Signs of insanity

Today's episode of "Things that irritate me."

2011-12-31T14:02:00.001-07:00

Okay, here's another thing that irritates me (is this a sign of getting old?):

Arrogant, iconoclastic jackasses who think their personal taste in music (or books, movies, whatever) is objectively correct and anyone who disagrees is simply wrong. These jerks seem to be positively eager to express their disdain and contempt. Bonus irritation if they also feel the need to expound at length on exactly why you are wrong.

Later,

Mouse Trap

2011-11-05T20:41:00.023-06:00

So I wrote this little applet. If you move the mouse into the gray panel, then press and hold the left button, you will not be able to move the mouse out of the panel until you release the button. It also leaves a trail, and tracks the location of the mouse cursor while it is being dragged around in the panel.

This uses Java's Robot class, which can take control of the keyboard and mouse. This is a big security risk, so, even though I promise that this applet does nothing malicious (or anything more than I've described for that matter), unless you know and/or trust me, do not give the applet permission to run.

If you don't give it permission, it will still track the mouse when dragged around in the panel, but it won't trap it there.

Later,

Well that's a question answered

2011-05-20T22:36:00.002-06:00

Sometimes I get email for a Prof. John Marley (or Dr. John Marley). It hasn't happened in a while. I usually just mark it spam and delete it. Today however, the body of the email included the address it was meant to go to.

johnmarley@gmail.com

That isn't me.

My email address is john.marley@gmail.com

So I did a search on the mistaken address. What I found is that there is a doctor in Australia named John E. Marley, whose email address is prof.johnmarley@gmail.com.

So if someone leaves the "prof." off, gmail probably finds my address before his as a best guess. I suppose I'll forward the mail I received today to him.

Later,

I can't watch lecture videos.

2011-04-08T19:48:00.004-06:00

I can't watch certain types of videos.

Specifically lecture or debate videos in which the scene is just people talking (and using slides as visual aids).

For instance, I have been trying to watch videos of last night's debate between Sam Harris and William Lane Craig. I am really, really interested in this debate. But I just can't follow it. I would be different if I was actually there, but not a lot. I hated lectures in college, too. I usually skipped them. (I'd go to the class website for reading/homework assignments, and to recitations or office hours to ask questions).

But sticking to my problem with videos.

If the speaker has an accent or a monotonic voice, mumbles, speaks too quickly or too slowly then I will tune out, no matter how hard I try to follow. The same goes for a poor quality audio recording. If there is an audience, the mic often picks up that noise, too, and drowns out the speaker. If the speaker sounds like someone else, I will be too distracted to follow along. (I can't listen to either Isaac Asimov or Richard Feynman. They both have an accent that reminds me too much of Billy Crystal.)

There's no possible interaction either. If I don't understand something, I can't say "Please repeat that." I have to back up the video and listen again. And it will be exactly the same each time. So I may have to listen several times to work out what is being said.

Then there are too many distractions on my end to list.

I don't have the same problem with studio produced and edited videos or shows. I have no problem with Mythbusters or videos like this one, because they are designed to be engaging. Just watching someone talk is boring, no matter how interested I am in the subject matter.

So I try to find transcripts if I can. Failing that I have to rely on reviews and summaries. Which sucks, because if the reviewer gets it wrong, so do I.

Later,

Weird

2011-03-13T23:58:00.003-06:00

So, I'm sitting here doing some net-surfing. I see what seems to be a shadow of something moving on the wall. But when I turn my head to get a better look, there's no shadow. "Weird" I think, and turn back to the computer. The moving shadow returns immediately. Gone when I look. There. Gone. There. Gone. "But that's mad," I think (in Simon Jones' voice). Eventually I realize that it isn't a shadow. It's a reflection in my glasses. When I move my head to look where the "shadow" seems to be, the object is no longer reflected.

I'm pretty tired (going to bed soon).

Later,

The Wise Man's Fear

2011-03-13T23:13:00.001-06:00

I just finished The Wise Man's Fear: The Kingkiller Chronicle: Day 2 by Patrick Rothfuss. It was an excellent follow-up to The Name of the Wind.

I am going to make one prediction. Ambrose Jakis will be the king Kvothe eventually kills.

In the first book, Ambrose is well over a dozen steps from the throne. Early in this one, it is mentioned in passing that several people in line ahead of him were killed in a shipwreck, putting him at a dozen. Much later it is mentioned in passing that the crown prince has been killed in a duel, moving Ambrose that much closer.

Given that Ambrose is thoroughly vile, and he and Kvothe share a mutual hatred, it isn't hard to imagine Ambrose taking the throne and doing something for which Kvothe feels he needs to die.

Later,

Remember this guy?

2011-02-18T20:31:00.012-07:00

Any PSU alums who attended the University Park campus will fondly</sarcasm> remember the Willard Preacher. It turns out he has a website! Yes, it is every bit as bad as you probably expect.

Here's a tidbit on atheism from the "Musings" section, topic "Atheism":

Introduction

The best evidences[sic] for the existence of God proceed from human nature. The way man naturally thinks and acts consistently points to something akin to the Christian God.
Really? Why? You'd better back that up later. Also, the plural of 'evidence' is 'evidence'. You do your thing on a college campus?
On the contrary there are no evidences for atheism. The atheist can try and give alternative explanations for the arguments given for God, but he cannot put forth any positive evidences[sic] of this own.
Atheism requires no evidence. It is the default until you produce your evidence.
In what follows we will consider whether human nature, as it has always been, is more consistent with a world in which there is no God, or one in which there is a God consistent with Christianity.
Okay, let's go.

Man has Always Believed
So what?

As far back as we have written records man has always believed in God, Gods, and/or the supernatural. There is no evidence that man has evolved these beliefs. By all accounts it seems to be inherent in him.
What is inherent in humanity is a tendency to make shit up to fill gaps in knowledge. The scientific method (the only reliable tool for gaining accurate knowledge about reality) is a pretty recent development.
Most atheists will acknowledge that as far as written records are concerned man has always believed.
Yes, humans throughout history have believed all kinds of nonsense. You do realize that xianity is barely 2000 years old, right?
They may say that man evolved such beliefs before he learned to write, and so we have no record of such an evolution, but it is impossible to discuss non-evidence. Some atheists will claim that we can glean evidences from the remnants of pre-historic man, but such evidence would be speculative and fragmentary at best, and so for our purposes would come under the category of non-evidence.
Once again, atheism does not require evidence. It is the default until you produce your evidence.

The atheist will also say that before man could understand certain natural objects or events such as the sun, moon, eclipses, lightning etc. he explained them by resorting to the supernatural. This may be true, but it doesn't explain why man, being a product of atheistic evolution, found it so natural and easy to believe in the supernatural.
B.F Skinner would like to have a word with you. So would these two.
The question that the atheist must try and honestly answer is whether it would it be more natural for man to believe in God in an atheistic world or in an theistic one.
It doesn't matter. Belief (easy or not) does not make your god real. Clapping won't bring Tinkerbell back to life. So far you've just produced empty rhetoric, no evidence.

Objective Morals
this should be good...

Man has always had what I would call objective morals. In other words, he has always pointed away from himself to someone else and declared him to be morally right or wrong.
Not the commonly accepted definition, but as long as you stick to it, okay.
Subjective morality would be to declare that something would be right or wrong for oneself but not necessarily for someone else.
Again, not the commonly accepted definition, but as long as you stick to it, okay.
Morals become objective when one declares morality for others in addition to oneself.
Sure, that follows from your definitions
As soon as we do this we are assuming an inviolable law to which we are all subjected.
Does not follow. Replace 'assuming' with 'agreeing on' and get rid of 'inviolable'. Anyway, when did laws come into it? I thought we were talking about morality.
Only God could provide such a law.
Also wrong. Laws are made by anyone with the power to enforce them, and may or may not be considered moral by those subject to them.

A knowledgeable atheist will agree that in a godless world there are no objective morals,
I think most would be fine going by the definition above. Have you changed your definition without telling us?
but he will claim that man evolved such an idea in order to best survive.
Humans evolved as a social animal, that is where morals come from, though I think it's more conditioning than evolved instinct. However the idea of objective morality is not a direct product of that.
Why man would need to act as if there is a God in order to best survive in an atheistic world is a question for which I have never heard a good answer.
Need to? I doubt it, but see the links above. Or google "evolution of superstition".
In any case there is no evidence that man evolved such an idea. As far as we have written records man has always thought this way. For an atheist to counter this he has to once again go back to the non-evidence of pre-history.
Again, you need to provide the evidence. Default position, remember? You still haven't shown any evidence that your god exists. Is this entire thing going to boil down to "You can't prove God doesn't exist, therefore God."?

When confronted with the idea that God is the only possible authority for objective morality some atheists will claim that society is an alternative authority.
Sure.
The problem is, if one takes society as his moral authority, then he must be willing to submit to whatever morals his society declares.
Or leave (many do), or work to change society (many do), or just take the consequences (many do)
If he does not, then morals go back to being subjective.
Your definition of subjective was "right/wrong for me, but I can't say for anyone else". What you have just claimed is not the same. You seem to be shifting your definitions here. Better be careful.
When an atheist is asked whether, if he had lived in Nazi Germany he would have accepted the slaughter of the Jews as being morally acceptable, or if he would have accepted the enslavement of black Africans in 19th century America, he invariably answers no.
Because your hypothetical atheist is conditioned to modern (American, I assume) society. An atheist conditioned in societies that accept those things may well have agreed.
Obviously then society is not a violable option from which to obtain objective morals.
Not obviously at all. You haven't provided any evidence, just failed arguments.

If the atheist is not willing to accept the moral authority of society the only authority left is the individual, but if the individual is his own authority then there is no objective morality. Once again all morality becomes subjective.
Such an individual is a sociopath. And, society does have means to enforce its authority.

Some atheists contend that there is no such thing as objective morality because different societies have different morals, and there is no particular moral which is accepted by all peoples. Whether or not this is true is debatable, but irrelevant to the present argument.
I agree.
When we are talking about objective morality we are only speaking of man's seemingly natural propensity to declare something to be right or wrong, not only for himself, but also for others. For the sake of this argument the particular moral is irrelevant, as we are dealing with man's general tendency not with his specific choice.
Yes, and you still haven't given any evidence that your god is necessary for this.

All of this, by the way, is consistent with Christianity which says that man was created by God who declares rights and wrongs for all of mankind.
It is also consistent with all other religions with similar claims. That really means nothing.
As a result we all have an intuitive sense that there are objective morals, but since we are fallen, estranged from God, and on our own, we often times disagree as to what those morals should be.
Myths are made up to explain things, so I would kind of expect the situation being explained to be real.
This is exactly what is seen in the world in which we live, and exactly what Christianity would predict that we should see.
See my last comment.

Life Has Meaning
this should be good...

As far back as we have written records man has always believed that life has meaning over and above merely meeting his biological needs.
What humans have historically believed is not evidence. Humans have been wrong about a lot of things for a long time.
It can be anything from loving God, to helping others, to enjoying himself, conquering the world etc.
Interestingly, none of those require that your god actually exist.
As with objective morals the specific meaning does not matter. We are simply concerned here with man's propensity to believe that life does have meaning.
Then I think you are just waffling. If gods (especially yours) exist, the meaning of life isn't a general, feel good idea. It would be very specific

Animals seem to be content to follow their instincts while fulfilling their biological needs.
Are you a pet psychic? Anyone who works with (or closely observes) animals (mostly mammals and birds) will tell you this isn't true.
Man on the other hand acts as if life has meaning over and above these instinctual drives.
Highly developed brain
But life can only have meaning if an intelligent being gives it such.
A highly developed brain will do that
If there is no intelligent being at our origin, which I guess in this case would be the Big Bang, or maybe the formation of the first cell, then there can be no inherent meaning to life.
Where did this "inherent meaning" crap come from. You were saying humans tend to believe their lives have meaning. Oh yeah, bait-and-switch is a staple of xian argument

Man as an intelligent being can and does give meaning to his life, in fact, it seems to be natural for him to do so.
Yeah. Humans give their own lives meaning. This doesn't seem to support your thesis
The question the atheist must answer is why, if man's life is inherently meaningless, does he naturally find the need to give it meaning? He will most likely say that it evolved in man to help him to better survive.
We all need a reason to get out of bed in the morning
But once again he must ask himself why man must act as if there is a God to best survive in a godless world.
I call shenanigans. Giving your life meaning is not "acting as if there is a God". That would be following the specific meaning your god is supposed to have given. (But you weren't going to talk about specific meaning. Ahh, xian bait-and-switch, again.)

