"He acknowledges it will provoke a debate and one that might benefit his party, which aims to cut welfare spending even further if re-elected in May. Of course the tax summaries do not break down the welfare payments into their constituent parts such as unemployment, child benefit, winter fuel allowance, in-work tax credit etc.
Critics will say that is a deliberate omission."
Yes. Yes I will. Welfare is a fundamentally good thing. Trying to make the idea of caring for the less fortunate a dirty word is appalling.
"One further notable element is the single smallest element of your tax bill is Britain's contribution to the EU budget at 0.7%."
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-29871522
Friday, 28 November 2014
OK, I get the idea that you want to limit benefits to migrants.
OK, I get the idea that you want to limit benefits to migrants. They haven't done anything in this country to earn the money, so why should they get it as soon as they arrive ? Makes sense, though I am not saying I agree with it. Practically all studies find that migration improves the economy; the amount of "benefit tourism" is massively exaggerated by certain right-wing groups. In short, we can afford it.
But this part I simply don't understand at all :
"Stopping citizens from new countries joining the EU from working in the UK until "their economies have "converged more closely" with existing members."
What in God's name does that mean ? The political right suffers from a bizarre "wealthism", the notion that people with less money are somehow worse than you. It's absurd. I live in a country where the average salary is at or below minimum wage in the UK, and I assure you that most of my colleagues are much more intelligent than I am. People's skills don't correlate with how much they earn; even if they did, assuming that poor = talentless scrounger is stupid. It's pretty easy to assess people's qualifications, that's why we have, you know, universities and stuff.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-30224493
But this part I simply don't understand at all :
"Stopping citizens from new countries joining the EU from working in the UK until "their economies have "converged more closely" with existing members."
What in God's name does that mean ? The political right suffers from a bizarre "wealthism", the notion that people with less money are somehow worse than you. It's absurd. I live in a country where the average salary is at or below minimum wage in the UK, and I assure you that most of my colleagues are much more intelligent than I am. People's skills don't correlate with how much they earn; even if they did, assuming that poor = talentless scrounger is stupid. It's pretty easy to assess people's qualifications, that's why we have, you know, universities and stuff.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-30224493
Monday, 24 November 2014
Yowsers.
Yowsers.
"He said women needed equal respect...."
Yes...
"...rather than equality."
Sorry, what ?
"Women cannot do all the work done by men, he added, because it was against their "delicate nature".
My head hit the floor. The whole point of giving equal respect is that you don't judge people based on gender !!! You allow people to compete on ability and ignore their gender ! Why is this so complicated ? Aaaaargh !!!!
You are not treating people with equal respect if you say that one gender can't do a job the other gender can. Equal respect implies equal values; if something is acceptable to one gender then it must also be acceptable to the other. Saying, "you can't do this, you're a woman" is the absolute antithesis of equal respect.
Grrr.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30183711
"He said women needed equal respect...."
Yes...
"...rather than equality."
Sorry, what ?
"Women cannot do all the work done by men, he added, because it was against their "delicate nature".
My head hit the floor. The whole point of giving equal respect is that you don't judge people based on gender !!! You allow people to compete on ability and ignore their gender ! Why is this so complicated ? Aaaaargh !!!!
You are not treating people with equal respect if you say that one gender can't do a job the other gender can. Equal respect implies equal values; if something is acceptable to one gender then it must also be acceptable to the other. Saying, "you can't do this, you're a woman" is the absolute antithesis of equal respect.
Grrr.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30183711
Saturday, 22 November 2014
Another scientist wading into the #shirtstorm melarky. Well, I neededan article on feminism anyway.
Another scientist wading into the #shirtstorm melarky. Well, I needed an article on feminism anyway.
On page 1, I explain why (in my view) feminism does not mean you can't objectify women in certain circumstances :
" If you can differentiate between the fantasy world of gameplay and reality, you damn well ought to be able to tell the difference between a woman posing for a photograph and the idea that women are somehow subordinate to men. There ought to exist the same vast chasm between enjoying killing thousands in a video game and wanting to massacre people in reality, as between enjoying a photograph of the opposite gender (or indeed any form of adult entertainment) and assuming they're all somehow inferior to you. You ought to possess the modicum of intellect needed to realise that people aren't toys because they chose to dress (or undress) in a certain way - yes, even (especially) when they're deliberately doing it so that you can enjoy them."
Page 2 deals with why objectifying women in practise is much worse than the way men are objectified by women :
"That's why my female friends admiring the manly nature of certain public figures doesn't make me feel diminished in any way. The degree to which men are objectified is far less than that experienced by women - they don't carry on the harmless admiration of tremendously manly men and expect me to conform to that stereotype. No pressure is put upon me to do the slightest thing to live up to an unrealistic expectation of masculinity. I can live my life however the hell I like and not be judged for it; they are very much expected and obliged to try and meet certain ideals that exist only to appease male sexuality."
