So I got a Kindle the other day.
It totally kicks ass. Here are a couple of pics of it (next to a mass-market paperback for size comparison).
My kindle has 2Gb of memory (about 1.5 available for user content), so it will hold a pretty good sized library (I only have 3 books on it so far, though).
It also has a cellular wireless connection for, get this, FREE! The browser is pretty basic, so between that, the connection speed, and the e-paper screen's refresh rate, browsing the internet is significantly slower than my DSL connection at home, but still way faster than the old 56k dial-up. Plus images may or may not look right, but for mainly text pages (like Google and Wikipedia) it is great. I can easily check my email (gmail) but sending is a bit tricky right now, since I am not accustomed to thumb-typing.
This thing really does live up to the comparison to the Hitch-hiker's Guide to the Galaxy.
All it needs is a cover with "Don't Panic" in large, friendly letters. I'm working on that.
Later,
Saturday, June 27, 2009
The Amazon Kindle, Douglas Adams would have loved this
Friday, March 13, 2009
My review of Why Evolution is True by Jerry A. Coyne
Okay. I really liked this book. The writing is clear, engaging and on a level that any interested high school student could follow. It is well annotated and referenced.
This is a good place to start for anyone looking to learn about Modern Evolutionary Theory, whether you know nothing about it or just need to brush up on the evidence.
I do have one major problem with it, and one minor quibble.
My major problem is that Coyne uses a variation on "Evolutionary Theory explains this very well, but it makes no sense from the standpoint of Special Creation" at the end of nearly every section.
Part of my problem is that this book is supposed to support MET, and I strongly feel that Special Creation shouldn't be mentioned at all. Creationists have no positive evidence, and must resort to lame attempts to tear down MET. Coyne presents a ton of evidence, and the above statement is completely unnecessary.
Mostly though, my problem is that the statement is wrong. It flies in the face of Special Creation's biggest weakness; the thing that makes it totally unscientific. Falsification.
You see, all these things do make sense under Special Creation. But so does anything else. Special Creation provides no reason to think things should be one way and not another (especially when God the Designer is defined to be inscrutable), so it can't make predictions.
For example, using MET, Neil Shubin and his colleagues predicted that fossil evidence of a fish/amphibian transition would be found in strata around 375 myo. After locating exposed strata in this age range, and after some diligent searching, Tiktaalik was discovered. A prediction of MET was fulfilled. (Coyne provides this example).
Now, if we want to find fossils with certain characteristics, how would Special Creation predict where to look?
When asked what evidence he would accept to falsify Evolutionary Theory, J.B.S. Haldane famously said, "Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian!"
But what could possibly falsify Special Creation? There is nothing that can't be explained by God's whim. This is what makes Special Creation, and all such supernatural ideas, not science.
Now my minor quibble.
Coyne describes several predictions of MET, but the above Tiktaalik example is the only one that was clearly a prediction. The others are called predictions, but it is never clear if the evidence was found after the prediction was made or if the prediction is actually an explanation of previously uncovered evidence.
It makes a difference. Explanation is great, of course, and the prediction is that it will apply to any future evidence. But good, solid, positive predictions are the hallmark of a sound theory, and it is those that I want most to read about. That is what makes Tiktaalik so viscerally satisfying.
Later,
Thursday, March 12, 2009
This gives my inner gadget-geek the warm fuzzies
How awesome is that? I totally want one.
The only thing that would make this cooler would be if the display was in your glasses lens, rather than projected.
This actually reminds me of a movie I saw a few years ago The First $20 Million Is Always the Hardest. It is truly inspiring that the device in the movie was small and had a unique interface, but was otherwise no different than an ordinary computer, but the real life device under development is much, much more.
Later,
Friday, February 27, 2009
One of my favorite Futurama moments
From season 2, episode 23: "How Hermes Requisitioned His Groove Back"
Later,
Sunday, February 15, 2009
In which philosphy leads to chocolate overload
Yesterday, I sat down to write a post to answer the question "Where does your morality come from?" The situation that prompted this question, and the answer are subjects for another post.
Anyway, as I was thinking about this, I decided I wanted some mulled cider. Now, I have everything I need to make it except, well, cider. As I get into my car, it occurs to me that there is a liquor store a couple of blocks away, as opposed to clear across town like the grocery store.
Okay, mulled wine then. After I grab a bottle of Merlot, I walk past the whiskey isle. Suddenly I think "Mmmmm, butterscotch." So I buy a 50 mL bottle of Cutty Sark as well. When I get home, I pull out the recipe file to see if I have one for butterscotch. I don't. A quick trip to Recipezaar.com provides one.
Now, what's good with butterscotch. Well, ice cream, of course, but I want something more.
How about brownies? Cool. I check to see if I have everything I need for brownies and butterscotch, and I see that I have 5 bottles of Guinness Extra Stout in the fridge (I made stew last weekend). I seem to remember that I saw a recipe for brownies that called for Guinness. A quick trip back to Recipezaar.com provides it, too.
Now this is a serious brownie recipe, people. It calls for 8 oz. of bittersweet chocolate, 4 oz. of white chocolate, 3/4 cup of cocoa, and suggests a cup of semi-sweet chocolate chips as a mix-in (although I used walnuts instead).
They're cooling as I type. I will update once I come off the high.
Later,
UPDATE - 7pm - The brownies/butterscotch are great. Here's a pic.
Later,
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Another reason why Archimedes is my hero
Via GiFS comes an interesting article:
A Prayer for Archimedes: A long-lost text by the ancient Greek mathematician shows that he had begun to discover the principles of calculus.
It seems that an old (very old) prayer book was discovered to have a faint palimpsest, which turned out to be writings of Archimedes.
Archimedes wrote his manuscript on a papyrus scroll 2,200 years ago. At an unknown later time, someone copied the text from papyrus to animal-skin parchment. Then, 700 years ago, a monk needed parchment for a new prayer book. He pulled the copy of Archimedes' book off the shelf, cut the pages in half, rotated them 90 degrees, and scraped the surface to remove the ink, creating a palimpsest—fresh writing material made by clearing away older text. Then he wrote his prayers on the nearly-clean pages.I was going to include more snippets from the article, but I ended up with most of it. Just go read it at the above link. It is awesomely cool.Of course his prayers were far more important than whatever nonsense had been preserved for 1500 years
Later,
Saturday, January 24, 2009
the xkcd test
Your result for The xkcd test...
xkcd-spert!
You scored 92% percent on knowing it and 100% percent on getting it!
Take The xkcd test at HelloQuizzy
Later,