If on the one hand there is a God, then life has meaning and man would naturally act as such, and this is exactly what he does.
No. There would be a specific meaning and your imaginary psycho would be smiting anyone who didn't toe the line left and right, which is exactly what doesn't happen
On the other hand if there is no God, man should be perfectly content to live a meaningless life in a meaningless world, and he has never been able to do this.
How do you reach that conclusion? Just saying it doesn't make it true.

Free Will
nnnggghhh...

In an atheistic world all thoughts would be produced by the interaction of the mind with the environment.
Yep
There would be no mechanism, such as, an independent soul to supersede this interaction and come up with independent thoughts.
Yep.
All of our actions would be mapped out for us by which thought produced by this interaction presents itself to the mind in the most favorable light.
Pretty much.

So despite virtually all human beings for all of history believing that we make independently free choices on a daily basis, the atheist must believe that this is all an illusion.
ARGH! What humans have historically believed is not evidence. And yes, it is an illusion.
He must believe that we only think that we have free will. In reality we are merely the unwitting slaves of the mind/environment interaction.
Yep. That amazingly complicated interaction.
Such a belief is depressing, and does not explain man's natural sense that his thoughts are independent and free.
Says you. I'm cool with it. And what part of 'illusion' don't you get?

The Idea of God
I can already see that there will be no evidence in this

As stated above all thoughts in an atheistic world are produced by the mind interacting with its environment.
Yep
An interesting question therefore arises. How does the interaction of an atheistic mind with an atheistic environment produce theistic thoughts?
Links above. or google. Your question has been answered.

An atheist will generally respond to this question by stringing a few thoughts together to show how by simply reasoning on the basis of what he sees around him he can come up with the concept of God.
Sure
The problem with such a counter argument is that he cannot show that this is an atheistic world.
Don't have to. Default position.
Therefore he cannot show that his reasoning is the result of an atheistic mind interacting with an atheistic environment. It very well could be that this is a theistic world and his ease in stringing together thoughts that lead to God is because God has created us to easily do so.
Sweet! We're livin' in the God-Matrix!

What the atheist has to do is to come up with a mechanism in an imaginary atheistic world to free him from the natural course of an atheistic mind interacting with an atheistic environment naturally producing atheistic thoughts.
Can I get bleu cheese on that word salad?
If the atheist says that it is impossible to imagine such a world, then isn't he saying that the only world possible to imagine is one in which the idea of God is easily attained?
I can imagine pretty much anything. You have totally lost me. What were we talking about?
If this is the case, then once again the atheist must honestly ask himself whether the easily attainable idea of God would be more likely in a theistic world or in an atheistic one.
Still no evidence, just obfuscating nonsense

The Desire to Live Forever
This is getting old

If this were an atheistic world there would be no eternal life.
You are implying that there is. Show me.
All life would be mortal.
It sure looks that way
If mortality were our natural state, one would think that we would be comfortable with it, but we are not.
Why? A desire to live a long as possible is clearly a selectable trait. And some of us are comfortable with the idea.

Why is it that in all other aspects of life man lives according to his nature and seems to be content to do so? When we are hungry we eat, when we are tired we rest or sleep, but we struggle with the idea of death.
When we are hungry, we want to eat. When we are tired, we want to sleep. We typically only want to die when we are suicidal. Guess what usually happens then?
We see it as an unwelcome intrusion just as Christianity says that it is.
Myth = Made up explanation for real situation = No connection with reality

Christian theology says that we were created to live forever, but because of sin we are subjected to corruption and death.
Saying something does not make it true.
This not only explains why we have a strong desire to live forever, but it also explains why we see death as such a tragedy.
Myth = Made up explanation for real situation = No connection with reality
It seems to me that once again Christianity does a better job in explaining human nature as it has always been then does atheism.
Not really. I seem to remember you saying something about evidence...?

Conclusion
Finally

In the preceding paragraphs we have considered two models - an atheistic world and a Christian world.
Well, kinda-sorta-but-not-really.
We have looked at human nature in the way it has always been for as long as we have written records.
Yeah, kind of a waste of time, that.
It seems to be clear that we as humans act in our day-to-day lives, even when we are not thinking about it, as if there is a God,
Maybe you do, but even if that were true, it wouldn't need your god to actually exist.
and we thrive best in the world in which we live when we do so.
I don't see that you've shown that, and again...
The atheist finds himself in the unenviable position of trying to explain why man must act as if there is a God to best survive in a world in which there is no God.
Only in your imagination
Our job as Christians is much easier. The reason why we as human beings have always acted consistently with the idea that God exists is because he does.
Does not logically follow. Argument failed.

So, a lot of bait-and-switch (or goal-post shifting, if you prefer), a lot of unsupported assertions, a little obfuscation, and a heaping helping of bad logic.

No actual evidence. Quelle surprise.

Oh yeah. Even if this line of argument wasn't total bullplop, he still needs to demonstrate why it has to be the xian god, and not any of the thousands of others humans have made up over the millenia.

The only good thing I can say about this is that at least he seem to understand the use of whitespace.

Later,

In memoriam, Benoit Mandelbrot (20 November 1924 – 14 October 2010)

2010-10-23T21:27:00.001-06:00

Dammit.

Later,

Quasi-Final version of Sudoku Solver

2010-07-23T03:34:00.003-06:00

This is going to be the last update to my sudoku solver for a while.

So here's the rundown:

1) I changed the way the dialog to set values works. To reset a box to null, press the button for the current value again. The GUI will not let you set a box to an illegal value.

2) Guessing works. Boxes solved without guessing are filled blue. If it can't finish the puzzle, the solver will ask if it can start guessing. The boxes set after guessing are filled red.

3) Trying to guess on a sudoku without a unique solution will cause the solver to enter an infinite loop. Refresh the browser to end.

4) Added a reset button.

I may add advanced techniques later, to get it to solve further before needing to guess, but I'm kind of losing interest now, so we'll see.

Later,

Blog stuff

2010-07-22T22:35:00.004-06:00

I don't think the hide-post-thingy I have been using likes blogger's latest revisions. But blogger added their own jump break stuff, so I changed over to that. I really liked the one I had been using, though.

Later,

Sudoku Solver

2010-07-08T21:44:00.039-06:00

~~I think~~ I've learned enough Java ~~to try~~ to write a Sudoku solving applet.

The first step in running the solver will be setting the board. Click on a box to set it's value ~~(right now, each click increments the value, later I might use a dialog to pick the value, but this is good enough for now)~~

UPDATE: I added a dialog to set a box value.

UPDATE2: It was a hell of a fight, but I managed to get the GUI to look pretty much how I want. I ended up having to draw the heavy dividing lines manually, so they don't quite re-size right.

UPDATE 3: Added functionality.

UPDATE 4: Changed the look a bit. The boxes now change color when manually set. Adding the advanced techniques is tougher than I thought. I may take some time. After hitting the "Solve" button, the dialog function changes. Instead of setting the box value, it allows you to change the restricted values (blue means value is restricted).

~~this is just the GUI. the "Solve" button does nothing yet.~~
The applet goes as far as it can with the very basic algorithm it uses.
It successfully solved the NYT Easy and Medium Sudokus for July 15, 2010.
It wasn't able to completely solve the Difficult one, but I have ideas for more advanced techniques to add, so it shouldn't be long. YAY!!!

Note: it doesn't error check (yet). If you enter an impossible sudoku, it will still try to solve it.

*** Removed. See post dated 7/23/2010 for sudoku solver applet. ***

"I am so smart! S-M-R-T... I mean S-M-A-R-T!"
</Homer>

Praise me! PRAISE ME!
</GIR>

Later,

Some sidebar clean-up

2010-07-08T18:41:00.002-06:00

Several bloggers at ScienceBlogs have left due to the kerfluffle about the PepsiCo blog (Which I really don't get, especially since the PepsiCo blog is gone now anyway. But it's their decision, and I'm cool with that.)

Some of those that left I read regularly. I have updated the links to the ones that I still follow, and have taken the opportunity to remove the ones I really don't anymore.

Later,

Thoughts on why you can't logically disprove god to a theist.

2010-07-07T18:47:00.013-06:00

Consider this:

given some real, non-zero value, a

        a = b
     a*b = b²
 a*b-a² = b²-a²
a*(b-a) = (b-a)*(b+a)
         a = b+a

This is obviously wrong. You don't even need to understand the algebra to see that it's wrong. If a is not zero, and a equals b, then a cannot equal a+b. The argument is nonsense. Identity is not a conclusion. It is an axiom. It is foundational to mathematics.

As far as theists are concerned, the same thing applies to their god. If your logic leads to the conclusion that their god doesn't exist, then, to theists, there is obviously something wrong with your logic; even if they can't say what that is, exactly. For them, their god is an axiom, foundational to reality. Only when a theist is able to reject that premise as false can they be reasoned with.

That is why I stick to "Evidence or STFU" when someone challenges my atheism.

Later,

Fun stuff!

2010-07-04T01:10:00.020-06:00

I'm teaching myself Java.

Check out my first applet:

Cool huh?

Later,

Facebook

2010-07-03T19:56:00.002-06:00

I've had a Facebook account for a few months, but have decided to deactivate it. I have a phone. I have an email account. I have a blog. I have relatives who know all this information. If anyone wants to get ahold of me, it isn't difficult.

Two people who might read this could point out that I participated heavily in a fairly long discussion thread just recently. That was pretty cool, but also an exception.

There's nothing actually wrong with Facebook, I just wasn't feeling it.

Later,

PS238

2010-07-03T19:23:00.003-06:00

The other day I discovered an awesomely cool webcomic. PS238. (This link goes to the first page, the sidebar link goes to the current page)

It's about an elementary school for "metaprodigies". That is, kids with superpowers.

This is my favorite quote so far:

"Why Tuesday?"
"Most cosmic events happen on Tuesdays."

Check it out.

Later,

I have discovered tact.

2010-07-03T15:43:00.003-06:00

Facebook. Where people I have never met can be my friend.

One of these friends posted the following:

Every blade of grass has its angel that bends over it and whispers, "Grow, grow."The Talmud

My first thought was "How do they avoid getting chopped up by lawnmowers?"

I did manage to force myself not to post that question in reply. I had to post it here to relieve the pressure, though.

Later,

Today is Towel Day

2010-05-25T19:15:00.004-06:00

Towel Day was created as a tribute to Douglas Adams, two weeks after his death on May 11, 2001.

In honor of Douglas Adams, I present my Official Hitchhiking Towel. I have known where it is continuously since Junior High. I am a really hoopy frood.

Later,

A xian nation? Really?

2010-05-08T10:49:00.011-06:00

Sarah Palin is one of those nutjobs who claim the USA was founded by xians for xians

Let's explore that idea:

Via http://www.usconstitution.net

The pramble:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Nothing there about xianity. In particular, I notice that the "Blessings of Liberty" are not being prayed for. There's no begging some deity for protection. Screw that. We're going to do it ourselves. That's about the most un-xian an idea I can imagine.

The body:
A search of the text of the body of the Constitution reveals that the words 'God', 'Jesus', 'Christ', 'creator', 'prayer', 'church' and 'bible' do not occur anywhere in it.
The word 'religion' (or rather, 'religious') occurs once in the body (Article 6):

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United
States. [emphasis mine]

The body of the Constitution is entirely about the structure of the government, and I don't see how any of it can be thought to relate to xianity, so I'm going to focus on the Bill of Rights.

Does the Bill of Rights conform to the Ten Commandments?

Amendment 1)

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
This amendment flatly contradicts the first, third and fourth Commandments, and possibly the second and fifth as Freedom of Speech issues. That's half of them shot down right off the bat. No xian foundation here.

Amendment 2)

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Nothing that contradicts the Commandments, but no support for them either. No xian foundation here.

Amendment 3)

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Nothing that contradicts the Commandments, but no support for them either. No xian foundation here.

Amendment 4)

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Nothing that contradicts the Commandments, but no support for them either. It does sort of contradict some things Jesus said about the importance of possessions. No xian foundation here.

Let's do this the other way around.

Consider the Commandments. From the KJV, Exodus:

20:1 And God spake all these words, saying,
20:2 I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
20:3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
Tossed out by the first Amendment

20:4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
20:5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
20:6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.
Wow, xian's are not allowed to have artwork of any kind. Someone notify the Vatican. Anyway, this can be seen as a Freedom of Speech issue, and is tossed out by the first Amendment, as is the prohibition on worshiping images

20:7 Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
Again, tossed out by the first Amendment

20:8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
20:9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
20:10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
20:11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
Again, tossed out by the first Amendment

20:12 Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.
Relates to the Bill of Rights only as a possible Freedom of Speech issue and as such tossed out by the first Amendment

20:13 Thou shalt not kill [some versions replace 'kill' with 'murder'].
Not in the Constitution, but a good idea that (AFAIK) vastly pre-dates the Ten Commandments, and has existed in all civilizations (with varying cultural definitions of 'murder') throughout history.