Finally on page 3 I look at a selection of anti-feminist memes that sprang up in response to the shirt. Mostly I think they're all nonsense, however, about this widely perceived idea that they discourage women from entering science - I would like an actual poll conducted as to whether students really feel put off my the shirt or not. I conclude that the shirt isn't inherently anti-feminist, but I understand why it was perceived as such. Taylor was right to apologise for the offence caused, if not the shirt itself.
On page 1, I explain why (in my view) feminism does not mean you can't objectify women in certain circumstances :
" If you can differentiate between the fantasy world of gameplay and reality, you damn well ought to be able to tell the difference between a woman posing for a photograph and the idea that women are somehow subordinate to men. There ought to exist the same vast chasm between enjoying killing thousands in a video game and wanting to massacre people in reality, as between enjoying a photograph of the opposite gender (or indeed any form of adult entertainment) and assuming they're all somehow inferior to you. You ought to possess the modicum of intellect needed to realise that people aren't toys because they chose to dress (or undress) in a certain way - yes, even (especially) when they're deliberately doing it so that you can enjoy them."
Page 2 deals with why objectifying women in practise is much worse than the way men are objectified by women :
"That's why my female friends admiring the manly nature of certain public figures doesn't make me feel diminished in any way. The degree to which men are objectified is far less than that experienced by women - they don't carry on the harmless admiration of tremendously manly men and expect me to conform to that stereotype. No pressure is put upon me to do the slightest thing to live up to an unrealistic expectation of masculinity. I can live my life however the hell I like and not be judged for it; they are very much expected and obliged to try and meet certain ideals that exist only to appease male sexuality."
Finally on page 3 I look at a selection of anti-feminist memes that sprang up in response to the shirt. Mostly I think they're all nonsense, however, about this widely perceived idea that they discourage women from entering science - I would like an actual poll conducted as to whether students really feel put off my the shirt or not. I conclude that the shirt isn't inherently anti-feminist, but I understand why it was perceived as such. Taylor was right to apologise for the offence caused, if not the shirt itself.
Wednesday, 19 November 2014
MAXIMUM AWESOME
MAXIMUM AWESOME
"A British-led consortium has outlined its plans to land a robotic probe on the Moon in 10 years' time. Its aim is to raise £500m for the project from donations by the public."
"The team hope to raise £600,000, using the international crowd funding web service Kickstarter, in the next four weeks to fund the initial phase of the project."
I'll donate to that, otherwise I'll lose all self-respect.
"The cost of a short message will be a few pounds, a compressed photo will be a few tens of pounds while a short compressed video will be about £200. The cost of sending a hair sample will be around £50."
Sending a little piece of me to the Moon ??!?! [fangirl scream !]
I'll consider it...
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-30102343
"A British-led consortium has outlined its plans to land a robotic probe on the Moon in 10 years' time. Its aim is to raise £500m for the project from donations by the public."
"The team hope to raise £600,000, using the international crowd funding web service Kickstarter, in the next four weeks to fund the initial phase of the project."
I'll donate to that, otherwise I'll lose all self-respect.
"The cost of a short message will be a few pounds, a compressed photo will be a few tens of pounds while a short compressed video will be about £200. The cost of sending a hair sample will be around £50."
Sending a little piece of me to the Moon ??!?! [fangirl scream !]
I'll consider it...
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-30102343
Tuesday, 18 November 2014
Review : Interstellar
Just saw Interstellar (no spoilers). I am reminded how very, very, very good 2001 : A Space Odyssey is.
Like The Dark Knight Rises, I label this one a broken masterpiece. It does a lot of things right, and gets a lot of things wrong. Do not believe the hype about how it's the most scientifically accurate movie ever made; I'm surprised Kip Thorne put his name to it. There are rudimentary physics errors which gouge massive holes in the plot (can someone please start a campaign to get floating mountains banned ? I find them offensive), especially given the extremely high publicity about how great the science is supposed to be.
The most distracting thing was that given the technology available to the protagonists, it would have been tremendously easy to design a much better, safer mission of almost zero risk. In fact, the whole space mission seemed unnecessary. I am normally able to switch off to errors in physics (I'm a Dr Who fan, after all...) but these errors were too glaring.
I like the anti-anti-science vibe, that was nicely done. Cinematography is good, visuals are nice (but the black hole is not anywhere near as realistic as existing astrophysical simulations, so the relativity group tell me), soundtrack is decent. Time dilation is used correctly. General plot is sort of OK.But it veers from hopelessly bleak and crushingly unsympathetic to ludicrously (almost laughably) overly sentimental.
I'm probably making it sound worse than it is...
Like The Dark Knight Rises, I label this one a broken masterpiece. It does a lot of things right, and gets a lot of things wrong. Do not believe the hype about how it's the most scientifically accurate movie ever made; I'm surprised Kip Thorne put his name to it. There are rudimentary physics errors which gouge massive holes in the plot (can someone please start a campaign to get floating mountains banned ? I find them offensive), especially given the extremely high publicity about how great the science is supposed to be.
The most distracting thing was that given the technology available to the protagonists, it would have been tremendously easy to design a much better, safer mission of almost zero risk. In fact, the whole space mission seemed unnecessary. I am normally able to switch off to errors in physics (I'm a Dr Who fan, after all...) but these errors were too glaring.
