Fun with choosing a political party based on policy.
According to uk.isidewith.com, which lets you choose individual policies and rank their importance, I'm 97% in agreement with Labour (who I will actually vote for) and 91% in agreement with the Greens.
Another website (which I can't find anymore) neatly reversed that, putting me at 97% agreement with the Greens and 91% Labour.
whoshouldyouvotefor.com also puts me strongly in favour of Labour, with a score of 52 (49 for the Greens, 4 for Lib Dems, -15 for UKIP and -16 for the Tories).
voteforpolicies.org.uk lets you choose policy sets rather than individual policies. According to this I chose Liberal Democrat policy sets 50% of the time, with Labour, the Lib Dems and the Greens each getting an equal 16.7% split.
The Telegraphs' election quiz (which is rather simple) says I should vote for Labour, but it's surprisingly close : 77% Labour, 62% Lib Dems, and amazingly, 51% Tory.
Tuesday 31 March 2015
Saturday 28 March 2015
The Green Party : so near and yet so far
Sigh. I really like the Green party, apart from their unscientific anti-nuclear stance.
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-32086204
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-32086204
Thursday 26 March 2015
Uber's not so bad
"The net result is a huge population of individuals who effectively work for Uber despite the fact that they have no formal employment status. And their compensation is completely determined by Uber, without regard to any “employee” rights or other considerations. Call it employees without benefits."
Yeah, but those employees set their own working hours and how much they work. In that sense it's employment with total benefits.
"Individuals bear all the fixed costs (car repairs, insurance, safety risks) and most of the overhead costs (training, equipment)."
Yeah, but those individuals are choosing to share what they have anyway, so they'd have those costs in any case. Otherwise it would be a sharing economy at all. I don't see a revolt happening unless large numbers of people start relying on these systems as their sole source of employment.
At the moment (or such is my understanding) it's just a way of earning extra pocket money.
http://www.bbc.com/capital/story/20150325-revolt-in-the-sharing-economy
Yeah, but those employees set their own working hours and how much they work. In that sense it's employment with total benefits.
"Individuals bear all the fixed costs (car repairs, insurance, safety risks) and most of the overhead costs (training, equipment)."
Yeah, but those individuals are choosing to share what they have anyway, so they'd have those costs in any case. Otherwise it would be a sharing economy at all. I don't see a revolt happening unless large numbers of people start relying on these systems as their sole source of employment.
At the moment (or such is my understanding) it's just a way of earning extra pocket money.
http://www.bbc.com/capital/story/20150325-revolt-in-the-sharing-economy
Sunday 22 March 2015
Science Friction
Science Friction
Love the title. DjSadhu Rockt's article about his new video and our recent conversation.
"Since I am not a scientist, my job and funding are not on the line, and I can make videos about whatever I want, even if that means mixing personal beliefs with scientific-looking stuff."
Yee-ess... though I'd add here another statement of mine from our conversation :
"When stuff like this goes viral, it undermines a lot of very hard work that has gone on in trying to understanding the Universe. Which is something we don't do for fame (unless you're Tyson or Cox, you won't get any) or money (even less chance of that), but because we think it's worth doing. It typically takes around 7 years of higher education before you start making meaningful contributions in astronomy, let alone coming up with ground-breaking results. Moreover, it's based on exactly the same proven physics that's led to things like rockets, radios, telecommunications, microwaves, radar, satellites, electrical power... pretty much the entire basis of the modern world really. So, if a non-scientist comes along and makes a fancy video with some rudimentary, but easily correctable errors, claiming to have overturned an extremely basic fact of a subject that tens of thousands of people choose as a career for the sole reason that they think knowledge is worth knowing.... well, you can imagine how we feel about that. Instead of communicating our latest hard-won discoveries to the tax-paying public, we have to spend time convincing them about things that were established beyond all doubt centuries ago."
I'd also have added that not only does astronomy not pay well, but it's still at least as competitive as any other sector. It's also pretty much as detached as it's possible to be from any real-world political influences; galaxy evolution doesn't care if you're left-wing, a fascist, or a small turtle. There are no campaigns to ban dangerous chemicals or decide people's rights based on the size of the Orion nebula. It is, as much as is humanly possible, seeking knowledge for knowledge's sake.
"The sun does not lead the planets! That may be the case. I’m open to the idea that it does, but I have yet to find absolute proof for it."
It is not the case. Even the old, pre-telescope geocentric models had everything in the same plane. The cone-shaped model is the equivalent of saying, "a wizard did it, because he'd lost his favourite purple feet". It doesn't make any sense at all.
That the Sun doesn't lead the planets is a fact. It cannot be disproved, ever.