20:14 Thou shalt not commit adultery.
Not in the Bill of Rights. Not even illegal.

20:15 Thou shalt not steal.
See my above comment on murder

20:16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
No relation to the Constitution. Slander and libel laws do exist, but are just good sense for any civil society.

20:17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.
Not in the Bill of Rights. Not even illegal. (Coveting is not stealing) In fact, coveting things is the fundamental basis of Capitalism.

So, of the Ten Commandments, none are foundational to the Constitution. Five are shot down by the Bill of Rights. Only three are encoded in US law, and those three are so ubiquitous that claiming those laws must be based on the Commandments is just stupid.

What about the claim that the founding fathers were xian?

It is very likely that most of them weren't. I'm not going there. There are plenty of sites that document what the founding fathers had to say on the subject.

What about "...Endowed by their creator...."?

The Declaration of Independence is a piece of inflammatory rhetoric with the sole purpose of telling off King George III. It has no bearing on the founding of the United States.

Well, that rant is spent.

Later,

(Hmm. The hide post thingy doesn't seem to be working right after all. I needed the bar again.)

Blog behavior normal again.

2010-03-22T18:29:00.002-06:00

Hey, check it out:

The hide-post thingy seems to be working again.
Now I have to decide if I want to keep that bar.
Probably not.

Later,

St Patrick's Day in Boston

2010-03-15T09:38:00.010-06:00

I'm in Boston this week.
I have a few things planned.

I'm visiting/staying with my cousin Jackie and her husband Kyle. Her parents and brother (Dan) are coming later today.

Yesterday was Pi Day, properly celebrated with the baking and consumption a mixed-berry pie.

Tonight is a concert at The House of Blues (Dropkick Murphys, WooHoo!).
Wednesday is corned-beef and cabbage then another concert (Enter the Haggis).

Everything else is unplanned.

Later,

UPDATE: Dropkick Murphys rocked! Too bad the opening acts were shite.

UPDATE2: Enter the Haggis also rocked. The opening band was tolerable.

Weird blog behavior

2010-03-05T16:47:00.006-07:00

Did you notice the grey bar just above the fold in the last two posts?
Like this:

The hide post thingy is acting strange, and I have to put <blockquote></blockquote> above the fold to get it to work. Anywhere in the opening text will work, it's just convenient to put it immediately above the fold. Also, I could include text in the blockquote and it will still work, but I haven't had anything I wanted to highlight.

I kind of like it. I think I'll keep it, even if it becomes vestigial later.

Later,

Fundies really do say the darndest things.

2010-03-05T16:08:00.042-07:00

I have been avoiding FSTDT lately. You know, blood pressure and all. I thought I'd take a look today, though. Below the fold are some recent gems.

Genetics was invented by Satan-induced "scientists" who wanted to "prove" evolution true by creating a whole new branch of lies that corroborated evolution. There is no such thing as DNA or chromosomes. Please, if you are a Christian, please stop believing in this lie; we must make this known.
I can't say anything funnier than this already is.

People think we evolved from monkeys...WHO DO YOU THINK MADE THE MONKEY?
That's the sound of someone drowning in the shallow end of the pool

people say that 'its a womens body' its 'her choice'. there is a 50% chance that the baby is a male....a male has a penis......a women has no penis. there for he is not a part of her body. there for it is no longer her 'choice'.
Your logic ran headfirst into a wall

Consider: the old, old use of the term "to know," for a man "to know a woman," for example, doesn't mean that he thought of her. No, when it says a man "knew" a woman, it's referring to sexual intercourse. That's a physical contact. You can't have intercourse with something that doesn't already exist, right? Right. So God knew us, because he saw us, because he had already created us. So, how old are you? Here's the kicker: You are over 6,000 years old.
God has a serious sex addiction? Could I have Bleu Cheese with that word salad, please?

Some things can not be explained by science. Take for example, rainbows. Rainbows are a mystery and you can not touch them, just like god. Despite this fact, they are still there even though there is no scientific explanation for them. So next time you find yourself doubting your faith, think of god as a rainbow. I know that this can be a difficult concept for some of you to grasp. It is just like air you can't see it but you know its there
Again, I have nothing to add.

And an apocalypse prediction:

Man does not face eternal? suffering. But, man does face up to 5 months of physical suffering on earth, between May 21, 2011 thru October 21, 2011. After the massive earthquake topples EVERY city on earth, on May 21, 2011, there will be No food, clean water, medical aide, sewer, gasoline, etc. There will be nuclear fallout, plagues, and disease. Every person left behind at the Rapture, on May 21, 2011, will face these living conditions..

The Lord will destroy this universe on 10/21/11
Wait, "Up to 5 months"? What happened to seven years? Do we get a reduced Tribulation for good behavior or something? How about we get the whole thing commuted to "time served"? That seems fair.

All together now:
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Okay, that was cathartic, but then there are scary ones, like this:

My concern for level of pain of rape would be greater if it weren't for the fact that most American women deserve to raped because they oppose prostitution as a sexual outlet for men. Since they deserve to raped, I cannot concern myself with the pain rape causes them.
Wow, psychopath much?

Later,

Revisiting an old post

2010-03-05T15:30:00.009-07:00

I was reading through some old posts (because I have that kind of time) and discovered a comment on the post Vast Ignorance. This comment was left almost a year later, so I cannnot be blamed for not responding 'til now.

So here it is:

Thumb Biter said...
You use the word "spontaneously" incorrectly. Scientists use spontaneity of a reaction or occurrence to mean that given enough time, it will eventually, inevitably happen with no outside trigger. Therefore, the statement that "life began spontaneously from non living matter" is true according to abiogenesis, whether or not the word "spontaneously" is included in.
Also, why is the statement that "everything in the universe came about by chance" not MET?

The bit about "spontaneously" refers to this:

Life began spontaneously from non living matter.
That's really abiogenesis, not MET. But that's a quibble; MET does sort of imply abiogenesis. However, "spontaneously" is bullplop. Get rid of that and the statement is true enough.

You are correct about how scientists use "spontaneously", but like "theory" the everyday use of the word is very different, and given the context, it seems clear to me that the author was not using the scientific definition. So the statement is deceptive. Maybe I should have said that, but I still stand by what I did write.

"Also, why is the statement that "everything in the universe came about by chance" not MET?" refers to:

Everything in the universe came about by chance.
Still not MET.

Because the question of "where everything in the universe" came from is cosmology, not biology. Because even if it were a question of biology, chance is only the beginning of the process.

Later,

Crashes, werewolves and cider

2010-02-19T20:17:00.003-07:00

Crashes: I totalled my car last Saturday. No injuries. Minor damage to a tractor trailer (I clipped the trailer as I spun). Full coverage insurance.

Nothing further to say there.

Werewolves: Wolfman starring Benicio del Toro. Good, not great. Predictable "twist". Fun action. Lots of blood. Werewolf looked like Lon Cheney's in the original.

Cider: The only alcohol I drink with any regularity. Hard to find, usually. I get a case or three when it's available. One bottle (or can) in the evening, tops.

Well, that's my life recently. Jealous?
You're jealous.

Later,

WTF? Seriously, just WTF?

2009-12-26T10:34:00.008-07:00

Via an entry on FSTDT I found this blazing pyre of stupid.
WARNING: Follow the previous link at your own risk.

I can't even begin to pick this apart. Partly due to the amazingly high fail-to-word ratio. Mostly because, like most web-pages made by not-in-a-good-way crazy people, the page design is terrible. I'm talking headache-inducingly unreadable. Hence the warning above.

If you do follow the link, you may at first wonder what I'm talking about. You may say to yourself "Poor design, sure. Kind of boring, but I don't see what the big deal is." Keep going. Scroll down. Follow a few internal links. It gets much, much worse. So, if you want a laugh, take a couple of Tylenol and check it out.

Reading something like this would normally raise my blood pressure to a life-threateningly dangerous level. But this is just too dumb.

So yeah, WTF?

Later,

Warm Fuzzies again.

2009-12-24T22:11:00.000-07:00

Still awesome!

Later,

The Laws of Thermodynamics say you're an idiot

2009-10-27T18:59:00.003-06:00

Heh, heh.

Later,

INL update

2009-10-20T17:46:00.002-06:00

I have a face-to-face interview at INL on Friday, Oct 30. Awesome!

I told my boss about it. His reaction was not what I had feared. As is usually the case, my anxiety was completely unfounded.

That's about it.

Later,

Torn

2009-10-02T19:46:00.006-06:00

A couple of months ago, I applied for a technician job at Idaho National Laboratories (in the Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator lab, I believe. (Woohoo! Nuclear Batteries!)

By this point I had given up on hearing back from them. So, imagine my surprise when I get home from work and have a message that says they want to set up a phone interview.

On the one hand, WOOHOO! SWEET!

On the other, I'd pretty much settled on sticking around, here, and my lazier side keeps bringing up things like telling my current boss, address change, utilities, actually moving and other hassles involved in changing jobs.

Later,

P.S. -- Yes, I know the difference between a thermoelectric generator and a battery. "Nuclear batteries" is technically inaccurate. Sue me. (Unless you are with INL, in which case, I know it's important and take such things very seriously)

The Amazon Kindle, Douglas Adams would have loved this

2009-06-27T12:51:00.004-06:00

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,

My review of Why Evolution is True by Jerry A. Coyne

2009-03-13T13:35:00.014-06:00

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,

This gives my inner gadget-geek the warm fuzzies

2009-03-12T16:15:00.006-06:00

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,

One of my favorite Futurama moments

2009-02-27T21:53:00.003-07:00

FuturamaWeeknights, 9p/8c

Bureaucrat's Song

Joke of the Day
Stand-Up Comedy

Free Online Games
More Funny Videos

From season 2, episode 23: "How Hermes Requisitioned His Groove Back"
Later,

In which philosphy leads to chocolate overload

2009-02-15T16:18:00.007-07:00

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,

Another reason why Archimedes is my hero

2009-01-25T08:38:00.005-07:00

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.
Of course his prayers were far more important than whatever nonsense had been preserved for 1500 years

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.

Later,

the xkcd test

2009-01-24T16:28:00.002-07:00

Your result for The xkcd test...

xkcd-spert!

You scored 92% percent on knowing it and 100% percent on getting it!

You clearly follow the comic, and understand the humour quite well.

Take The xkcd test at HelloQuizzy

Later,

Written by, directed by, starring and end theme performed by Clint Eastwood.

2009-01-24T16:18:00.007-07:00

If you guessed from my post title that I just saw Gran Torino, you'd be right...

It was good. Very good. Funny in spots, poignant in others. A bit predictable, maybe, but all in all I definitely recommend it. Overly PC, sensitive and/or humorless people may be offended by Clint Eastwood's character. Those who are not tone-deaf may be offended by Eastwood's singing.

Later,

testing

2009-01-17T20:31:00.040-07:00

This is a test.
This is only a test.

I never, ever thought of this. Of course, now it seems so obvious that I feel kind of foolish.

A post on Qalmlea's blog had blocks of collapsed text, and I admit, it kind of blew my mind.

This has been a test of collapsible posting. Neat!

Later,

Assembler 2

2009-01-11T01:43:00.001-07:00

Woohoo! 25 more levels!

One of them took me 15 minutes. Damn that physics engine is sensitive.

Later,

Another xian who doesn't know what "proof" means

2009-01-07T21:36:00.029-07:00

WARNING - You may want to turn the volume down. (the music is actually pretty good, but grating if unexpected)

UPDATE - I know MarkCC at Good Math/Bad Math blogged about this, and pointed out the same thing I do. But check the dates. Mine is a day before his.

UPDATE #2 - It seems the video has been made private. In order to view it, you must sign the poster's friends list. Ah yes. To defend oneself against criticism by only allowing those who agree with you.

Nice friendly opening there, dude.

That's a lot of crap to pull from one passage of scripture.

Anyway, here's why this doesn't work. It's a circular argument. His method only results in the speed of light if you already know the speed of light.

Look:

See the last equation there? v is always going to be very close to c. The only reason this guy got a value close to the speed of light was that he used the known speed of light for c.

He seems to think that finding v in the equation for relativistic time dilation proves his point. It does not. The value he really wants to find is c. In order to do that, he'd have to know v, which would be God's velocity relative to earth. Ignoring the fact that God would therefore be receding at near the speed of light (by his argument) that value is not given in scripture.