I like the anti-anti-science vibe, that was nicely done. Cinematography is good, visuals are nice (but the black hole is not anywhere near as realistic as existing astrophysical simulations, so the relativity group tell me), soundtrack is decent. Time dilation is used correctly. General plot is sort of OK.But it veers from hopelessly bleak and crushingly unsympathetic to ludicrously (almost laughably) overly sentimental.
I'm probably making it sound worse than it is...
Sunday, 16 November 2014
Soylent Green is... extra working time ?
Soylent Green is... extra working time ?
The BBC's point of view section is always thought-provoking and this one is no exception. Lots of interesting stuff here.
" Soylent is a drink made by adding oil and water to a specially prepared powder that the manufacturers claim contains all the nutrients the human body needs."
So, not quite the meal-pills of sci-fi, but close.
"Some critics of the product have focused on what they think are its potential health dangers. We don't know enough about the body's processes, these sceptics say, to be sure that the liquid really does contain everything we need."
I don't see why. We know what's in our food, we know what's in this product. BAM - case closed.
"Others have pointed to the loss of pleasure and company that giving up regular food entails. For exponents of what's sometimes called "slow food", meals aren't just a means of fuelling the body. They're occasions when we renew our contact with other human beings while enjoying the taste and variety of local and regional cuisines."
I don't normally buy into the "technology is making us anti-social" rubbish, but in this case I make an exception. I listened in horror recently while certain colleagues proposed that if we went to the cafeteria instead of a local pub for lunch, we'd save time and go home early. No ! That is a specious notion. Taking breaks in the day is an essential part of the work process. Human attention spans are finite; if you don't take breaks, productivity decreases. Not to mention that since we don't have tea breaks here, lunch is pretty much the only time I talk to anyone else.
" Our type of economy can only keep going if it continues to grow, and it grows by inducing us to want to live in the fast lane, always on the look-out for new sensations. But it would be a mistake to think the fast life is somehow being forced on most of us."
Oh, I don't know about that. Sure, outside of work everyone is more or less free to do as they choose. And if people want to stay busy, that's fine. But being in the fast lane inside work is something we have less control over.
"When we give up meals for quick slugs of liquid fuel, we think it's time we're saving. What we're really doing is saving ourselves from too much thought."
Or possibly being pressured into getting ever more work done, on the weird idea that doing lots of work - any work - is somehow virtuous.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-30005279
The BBC's point of view section is always thought-provoking and this one is no exception. Lots of interesting stuff here.
" Soylent is a drink made by adding oil and water to a specially prepared powder that the manufacturers claim contains all the nutrients the human body needs."
So, not quite the meal-pills of sci-fi, but close.
"Some critics of the product have focused on what they think are its potential health dangers. We don't know enough about the body's processes, these sceptics say, to be sure that the liquid really does contain everything we need."
I don't see why. We know what's in our food, we know what's in this product. BAM - case closed.
"Others have pointed to the loss of pleasure and company that giving up regular food entails. For exponents of what's sometimes called "slow food", meals aren't just a means of fuelling the body. They're occasions when we renew our contact with other human beings while enjoying the taste and variety of local and regional cuisines."
I don't normally buy into the "technology is making us anti-social" rubbish, but in this case I make an exception. I listened in horror recently while certain colleagues proposed that if we went to the cafeteria instead of a local pub for lunch, we'd save time and go home early. No ! That is a specious notion. Taking breaks in the day is an essential part of the work process. Human attention spans are finite; if you don't take breaks, productivity decreases. Not to mention that since we don't have tea breaks here, lunch is pretty much the only time I talk to anyone else.
" Our type of economy can only keep going if it continues to grow, and it grows by inducing us to want to live in the fast lane, always on the look-out for new sensations. But it would be a mistake to think the fast life is somehow being forced on most of us."
Oh, I don't know about that. Sure, outside of work everyone is more or less free to do as they choose. And if people want to stay busy, that's fine. But being in the fast lane inside work is something we have less control over.
"When we give up meals for quick slugs of liquid fuel, we think it's time we're saving. What we're really doing is saving ourselves from too much thought."
Or possibly being pressured into getting ever more work done, on the weird idea that doing lots of work - any work - is somehow virtuous.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-30005279
Saturday, 15 November 2014
Looks interesting.
Looks interesting. It looks like most of the projects get funding, though it's not clear if the unfunded ones are removed from the project list ("Projects can not be deleted. When the campaign ends, it will no longer be discoverable by common search engines, but the URL will still exist.").
No astronomy projects yet - anyone desperate to learn if small blobs of hydrogen are interesting or not ? I promise lots and lots of 3D movies in return... :)
Originally shared by Landis Wilson
Hey, check out this new crowd funding site for scientific research experiments. There is something for everyone!
http://experiment.com
No astronomy projects yet - anyone desperate to learn if small blobs of hydrogen are interesting or not ? I promise lots and lots of 3D movies in return... :)
Originally shared by Landis Wilson
Hey, check out this new crowd funding site for scientific research experiments. There is something for everyone!
http://experiment.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)