of the car being filled with white-hot thermite sparks I screamed and .... dropped the sparkler onto the floor of the car! It immediately went under the passengers seat, hissing and burning the whole time. I was about 4 or 5 and had seen enough tv to know what was going to happen next. The car was going to explode. I ran out of the car, locked the doors and shut them (thinking maybe that the explosion couldn’t get out of a locked car??? I don’t’ remember what I was thinking other than “aahaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!”) and ran behind a nearby tree with my fingers in my ears waiting for the car to explode and trying to figure out what I would tell my father. Fortunately the T-Bird was made of sterner stuff and failed to explode. Days went by while I worried they would figure out what I did (and while I waited for the car to explode ‘cause that sparkler didn’t go immediately and maybe there was a similar delayed reaction with the car). Eventually I got back into the car and found the sparkler melted into the (plastic-based) fabric under the front seat. I fished it out and threw it away and never, ever touched the cigarette lighter again.
Because that was the week my father, the welder, brought home his oxy-acetylene torch…
Actually, I was using the toaster because I was 4 and had already been punished for playing with matches. The way I figured it though, the toaster was acceptable and a source of much needed fire for the candles on my bear's birthday cake.
Later, when this proved also to unacceptable to my parents, I figured the cigarette lighter in the car would also work. I out clevered myself there though and tried to light a sparkler in the front seat of my fathers 65 Thunderbird. I remember thinking it would be fun to light the sparkler, that the car lighter would work (having been chased off matches and the toaster), I remember pushing the lighter in, watching it heat, touching it when it popped out with the heating element a wonderful cherry-red, touching the sparkler to the element, waiting, waiting, waiting and being totally and completely surprised by the unexpected thing which happened next.
The sparkler lit.
I have no idea why this surprised me since it was the goal of the experiment, but I was so shocked when the front seat of the car being filled with white-hot thermite sparks I screamed and .... dropped the sparkler onto the floor of the car! It immediately went under the passengers seat, hissing and burning the whole time. I was about 4 or 5 and had seen enough tv to know what was going to happen next. The car was going to explode. I ran out of the car, locked the doors and shut them (thinking maybe that the explosion couldn’t get out of a locked car??? I don’t’ remember what I was thinking other than “aahaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!”) and ran behind a nearby tree with my fingers in my ears waiting for the car to explode and trying to figure out what I would tell my father. Fortunately the T-Bird was made of sterner stuff and failed to explode. Days went by while I worried they would figure out what I did (and while I waited for the car to explode ‘cause that sparkler didn’t go immediately and maybe there was a similar delayed reaction with the car). Eventually I got back into the car and found the sparkler melted into the (plastic-based) fabric under the front seat. I fished it out and threw it away and never, ever touched the cigarette lighter again.
Because that was the week my father, the welder, brought home his oxy-acetylene torch…
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)