All this proves is that xians should not try to use math or physics in their apologetics.

Sorry, but thanks for playing.

Also, I love that his background music is Judith by A Perfect Circle, a song expressing contempt for religion (specifically xianity). Note the line "Fuck your god" at ( :44). Ah, irony. It's almost enough to make me call Poe's Law, except that I know some xians who really are that clueless.

Later,

If You Open Your Mind Too Much...

2008-12-28T12:41:00.000-07:00

There isn't much left to say...

Later,

Six Things

2008-12-24T17:10:00.002-07:00

I've been tagged with a meme by Qalmlea

Here are the rules:

Link to the person who tagged you.
Post the rules on your blog.
Write six random things about yourself.
Tag six people at the end of your post and link to them.
Let each person know they've been tagged and leave a comment on their blog.
Let the tagger know when your entry is up.

Six random things about me. Let me think...

It's taken me a month, but I finally managed to come up with six things about me that someone may find, if not interesting, then at least not mindnumbingly boring.

I dropped out of college less than one semester shy of getting a degree (BSEE). I was completely burned out. Despite urging from family, I really have no intention to finish.
I don't like dealing with strangers. Not just socially, either. I can if I have to, but it makes me uncomfortable, so if I can foist it off onto someone else, I will. Even things like paying at a gas station or calling a store to find out if they carry something. I'm not scared of it, I just feel really awkward.
My musical taste can be described as "eclectic", if you want to be polite. "Weird" seems to be a more popular description, with "non-existent" being a close second. It ranges from '80s pop to Celtic to old-timey folk to singer-songwriters to heavy metal and a lot in between.
In seventh grade, my friend Tom and I got ourselves left behind on a school field trip (to Clarion University, I forget why). We wandered off and found the university arcade. After a while we decided we'd better get back, but the bus was gone. We tried to call my mom, but couldn't get ahold of her, so we called Tom's mom, who came to get us (we were in pretty big trouble, too). While we waited, we went back to the arcade. We spent about $30 between us. We played one game, Marble Madness (damn that was a good game). The teachers leading the field trip got in almost as much trouble as we did (no head count).
I like to cook. I love trying new recipes. But if, as is usual these days, it's only me, I typically don't bother. Really, what's the point.
I have bone spurs in my left shoulder and may need surgery. I discovered this when, after over a year of putting up with the pain, I finally had an MRI. I've been on physical therapy for a few months now, and that helped me regain a lot of mobility in the shoulder, but there's still a lot of pain that isn't going away. So, surgery is pretty likely. That really sucks.

Now I'm supposed to tag six people. I don't know six people with blogs that I could tag. Most of the ones I do know haven't updated in a very long time. So, I'm only tagging one (Jackie) and she probably won't participate.

Later,

This one's for Jackie

2008-12-07T18:44:00.002-07:00

Qalmlea tagged me with a "Six Random Things" meme. Which is cool, and I'm working on it, but coming up with six interesting things about me is an almost insurmountable challenge.

Anyway,

Jackie knows stuff about wine. One time, I was trying to explain to her my views on the subject. I'm not sure I got it across very well. It turns out that Dylan Moran feels the same way, and expresses it perfectly.

Later,

Assembler

2008-11-11T18:51:00.007-07:00

Via Pharyngula comes a gem of a time-waster.

Assemnbler

Assembler is a new physics based wonder where you move some depository equipment to get your precious green crate in position. For what? No matter! Physics work perfect and the feel of grabbing and moving around things is just perfect. Don’t play too much or you’ll dream of dirty green crates flying around.

It's a puzzle game with an interesting twist. An accurate (and very sensitive) physics engine. The mass of movable objects seems to correlate directly with size (i.e. they all have a uniform density) at least at the low levels I've played so far. The coefficient of friction also seems to be 1. Rotation (angular velocity) is taken into account during collisions, too. It is very easy to knock a carefully placed piece across the board. It's a lot of fun. Try it.

Later,

UPDATE: Dammit! There are only 17 levels, and the hardest took me 3 minutes. Not because I couldn't figure out a way to do it; it took me that long to finesse the objects into the positions I wanted them. Still, it was fun, and I look forward to new levels.

Later,

Keith Olbermann on Prop. 8, powerfull stuff

2008-11-11T18:34:00.003-07:00

best line (5:39), "Just because this is the only world we have, and the other guy counts, too."

Later,

Variety is the spice of life

2008-10-26T09:09:00.006-06:00

It's been a hell of a week.

Monday: Replace pumps (for injecting methanol into gas wells to prevent freezing), and wire control boxes for glycol circulation systems (also to prevent freezing)
Tuesday: Upgrade the shop computer and add additional lighting to the shop exterior
Wednesday thru Friday: Weld frames for solar generators

I'm just learning to weld, so it's still fun and interesting. I'm told that won't last.

Later,

A thought on Websites

2008-10-11T21:39:00.002-06:00

I surf the 'net a lot. And I do mean a lot. It fills the area in my life most people use for social interaction. I have been noticing an increase in something very annoying. That thing is sound.

An embedded audio player is fine. Just let me decide when it starts playing. Nothing makes me hit the "Back" button faster than sound that starts playing automatically, often before the page has even finished loading. I leave those sites and never return, even if the sound isn't part of the page itself; just one of the ads. I can forgive flashy animations and violently clashing colors, but I consider surfing the 'net to be exclusively a visual experience. I only accept audio when I expect it.

Later,

One last hike in Shell Canyon

2008-10-01T18:59:00.004-06:00

My parents have moved to Plains, Montana. But Phil is still living at the house in Greybull. I went up for one last hike in Shell Canyon (something I wish I'd done more often).

So here are some pics:

Pfft, we don't need no stinking trail

Me taking a break

Molly taking a break

Me contemplating the next step (seriously, it was about a 6 foot drop)

Cliffs

Phil wanted to take this tree, pot it and claim he grew/sculpted it himself

Looking down into Shell Canyon

A zoom of the cool rock

You can sort of see the parking area

Phil and Molly

Phil as a measure of scale

Phil said if he were climbing the cliff, this would be a good place to stop and "smoke a bowl"

Vertical shot of water trickling down the cliff. You can see from the washed-out area that in the springtime, this is quite a torrent

I have other pics, but these were the ones that came out best.

Later,

Beautiful, Majestic, Awe Inspriring...Real.

2008-08-24T19:05:00.009-06:00

Via Bad Astronomy comes this incredible image:
(as BA says: Click to hugely embiggen)

I may start a regular weekly posting of a cool image. They wouldn't all be from space, just pics I think are cool. We'll see.

Later,

UPDATE: Also via Bad Astronomy, comes NASA Images for all your space picture needs.

Later,

Vast ignorance

2008-08-23T19:07:00.021-06:00

Via Fundies Say the Darndest Things (specifically here)comes a creotard website that is almost painful in its ignorance.

Missing Universe Museum

Here is the site's mission statement (from the home page):

The Missing Universe Museum contrasts the Evolution and Creation models of origins. The main purpose of this museum is to demonstrate that these two models are opposites and therefore are mutually exclusive. The public will be shown the assumptions behind each model and will be assisted in making predictions based on them. Evidence from around the world is presented so that each person will be able to make an intelligent, informed decision as to which model best explains our universe.

Here's how evolution is defined in "Exhibit 1":

The Evolution model states that matter has always existed.
Modern Evolutionary Theory says no such thing. Wrong theory. Hell, wrong branch of science.
Everything in the universe came about by chance.
Still not MET.
Life began spontaneously from non living matter.
That's really abiogenesis, not MET. But that's a quibble; MET does sort of imply abiogenesis. However, "spontaneously" is bullplop. Get rid of that and the statement is true enough.
Evolution is a random, ongoing process.
Partial credit for "ongoing process". Selection via survival is very much non-random.
All living things have a common ancestor.
A 100% correct statement. I am astounded!
There is no God.
Oops. MET has nothing to say about the existence of any god(s).
The concept of evolution has been hinted at for centuries, but Darwin gave it apparent plausibility by his theory of natural selection which would result in "purposeful" organisms without a Creator.
Close. Lose the word "apparent", and you've got it.
The mechanism for change is mutation, refined by natural selection.
Incredible, right again!

A few (partially) correct statements + a few outright lies = wildly incorrect description of MET. There is one reference given (Exhibit 1A). It is a statement by The American Humanist Association, from 1977 (it's really good, and still 100% applicable). Here is the same statement, but on www.americanhumanist.org. Almost surprisingly, it is the same. But it isn't really a reference, it is, as it's title says, "A Statement Affirming Evolution as a Principle of Science". It is not a description of the evidence for MET.

Here's the definition for the creation model (also part of "Exhibit 1"):

The Creation model is defined by the Bible. God has always existed. All things were created by God and all life forms existed at the same time. Every living thing then would reproduce after it's kind, so Creation was an act, not an ongoing process. There was no death until man disobeyed God.
Wait, where did that last part come from? I think Genesis 3:22
And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:[KJV]
clearly indicates that man, at least, was already subject to death.
The Bible says that the world was flooded, which caused rapid mass extinction and reshaped the surface of the earth.

There are four reference links, all of which provide a bunch of bible verses (some of which are repeats), and nothing else.

Pretty standard tactic: ignore all that pesky evidence, and claim an ancient text trumps it all anyway.

Then there is a fun little chart comparing "predictions" of both theories.

Going through it line-by-line:

"A Finished Act" vs "An Ongoing Process"
Okay. Pass.
"Zero Transitions" vs "Trillions Of Transitions"
I don't know about trillions, but lots, so I'll let this one pass, too.
"Zero Vestigial Organs" vs "Trillions Of Vestigial Organs"
Again, trillions? but yeah, vestigial organs. So, pass.
"Decreasing Species" vs "Increasing Species"
Guess what, speciation has been observed. But MET predicts both, actually. Increasing due to speciation, and decreasing due to extinctions. Fail.
"Purpose/Intelligence" vs "Random/Chance"
NO. That should be "Random Mutation + Non-Random Selection". The selection part is what makes MET work. If you don't emphasize selection, you aren't discussing MET. Fail.
"Will Be Missing Links" vs "Species Will Blend Together"
A slew of transitional fossils have been discovered. That link is even outdated, several more have been discovered. But, hey, it's right about MET, so, pass.
"Fossils Lived At Same Time" vs "Fossils Show Progression"
We have those pesky transitional fossils. Whales and horses are good examples. And, sorry creos, dating methods really are accurate Still, right about MET. I'm actually pleasantly surprised that "progression" is used rather than "progress" (which suggests a goal). Pass
"World Under-Populated" vs "World Over-Populated"
MET does not predict overpopulation. Fail.
"Permanent Extinction" vs "Temporary Extinction"
"Temporary Extinction" is an oxymoron. When a species goes extinct, it is gone forever. The dodo is not coming back. Fail.
"Probably Young Earth" vs "Requires Old Earth"
Yep, pass.
"Was Oxygen Atmosphere" vs "Was Reducing Atmosphere"
This probably refers to the Urey-Miller experiment back in the '50s. But there probably was a mildly reducing atmosphere. Even so, MET does not require one. So, Fail.

Nope, sorry. Evolution occurs at varying rates (punctuated equilibrium) and extinctions can happen quite suddenly. Fail

"Fossils Buried Alive" vs "Fossils Died, Then Buried"
MET makes no predictions about the condition of a creature when it was buried. Fossilization could occur (or not) either way. Fail.
"Mutations Are Harmful" vs "Mutations Are Beneficial"
According to MET, the vast majority of mutations are neutral, followed by harmful as distant second. Mutations may be beneficial, but it's very unlikely. Fail.
"Fossils Are Abundant" vs "Fossils Are Rare"
"Rare" is a relative term. In terms of raw numbers fossils are extremely common. As a kid, I used to find rocks with fossilized shell imprints in the gravel in my driveway. In comparison to the number of organisms that have ever lived, fossilization is rare. So, while this is technically correct, it is also misleading. Therefore, fail.
"Limited Coal And Oil" vs "Renewable Coal And Oil"
Even though it's a pretty big stretch to tie this to MET, I'll let it slide. But, if we are using them several million times faster than they form, they aren't really renewable, are they? Fail.
"Isolated Species" vs "Same Species Globally"
Geographical isolation is one major way speciation can occur. Fail.
"Clocks Are Always Created" vs "Clocks Can Evolve!"
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Epic Fail!

Notice that I didn't say anything about the creation side of the table. That's because if you posit an omnipotent deity, absolutely anything is possible.

That's just Exhibit 1. The other 24 fail just as badly.