"Regardless of my other opinions, this new “Solar System 2.0” image could easily be widely accepted. "
I'd actually go further. I'd say this "helical paths" business is also an indisputable fact. See my twirly-finger analogy.
"I believe aliens and UFO‘s exist, the moon landing was a hoax, most vaccines contain mercury and are bad for you..."
I simply cannot let that pass. Vaccines are not bad for you; this may not be a statement that's a certain as saying, "Owls exist", but it's pretty frickin' close. To say otherwise is to put lives at risk, and I can't tolerate that.
https://thenib.com/vaccines-work-here-are-the-facts-5de3d0f9ffd0
"But, like I said, my personal beliefs are not on trial here – the helical model is."
Quite right - as far as the video goes.
http://www.djsadhu.com/research/solar-system-2-0-science-friction
Love the title. DjSadhu Rockt's article about his new video and our recent conversation.
"Since I am not a scientist, my job and funding are not on the line, and I can make videos about whatever I want, even if that means mixing personal beliefs with scientific-looking stuff."
Yee-ess... though I'd add here another statement of mine from our conversation :
"When stuff like this goes viral, it undermines a lot of very hard work that has gone on in trying to understanding the Universe. Which is something we don't do for fame (unless you're Tyson or Cox, you won't get any) or money (even less chance of that), but because we think it's worth doing. It typically takes around 7 years of higher education before you start making meaningful contributions in astronomy, let alone coming up with ground-breaking results. Moreover, it's based on exactly the same proven physics that's led to things like rockets, radios, telecommunications, microwaves, radar, satellites, electrical power... pretty much the entire basis of the modern world really. So, if a non-scientist comes along and makes a fancy video with some rudimentary, but easily correctable errors, claiming to have overturned an extremely basic fact of a subject that tens of thousands of people choose as a career for the sole reason that they think knowledge is worth knowing.... well, you can imagine how we feel about that. Instead of communicating our latest hard-won discoveries to the tax-paying public, we have to spend time convincing them about things that were established beyond all doubt centuries ago."
I'd also have added that not only does astronomy not pay well, but it's still at least as competitive as any other sector. It's also pretty much as detached as it's possible to be from any real-world political influences; galaxy evolution doesn't care if you're left-wing, a fascist, or a small turtle. There are no campaigns to ban dangerous chemicals or decide people's rights based on the size of the Orion nebula. It is, as much as is humanly possible, seeking knowledge for knowledge's sake.
"The sun does not lead the planets! That may be the case. I’m open to the idea that it does, but I have yet to find absolute proof for it."
It is not the case. Even the old, pre-telescope geocentric models had everything in the same plane. The cone-shaped model is the equivalent of saying, "a wizard did it, because he'd lost his favourite purple feet". It doesn't make any sense at all.
That the Sun doesn't lead the planets is a fact. It cannot be disproved, ever.
"Regardless of my other opinions, this new “Solar System 2.0” image could easily be widely accepted. "
I'd actually go further. I'd say this "helical paths" business is also an indisputable fact. See my twirly-finger analogy.
"I believe aliens and UFO‘s exist, the moon landing was a hoax, most vaccines contain mercury and are bad for you..."
I simply cannot let that pass. Vaccines are not bad for you; this may not be a statement that's a certain as saying, "Owls exist", but it's pretty frickin' close. To say otherwise is to put lives at risk, and I can't tolerate that.
https://thenib.com/vaccines-work-here-are-the-facts-5de3d0f9ffd0
"But, like I said, my personal beliefs are not on trial here – the helical model is."
Quite right - as far as the video goes.
http://www.djsadhu.com/research/solar-system-2-0-science-friction
Saturday 21 March 2015
More senses
Now with interactive transcript for those who prefer reading. See also : http://www.thenakedscientists.com/HTML/content/interviews/interview/542/
Originally shared by Ember Talent
This is so fascinating. Creates a lot to think about and a lot of questions.
David Eagleman: Can we create new senses for humans? #TED : http://on.ted.com/a0nJU
http://on.ted.com/a0nJU
Originally shared by Ember Talent
This is so fascinating. Creates a lot to think about and a lot of questions.
David Eagleman: Can we create new senses for humans? #TED : http://on.ted.com/a0nJU
http://on.ted.com/a0nJU
Monday 16 March 2015
UKIP are racists
UKIP's idea to remove much of the race discrimination laws - i.e. those that prevent discrimination on the basis of colour - is a straightforwardly racist policy. Removing a law which says "don't discriminate on the basis of colour" is identical to saying, "it's OK to discriminate on the basis of colour".