My favorite, and the one that brought this site to my attention, is Exhibit 20, wherein evolution is disproved because a random pile of LEGOs doesn't become a house or a car or something. This kind of hearkens back to Fred Hoyle's "Tornado + Junyard = Boeing 747" metaphor for evolution. Both illustrate a terrible, perhaps insurmountable, misunderstanding of MET.

Oh, about that clock thing. See this previous post. Pay close attention to the exposition at the beginning and end of the video to understand why clocks can't really evolve.

Later,

Food Meme

2008-08-20T20:45:00.006-06:00

Via Good Math / Bad Math
Which of the following foods have you eaten:

Venison: Yep. Love it.
Nettle tea: Nope.
Huevos rancheros: Yep, very good, but I don't really go for big breakfasts
Steak tartar: Yep. "Steak tartar? Ah yes, steak tartar." (10 points if you can name the movie, 5 points extra credit if you can name the actor who said it.)
Crocodile: Nope.
Black pudding: Nope.
Cheese fondue: Yep.
Carp: Yep.
Borscht: Nope
Calamari: Hell, yes. Good stuff.
Pho: Nope.
PB&J sandwich: Duh.
Aloo gobi: Nope
Hot dog from a street cart: Yep.
Epoisses: Nope.
Black truffle: Yep
Fruit wine made from something other than grapes: Yep
Steamed pork buns: Yep.
Pistachio ice cream: Yep.
Heirloom tomatoes: I don't think so.
Fresh wild berries: Yep.
Rice and beans: Yep.
Brawn, or head cheese: Nope
Raw Scotch Bonnet pepper: Nope
Dulce de leche: Yes.
Oysters: Yep.
Baklava: Yep. In Greece, even
Bagna cauda: Nope.
Wasabi peas: Yep. Meh.
Clam chowder in a sourdough bowl: Yep.
Salted lassi: Nope.
Sauerkraut: Yep. Can't have a Reuben without it.
Root beer float: Yep.
Cognac with a fat cigar: Nope.
Clotted cream tea: Yep. In England. My time in the Navy was almost worth it just for the food.
Vodka jelly/Jell-O: Yep.
Gumbo: Yep.
Oxtail: Yep.
Curried goat: Nope.
Whole insects: Nope.
Phaal: Nope.
Goat's milk: Yep. Pretty good once you get used to it.
Fugu: Nope.
Chicken tikka masala:Yep
Eel: Yep.
Krispy Kreme original glazed doughnut: Yep
Sea urchin: Nope.
Prickly pear: Nope.
Umeboshi: Nope.
Abalone: Yes.
Paneer: Nope.
McDonald's Big Mac Meal: Yes. Meh.
Spaetzle: Yep.
Dirty gin martini: Nope.
Beer above 8% ABV: Yep
Poutine: Nope, I have had gravy fries, but not with cheese curd
Carob chips: Yes. Meh.
S'mores: Duh.
Sweetbreads: Yep. Meh, better than liver, though.
Kaolin: Nope.
Currywurst: Nope.
Durian: Nope.
Frogs' legs: Yep. They're OK.
Beignets, churros, elephant ears or funnel cake: Yep.
Haggis: Ach! Aye!
Fried plantain: Yep. Meh.
Chitterlings, or andouillette: Nope.
Gazpacho: Yep. "Tomato soup, seved ice cold"
Caviar and blini: Nope.
Louche absinthe: Nope.
Gjetost, or brunost: Nope.
Roadkill: Nope.
Baijiu: Nope.
Hostess Fruit Pie: Yep. Loved 'em as a kid.
Snail: Yep. (France)
Lapsang souchong: Nope.
Bellini: Nope.
Tom yum: Nope.
Eggs Benedict: Yep. OK, but, again, I'm not much for breakfast foods.
Pocky: Yep.
Tasting menu at a three-Michelin-star restaurant: Nope.
Kobe beef: Nope.
Hare: Yep.
Goulash: Yep.
Flowers: Yep, if dandelions and rose hips count.
Horse: Nope.
Criollo chocolate: Nope.
Spam: Yep. Yuck.
Soft shell crab: Yep.
Rose harissa: Nope
Catfish: Yep.
Mole poblano: Yep.
Bagel and lox: Yep.
Lobster Thermidor: Nope.
Polenta: Yep.
Jamaican Blue Mountain coffee: Nope.
Snake: Nope.

Some extras have been added.

Elk: Yep. Dad makes a killer Elk stew. In fact, I think Elk is pretty awesome all around, except in spaghetti sauce for some reason
Ostrich: Nope.
Moose: Yep.
Whole hog BBQ: Yep.
Wine @ >$400/bottle.: Nope.
Home made bacon/sausage: Yep. The sausage anyway, never had home-made bacon that I'm aware of.
Chocolate and chilis: Nope
Chittlins: Nope.
Moonshine: Nope.
Quail eggs: Nope.
Monkfish liver: Nope.
Live scallop: Nope.
Fried chicken giblets: Yep. Yuck.
Duck cracklings: Yep. OK if you like fried skin.
Grappa: Nope.

Well, that's it. I've had a little over half of the original 100. I can't think of anything to add to the list.

Later,

Yay! I'm a complete bastard!

2008-07-21T21:11:00.006-06:00

Via Pooflinger's Anonymous come this Machiavelli personality test

I scored a 92.

I think this is because of the way the questions are worded. I scored so high, not because I'm manipulative, but because I'm cynical. What I believe about people, and how I try to behave personally, are very different.

Later,

I want this guy for Wyoming, dammit!

2008-07-17T19:03:00.004-06:00

Via Pharyngula comes a gleam of hope in an otherwise dismal election cycle.

A guy named Sean Tevis is running for State Representative in Kansas

Check it out. Consider donating (At least check out the link, it's got a good comic). Even if you don't live in Kansas (I don't) this is a step in the right direction.

Later,

Shadows Over Baker Street

2008-07-15T19:17:00.006-06:00

I saw this book (see post title) in Hastings and was intrigued enough to get it.

The front cover proclaims:
"Includes the Hugo Award-winning 'A Study in Emerald' by Neil Gaiman"
Which is what caught my attention in the first place.

Here's the back cover blurb:

What would happen if Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's peerless detective, Sherlock Holmes, and his allies were to find themselves faced with Lovecraftian mysteries whose solutions lay not only beyond the grasp of logic, but beyond sanity itself? In this collection of original tales, twenty of today's cutting-edge writer's provide answers to that burning question.

Contributors include Neil Gaiman, Brian Stableford, Poppy Z. Brite, Barbara Hambly, Steve Perry, and Caitlin R. Kiernan. These and other masters of horror, mystery, fantasy, and science fiction spin dark tales within a terrifyingly surreal universe.

Not to bad for a blurb (I've seen some that barely relate to the book they were written for).

The stories very in quality, but are all pretty good. They also have varying degrees of Lovecraftian-ness.

Neil Gaiman's story was a bit disappointing, in that the Lovecraftian elements were mostly background, and I know from a couple of stories in "Smoke and Mirrors" that he can do better.

I particularly liked "The Adventure of the Antiquarian's Niece" by Barbara Hambly.

If you are a fan of Sherlock Holmes or a fan of HP Lovecraft (I, of course, am both), then I recommend this anthology.

Later,

The Pharyngula cracker incident

2008-07-13T16:20:00.005-06:00

Many of you reading this are probably aware of the kerfluffle going on over at Pharyngula.

Recap: A student at a Florida university, during a communion mass on campus, didn't eat the cracker given to him by the priest. Instead, he took it back to his seat, later claiming the intention to eat it after showing it to his friend. The priest apparently assaulted the student for "desecrating the eucharist"

Dr Myers expressed his opinion, going so far as to say that he'd be happy to "desecrate the eucharist" in many imaginative ways.

Bill Donohue, professional umbrager for the Catholic League, went ballistic.

Which brings us to the kerfluffle.

It has certainly generated some record-length comment threads.

Here are the appropriate posts:

IT'S A FRACKIN' CRACKER
1007 comments

Now I've got Bill Donohue's attention
843 comments

Fresh crackers!
1041 comments

Fight back against Bill Donohue!
1227 Comments

Internet getting full, here's a new hole to dump comments into
610 Comments

Can this possibly get more insane?
564 Comments

I get email — special cracker edition!
1306 Comments

FYI
969 Comments

Apparently Dr Myers is still getting hate-mail (including death threats) over this matter.

Whatever happened to ""turn the other cheek" or "judge not..." or even "Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord" ?

How about a sense of freaking proportion. It's just a cracker.

Feel the xian love.

Later,

So obvious even an Engineering drop-out (to wit: me) can spot it

2008-07-12T16:12:00.003-06:00

From SciencePunk via Bad Astronomy:

Can you spot the mistake (it took me about 3 seconds). This is from a school that offers engineering courses.

Later,

2008-07-11T21:50:00.007-06:00

This is from the archive of The Pain".

Later,

Theistardery, alive and well in Florida

2008-07-08T18:52:00.004-06:00

Via Pharyngula comes (as PZ describes it) "a story that will destroy your hopes for a reasonable humanity".

Remember this next time you hear a Xian call Muslims fanatics.

Later,

I'm 100 years old today (in Base6)

2008-07-06T17:56:00.002-06:00

GET OFF MY LAWN! (Damn kids.)

Later,

Should have posted this yesterday.

2008-07-05T21:19:00.004-06:00

As I have mentioned previously, I loved "The Muppet Show"

I have no idea when this was made, not from the original show (at least not Sam the American Eagle's part)

Later,

Happy 4th of July

2008-07-04T10:11:00.000-06:00

Celebrate the independence of your country by blowing up a small piece of it.
(thanks, Apu)

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go see "Hancock".

Later,

Happy Tunguska Day!

2008-06-30T17:29:00.001-06:00

Today is the 100th anniversary of the Tunguska Event.

Later,

Will Smith on "The Colbert Report"

2008-06-29T19:13:00.001-06:00

Later,

Okay, I do want to go into how bad it was

2008-06-28T20:33:00.004-06:00

"The Happening"

Spoilers ahead

Here's what sucked:
(okay, it all sucked, but this is what sucked most)

Mark Wahlberg is a science teacher. A quote is clearly visible on the chalkboard behind him. It is attributed to Einstein. It is almost certainly bullplop. Wahlberg's character also spouts some non-science woo to his class. The saddest part is that he may just be a pretty accurate depiction of a high school science teacher.
John Leguizamo is a math teacher. He likes to comfort people with made up statistics.
The phrase "act of nature" is used several times. "Nature" here is a stand-in for "God".
Plants (not any specific plant, mind you, plants in general) have suddenly evolved (their word, not mine) to emit a toxin that causes people to commit suicide, because humans are an undeniable threat to the planet. The event is a warning to humans.
Random crazy-hermit-lady

Later,

The most craptastic movie I've seen since "Signs"

2008-06-28T17:14:00.002-06:00

On the advice of a coworker, and having nothing else to do this afternoon, I saw M. Night Shyamalan's latest offering, "The Happening"

It was a mistake. The only reason I didn't walk out was the aforementioned nothing else to do.

It was incredibly boring, and I don't even want to go into how bad it was.

My recommendation: If you are tempted to see this movie, squirt lemon juice in your eyes. It will be more entertaining, less painful, and doesn't cost $6.75 (I went to a matinee).

Later,

Goodbye, George. You will be missed.

2008-06-23T18:08:00.002-06:00

George Carlin has died. Everyone has to go sometime. No one gets out alive. It's still sad, though.

Later,

"Get Smart"

2008-06-21T17:55:00.004-06:00

I am not disappointed.

I will avoid spoilers, so don't be afraid to continue.

The comedic style was different from the show. That's good, because I think that would have come off as corny. There were a couple of classic gags (For example: "Missed it by that much." Agent 13 hidden in unusual places.). Wow, avoiding spoilers is hard. Steve Carell has a different feel as Maxwell Smart than Don Adams did, but not in a bad way. Anne Hathaway was pretty good. I do wish there had been more of Hymie, but even with as little time as he got, Patrick Warburton was great (His deadpan humor is perfect for a robot character). And a cameo by Bernie Kopell (He played Sigfried on the TV show). I'm actually kind of surprised that no other actors from the TV show made appearances. I would have expected Barbara Feldon, at least.

Anyway, definitely, definitely worth it.

Later,

I don't think creationists know what "proof" means

2008-06-17T18:54:00.022-06:00

Via Pharyngula comes a list of 50 so-called proofs that God exists. The only problem is that not a single one of them is proof of anything.

It is easy to prove to yourself that God is real. .the evidence is all around you. Here are 50 simple proofs:
Whilst agreeing that random patterns occur naturally by chance, DNA however, consists of code, which requires a designer.
Unsupported assertion. Why does it require a designer?
How do you explain the paranormal, such as people witnessing positive or negative sightings, like ghosts or angels? I saw a ghost with a friend of mine - I am not a liar, an attention seeker. Neither was I overtired when this happened.
Delusion? Lies? "I'm not lying, I swear."
Try praying. What good is it when a mind is set to coincidence & disbelief regarding the positive outcome?
Exactly the same good it is with any other mindset. None at all.
The law of cause & effect - in order to have an effect, there has to be a cause. Everything is caused by something.
Then what caused your God?
Mindless nothing cannot be responsible for complex something.
Unsupported assertion again.
Science can only be the detector of certain things. You cannot scientifically detect emotion, memory, thoughts etc., though scientifically we must.. These things which do not consist of matter are beyond the detection of science.
Bullplop. Science, (neuroscience, to be precise) is making great strides in explaining these things. "Goddidit" explains nothing.
Evolution has never been proved, which is why we call it the 'theory of evolution'. It's a fairy tale for grown ups!
Bullplop. Also, look up "projection" in any freshman psychology text.
Atheism is a faith in that which has not been proved. The disbelievers have not witnessed anything to not believe in, whereas the believers believe because they have witnessed. There is no 'good news' to preach in atheism.
Atheism is faith only in that which is supported by evidence. No imaginary "good news" is needed, only reality
How much of the atheist's faith relies on anger with God as opposed to genuine disbelief in God?
None whatsoever, at least for me and all other atheists that I know.
Why do many atheists shake their fists & spend so much time ranting & raving about something they don't believe in? If they are no more than a fizzled out battery at the end of the day, then why don't they spend their lives partying, or getting a hobby?! Why don't they leave this 'God nonsense' alone?
Because people like you irritate us
What created God? What came first, the chicken or the egg? I am not going to deny the existence of the chicken or the egg, merely because I don't understand or know what came first. I don't care - they both exist!
Irrelevant argument. The existence of pizza does not prove the existence of the Loch Ness Monster. Also, since chickens evolved from earlier egg-laying animals, the egg must have come first.
Improbability is not the same as impossibility. You only have to look at life itself for that backup of proof.
Yes, God is not impossible, just very, very improbable. This does not imply that God therefore exists. No evidence still means no reason to believe.
How could the complexity of human life possibly evolve on its own accord out of mindless cells?
That has been very well explained. See any (non-creationist) freshman biology text
How could the complexity of the human mind possibly evolve on its own accord out of mindless cells? Where does our consciousness come from?
See above, add a freshman psychology text
What/who knew that our hunger & thirst had to be catered for by the food & drink which we're supplied with?
Seriously, go get that freshman biology text
Most of us are born with the five senses to detect our surroundings, which we're provided with.
See above
What/who knew that had Earth been set nearer to the sun, we would burn up?
The Anthropic Principal does not say what you think it does. Life evolved to fit its environment.
What/who knew that had Earth been set any further from the sun, we would freeze up?
See above
What/who knew that had Earth been built larger or smaller, its atmosphere would be one where it would not be possible for us to breathe?
See above
What/who knew that we require the oxygen of plants, just as plants require the carbon dioxide of us?
See above
The concept that life came about through sheer chance is as absurd & improbable as a tornado blowing through a junk yard, consequently assembling a Boeing 747!
That would be special creation, not evolution
We are willing to believe in physically unseen waves that exist through the air, operating physical forces & appliances to work, yet not supernatural God forces being responsible for the same.
It's all about the evidence. "Science. It works, bitches."
Matter cannot organise itself. An uneaten tomato will not progress on its own accord to form a perfect pineapple. It will transform into mould, into disorganisation. The laws of evolution fall flat.
Is this supposed to be that "Evolution violates 2LOT" argument? That's been dealt with. Even AIG says to stop using it.
Our 'inventor' of evolution, Mr. Charles Darwin had this to say to Lady Hope when he was almost bedridden for 3 months before he died; "I was a young man with unfathomed ideas. I threw out queries, suggestions. wondering all the time over everything, and to my astonishment the ideas took like wildfire - people made a religion of them." Darwin then asked Lady Hope to speak to neighbours the next day. "What shall I speak about?" She asked. He replied; "Christ Jesus and his salvation. Is that not the best theme?"
The Lady Hope story is bullplop. Even AIG admits it
Where do our moral values held within our conscience come from? If the atheist is right, why then would we care about what we did?! If there is no God, then we've no-one to be accountable to.
Humans evolved as social animals.
If man has evolved from an animal, why doesn't he behave like an animal? Yet man is civilised.
All animals do not behave the same. "We are civilized, they are not" has also been used to justify the conquest/genocide of other human societies.
'Chance' isn't the cause of something. It just describes what we can't find a reason for.
Unsupported assertion. "Goddidit" is a much closer fit for that.
Science & logic do not hold all the answers - many people are aware of forces at work which we have no understanding of & no control over.
Those people are frauds. James Randi still has that million dollars.
Look at the date/year on our calender - 2000 years ago since what? Our historical records (other than the Bible) record evidence of Jesus' existence.
Which records would that be? Our calendar was made by believers. It doesn't prove anything. It could as easily have been based on the time since Atlantis was destroyed.
Many people have died for their faith. Would they be prepared to do this for a lie?!
Sure. Belief in something doesn't make it true. Jim Jones? Heaven's Gate?
Much of the Bible deals with eyewitness accounts, written only 40 years after Jesus died. When the books in the New Testament were first around, there would have been confusion & anger if the books were not true.
The Gospel of Mark is believed to be a secondhand account writen around 70 AD. Also, ask any police officer what eyewitness accounts are worth even immediately after an event, let alone 40 years later.
From as early as 2000 BC, there is archaological evidence to confirm many details we're provided with in the Bible.
Real places, yes. Real events, no.
Not one single Biblical prediction can be shown as false, and the Bible contains hundreds.
Predictions vague enough to mean almost anything, can be fit to almost any event, then be trumpeted as true.
The evidence from liturature & historical studies claim that Biblical statements are reliable details of genuine events.
What evidence would that be, give some references
From the birth of science through to today, there is no evidence to claim that Christianity & science are in opposition. Many first scientists were Christians; Francis Bacon, Issaac Newton, Robert Boyle, to name a few, along with the many who stand by their work & faith today.
There are Muslim scientists, Hindu scientists, Shinto scientists, and atheist scientists, too. What's your point?
Science can explain 'how' something works, but not 'why' something works.
Not even an argument. Just sophistry.
Science is constantly recorrecting its findings. Past theories contradict certain beliefs which are held today. Our present 'discoveries' may change again in the future to rediscover how we originally came into existence.
Science is self-correcting. That is one of its biggest strengths. If it is currently wrong, it will very likely be corrected in the future.
Evolution describes the way life possibly started, yet doesn't explain what made life start & why. Scientific questions fail to do that. Even if evolution were proved, it would still not disprove God.
That's abiogenesis. It's being worked on. Evolution doesn't disprove God. No atheist claims that it does. A hundred and fifty plus years of research has provided no evidence for God. That is why atheists don't believe.
The two people who discovered Jesus' empty tomb were women. Women were so low on the social scale in first century Palestine, so in order to make the story fit, it would have made far more sense to claim that it were male disciples who had entered the tomb. But it wasn't - we're left with the historical & Biblical truth.
Does that mean it would be even more true if they had been Levite women? How about Levite women with leprosy? That would clinch it beyond all doubt. The women who entered the tomb weren't Levites, nor is it written that they were lepers. Therefore it must be false.
Think about Near Death Experiences. It's naive to believe that they all are induced by chemicals or drugs. How do we account for a blind person having this experience, coming back to describe what they had never before seen, a person telling the Doctor that there is a blue paperclip on top of the high cabinet, which they couldn't have otherwise known, an african man being dead in his coffin for 3 days, coming back to life to tell of much the same events which took place as those of many others? We never hear of the witnesses describing "a dream". We're not silly - we know the difference between even the most vivid of dreams to that of reality.
Now you're just making stuff up. The plural of "anecdote" is not "evidence"
There are many skeptics who didn't believe in Jesus before his crucifixion, and who were opposed to Christianity, yet turned to the Christian faith after the death of Jesus. Just as the many who continue to do so today.
Some people convert to Islam, too. Some Xians become atheists. People are funny that way.
Albert Einstein said; "A legitimate conflict between science & religion cannot exist. Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind".
Einstein was a smart guy. He wasn't infallible, though. He also said, "I cannot conceive of a personal God who would directly influence the actions of individuals, or would directly sit in judgment on creatures of his own creation." In fact, go here for a long list of Einstein quotes about what he believed.
A speaker in Hyde Park who was attacking belief in God, claimed that the world just happened. As he spoke, a soft tomato was thrown at him. "Who threw that?" He said angrily. A cockney from the back of the crowd replied; "No-one threw it - it threw itself!"
The existence of a smart-ass is not evidence for the existence of God.
It is easier to believe that God created something out of nothing than it is to believe that nothing created something out of nothing.
Is it? Says you. Anyway, who says there was nothing before the Big Bang?
Stephen Hawkins has admitted; "Science may solve the problem of how the universe began, but it cannot answer the question: why does the universe bother to exist?"
It's "Stephen Hawking" and so what?
We cannot confuse God with man. With God in the equation, all things, including miracles are possible. If God is God, he is Creator of all, inclusive of scientific law. He is Creator of matter & spirit.
If God exists, then God exists. Circular arguments prove nothing. "If I had pizza for supper, then I had pizza for supper" is true, even if I actually had a hamburger.
If we are the product of evolution - by sheer accident, chance, then we are still evolving. Does it just so happen that we exist here today with everything so finely tuned for our living. as we now have it?
See my response to #17
Could it possibly be that the missing link does not exist?!
What missing link? Hundreds of homind fossils have been discovered.
God has proved himself to us in numerous ways, all around us. The atheist needs to put his glasses on. What more can God possibly do if man has shut his eyes to him?
Empty rhetoric.
Jesus Christ is either who he says he is, or he is the biggest con man history has ever known.
Or he's a fictional character. There are lots of possibilities that don't necessitate him being God
YOU DECIDE!!!

Not a single piece of actual evidence (let alone proof) in the lot. Just more of the usual empty rhetoric, unsupported assertions, arguments from authority, and bald lies. Mostly the same ones we've all seen before, too.

I was going to call #46 a tautology (which it is) but then I'd have idiots shouting "Evolution is a tautology, too! It says "that which survives, survives.'" Which is, of course, a tautology, but not what MET says. MET says (vastly simplified), "That which survives to reproduce, will have offspring that are likely to survive to reproduce." This is not a tautology.

Later,

Chuck Norris can suck it!

2008-06-15T20:25:00.002-06:00

Those "Chuck Norris facts" lists were funny for about 5 minutes. When the meme shifted to Jack Bauer, I lost interest all together.

Now, via Pooflinger's Anonymous I see Bill Nye facts. This appeals very strongly to the geek in me. Most of the "facts" are esoteric enough that only real geeks will find them funny, or even get most of them. Plus, I have a lot more respect and admiration for Bill Nye than for Chuck Norris.

Still, it's awfully derivative. Like Kevin Bacon said to Arnold Schwarzenegger, "Get your own game!"

Funny, though.

Later,

The Incredible Hulk

2008-06-15T18:18:00.006-06:00

So I saw "The Incredible Hulk" yesterday. I thoroughly enjoyed it. The previous fiasco (which I liked only because I went in determined to do so) has been totally forgotten (good) and the Hulk's origin retold in flashbacks.

What was better:

The CGI. The Hulk and the Abomination both looked awesome
Edward Norton. Eric Bana sucks
The action. There was a lot more of it, and it kicked ass.
Actual villains from the comic book. 'Nuff said

What was worse:

No Jennifer Connelly. Liv Tyler sucks

What was really cool was that the villain for the sequel was revealed, but you'd have to be a follower of the old Hulk comics to catch it. All I'll say is that it's a classic Hulk villain who hasn't been seen in the comic book for several years.

Bonus:

Cameo by Robert Downey Jr. as Tony Stark

Suspension of disbelief stretch:

I cannot (CANNOT) believe that Lou Ferrigno (or anyone who looks like him) eats pizza

I saw "Ironman" when it came out, but, since I have never been a big fan of the character, all I will say is that the movie was pretty good. Replace "Ironman" with "Indiana Jones" and you have my opinion of that movie, too.

I'm looking forward to some upcoming releases.