Even if that law is now irrelevant - which it isn't - removing it still doesn't make any sense, because preventing discrimination on the basis of race is a fundamentally moral law which isn't doing any harm to anyone - rather the reverse.
Policies to support British workers over foreign nationals may not be intrinsically racist in the strictest sense, but this is to miss the wider point : they smack of xenophobia, which is still discrimination, still wrong.
If you really think that immigration is such a massive problem, then stop making the debate about race and/or country of origin. There's nothing remotely racist or wrong with discrimination on the basis of merit which can - if one is very careful - even include ideological beliefs. Or you could argue that the population is simply too high and that we need fewer people entering from all countries (not what I would argue, mind you). The reason UKIP are perceived as being a bunch of racist xenophobes is because they keep making explicit, unnecessary links between immigration and race. It's that simple.
Even if that law is now irrelevant - which it isn't - removing it still doesn't make any sense, because preventing discrimination on the basis of race is a fundamentally moral law which isn't doing any harm to anyone - rather the reverse.
Policies to support British workers over foreign nationals may not be intrinsically racist in the strictest sense, but this is to miss the wider point : they smack of xenophobia, which is still discrimination, still wrong.
If you really think that immigration is such a massive problem, then stop making the debate about race and/or country of origin. There's nothing remotely racist or wrong with discrimination on the basis of merit which can - if one is very careful - even include ideological beliefs. Or you could argue that the population is simply too high and that we need fewer people entering from all countries (not what I would argue, mind you). The reason UKIP are perceived as being a bunch of racist xenophobes is because they keep making explicit, unnecessary links between immigration and race. It's that simple.
Thursday 12 March 2015
Not mainstream
"Shadow justice secretary Sadiq Khan said Mr Farage's comments were one of the most shocking things he had ever heard from a mainstream politician."
He's not bloody mainstream ! He's a far right nutter !!!!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31846453
He's not bloody mainstream ! He's a far right nutter !!!!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31846453
Friday 6 March 2015
The wisdom of South Park :
Via Oliver Hamilton, the wisdom of South Park :
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_God_Go_XII
"Let us not forget the great Richard Dawkins, who finally freed the world of religion long ago. Dawkins knew that logic and reason were the way of the future, but it wasn't until he met his beautiful wife that he learned using logic and reason isn't enough. You have to be a dick to everyone who doesn't think like you."
The episode can easily be found online.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_God_Go_XII
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_God_Go_XII
"Let us not forget the great Richard Dawkins, who finally freed the world of religion long ago. Dawkins knew that logic and reason were the way of the future, but it wasn't until he met his beautiful wife that he learned using logic and reason isn't enough. You have to be a dick to everyone who doesn't think like you."
The episode can easily be found online.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_God_Go_XII
Thursday 5 March 2015
The toleration paradox in action
God almighty, what the hell is wrong with these people ?!?!
"You are talking about man and woman as friends. Sorry, that doesn't have any place in our society. We have the best culture. In our culture, there is no place for a woman."
Your culture disgusts me.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-31698154
"You are talking about man and woman as friends. Sorry, that doesn't have any place in our society. We have the best culture. In our culture, there is no place for a woman."
Your culture disgusts me.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-31698154
Too many cooks
No-one wants a seven-way debate. Not even the leaders of the smaller parties would would otherwise be excluded. We already have a venue where all political parties get a voice, it's called, "Parliament".
I hope the BBC calls his bluff. He could probably save it if he did a u-turn right now, but the longer he unites all the other parties against him (more than usual), the worse it gets.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-31745808
I hope the BBC calls his bluff. He could probably save it if he did a u-turn right now, but the longer he unites all the other parties against him (more than usual), the worse it gets.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-31745808
"It's all just wrong", says scientist
""The data so far has confirmed that our theory is really really good, which is frustrating because we know it's not!" Prof Shears says. "We know it can't explain a lot of the Universe.
"So instead of trying to test the truth of this theory, what we really want to do now is break it - to show where it stops reflecting reality. That's the only way we're going to make progress."
"We have a fantastic model - that we hate," he chuckles."
"It has stood up to precision measurements for 50 years. We get more and more precise, and it stands up and stands up. But we hate it, because it doesn't explain the universe."
That's the way to do it.
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-31162725
"So instead of trying to test the truth of this theory, what we really want to do now is break it - to show where it stops reflecting reality. That's the only way we're going to make progress."
"We have a fantastic model - that we hate," he chuckles."
"It has stood up to precision measurements for 50 years. We get more and more precise, and it stands up and stands up. But we hate it, because it doesn't explain the universe."
That's the way to do it.
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-31162725
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)