"Get Smart" I loved that show when I was little. If anyone can fill Don Adams' shoephone, it's Steve Carell. Here's hoping
"Hancock" I like Will Smith. I like comic book superheroes. This movie looks really funny. I'm there
"The Dark Knight" Well, duh

Later,

What the hell is he thinking?

2008-06-15T18:08:00.004-06:00

FOX cancelled "Firefly" after 14 episodes (of which, I believe, only 12 actually aired), but it seems Joss Whedon is giving them another chance.

"Dollhouse" (the link is to the IMDb page) stars Eliza Dushku and Amy Acker, both of whom were in previous Joss Whedon shows (Faith from "Buffy" and Fred from "Angel" respectively). It looks pretty good, but then it's from Joss Whedon, so what do you expect. The first episode airs in January '09 (according to IMDb), so I expect it will finish out the season. Maybe if "Firefly" has started in January, it would have picked up enough of a fan base during summer reruns to keep FOX executives happy. Oh well, water under the bridge.

Later,

Poor taste, but funny

2008-04-08T06:41:00.002-06:00

"...When you pry it from my cold dead hand"

Later,

The Swedish Chef, Beaker and Animal sing "Danny Boy"

2008-04-02T06:45:00.004-06:00

I loved The Muppet Show.

This clip is really funny, especially if you are familiar with the characters.

Later,

If the God of Creationists does exist, he's a jackass.

2008-03-10T18:18:00.008-06:00

Seriously, anyone who looks at nature, and sees the hand of God, then uses that as an argument for Creationism, needs to have their ass kicked.

I present the following as evidence for my title:

In case the link titles don't tip you off, this isn't pretty

Exibit A: Organisms that look designed (The Argument from Irreducible Grotesqueness)

Exibit B: The 5 Most Horrifying Bugs in the World

Okay, science (mankind) has to take some blame for the Africanized Honey Bee, but it's not as if there was some deep genetic manipulation happening, it was simple cross-breeding.

Modern Evolutionary Theory can explain these nasty critters very handily.

How do they fit into "God's perfect creation"?. Or were they, like T-Rex, herbivorous before The Fall?

Later,

New car pics

2008-03-09T10:48:00.006-06:00

Here are some pictures of my new car:

Later,

Tragically ironic

2008-03-05T15:32:00.001-07:00

I seem to be in a morbid kind of mood today.

Later,

Gary Gygax, 1938-2008

2008-03-05T09:07:00.006-07:00

This is all over the blogoshpere, so I won't belabor it much.

Gary Gygax died yesterday at 69 years old.

For those of you who don't know who he was:
Gary Gygax was a co-founder of TSR (Tactical Studies Rules), the original publisher of Dungeons and Dragons and later Advanced Dungeons and Dragons. Gary wrote a large portion of the material for both. He also wrote fantasy novels (not great, but entertaining). As such, he was a big part of my teen years.

Now I'm feeling nostalgic. I'm going to have to try to find some people.

Later,

New Car

2008-02-27T17:14:00.005-07:00

I'm getting a new car. A Subaru Impreza WRX to be precise.

You see, the motor died in my Kia Rio, and since the warranty expired a few months ago, it isn't worth fixing (estimates ranged from $2500 to $3500). I tried to find someone who wanted it, but no one did, not even for parts (A couple of years ago, Kia was giving Rios away to anyone who bought a real car). So it has been consigned to car-heaven, AKA a salvage yard.

And by new, I mean actually new (2008), not just new-to-me. I pick it up Saturday.

Yay, debt!

Later,

The Addams Family

2008-02-24T20:33:00.003-07:00

Netflix has the original Addams Family (1964-1966) TV series available to stream (the "Watch Instantly" feature)

I have only ever seen a few episodes before, so I watched a couple today, and will watch the rest as I can.

I didn't really know how good that show is. I liked the movies, but now that I see the original show, there's really no comparison.

Later,

Movie Quotes Meme

2008-02-24T12:10:00.014-07:00

Via Qalmlea comes a cool meme. It's pretty much "Name that quote." Here are the rules

Meme rules:
Pick 15 of your favourite movies.
Go to IMDb and find a quote from each movie.
Post them here for everyone to guess.
Fill in the film title once it's guessed.
NO GOOGLING/using IMDb search functions. Totally cheating, you dirty cheaters.

So, here are the quotes: (UPDATE: rearranged list and added second quotes to unidentified movies. On Sunday, March 2^nd I'll identify any that remain)

- "Am I employing retards? I have nothing against retards in general, I just can't afford to employ them."

- "Most people have some dignity, most people long to leave a mark. If it were just a question of smudges... they wouldn't need the bowling shoe rule."
- Blood and Donuts

- "Boy, it sure would be nice if we had some grenades, don't you think?"

- "Can I make a suggestion that doesn't involve violence, or is this the wrong crowd for that?"
- Serenity

- "One shop destroyed. Three heads split like overripe melons. One man wounded and one castrated. All in two hours. Just two hours I left you alone. Two hours."

- "Well, I couldn't leave him in town; he tends to tell to tell the truth. He's an alcoholic, you know."
- They Call Me Trinity

- "Is there a doctor in the fish?"

- "Why, why, why! Because it's all logic and reason now. Science, progress, laws of hydraulics, laws of social dynamics, laws of this, that, and the other. No place for three-legged cyclops in the South Seas. No place for cucumber trees and oceans of wine. No place for me."
- The Adventures of Baron Münchhausen

- "I, Hatchet Jack, being of sound mind and broke legs, do leaveth my rifle to the next thing who finds it, Lord hope he be a white man. It is a good rifle, and kilt the bear that kilt me. Anyway, I am dead. Sincerely, Hatchet Jack."

- "Elk don't know how many feet a horse has!"
- Jeremiah Johnson

- "My old man told me, before he left this shitty world, 'never chase buses or women, you'll always be left behind.'"

- "You know, if I had a nickel for every time some piece of shit pointed a gun at me I'd be a rich man."
- Harley Davidson and the Marlboro Man

- "Well, he didn't say the word growl. He said 'throat noise'. But I asked him to imitate it and it sounded like a growl to me."

- "You still don't get it, do you, Captain? Your men are obsolete."
- Soldier

- "Oh, so it's like Halley's Comet - only monsters come out!"

- "You do realize that all I've got is a wooden baseball bat, right?"
- TMNT

- "It appears my hypocrisy knows no bounds."

- "From now on I see a red sash, I kill the man wearing it. So run you cur. And tell the other curs the law is coming. You tell 'em I'm coming! And Hell's coming with me you hear! Hell's coming with me!"
- Tombstone

- "That would take forever. Besides, even if we find them, they'd only capture us, stick us in cages, torture us and finally devour us!"

- "You started spouting poetry. "I love you Sorsha! I worship you Sorsha!" You almost got us killed!"
- Willow

"I was depressed, I was confused and I was turning Japanese."
- Sgt. Kabukiman, NYPD

"You're gonna knock over a bank with a Magic Marker? What are you gonna do, write on 'em?"
- Bandits

"If she'd 'ave kept goin' down that way she'd 'ave gone straight to that castle."
- Labyrinth

"You brought our baby into a knife fight?"
"It was a fair fight. Two of them, two of us..."
- Undercover Blues

"My own brother a goddamn, shit-sucking vampire! Oh, you wait 'til Mom finds out, buddy."
- The Lost Boys

Some are pretty obvious, some less so.

All of these quotes are copied/pasted from IMDb, (except that I corrected the spelling of "Halley's Comet"). I think some of them are not quite right, but they are at least recognizable.

Later,

Cool, weird dream

2008-02-15T19:01:00.003-07:00

I don't usually post my dreams here. This one, however, was too good to pass up.

Like most of my dreams it was narrative. I had a first person POV (as myself) and also a third person (viewer) POV.

The scene was some kind of amusement park. A new ride had just opened. It was one of those fake rollercoaster rides where you watch a screen and the seat moves with the action to provide a sense of motion. It was called "The Temple of Dagon." Pure fun. Scary entertainment. But no one told Dagon.

Dagon shows up, and panic and chaos ensue. Enter the heroes. Me, Mark (a friend from High School) and two other guys (I'm pretty sure they were people I knew at some point, but I can't remember who they were).

Most of the dream was us fighting our way through the crowd. My alarm went off just as we reached the ride. Dammit. Okay, I guess there isn't much to it, but it was still way cool.

I used to play paper-and-dice RPGs with Mark and some other guys in High School, but I didn't get into Call of Cthulhu until I was in the Navy.

Later,

February...February...hmm.

2008-02-04T19:05:00.001-07:00

There's something happening next week. But I don't...

Oh, yeah! Phil's birthday is next Thursday.

Well, that's settled.

Later,

Weird

2008-02-01T13:57:00.000-07:00

I use IE at work. Occasionally I go to my blog to use the links in my sidebar.

Since Jan 1^st, IE has not displayed my front page properly (It displayed fine on Firefox). Others have commented on this, too. Now that it's Feb 1^st, the front page displays properly.

Very strange.

Later,

Oh no!

2008-01-31T19:30:00.000-07:00

Via Sporadic Maunderings comes Net Disaster. It's pretty cool.

Later,

Dr Myers debates a creo

2008-01-31T19:23:00.000-07:00

Dr PZ Myers debated a creo named Geoffrey Simmons on a Xian radio station this afternoon. I was unable to listen to it live, but followed the running commentary. It seems Dr Myers laid the smackdown on poor Geoff. The debate is supposed to be available for download by tomorrow evening, but I hope that someone out there made a separate recording. 24+ hours is plenty of time for editing.

Later,

Robots and Evolution

2008-01-29T16:48:00.000-07:00

Having returned from vacation Sunday night, I have been catching up on my 'blog reading. A post on The Panda's Thumb from Jan 21 caught my eye. Like a previous post I made back in November '05, this sits at the intersection of my interest in electronics/computers/robotics and my interest in evolution.

The object of this experiment (.pdf) was to test the evolvability of communication. The setup is pretty simple. The selection pressure is based on foraging efficiency in an environment with one source of food, and one source of poison, which are indistinguishable from a distance.

The robots in the test groups had the ability to flash a blue light. There were four test groups.

Closely related, colony selection
Closely related, individual selection
Unrelated, colony selection
Unrelated, individual selection

There was also a control group that was tested in the same environment but without the ability to flash a light.

All groups started with random 'genomes' in individuals. In three of the four test groups, communication evolved which provided a higher foraging efficiency than the non-communicating control group. Interestingly, some rudimentary altruistic behavior evolved, too.

Even more interesting was the fourth group: Unrelated, individual selection. It also evolved communication, but was slightly less efficient than the control group. Why? Its members evolved deceptive behavior.

That's pretty cool.

The thread quickly became a discussion of moral sense. Which is also interesting, but not something I really want to go into right now. However, one commenter provided a link to this article at the New York Times, about moral instincts. It's long, but well worth the time. Here is the concluding paragraph:

Far from debunking morality, then, the science of the moral sense can advance it, by allowing us to see through the illusions that evolution and culture have saddled us with and to focus on goals we can share and defend. As Anton Chekhov wrote, ''Man will become better when you show him what he is like.

Later,

Eye update

2008-01-14T18:11:00.000-07:00

The doctor called the thing by my eye a stye. It is an infection, probably staph or strep. I'm pretty conscientious about washing my hands, but I do have a habit of rubbing my eyes. He took a culture to test it and prescribed some antibiotics, which should clear it up in a few days.

Later,

Ha!

2008-01-13T18:32:00.001-07:00

Via I Drew This comes a story about FBI wiretaps being shut off because the FBI hasn't been paying it's phone bill!

Telecom SOP:

Civil liberty violations = no problem.
Unpaid bills = termination of service.
No, really, we're not just about the money.

Later,

Kevin Welsh

2008-01-13T13:45:00.000-07:00

There's a song verse in my random quote generator. Here's a video of Kevin Welsh performing it.

and here's another Kevin Welsh song I really like:

I have a tinwhistle that I've tried to learn to play. I used to be ok, but I haven't even touched it in several years. I should get back to it.

Later,

Philosophy/Logic quizzes

2008-01-13T12:13:00.000-07:00

Via Qalmlea I found this page, Games and Interactive Activities of a generally philosophical bent.

1) Do-It-Yourself Deity - Choose a number of attributes that you feel are necessary for a being to be called "God." Your choices will be given a "plausibility quotient" based on internal consistency.

My score: 1.0, total internal consistency.
This is because I didn't choose any attributes as necessary. Partly because I don't believe in any God or gods, but mostly because I really don't know what criteria to use to define 'god.'
For example: who is this?

People pray to him, believe he sees their every action, makes moral judgments on those actions, punishes or rewards them accordingly, and he is not restricted by physical (mortal?) laws.

Answer: Santa Claus.

Is there anyone who considers Santa to be a god?

2) Taboo - Moral judgements, chickens and the yuk-factor.

Your Moralising Quotient of 0.00 compares to an average Moralising Quotient of 0.31. This means that as far as the events depicted in the scenarios featured in this activity are concerned you are more permissive than average.

Your Interference Factor of 0.00 compares to an average Interference Factor of 0.20. This means that as far as the events depicted in the scenarios featured in this activity are concerned you are less likely to recommend societal interference in matters of moral wrongdoing, in the form of prevention or punishment, than average.

Your Universalising Factor of -1 compares to an average Universalising Factor of 0.40. Your score of -1 indicates that you saw no moral wrong in any of the activities depicted in these scenarios, which means that it is not possible for this activity to determine the extent to which you see moral wrongdoing in universal terms (i.e., without regard to prevailing cultural norms and social conventions)
It's true. I saw nothing morally wrong with any of these scenarios. I thought that they were weird and squicky, but not morally wrong

3) Interactive Philosophy Quiz - Test your knowledge of philosophy in this interactive quiz

Boring! It's just a test of dates/locations/names.

4) Battleground God - Will your beliefs about God and religion survive on our intellectual battlefield?

You took zero direct hits and you bit zero bullets. The average player of this activity to date takes 1.39 hits and bites 1.11 bullets. 402449 people have so far undertaken this activity.
It's pretty easy to be internally consistent when you don't believe in a supreme being

5) Morality Play - How do your moral judgments match up against those of other people? How broad a range of moral principles do you invoke when making moral judgments?

Your Moral Parsimony Score is 76%

What does this mean?

Moral frameworks can be more or less parsimonious. That is to say, they can employ a wide range of principles, which vary in their application according to circumstances (less parsimonious) or they can employ a small range of principles which apply across a wide range of circumstances without modification (more parsimonious). An example might make this clear. Let's assume that we are committed to the principle that it is a good to reduce suffering. The test of moral parsimony is to see whether this principle is applied simply and without modification or qualification in a number of different circumstances. Supposing, for example, we find that in otherwise identical circumstances, the principle is applied differently if the suffering person is from a different country to our own. This suggests a lack of moral parsimony because a factor which could be taken to be morally irrelevant in an alternative moral framework is here taken to be morally relevant.

How to interpret your score

The higher your percentage score the more parsimonious your moral framework. In other words, a high score is suggestive of a moral framework that comprises a minimal number of moral principles that apply across a range of circumstances and acts. What is a high score? As a rule of thumb, any score above 75% should be considered indicative of a parsimonious moral framework. However, perhaps a better way to think about this is to see how your score compares to other people's scores.
In fact, your score of 76% is slightly higher than the average score of 64%. This suggests that you have utilised a somewhat smaller range of moral principles than average in order to make judgements about the scenarios presented in this test, and that you have, at least on occasion, judged aspects of the acts and circumstances depicted here to be morally irrelevant that other people consider to be morally relevant.

Moral Parsimony - good or bad?

We make no judgement about whether moral parsimony is a good or bad thing. Some people will think that on balance it is a good thing and that we should strive to minimise the number of moral principles that form our moral frameworks. Others will suspect that moral parsimony is likely to render moral frameworks simplistic and that an overly parsimonious moral framework will leave us unable to deal with the complexity of real circumstances and acts. We'll leave it up to you to decide who is right.

How was your score calculated?

Your score was calculated by combining and averaging your scores in the four categories that appear below.

Geographical Distance

This category has to do with the impact of geographical distance on the application of moral principles. The idea here is to determine whether moral principles are applied equally when dealing with sets of circumstances and acts that differ only in their geographical location in relation to the person making the judgement.

Your score of 100% is significantly higher than the average score of 72% in this category.

The suggestion then is that geographical distance plays little, if any, role in your moral thinking.

Family Relatedness

In this category, we look at the impact of family loyalty and ties on the way in which moral principles are applied. The idea here is to determine whether moral principles are applied without modification or qualification when you're dealing with sets of circumstances and acts that differ only in whether the participants are related through family ties to the person making the judgement.

Your score of 67% is a lot higher than the average score of 52% in this category.

However, despite the fact that issues of family relatedness are less significant to you as a moral factor than to most other people who have taken this test, your score is low enough so that it might be supposed that they still play some role in your moral thinking. To the extent that they do, the parsimoniousness of your moral framework is reduced.

Acts and Omissions

This category has to do with whether there is a difference between the moral status of acting and omitting to act where the consequences are the same in both instances. Consider the following example. Let's assume that on the whole it is a bad thing if a person is poisoned whilst drinking a cola drink. One might then ask whether there is a moral difference between poisoning the coke, on the one hand (an act), and failing to prevent a person from drinking a coke someone else has poisoned, when in a position to do so, on the other (an omission). In this category then, the idea is to determine if moral principles are applied equally when you're dealing with sets of circumstances that differ only in whether the participants have acted or omitted to act.

Your score of 35% is much lower than the average score of 61% in this category.

This suggests that the difference between acting and omitting to act is a relevant factor in your moral framework. Usually, this will mean thinking that those who act have greater moral culpability than those who simply omit to act. To insist on a moral distinction between acting and omitting to act is to decrease the parsimoniousness of your moral framework.

Scale

This category has to do with whether scale is a factor in making moral judgements. A simple example will make this clear. Consider a situation where it is possible to save ten lives by sacrificing one life. Is there a moral difference between this choice and one where the numbers of lives involved are different but proportional - for example, saving 100 lives by sacrificing ten? In this category then, the idea is to determine whether moral principles are applied without modification or qualification when you're dealing with sets of circumstances that differ only in their scale, as in the sense described above.

Your score of 100% is significantly higher than the average score of 73% in this category.

It seems that scale, as it is described above, is not an important consideration in your moral worldview. But if, contrary to our findings, it is important, then it decreases the parsimoniousness of your moral framework.

6) Shakespeare vs. Britney Spears - What is art? Which artists produce the greatest works of art?

Another boring one.

7) Strange New World - how can you know you aren't living in the Matrix?

Ah, phenomenology. Watch Dark Star instead.

8) The Philosophical Health Check - Is your thinking up to scratch?

Tests internal consistency

I got a tension quotient of 13%, (lower means more internally consistent) but I disagree that that the following are in tension:

There are no objective moral standards; moral judgements are merely an expression of the values of particular cultures
I think different cultures can have different moral standards
and

Acts of genocide stand as a testament to man's ability to do great evil
A moral judgment that I have made based on my cultural upbringing

9) Staying Alive - is it real or is it Memorex?

Your choices are consistent with the theory known as psychological reductionism. On this view, all that is required for the continued existence of the self is psychological continuity. Your three choices show that this is what you see as central to your sense of self, not any attachment to a particular substance, be it your body, brain or soul. However, some would say that you have not survived at all, but fallen foul of a terrible error. In the teletransporter case, for example, was it really you that travelled to Mars or is it more correct to say that a clone or copy of you was made on Mars, while you were destroyed?
I have no problem with this. I don't believe in mind/body dualism or the existence of an immortal soul separate from the body.

Yoda: "Luminous beings are we, not this crude matter"

Me: "Wrong, we are just this crude matter. How amazing and wonderful that crude matter can shine."

10) So you think you're logical - Maybe we're not quite as logical as we like to think we are!

I got all 4 correct. A basic rule to remember is that "A implies B does NOT mean that B implies A"

11) Dealing with Induction - Can you figure out the rule?

You are dealt cards and have to decide if that card is to be included in the series. The catch is that you don't know the rule defining the series. How many mistakes will it take for you to figure it out?

Also, my left eye still hurts. The upper eyelid is even more swollen.

Later,

My eye hurts.

2008-01-12T18:01:00.000-07:00

This is my left eye.

That lump in the corner is pretty damn painful. Is it an infection of some kind? A clogged tear duct maybe? I don't know. I have a doctor's appointment Monday morning to get it looked at.

Also, my upper eyelid is a bit swollen.

Later,

Moonlight

2008-01-01T17:54:00.000-07:00

I just finished watching the 9th episode of Moonlight and am about 3 minutes into the 10th. The situation prompted me to make this post. So if you care, there are spoilers ahead for the 9th episode

At the end of the 9th episode, Mick and Beth learn that Morgan is actually Coraline (Mick's vampire ex-wife). This isn't a spoiler, as it was revealed to the audience back in the 7th episode. Beth, convinced that Coraline is still a vampire and out for revenge (Mick had supposedly killed her), stakes Coraline. Mick freaks out, because Coraline is human, and must therefore have a cure for vampirism. Cut to the beginning of episode 10. At the hospital, Mick says that if Coraline dies, the cure dies with her.

Um...Hello! Vampire! All Mick has to do is turn her; problem solved. She can cure herself again, if she wants. She can tell Mick the cure, if he can convince her. Even if the cure would somehow prevent Coraline from turning, Mick doesn't know that, and if she's that close to dying (and apparently she is) turning her is the obvious solution. I really like this show (although not as much as Buffy or Angel) but I really hate it when characters suddenly become morons when drama requires it (Buffy and Angel were guilty of this occasionally, too). Like I said, I'm only a few minutes into the episode, maybe they will think of it.

I know it's only the 10th episode of the first season, but I hope that more monsters that just vampires are introduced soon. I don't want it to get all demon-rific and sorcery-y, but some werewolves would be nice. Maybe some zombies.

Later,

These are awesome!

2007-12-30T00:33:00.000-07:00

http://www.iparklikeanidiot.com/

I'd go through that 100-pack in a couple of weeks.

Later,

Wow, PZ's really pushing people's buttons lately

2007-12-30T00:12:00.000-07:00

Two posts on torture, and one on the lunacy that is Ron Paul.

As of midnight, there were 228(26 hr old), 337(14 hrs old), and 115(4 hrs old) comments, respectively.

I'm not surprised by the pile-up of Ron Paul supporters. I think his campaign staff consists mainly of volunteers with this very purpose in mind.

But some people showed up to defend the use of torture! Virtually all of them used the same kind of "ticking time bomb" scenario so common ~~in real life~~ on episodes of "24". I recognized at least two that pop up to denounce PZ's evolution or atheism posts.

And yet, as an atheist, I am somehow supposed to be the morally bankrupt jackass.

Who would Jebus torture?

Later,

I'm so damn clever

2007-12-27T20:23:00.000-07:00

It took some doing to work out, but I added a new feature to my random quote generator.

Clicking on the "new quote" button will refresh the random quote. It's a lot faster than having to refresh the entire page.

It actually took almost two hours to work out, to ultimately add less than 5 lines of code.

Now I just need to add more quotes.

Later,

I deleted that "Philosphy Quiz" post

2007-12-26T22:29:00.000-07:00

I deleted that "Philosphy Quiz" post because I couldn't quickly figure out why there was all that extra space. It was bugging me. Once I do figure it out, I'll repost it.

Blog maintenance.

2007-12-26T19:06:00.000-07:00

Qalmlea modified the way [blockquote] works on her blog, and I was inspired to make similar changes.

This is how blockquotes will look from now on.
I use nested blockquotes to insert my own comments.
Any questions?

I may add more specialized variations for things like crazy stuff (kind of like PZ does when quoting loony rants).
I also changed the blog dimensions and added a border

Later,

Jupiter Landing

2007-12-25T20:18:00.000-07:00

I was bored, and decided to stream a movie from Netflix. While browsing, I noticed this movie, Jupiter Landing. I read the blurb

When six reclusive tenants of a rundown apartment building called Jupiter Landing receive a 30-day eviction notice, they're forced to buck their antisocial ways and band together. Nicki (Naomi West), the reluctant leader, struggles to organize and motivate her slacker neighbors into taking a stand. Joel Riet, Bryce Wagoner, Connie Young, Monique Lanier and Tod Huntington fill out the cast of this independent dark comedy.

and saw that it had a rating of two and a half stars out of five (it has seven out of ten on imdb).

From that blurb, you'd think this movie follows the old "save the resort/building/school" plot (usually involving some unlikely contest that the main characters have no realistic chance of winning).

You'd be wrong.

The blurb describes one scene near the beginning of the movie. The characters occasionally refer to the impending eviction, but don't really seem to care much.

The problem is, there's no way to say anything more about the movie without spoiling it.

I don't think the term "dark comedy" applies. It isn't dark, just very strange.

I gave it five out of five stars.

Later,

8th grade science quiz

2007-12-25T00:32:00.000-07:00

I posted a similar quiz quite a while ago.

(it was 100%)

Later,